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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About emmgee

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

618 profile views
  1. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I submitted an issue via the support link on the main page. The representative emailed me with additional questions. When I try to reply to the email (support@traviangames.freshdesk.com) I get the following auto response. Therefore I am unable to respond to the rep. Hello and thanks for reaching out. This is an automatic response as you’re contacting us via a “No Reply” mail address. If you’re looking for help or have questions contact us via the given contact and help form of your chosen game. You can always find these on our official pages. Thank you Your Support Team
  2. EKs only give rank 1 basic resources.
  3. If I'm a vassal and I have a vendor set up in someone else's EK, and I get kicked, what happens to that vendor and its inventory? Does the upkeep/billing still cycle?
  4. Do defensive buildings take up both types of tokens? Like can a Tower, for example, take a M defense slot AND a M building slot (since its a building and not something like a gate)
  5. The skill tree itself is not changing, the changes are mostly to the interface.
  6. Is it possible to get a rough idea of what major systems are planned to be implemented before soft launch? I'm sure you have something planned internally, but I understand if that can't be shared at this point.
  7. It's really hard to define fun in the version of the game we have now, especially for a genre like this that relies on a player-driven economy and an active population, and overall lacking in tutorials and polish. Right now we're just testing systems, not the full game loop. Regardless, we can still discuss what the game should look like going forward. Mentioned a couple times in this thread is the idea of risk and how it applies to PvP. GW2 WvW was brought up a couple times in this thread as an example of a low-risk game that is boring. I agree, the mode as it is now is functionally a week-long deathmatch/objective game where there is little personal or group risk, and the main draw is zerging in groups capping objectives in order to get participation points to spend on various rewards. It doesn't matter if your faction loses all its territory, hell the game-theory maximal strategy is akin to letting the different factions circle around the map, capping each others bases over and over to maximize these points. You don't even have to fight anyone apart from NPC guards. On the other side of the coin you have a game like EVE, which is full-loot and you are fundamentally unsafe while doing almost any activity in space. There is a large amount of group risk as well, holding and protecting your space is vital and having enemies capture your station can lock you out of any ships and material you've stored there. However this has eventually led EVE to a risk-averse playstyle, were often the correct choice is not to fight unless you are nearly assured of victory. There is little reason to risk capital ships and other huge assets in fights that aren't critical to the defense of your alliance's assets. Most 'roaming' or fun fleets head out in disposable, cheap ships to limit their risk if they get blown up. While the lack of risk, and risk-aversion plays a role, not the end-all be-all. I often think of the massive popularity of FPS, battle royales, and MOBAs, which are essentially risk and progression free, and yet boast some of the most active communities. What can we learn from this? I think it boils down to one thing - Fighting battles must be the optimal choice in most circumstances. GW2 failed by not making fighting battles the optimal path to gain rewards. EVE fails by making battles so costly the correct choice is not to fight unless you know you can win. MOBAs tend to have good synergy between objectives and player interaction, and they feed into eachother - killing players over and over leaves them behind in gold and levels, and also takes them out of the fight for a time. This makes capturing objectives such as towers easier. There's also 'competitive PvE' in the laning stage, as the primary objective in that phase of the game is to gain gold, but you must balance that with harassing the enemy and denying them the same. Victory conditions should be dynamic and encourage conflict. Avoid having static assets such castles and keeps involved directly in victory conditions, instead they should mainly serve as bases to launch offensives from and used to defend and collect local resources. Having multiple objectives spread over the map, that change or move as time goes on, can aid against zerging and turtling. The original 'bloodstone tree' concept could be modified to support this paradigm. Denying resources and killing players should provide some tangible rewards. This is important to solo/small group players or outnumbered factions that might not have the strength to be able to directly contest objectives. Killing players and collecting skulls can gain you xp via the sacrifice mechanic, however this needs a campaign-focused benefit as well. Perhaps sacrificing enough enemy skulls to your god gives your team a buff, or summons an avatar that goes rampaging towards enemies, etc. I really like the idea of adventure parcels too, and besides just general loot, maybe you can capture the spider queen and enlist its underlings. All of these systems should synergize, providing benefits to both the individual player and their faction, while still contributing to the overall campaign.
  8. I really like the Crow, Vessel, and Skills systems in broad strokes, however there's still some tweaking that can be done. I'm a longtime EVE player so the system comes naturally to me. I also like the Crafting, this is the first game I've played since SWG that has the right approach to crafting. I feel that Crowfall's secret sauce will be the campaign system. Every other PVP-based MMO I've played were either too arena-based to develop longer-term strategies and wargames, or fell victim to stagnation or risk-aversion. If they can do this right (and it won't be trivial), they will have a true winner. The idea of having vessels in multiple worlds, from short smash-and-grab campaigns to month-long slugfests, where you get to experience the 'fresh start' of exploring an unknown and dangerous world over and over really excites me.
  9. I still have to attempt to log in several times on the main website before it 'carries over' to the forums.
  10. emmgee

    F2A reward

    I've played several mmos that have minor rewards for this - FF14 gives you a cheaper teleport, DFO gives you a free potion every day, etc. Maybe something minor like a small tax discount in your EK. The main reward should be a secure account.
  11. I think shorter campaigns will actually be important to the game. Something around a week long with heavier import/export conditions compared to an equivalent number of long campaigns. There's a couple reasons I think they could work: Getting your feet wet. A weeklong campaign could serve as a decent tutorial to crowfall or a specific ruleset. Maybe a guy that usually does God War wants to step into dregs, but doesn't want to commit to 90 days of a campaign if he is unsure he will enjoy the ruleset. A new player might try a weeklong campaign in 3 different worlds before making a longer commitment to a world. To tide over people between longer campaigns. Perhaps you just finished a 90 day stint, but there's no campaigns open that you want to join. The shorter campaigns can serve to fill-in for people who are inbetween longer stints. Perhaps you just joined a guild that has two weeks left in its current map, and thus you can join some weeklies in the meantime. Or there's a big campaign opening in a week, but you need to farm up a couple key resources to prepare for it. Serves people with unique time commitments. Its spring break , summer, or you took a week off of work and you can really put some time into a shorter campaign, but in a longer one you would miss too much of it due to IRL obligations. It could also be where some of the more casual and EK-focused players spend time. Proving grounds. ACE intend to release new rulesets as the game goes on, so maybe the shorter campaigns are where they try out different and novel campaign ideas. So they could serve double duty as experimental rulesets and a more laid back experience.
  12. The store bought items can only be used in the EK. So you won't be killed unless you turn on pvp in your ek.
  13. Item degradation is a pretty important function for the economy to work, so I'm kind of wary of any sort of repair skill, even if it has a chance to break the item. If it must be added, I'd prefer a system similar to SWG where the repair reduces the max durability of an item. So repairing a sword at 1/100 dura would turn it into 40/40 for example. The durability penalty must be harsh enough and expensive to encourage players to make new items over constantly repairing old ones - repair should be a last resort. Edit: to keep crafters in the loop, perhaps the repair tools themselves should be crafted. but it should still generally be more expensive than making new items, and only used perhaps in the field for emergencies.
  14. But it is a tax. As presented, there's no inherent advantage to having ammo. You don't see champions and confessors begging to have some ammo-like mechanic added for them as well. And it doesn't function as a 'ranged tax' if mages are exempt from it. And the 'realism' argument doesn't mean anything. This is a game, not a simulation. From what little information we have know, it seems like ammo is the price rangers pay in exchange for a full suite of both melee and ranged skills.
  • Create New...