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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bladehate

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

452 profile views
  1. 1) Disciplines are completely different than selecting archetype, profession, and the passive skill system. One of the core concepts that Ace applies to most of their thought processes is "Risk vs Reward". Part of this is creating a thematic and unique experience (role-play even) for the specific character. Your suggestion just doesn't fit. This has been explained by several people already, sorry that it's a difficult concept to grasp, but I'm done trying to explain it further. 2) It's more than a "statement of intent". The design process gets locked before coding in order to eliminate waste and scope creep. Many of the core DNA concepts and features have been locked down before they even named the project Crowfall before KS. Again, another process which I can't explain any clearer. 3) If you go through the FAQ, the interviews, the videos.. etc... You will see just how core of a concept that you're suggesting to change. Since it appears that you lack the understanding of the design and development process, it's understandable that you may think this is not a significant change. You're not alone... as many think they have a fix-all simple solution, while being ignorant into the realistic impact throughout the game design. Again, there is entirely TOO many features already documented and planned that involve multiple unique characters with a passive skill cap. With that... I'm pretty much done. Not sure if there's just text that's getting lost in translation somwhere, but it appears that most of what I've been stating is going completely over your head, what seems like common sense by now. 1.) Archetypes set the base skills available. This is further modified by the promotion class you select, and then further modified by discipline choices. In all events, these things alter the values on the character. Of these options, disciplines are not permanent and may be changed. But the basic functionality is the same, as far as I can see. From what I've gleaned, the main thing the game locks in with archetypes/promotion classes are the race specific appearance options, and then the animation sets. This makes a lot of sense, but does not inherently require permanence. By way of example, The Secret World ties specific active abilities and their animations to specific weapons. So equipping a weapon set determines your attack animations as well as limiting what active powers you have available. A runestone system could easily replace the weapon system when it comes to these things. If you take the graphic from the http://crowfall.com/#/news/character-progression FAQ, and then stick in a "soul wisp" stage in front of the Archetype selection process you don't really upset the work flow very much. As for whether or not this is thematic, I guess that's debatable though you have made your opinion clear. 2.) By your argument there is no reason at all to have a suggestion box. Which is probably correct. This is just a space for people to voice ideas, that will in all likelihood never see implementation or consideration by the devs. It is also a place for people like you to be negative and condescending. Kudos to you! 3.) I have gone through the FAQs, but not seen the videos, so data from those are interesting to hear (such as what UrbanPope came with). You are absolutely correct that I have never developed a video game. And Nyt, your statements have not gone over my head. They just haven't been particularly worthwhile. This forum is for wishful thinking. And the opposite of that, is you. If you find the idea worthless, you probably should have just left the thread alone after your first brilliant contribution. You can certainly feel free to not post again. I did get a laugh at your passive aggressive suggestion that I should go find another game though.
  2. Dabbled a bit in UO and Everquest PvP servers. The EQ Racewars servers were a primitive attempt at faction pvp. Didn't really last. In terms of MMOs though, DAoC would be the big one. Spent quite a while playing the game on various servers, including the FFA PvP ones. Was almost exlusively Midgard.
  3. Yeah, I see what you mean, even just judging by the responses so far. Perhaps if I had named the thread "make all archetypes into trainable runestones ala disciplines" I might have gotten a different response. Perhaps if I had compared it to The Secret World's system, rather than EVE it might also have struck a different chord. Also, I totally understand their desire to not allow us to do everything ourselves. Its an MMO after all. But that is only worthwhile up to a point. SWTORs "class" buffs is one such example of enforced cross class interdependence, one which I feel was not well implemented. Because there are so many other systems in place (campaigns, resources, etc) to ensure that people will play with each other, and work with each other, I don't think its worthwhile to also bake enforced variety into character development and creation. Let those of us who want to play mad scientist and experiment with builds (or pokemon and collecting them all) do that.
  4. Valid point. Although I don't see how it would destroy good will. Currently you are getting 3 character spots, meaning 3 out of 12 archetypes. Wih the change, you are getting one character that can potentially experience all of the archetypes. Ah well, I guess I can always look forward to the host of original names this will spawn.
  5. 1.) Fundamentally changes it in what way? They have already stated that discipline runes will be removable. So clearly, the ability to adjust and "re-spec" runes and skills in a limited fashion will exist. Expanding this option is not a fundamental change. Its a fine tuning. It just happens to be a fine tuning that eliminates the need for three characters on an account. 2.) The information they have provided is a statement of intent. And it is very much, sorry to say, hype. If I remember correctly, games like Darkfall also hyped themselves as being "skill based". While never playing Darkfall past the beta, as I recall from my guildmates the RPG elements of that game were still a pretty big deal. Even FPS games that incorporate some form of progression have to take the power curve into account. 3.) I like the core design, I like the team they have assembled, and I hope they will make a product that I will also like. I have given them my money for that reason, and posting my personal ideas in a place specifically designated for that does not strike me as inappropriate. Also, I don't feel this would be that significant a change.
  6. We aren't even in alpha yet. If ever there is a time to discuss these kinds of options, this would be it.
  7. In fact, its not way too early. These kinds of things take time to implement properly, and the earlier the design choices are made, the better tested and implemented they will be. Also, you keep on telling me how "its going to be", and then in the same post you tell me its "too early to tell". Interesting.
  8. The benefit would be having all of your crafting skills, combat builds and item options consolidated to one character, rather than spread across the 3-5 alts. The benefit would be in allowing players to keep training other archetypes, even after they have maxed out their primary choices. Thus making it easier for players to experiment and try new builds, expanding options. Again, my idea is that when you translate into a campaign, you also choose the Archetype rune setup you want to run for that campaign. In short, your soul transfers over into the centaur campaign and builds an avatar appropriate to the campaign setting and the player's trained skills. You have not read or else you have misunderstood the thread.
  9. Well, if their statement of intent matches reality then I doubt you would go for maxed out skills if you were in a time crunch. Unless you needed a skill level to unlock some kind of ability or other upgrade, I assume the most efficient way to get a combat effective character would be to push the skill to that 70-90% of its max, and then work on other skills to round out the character. Then as time permitted, go back and polish things up. Although, like you that's just conjecture and will probably even vary quite a bit from archetype to archetype, and depend on what role the character would serve in a group. But even with a shorter training time than other models, this skill training time frame will still require a fair amount of time committed to making the character combat viable. I do not think the assumption you can just roll up a new toon, toss on some gear and then roll into combat and expect good results is realistic...
  10. 1.) If the game limits you, then by definition the choice is not yours. Sure, there may be "other" choices, but that particular one has been removed through no choice made by you. My point was mostly definitional, as it seems these limitations are not really as restrictive as I first assumed. 2.) None of us actually know for a fact how much skill levels, equipment, personal player skill or builds will matter in PvP. We have a general idea, a statement of intentions. Your statement that it will "mostly" depend on teamwork and player skill is not reliable. Its a wish. 3.) RPG means there are a large number of character options that make a difference. Considering what we know about the rune system so far, I think its fairly safe to assume that things like good builds, proper gearing and the proper combination of archetype skills will be a major factor. This is not an MMOFPS.
  11. Yes, I did read the character progression FAQ. No, it did not really address my concerns.
  12. Nice. Thank you PopeUrban, that's a very solid block of information.
  13. Actually, by definition its exactly NOT your choice. I also very much doubt that you can jump straight into a freshly made character and flex any kind of skills. Will you be able to contribute? Certainly. Probably. Will you pull your weight? Much less likely. This is an MMORPG after all.
  14. Is that confirmed? CF is taking a more...humm...let's call it casual approach to character advancement? The impression I had was that they specifically wanted to give players a sense of permanence about their characters and their EKs, as a counter point to the shifting and temporary campaigns. If what you say is true, then yes, my concerns are unfounded. Although I am not altogether certain its the answer I was hoping for... Also, I wouldn't say I'm in love with the EVE skill system. After all, I never played it more than three or so months. I do remember that the skill system was one of the things that made a good impression though. I can see a system where rolling up a new toon is relatively quick and easy being a viable alternative though. I don't know if that would make characters a bit too disposable, but its certainly viable.
  15. Actually, that does not at all deal with my concerns. In fact, that is part of the problem: Limited character pool + campaigns that limit archetypes = excluded players and limited options. This makes for tough choices, and not the fun kind. Again, I feel the strength of a train-over-time system is best realized by having the deepest pool of options always available to the player. Other than ACE profiting from selling additional character slots, I see no actual benefit to the current model being proposed, as opposed to having Archetypes being slottable runes that can be trained. To take the Lore aspect a step further, you could even have fresh players/new souls be almost blank. As they train and advance within an archetype they also unlock additional customization options for that archetype. In fact, having the option to purchase unique or additional customizations in a cash shop would be just an additional source of revenue, and something that's probably already in the works.
  • Create New...