moneda reacted to vkromas in A Tasty Update - Official discussion thread
Wow, you all have lots of good ideas! Keep them coming!
I also wanted to pop in and comment on this. I know it sounds like alchemy is a lost art we haven't given any consideration to, but it's on my radar! I don't have solid dates or much other info that pertains specifically to alchemy just yet, but please know it's on my list of tasks to take on. Food items were a lot easier to create and come up with since there aren't any skill dependencies; Alchemy is a whole other beast entirely and I want to give it the proper amount of time necessary to create useful recipes that tie into our crafting flow properly.
moneda reacted to Samulus in Stealth speed changes
As I told the OP yesterday when he was talking about posting it, I personally don't think anything should be taken away from anyone. A.K.A. nerfing any of the Fae aspects is less than desirable, the other races that can go assassin just need their own flavor and maybe a bump here and there.
moneda reacted to coolster50 in 5.8.4 Snap Test Feedback and Bug Reports 02/15/2019
January 20, 2019
Hurray! Brigand Bombs don't remove stealth when they expire! The stealth LMB still reveals you even if you don't hit anyone. It's extremely annoying too, and I hate I can't take it off my bar. Hurray! 60m Rangers are back! Attacks from behind still don't show flytext or register in the combat log Same ol' Minotaur racial bugs (Bull Rush can't be slotted into the ranged tray/Bloodthirst uses class resource) Charged Shots doesn't proc off of Basic Bows Hot Foot doesn't proc off ranged LMBs,but does off of Melee ones (even if you're in melee range on a Ranged weapon) Minotaur (and I suspect Centaur too) doesn't have animations for Force Mage Force Wave New Trial of Malekai campaign screen is neat Trial of Malekai campaign screen shows up when logging into EKs too Something I've noticed when trying to loading into wolds on my potato: If the loading screen jumps from "Preparing Terrain" to "Leaving World", I'm custarded and have 0 chance of entering unless I change characters or restart the client If the loading screen jumps from "Preparing Terrain" to "Loading Zone...#%", but fails, I still have a chance of entering if I brute force my way in Not sure if this is any bit meaningful, but I'm sure someone would like to know this
moneda reacted to Stumpstuff in 5.8.4 Snap Test Feedback and Bug Reports 02/15/2019
This is on purpose. The regular mount needs to be purchased. Then you have to use that in the crafting recipe for the swift pig.
moneda reacted to vkromas in 5.8.4 Snap Test Feedback and Bug Reports 02/15/2019
My apologies! I was on holiday but I'm getting these together now!
moneda reacted to Medicaid in 5.8.4 Snap Test Feedback and Bug Reports 02/15/2019
not sure if this change was intended
moneda got a reaction from ComradeAma in 5.8.4 Snap Test Feedback and Bug Reports 02/15/2019
- I needs 5.8.4 patch notes!
- It seems strange that the "swift" mount requires the regular mount as an ingredient, but the regular mount isn't craftable and has to be bought.
Will we be able to craft the regular mount in future? I hope so. Why the double work to get the better mount? 😫
moneda reacted to Thevo in Uncle Bob via Mega Alliance?
I think you are squeezing too much this thread.
As far as I understand, what Todd said is "We identified a potential issue, and we already have potential solutions to test. Be wary, cause we may want to redress it sooner than expected". Maybe it would be nice to add a permanent failsafe as a victory condition. "The winner will be the faction with the most points after 14 days, or the first faction to get X points"
That being said, there has been a lot of statements on this thread that I just don't agree with.
"No win, no fun", "Pvpers only care about winning", proposals of mechanics that would just made the Uncle Bob worse and more common,... If you are aiming for a game where everyone gets to be Uncle Bob itself, then we are target players for very different games.
moneda got a reaction from Navystylz in Spirit Bank Abuse Remaining in 5.8.3
You can make as many threads about this as you'd like but they're not going to make a change to this before they're ready. They're working on multiple systems (inventory, post-campaign exporting rules, etc.) that will influence how the Spirit Bank will be used in the future and you're just going to have to wait for that work to be done like the rest of us.
moneda reacted to Arkade in 5.8.3 LIVE Feedback and Bug Reports for 2/15/19
Power Efficiency skills don't do anything:
I assume this is supposed to be 1.5%, but it doesn't add anything to my Power Efficiency stat, or any other stat related to it. I have 24% power efficiency from the Knight's Tactical Mastery talent, and that's all that displays in the character sheet:
As you can see in this screenshot, the cap on Power Efficiency is 25%, and I'm almost at the cap with just that 1 talent. There are a total of 6 skill nodes that give power efficiency (while using a sword...it may vary for other weapons) between the Weapons, Melee and One Hand Melee trees. If each of these skill nodes is intended to give 1.5% Power Efficiency, that is a total of 9%, but when combined with Tactical Mastery, I would never get the full benefit of it due to the cap. If I spec Sentinel, I can get another 15% Power Efficiency and Power Efficiency Cap, but that doesn't fix the issue with the skills not working and generally being useless when combined with Tactical Mastery.
The Kinetic Boost ability (Force Mage) says it increases Power Efficiency by 20%, but it actually reduces weapon weight by 20. This is a good thing since if it actually did what it said, it would be useless when combined with Tactical Mastery, but the tooltip should be updated to reflect that.
The Candle That Burns ability (Human) says that it increases Power Efficiency by 5%, but it actually reduces it by 5%.That may be an intended offset to the damage bonus, but it needs to be properly reflected in the tooltip.
These stat caps really need to be looked at as they are far too limiting in many cases. I understand that you want people to be able to hit the caps in a variety of ways, but they are currently too restrictive. It shouldn't be so easy to hit the caps.
moneda reacted to DocHollidaze in GF Crowfall and ACE
I mean, people have been mentioning the need for a faction balance incentive since factions have existed in CF. This isn't a new problem, and some of the people being slammed on the forums have been very vocal advocates for it.
To all the people maligning Balance at the moment, most of them Chaos it seems, I have been playing on Balance for more than a year now, and almost all of 2018 Balance essentially might not have existed - pretty much after Sugoi guild leaders and lots of their people stopped playing and my club/sub-guild of Sugoi basically quit also - Balance was just a sideshow that struggled to get even a 5 man group and when we did UDL or HoA or WB would soon double or treble our numbers to put us down. For my part, I mainly settled with just being a spoiler and custard with the big groups. QQ
I don't really recall these same Chaos people sharing their heartfelt concern and apologies for me and my Balance brethren while we were constantly outnumbered week-in week-out. The simple explanation for that is most folks are just full of poorly made socks. The rest of the people complaining are just new and have zero perspective and context to the bigger picture and history of Crowfall Pre-alpha.
The reality is, folks expecting other players they don't even know in real life to *provide* them with a good time is hogwash. Grow up you children. I never expected Chaos or Order to provide me with a good time and fair fights in 2018, it was just the hand I was dealt, and I did my best to create new Balance guild alliances to give me a chance for content.
The other reality is that ACE could have prevented this but they didn't, because I don't think they care or are overly concerned at this point. They are heads down working on v5.9 so that the sanctioned campaign can happen. These Trials campaigns are just a distraction to keep people busy until then. J Todd almost said as much during the livestream, but I have paraphrased.
moneda reacted to jtoddcoleman in Uncle Bob via Mega Alliance?
Hey gang, let's take a quick walk down memory lane.
WAY, WAY back in Shadowbane beta (I’m guessing this was 2002?) we had an interesting thing happen. Our testing community was heavily guild-focused; teams from UO and new groups were waging war and building cities and sieges were happening and, in spite of the bugs, the game was kind of working. Guilds were going at each other, vying for domination of the Aerynth, the Shadowbane world.
And then, one day, the fighting just stopped. A couple of the top guilds decided that, instead of fighting each other, they would work together in a big mega-alliance. They had enough manpower and enough skill to take over the server. That guild was called the Rolling 30s, led by a guy named Bone Dancer, and they did a pretty good job of locking the server down for a while.
I'm looking at the state of the Trials of Malekai campaigns, and one of them looks strangely familiar.
So, I have a few thoughts.
First: if the game literally gets to a point where it is mathematically unwinnable, we can always end it early. This is testing, and the goal of testing is to (1) find bugs and (2) learn things so that we can iterate over the design. If we hit a point in this campaign – or any campaign – where we aren’t learning anything useful, then we can (and will) shut it down and move on to the next test.
Second: while I know this can be aggravating, I want to make it clear that this isn’t a player problem; it’s a design problem. And it’s not an unknown out-of-nowhere design problem, either… as I said, I’ve seen this before. One of the major reasons that we pushed off the First Sanctioned campaign is because we didn’t have a rewards system in place that would help keep this from happening (the other major reason, of course, was performance.)
Will the reward system absolutely fix it? No, probably not… but it will certainly help.
Right now, the reward system is about as simplistic as a reward system can be: players on the winning team get a gold badge, everyone else gets silver. EVERYONE gets the badge. So, it really shouldn’t be a shock that players are working together to get the gold… because why wouldn’t they?
A better solution, and one that we’re in the process of implementing, uses a combination of Multi-Vector Rewards and Reward Scarcity. I was holding off on discussing this because I wanted to lock the rewards down first, but it seems like a number of people are concerned, so let’s go ahead and talk about it now.
Reward scarcity is just that. If every person competing at the Olympics could get a gold medal just by holding hands with their fellow participants, we’d see a lot of gold medals and a lot less competition. So, step one is to limit the number of players who can earn any given reward.
On top of that, we need to have Multi-Vector Rewards; not just a single “do-this-one-thing-and-only-this-one-thing-to-win” rule because single vector problems are the easiest to game (and as I noted above, this reward system is about as simple as it gets).
So, here’s an example of a better reward structure (and it’s JUST an example):
1. Gold medal for the top 20 players in the winning faction
2. Gold medal for the top 20 individual contributors across all factions, in killing/captures/harvest/craft
Even this super-simple example is better than the “everyone hold hands” model we have on ToM… and more vectors, with varying levels of enforced scarcity, would be even better because it drives players to have to make hard choices to “win”.
Between now and First Sanctioned, we’ll be spending a lot of time working through the rewards design to help offset this behavior – and once we have more players (and more campaigns running) that will certainly help, as well. (Dregs will, too, because guilds are more willing to form alliances than they are to form “mega-guilds” as that requires giving up their guild identity.)
As I said, if the situation on any Campaign gets bad enough, if the game literally gets to a point where it is mathematically unwinnable (i.e. another variant of the dreaded Uncle Bob Scenario) then we will end the Campaign and put up a new one, making whatever adjustments we can.
I know I could probably step in and ask the main guilds right now to stop holding hands and fight each other… but I’m not going to do that, because it would skew the test and any learning we might take from that test would be flawed. The simple fact is: our design needs to stand up to actual player behavior, not player-behavior-when-we-ask-them-to-play-how-we-want-them-to. Once we launch, we can’t expect players to treat our design with “kids gloves” just because we asked them nicely.
I know that it can be really frustrating to test an unfinished game, and for that I can only say: I get it, I hear you. All I can offer in response is: we’re watching, we’re learning, and we will continue to do the best we can to adjust and iterate as quickly as possible.
Thanks for sticking with us as we work through these issues.