Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

bahamutkaiser

Testers
  • Posts

    2,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

bahamutkaiser last won the day on June 27 2015

bahamutkaiser had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Interests
    Dragons >.>
  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

7,186 profile views

bahamutkaiser's Achievements

  1. Does a community of this size have any part that's mainstream?, and not a niche group? I'll bet you the developers think 14 guys who payed 20K are the mainstream, the main income stream 😂
  2. The whaling has always worried me, no matter what the benefit is, trying to fish for massive purchases when the game isn't worth as much as any acclaimed retail game is unethical, and it doesn't fill me with confidence that the company will do real work to make a good game when they are overselling for a weak one.
  3. Petyr Baelish is offended in your lack of faith in the power of finances. You mistake all the established systems as things that need to remain and won't work with economic intrigue and burden. The establishment is bunk, and it's not going to be resolved with cheap tape on solutions. There's nothing there discussing trade, I'm talking about conquest, or election leaders, forced taxes and forced costs which challenge organizations independently. The internal burden of keeping an organization functioning and not being defeated by its own members are the natural challenge of empires. As long as your tunnel sighting down manufactured obstructions which are leading to failure, your always going to overlook actual solutions. None of the obstructing systems are fundamentally necessary. The accompanying systems can all change along with the necessary fixes. Or they can stay the same, if you really have faith in bad establishments and simple solutions, have at it. Cheap and easy solutions plague this game from head to toe, they keep trying to make castles without foundations, then whine about all the established structures being destroyed when a foundation is implemented, that castle is going to collapse already, clinging to it doesn't make it any more stable.
  4. I'm not seeing how these complaints and solutions would solve anything... Faction caps are silly, one side will still have more and players who can't snowball will just pick another campaign... or game. The solutions should be internal, threat of treachery, exponential expansion burdens, environmental aggression burden, and trivial rewards after division and infrastructure costs break growth. Coming up with factions only solutions is silly. There are natural incentives to stay small, like any real system, a large organization of pile ons should be troubled with tremendous inefficiency problems which result in a natural inclination toward smaller, more efficient, and trustworthy organizations. Where is the negative feedback loop for growth? Obviously if you simply reward gang ups with inadequate consequences, the positive feedback loop will force players to adopt the META. The META needs to be reversed, not restrained, economy of scale and strength in numbers shouldn't be completely eliminated, but simple things like operating costs and taxes are enough alone to break a large group. If the leaders of a group can collect taxes on members and the taxes get too high, it can oppress its members, if the leaders neglect taxes and fail to provide maintenance, their kingdoms collapse and their material is stolen or destroyed. Even in a faction system leaders can be assigned and performance burdened making the largest group less successful. Tell me I'm late, tell me there's already enough negative feedback loop in place to challenge wanton growth. Because if there isn't a failed by unchecked growth condition to the game... WTF have y'all been doing all this time?
  5. The absent majority is the quietest.
  6. Inadequate tech and talent doesn't sound like a winning method of determining game features.
  7. Allied shoving and climbing would have resolved that... seemed like they "tried" very little. If the only problem was choke points with allies, choke points and allies could be addressed...
  8. The resolution the game arrived at never actually tested the solutions given. Making a sweeping generalization about Friendly Fire and AoE damage as if you didn't just quote me redundantly saying TACTICAL GAMEPLAY doesn't prove that an actual solution was attempted. I was there during the Kickstarter and watch for years as the community overwhelming shot down Wildstar and GW2 zerg style mass ground indicators without Friendly Fire. Of course you can't shoe horn two tactical features in isolation. There's a reason people were concerned that any systems or gameplay was developed without Friendly Fire and Tactical Gameplay at the start. It was never going to be properly integrated and designed upon to work as an afterthought add in. There shouldn't even be party wide exclusion for damage and healing. Every action should be non-discriminant, not just thoughtless AoEs. The entire system should have been based around tactics and counter zerging, that should have been the first priority. They clearly made their bed, they can lie in it, and you can dismiss the shortcoming, the market will answer your claim.
  9. Two games they got a lot of disapproval for emulating early in production and claimed they would avoid, but did anyway. There was a lot of feedback pressing for tactical gameplay that would function with friendly fire and tactical gameplay back when it was still developing. That's why so many backers checked out half way through development. Capping numbers targeted rather than numbers targeted by was obscene. I'm curious to know the metrics for original and extended backers who haven't even played much since launch... if they even logged in. I'm willing to bet there are games that already existed before this game was pitched that still have superior gameplay... and tech.
  10. Anyone seen the archivists who have copies of marketing statements and feature claims? There were a lot of lofty claims during the first year.
  11. I heard there's this really amazing section of book covers in the library you might like. But seriously, low budget graphics of fantasy are going to have similarities.
  12. Seems like they should just drive you into a quest that forces you to perform the precautions... Even if the quests were engaging enough to grant attention, allowing new players to jeopardize themselves ignorantly is bad game design. But if you'd rather the game close doors and fail, ppl can keep ridiculing customer feedback, which the game needs more of to stay in service.
  13. Pretty sure projectile physics were in the original feature statements, but I'm even more sure that the original feature statements were just a bunch of empty claims.
  14. Shouldn't even exist, cloth and wood are more authentic armor materials than leather. There's a reason ages went from stone to bronze to iron... I'd rather have bone armor.
×
×
  • Create New...