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

Silkhe

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Silkhe


  1. 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 in this game.  

    Well now, I am no longer embracing the grind.  On any given day, there are many tasks that can not even be done or accomplished at all.  I do what can be done, but the ones that can't be done end up irritating blockers to my progress.  Lately I grind, and my guild-mates grind (even more so), and our results end up a myriad of new frustrations.  I used to enjoy harvesting for long stints.  Now I do it for a while and feel myself slipping into a coma.   It doesn't help that the harvesting nodes are further spaced out in most zones, and often lack certain material types as well?  

    Also, I've always sought out various forms of pvp regularly.  I have had so many fond pvp memories yet they are rapidly fading away and becoming lost in these new patch transitions.  For me personally, group pvp (like 12+ vs. 12+) has become almost zero fun... as I pretty much fall victim to volatile ice / aoe / knockdown spam over and over in nearly every group engagement.  I certainly have more fun going out solo and getting ganked, or running into 2 or 3 random enemies.  At least it is generally more fun and/or competitive than the more recent guild fights.   

    In closing; It is so strange to now finally see and experience All The Exciting New Visuals, New Content, and New Crowfall / Dregs Campaign Concepts... yet inevitably be having less and less fun just playing?!?   I thought that I had grown fairly accustomed to the 'Grind' and all the nasty 'Inventory issues'... But now I fear they are reaching intolerable levels as the game direction blatantly becomes chore after chore after chore, and we wait so impatiently to become 'remotely special' within our chosen specialization?  


  2. 5 hours ago, APE said:

    Just find it funny how players and devs look down upon MMO systems that have active progression because it makes it a "hobby" when I see how Crowfall's works. Both require you to know what you are doing and having the right resources. One allows you to progress with no effort while the other requires you to actually do the thing along the way. What's worse is doing the same vertical color gear grind and not breaking away from the tired mold. 

    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 (as long as it is ultimately rewarding & worth my time and energy)  

    But certainly, I am not opposed to a fair active progression catch-up mechanic, for those that start the game later on down the road (or those that are unable to log-in & play for whatever reason).  As long as those players that are 'catching up' are unable to surpass the dynamic passive progression 'max'... and as long as it requires reasonable/adequate effort.  However, this would likely be a difficult system to implement well, and without many issues.   


  3. 42 minutes ago, Jah said:

    This is just not true. No matter how trained your crafting account is, it will not be as good as one that has invested time and effort into the vessel, discs, gear, and thralls. And of course you need high quality materials, which passive training does not provide. And there is some learning curve to doing it right. And it takes considerable time to craft.

    It is a huge exaggeration to claim that passive training alone can "max" your crafter, and that you don't have to invest anything.

    lol... dang, ya beat me to the punch Jah  😉  ... my multi-tasking cost me


  4. 2 hours ago, APE said:

    As is, Crowfall crafting is a hobby.

    I don't have to invest anything effort wise to have a maxed crafting account. I buy an account (main or alt), click train, wait. Take a look at a guide and do some basic learning and ta da I can make the same stuff an actual "Crafter" can with the same resources. 

    Not being a hobby would require someone actually putting in the time/effort/skill to reach that point. Dedicating my account, characters, giving up X so I can do Y, etc would be going beyond a hobby. Clicking train is less "investing" time and more staring at the clock.

    Obviously I'll probably produce less amazing stuff then someone that actually does it a lot, but that isn't any different then harvesting or combat that don't require the same "investing time" period.

    By ACE's own words, they want or wanted Crafting to be a main role that someone could main the majority of the time. Someone that saw some of the early crafting hype, backed the game, and hasn't paid attention would be in for a non pleasant surprise.

    Making crafting so vital yet gated makes no sense to me along with making it entirely vertical when it is begging to be horizontal.

    Power, progress, performance, ability should be earned and expressed in-game. Not a fire n forget window out of it.

    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... foods/potions... mat's... (special dropped) additives... dust/embers... etc.  (and/or gold, trading stock, friends, etc.) ... 

    otherwise, quoting you,  "Obviously I'll probably produce less amazing stuff" as you have inferred...  But actually;  Obviously you will produce undesired garbage and flawed rejects... umm... much more likely  😉    (Every spec account requires play & time invested to become viable... and most certainly to ever become 'maxed' as you have inferred above?)  


  5. 18 hours ago, FARNUM said:

     

    please put a pvp system for smaller, limited groups in this game.

    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 friends with other guilds when able.  I have fun in small guilds, and have been active on and off since 'Hunger-Dome'... but mostly this past year and a half.  


  6. On 4/30/2020 at 11:01 PM, Grelkon said:

    Part of what people aren’t grasping is that 20+ seems big now but when beta opens, or even launch for that matter the political landscape is going to change as other possibly larger guilds enter.

     

    UDL, and LoD only have a small presence at the moment. A fact I’m willing to bet will change as the game gets closer to launch. There really isn’t anyone who has been frustrated more by the inability of the smaller guilds to come together better than CC, but not having alliance mechanics only makes that more difficult.

    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 your so willing to bet on such things.   Name your prize, and I'll discuss accepting your bet.   Either way, I shall feel like I've won in the end.  

    I like alliances.   I already have witnessed alliances in the past two snap-test campaigns.   It was fun and interesting, having to plan around fratricide and build our own damn facilities!  It, for the first time, felt like a true guild vs guild format in comparison to the Factions rule-set?   It is not hard to work around constraints, if you plan appropriately.  It feels more hardcore, as it should, in the Dregs?  And it is Definitely not forcing any guild to NOT form alliances, as claimed.  It feels more organic, and of coarse more difficult after the Faction Rule-Set, and that's personally what I was expecting... for now.  

    For now, 'Green' Alliances will be a double-edged sword, and I'm pretty sure they'll be in the Dregs some day!   I personally want to test what we have, much more thoroughly, and observe the guilds' actions and how they evolve.   I'm tired of the 'faction' mentality that we have already experienced.   The trials were, for the most part, pretty lame to most of the players I met.  I might be wrong?  Besides, apparently this game is not all that ready for too many 40+ vs 40+ battles, performance wise?   I can only assume that alliances, without fratricide, shall likely only promote the large slide-show/lag-infested type battles in the near future.   

    And if the current format causes bigger nastier guilds?...  terrific!    And if other huge guilds show up?... great!    We can cross those bridges, when and if they come?  


  7. On 5/1/2020 at 6:34 PM, mystafyi said:

    Are you sure, Didn't Blair say in a stream that current passive tree was designed and redone in a weekend?

    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 prior to someone else, will always have advantages.   Just marginalize the damn advantages, but don't over-think the inherent process, or give neck-beards or bot-users all the damn advantages either.  The current passive progression system does not discriminate... so thank you ACE from many blue-collar players.  

    I backed this in kickstarter over 5 years ago.   How long was our wait from patch 5.100 and 5.110 ?...  G Wizz  


  8. On 4/28/2020 at 7:36 PM, Deioth said:

      And no, passive training will not and cannot be fixed without giving it supplemental systems to enhance it and player engagement with it.

    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?   


  9. 1 hour ago, Jah said:

    No, I get guild vs guild. It's basically a faction campaign with your guild as the faction.

    I've always preferred sandbox pvp systems that grant more freedom and control to the players.

    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 war rule-sets, and hardly anyone shows up again?  

    Honestly, why don't you just stick to the Faction Campaigns?   It is what you want, more or less, lol.  After all, you've already proven yourselves there?   Seriously -W- can defend its long standing championship titles  😉

    oops... I meant 'Balance' can defend... err, 'Earth' can defend its long standing championship titles !!!  Yey !


  10. 14 minutes ago, Jah said:

    No, I think you misunderstand the real differences between Factions and a sandbox pvp FFA.

    To be honest, the current implementation of Guild vs Guild is more like a Faction Hybrid than what I am talking about, because the game tries to enforce Faction-like restrictions on the Guilds, such as deciding for who your guards will attack for you, rather than giving that freedom to the players.

    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?  


  11. 14 hours ago, Jah said:

    The Dregs was pitched as a political throne war. Making and breaking of alliances was a big part of that pitch. It wasn't pitched as a battleground with rules that ensure each guild stands on their own.

    There is a huge difference between Factions that the players can't control, and a free-for-all sandbox where the players have full control over relationships they have with other players.

    At their core, the Faction rulesets are designed to protect players from betrayal. You pick a faction, and you don't have to worry about other people on the faction betraying you. The game mechanics try their best to ensure you are on the same team. Allowing player-controlled alliances does not resemble that.

    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 your combined actions... So What!   So you have to earn your own strongholds, territory, caravansary, buffed crafting stations, etc. etc... Sounds Appropriate!   So you're guild is low on numbers... freaking grow and/or adapt!  There is plenty of time and potential, if each guild simply sets realistic goals and/or earns their desired active membership.  

     

    In all honesty I hope that they add good options for the Dregs rule-set, that may add various optional & unique mechanics for alliances some time in the future, if desired. 

    But once again; what are some more specific "good alliance mechanics", that are currently being advocated for?  


  12. 1 hour ago, Yoink said:

    The larger guilds don't want to cut members. The smaller guilds don't want to add members.

    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 for alliances some time in the future, if desired.  

     

    What are some of these "good alliance mechanics" currently being advocated for?  


  13. 8 minutes ago, Jah said:

    This is what I disagree with. I don't think the game should force people to merge guilds to ally. Nor do I think restrictions against alliances are any more "natural" than mechanics that facilitate alliances. The politics of alliances can require just as much thought and ingenuity as those of monolithic guilds.

    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.  


  14. 2 hours ago, Jah said:

    Oh, it seemed like you were arguing against alliances. Especially with how you were painting them as nut-cups and zergs.

    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 there are trade-offs to bringing in all of your alt-accounts (under one guild banner) or just simply massing superior numbers of combatants.   The 'scoring per member' mechanics are great for game competitiveness across all sizes of guilds.   I am advocating for keeping such alliance constraints, and to continue testing as is so that more positives and negatives can be identified throughout much longer campaigns.  

    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 (guild vs guild) 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.   

    After all, this is the Dregs ... Guild vs Guild ...  and not faction wars?  


  15. 12 minutes ago, Jah said:

    Alliances wouldn't circumvent the Divine Favor numbers game. They would be part of it. Just like guilds.

    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.  


  16. 41 minutes ago, Jah said:

    If you can get those benefits by joining two guilds into one, that is no less zergy than getting them as two allied guilds.

    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.  


  17. 3 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

    "Anti-Zerg mechanics" are a buzzword that typifies the genre. They don't work. They will never work.

    Players are smart. They don't become less smart when you put a bunch of them in the same guild/nation/team/whatever.

    Any conceivable "anti-zerg mechanic" you can come up with will be assessed, broken down, and exploited by said players for the purposes of leveraging larger numbers of player to squash smaller numbers of players.

    The fact of the matter is that the sandbox PvP genre lives and dies by the quality and accessibility of its zergs. If you want to make the game more engaging and accessible, you don't need Anti-zerg mechanics. You need the exact opposite. You need Pro-Zerg mechanics that make it easy for players to ally with each other to create forces in numbers and organization that are competitive with one another.

    "Anti-Zerg mechanics" are a design black hole that only serves as a false carrot on a stick for players that aren't going to win anything anyway, and only serve to empower the very organizations they're supposed to limit.

    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.  


  18. 15 hours ago, Deioth said:

     

    I'd suggest that you re-read my proposal.  I am not sure how--especially in a PvP game where players are the content--that bots could in any way possibly generate any value in any meaningful amount of time.  The "Active" training I proposed is in quotes for a reason as normal game play merely allocates passive points faster, and vessel training would feature daily caps and be vessel by vessel only.  Players need to be able to hit a journeyman's level 

    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 deliberate & more concise bullet-points.  You might consider a similar approach, if you want people to read all the way through your suggestions.  


  19. 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 impacts guilds with overly large numbers, is a very interesting and effective anti-zerg mechanic.   I honestly can not understand the over-all thought processes behind this request... unless, of coarse, significant constraints are placed upon the particular alliance mechanics you're currently after?  Without such alliance constraints, the Dregs will simply become similar to every other previous 3-Faction type rule-set/campaign, and will likely end up just like the 'Trials of the Gods' campaigns that we already tested into the ground?... where one mega-alliance dominates every campaign?...  Umm, No thanks from me!   Those were so boring, and counter-productive, most of the time.  

×
×
  • Create New...