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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About silk

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

831 profile views
  1. One of the kindest, most noob friendly, thoughtful, and respectful people you could come across in game or out. And yes, analytical to an extreme degree about almost any facet of a game he played. He will be sorely missed.
  2. Stealth groups provide valuable tactical and strategic options both in small scale and large scale gameplay. Typically the trade off is firepower/staying power vs the ability to engage an enemy at an opportunity of your choosing, and having skills that allow stealth focused characters a chance break off and evade/escape if/when needed. It can be difficult to balance, but certainly isn't impossible, and the ACE staff aren't shying away from difficult to balance mechanics from what we've seen thus far. Considering the different types of combat we've seen trotted out so far, sieging, caravan a
  3. During release, not even during birdroguebane. /thread
  4. Vikingnail is a bot right? Same 3 sentences, slightly different syntax, zero comprehension. Gotta be a bot, and not a very good one honestly. Someone's freshman CS project? I'm with shad on this one, 30-50 sided fights were really the pinnacle of SB combat. Enough for lots of interesting tactical options, not too many the servers caught on fire. Though personally, I can't wait to play against these leet baddasses who think standing in a stack and casting AOEs on the enemy plus some heals on your group during minute long lag spikes in 300v300 banes on the OG servers was the pinnacl
  5. To Thenebrosity's point, I'm in violent agreement. If your economic system is designed so that gear is fairly cheap, but cities/building assets/fortifications/sieges are fairly expensive, you can absolutely sustain an active playerbase while allowing your character progression system to be measured in days, rather than months. I think the devs understand this on some level already, since they are going for servers and worlds that have a timer on them from the beginning. The key will be to keep the fighting fresh, and a big contributor to that is giving guilds lots of viable spec gro
  6. A steep death penalty is a REALLY good example for something that would absolutely discourage PVP, and thus should be avoided at all costs. If it takes hours or days to regain something you lost in a 2 minute fight, you are gonna spend a whole hell of a lot more time prepping than fighting. If the game is designed around player conflict, but players have to spend hours prepping for a few minutes of combat, how does that work? It doesn't. Forget realism, focus purely on risk/reward, and make it rewarding for people to participate in pvp a vast majority of the time they are in game. Period.
  7. No, but you will be able to kill them and take their stuff, repeatedly. And, also, burn their house down.
  8. Kaiho, I'm not addressing the issue of players logging out after contact with the enemy to avoid losing. I'm addressing the idea that a one side of a potential pvp encounter, upon deciding, for whatever reason, that they are the smaller/weaker/lower level/underprepared/less skilled side, must still have enough of a potential reward if they manage to win, or a small enough penalty upon losing, that they decide to go and fight anyway, rather than avoid the encounter altogether. Players choosing to avoid PVP, because the risk/reward balance encourages them to do so, will doom a game like crowfa
  9. Exactly. Its a very delicate balance. A group who goes out and wins 2-3 fights in an evening, and loses none, has to feel like they gained something for their effort. Likewise, a group that lost 3-4 fights and won 1-2, still has to feel like they gained something material, or at worst broke even for the economic cost they spent to gear up for those fights. But, at the other end, you still have to have some attrition so that wearing down a defender economically before, during, and sometimes after a siege or major set piece territorial fight is a valid strategy for a smaller, more skilled gr
  10. There is no XP. The rewards will be resources your enemy had in their inventory when they died, and some amount of the gear they had equipped when you killed them. Thats the reason for my heavy emphasis on gear being fairly inexpensive and easy to replace, and the rewards for winning greater than the cost of losing, so that you incentivize the losers of a fight to come back and give it another go. If "i can't afford to replace my last set of gear, im not gonna play anymore" is something that goes through players heads with any frequency, thats a fundamental design problem. It requires desi
  11. I don't think there's a problem at all with catering to lots of playstyles through different rulesets, and I think that it will be very apparent which rulesets people like and which are less popular. Its just that we need a lot more details on how it all will work out to start answering the more specific questions, like will it make sense you use all your char slots on a single campaign, or save one or two for other places, etc etc. Clearly, most of the SB community is looking closest at the GVG campaigns, but until we know more about character progressions and combat mechanics, it will be h
  12. Presumably there are still grouping mechanics in the dregs, but you've hit my concern square on the head. If the dregs are designed around individual performance, then you risk making many character archetypes disadvantaged or irrelevant altogether, or you end up in a situation where a "guild" has to work together to make 1 character accomplish most/everything to gain points. Will sieges be worth it, even be possible, on a ruleset where only 1 person gets rewarded? Will they revolve around smaller objectives, something silly like stealing another persons tent/cottage for example? Can you s
  13. So victory conditions/points in the the dregs are all based on indivudual achievements? Would have to see an example to really understand it, but my first impression is that this is very difficult to design well, and won't attract many players?
  14. They end game should revolve fighting for and taking what others players have put a lot of resources into, namely cities and other territory they control. It should absolutely not revolve around "getting the best gear", other wise those that have spent the effort to get the best gear will then be hesitant to risk it, which starts you down the spiral of avoiding pvp. If you make design decisions that cause players to avoid pvp, you will quickly ruin a game that is focused on PVP. Period.
  • Create New...