slyjeff

Testers
  • Content count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

slyjeff last won the day on December 25 2016

slyjeff had the most liked content!

About slyjeff

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Georgia
  1. Regarding "emergent behavior" and such, I understand that to a point. But, if what emerges ends up killing the point of a major part of the game (Eternal Kingdoms), then that's going to be a problem. ACE is developing EKs, and monetizing parts of them, with the anticipation that they will be important. This is directly at odds with a community that decides that 0 import rules are the way to go, since any kind of progression through "acquisition of stuff" (which directly ties to EKs) is meaningless with 0 import rules. Or to say it another way, the game shouldn't be so emergent as to allow the player base to kill off a significant feature of the game. I'm conflicted here because I am completely compelled by the RTS elements of this game: 0 import rule sets sound like we'll be jumping into and RTS where WE are the units and get to play it out. That sounds amazing. However, in RTS games there is no persistent housing or place to hang out. You have lobbies (maybe) to form up games, and that's all. I really want to have my cake and eat it too, tbh. I'd like to get some indication from ACE about how they plan to make EKs (and character progression outside of skills) meaningful to us. With the latest info they've dropped, my interest in this game has been renewed, but this issue of 0 import vs meaningful persistence is still gnawing at me.
  2. This whole topic is something I've been watching keenly. I'm on the fence now about whether I'm going to end up playing this game. I like the concepts, but I really want to feel like I'm establishing something permanent with my activity, and something that is actually useful in a substantial part of my gameplay. I love the idea of going into campaigns to build up my EK, but only if my EK actually matters. If you can't bring anything into the inner rings, that means that trade, crafting, or anything else you do doesn't matter. I see only two solutions to this: either relax the import rules so what you do outside of the inner rings matters, or design the game in such a way that only some portion of a player's time is in the inner rings, but there is great motivation to play in the outer rings as well, where EK, crafting, and trade actually matter.
  3. Nice reply. I'm certainly not disappointed in the progress- I understand the process and I wouldn't expect more by this point. I am looking forward to it being enhanced before launch, because it's definitely lacking in its current state, and it sounds like this is the plan!
  4. Trying to change key bindings in game just didn't work for me at all. I could do it from the lobby panel. I was trying to bind "back" to 'x' and forward to 's' and I'd end up getting some kind of dialog that was locked up and I had to alt F4 to get out.
  5. I think this is completely valid, and while it's hopefully just the stage of development, ACE should know this does matter.
  6. Sounds cool if fleshed out a bit more.
  7. I actually don't mind punishing failure, but it doesn't increase my fun in any way. That is, the degree of enjoyment I get out of winning is in no way determined by how painful my enemies loss is. So, for me, more punishing mechanics don't equal "more fun". But, as I said, punishing mechanics don't tend to bother me (corpse runes an such). Now things like RNG failures and losing all your crafting materials DOES bother me a lot. But that's a different topic. Regarding feedback to the article, it all sounds good to me. Seems like a good first iteration that can be modified as issues are uncovered.
  8. You aren't. I actually am totally disgusted by this notion, but will just do my best to ignore the lore aspects and be utilitarian about it.
  9. What?!!?! I can't be expected to grow and adapt. What nonsense is this?
  10. Oh yeah, I'm not. I'm trying to communicate what I like and don't like so the devs, presumably who might be reading it, take what I like into account. Or don't. If I'm coming across as frustrated, it's because of my attitude from another conversation elsewhere bleeding over into my forum posts What I'd like to communicate is this: I hope that Vessles are not merely just swappable items that allow us to change class at will to the point we'll be expected to play multiple classes well. It would be great if that option was available to those who enjoy that sort of thing, but if the game were also designed in such a way that sticking with one class can effective and enjoyable and fit into the meta.
  11. Well, as someone who is a raider currently, I get accused of seeing the game "as a job" all the time. And yes, I do what it takes to get the job done- I want to bring my best. I don't see it as a job though- it's fun for me But, I'm not used to a game where learning multiple classes and playstyles is a requirement, nor is it something I find fun. I have a few alts in the game I play, but the ones I primarily play are all the same class. Just because I enjoy learning a class and sticking with it. Trying to track changes to multiple classes and how they effect optimal play is annoying to me. I know some people thrive on it, but I prefer the "do one thing well" approach. Originally, as I followed this game, it seemed like it was designed for you to main one AT without a sub, and 3 with one. It didn't click with me that with the addition of the vessel system, suddenly we were going to be treating our very classes as fluid and something you'd have to be able to jump between. That's not a style of play that I'm interested in, and I don't really think that's the way the game has been sold. Perhaps a lot of my dissatisfaction flows from not being familiar with the predecessor games to this, being primarily a theme-park player. However, if the idea is now that you just have an account and you throw on different classes as necessary, AC needs to be a little more clear about this expectations, because it can certainly mess with expectations. It was the idea of CWs that attracted me to this game, as well as all weapons/armor being player crafted in order to create a real player driven economy. This vessel system is proving to be a bit of a big pill to swallow, though. I really thought I could mostly ignore it since you can just make all of your vessels appear the same and treat the vessel like another piece of gear. But if I'm going to be switching classes around, meh, that's really turning into something different than I enjoy. To be clear, my issue isn't with the community. If I'm gonna play, I want to be competitive. But if the game is structured in such a way that being competitive means class swapping a lot, then yeah, this might not be the game for me.
  12. Game is sounding less fun, now.
  13. Originally, I figured the goal of that was gonna be that people could have multiple characters to progress and play in different CWs. Things have evolved since then. Even in my current game, when I create alts, I tend to create alts of the same class because I just don't enjoy learning new classes. I like playing the one I enjoy the most (I have alts of other classes I pull in when necessary, but more and more I avoid that). I hope that the way CF goes live is, I get to be a Ranger in an army, and when my team needs a good Ranger, I'm the one they call for whatever it is they need.
  14. If I need to play multiple classes, I'll probably just end up passing on CF then, as exciting as it appears to be. Hopefully you are wrong (at least, I hope you are).
  15. So purchasing multiple accounts will be necessary to play CF effectively?