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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About regmiester

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    In my secret hideout
  1. Nice, like the point about class skills making it to disciplines also. Also amazing how you guys are always so open and honest. Keep up the good work.
  2. Loved the talk about "wall of knobs", will be awesome if they used their "wall of knobs" to make different terrain act differently. In every mmo i have played before there has been no advantage to using a road as you can just run through the woods, even though the ground would be uneven and there would be undergrowth which should certainly slow you down. For example, roads should help you travel around faster then going into a swamp (increased drag because of the water and sinking in mud), woods (as stated above) and normal fields (small amount of drag due to the long grass and plants). Also going uphill should be harder thus making having the higher ground a tactical advantage as you will have more time to kill a melee player running up the hill if you are ranged.
  3. This is a really good change which i support, however i think the advantages of each armour type can be looked at in another way also. if you add different types of defence e.g block, parry and dodge then things can get really interesting. the way i see it is more like this: dodge - easier to avoid piercing parry - easier to deflect crushing blows block - easier to stop slashing leather - makes it easier to dodge chain - makes it easier to parry plate - makes it easier to block so instead of thinking how the blow from a weapon acts as a direct hit, think of what advantages you get from the armour as well.
  4. I would like to see templar as a parry/counterattack kind of tank, as doding around everywhere is more like a rogue. I also really don't like too many taunt skills, aggro management sould be the groups repsonability not just the tank.
  5. I really like this idea. and it can also be used with different crafts also. I think if they were to make different ingredients have different qualities e.g iron is good at reducing damage but is heavy and brittle then if you made a helmet with it you get +damage resist, -movement speed and its durability went down faster. You could also split crafting weapons for example into "material" and "design". examples of design can be standard longsword, northerners longsword, elegant longsword or lightweight longsword. the more you use that design it could reduce the chance of failing to make it. you could get designs from experimenting or you could buy them or find them. designs should make no difference to the stats just to the look of the item (just because it looks different doesn't mean it works any better of worse). examples of materials are iron, steel, gold, copper or tin. the more you use that metal the less chance of failing. now a "steel standard longsword" and an "iron standard longsword" might do the same damage but have different stats attributed to them. an "elegant steel longsword" and "northerners steel longsword" would have exactly the same stats but look different. Edit:- another idea! you could make the crafted items modular in design to add even more depth. so a longsword is made up of pommel, handle, hilt and blade so you have a steel blade, a pine handle, a gold hilt and a jade pommel, why not just put them together to make a sword! if each material used had different positive and negative attributes it could make for some interresting combinations. Also you could have different designs for each modular part so they look different also
  6. They haven't stated if it is a simple friendly fire on/off for everyone or if you get no friendly fire in groups or any other way that friendly fire works, which is why i have suggested a system that not only gives disadvantage to having massive zergs, it also gives the incentive to group up. I don't see my idea fitting in in every campaign, i see this as something that can be used along the middle campaigns, its a trade off between the people who want something less carebear but also for the people who aren't quite ready for all out friendly fire.
  7. So your suggestion is to limit rewards. The problem with that is that a large guild could still use a zerg to get the small rewards. There would be no individual reward but the its still helping their guild in the long run. Even though its been discussed has there been a difinitive answer? why not discuss it more as long as there are new ideas?
  8. Maybe it was the way I was explaining it, but i think Maxima, gets it. The organisational breakdown (thanks maxima for that term), is what my idea is actually based on. (sorry i prob didn't explain that part too well). Thats what makes my idea more then just friendly fire or not. Without the organisationaly breakdown how do you handle friendly fire? There are 2 options. 1) everyone gets hit at the same percentage, or 2) everyone who is not in your group/raid but are the same faction as you gets hit for the same percentage. if that is the case how do you apply that to the campaigns? full friendly fire is great for the dregs but that isn't very good for some of the friendlier campaigns where you wouldn't expect to get hit by your team mate. option 2 would be better for friendlier campaigns but that won't actually stop zerging because they would just join the same group/raid. My idea of organisational breakdown interracting with different levels of friendly fire provides a middle ground a little more dangerous then getting no friendly fire from groups but more dangeous then a full friendly fire campaign.
  9. So do you think setting up a scaleable friendly fire system before they start out, like i suggested above, as a good idea or do you think it won't work? Do you think it would be good to have the same amount of friendly fire for team mates as everyone else errelevent of campaign? Would you prefer that you get no friendly fire from team mates? I think that an adjustable friendly fire rule which can be changed per campaign will only add to the game.
  10. Still my idea is a way of addressing zergs in any campaign whilst promoting team play through varying levels of friendly fire. Its not a simple we need friendly fire suggestion, its an idea about having friendly fire but in a raid/team/group environment. You could say that your group gets 0% friendly fire because as a group you work well together. Also the values could be adjusted depending on the campaign.
  11. Zergs are not good for players because if you are in the zerg you steamroll everything in your way and that makes it boring, if you are against the zerg you stand no chance of winning so its boring, a co-ordinated group should be able to win against larger numbers of un-co-ordinated players and that type of play is more exciting. The easiest way to make it harder to zerg and introduce more strategy would be to introduce a friendly fire system so if the zerg is not co-ordinated has a chance to destroy itself but a system that isn't so punishing that it hurts large scale battles. Here is my idea of how it could work. You could make up a raid which contains 4 teams, each team could then be made up of 4 groups, each group could be something like 5 people. (numbers used just for examples). You could set it up so that everyone in your group gets 0% friendly fire. (4 people take no damage from you) You could then set it up so that anyone in your team but not in your group takes 25% friendly fire. (15 people take 25% damage from you) Then anyone in your raid but not in your team or group could take 50% friendly fire. (60 people would take 50% damage from you). Percentages used just for examples. If this system was in place, you could still have a large number of people fighting together but it would not be a zerg as you would need some kind of co-ordination to stop the raid damaging itself. You could reduce the friendly fire by simply creating a formation putting teams together to reduce friendly fire. Also it allows people to make more stratigic decisions. Do i send in the tanks then rain fireballs down on their front line... well no cos then the fireballs would take out our front line! Edit:- As some people have said below, that it has been stated about friendly fire. This idea is about varying amounts of friendly fire interracting with the way grouping works. I don't think that has been discussed, also remember its just an idea, not saying it has to be implemented, just giving something to think about. Edit2:- I don't see my idea fitting in in every campaign, i see this as something that can be used along the middle campaigns, its a trade off between the people who want something less carebear but also for the people who aren't quite ready for all out friendly fire.
  • Create New...