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


ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by PopeUrban

  1. I think mostly the implications come down to how the discs and traits rework plays out. When we had these shutdown style counter discs and could conjure up discs from thin air you guys rightly looked at the situation and realized that a system of hard counters combined with an ability to effortlessly swap to a desired set of counter abilities on demand created a huge incentive to constantly swap those discs. If the redesign doesn't give players these kinds of incentives then there's probably not much of a reason to limit the swapping. The thing I can see being a problem is one that you already addressed in passives. There is a limited amount of space on the combat bar and so everything on it needs to compare really well against all options available to a template. If the design still has super niche skills like rez, a skill that only cleanses poison, a bard song that's really only useful out of combat, a type of barrier that is only effective against a specific damage type, etc. allowing those swaps in the field is going to have the same issues if those skills have to compete for that bar space with more general purpose abilities. I commend the move toward auto-passives but when it comes to active skills this is obviously not an option if bar space is intended to constrain player power to a limited selection of possible combat tools, and as such the fate of extremely situational or low impact abilities is in question. If, however, you're ahead of this curve and have already remedied this in the redesign then it doesn't seem like it would be a problem. For instance if the bard song was actually useful in combat, or the rez switched states to a combat heal when in combat, or the poison cleanse also functioned as a poison damage buff, etc then they'd stack up much better when fighting for bar space and allowing people to swap in the field wouldn't be as much of an issue.
  2. Pay to Win is like pornography. Its hard to define but you know it when you see it.
  3. I'm in favor of all of this, including the zoom. I don't feel that the close in camera really does very much to enhance gameplay, and it actively works to make participating in sieges more confusing than it has to be without the ability to get a further out 3/4 down facing view.
  4. Just make a taunt active skill minor that adds 999999999 to threat in an AOE and a fade active skill minor that removes you from all monster threat lists. Problem solved, and has a minor cost so people have to pay a little opportunity cost for specializing in this kind of regimented pve.
  5. Every time they don't wipe passive training, or speed it up is a time they aren't getting feedback about the impact of passive training rates, unlock order, and a derth of other features. Remember when we had to skill up in to learning new recipies? That model was abandoned in direct response to a passive skill wipe revealing a critical weakness in the early leg of the skill system. They've revamped the system and we are nearing a base feature complete alpha. The time to kick the can down the road in terms of skill training evaluation is over. We need a full reset with release scale training in order to determine if having no skills and training them at release rates is actually fun or if it needs to be modified. I don't like getting skill reset either but we've been mentally blocking out balancing these issues for a long time and we can't do it forever. if 1x is too slow for we bittervets, its also too slow for a new player and it needs to be adjusted. Setting that training rate and assigning the order of those trains to make that curve something that doesn't feel like a huge barrier to play is important and essential to the NPE.
  6. You are mistaken. A Vm is spooled up when the owner clicks launch Ek from the menu. Only after it is spooled up can the owner or any other player enter the EK. The primary difference here is that this creates a risk, if the functionality were expanded to players other than the owner, of players just going down a list of eks and spinning all of them up, because it it not a function of joining the EK. If it WERE a function of joining an EK this would not be an issue, and very little would change from the current system aside from the annoyance of needing the owner to be around to access an EK that houses your stuff. It would take longer to load in to eks that are currently offline (as they would need to mount and then load in in steead of just loading in to a live server) but this mirrors the current functionality with less clicks, less interface confusion, and greater effective access to EKS as anyone with permissions to access an EK would also have the ability to spin it up upon entering it and no player could simultaneously spin up multiple eks since any time a player is initiating an ek going live they're in a load screen and thus incapable of spinning up a second or third empty ek. This would also remove all incentives to AFK in an EK, and may actually reduce overall server load for EKs for this reason. The only drawback would be longer Ek load times when you're loading in to (and thus mounting) a completely empty EK. Even with this issue the mount times are trivial compared to the number of eks that exist and the number of players who need access to them.
  7. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Playable Giant Spiders Not spider centaurs with human bits. Spiders the size of a horse wearing armor with blades attached to their forelegs. Can only wield legblades (literally just blades attached to leg armor) can not eat food, must in stead kill and consume wildlife in a skinning-like minigame. Can climb nonmagical walls (so no forts or keeps) but is too heavy to jump. Like centaurs, may not mount, but may activate a mounted state. Spiders may be Myrmidon, Champion, Or Druid
  8. And yet paperback and hardcover books both still exist. Explain to me why people should have to visit EKs to shop. EKs are supposed to be an entirely optional system. There is no mandate that players own the highest traffic market hub by default, nor that people who paid in for massive tax free EKs are owed the startup cost reduction to sieze market dominance based upon IRL money spent. Compete with the disorganized and unreliable GR by providing superior experience. For anyone not already in GR your Ek shop is actually less loading screens to access.
  9. Assuming Eks worked sensibly this would be easy. Currently there is no automated method to spin up EKs like you see in most instanced housing systems, which is why its such a pain to use them. If spinning up an Ek was a function of trying to enter it, and shutting it down was a function of having nobody left in it, stitiching them together with runegates wouldn't really require any additional server load. Everyone seems to have this sense of EKs like they need to be online and incurring AWS fees all the time to be available. You can have an infinite number of available EKs if you remove the whole concept of manually onlining them and make turning them on as transparent and activity dependant as turning them off.
  10. I have always really liked this implementation of environmental stealth and would be happy to see it in crowfall. Perhaps it could be a unique feature of a future "deep woods" biome, which would contain a lot of overgrowth and brush. I know Todd has said he wants biomes to have unique functionality that makes them play differently from one another in stead of just being cosmetic reskins.
  11. The power and cooldown of the abilities on offer is balanced around the limited tray selection. Tray space is a part of character building, because tray space equates to versatility and power. Each spot on the tray is one more cooldown you have access to. Choosing a class with multiple combat trays, taking a discipline that grants more trays, or picking one of the races that grant extra ability bar space are all deliberate parts of the design. You are intended to have more abilities than you can use at any given time, and this design is responsible for the way cooldowns and power effects are designed.
  12. I don't understand why they can't coexist. There are only a limited number of vendor slots in GR, and the purpose of GR is to train new players for what a campaign looks like. Campaigns have vendors and free cities.
  13. We got a professional over here. Watch out ACE, he coming for ya.
  14. If it works like the assassin dart it doesn't actually display your shield IIRC. Haven't tested that in a while though so I could be mistaken. They do actually destealth you when they time out if there's something in the blast radius unless that was changed recently. It this is not the current case, then great job ACE! Under this change you can not just restealth. You need to wait out the in combat timer to re stealth, and you're stuck moving at combat speed for the entire time. That's my entire point. Its a nerf to a mechanism that is already effectively nerfed until we have some new tech to stealth static objects like Blair mentioned last time we talked about it. The situations in which stacks of traps are effective, ever since they got the new models are limited to around corners or if I can physically pull/knock people in to them. Also occasionally at the tops of ladders if you can hit the sweet spot where they don't sink through the floor. The "certain situations" brig traps are useful as traps in are laughably narrow and that's my entire point. Its interesting you call them bombs rather than traps because that better describes their function. They're not traps. They don't work as traps. They can't be used to trick or trap anyone. Druids are better at setting up and executing traps than brigands are and druids have to manually detonate their traps! If that's not an indictment of how poor these proximity traps are at their core function I don't know what is. Thats the core problem with traps that this is making even worse. Their effectiveness is entirely determined by the enemy, not the brigand, and that counterplay requires no special build or skill to execute. See trap, walk around trap, or pop trap with ult. Done. Now my enemy has even more control over me because of my defining class feature. Now they can not only walk around the trap, they can use it against me as a de facto snare at a later point in the fight of their choosing. This change makes my own combat skills more dangerous to me. Unless I'm missing something that can't be said of any other template. Only brigands. Assassins and duelists have built in escape and restealth tools. Brigands do not. They're also not any tankier than assassins or duelists, and in many cases they're less tanky. They also have glacial stealth speed for reasons I still don't understand. "As a wood elf" only covers wood elves. Brigands are not a wood elf subclass. They're a ranger subclass. I play a human brigand specifically because stealth makes up for the loss of mobility, the base stats are tankier, I have more slots on the crowded melee tray, and candle makes for a nice bow auto damage buff. Minos are also completely viable brigands due to their stun immunity and racial synergy with the ranger ult. Assuming that all rangers are or should be wood elves is a frankly terrible way to view ranger balance. Try playing a human or mino brigand that can't blink 40 meters away in 2 seconds and then come back and tell me this change isn't a big deal. All I'm asking for is some basic level QoL for the much maligned brigand while the rest of the stealth subset of builds is getting some basic QoL as a result of this change. Being able to stealth while a DoT is running isn't that useful to a template that moves as slowly as the brigand does while stealthed. Or just don't make trap detonation trigger combat mode on its own at the very least so we're not WORSE off, but just at the same level of awkward middling completion that we were before.
  15. PopeUrban


    Yes, people that play the game twice as much would have an advantage. How that seems unfair to you still baffles me. I'm not "suspended" from Netflix if I choose to cancel my account. That's on me, not Netflix.
  16. PopeUrban


    I would say that it is not the league's responsibility to ensure his competitive ability. It is the league's job to enforce fair rules of play for those still on the field. That professional athlete is literally not participating, and how that effects his teams competitive ability is not the responsibility of the league to fix. Its the responsibility of the team to fix and plan around. The league's job is to ensure that when players take to the field they do so playing by the same rules. The league's job is not to ensure that when your star quarterback is suspended for assault that you get a replacement QB, nor is it to hire him a lawyer so he can get arraigned faster and get back on the field. That's on you, the team's owner. That disadvantage was not "inflicted" upon him by the league. It was inflicted by the player's own circumstances, or simply be unfortunate accident. This is a realm beyond the responsibility of the league in the same way the fate of players that stop making the agreed upon trade of money for access isn't the responsibility of a game developer. Those people have effectively "left the store" and are no longer your responsibility. When you're running a free to play game, however, you DO have a responsibility to the people playing without subscription because they're still playing your game, on your platform, and you're still considering them your customers because you are literally trying to sell them whatever optional stuff the people better off than them have. They're still "in the store" and as such its still your responsibility to treat them like customers. This isn't a difficult concept to understand and I know you're being contrary just to be contrary, so I'm going to TLDR this and stop here. We both agree on the preferred outcome and this has devolved in to a circle of you you orbiting the point which everyone else agrees upon just to feel the wind in your hair. And its a lovely head of hair Jah. It really is. You're a treasure. TLDR A binary pay-for-access system is designed to create binary user levels. You either are or not a user of a game or specific expansion content. Thus all users are operating from the same level of status and spending additional money can not elevate their competitive profile. They are either paying to be in the game, or not in the game. How you measure up to other players is a direct result of your actions and whether or not you can access the game. You are participating in a system designed to be fair that is designed to offer a player the opportunity to make a simple trade of money for video game until they don't want to play the video game any more. A tiered system is designed to create tiered user levels. Your status level and the status levels of those around you are assigned based upon your financial investment. All users are not operating from the same level of status by design, as the goal of said system is to deliberately engender a sense of annoyance and disadvantage in those of lower status. You are deliberately either stronger, weaker, or equivalent with other players regardless of your actions or ability to access the game by design. You are participating in a system DESIGNED to be unfair in order to annoy people with its unfairness until the spend money out of pure frustration.
  17. PopeUrban


    You can not be "inflicted" with a disadvantage in a competition you are literally not participating in.
  18. PopeUrban


    Simply wanting to play the game does not make you a competitor. I want to play NFL football and make 4 million dollars before I tear my ACL and develop a heavy coke habit and die on the toilet. That doesn't make me a professional football player, a coke addict, or an elvis impersonator. I am not prepared to meet the requirements to compete, which are "be awesome at football, know coke dealers, and own a toilet" If the requirements to compete are "pay money" then that's that. You either pay the money or you are a literal non factor. You are not a customer nor a competitor. You don't exist in this context. You do not have a voice in this conversation. If the requirement to compete is "exist" then you matter to competitive balance, and your voice that says "why am I a second class citizen" matters in this conversation. Paying to PLAY is not analogous to paying for an advantage over other people.
  19. PopeUrban


    Also known as "not playing the game" Your argument is literally that they are entitled to access because they at one point in history played the game and have characters and loot, regrdless of whether or not they are using them. You're positing that a chess tournament in which all participants pony up an entry fee is less fair than a chess tournament in which everyone can enter for free but those that pay a per match fee get a second queen. One of these is obviously a "fair" competition where the rules always uniformly apply to all players. The other is a competition purposely designed to feign the appearance of fairness while creating a clear disadvantage for some of the players. You can't be disadvantaged if you're not actually playing. I'm glad we both agree that the more fair option is the binary one.
  20. The thing is, this assumes I intended the trap to trigger at the moment it triggers. Assassins and duelists can't "accidentally" become unstealthed. It is a deliberate and direct attack action, or requires the opponent to use a specific targeted ability. Trap unstealthing requires the opponent to walk. The way Brigand traps work, I place them, whicle stealthed, everyone can see them. I have a mental picture of how I want this to play out, but I have no control over the result. My agency is now over. If my target does not hit those traps they are now brightly lit 'unstealth and slow that guy down" switches waiting to be used by my opponent without my consent, or ticking timebombs waiting to put me tin to combat when a random wolf strolls over them, or they simply time out. Brigands don't control when their traps trigger. Their enemies do. This makes brigands uniquely negatively effected by this change. I would actually prefer the version where the brigand appears every time they place a trap as any time anyone could see me place a trap from stealth already invalidates my stealth due to the trap being a big glowy thing appearing out of nowhere. Can we just do that? Make brigands visible while setting traps so they don't destealth me when they trigger? No offense but they were already borderline unusable as traps due to pinpointing the stealther when deployed and revealing the stealther when triggered, and this change makes them even more of a liability. Left over traps don't just destealth at random, but now they're going to slow my move speed and prevent me from harvesting too. Like I'm still having trouble seeing what your vision of traps actually is. Do you actually want brigands to use traps as traps? Like to set fields of traps to surprise opponents and harass people? Its already practically impossible to surprise people with them and now you're removing the ability to use them to harass as well by cutting the brigand's ability to kite with survival tray.
  21. PopeUrban


    That''s not an opinion, that is a fact. They literally quit the game. Why they quit the game doesn't matter. They have exactly as much effect on the game as my mother, who is over 60 years old and makes quilts in stead of playing video games. When you stop playing a game you are very much no longer part of its competitive environment. Whether its because you can't afford a sub, had a kid, or literally died in real life. I have stopped playing a ton of games with and without required subs for reasons including sub fees, college, personal relationship changes, poorly made socksty patches, and so on. The optional sub creates an environment, quite deliberately, creates a caste system. There are some players more important than others. A binary b2p or required sub has only one caste, and that caste is "playing the game" No one is entitled to access the game. The assumption that they are is willfully dismissing the basic fundaments of this discussion. The discussion is about which model of access results in a more equitable experience for those actually playing the game.
  • Create New...