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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Drenath

  1. custardkkkkkk. Spent a lot of long hours talkin with CW over the last 2 decades, great guy and will be sorely missed. Wish we'd had better luck finding time to get together post-Shadowbane, my thoughts and heart go out to his rl and -W- families as they process his passing. RIP traveler.
  2. Not for nothing but I'm really glad I didn't read this entire thread. Everyone needs to stfu up though, let the zergs think they're going to own campaigns by fielding thousands of people, those people will all pay good money. Money ACE can use to improve the game so that when those zergs erode at the hands of "small non-factors" it'll be even more entertaining and enjoyable.
  3. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, looks great thus far. My question would be, how much control will the player have over the architectural style (and any resultant utilitarian (dis)advantages) of Campaign World structures and their progression from Rank 1 onward? If I stumble onto a partially ruined fort in a CW and renovate it, am I tied to the original architectural style or will I have some freedom to strategically customize my defensive structures? If halfway through a campaign my primary opponent shifts from squishy casters to heavy meat will I be able to adjust my defenses accordingly or am I locked in to decisions made early in the Spring? Will all Rank 3 Keeps look the same? I'd love to see a "tech tree" for CW assets, specifically defensive structures. Player gets wide control of his defenses but with limited resources so he's forced to make tough decisions between, say, building a glacis or adding machicolations to his walls, or between square and round towers. Do you want to fill your walls with rubble and sand to help them withstand heavy artillery and battering or do you want taller walls with more favorable angles to increase enfilading fire? What about a moat or defensive foreworks? Certain choices lead to other options much like the Civ Tech Tree except that you can't research everything. If at some point, as in the scenario above, a guild is faced with the need to adapt their defenses to counter a new offensive strategy they can do so just like you can unlearn talents in many MMOs, once you've reallocated your building points appropriately you can finalize it and renovations begin. Could even add a "construction time" to the tech tree when re-allocating points so an owner could weigh the benefits of a renovation with the cost/time it would take to complete. That would grant players maximum freedom without allowing for hooligan-shaped castles. You'd likely see cities and fortresses become more unique as campaigns progressed as well, each with its own set of strengths and weaknesses based on the decisions made by its' builder(s) just like one would in real life. It also adds structure to the timeline of progression so that a strongholds' defensibility keeps pace with players that, in theory, become more powerful as a Campaign progresses.
  4. Went ahead and picked up the Gold Patron tier.
  5. Could we do a trial run with an optional profanity filter for the forums? Please?
  6. I think a lot of people are coming at this from the idea that a castle is just a bunch of stone blocks sitting on the ground in an ordered pile. No need for foundations or floors made of anything but dirt. That's obviously not the reality of the matter though. Also seems like there's an inordinate number of people around here who, when faced with an obstacle, ask for help rather than find a way to solve the problem on their own. That mindset plus relative inexperience in PvP-centric sandbox MMOs results in questions like "but if people can dig then what's the point of walls at all?"
  7. 15-30 minutes is "long and drawn out"? Huh? A 20 minute battle over anything of importance would be awfully anti-climactic imo. Also, primitive cannons were... not exactly efficient. They historically required a titanic investment of resources just to build and transport but were then prohibitively slow to load, highly inaccurate, and had a good chance of exploding when fired which often killed or severely maimed the gunners and anyone else nearby. Still useful in certain scenarios but, so long as they're primitive, not practical for the majority of siege warfare in CF imo.
  8. What does it matter who Red Guard is or who they fought? It doesn't change the fact that 95% of communication in that video is one-way. One person is doing all the screaming while everyone else spams abilities. Being able to stay calm in the heat of battle is an enormously valuable attribute, one that guy most certainly does not have. Any coordination in that video is a result of preparation long before that video ever started recording, not the screaming during battle. I'm not making assumptions either, I watched the video and I can understand what the guy is shouting and my statement stands, if you consider GW2 pvp to be highly organized then that video was absolutely the wrong proof on which to found your claim.
  9. That is, by definition, pay to win. And the answer to whether that should be allowed is a resounding "no." /thread
  10. And when that tunnel caves in on you, you're screwed. When your opponent figures out you're mining under his walls and counter-mines you, what then? Or when your opponent is able to figure out where you're planning to breach and is waiting with boiling oil and cold steel? By being resourceful and well-coordinated? Get creative. Build a better fortress. Judging by dev posts for the last month+ it looks like this game is trying to put the control in the player's hands rather than holding them. You're going to have to figure out ways to either overcome your enemy's defenses or hold the line against his advance, don't expect the devs to do it for you or give hints along the way. It's your castle, you figure out how to defend it. Stone floors might be a good place to start. Honest question, what PvP-centric games have you played prior to finding Crowfall? Any PVP, not just MMO's, but RPGs, RTSs, or FPSs. Because the things you're worried about are not the issues that concern anyone with even a modicum of experience with video games. Different characters have different strengths/weaknesses, it's your job to work with other players to compensate for your *(and theirs) weaknesses. If you can't figure out how to do that... I'm not really sure what to tell you.
  11. That.... was horrible. Seriously? You call that some of the "most organized pvp" around? I'm genuinely not trolling here, I'm curious because that was a literal abomination from where I'm sitting. I'm used to everything from small-scale (<10 combatants) up to 150v150 banes. Anyone that tried commanding like the Irish (I'm assuming) dude in that video did is first going to lose their city and the months of work it took to build and then his guild is going to collapse when all his members peace out to find someone that doesn't have an aneurysm when giving orders. The button-mashing spam in that video was pretty horrendous as well.
  12. Does that mean you'll be limiting the legitimate placement and development of advanced fortifications and artillery so long as they fit within the assumed medieval-ish environment? Or is the limitation on a case-by-case basis to prevent stupid crap from pop culture or other anachronistic items from screwing with the game world? Also, any way we could get more info on in-game physics and their impact on things like structural integrity of buildings, projectile range/accuracy, or asset placement? Freeform construction or grid-based (lame)? Are structures templated/premade or do we have to build everything one brick at a time? Will crafters have a necessary role to play in the construction of fortifications and large structures or can any character, regardless of "build," fill that role?
  13. Not really sure how else to say it but WoW and GW are just horrible examples to base any sort of judgement on in terms of large-scale pvp. They're not PvP games to begin with and as a result none of it is balanced well, things like arenas and BGs are an afterthought tacked onto a PvE game so they can say they have PvP combat. The devs have stated numerous times that this game is not going to be like the rest of the market and specifically the siege system appears strikingly similar to that of Shadowbane but with flaws fixed and technology that can make them work better than gaming PCs and busted code could 11 years ago. The Voxel Farm announcements today and the corresponding discussion shows we'll have a lot of freedom in asset construction/destruction; a static BG like AV and the stagnation inherent to playing the same custard poorly made socks repeatedly ad nauseum just isn't a problem we'll likely have to face in CF.
  14. The question is, what's your definition of "griefing"? Because of all the things that "will" definitely "enable mass griefing," deformable terrain is pretty low on the list imo. What exactly are you worried about? That people spend hours digging tunnels and traps to kill/rob/etc.. unsuspecting players? Because that sounds pretty custard awesome and nowhere close to falling under the traditional definition of "griefing."
  15. Voxel Farm and destructible world info? Now we're custardin talking. This is exactly the kind of information I've been waiting to find out about and poorly made socks am I looking forward to it. My only concern is that from the videos and very limited experience I've had with voxel farm it feels like their sense of gravity is a bit off. Structures don't seem to collapse under their own weight when supporting architecture is removed, they remain static until every last supporting pixel is nuked before succumbing to gravity; is that something ACE has control over or is that limited by the engine's capabilities? In other words, do I have to remove every brick in the base of a tower to make it collapse or do I just have to remove enough to make it lose stability and eventually collapse under it's own weight? How will asset (dis)advantages work? Voxels grant a LOT of flexibility from both the players and developers, how do you plan to balance the entire system of asset construction/destruction so that we don't end up with a largely homogenous world of fortifications that are close to identical in both form and function? Will there be benefits (and costs!) to choosing square over round towers? Will I be rewarded for including a cistern in my city design? What about advantages based on scale? Will my city be able to withstand siege longer if I build a larger cistern? How cool would it be if things like natural springs existed that you could build a city/castle on to guarantee fresh water during siege? Or if you could build a rainwater catchment in places not graced with the presence of a spring? How complex is the asset construction system going to be? Like, am I going to need to hire an army of stonemasons and crafters to build a castle thus feeding the global player economy with bellicose funds and fostering a niche for those players that enjoy crafting more than others to contribute to a guild/nation's sovereignty or conquest in a very real, tangible way without having to stand on the front lines if they don't want to? So many possibilities for both construction and destruction of assets, just awesome.
  16. I'm still waiting on the logic of not allowing us to toggle the filter on/off at our leisure. That still confuses the poorly made socks out of me. How are we not allowed to determine for ourselves if we're offended by being called a cocksucker? EDIT: LOLWTF seriously?
  • Create New...