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

tinkoh

Cormorant
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tinkoh

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Winning online arguments
    Arguing online
    Cake
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    A dark basement far, far away
  1. Wanting skilled play is fine, but when you introduce ranged characters expecting 100% crosshair dedication is absurd. How would it be fair for a Stalker to have to aim at a running, swirling, dashing target from great distance with great accuracy to be effective, where a Knight just has to have his slashes in a general direction? And in the opposite respect, how would it be fair that a Stalker could hit a Knight at any distance? Without tab-targeting or something like it, you can't know whether you're in range to deal damage. Any range would obviously be overpowered, and limited range requires some kind of tab-targeting. You can't have the Stalker's arrows just not registering their hits or vanishing into thin air in an open-world game because he was a few yards off, especially without him knowing precise ranges of his targets. Maybe some slight auto-aim help is the answer. Maybe range distance over character's heads is. To divide the subject into the two extremes of "WoW-like tab-targeting" and "Counter-Strike precision" is absurd because one is played out and the other is impractical.
  2. Kind of upsets me to see people lowering their standards of expectations so easily. You paid good money to start this game and you should expect a damn good product. OP has a great idea that deserves to be put into the game. If it isn't its at the fault of the developers, not the investors.
  3. Why not have no nameplates, but instead a "killed by" message? Or an extended scroll-over name tag? It's really silly to not ever know who is who. Esp. in a game where we're supposed to form alliances, having no <Guild Tag> or nameplate is hard to conceive.
  4. I actually wouldn't like everything in campaigns to be roughed up. It would be more cinematic if things got progressively decrepid. The town you spawned in is beautiful, vibrant. Come back in a couple months, and the inn's roof has collapsed, the streets are crowded with broken wagons, ripped banners flowing in the harsh wind. A couple months more and the whole place is knee-deep in snow, all life moribund with crows circling overhead. <----------- Look there, and then look -----------> Basically I think campaigns should start off looking like your EK and devolve into what you're describing.
  5. I think we have enough furries as is
  6. oooh... it's a crowbar ​ hl3 confirmed
  7. she's a low-tier actress. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3783715/
  8. Wouldn't make sense for 1v1s. How could a Champion hope to succeed while his back is constantly facing the pesky Duelist? Big characters should turn slower, but with their WASD-based bodies, not their screens. Not to mention mouse sensitivity would kinda negate this idea.
  9. Why not base rewards on conquests? If a guild controls 90% of the players in a campaign, conquering 10% will offer little in the way of incentives. If that guild controls 10% and conquers the remaining 90% of players who fought against them in one way or another, their rewards will be much larger. That way this boring one-month-long-snooze-a-thon (heh, that rhymes) would actually not give the nerds perpetrating it any reason to keep doing so (other than intentionally ruining the game for others?) Rather, a PvE system could be implemented that would get grind-obsessed Korean zerg guilds off PvP campaigns solely there for digital currency. And if, for whatever reason, your campaign is still doomed, maybe a brief battleground or arena type scenario could be put into the game to be accessed from the EK. It's also been mentioned before that team-damage and lack of AoE-consistent healing supports makes massive groups not the best idea.
  10. Everything we know about the game is in an early state. Why make any threads at all? Forums are to discuss, m8. Good point, but a lot of people did vote. I'd say a pretty significant amount of people interested in this game regular the forums, esp. because it's inchoate.
  11. To an extent. There should still be a cap to the possible number of people, whether direct or indirect. A guild of 100 getting on a campaign together could utilize strategy guides found online to manage themselves without any real skill on their part - accomplished by simply running numbers. Directly fixing that would be, say, a party cap. Indirectly would be allowing a feature like theft of someone's farms. If the guild builds huge farms to support themselves they would either focus on over-defending them or fall victim to thieves picking at their resources, and then fail to support themselves. I'm pretty sure something like the latter would be implemented but my point is you can't not restrict numbers at all, because they're not impossible to maintain and they are a huge advantage.
  12. I don't understand the concern. Arrows move too fast for the shaft issue to be a concern. The only way a player would hit the shaft is if they ran into the arrow, and the relative speeds between the arrow and the player would be too different for that to happen. Even if it did, it would rarely happen. The hitbox system implemented would almost definitely mirror industry standards. A sword underneath a jumping character wouldn't hit the character because... they would have jumped over it... Given that melee attacks are hack/slash the flatblade would never be able to hit the character. Same applies to the mace and really any melee weapon. What you're suggesting is super-realism and I think it'd be pretty unnecessary.
  13. yeah but can we sail on it? Like Archeage-y pirate poorly made socks...
×
×
  • Create New...