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

Scree

Testers
  • Content Count

    1,168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Scree last won the day on February 18

Scree had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Scree

  • Rank
    Raven

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Interests
    World Domination, Politics, Stealth, Manipulation, Psychology, Deviant Behavior, Theorycrafting, Interesting ways of acquiring Redbull.
  • Guild
    Obsidian (https://obsidian.wiki)
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chicago, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

5,576 profile views
  1. @jtoddcoleman I assume 24/7 EK uptime would be an obvious benefit for VIP subscribers? How obvious, I guess, would be your reply
  2. This is a UI/UX problem. Players should be able to make informed choices about what factions they are joining and the overall status/health of a campaign. While you don't want to incentivize bandwagoning behaviors, there are solutions out there to influence these decision-making points. Awarding players more/less rewards based on the current balance of the three or twelve factions would go a long way to helping this. Blindly joining a factions game is akin to blindly joining a guild and hoping its good at what it does. Players have tools available to research guilds, they should have tools to do the same with factions.
  3. Project Malekai is currently 85%ish up to date. Disciplines are 100% correct (and powers from them). Only 4 of the 11 classes are updated right now though to 5.8.5 version. Work is also in progress on a new version, but its slow going because I have a life outside of Crowfall and its chaotic right now https://malekai.org P.S: I know of at least one wiki that is using my data (not sure last time he pulled it though).
  4. This is an error/bug submission and should go to the appropriate forum thread dedicated to reporting issues. Also, including an image of what you are seeing can go a long way towards solving an issue.
  5. As of this weekend, all of the disciplines (major/minor/exploration) are now fully updated. 4 of the classes are fully updated. I still have a bunch of these to clear.
  6. I think the general idea is to time gate servers based on timezones they are associated with. Should be fairly easy for a non-standard play time player to pick the server that coincides with peak playtime.
  7. The goal of a siege window is to prevent nightcapping, where the game becomes about who can populate their faction with the most off-peak time zone players. As someone with a background in GW2 you'd think this would bother you. I played on one of the top servers at launch and it was pretty disheartening to win or lose based on our factions Asianic presence. What happened during NA didn't matter. What happened after they went to sleep did. Siege windows fix this. It's not a perfect solution, but I'd argue its better than the alternative.
  8. You mean like this? This has been a feature of MalekaiBot for years now. And yea... Malekai's data is still a perpetual work in progress. Getting some good progress in lately though.
  9. This analysis will get worse when tracking is implemented. Assassins reliance on stealth to control encounters will be suspect at that point. Assassins as a result will grow weaker (as will all stealth classes). Introduction of tracking will basically be a stealth-class nerf.
  10. Scree

    Politics

    I see no reason for them to provide this "medium" to poop talk one another. Players and Guilds have several mediums available to them already; Discords being chief among them. If the need arises for a separate location, the community will provide it. Lowering the quality of the official Crowfall forums just to allow some to amuse themselves with forumbane is hardly a necessity.
  11. This isn't true in the US at all. Click wrapper terms of service agreements have typically been found to be enforceable across a wide variety of situations. While other regions might have rules governing interactions, the situation here didn't occur in another region. RE: Rest of this thread My only concern is that in-game behavior isn't policed in the same way the forum behavior is. You can't tell people to be mean and nasty in-game and just "turn it off" on the forums. I'm not a fan of this policy. It should be game wide, either way (strict or not). Having two separate "zones" with varying degrees of rules and acceptable speech is confusing and not very easy to manage. If ACE does intend to keep on with this policy, then they need to treat the two with separate punishments. If you act like a tool on the forums, then you can be banned _from the forums_. Similarly, in-game, if you are banned... well then the forums probably won't interest you anymore (but seeing as how the severity of actions in-game that are required to be banned, perhaps a total-ban would be required at that point). The easier the application of rules, and the extension of punishment from those rules, the better. Right now this is a swamp new players will constantly be forced to navigate; lets be honest, no ones going to read the rules up front either.
  12. Agreed. Have 60% of the disciplines updated before they did their weekend patch screwing over my ability to grab the rest. Switched gears to keep updating classes instead. Cleric/Confessor coming out shortly
  13. I think the OP-OPs post is spot on. The knowledge gap between new and veteran players is extensive. That's partially because Crowfall's been open to the public for effectively 3 and a half years. People joining this late in the development cycle are of course disadvantaged. Complaining about documentation isn't new either. Yet, try to understand that documenting _anything_ in Crowfall during this process has been mostly a waste of time. The things change so quickly from patch to patch, that any documentation created a year ago is probably obsolete and practically useless. Its one of the chief reasons I shut down the Stealthed blog. Not only were changes slow to come, but when they were it was difficult to get clear concise answers without extensive testing that arguably wasn't all that fun. Those who stuck with it and play Crowfall likes its a live game (and there are several people who self-identify as this type of player) are absolutely advantaged by playing the game. With all of this said, is this a bad thing? No. Depth in the MMO genre is great. Learning something new that changes how you play is incredible for an MMO. I wouldn't want a dumbed down simplified version of Crowfall, just to make people who joined last month feel better about themselves. If you get easily frustrated by poorly documented, mostly untested features, then playing Crowfall right now is NOT a good idea. I think if people stopped treating this as a game to be won, and instead a game to be tested; a whole lot more progress would be made. Instead we've had incendiary forum threads and nonsense political goings-on dominating the conversation; despite the chief architect of Crowfall making a rare effort to interact with the public community. So no, nothing needs to be "fixed" here. Documentation will come, either from the developers or the community. This is a big ole' nothingburger at this stage of the development of Crowfall.
  14. I'm unable to select a patron diety. This bothers me greatly.
  15. So a few things on this, I actually agree that rewards are probably how you adjust behaviors. Psychology aside, people play games to win, and when they win they expect to get a reward. In some games, being on a leaderboard is sufficient, because it showcases how badass you are. These games tend to focus on individual achievement, and the impact of winning or losing as a team is of secondary consequence. Take for example Counter-Strike; One player can go 30-0 but his team still loses. Ultimately it doesn't matter though, because the rewards for winning are non-existent (ignoring the external awards like an eSports tournament prize for the moment). Let's take for example one of the proposals I sent to JTodd. I wanted to acknowledge that players are more likely to join a winning team, if doing so is incentivized (or if no penalty exists for joining that team. Let's use Guild Wars 2 as an example here. There are no real tangible rewards for winning a WvWvW "week". Players can participate on whatever server faction they are currently on, but it is possible with money to transfer to a server. The absence of any real reward structure (beyond a meaningless individual track which only incentivizes individual behaviors) means that players have no reason to join a losing faction and by doing so they are almost assuredly going to lose. This isn't fun. Guess what happens? Everyone transferred off to join the winning servers. It was more fun. For them. So how do we solve this? I proposed that whatever rewards are finally assigned to a winning faction (or guild), that they are given to individuals on the following conditions; The moment you decide to join a faction campaign, you are assigned a locked reward percentage at the time of joining. This reward percentage can range from 0% to 500%. The reward percentage is calculated from two factors; how populated the faction you joined vs the other factions and the score of the faction you joined vs the others. If a guild joins a campaign, the reward percent is locked in for all guild members, regardless of when they actually join that campaign (and that guilds member count is fully realized/considered for determining reward percents going forward). The percentage takes into account things like a new campaign starting up. The difference in points would be negligble and thus at the beggining of a campaign, only the population would weigh on your score. Similarly, later in a campaigns seasons, populations might be balanced but the scores might be lopsided. Adding additional players to that campaign might be desirable to help counter-act the skill of the other factions. In my mind, scoring imbalances would be weighted more than populations, but this weight might simply adjust the longer a campaign goes on. Maybe during the opening seasons of a campaign, the population is all that matters but near the end only score matters in determining awards. Ultimately this proposal is designed to do a few things; If you want to play with your friends, you can. We don't need arbitrary faction-locks ("this faction has too many players" errors) here. It takes into account that campaigns end and guilds/players might want to join an already-in-progress campaign If you decide to play on a faction that is overwhelmingly ahead, you'll get 0% rewards. That's right, you'll take home nothing. Guilds can join a faction and not be penalized if other people jump in to try to piggyback on their leadership/presence Target the un-aligned player who has no guild. Why would he care what faction he joins? Oh, I get 300% rewards? Hrmm. Balance achieved. Decentivize team stacking. Sure you might still want to play with someone and that's fine. I just don't want you to be rewarded for that behavior. Incentivize being the underdog. I really like the idea of guilds that purposefully seek out high percent rewards to try to spice up already-in-progress campaigns. I think the final important note to bring up here is that everyone must acknowledge that Crowfall already has the best solution implemented for dealing with Uncle Bob. Campaigns end. If my proposal fails, and it can because in some cases no amount of manipulation will allow for some games to be course-corrected... the campaigns ending is the perfect solution. The games reset and players go off to the next one (with hopefully better results).
×
×
  • Create New...