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

blazzen

ACE Development Partners
  • Posts

    4,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

blazzen last won the day on June 5

blazzen had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Interests
    PVP
  • Guild
    Lords of Death
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    www.lordsofdeath.com

Recent Profile Visitors

5,482 profile views

blazzen's Achievements

  1. We only ever made runecrafting tables except for when there was that JC card we made a JC table. Tools were too much to import, but we otherwise crafted gear in the EK and imported it. The problem with keep crafting is the logistical hurdles. You don't have near as many chests and the chests can't be given specific permissions (vassal) like they can in the EKs. It's less annoying just making sappho potions than it is to deal with all the logistical hurdles of campaign keep crafting. That and we generally just made armor/weapon/jewelry templates that we copied. If you lined it up correctly you could make multiple item templates in the same sappho potion. If they got rid of the sappho potion we might do more campaign keep crafting but until then I imagine it'll mostly stay in the EK. They really need a proper guild bank before they should consider making crafting anymore logistically tedious though. There were a few cases of crafters getting ganked and losing a ton of stuff in campaign keeps (just ask Gradishar ) but it was pretty rare for the most part. I don't recall our crafters ever getting hit and losing anything noteworthy. TL:DR Crafting is done in EK's more as a matter of convenience than to mitigate risk. We need an actual proper guild bank to lessen the logistical hurdles of crafting.
  2. Yeah that message played for anyone NOT in the zone. I don't think anyone in the zone saw it and it didn't appear in my video. Here's a good shot of the message and the points loss that occurred seen by someone outside of the zone.
  3. Thanks for the looking into this issue! That is not true. While there was a defeat message, it was an error, which that error is what resulted in the point loss, despite us not losing the keep. If you want to watch the entire siege window I've posted it below. Both wards, the tree of life, and the respawn statue were alive when the zone crashed. The time stamp for the crash is at 19:39.
  4. I think the biggest difference map wise between DF/SB and CF is that both DF/SB were seamless maps where you couldn't just lock people out of participating in a fight/area whereas that's absolutely the case in CF. That's why CF has to be treated differently in that regard.
  5. I ain't doing the crafter grind again Otherwise I agree. Game was billed as a 100v100 siege warfare game, but I think that should be the absolute upper limit. Put a concurrency cap in on campaigns. Make it so an alliance can't have more than 100 players logged into a single campaign or they get a queue message when trying to join. Eliminate the roster caps, eliminate the cap on guilds in an alliance, and you can allow people to band together. But this would essentially be a "team size" knob that would limit concurrency within a campaign. Then make castles 100v100 handshake sieges, large keeps 75v75 handshake sieges, and small keeps 50v50 handshake sieges. I could also see a "zone" concurrency cap outside of sieges set to ~50 or so to keep people from blobbing forts as much. That zone concurrency cap could be a variable that's tweaked to have more "small scale" content zones like in adventure zones without forts. Both the campaign and zone concurrency caps should be knobs that they can tweak as needed. This would limit numbers on the field and even the team sizes while not punishing casual players (which the game needs to retain) with a roster cap.
  6. Yeah I think the premise of Crowfall relied upon more than the same 500 people from beta playing/fighting each other.
  7. Yeah the right way to do it would be a concurrency cap. Handshake sieges limit concurrency within a siege. A concurrency cap could limit the number of players from a guild/alliance within a zone or campaign wide. Roster caps aren't the way to go. A 500 man roster cap could yield 500 sweaty nerds each night or 50 casuals each night. If you want good/even fights you have to limit concurrency.
  8. I think the idea originally was so people wouldn't feel they're so far behind in winter that they just quit and give up. Back loading the score keeps the campaign interesting longer, or that's the idea anyways.
  9. <Question> What is being done to bring in new players and retain them? I look around the current dregs and it looks like the same people I played alpha/beta with for years. Now we have a "mega dregs" coming up which looks a lot like a "merged" dregs. We need fresh blood, badly.
  10. With an alliance/guild cap per campaign, and/or alliance scoring, you would no longer have this issue. With a cap, you'd know exactly how many people were in each guild and how many rewards they'd get. This will be a non issue soon. Just make the rewards match whatever the cap is. Then if your guild is under the cap and you win. Guess what? EXTRA REWARDS. Faction rewards need to be individual contribution basis. Period. This doesn't seem particularly useful. Can be defeated with an anti afk mechanism. Many people just login on test, go AFK for 6 hours, and get the tankards, for example. Waste of your time. This is what rewards should be based on. Doing stuff in the game. This is friggin excellent and EXACTLY what we need. Why? Add armor enchants too. This is an area where you could do a lot more. Lets get a very WIDE variety of stats for these sigils. It can still be in the 2% range, so a small boost, but ESPECIALLY since the stats don't stack, you need to add a LOT more variety. The trial of the gods sigils were a good start. Need to keep expanding on this. Then just sell the sigils for tokens. Then individuals will want to save up tokens to purchase these sigils. I think you could use more granularity here. There are SO MANY guilds in these campaigns that getting top 20% is pretty friggin easy. How about 1st - 3rd place, then top 10%, Top 20%, Top 40%, Top 60%, Top 80% Top 100%? You should also make the amount of points you need to qualify a sliding scale based on campaign duration. Right now I think it's 1,000 conquest points to qualify? Something like that? That maybe too high in a 14 day campaign and too low in a 42 day campaign. This needs to scale also. This is overall a great step in the right direction. I do think there needs to be a LOT more individual objectives and rewards. We need individual seasonal cards which grant a certain number of tokens. These would turn into ~weekly quests for individuals to complete.
  11. <question > now that we have an alliance player cap how hard would it be to increase the number of guilds allowed in an alliance from 5 to say 10 to allow more small guilds to band together?
  12. Agreed! It would be nice to have this transparency!
  13. <Question> Alliance Scoring when? <Question> Why do a guild/member cap at the website roster level instead of making it a campaign knob? Crowfall pitches itself as being able to vary the ruleset for each campaign and one of the best knobs you could have is team size. Limiting team size at the website roster level is a one size fits all approach which is the opposite of Crowfall's core vision.
  14. I'm not sure what rank the walls were, but we took down a small keep (undefended) in 4 minutes 22 seconds last night. That's the walls, rez statue, 2 wards and ToL. Think we used 2x MK4 trebs. The sieges in Crowfall are much more condensed than those in Shadowbane or Darkfall. To be fair, the effort to build up a city is much less than Shadowbane or Darkfall also. EDIT: You can see the message in this video here and do the math with what time was left in the siege window.
×
×
  • Create New...