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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Draednaught's Achievements

  1. My main thing, is that I made this account (and thus account name) back when the website went up. This was back in 2015. So far as I can see, I can't find any way to change my account name, especially because I had no way of knowing that this would become my name in game at the time.
  2. Although sort of a necro I felt it'd be important to throw in my 2 cents regarding the idea of established currency (these forums don't move very fast if at all during these stages of development so it shouldn't be a problem). The issue with 'gold' from D2 is that it isn't used for anything and isn't backed by anything. This makes it impossible to remove from the economy and worthless as a currency. While PoE prevents this by not having a formal currency, chaos orbs just took its place and serves as the game's gold. In PoE however it has its own problems. Chaos orbs are not readily available and cannot be split into small currencies. While other items were meant to serve this purpose their values fluctuate too much and there is no real agreement on what could serve as a secondary currency if anything. It makes the whole system clunky and hurts commerce. In addition any non-consumable item that's not worth at least 1 chaos orb is lost in a weird zone of near worthlessness, and often can't be used to make something else more attractive. The solution is, of course, to have a currency that's promoted through its use as such, and has a backing in real value. In addition to prevent inflation it would have to follow similar rules with regards of exporting. I feel the best way of doing this would be in the same way we did things before we had paper currency. In coinage. Any metal ore could be forged into coins, which are promoted as a currency by being stack-able significantly more than the resource that births it, but is also backed in that it can be smelted back into its respective ore at a negative exchange rate (such that any ore that becomes coin returns to ore in less quantity that had been used). The values with respect to eachother would fluctuate based on the value of their respective ores, it'd solve the arkwardness of PoE currency, it would be easily broken into lesser ores, and it would have a way out of the economy through export rules as well as being turned back into the ore that backs it. They've already hinted toward a similar system as this by mentioning how there would be a stack-able currency (the video they mention it in is posted somewhere in this thread if anyone needs the source) that plays by the same inventory rules as any other item. With regards to exporting things other than coins, I don't see why they can't have a way to allow coins to be brought in separate from items. Such that we may take up to X coins, and if we want to make more than that we need to fill the rest of our exports with items of value. It's still an item, it still plays by the same rules, but for export they're limited in a way. And with a negative exchange between ore and coins it'd usually be more profitable to bring resources and materials back to EK anyway. The idea of a full barter system sounds great at first, but what happens in the end is that it just boils down to currency that's clunky and awkward to commerce with. And as mentioned just a few posts above mine a system that uses currency can also serve as a bartering system in that products can be reduced to its value in a standard commodity. Just as in path of exile two items of equal weight of chaos orbs can be exchanged because their value is indifferent from one another (provided that the ease of selling is roughly equal), except of course it's in coins.
  3. So obviously this is just a opinion about the various parts that the process gets broken in to, so no one should take it as though I'm some sort of industry professional. Though in my years of experience I've spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of infrastructure would be needed to promote a game world where you can make a name for yourself as something other than a fighter. Resource Spawning I think the proposed model of having resource factories, that is, areas which are abundant in resources such that they produce is great for encouraging large scale battles, giving strategic options to the players in terms of regional control, and allowing disenfranchised players a way to participate meaningfully. However, I believe that there should be a certain amount of open world gathering as well. Amounts that generally wouldn't be worth the time investment to be gathered on its own by factions or large guilds, but enough that it would allow a player dropped naked and afraid into a hostile world to get a basic set of equipment or what have you. So far as this end goes I would think that certain elements would benefit from being gathering nodes (in a classic mmo sense) in itself. For instance, maybe that tree nearby is worth a small pittance of wood, or it could be worth nothing. It'd be odd to see myself surrounded by woods but unable to get a bit of resource out of it. In addition the limit of how many trees are around and the tremendous amount of time it takes a tree to grow would make it a non easily renewable resource, and reinforce the atmosphere of the hunger closing in, and the world dying as the campaign continuing and the resources being used up (perhaps as the hunger progressed trees would be worth less and less resource, have less of a chance to give any, and grow back slower if at all). Harvesting So far as factories go, it should probably take some time to get producing and require a bit of management or maintenance to continue to produce. But as a whole be serviceable by a single person to a small cell. With regards with the node thing I mentioned above it should take a fair bit of time to take out portions of the world if not outright require a full guild effort round the clock effort to deforest by the acre. Harvesting Tools I don't have an opinion on this that I've thought through enough to really weigh in on. Inventory Management I think the way you have it is pretty spot on, though I guess here is where I'd mention formal currency should be promoted. Perhaps having any metal ore able to be crafted into coin. Which in addition to being able to be stacked and carried in greater number then the ore itself would be able to be melted down into ore (of course at a heavy penalty to the return). This would allow bartering to feel natural while having a backing in a real commodity. The value of a coin is its cost in ore, meanwhile the stacking mechanic dissuades players from simply using the ore instead to avoid the smelting exchange rate. This allows gives it a way outside of being lost through exports to be removed from the economy. Recipes Sounds like you have it down pat to me. Having a base recipe that changes stats based on the material sounds amazing. Hauling Resources Again no formal opinion, seems good to me though. Refining Resources I really like the idea of being able to devout more time, effort, and/or resources in order to improve the quality of a crafted item. It gives another necessary depth required to make being a crafter a real possibility rather than just something you do on the side. Not much detail given about this yet but I expect great things. Crafting Mini Game If the minigame can stay fresh, and the resulting item is effected by performance rather than just being a pass/fail I see this as an awesome thing. If not, it'll probably just be an annoyance in the process. Being able to be a craftsman because you ace that minigame is essential for it to feel meaningful in my opinion. As I mentioned earlier, having layers of skill and effort that determine not just whether or not you're a good crafter or a great one, but whether or not you are a awful, terrible, poor, mediocre, average, decent, above average, good, great, amazing, or legendary crafter is essential. A bit wordy but the point is crafters need to come in various layers of skill, if everyone can only be either bad or great, then no one can be legendary either. Mass Production Dislike. Perhaps if the thralls make weapons of a lesser quality than the base used to make the pattern then it'll be fine. But it'd be silly to let you mass produce legendary blades. A blacksmith who's truly legendary and has truly set himself apart needs to attend to each blade him or herself. I would also argue that their name shouldn't be on a weapon they didn't make. Perhaps if it says 'Thralled by X' instead of 'Made by X' it'd make a strong enough difference. Profession Interdependency Definitely in favor. One man should be an island within a single craft with the right level of dedication and know how. But a player who can craft everything or relies on no one for projects that are truly interdisciplinary (siege weapons for example) is not realistic or engaging. Enchanting Don't have enough details on the system yet but it seems like it'd be cool. Salvaging Yep. Unwanted items need a way to be disposed of, and since NPC vendors would go against nearly every design philosophy for crowfall this is a great way to do it. Decay Same thing as above, except regarding keeping the economy fluid. The ability to repair is also huge, it lets items persist through one durability cycle, however, the cost in max durability puts an inevitable timer on the items lifespan. Tuning will obviously need work but good stuff all around. Repair The way you have it sounds good, losing durability as you repair and repairing more when you die with it more often. I posted in another thread about legendary blades that can be named being able to be displayed after its max durability goes below a certain threshold. I think there's a lot of possibility in making weapons that can serve as a historia up on a plague or something. Vendors A big no for NPC vendors like a classic mmo, but I'm already with setting up a thrall to sell your wares for you.
  4. After reading through the thread I've come to a few conclusions about the merits of being able to name exceptional weapons. 1. First off, I'd really be in support of something like this. Being able to mark the weapon (who made it) is already confirmed. And I see no reason we can't have both. I think being able to name a weapon would be a quality feature towards the goal of immersion and as just adds a lot of flavor in general. 2. It would probably be best being restricted to items of a certain quality or perhaps only on weapons that are critically crafted to ensure a named weapon really is legendary. Other than that, I don't see why you'd want to stop someone from naming a weapon through ridiculous costs or anything like that. 3. I don't see a reason that a named weapon should be able to be renamed after it gets named. I can see a un-named weapon with the prerequisite rarity/quality being able to be named as is relevant by its wielder but I can't see a reason for the name to flip-flop names each time it passes hands. To clarify take two situations: Sword A is of the right quality and is named. It passes hands and cannot be renamed. Sword B is made and of the right quality but its creator does not name it. It eventually passes hands and its wielder can feel free to name it whatever they want, perhaps after a battle in which they owed their victory to their blade. 4. There was a lot of discussion about limiting blade names or even just making it based on a word bank. I disagree completely. I don't think there should be any limitations on naming a blade. Immersion is made from choice and possibility, not from forcing players into a strict narrative. If a weapon is named something you think is stupid, like 'excalibur' or 'urmomlol' then you can choose not to use it based on its name. Just as many other players would probably be turned off by a name like that as well. If a great weapon is forged and given a truly stupid name it will be worth less than something that reinforces atmosphere or lore. It's all a matter of cost in the end, you can guarantee that no stupid names are passed around but in exchange you give up that magical moment when you find "Gurstrog Centaurs Bane" on the corpse of a fallen assassin. And I don't think that cost is worth paying. If a name is truly offensive, featuring racial slurs or what have you I see no reason it can't be reported. A GM would take a look, see if they agree, and revert it to its default name for you with possible punishments for the one who named it depending on the severity of the offense. 5. I saw somewhere in the thread someone had mentioned the idea of letting the blades lineage pass through via flavor texts, and even have its destruction accounted for. This seemed like a truly awesome idea. Perhaps a named weapon whose max durability has fallen below a certain point can be displayed on a plague in your EK as a memento of battles past or a trophy hanging in the throne room of your castle, a warning to diplomats who come with foul intentions in the midst of a campaign. 6. With regards to weapons being too fleeting to be named. Again, I disagree. Weapons are fleeting because they are easily taken and with many battles break. However, they have outright said that weapons can be repairs at the cost of some max durability. In other words weapons aren't quite as fragile and worthless as you think. With its durability (and possibly stats) degrading over time it's definitely something that's fleeting, but I see no reason one weapon won't spam multiple campaigns if its owner(s) doesn't(don't) do much dying. It's still an question of whether or not to use a blade you don't want to see break, just not such that you never want to touch the thing, that would be silly. Basically in the end it just comes down to a matter of what gives the game the tools it needs to feel like the breathing world we need rather than a railroaded environment that I'm sure a lot of us are trying to get away from.
  5. Just watched the stream, good stuff. Great commentary and chat interaction and good quality video.

    1. thenebrosity


      Thanks xenry!! Hope to see you on again soon! :D


  6. I love things with the fantasy of the assassin, though very often they're not done very well. I feel like an assassin should work along side other characters if absolutely needed (a final offensive in a large scale battle for example) but they should not be particularly good at it. Rather, I love the idea of working alone and using my skills and mind to find solutions to problems outside of enter combat, kill or die. Stalker in W* is a good example of what they should not be. Stealth > Analyze Weakness > Impale > Stealth > Impale > Tactical Retreat > Impale > Stagger > Tether Mine > Phlebotomize > Pounce Away > Stealth > Pounce Back > Analyze Weakness > Impale. If you hit these buttons in this order, then 100% of the time you'd kill any non-tank enemy combatant in PvP. And I understand fully why people hated it. For the stalker, it was an annoying bloat of casts in something like a 10 second time period and if you messed up a single one there is a very fair chance that you didn't kill your target, instead you'd have to disengage and let natural healing take over. For the opponent there was no counter play, you couldn't reduce the damage with CDs before you were opened on because stealth, if you popped something big in between the first two casts the stalker could just not re-engage until they had all their CDs back up and your defensive would still be down. You're too phelbotomized to heal up before he came around and opened on you again. The only counterplay was to be a tank in which case the stalker would just never engage in the fight in the first place. I did not have fun playing stalker like this, there was no being clever for me. It was burst and kill or don't and disengage. I'm hoping assassin is done well, and becomes the kind of character that you either outsmart and counter, or lose with a grin on your face and think "That clever sob".
  7. In a combat role I believe an Assassin should be more than capable of eliminating a target one on one, an in addition be effective in temporarily disabling another target or two to accomplish this goal. Making the assassin outright weaker than most other characters, having to wait for them to be typing to win a 1v1 defeats the purpose honestly. The specialist part, so far as combat goes, I think should make it difficult for an assassin to perform in a brawl. When there are enough combatants an assassin should flounder, 4v4 fight? You can stun one guy but the other three turn around and floor you. 20v20 battle? As soon as you unstealth the enemy army will turn on you so fast you can't get an attack off. An assassin should be good at what they do (killing a high priority target, recon, infiltration, possibly theft, getting around someones defenses to sabotage or open the gates for a raiding force). They should have a toolkit that allows them to be clever and unpredictable with their actions, and having one alone with you should be your worst nightmare. What they shouldn't do, or be good at, is be a soldier. They're too squishy to be on the front lines, they're too melee-centric (or at least semi-inept in ranged combat) to sit back out of range like an archer. To me an assassin is the kind of character that comes across as a game changer, one that fufills the fantasy of espionage and murder. One of the worst things I can see happening with the assassin is them being a full on burst 'sink or swim' archtype. You open on someone from stealth, and it goes two ways, they die and you win the fight, they live and then kill you because you're ineffectual at prolonged combat. This is fun for pretty much no one. The opponent because they didn't have a chance to flee or outplay a poor assassin. And you because of bulky targets and gear scaling. If you need to kill someone who more than a clothie you've lost before the fight starts. If your mage target has top tier gear and you don't? Pretty much no chance whatsoever, despite the fact that you're a melee who's supposed to be adept at disabling and killing a single target. The counterplay against an assassin should be mental. Fear an assassination? Get a bodyguard or travel in a group. Don't want to be infiltrated / stolen from? Have guards with a high perception (or whatever winds up countering stealth). Think they're going to be tunneling into your base? Hollow out the ground underneath your keep and set up a sentry to keep watch. It's been pushed pretty heavily that the social order will be a huge part of the game, as such I'd like to see archtypes (assassin in particular) be designed with this in mind. Just some thoughts I had to better clarify how I feel assassins should operate with regards to combat situations.
  8. I disagree with the analogy between a Fae and an Amazon. Amazons were typically portrayed as primitive and warriors, rather than the subtle rogues we've seen the Fae revealed as. This is largely in part due to the time that Amazons were believed to have lived as well as the sources which depicted them such as paintings on pots, statues, and carvings. The Fae seem to be more of a secretive and intelligent race, one that's kept in whispers of bars due to the pervasive nature of their profession. But at the same time modern (relative to the other races) and capable of engaging in trade and mercenary work. From what we've been told their social structure resembles more of a guild or secret organization churning out killers than a tribe in the jungles. Relative to the elves it seems like the Fae differ in several important ways. First being presence, where as an elf at a gathering might be keeping to themselves at their table a Fae wouldn't be invited in the first place; lurking in the shadows and fulfilling their contracts a Fae would feel naked without their blade and out of place in a diplomatic setting. Second is how they carry themselves, elves typically have this holier than thou and learned attitude toward the other races. Combined with a society which likes to be generally independent in regards to relying on the other races and elf would be a sight for most humans and carry and air of mystery due to how different their cultures are. Whereas as mentioned earlier, a Faes appearance would cause a bit of unease among the other races, "Who were they there for?", "Are they going to mug me?", ect. Finally while elves like to practice magic as a way of life, learning magic in a pursuit of knowledge and betterment while respecting both the world around them and the forces which birthed their powers. Fae would be far more interested in knowing the spells that benefit them the most, and caring only about such forces sofar as they will help them get the job done or make their lives easier.
  9. I think that true flight in the case of the assassin would be a bad idea, as I mentioned months ago it trivializes a lot of tactics that would otherwise be fitting in the setting. Glide sounds like a nice compromise, though, I hope climbing or greater jumping prowess comes as part of this as well. I think that there's a happy medium between true flight and gliding we can hope to hit. In response the comment about the Aracoix, I think I'd rather have a quick and mobile archetype who excels at scaling towers and making escapes, ect, than have the utility of flight with the clause that it feels like a 400 pound man on a peddle helicopter. And it'd be a lot less fitting if hitting the button for flight forced me to play Microsoft Plane Simulator for thirty seconds. Yes you can make it clunky, obnoxious, and short lived but how does that actually help the game? Not to mention that you're imposing the capabilities of a plane onto something that's organic. There are plenty of animals and insects which can hover in flight, for example.
  10. RMT is going to happen regardless, day 1 gold sellers will be swarming like they usually do. All this is going to do is help put a fraction of that market into developers hands to be regulated. I see this system becoming the standard in games shortly. Eve popularized it but W* followed suit and even blizzard has announced plans to do it. It doesn't make the game anymore P2W than it already is to be perfectly honest, and with the way that exchange normalizes in these situations you'd need to dump a -ton- of money to make a profit substantial enough to break the game (since its a commodity you'd be destroying your own market in the process, however).
  11. #6, well see what that really means soon enough.
  12. So what you beg someone like a dog for resource to play in an actual game or start a new character if you don't get out of a game with something? If traveling were done within the bounds of the campaign I'd understand but going between worlds is the equivilent of pressing the "Play" button in the league of legends client. I'd prefer for travel to not be oversimplified and immersive but not in what's essentially a fancy lobby. Let the resource costs apply to getting around a world not going to it in the first place. Edit: Also wasting peoples time on a game that's over is just stupid. The fun should be in playing the game and developing the campaign, not fighting the client to play in the first place.
  13. I would actually like to see nothing resembling a market or an auction house, rather, I think it would feel a lot more complete if players had the tools to properly implement their own business. I would love to see players who make a living buying and trading goods. By doing so you'd have people who's business it is to be the middleman. If a player can be a craftsman as a real profession I think being a merchant would be just as viable given the infrastructure is there to support that without trivializing it. So instead of going to the AH or market and listing your goods or w/e you'd find the local merchant or trader and sell it directly to them, it'd then be their job to find someone to sell it to for a profit. Edit: I also feel that real money items should be treated differently. Cosmetic items should not be tradeable and not be lootable off a corpse. VIP credits should be tradable and lootable, but have a grace period from purchasing until it can be looted. That way a player logging into the game after purchasing a VIP credit doesn't die before being able to click the thing and lose $15.
  14. I'm not sure true flight would be very balanced to be honested... Air dropping units in a keep pretty much invalidates sieging altogether. Similarly air travel is too convenient to skip the world and other players and combat would be determines by who has the most flying archers. I'd like to see them being used for short lived mobility if anything, gliding, safe fall, a high jump, even a very short duration flight would all be things that the wings could play a part in without actually breaking the environment. Again it's not so much flight I'm against as it is readily available true flight, which is a strategically dominating condition. You always have the high ground, you can never nail an ally with an arrow since you always have line of sight to the target, you always have an escape route, and you're nigh invulnerable to infantry. Even in out of combat situations flight is too good and throws away the idea of world pvp. Edit: Not to mention it carries the same problems people seem to have with stealth, that a fae would only ever fight a battle they could win. Imagine how stealth allows you to pick your fights but worse for flying.
  15. Yea that's makes sense, people higher up the chain will have access to players serving as guard probably fortifications, good armor, and a surplus of supplies even in the case of dying they'll be able to rally their allies and get back at the guy who killed him (assuming the killer was a nobody). I could see there being power grabs by similarly powerful entities that work to gain more influence for sure too.
  • Create New...