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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bahamutkaiser last won the day on June 27 2015

bahamutkaiser had the most liked content!

About bahamutkaiser

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Language
  • Interests
    Dragons >.>
  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,945 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Couldn't have predicted that, go figure >.>
  4. Sounds better as an advanced discipline, like vampirism or lycanthropy.
  5. BDO already succeeded, don't know why we are suffering last last... last gens control scheme.
  6. Good to know. I'd rather they didn't focus Centaur specialties on anything but cavalry effects, since their cavalry features should be the most dramatic out of any racial distinguishments. Things like their basic access to mounted speed and power, cavalry oriented attack actions, and equestrian superiority.
  7. Nice to see another unique race. Hopefully Centaur racial disciplines will include fully functional cavalry advantages and disadvantages present with other races when the acquire mounts, having meaningful racial distinction and all.
  8. That isn't a problem, neither need to be purchased, and ACE makes money either way. The important thing is that the core game satisfies the entire audience, that way the game survives, because maintaining a body of consumers is more important then milking whales. Your mistake is imagining you've come up with some clever exception to an established industry pitfall, but your fixation with best exploit practices, and how to make intended pay to win better then unintended pay to win overlooks the primary shortcoming, of pay to win being a problem which should be marginalized on all accounts, not matched elsewhere. What ACE advertised was shallow character progression and skill and strategy oriented gameplay. This is what makes a genuinely good game, and what should be pursued. The premium model doesn't need to be better, and the account accumulation doesn't need to be countered; the gameplay needs to be solid, and playing the game needs to be the overwhelmingly efficient way to enjoy the game. Any other design strategy is an exercise in failure.
  9. How is it not "desirable" now? There is an existing premium sub in the game, games routinely empty their population by trying to make their subs, or cash shop more "desirable". Yes fanciful wishes pretend to be practical, when there's tons of MMOs whose outstanding qualities are single handedly ruined by cash grabbing. There's this erroneous assumption that you'll get better quality if you just offer the developer more money. It has never worked, evar, it always results in catastrophic failure. Because poor sales efficiency and marketing success reflect weak production practices, better games have come out with better product and with better bargains by being efficient, not by begging for money to correct their shoddy production planning. A healthy and successful production makes money because of economy of scale, not milking whales.
  10. False dilemma, this is a retail game, whose suggested that it be free to play? The Guild Wars model has shown successful, and the industry is almost wholly representative of the decline of subscription access. Fee to pay games create a broken pay to win environment that robs the game of competitive inventive. Beside the fact that nearly no mmo in history as switched to a subscription model from retail successfully, there are a myriad of articles on the failure of trifling mmo market schemes. Making subscriptions and essential sales additives is on the high end of superior games failing utterly. There's a series called death of a game if you want a detailed analysis.
  11. That's always made healthy successful games...
  12. Has switching from fee to pay, to subscription ever worked? Ever.
  13. Who misses Legionnaire, real talk, who? BS, you can still heal with this Cleric on Centaurs anyway, we're gaining in spades. And why wouldn't we think Centaur would be a tank or DPS?, he was originally listed as a DPS... Besides the patronizing, I don't like this new cleric any more than the existing druid or previous Legionnaire... Where's the proactive support? It's a defensive shield using support, and he has nearly 0 group defense options or team damage intercept abilities... As a magical shield using support, this is the perfect place to add AoE defensive barriers, especially vs magic damage, the perfect place to implement projectile collision with a bubble force field... Did they remove that bit about avoiding fire hose healing on supports from the FAQ yet?, or are we just going into class design senile now? We got a regen, a target heal, a locational heal, a joint self heal, here a heal, there a heal, everywhere a heal heal, old McDonald had a heal, Ei Aye Ei Aye OOOOH. I'm so glad you separated Race and Archetypes, and gave Centaur DPS and Tank options, like, he kinda always should have had and were advertised to begin with, but this is a terrible support design and a terrible design for depth of strategy in gameplay. Give him powerful melee heals, which a tanky healer should be able to engage, and some better damage prevention options, not just for himself, but for locations and allies, or himself. And try to avoid GuildWars 2 Guardian pitfall.
  • Create New...