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


ACE Development Partners
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PopeUrban last won the day on August 29

PopeUrban had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Language
  • Guild
    Flames of Exile
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Fort Wick

Recent Profile Visitors

4,210 profile views

PopeUrban's Achievements

  1. I don't think forts need to be on a window. In alpha 24/7 forts only lacked sufficient attack costs. We don't want another even flimsier objective we feel compelled to farm upgrades for. Just make it take sufficient cost and manpower to take over and repair and call it a day. If you want them to be easy come easy go actually make them easy come easy go. Let people gain conquest points expressed as a function of actually using the smaller objectives in stead of farming to upgrade them constantly, as that farming interferes with actually using them. Leave the "upgrade farm" objectives for the large organizations with scale big enough to make the farm bearable. How about this? Wooden fort walls: Can no longer be damage by weapons, require catapults. Catapult: Cheaper, but can not damage stone keep walls. Used to damage wooden fort walls. Made from ingots, timber, and boulders. (Can be obtained any time via pig runs) Trebuchet: More expensive, used to damage stone keep walls. Made as they are now. Large Fort: Two rings of wooden walls. The outer wall surrounds the perimeter and has archer towers (like the alpha forts) and the inner wall protects the lodge itself. 4x L2 crafting stations of a predetermined type, bank, hero statue. Superior parcel harvesting/farming buffs. Can be assaulted/claimed any time. Repair with building materials. Small Fort: Just one ring of walls, no archer towers, surrounts both the lodge and other buildings in the fort. 2x L2 crafting stations of a predetermined type, bank, respawn. Lesser parcel harvesting.farming buffs. Can be assaulted/claimed any time. Repair with building materials. Large Keeps: Unchanged. Still work on windows. The "Main event" of multi-keep mass warfare. Small keeps: Prevents additional keep claims. Can only claim one. Can not be claimed if you own a large keep. Work on windows. "main bases" for those too small to compete for the "main event" to establish a local area and conflict with other locals over forts, and outposts for their scores. Large outposts: Now contain a caravansary OR bank AND a buff. See notes on buffs below. Small outposts: Now contain a refinery OR buff. Buffs include god buffs as well as the buffs found in keeps. Use the same keep structure models in the design of these outposts. (AKA a "guard outpost" is a free standing guard building with a capture point inside) Rez outposts: No longer contain a bank. People use this to travel larger forces risk free around maps by sending scouts ahead to cap and then rezzing naked and collecting gear from bank. This should not be possible with something as easy to take as an outpost. Rez and bank should be two different outposts. World Banks: Removed. Repurpose art for bank outposts. If you want to bank, take an outpost. World Refineries: Removed. Repurpose art for outposts. if you want to turn in pigs or refine stuff, take an outpost or own a keep. Guard-only outposts: Removed. All outposts should have a purpose beyond "it gets points"
  2. Assembly stopped mattering as a stat the moment they let you just pay dust to fix failures with no other lasting penalty. Even if it did still matter, the 98% cap is so easily achievable without gear there's no reason to care about increasing the assembly stat.
  3. I own over six years of VIP. I don't care. Designing your game to be a pain in the ass unless you pay the "optional" subscription is still designing your game to be a pain in the ass. Crowfall is designed to be a pain in the ass from top to bottom even with that VIP. Anything that makes the game less of a pain in the ass is a good thing. "The game should keep sucking so I feel validated about buying VIP" is crab bucket logic that helps nobody.
  4. I have no feedback other than perhaps finish balancing combat, economy, and siege play to fix the basic problems with your core gameplay before applying mutators to it. I'm a big fan of getting campaign variants working but right now you have a game nobody wants to play because of baseline stuff like the state of the crafting grind or general combat balance. No number of mutators and weird campaign rules is going to convince people to stick around if they still find the core of your gameplay experience frustrating to interact with. As a design there's nothing much to say here as its is broadly just tech requests for features you sold us in kickstarter that are missing from the current game.
  5. All players in an active alliance should have a top hat and monocle
  6. Modifying the function of GR this way might give new players whiplash when confronted with the way keeps and siege equipment functions in real campaigns. Its one thing to phrase the current siege tutorial as a test range. Its another thing to present players with auto-spawning siege weapons and setting up an expectation for a behavior that does not resemble how siege weapons work. Giving players a thrill a minute rapid window map where there's always something going on only to later present them with the infrequent windows of the rest ofthe game is going to feel terrible. There isn't going to be much of anyone to fight in these GR objectives because there are no inherent rewards for doing so. Players will do them once for the quests and then go "oh, this is pointless" and thus the entire pvp element of these GR objectives remains null anyway. Players do not advance through PvP in crowfall, and thus there is no compelling incentive to engage in objective PvP in GR. The reason players engage in PvP in campaigns is because you have attached rewards to the objectives. In GR the only reward is the quest completion the first time they show up. This setup will feel bad for new players who have chosen "lets get right to the action" because they'll still find it nearly impossible to find any action due to the disposable nature of these objectives and rapid schedules. Nobody wants to stay in GR because you built GR to be unattractive to stay in. Who will these new players fight? Established players farming non-rarity items? That's not a very enjoyable NPE if your forum feedback on the subject is any indication. Pick one: Is GR a tutorial zone meant to learn the ropes before moving on or a place where you expect players to hang around and fight each other? If it is the first, ban experienced players from interfering with the learning experience and remove the PvP so they can quickly learn the core mechanics and move on. If it is the second, add rewards for its objective based play.
  7. Personally I find this way way less annoying than having to constantly switch in to and out of the harvesting tray. It happens pretty rarely and when it does I just kill the mob. Using the harvesting tray was a huge pain in the ass that you had to fiddle with constantly and I hated it when we had it. Better idea would be an option (in options) to turn on "sticky harvesting" which just made sure you stayed in harvesting mode as long as you are holding down leftclick. No annoying harvesting tray, no randomly swapping to combat because something stumbled under your reticle, but can still react to combat at a moment's notice just by releasing and then holding leftclick again.
  8. I think you know the answer to that.
  9. I'll just link the giant post I already made.
  10. Activity during vuln windows is not a problem. Activity during the rest of the day is the problem. Lack of activity at forts I think has a lot more to do with keep accessibility and low incentives to do forts if you don't think you can hold on to a keep. Kinda the same problem with pigs. People showing up to forts because they're bored, or just because the window is open is kinda the problem you need to solve there I think. I'd much rather see forts return to disposable cheap 24/7 minibases, but with better walls that need some siege to take down. That would make them compelling content outside windows, especially for people that aren't doing keep stuff, give them a reason to build and use some catapults, give keep owners a reason to not feel like they need to trundle all over every single map to every single fort since they wanna save siege for keep fights, but owning forts near their keeps that they can travel to from those keep quickly. Keeps have reasons for people to use them all day but forts not so much. Kind of a content black hole most of the time. If we embraced more of the old fort systems I think it would improve things all around. I really think its about territory and building systems that make that territory important and valuable and with stuff to do nearby. Then you're not also feeling like you need all this fast travel just to do anything cool.
  11. This is kinda what I was getting at in another thread when I pulled out starborne as an example of a month long campaign game that does this better. What you see in a game like starborne, dota, etc. is a competitive excercise that loops decision making about progression and economics as an integral part of the overall strategy of a match. Starborne is particulary interesting in this example as the pve, and indeed all the content in that game is literally just a math equation comparing fleet strengths and travel times. The way we use these faucets in similar "PvP with progression" mechanisms is as a high opportunity cost set of decisions. Do I research this building or that, do i retreat from lane to prevent feeding or stick it out to remain control? The progression in these systems is formatted as an important part of the match itself rather than something that exists outside of it, and as a result a large part of the game is players contesting things specifically to mess with the progression of the other players. Crowfall has this weird system where progression exists outside the match in the long form almost entirely, but has to be earned within the match at the expense of its other objectives for the most part. This is why I say its pulling players in two contradictory directions. The game wants you to care about campaign goals, but also requires you to do things designed to feed loops that exist outside those goals as a prerequisite to remain prepared for them. Running pigs or doing a fort or farming for keep gold is progression that's part of the match at an organizational level, and one which must be repeated each campaign, but doing those things if placed behind a series of personal progression or gear replacement gates that persist through campaigns. So players who want to jump in and do the primary pvp loop feel frustrated they have to jump through all these hoops, and players who actually just wwant to do the progression long form system feel frustrated the primary pvp loop is formatted in a way that seems to interfere with that. I'm with you on this one and would like to see them choose "the game is about campaigns" and iterate the design in that direction, but many people on the forums, having encountered the game in its release incarnation or just having come from other games with a different set of expectations want a separate experience. Can ACE make both camps happy with campaign variants? Are they really even looking that deeply at this primary rift in their design as the game's central problem? It honestly doesn't seem like they get what the issue even is.
  12. The primary advantage of the passive training from crowfall specifically was that it took progression out of active play, meaning that all active play was about what the game was theoretically supposed to be about, winning campaigns. Like EVE, you never harvested and crafted to make throwaway items, but in stead every moment spent doing those activities was only ever done to make items or farm resources people actually used. EVE, over a decade of iteration, has landed on a pretty damn good system by making that training more about horizontal than vertical progression. Crowfall's passive training was a number of very long and purely vertical progression paths so in stead of "I can choose to be really good at making just swords quite fast but older players will be able to make a large variety of items of excellent quality" it was in stead "I need to spend 6 months passively training blacksmithing to make literally anything of value" If you want to be a miner in EVE, or a crafter in EVE, you can start making or harvesting things of real value that even players who've been around for years will happily pay you for on day one. That's the difference between a passive training system designed to remove grind, and a passive training system that just gates progress. When you have low end trained characters that can actually produce things people want to buy, they actually have a means to buy stuff they can't make from people trained to do thing they aren't, and "catching up" isn't needed just to have access to those higher end items. Albion does a good job at this as well, with its hybrid passive/active system. Low quality items are required to make higher quality ones so low level harvesters and crafters have a valuable product from day one, and there's a time based resource players have a limited recharge rate of that makes higher end crafters want to buy those low end items so they can use that resource to in stead product high end items. The problem there isn't so much that passive training as a concept is bad. It actually allowed us to log in every day and go "what do we want to do today for campaign goals or gear replacement" The problem was that the designers at ACE didn't stop to think "why did we want to do passive training in the first place" and "how can we harness its strengths and fix the weaknesses in our current system" The problem was that they built a strictly vertical hierarchy of item qualities that makes low end products obsolete to anyone that can use higher end products, so that lower skilled players weren't just less efficient or producing less valuable stuff, but literally useless. For all the effort put in to the complexity of the harvesting and crafting system, virtually no thought at all was put in to how that system worked or didn't work to establish a trade economy, and the effects of that are still evident in the current active system.
  13. Sure. My point is that the 20% number is not outlandish and entirely feasible, not that it is the word of god. In turth without a detailed look at the metrics it is difficult to say. IIRC from writing a class paper the average player psychology for MMOs in general was something like only 24% of players use pvp as their primary rather than supplementary content and something like 48% of players will never willingly engage in PvP if there is an option to evoid it entirely. Point being crowfall having essentially garbage content if there is nobody around to fight is a pretty big problem for the game, and has historically be a failing of many sandbox games. The one that seem successful, like EVE or Albion seem to be successful because they built some pve game loops to engage players when they're not in a fight with other players. EVE has missions, plexes, filaments, etc. Albion has dungeons which do a pretty decent immitation of a normal top down ARPG in terms of pve mechanics. Of all the PvP focused games that had any measure of success, they all seemed to have a pretty fleshed out pve element capable of grabbing bears as well as entertaining pvp players when they're either forced to retreat or just unable to currently find a fight, and that content being engaging rather than a chore has the knock on effect of pulling people in to the world so that a fight can come to them. Crowfall's PvE is not something I would describe as interesting or fun. It's functional, but mostly just mobs spamming attacks that present no real threat to the player, and offer little in the way of compelling rewards or experiences. its most just asian grinder tier content. Go to mob camp, grind easy mobs, maybe sometimes there's a harder mob you need healers for. The only think in the game that really passes as a PvE mechanic is templar bosses. There was a time right about when animals got all their special attacks that PvE was actually really dangerous and pulling even three elk could get you in serious trouble if your armor was bad or they were too high rank. I thought that was a much more interesting game, but most people just complained that mobs should be punching bags because "its a PvP game" I think this concept of "its a PvP game" is really really fighting with "but its an MMO" You have DOTA creep level mob AI, but you have to farm them or hit inanimate rocks as the game's primary activity. You have campaign systems that say "go, do the things, fight other players!" but fighting those other players is gated behind doing tons and tons of farming of that boring content. I know its maybe a wild idea but, like, if you have harvesting and killing mobs as the thing you expect players to do for like 90% of your game's content, maybe doing those things should feel fun and rewarding even if nobody ever shows up to kill you.
  14. Believe it or not this used to be the case. Wartribe gear was added in response to open beta testers complaining that it was too hard to gear up. In stead of making gear easier to craft ACE decided to add gear to drop tables and invented war tribes so it had something to drop from. When people complained about passive training making it too hard for new players to catch up to old ones ACE replaced passive training with the current system of RNG disc grinds. These are both good examples of ACE pivoting to whatever is the "MMO standard" without considering how it impacts all the other elements of the game in stead of trying to refine the design already in place to address its flaws, and ultimately building ystems that contradict the initial design as a result. Passive training making it hard for newbies? Don't try to fix it to give newbies useful things to do and make. Just replace it with grinding low level items and tons of xp and gold because that's the "standard MMO system" Gear too hard to get for new players due to crafting interdependence and low harvesting yields? Don't try to adjust interdependence or harvesting yields, just put crafted-level gear on mobs because that's the "standard MMO system"
  • Create New...