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

daedahl

Testers
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About daedahl

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Makes me wonder about the balance of things: In campaign we're going to have to craft to win, so there's no advantage to amassing resources for export if you need them to win. But the export is the notional 'reward' for winning. Small reward if you use all your resources to make siege weapons (or whatever) to win the final battle. Seems like all you'd really want to export is just enough to get you a good start in the next campaign, if even that. I guess the devs are going to have to get creative to make the EK seem compelling to gameplay - and I hope they will - but like most of us, I'm just excited about managing logistics and crafting for the win in campaign.
  2. If they do it right, then coins are just another item type to barter. It shouldn't make a difference except that some things are easier to carry.
  3. I agree that the craftsman should have the option to leave his/her mark or name on any item, but I think that's been the dev's intended design all along. It'd be nice if each crafted item, instead of having just stats - would generate a descriptive name. Instead of a 'longsword' it might be a 'superior darksteel longsword of bloodletting' or 'average iron longsword'. This way knowing the quality of an item is inherent in it's name / description and not only by comparing numbers and stats. And there could be rare qualities that only inhabit exceptional crafted items (like 'Phoenix' might indicate maximum fire damage) so certain names might be unique or at least very rare (and hopefully impressive.) And I guess I wouldn't be against having an attribuite tag that a crafter/player could use to 'name' an item, but personally I don't see it as necessary. Ayra's Needle probably just has a makers mark. It's only 'Needle' because she says so. Weapons could still have names, but that'd fall in the realm of RP not game mechanics. I agree with berwars above in that the name should inherently reflect the uniqueness / quality of the item, not the crafters ability to generate a cool name.
  4. I don't see why archers couldn't recover a least a portion of their arrows after a battle (while the mage is regenerating mana). If any other archers got killed during the battle there'd be plenty - potentially more than needed. But I agree it all comes down to gameplay. Hopefully there will be a lot of testing and feedback during Alpha and beyond.
  5. I recognize I'm late to this discussion. Even after reading the 'Coin of the Realm' article on the main page I'm still confused as to exactly what course the devs are attempting to take. Reading the thread here, I think I mostly agree with a lot of what Scree has said. Ultimately I'd like to see a natural barter system with player created currency. I already made a post on the main Currency thread and at the risk of redundancy I'll summarize my two-cents here: I don't like the idea of currency being explicitly defined by the devs. It seems to go against the original spirit of an independent player driven economy. A natural currency will develop in any case, but I'm not sure the devs would need to - or should need to - do anything more that make coins or bars or whatever a craftable item. The process should require a lot of work: clearing an area, finding the ore, digging it out, transporting it, smelting it in a fire requiring fuel (wood or coal, i.e. more resources) and then you're left with useful refined metal bars or coins or whatever. Since the refined metal is hard to get, easy to identify, durable, compact & easy to transport, plus already being the product of a lot of work - it is valuable and is naturally the prefered choice for trading. The devs wouldn't have to do much else besides keeping the availability of new metals sufficiently low, and ensuring that the refined metals are always useful for crafting needed items that will eventually decay. Since the devs will be controling and tweaking the availability of ALL resources, they'd already be monitoring and controlling the health of the economy anyway. That's a tough enough job. Currency needn't be a special case - it's just another part of the whole ecosystem. So is this what the devs are actually proposing? Or are they planning to set a fixed, controlled currency with actual shops for in-game items?
  6. Yeah - I was wondering the same thing. But it being GoT I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.
  7. I'm not sure I like the idea of coins being loot drops from monsters, or currency being defined by the devs. It seems to go against the original spirit of an independent player driven economy. A currency will develop in any case, but I'm not sure the devs would need to - or should need to - do anything more that make coins or bars or whatever a craftable item. The process should require a lot of work: clearing an area, finding the ore, digging it out, transporting it, smelting it in a fire requiring fuel (wood or coal, i.e. more resources) and then you're left with useful refined metal bars or coins or whatever. Since the refined metal is hard to get, easy to identify, durable, compact & easy to transport, plus already being the product of a lot of work - it is valuable and is naturally the prefered choice for trading. The devs wouldn't have to do much else besides keeping the availability of new metals sufficiently low, and ensuring that the refined metals are always useful for crafting needed items that will eventually decay. Since the devs will be controling and tweaking the availability of ALL resources, they'd already be monitoring and controlling the health of the economy anyway. That's a tough enough job. Currency needn't be a special case - it's just another part of the whole ecosystem. The devs shouldn't have to try to set rates or generate currency - let the players do it. The price of coal, lands and chickens might go up and down, but a pocketful of coins is always good have.
  8. I'm confused. Is there any advantage to 'consuming' a package now? I don't expect I'll upgrade past Amber, but I also don't see why I should unpack my rewards yet either. Am I missing something?
  9. I'm in the same boat as you - never got to play Shadowbane, but I'm not going to miss this! Welcome!
  10. It's interesting how decisive this issue is. I'm not deaf to the concerns againt finite ammo, but after reading so many posts I'm convinced finite ammo is what's best for Crowfall. I think the counter-arguement is basically: Limited ammo always been too tedious in other games. This seems to indicate that it's a mechanic that's hard to get right, but I'm not convinced that it couldn't be done well here. There are already a lot of suggestions on how to balance the utility vs tedium. Ultimately I think managing ammo could be a fun, challenging and dynamic part of the game. The other counter-arguement boils down to: I want ranged mechanics to be just like melee. But classes shouldn't be forced to be essentially equivalent. A bow shouldn't be made into a sword. It's okay if one class is harder to play well, or if different classes require very different play. Ranged classes should carry a limited supply, must choose what types of ammo to bring and when to use it. They have to switch to melee when engaged by melee, and would possibly become disadvantaged when doing so. They could even use a bow as a melee weapon of last resort (at a huge durability cost againt the bow when wacking heads with it.) But archers at distance, in numbers, or with terrain/fortification advantages would be powerful. Ranged combat - like any combat should rely staging the battle favorably.
  11. The feet are different than what I would expect on a Centaur, so it's an interesting adaptation. What did you use to draw this?
  12. I like the Hawk too, and the figure shows promise. I wonder why you chose to color the hawk and the hunter such different color schemes? And thanks for sharing your art!
  13. Very cool! Thanks for sharing!
  14. Long names with spaces alone is not much of a fix. Nobody want to type out 'Bob Smith the Destroyer' every time they want to send a message. And if names are displayed in game - very long names will get very annoying. With multiple names and the option to hide surnames if desired - there's really no reason why you can't have three friends named Bob, as I expect there could be some smart autofilling based on friendslists, etc. when sending messages.
×
×
  • Create New...