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

ledeir

Testers
  • Content Count

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ledeir

  • Rank
    Treepie

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    MA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,410 profile views
  1. Not that anyone cares about realism but I'll toss this out there anyway. One real world cow gives more than enough leather for a complete set of leather armor. A single short hunting trip should be enough to armor a person assuming they don't horribly butcher the assembly.
  2. I definitely agree with this... Re-leveling over and over just isn't fun. You shouldn't be sent back to 1 unless you opt in by choosing a new TYPE of vessel or choosing to start from scratch. (I also think white should cap at 10, and green should then start at ten.. but thats another story)
  3. Good points. I can think of engineering solutions to them though without seeing behind the curtain I don't know how viable they would be. For instance, we can treat gold as if it were a harvested resource (since technically it is at this point). Then it would simply be a matter of exchanging similarly tagged resources. As for stacking, you can query a database and group by any field, so they should be able to tell stacks to ignore owner. Or the stack itself could have a harvestedby dictionary (programming variable type) which stores the number of each harvestedby tag before it was combined. Of course that requires a bit more magic on the back end.
  4. Did you mean to say kills are linked to player skills as opposed to character skills? And I was just building off the existing system, they already track when a character kills another character... I say give the crafter whose gear is impacted points on a seperate leaderboard (which doesn't influence who wins the over all campaign) I don't think it will encourage griefing any more than the existing system. After all the crafter of the victim will get the same amount of points. As for exploiting, yes, it can fairly easily be exploited by having someone with armor you made being killed by someone with a weapon you made... Its easy enough to make sure both characters aren't owned by the same account... but they'd need to address the possibility for abuse somehow. I'll also agree, a point system is more MOBA than Crowfall.
  5. Definitely some hard holes to close. Any solution would require some sort of "harvested by" tag to be added to the items. My opinion, which hopefully won't start any wars, is this: - Add a tag to items for harvested by - When the item is used for a same faction crafting project (which covers most of the bullet points), give them some amount of points. - When resources are used for another faction, unless there is a non faction harvester leader board (such as I'd expect in the dregs), no points are gained. If there is a non faction score system, score as normal. - Anything sold for personal profit, destroyed before being used, or exported grants zero points. You are keeping the points for yourself as opposed to contributing to a victory. - Anything looted would have the harvested by field set to null. It was stolen and the killer already got points on the PVP leaderboard. Unless the goal of a campaign is to craft and deposit resources, I think both harvesters and crafters should have their own leaderboard not connected to winning. The goal of harvested resources is to be used. When it is used to craft something is when the harvester should get points. The goal of crafted items is also to be used. When it is used to advance campaign objectives is when the crafter should get points. The easiest way I see is for weapons and worn gear should be tied to the player kills/death leaderboard. The part I haven't figured out is if rune tool makers should get any points... As a runesmith, I'm inclined to say no, but that's mainly because I think it complicates the loop too much. That's my opinion, fire away!
  6. LOL. Your friends, didn't the devs already say they didn't know yet?
  7. What sort of bad ideas have they come up with? I'm curious to hear.
  8. Unless things have changed drastically, wouldn't win condition depend on the type of campaign? The current point scoring campaign is simply the easiest one... That being said, the way parcels are designed now, I don't think it would be much of a stretch for player made structures to start generating points like the preplaced keeps we currently have. Each parcel has a set number of slots, so provided the value is set on a parcel basis you can just divide the points up proportionally to address player made bases. IE: A parcel can hold 2 forts and is worth 100 points. That means each fort is worth 50 points if/when its built. See my comments above for free building... It seems like a simple leap from the existing pre-placed to free building... If I remember right, one of their goals is to build campaign worlds automatically based on twisting knobs... So those knobs should be able to handle variable structures. As for losers quitting, as someone who expects to be on the losing side regularly, I'll be in it for exported profit. Even if its a lower rate than if I won, it still is profit! But yeah... I can see people who are focused on the big picture leaving early.. (and that would certainly hinder my hunt for profit) I share this concern, as someone who expects to be on the losing side... Once the embargo system is in, its going to be really hard to continue on after a certain threshold leaves... I am very curious to see how they will handle scheduling of new campaigns in the future... I don't think its something we can even think about until we know what kind of player base there will be though... I like the leader board as well, so for me it serves no incentive or motivation until they decide how to handle crafters... Based on the way crafting is currently implemented they could give crafters points based on kills done with their weapons and deaths to those wearing their gear... (everything has a makers tag)... Of course that just raises the issue of how far down the component tree you trace it... Do you stop at the final crafter, or do you go all the way down to who harvested the original resources (assuming there is some sort of hidden harvested by tag) Hopefully someone has better ideas than I do! (And I'll send this now since there have been 2+ new replies so my comments may already be irrelevant)
  9. I'll agree its not "hand holding", but will disagree its abusing the system. To me, part of "git gud" for a guild is scheduling and organization. Guild leaders should take off hours into account. Its an international game, it would be strategic to make friends who can watch your back while you sleep. They also don't truly have the data to show when quiet times are... Pre alpha numbers really can't be used to judge "release" players. Once the game is truly live, we may end up with no quiet periods after all! People need to sleep, people have school/work, people live in different time zones. Its not the dev's job to impose a solution (unless they take the server offline daily), it falls to the players to deal with it. That's my stance That being said, if they take it further than time windows, and literally tie the points to the population at the time, then that's a brilliant idea. IE: each tick give points based on the active number of players online compared to the servers ideal number of players. it would be relatively simple math. That encourages people to play at the same time and depending on how its implemented it could also be used to discourage (or encourage) idling and/or zerging depending on the dev's vision. I'm not opposed to variable reward windows, I'm opposed to set time windows.
  10. If you are going to block off time, you might as well make the window 0300 to 1500. Most people should be in school or work from 0800 to 1500. Having time windows is just giving one group of players a handicap against another. It doesn't fit the "git gud " mindset either. Scheduling is an important part of tactics! It also punishes international guilds by saying some of their players are only worth half as much as others. Remember, they are open servers! I in the US can play in the UK if I want to. (And vice versa) What it really does is give a false sense of security. It's not going to stop me from grabbing easy points. If I'm lucky I'll still several hours at full points in addition to my 6 hours of half points. Siege mechanics are already there to encourage specific play Windows. We don't need more hand holding. (And I won't argue about reducing the number of outposts... I don't have a strong opinion there)
  11. I strongly feel having any windows like that is a bad approach. I can't vouch for European activity, but from a US perspective my computer time is usually between 20:00 and 03:00 EST at night. I'm sure I'm not the only night owl (at least based on the fact that there are always players online when I am). If I'm penalized for playing at my nighttime, I might as well ask for a refund. Also, if Europe is anything like the US, you have a fairly wide timezone spread for people trying to access the servers... Here in the US its 3 hours so that midnight to 6 AM window would likely be 9PM (primetime!) for the other coast. In my book, part of the challenge in a competitive online game is figuring out what to do when sleeping or at working. That being said, I don't feel strongly about your other points so I can't comment on them! I already touched on the "normal people sleeping" part... Playing on off hours is a viable strategy. Also, some people don't have choices about when they can play (family / work / etc). As for avoiding group fights, its a viable strategy for small guilds. If you know you are going to be outnumbered and lose its silly to fight. If I was a guild leader, I'd definitely make arrangements for a "sniping" or "scout" squad to grab us uncontested points... Its just playing smart. AND it encourages constant server activity as well. I'm pretty sure the devs said something to the effect of wanting players to be able to hop in for short play sessions at any time and still contribute to their factions victory. Sure, large scale events will be the main focus, but there's more than that! THIS! 100% THIS! Being active gives points. Let the harvesters and crafters contribute in their own way!
  12. Do we have any more detail on these so called free cities? I find it hard to believe that any place could be called 'safe'... Plus I've seen lots of people complaining about resource vendors...
  13. Just make sure to give us a few days warning, preferably through email, before live is back! I'm not overly interested in playing on test but I am looking forward to see how things have evolved since I last spent time on live.
  14. I agree, replacement is a bag of worms. Can't really comment on it without looking under the hood. Intellectually I can think of several implementations which would easily support it, but I can also think of ones which would make it impossible. As for sheen, repairs shouldn't be as good as the original. Flip the flag which disables experimentation and just use the straight stats. Provided the value is lower, overwrite anything which is directly modified. For durability simply add up the new durability to the existing durability, again, not exceeding the original value. (Key issue being whether than can practically identify what created what stats) As for the final combine... That's pretty much straight multiplication... Failure is x0, success is x100% (no change), amazing success is x200% or whatever. For repairs simply have amazing success be x99%, failure still 0 (item destroyed), and normal successes somewhere in between. Should be a simple if statement to allow that. This way, if you still want a top tier weapon you are going fresh, but if you don't care, you can get it patched. Repairs are less bang for your buck, but to some players completely worth it.
  15. We'd need to have the devs sound off, but I think it would be a lot easier than one might expect. Its not really any more complicated than crafting an intermediate weapon. Intermediate Weapon = Basic Weapon + Metal + Dust Enhanced Weapon would just = Existing Weapon + Part + Tax Resources There are only two complications to it. 1. Making sure you use the correct type of part for the weapon. This should be a trivial check. 2. What happens if you change a stat bonus with different materials. This depends on how things are currently implemented.
×
×
  • Create New...