• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cosian

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    GR Michigan
  • Interests
    Online Gaming?
  1. It is a PvP game by design. If you want the best materials to craft you will need to expose yourself to the dangers of PvP. If it were not so then everyone could have the best stuff. It follows that the best stuff is then basically worthless. No one will care to buy it from you because it is easily available with minimum risk. You have limited choices as a solo player. I guess at some point a trader could ply the EK's looking for deals to do some buy low and sell high transactions, or, buy the ingredients needed to combine and make more complex items. As others have said, the solution is to find a group ....
  2. Given from many of your posts you are pretty focused on a single game rule set, that being hard core GVG mod. So lets focus on that. I guess if you take points out of the equation you would advocate something like as soon as a guild does not control any points they either swear fealty to another guild or they are out of the game. The campaign continues until 1 guild, along with their vassals, control every position on all maps, or perhaps x% of all positions. And frankly I like that. It is not about point ticks but actually taking and holding positions on the map. But that said, unless they also incorporate some kind position linking on the maps I think the tendency will be to continue to take the most points you can with the least amount of effort. Or said another way, fight avoidance as opposed to creating good fights. So unless they create some choke points I do not think it will matter if you do point ticks or positional control.
  3. Are we really ready for a heavily marketed first 'sanctioned campaign' ? The experience my friend is having in his first foray into CF is really the driver for this post. And I think @Fade recent post resonates here as well. My friend joined a few days ago and took the default suggestion for a faction upon entering the campaign. Welcome to NA CHAOS new player! Certainly there were things to do and explore for the first couple days. Check out the temple. Do some safe harvesting around the temple. Get your Pack Pig going. Make some intermediate goodies. Etc.... but then what? CHAOS hasn't had a keep since the early days of the campaign. If they do control a fort its really just a 'come get me' for Order or Balance. As such, there is little or no access to crafting tables. He can't really even work on leveling his lowly white vessel. I see no real opportunity for this situation for CHAOS to turn around unless a larger organized guild shows up on the CHAOS side. Since faction is locked for an account for the duration of the campaign there is no side switching balancing that can happen. Basically he is consigned to tough it out in a less than fun situation until the campaign ends. Thankfully the campaign is short and there will be opportunity for a fresh start. There is already some talk of guilds interested in switching factions. And this is a good thing and should be happening for faction V faction campaigns. But what if the campaign is longer? My understanding is that a longer campaign is an objective for the first sanctioned campaign. We are only 4 days into this one and its apparent how this campaign will go whether it ends tomorrow or goes another week or more. I don't think its going to be a very good experience for new players should they end up on a side that is considerably under powered and are locked into an extended campaign. Both the player base, and certainly ACE, are aware of this situation and there is a lot of suggestions and ideas being floated from the PB and ACE. In short, I think going to what we are calling 'The First Sanctioned Campaign' and increasing the length of the campaign is ill advised until some of these 'balancing' ideas can be implemented and tested. I am just concerned that new entries end up on under powered side and have to suffer through what my friend is experiencing for an extended period. I should clarify that I personally feel that making losing fun is not the objective. Some will win and others will lose. Such is the nature of campaign gaming. However, locking someone into a losing and difficult situation for an extended period will have a negative impact on player numbers. I've been on the losing side in campaign gaming for extended periods many times. The other side(s) offer helpful suggestions like "you just need to get more players", or, "get your side better organized", etc... Sure, I'm down for all that; but this is not quick or easy and the bleeding can continue for long periods of time if there are no fresh starts happening. I see no immediate solution other than to keep to the campaigns to a week and allow for fresh starts and re-balancing to occur frequently.
  4. You continue to propose that instanced numerically balanced arena style PvP as a solution here. I don't get it. You do recognize this is being designed as an open world PvP game and all that entails, don't you. It's Open World PvP ... not just PvP. Whether its 5v5v5 or 100v100v100 matters not. Its instanced arena PvP. It is no longer an open world PvP game. Balance at the start of the campaign as needed and then let it happen as it happens. You cannot control people staying or leaving. So I guess if one side decides to stop playing during a campaign and can only field 20 people then I sit in a friggen queue waiting to play if I am on the overpop side? I would be cautious about suggesting that the 'DEV's want to do this'. As I understand this thread, Pann put it out here because ACE wants comments on some ideas as opposed to something they have decided is needed.
  5. I would agree that the bandwagon crowd will float to a winning side .... but on the other hand, they have marginal influence on a campaign win. This will be largely driven by what the major groups do. But that said, I support a numbers balancing mechanic at the start of the campaign but once its on its on and if people elect to leave a side mid-campaign because they are losing there does not need to be some buff that is applied because a sides numbers have dropped. This is unnecessary and unwarranted. If the campaign has a clear and unassailable leader and the other sides have been given an opportunity to turn it around, simply end the campaign and on to the next.
  6. @duffy I dunno, Winterblades switched to Balance when Balance was losing over a period so apparently self-balancing is alive and well ....
  7. From various media pieces, I interpret that longer campaigns are an ACE design objective. Numbers like 6 months or even 90 days seem far too long to me. I am interested to know what the current thought process is on campaign length? And, if you subscribe to longer campaigns why you feel this will be better than shorter campaigns with more frequent fresh starts under potentially varying rule sets.
  8. Vessel solution

    Hehe ... it seems that early on vessels became a part of games lore and it remains a struggle on how to implement it. While it may look like a piece of equipment given it is crafted like a piece of equipment, it is not a piece of equipment because you have to go through this leveling process. I would not want have to go through that grind again and again. If you want to make a vessel a piece of equipment then I think you need to put the whole talent leveling thing back passive. That is, you have to unlock a particular character class vessel at the requisite level before you can use it. Once you unlock say Geen Templar, then when you create a new character with this Green Templar vessel you also do a full allocation of talent points in that class talent tree immediately. I think in concert with this you need to flatten the power curve for the vessels quite a bit to avoid a considerable advantage to players that have been in the game a long time.
  9. I would not disagree that this kind of problem has existed in many games. But, the solution to the problem is not to turn it into a small scale arena PvP game! Yup, you won't have that numerical imbalance problem, but neither will you have the open world PvP game I believe that people are expecting here. You could brute force numerical balance at the very beginning of a campaign by 'side locking'. You cannot join a campaign on a side with more than say 10% numerical superiority over another side. Or you set a top end numerical limit 700 side A, 700 side B, 700 side C.
  10. I think the goal of making each side feel they have a chance to turn things around is laudable to be sure. No one could disagree with this. Clearly people keep logging in to campaign style games as long as there is hope. Some will continue to fight regardless of the odds but in general, logins drop when its clear the outcome. I have seen so many attempts to tune mechanics to address the problem of 1 side, 1 guild, and/or 1 faction dominance. Virtually all attempts to provide some type of handicap to the underpop side have failed. And, the interesting thing is that in most cases the implemented mechanics were not well received by the playerbase ... even by those on the underpop side the mechanics were designed to help. I used to be the poster child for implementation of some type of balancing mechanic to help the underpop side as I often found myself on the underpop team with little hope of wining a campaign. But after seeing the results of what I thought were some pretty creative balancing mechanics I've come to a few conclusions: 1. The hope to turn things around rests more in turning it around in the next campaign rather than the hope of turning around a clearly lost position in the current campaign. If its clear things are lost and the losing side has been given a modicum of opportunity to turn it around, end it already! 2. Everyone who plays is willing to stomach a little lost hope. The key is ensuring that the lost hope doesn't last forever or go on for extended periods. Shorter campaigns and quick ends to campaigns where 1 side is clearly dominating for a period is desirable. 3. Players will self-balance. Alliances and sides will shift as players recognize that one 'side' is winning over and over is destructive to the game. Even the winning side will eventually come to this conclusion as they find fewer and fewer enemies to fight. The problem we often see is it takes too long for this to occur. It is often a little to late and player numbers have already dropped. Mechanics that cause this to occur naturally are desirable. 4. As I have posted previously in this thread, shorter campaigns are highly desirable. They serve to provide that fresh start, can serve to re-energize a losing side, and provide opportunities for players to form new alliances, and shift loyalties and associations to self balance. I believe the shorter campaigns solve a lot of problems and mitigate the need to impose potentially complex handicapping into the campaign itself. P.S. - I like the Risk analogy but I doubt people are going a like a bunch of RNG injected into this game. Finally, at the end of the day its still about the number of armies on the board.
  11. This then would devolve into a series of uninteresting and certainly less than memorable numerically balanced arena style PvP battles. RIFT does that, SWTOR does that, among a number of others. IMO it significantly dilutes the concept of a game where the recruitment, formation, and organization of a 'side', be it guild or a faction, matters. Instead, its a bunch of 10v10, 5v5, etc... PvP matches as opposed to open world PvP. I am personally not here for that and already have plenty of game choices if that is what I was looking for.
  12. Are you actually playing the game or waxing philosophical on what you are predicting will happen. I'm playing and seeing PvP happening all over with groups from all factions regardless of the current score ....
  13. You spiced it up nicely with a textual sleight of hands, but at the end of the day you ended up back where you started with ... Condecorations and ranked positions due more survival in "Hunger Dome" maps with perhaps 30-60 min duration. Maybe they will have a PvP Arena mode at some point but clearly it is not the focus of this game.
  14. I like the offline skill process ala EVE. My schedule may not permit me to play everyday or in every campaign and the fact that at least something is happening keeps me interested. Also, eventually you will have all the passive skills anyway, or certainly be high enough up in all chains to have a strong base to go in any direction for a particular campaign.