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


ACE Investor & Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Duffy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Guild
    Corvus Citadel
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,108 profile views
  1. If anyone really thinks that trying to play with account limits will solve anything versus aggravate your player base and drive people away hasn’t been playing sandboxes enough. At best you’ll get rid of the lazy spies and inhibit non conflict player actions, at worse you’ll solve nothing and drive away players and revenue.
  2. Possibly, I expect there to be a lot of number tweaking like that before they really launch. If they changed dura hits to something more reasonable than standing in combat tray I think you’d see the ability to decrease the durability and increasing item turn over without it feeling debilitating. The condensed campaign cycles also make it seem worse than it might really be in the long run. When winter is weeks to months long and it’s harder to safely bank resources will we have the sort of excess we have today? Idk This operates under the assumption that the resources gained to resources loss is so broken that there’s no way to recover so it must be reset regularly to even function. Regardless of a semi permanent or campaign duration only economy this would be a problem that needs fixing. As for how it could work I point to EVE as an example of how a sandbox economy can function (even despite silly inflation levels). The EVE economy is playable and impacted by player conflict, in fact there are “soft” war seasons you can take advantage of if you enjoy playing markets like that. Caveat: I’m often not referring to things as they are right this moment for conversations like this one. This is not the game this is early testing. Things are not final, and lots of balancing is needed and has been promised. So while identifying current problems or oddities is great, they aren’t necessary indicative of what they are supposed to be or even planned to be and some of them are red herrings due to other bits missing.
  3. The goal of seasons is to create and ebb and flow and incentivized pattern. Additionally in the more restricted rule sets it creates a period of time where it’s harder or nearly impossible to replenish resources while the most fighting is going on. Even if the economy was semi-permanent for the non restricted import campaigns, the seasons still provide a framework of expected play cycles and incentives to work with the cycle versus against it. They just might not be as punishing for gear replacement due to imports, but I’d bet ya a dollar you’d see price fluctuations based on the current season. A mechanic can work in multiple ways and at multiple levels.
  4. That is exactly my point, you’ll see more cautious and better gatherers out there. Which in turn means less to gank and lower reward chances when combined with other factors, thus we could see a decrease in the overall active gatherers and amount of resources moving in any direction as “new” restrictions come on line. (Made up numbers) If a change halves the number of active gatherers and leaves only the ones with better habits that minimize loss, did we really improve the system overall and achieve a balancing for all sides of a conflict or did we just shrink the audience and limit the possible points of reward? The point of the exercise is to look beyond the single system change and look at the greater context of what the change could do. Not only mechanically but to player’s decision making and habits. Gathering and ganking is a very well explored area of player behavior, and it’s been shown time and time again that it’s disproportionately in favor of the ganker and often results in players abandoning the game over changing to less “enjoyable” styles. It’s something to be wary of especially if it shrinks your audience for a niche game that will only succeed by maintaining its audience size.
  5. While instant access to the SB definitely needs to go the assumption that only one side of the equation will see a state change (and assumed for the better) is short sighted. Realistically you will probably see a decrease in ganking gains due to a few different things possibly happening: 1. Gatherers get over ganked and quit 2. Gatherers run with protection which may increase small group PvP - but probably ends in the gatherer running for it so you gain nothing from winning the fight. 3. More stealth class gatherers to decrease risk. 4. Only the better and more cautious gatherers are left, again decreasing gains due to better habits and taking lower risks. I actually think the SB and the import/export limits provide a more likely gains scenario for a ganker today than if it was axed entirely. The safety net with limits gives the gatherer a way to gauge their risk vs reward and they tend to blame themselves for not banking sooner if they get jumped. If how you access the SB had some new limits (not in combat, not quite instant) it would probably be a better scenario for everyone. Or alternatively they could make getting ganked less of an all or nothing result. But I have a feeling that wouldn’t go over too well around the forums even if it drastically increased the games’s audience size and overall ganker gains. Lot of maximizing short term over long term thought processes around these parts.
  6. Problem one is figuring out the source of your laggy experience. Usually it’s one of three (or a combination): 1. Graphics Card struggling, this is where setting changes can help but is primarily a user problem. Optimizations for graphics usually come late in the development cycle just before release. 2. System strain, another primarily user issue, your machine just can’t handle the strain apart form your GPU, usually look at memory and CPU to determine if they are the bottleneck. Could be the clients fault either via memory leaks or poor use of resources. 3. Finally, server communication issues and this is entirely a development issue. This is currently the major problem for most right now, and the source of the zone caps. There is a major change to the character controller coming that should drastically improve performance. Something to keep in mind with item 3 is that every game suffers from some communication limit for a single processing node. There will always be some cap where the number of active players in an area overwhelm the server, this is a general problem with MMOs. The goal is to push that cap high enough to rarely be a problem, or to design around it such that it’s rarely the optimal way to play. We’ll see how it all shakes out in time.
  7. I wish they just kept vessels as gear and added talents/attribute points to them sans the leveling. Would have been perfect. As for the overall problem: it’s less about gear and vessels and more about very bad tuning. Mitigation’s and HP need reworks (tho that’s possibly coming soon), damage number differences between different classes’ abilities need work, etc.... Theirs some really bad math in their that’s creating a lot of these feast or famine scenarios. Not everything has to be balanced 1 to 1 (and shouldn’t) but theirs too many “hard” counters currently.
  8. 1. Only way to change them is to level a new vessel. 2. Disciplines will eventually be permanent once applied to a vessel. They also will not be as easy to acquire, either requiring or being rare drops themselves. They’ve also recently talked about needing to unlock their abilities similar to talent trees. Expect significant changes to disciplines, their ease of swapping today is for testing purposes.
  9. Forts are known to need a rework and some tweaking. Keep fights involve siege equipment, killing an objective (Tree of Life or Bane Tree), and NPC guards that are actually a serious problem. One of the issues with allowing anything to be capture at any time is that often many fights end up being uncontested, much like forts are today. It's far more efficient to avoid fighting and attack other objectives when you play "circle capping" games. Additionally there will be more variety than just faction campaigns including guild vs guild that will have many different factions, most successful modern games with these sort of mechanics have moved to vulnerability timers/windows to encourage major conflict versus finding ways to mitigate actual conflict.
  10. I like 1 & 2, they would move things to actual fighting over forts regularly and decrease some of the nightly pressure on Sieges to provide the primary PvP opportunity and source of points. I wouldn't mind if forts also needed siege equipment just to make them like mini sieges that happen every couple of hours or something. They need some sort of temporary win condition and incentive to group up and fight over them when they become target-able. Item 3 I don't agree with, keep the outposts. They serve as both small group targets, ways to participate if you miss the primary events, and safety zones for those that control them in small or 1v1 situations. Ultimately if owning the outposts decide the campaign the fort and keep game was very close.
  11. Decking and crafting is awkward, how big is your deck? Plus the impact of “failure” is very different compared to other game systems. The impact variance alone is pretty wild. I’ll get whooped in combat or lose all my gathering in a gank and wonder “what could I have done better?” (Still not thrilled but at least introspective acceptance) But on a string of crafting failures At 2% I feel the rage and want to give up. It’s out of my hands and negates all the past effort, theirs nothing to learn - it’s a pure loss. So if it’s not broken, it needs a rework, if it is broken, it needs a fix 😛
  12. I had 5 flawed at 98% trying to make a weapon yesterday, I ended up making 1 blue and 2 greens between the final combine being flawed the first time around and having a 4 flawed middle pieces. Something is funky. Some game use a statistical approach versus actual randomization sequences. In simpler terms based on the % you are “dealt” a number of hits or no hits (often done for crits), the number is based on some expected number of attempts. So using the crits example let’s say you are dealt 100 attacks and your crit is 25%, 25 of your 100 attacks will be crits, additionally they can be distributed across those 100 attacks so you have predictable crits every 4th attack.
  13. That’s what I thought, I think I just misinterpreted his sentence. I thought he was implying he skipped the philosopher stone to get more of some other stats, not that he could have more stats if he had used it. Idk why I read the phrasing differently.
  14. Could you clarify that bit? I feel like I don't know something about philosopher stones based on that.
  15. I would say that only makes it a worse situation cause then the only way to hard counter is random luck or super rare material? That’s not great for a competitive game. Especially when most of the hard counters are just to overcome various class features/capabilities anyways, much less other randomly acquired or rare material disciplines. (Though of course caveat that balance pass and discipline changes may adjust such concerns)
  • Create New...