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

Silkhe

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Silkhe

  1. Bugs that you have encountered should be directed to TEST Bug Reports
  2. Will there be a wipe of crowfall grind? ... now-a-days, the juice is not worth the squeeze
  3. Great post Yumx! I have several accounts and log in and play nearly every day. I have weathered the previous patch storms / wipes and continue to play... despite many of my friends & family members ditching this game (for the most part). I've generally always embraced the grind. Since patch 5.0, there has always been more than enough trivial tasks needing to be done towards addressing many more various meaningful tasks, which are then needed to address even more various essential tasks and/or combined group tasks towards probable successes... G wizz, lots of tedious tasks
  4. The down-sides to active progression systems have been clearly stated many times; It all too often excessively rewards neck-beards and botters/script-writers... while unfairly penalizing active players that work long hours or that are simply unable to play long hours (while not cheating the system). Passive progression is quite fair and even. It doesn't discriminate. I certainly hope that it stays in CF (regardless of time-gates and/or required patience). It certainly could use more tweaking & tuning, but I for one like it, and I generally like crafting/harvesting as well
  5. lol... dang, ya beat me to the punch Jah 😉 ... my multi-tasking cost me
  6. If this were true, G-wizz, I must be all set and completely self-sufficient in the live build ... with my thirteen accounts all completely maxed in their individual passive specializations? But it's not true. I'm far from all set, even while playing regularly and being very active since the live server had it's last avatar/inventory wipe? Why is that? Hmmm, lets see here; every account needs a max level avatar with sufficient spec's. Each individual avatar needs the correct disciplines... recipes and/or knowledge... crafting and/or harvesting armor... jewelry... tools.
  7. I learned early on that it takes quite a bit of grit and determination, as it should. If your guild/mates have enough determination, your approach to the game and your tactics will evolve, and you'll have fun in this game if you play smart & learn from mistakes. It's just not easy, as a small guild starting out. This is not a battle-royal with strict match-making guidelines, for reasons. Utilize even number scrims in an EK (or the 'Infected'), for practice and development. Practice various group comps, and improve your gear/vessels when able. Grow the guild if able... and make f
  8. LOL, I'm having flash-backs. Heard this a lot leading up to the 'Trial of the Gods' campaigns. Spent all my time prior to, and three campaigns into those Trials on 'Order' Faction listening to those fears? I suppose there are many that are still afraid of the 'boogeymen', yet this game has yet to offer proof that it is even capable of attracting and sustaining such numbers, and/or those gaming communities? I hope that some day this game is capable of drawing & holding a 'substantial' population... long term. As the historical evidence being to the contrary, I'm not sure why
  9. I'm not referring to a change to the passive skill tree flow-chart, and the turning of knobs that are already built in. I am referring to any new 'active progression' game-play changes that likely require new code, back-end system support, inherent rounds of bug-fixing, along with the system server-side + player-side communication & support. Just look at how long the passive 'catch-up mechanic' has been such a hot topic... yet ACE has not provided any solid plans? It must not be all that simple, I am willing to guess? Regardless, active players that start a game like this months
  10. Hyperbolic wording, but regardless, I prefer my simpler approach mentioned earlier. Player engagement & supplemental systems are already imperative, and already working... for the most part? I suppose I simply find it less broken than you do?
  11. You're simply advocating for 'Alliance Campaigns!' ... not actual guild vs guild... likely not in the long run And if the campaign ends up with just 3-big alliances, we're back to a very familiar 3-faction war campaign (hmm, I had thought that was to become a separate care-bear rule-set?) and naturally... the top tier guilds gravitate together... because all good buddies... well you know, an easier path & less uncertainty... and (I heard that) they only hang out with like-minded folks anyways, lol and shazam... we are reliving the failed trial of the gods 3-faction w
  12. I think you misunderstand guild vs guild, and the accumulative downsides that any such 'green alliances' would ultimately bring to a guild vs guild format. But I can't really nitpick any such plans, because the actual particulars haven't yet been clearly laid out or pitched?
  13. Yep, a Faction-War Hybrid then. Basically more of the same, but you now have membership control across the "faction"? Possibly, an even worse 'Trial of the Gods' redo? It will likely become less and less about guild vs guild. But hey that's fine if you want that non-sense, as long as they keep a more hardcore GvG format - that is more similar to the current iteration I mean. The current system has room for alliances. The current system has room for politics, and the potential for political games, deception, and betrayal. So you have to be more careful & coordinated in yo
  14. Are you missing the faction-campaigns already? Don't worry, they'll be back again some day. Lol, the evolution of Staff ... somehow he's turned care-bear; now wanting security blankets & crutches?
  15. How many smaller guilds don't want to add members? How many do? Look at things from another perspective Alliances without constraints = Faction Wars... and if added to the Dregs; doesn't it only become some sort of Faction War Hybrid?... Sounds pretty care-bear-esque to me? Some prefer a more hardcore Guild vs Guild format (lol...the Dregs). You can still form alliances in the campaigns, regardless of any constraints. Although, in all honesty I do hope that they add good options for the Dregs rule-set, that may add various optional & unique mechanics fo
  16. There are trade-offs to every action and/or decision... regardless Perhaps you guys should stick to Faction Wars? 😉
  17. lol, how are they being "forced"? There are trade-offs to every action and/or decision... regardless. A group simply weighs the positives and negatives of every decision, against their current frustrations and/or complaints. As I see it, your concept of an "alliance" is likely no more valid than mine. But yes, alliances and their constraints can obviously become individual rule-set choices, and those knobs can be turned. Currently, I support the current rule-set ... until more testing is accomplished.
  18. There are alliances already... and there is room for even more 'creative' types of alliances under the current system, without so much damn sharing, and without the removal of friendly-fire between guilds. Alliances without such constraints can become rule-set options later on down the road (so that my friends and I can avoid them like the plague, because they will simply become lame 'faction-wars' just like what we've already had for far too long ... bleh). The current Divine Favor scoring mechanics is the only real positive that small guilds have gotten in a long time. Because now
  19. lol, large guilds form crafting or gathering sub-guilds and alliances, so that their number of crafters/gatherers don't skew the numbers of the actual main guild force (of combatants) that shall be taking all the credit/points/territorial control that all such party's can provide. ... as I said, circumventing the intent of the current Divine Favor scoring mechanics.
  20. Sure it is. That is Guild vs Guild as it should be, and not circumventing the current Divine Favor numbers game. Two or Three guilds can still ally and work together, but just not mass together or easily converge, without the drawbacks... or share buffs, facilities, or other play-time rewards.
  21. Even if true... your lecture really matters not. Because the current implementation is simply less 'zerg' friendly than any of the other proposed (nut-cup) alliances, that eliminate constraints such as friendly fire, and allow sub-guilds to utilize thrall crafting stations or perhaps other benefits they haven't yet earned on their own. I would rather continue testing the current implementation, much much more than just 2 (4-day) snap-tests, and allow time for tactics and guilds to naturally evolve.
  22. Yes .... script-writers can and will cheat any 'active' or accumulative game-play implementation, regardless of their player/vessel bots being ganked or whatever, during the off-hours times they shall typically run. And if mobile banking remains a thing, they shall likely even thrive, putting people that work long hours while not cheating your system at further disadvantage. We are too far along into development for such substantial & unnecessary changes. Passive training can be fixed with less effort and resources. Someone once told me to shorten my suggestions into deli
  23. Just grow your guilds naturally, or convince others to merge into one guild, and strengthen your bonds (and your play) organically. I like the current forming of alliances under the current (natural) in-game constraints. It requires more thought, ingenuity, and also the obvious limitations are quite possibly a welcome and necessary 'evil?' in the long run. If we have the types of (nut-cup) alliances you're after, It will only then also help large or strong guilds form their 'mega-zerg' alliances. The current system coupled with the current Divine Favor influence that directly imp
  24. I am getting an update error and have not been able to troubleshoot it successfully. Has anyone else been getting this;
×
×
  • Create New...