• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mctan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,878 profile views
  1. A long time ago, I brought up ACE's unique monetizing opportunity for MMOs, in their temporary CW system. They could charge a nominal amount for entering a Crow into any particular CW. You want alts in it? You pay for every one of them, every CW, with limited imports and exports. So you are constantly charged for having alts. You want to join longer CWs? Pay a bit more. Make VIP yield free entrance into three simultaneous CWs. What this would do for P2W issues, I'm not sure. All signs point to them not going this direction, in part because of their fidelity to early Kickstarter advertising about "pay once, play forever." I think that revisiting the financial system is not unwarranted, because years have passed, and situations change. Kickstarter was only ever a general vision on every other front, I do not see why financial systems should be omitted from improvement. "Pay once, play forever" - Allow all players to have permanent access to the EKs, not to CWs. I'd pay ten dollars to enter a three-month CW or three dollars to enter a three-week CW, or whatever. I'd pay for VIP to be able to have the entrance fee waived. Somewhere monetarily in between subscription and pay once. Could just be me, but it still seems like a great opportunity...
  2. I'm open to the idea. I think it fits well with the lore - maybe the hunger "spits out" earlier consumed meteors of resources that crash into the world and can be harvested and transported. I think it would also be a really nice way to spice up the exploratory side of things that may actually improve the PvP events we see. I am, however, very doubtful that anything like this will happen.
  3. I do not have a big problem with CCs of any kind, so long as there are hard counters. Where are our cleanses and CC-removal? How about our CC-prevention skills?
  4. One possibility is to make powerful enough disciplines that allow for more interesting sub-classes. In SB, for example, nukesaders and prelates (despite not being discipline based) who are some interesting cross. I agree mandatory healers (especially when that means mandatory classes) is problematic.
  5. This may be true (though I bet Elves will have plenty of players, especially given that you all made more than one elf). Regardless, it is a good thing that this game will have people playing race/class combos that are more rare. Fewer options = fewer diversity = fewer surprises and more predictability.
  6. They do, and there is nothing wrong with that. What those of us here who advocate strongly for interdependence are saying is that we just want one game that lets us live in and build a social universe.
  7. Come on Stoneborn, really making us earn it here. The tease of kickstarter to basically release!
  8. If they are thinking still about micro transaction cosmetic stuff they could bundle some amount of free micro transactions per month into VIP
  9. Roger that. I would imagine they are considering a lot of options for win conditions, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this, maybe on a later CW
  10. I'm happy that you enjoy it, but I am very happy that Crowfall is not mimicking the points style system. The grind is pretty boring over there for me. Albion Online is what I would describe as an occasional PvP game - most of what you do in game is controlled and risk-free (or very risk-limited). Arguably, having a fame system encourages game time, but ultimately it feels like a charade for a game that is not fun enough to play without these external grind/fame motivators - that is, the need to "keep up." Crowfall will have some of that, but if done well, the reason you want to play is because there are rampant, meaningful fights - not just to keep up. The ending campaigns and passive training style are two massive differences from AO that I think CF should maintain.
  11. Take a look at this: It might be a place for you to put down more thoughts and agree/disagree with what I and others have written.
  12. Looked fun. Looking forward to hoping back in once I can play a Dwarf!
  13. Yes, I suppose it is also different enough from SB that some people who loved SB will hate Crowfall. I also expect some people who hated SB may love Crowfall. We'll see. As for not wanting to harvest or craft, there will be Points of Interest you can fight over and you can avoid that side of the game; in fact, the devs say they are encouraging that level of inter-dependency (though some argue thoughtfully that the latest design changes hijack that vision some).
  14. /signed And I'll re-emphasize minimally competitive, meaning even though there is a big grind to get Purples and Oranges, you are not thereafter so superior against the Greys/Whites -- maintain the shallow power curve and make sure it is incredibly, super-duper, roll-your-eyes easy to gear up to a point where your presence on the battlefield is more than just distraction or nuisance. To the people wanting to be rewarded for their time and effort acquiring the best gear, let's redirect our efforts into winning the campaign, a strategy in which gear superiority plays only one role.