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

PopeUrban

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    2,068
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by PopeUrban

  1. Exercise discretion, but never restraint my son.
  2. @vkromas Higher quality materials should create *harder to assemble* potions that allow you to *experiment for additional effects* Alchemy does not need more freebies. Alchemy needs more uses for its assembly and experimentation stats. I'm going to stick with noncombat effects as our recent alchemy stream said alchemy will be limited to noncombat effects until combat balance is finalized. Off the top of my head: All harvesting potions should have experimentation lines for plentiful harvest chance, tool decay reduction, and weak spot chance. Everything a tool can do, a potion should also be able to do. Advanced dust potion with a base 5% dust chance in addition to the above experimentation lines, made from advanced materials. It is ridiculous that I have a bank full of real materials and need to go farm slag, cobble, and knotwood to make dust potions when I'm a master alchemist. Gem/Mineral potions should have an experiment line for their drop chances. Slaying potions: For additional damage reduction and damage application to various mob types (ex. boar meat, mushrooms, dust, and flask for "potion of Boar slaying" or Metal+relic+water+flask for "Potion of Urgu Slaying" Experiment lines for damage/resistance. Potion of Restoration: All-in one bandage and food. Restores health over time and food meter in one item, can extend food buff duration. Requires food+plants+water+flask. Experiment lines for health per tick (to make the HoT shorter than a bandage for the same 3k hp) food restoration, and food buff duration. Tinctures: Non-stacking effects from crafting minors, experiment for number of crafts (a consumable alternative to crafting minors like helper monkey) Move the crafting buffs from the current crafting disciplines over to potions, expecting people to take majors for stat buffs now that recipies are free is bad. Noxious Philter: Belt slot equipment - Releases poison cloud on death. Experiment for durability. Druids may not equip such an unnatural thing. Grants other classes access to a "death bomb" style effect similar to druids. Universal Solvent: Used in "Dissolve Item" and "Acidic Arrow" recipes. Dissolve item: Uses universal solvent and any item to convert that item to stackable xp dust of the appropriate rarity for sacrifice purposes. Allows stacking of large amounts of banked sacrifice xp without tearing up bank space. Is a more granular and marketable commodity. Acidic Arrows: Flask+arrow shafts+Universal Solvent, Allows creation of acid filled vial tipped arrows that deal siege damage. There is no acid quiver. Enables backline classes to participate in knocking down walls with weapons, or for players that can take bow discs a way to spec in to ranged siege damage.
  3. We've played NA balance since before you lot left order at the start of the trials and took the landscaping off our hands. We'll probably still be playing NA balance when you leave as well. You really shouldn't drink on the job. Its very unprofessional.
  4. Please refrain from smashing anything. These buttons were built by the lowest bidder and our warranty only covers gentle fondling. We are always accepting applications.
  5. Authorizing a device or even an IP with 2fa would be rad.
  6. According to the developers the reason we don't have guild banks is because the current implementation of storage is stored in the player record. Lack of guild banks or shared storage was never a design intent. it was just a matter of how they built the quick and dirty banking system because they weren't ready to prioritize a finalized version of storage yet. Storage is being reworked to be independent from the player record and we will have guild banks possibly as early as 6.0, as well as many other forms of shared storage. They want us to be able to store things and used shared storage. Its just too costly in the current system to add large shared banks because every bank exists on the player record, which would mean if you have one 500 slot guild bank, you are setting aside data table space on every single character for an extra 500 slots of inventory just to make it work, or adding another 500 slots to track to every account if you use the existing spirit bank tech. Its really just a matter of it not being finished yet moreso than a deliberate design.
  7. I'm, going to treat 'harvester" "crafter" and "combatant" as unique people in this situation even though that isn't true, simply to illustrate my point. That idea is largely a fallacy as most players don't fit so cleanly in to one box. Vendors are primarily a tool of crafters, and crafters are the midpoint that stays in a safe place whilst combatants and harvester risk their neck in the world. Crafters need resources and drops, and output crafted items. Combatants and harvesters really shouldn't be expected to also run vendors, as they already have intrinsic gold sinks built in to gear and tools. Vendors are the crafter's primary gold sink, and as such it makes sense that they rather than the harvester should be the ones paying handling the vendor fees for the transactions of base materials. This approach also allows everyone involved a much more directed method of interaction, and buy orders in games like SWG and EVE were instrumental for the purpose of ensuring harvesters and crafters could efficiently supply each other's needs in a passive economy. buy orders in this situation effectively place the crafter at the center of the trade economy in the same manner that the crafter is at the center of the crafting economy, determining the needs for both loot and resources on a single platform and serving as a single stop point for buying and selling means everyone can fulfill these roles far more efficiently. Crafters really shouldn't be shopping for materials and loot. They should be shoping to see what other crafters are paying for those materials and loot, or shopping for components they need from other crafters. Every crafter's goal should be to be the default stop for their customers and suppliers rather than crafters feeling the need to supply themselves. Every harvester and combatants goal should be to find the best gear and get the bet prices for their loot and mats. Buy orders for base materials and loot accomplishes both of these and puts some much needed grease on the wheels of the economy while still ensuring bargain hunting and exploitation of limited markets can flourish.
  8. You consistently drop GW2 in these conversations, APE. I have a LOT of experience with GW2. More than I'd like to admit. GW2 is a game which has consistently thrown its PvP community under the bus and struggles to update either of its PvP modes because trying to maintain what is essentially three separate games at once is a massive strain on resources even for a team with the full backing of NCsoft. The PvP is so bad in fact that after a single season it was literally removed from the esports world entirely because professional players from other games were using it to farm easy tournament money, despire ArenaNet investing poorly made socksloads of time and money in to promoting GW2 as "competitive" and chasing the esports crowd. They also tried to add a MOBA mode, which went nowhere. The WvW system hasn't fared any better. The population for WvW is so atrocious and its risk/reward so lax that its most common use is to... circle stand to farm for pvp skins to use on their pve characters or farms karma or xp for pve characters because its braindead easy. Not to mention GW2 has been bleeding staff and tis player base at an alarming rate over the past two years because its design is ultimately unsustainable given that its ingame advancement model is based around cosmetics, which is then fails to add to its content updates in any significant amount, opting in stead to keep loading them in to the cash shop. GW2 found out the hard way that attempting to make three separate games at the same time, even with ludicrous amounts of resources and an involved community that seems to want those things doesn't work out. That's why the lion's share of their updates now address the only portion of their community which could be considered "healthy" which is the PvE community. They regularly put out PvE content updates and even added raids and updated the challenge system for their high end small group content. Meanwhile PvP languishes because it was always a bad fit. Its a perfect example of why one game can't be all things to all people. They literally tried it and failed miserably. You've said yourself you don't live WvW despite WvW being, at least theoretically, exactly the game you want to play. As for the rest of your responses that state "Its a design problem" you're absolutely right. It IS a design problem, and the solution ot that problem is already in play in CF's case. That solution, to paraphase JTodd is "Make a specific kind of game for a specific kind of person that wants to play it. It might turn off some people but that's OK." I agree with that sentiment, for anyone making a video game. Figure out what your game is, and do that thing really well. You don't need to do 40 other things because chances are someone else is making a video game that does every one of those 40 other things really well and your version will be halfassed at best. Could they add hungerdome back in? Yes. Would it be any good? No. not without a significant amount of work. CF's thing, the thing, its trying to do really well, is create a dynamic system of campaign play which persists for three months in which loot and combat matter, and that has room for rules variants. Does it still need some love? Yes. Does its current deficiencies merit literally moving people working on nonfunctional systems to make new systems because some people don't actually want to play Crowfall when they log in to Crowfall? No. Advocating for a bunch of halfassed features is a really good way to end up with a game full of nothing but halfassed features.
  9. Honestly I'd rather just have the headgear toggle. Form isn't always going to follow function. The skin system is being implemented eventually, and Todd is on record as saying he doesn't like systems that make people choose between looking cool and screwing up their stats.
  10. Perhaps the point here is that you're so awesome you don't need to? "Many ways to reach the cap" and all that jazz. Being capped out on those three stats gives you options to do a few different things the with build?
  11. SP was raised specifically because damage was out of control in comparison. Stat caps are fine. Con needs another bump up to like 12hp or so because 8hp ain't it without the double con philo stones but damage vs mitigation vs heal access is in a pretty ok place as far as base pre-power values go.
  12. Because the industry has reacted to these goals already and spawned offshoot genres that directly address players that don't want the carrot model. The battle royale genre is literally "I heard you like open world PvP without all the grinding" The Moba Genre is "I heard you like tight tactical group fights without all the grinding" The reason these genres are so dissimilar from a traditional MMO has everything to do with the fact that the grind, loot, and picking up more better colored shinies is a defining characteristic of the genre so core to its definition that it HAD to be replaced with something radically different for all of the other systems to hold up without it. That's where you got survival games (which replaced the grind with exploration) which morphed in to the battle royale (which created a definite endpoint to keep the games session based and more focused on pvp than hoarding) That's where you got MOBAs, which spring from adding more MMO to Warcraft 3 by reducing each player to a single hero unit. The concept that a game can effectively be all things to all people is daft. It simply can't. You can't have a harvesting and crafting economy that both matters and doesn't matter. You can't have PvP that is both accessible and rewards long term acquisition of goods. At a certain point in your design you really do have to pick a lane and stick to it. As more of Crowfall's systems come online it should be fairly clear that the lane that has been chosen is that loot is king. It should have been clear from as far back as kickstarter that loot is king, and the reward for winning campaigns has always been "keep more of your loot" Insinuating CF's power curve isn't super shallow is just reaching. You're comparing it not against other MMOs but against things like MOBAs or gear stabilized dueling systems where the curve is literally nonexistent. CF's power curve, in the current resist and damage model, is in fact super shallow, and its grind is laughably fast in comparison to its contemporaries. There's a question there of access to the scale of that power curve that needs addressed due to a nonfunctional economy of surplus goods. We should really address that by seeding more loot more frequently, not making the existing loot break faster or be removed on death. CF's leveling is ridiculously fast compared to its contemporaries. There's an argument there against the draconian clamps on the sacrifice and mob ranks that needs to be addressed but when you actually have access to appropriately leveled mobs or materials the time spent to get there, even on a legendary vessel, with a level max of 30 is easily achievable in a week of 4h play sessions. How much faster should it really be? That's what these things always come down to though. "The power curve isn't shallow enough" or "leveling takes too long" are things espoused by people who want to skip it altogether. It'll NEVER be shallow enough for that viewpoint as the desired outcome is that vertical progress shouldn't exist at all. The carrot model isn't just easier. The carrot model is a defining characteristic of the genre. Doing away with it can make great games, but it doesn't make sandbox MMOs. Even your beloved Albion is built directly on top of that same model. The context for every activity, in every mmo, revolves around "what's the carrot" If simply fighting for leaderboard position and points were what the CF community cared about you wouldn't have leaderboards populated in the majority by people who obviously don't care about them. If winning alone were the core draw for the people that the game seeks to serve you wouldn't be complaining about boring circle standing because you'd be in a life or death battle for those circles every day. I in no way deny people want what they want, but the actions of the player base are telling. The story they tell is that loot, vertical progression, and imposing the advantages gained from those systems are the primary interests of the people that actually play this game. A vocal forum minority in opposition pales in comparison to even a cursory glance at a campaign scoreboard. That scoreboard tells a tale of a very small number of players actually giving any value to fighting for scoreboard value and a very large number of players valuing vertical progression and wealth above the "prestige" of participating in a net loss of value for victory points. Is there room for a hardcore fantasy RPG BR that eschews guns and grenades for swords and sorcery? Absolutely. I'd love to play that. The only one I've seen is about everyone being an anime wizard and flying all over the battlefield and its a bit too arcade for my tastes. A version of something like hungerdome with MMO styled combat balance and pacing and polish could be fun. Its also not what Crowfall is. it there room for an arena based game built around deep customization and strategy? Well yeah, that game was called Guild Wars 1 and it was amazing because it was designed around that core ideal. Still the only arena MMO experience I actually enjoyed. Its also not what Crowfall is. Is there room to slap a bunch of me-too features on to the core design of an MMO at the expense of the functionality of its core paradigm in the name of "play your way"? I don't think that's a good idea. That's how you end up with a dumpster truck full of failed MMOs, all of which touted their broad feature sets and inclusive multiple modes of play. I didn't back this project to play a MOBA or a BR. I backed it because I have very fond memories of very grindy pvp mmos where everything I fought over felt like it mattered and I want to see it done by some of the best qualified people in the industry to do a modern take on the concept. Get me some seasoned multiplayer developers pitching a dungeon delve style BR, or some seasoned mmo developer pitching a highly tactical arena game focused around interrupts and cast timers and I'll probably back that too.
  13. In what universe do people actually fly their super rare top end tournament ships in EVE? They don't. Ever. These ships are stupidly OP and their cost and rarity make them essentially unusable. In what universe to people use their super rare top end officer modules for anything but PvE incursion content in safe space in EVE? They don't. The only time you see rare officer mods in use in combat is when someone decides to suicide gank incursion runners. Like I said, I'm sure some people love the idea of full loot, but in practice its an annoying slog that clamps rarity to "do I have 20 of this thing" rather than "do I have one" and severely constrains the design space or player's desire for anything other than average gear. It accomplishes nothing but cluttering up banks and creating such a huge incentive to avoid PvP and such an overwhelming state of "win more" that the entire game becomes more about avoiding pvp than participating in it for everyone that's not already filthy rich. I never bought a high end officer mod in EVE. The stats were good but the price simply couldn't justify the risk for what I'd be doing with it. Unless I could afford 20 of a thing, that thing simply wasn't worth buying. Especially for PvP. I'm never going to pay off that officer mod in PvP. I'd happily buy and use an amazing legendary item in CF because I know I'm going to get to use it and its not going to explode if I get surprised by a 5:1 numbered fight one time. Because its open PvP and these things happen, and pretending risk/reward actually justified chasing items of that rarity is simply not true. Durability is already risk/reward. And again, I absolutely agree we need better objectives. Killing a few NPCs and standing in a circle is boring because nobody wants to fight over them. That's not a justification for more PvP rewards. That's a justification for more rewarding objectives. There are: Too many circles Not enough players Not any intrinsic incentive beyond score to take or own said circles Again, I absolutely don't care about your narrow definition of "skill" nor the fallacious defense of any point which invokes it. Every game is "skill based." People who complain about a lack of skill simply lack the skills the game actually asks of them and want the game to conform to what they're already good at so they don't need to improve at what the game is actually about. This idea that EVERYONE should want to fight EVERYONE ELSE, not just when there's something important to fight over, but ALL OF THE TIME to WAVE YOUR EPEEN AROUND is an invocation of chaos rather than measured and thoughtfully applied violence. Its boring. I can go reinstall call of duty for this experience. You seem to want less crating, less pve, less harvesting, but paradoxically also want full loot as the default standard. These are mutually exclusive needs IMO. In both UO and EVE it was literally infeasible to PvP without significant amounts of farming or subsidizing farming, and your need to farm could EXPLODE after a single night of losses. That's not at all a good way to encourage people to PvP. EVE PvP, specifically, is more about avoiding anything but an overwhelming fight than rolling the dice on what may be an even matchup because of the extreme logistical hurdles to replace a fit. People don't fight in EVE unless they've got not one, but ten backups, and people don't fight in EVE unless they already know they've mechanically won their objective. I've played EVE, a lot, and the reality of EVE is that death is such a huge pain in the ass that 70% of all PvP is actually tricking people in to committing to PvP. This is such a huge part of the game there's an entire combat role, for which a player in the group is dedicated, and which has items, entire ship types, and deployable objects devoted to it, specifically to keep people from running away. Because EVE is not built around encouraging combat outside of objectives, and those objectives are designed to be a DRAIN on the economy that REQUIRES a large war chest to contest them. Its built around avoiding it to such an extreme degree that "tackling" is a more important job than healing if you actually want to kill anyone. EVE isn't a game built around PvP. It's a game built around raw economics with PvP as a tool in that toolbox. Full loot doesn't make PvP a risk/reward situation in practice. It makes PvP an exercise in hoarding and win-more balance. People in EVE (and UO for that matter) aren't running around looking for single combat with other combatants. They're looking for weak opponents with large pockets or killing enemies that are doing the same. They're fighting over something that matters, generally something that reduces their farm or increases the safety of their farm. That's the current problem with most objectives. They're useless *for farming* People don't fight you over the circles because *the circles don't help them farm* These games you seem to think are about PvP… well they aren't. They're about farming. All MMOs are about farming. PvP MMOs are just about farming that other people can take away from you through occupation or direct theft. People that log in to these games to find PvP just looking for "the skilled fights" will always be disappointed because, quite frankly, that's never the point of the game, and the genre is not designed for it. FWIW I see the point you're trying to make here, but having played both systems in multiple games now, I find the assertion that full loot creates more pvp laughable. It does the exact opposite. It creates such an extreme incentive to flee any battle that doesn't seem easily winnable that the game begins to revolve more around "how to get people to commit to a fight" than actually fighting people.
  14. No thanks on the full loot. It sounds all cool and realistic but the end result is its just a bigger pain in the ass for what essentially ends up being a worse version of what we have now. Its just durability with more bank space and more time crafting really, and absolutely tanks any demand whatsoever for anything more costly than the mean average gear, making the "rare and hard to acquire" tier of gear basically a design dead end. I mean I know some people like it, and I know they wanna run it to see how popular it is so go nuts. Having experienced both this model and full loot models I view this model as the "vulnerability window" compromise of loot that ensures the soul of pvp looting (you want to kill people with full pockets) remains intact while providing vital QOL that makes people want to actually use it and making sure its parts function as intended. Its less realistic "video game logic" but overall results in less wasted time and more people actually using and building super high end stuff and being less skittish about pvp. They've already done everything they need to do to ensure harvesters don't actually need guards. Harvesters are fully functional combat characters and if built to avoid fights are pretty much impossible to catch anyway. AND they're giving them a few more tricks apperantly because having a fae assassin with escape artist and juggernaut do your harvesting still requires you to press 3 buttons to escape a gank and that's too hard. Violence is always a means to an end, naturally. You don't get a reward if you punch someone in the face, and governments don't deploy troops simply to blow stuff up. You punch someone in the face so you can steal their wallet, or you deploy troops to impose an ideology or control resources. In a "Throne War Simulator" I don't expect to be given a cookie just because I stabbed some random enemy soldier standing in a field. I expect that to be a waste of my time that potentially alerts his allies to my presence that I might want to avoid unless there's a logical gain for stabbing the guy. I don't want to play a game where killing people is its own reward. That just leads to a bunch of people killing each other over nothing I'm not here for 24/7 whizbang pvp. I'm here for a long term simulation of fantasy warfare. I can go play quake for instant action, have more fun with it, and farm less. I 100% agree with you about more interesting objectives though, and I wouldn't even be opposed to some form of automated harvesting, assuming its less efficient than player harvesting and capped at, lets say blue resources with no rare component drops.
  15. This is already planned for implementation. In CF terminology its called a "caravan" and the concept art looks like this:
  16. Why do you keep playing games where a huge part of the design is improving gear? Why did you buy in to a game where "small even numbered group combat" was literally never a selling point. What you want is a MOBA. A game with endless creative build customization, no startup time, and a tightly controlled set of equal circumstances and numbers. That is quite literally the opposite of everything this game (and most sandbox pvp mmos) is designed to be. Crowfall's design ethos was literally always about ensuring that every single player in every campaign is in some way involved in a massive server shifting army. That's why faction campaigns exist. To create those armies out of people that don't have them as they enter the game. That's why Dregs exist. To create a political climate that puts the creation of those armies in the hands of the players. Why on earth would you, a person that doesn't like "zerg combat" play a game that is literally built around zerg combat being more important than it has been in any mmo ever? Why do people constantly talk about "no skill" and "zergs" in games that are literally designed to reward economic power, reward large scale efficiency and encourage zerging? More often than not the moment I hear someone start to complain about 'zergs' in this kind of game I tune out because they've lost the plot. The point of the game is not honorable combat between opposing forces. The point of the game is to create unfair combat to your advantage through a combination of overwhelming force, political maneuvering, misdirection, and quality of arms. The point of sandbox mmos is never to be more skilled at fair pvp, and it never has been. The point of sandbox mmos is to be smarter, be meaner, be more efficient, and be creative. It's not play to bow and take 20 paces at dawn in petticoats. Its play to crush, by any means necessary, and the campaign system is designed to ensure that, once the final rewards system is in, no player has the option of ignoring the larger war. It is literally the exact opposite, on purpose, of what you seem to want from it. I see this a ton and I simply don't get it. I'm not trying to insult you here but I need to ask you a few serious questions. Why would you START playing crowfall in the first place when what you seem to want out of pvp is the polar opposite of the entire design of crowfall? Why not play a game that's actually designed around this kind of PvP? How do you find this game fun "for the most part" when everything you seem to want (gear that doesn't matter, PvP that is carefully cordoned off and ensures a fair fight) is antithetical to the basic principles (Economy=power, Clashing armies on a grand scale) of its core design?
  17. This was the original design, with no armor weight being technically "better" and in stead each having different resist profiles. It doesn't work very well, and it creates a system of not just natural counters some of the time (what we have now, where mobility, range, and dedicated discs come in to play to hard counter a small selection of builds) but natural counters ALL of the time (every fight is essentially won primarily by what type of weapons/armor you happen to be wielding and every build hard counters an extremely large number of builds) This is an idea that sounds a lot more fun than it is, which is why it has been thrown out in most situations where games have tried to use it as a design goal.
  18. That was for campaign tournament brackets, not dueling. E.G. the winning team in a campaign moves on to the next campaign bracket and so on, creating a system in which an entire tournament, if you're winning, would last multiple campaigns. It was conceived for people that wanted a bit more connective tissue and longer range bragging rights than a single campaign, essentially a way to win a "season" rather than a "match"
  19. I'm not in favor of this as a campaign effecting objective specifically because it would pull people out of the campaign world and engender a culture of waiting in line to PvP. I'm not a fan of gear balancing in any way because it wreaks havoc on the crafting economy The less people that need good gear, the less people are buying it, and you're basically shafting 2/3 of the game. "I just want to pvp without worrying about gear" is like a crafter saying "I just want to craft without worrying about harvesting" sorry, but there are plenty of games where one can simply login and fight with no setup. Doing so in CF could have a disastrous ripple effect on the gamewide economy. I fail to understand why people keep showing up to sandbox mmos and ask for them to be turned in to street fighter. I like instant action no setup PvP. I like it better when its not haphazardly slapped in to a context where it doesn't belong. I am in favor of a robust set of tools to allow you to set this up, with automated rewards and gear balancing within an EK. I think having a dedicated structure with rules settings and the whole nine yards is a great idea for people that want to do this, and it creates another outlet for all the loot being won in campaigns. I'm a fan of this idea as its own campaign type. Imagine a campaign in which there are no point rewarded for keeps or forts and an arena, wherin the only way to gain campaign score is to fight arena matches. There you've got the same persistant gameplay as a normal campaign, but the centre of it is very different, as its not about equipping armies, but rather individual champions.
  20. You're looking at it in terms of individual gain. They're looking at it in terms of actual gain, which is every modifier multiplied by five. I'd honestly prefer if the buffs were made stronger and each one had its OWN passive because as is most of the buffs are lackluster specifically because you have all of them at one time. If we could replace AP with type specific damage, use type specific armor modifiers, do something crazy like 500% bonus thorns, etc. they'd not only be worth the slot, but would be meaningful group and vessel speccing decisions for the leader. Currently they're just kinda like "oh guess I better take all of it" and there's no rhyme or reason to it other than "you're slightly better at a bunch of things. With more specialized, more powerful buffs with their own passives now you have a reason to be. You've got a buff that is only TRULY effective and worth putting on if you're leading a specific group composition. That always seemed like the better tradeoff for leadership. It's not omnipowerful, but it should be powerful when directed at a specific purpose. Like a fire damage spec group. Or an anti-banners spec. Or an anti-crushing meta, etc. Leadership should be the juice that makes tight uniform group specs worth the squeeze when compared to more broad specs with a more diverse roster, and should be balanced by the fact that, like a healer in a more broad spec the leader is crucial to its function. Making leadership "always on" is a surefire way to ensure leadership continues to be boring "win more" mechanic that doesn't do anything interesting in combat because if you're lumping everything in the tree on the whole group with no drawbacks it CAN'T be super good.
  21. Its the war of the underclass against the oligarchy. Occupy Gods reach. We are the 99%
×
×
  • Create New...