• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


APE last won the day on August 19 2016

APE had the most liked content!

About APE

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,325 profile views
  1. All good points. Travel and exploration hopefully are important parts of play and we've seen/heard little to nothing about how they plan to implement these features that could significantly impact how we play. As is, wouldn't mind them scrapping mounts if they are simply a faster form of travel if they will have races/classes/disciplines providing speed boosts. Pack animals on the other hand I'd still like to see. Some how requiring decent gear for gathering/map making and losing it upon death would likely help prevent less risky play. It would be interesting to see them come up with some creative ways to deter zerg or at least mindless numbers game play, especially if they can be out gamed by simply throwing more numbers at the roadblock. If a guild/alliance has control of a stronghold/land, the more members then the more resources it takes to maintain, speeds up stronghold decay, resources in the area decay/deplete faster beyond what players are collecting/consuming, etc. Forcing them to go out further to keep maintaining. So while adding more members to bring in more resources helps, it also speeds up and makes the issue greater. After certain limits it becomes increasing difficult and not worth it. Where it might be smarter to split forces across CWs or at least large areas of land in one and actually make the game about risk vs reward not who can throw numbers at everything. Big issue in AO is the best resources are under control of the largest and maybe not "best" guilds/alliances making it rather difficult for even other large alliances to get access to resources and in turn gear as easily and quickly. It just perpetuates the problem. There really aren't a lot of checks in place. Once you are in control, it continues. What ACE has called "Uncle Bob." While CF will have server (CW) wipes, during the campaign, would be nice to have some systems in place to keep it from happening all the time by default. Not to say groups shouldn't be rewarded for playing smart, but not snowballing simply by having more or doing it slightly faster than others without any chance to catch up or compete without in turn bringing even more numbers or whatever. Really so many things they could do that my uncreative mind likely won't think up, but hopefully they have some things planned already and aren't thinking them up post launch after it becomes clear the system is broken.
  2. I agree. There are many systems that could be in place to deter 3rd parties. Requiring X amount of play time would be another option so they can't make an army of 1 day old accounts to sell/buy things. Another is rewarding players for turning in these folks. Get a whisper from someone or see someone doing shady business, play along and inform the devs. Devs catch them, ban the account and potentially others they've dealt with. Once someone is brought out into the open, following there trail shouldn't be that hard. Some "innocents" might get in trouble along the way but being very open and upfront about what is/isn't allowed by ACE should help this. Much like real life, people tend to look the other way if it isn't directly impacting them positively or negatively. I've ignored so many whispers in game about gold selling over the years, but if I was given the option to turn these people in and be rewarded in-game, I likely would spend a min or two trying to bait them a bit. My preferred option is simply limit what can be bought with cash and traded. If it's just VIP that at least limits it to one item/currency. Not sure if mounts, relics, strongholds, skins, etc will be available. Hopefully much of this is worked out prior to full launch and we don't see blatantly obvious issues day 1 that require knee jerk reaction impacting everyone for better or worse. As is, AO will forever be broke economically in multiple ways due to lack of understanding and systems in place by the devs. Funny thing is they have at least 4 "economists" on their team.
  3. Unfortunately I don't see them improving aim enough to make it a real factor nor do I see FF being a core system beyond a switch flipped on/off. FF would/will keep mindless zerging down, but likely doesn't have enough impact for a well organized larger group. 50 organized folks with poor aim are still likely to overcome 20 precision aimers be it with FF or not. However, there are gamey mechanics that could be created to deter relying on numbers as a crutch. If the game can calculate how many one side has be it in a group/guild/alliance vs another, there could be potential for both penalty or bonuses to sides with less/more. Maybe X% drop/boost in damage/hp per player depending on the ratio. Say 2:1, one side gets a slight change in stats, not 50% or equal but just a bit of a push one way or another. Wouldn't mind this for faction based CWs especially. Numbers should matter but that doesn't mean they should be the only deciding factor. Personally not a fan of making a ton of gamey restrictions, but for certain things, without something in place it is just a mess and results in more headaches for devs and less fun for potentially everyone.
  4. Personally, I hate gathering/crafting and have no issue with these folks having some tools to avoid being ganked be it by one or many. It shouldn't be total immunity or a giant uphill challenge for attackers, but with everything, there should be risk vs reward. Gatherers are going out and collecting resources without much fighting chance and at risk of losing all their time/effort. Attackers that aren't able to get the kill only lose some time and have little risk, along with typically running in packs anyway and not having much challenge vs one or a few gatherers. In AO's case, I've seen many "PVP" videos of soloing gatherers that usually are running away. To me that isn't PVP. It is entirely possible to still kill people solo or small group in AO, despite all the systems in place. It isn't as easy, but it shouldn't be. Since the 3 sec update, I've killed people mounted just as before be it I was mounted or not. I've also been killed while mounted. Unfortunately AO is limited in options and only particular builds or group numbers excel at this type of play. Since CF won't be a zone filled game, much of the issue is removed with safe areas and zoning delay systems (bubbles), but things like Disciplines that give gatherers improved perception when gathering, run speed, armor boosts, stealth etc shouldn't be game breaking for attackers. Requires a bit more thought of "oh there's someone hitting a rock, lets kill them." Might need to think 5 sec ahead before attacking, same as AO. If CF was 100% a guild/group based game that would be one thing, but with what I assume will be a decent number playing solo or small groups be it faction CWs or others, relying on having a full gathering guard or even other gatherers at all times seems unrealistic, just like AO. This is ideally how to do it, but for those out adventuring on their own, I have no problem with tools/options that require them to give up one thing for another. Want increased perception, forego increased gather speed or whatever the case might be. Being able to do it all shouldn't be a option for any game style. For attackers, being able to run fast, anti-stealth, lots of CC, burst damage, etc shouldn't be entirely easy to come by. Killing someone should be a challenge just as getting away should be. Unlike AO which is limited to 6 spells at a time and a default mechanics (zoning, mounts), CF has a lot more potential to allow players to build characters that allow them to excel at one aspect of gameplay. Assuming we'll see mounts eventually, would see no issue with AO style escape tools (instant mount area while gathering, gallop, spell delay dismounting) being something that could be Discipline, Gear, Mount, Adv/Dis, Passive Training based that require time/effort to build and require giving up something in return. If I could train for a month and have the option to instant mount, why not? In that time someone might train the option to have no or reduced cooldown while dismounting. CF has so much potential where AO is rather stuck in its limitations.
  5. My hope is they avoid the RMT issue that AO has but depending on how VIP and cash shop item trading works, this might already be a loss. Another issue is performance and large scale gameplay. I understand that there are limits and all games suffer from lag after a point, but if guild sizes will be large along with alliances, systems should be in place to deter people from forming up in massive groups that make for slideshow game play. I've been in 100-200+ fights in AO and it's just terrible or at least not anywhere what I want CF to be. If ACE doesn't have some magic optimizer/performance booster planned (that actually works), systems should be in place to keep numbers down to make for a playable experience. Not sure if that looks like AO style "instanced" POI fights or what, but just letting people do whatever and the results depending highly on the lag gods, I won't be having a good time. Regardless if there is FF or anti-zerg mechanics, people will find a way to work with/around the game mechanics. Would rather there be hard restrictions in place that remove the option to do so, even if that means some form of "balance" or whatever. Many of the other issues I have with AO likely will be avoided or at least much less in CF simply due to the way things are being created. AO on the basic level is a great concept but overall no system is great. It's overly mediocre and has little risk v reward which is what I want.
  6. Those aren't classes and a Cleric might be able to potentially take them as well, increasing their value as a total package. As is, not seeing a lot of options that would be more value than a Cleric beyond more unique team comps relying on some OP cheese combo or whatever. Don't want to see teams losing largely based on not having a specific class/build. Meta is fine, but Clerics will need some competition be it for the role or to take them out to allow non-standard teams compete. Stunning them for a few seconds dropping 20% HP is nice, but still pretty strong power.
  7. Looks good, but is there any negatives or reasons a Cleric won't be mandatory vs Druid or anything else in a "standard" group? All for classes that people like but would still like there to be choices/consequences with pros/cons. Things like this seem too good to pass on. Holy Aura will give the group a buff which increases their maximum Health by 20%. Vengeful Aura will give the group a buff which increases their Attack power by 200.
  8. "Much impact" is subjective, there is nothing devs can do to guarantee everyone will feel special no matter what build they create. My guess is people will be able to go out of their way to make a fairly useless build, but most parts of a build are short term or changeable. Can't really permanently screw up. Only thing one can do is waste time training Knight skills when they never actually play a Knight. I've seen so many say they want the system to be more, but I've not seen many examples of what that looks like, be it another game or idea. Really not many games that allow for this mythical everyone is unique design. Something like POE has a crazy looking tree, but just a bunch of % boosts and what not, doesn't really impress me. Quality > Quantity.
  9. Depends on how rigid one sets their expectations. Even without those, there are already lots of options. By the time we have all the systems in place, building something that is individual shouldn't be an issue. Sure we'll still see people complain because it isn't like they imagined or like a previous game they played. Can't please everyone.
  10. This makes no sense when it is an option for a CW, with each having multiple options/settings.
  11. Nothing wrong with how it works but personally don't find satisfaction from potentially winning/losing based on time played alone. I believe this is why lobby based games (MOBA, RTS, FPS, CCG, etc) do so well. Much of the players "power" is their own ability to figure out how to excel in the game with their own knowledge and ability. Much less focus (if any) on what they've accumulated or "earned" simply be logging in or grinding mindlessly. Different approaches to game design and all have their merits. Just wish they'd ditched some of the passive stat boosts, especially double dipping with classes + combat trees. Still like the Universal side of things providing choices for players to figure out their place/role in things, but would of liked to see a lot more horizontal/option based choices with pros/cons, then mainly +1 +2 +3 vertical power gain. Like if I choose to train A then I can't choose B. Even if it was the same stat gain, at least force players to choose instead of having access to everything with time. Glad at least that so much character power and building is in-game, short term and potentially at risk of losing. Hopefully ACE stays true to the "shallow power curve" of passive training and a maxed Confessor isn't 100% stronger than a fresh one. Currently isn't the typical WoW gap, but still seems a bit much IMO. They've said their might be a catch up mechanic and if passive training remains how it is, my guess is we'll see either a free or paid for training boost for new accounts. Which is good/bad for various reasons. As I said, people seem to be highly upset that two players playing relatively equal but one having VIP will have a few % more with less work, don't see how new players are going to cope being at a much higher % & access disadvantage. Relying on vets sounds nice, but usually doesn't work quite that easy.
  12. Don't like the system at all myself. For the most part it is straight vertical stat boosts be it for specific classes, combat, gathering, crafting, etc. It takes almost zero effort to click some buttons and gain power boosts. Without a generous catch up mechanic, newer players will be left behind much greater than this change alone with people worried some will miss a few training times here and there. Catch up mechanic seems pretty silly in a game about choices/consequences if someone can come along see what is popular and instant or train faster to gain what is "good" at the time. Vertical progression will take place no matter what, but much rather have it tied to all the current in-game systems that can be lost or done less efficiently. Risk vs Reward. Clicking skills and waiting for them to train so I gain a numerical boost is not skillful in my mind, especially when someone doing similar will be exactly the same in that area. When the core game seems to be about loss and short term events (compared to traditional MMOs), holding on to the old freebie stat gain system seems out of place. Considering how upset some are over this update, clearly even a few % is enough for some to not play or at least not feel as satisfied.
  13. Training is only one layer of character building and seems to work more as a replacement for standard leveling stat gains. Two players training a Champion for a month might differ, but if they both max out, they will be the same. Similar to other games. Universal lines are more complex and take longer, but still, going down a particular path will be the same or very close as someone doing the same. The real meat of character building comes from the active systems in-game. If the emphasis is on risk vs reward along with choices/consequences, this is where it happens. Race+Class combo, Advantages/Disadvantages (like your Str/Wis example), Vessel quality/stats, Gear type/quality/stats, Disciplines Major/Minor/Weapon and picking and choosing what powers and passives will make it into the current bar and kit. Potentially Promotion Classes down the line. All of this provides a significant amount of variation. Passive training is the least active and complicated in my opinion. Honestly believe the game would be better off without much of it. A major reason for going with passive training was to attempt to even the field for those that can't play a lot vs those that can. Played so many games where within the first day or whatever, people are already maxed and doing what takes others months to do because they didn't find the magic exploit, bug, or simply efficient way to do things that later gets patched. They want progression of that kind to be slow and not the main focus. What we do in-game day to day matters more it seems. While it is entirely possible to do what you suggest, it goes against what they have planned. At one point they were going to have some active training, but that has long been removed. As far as quests, dungeons, scripts, other dimensions... not that game. Again, these are things they aren't focusing on and don't have a place in the current design. Anything is possible down the line, but not planned so far. What you describe sounds more like Legends of Aria but I don't pay attention to it.