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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cosian

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Online Gaming?
  • Gender
  • Location
    GR Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

437 profile views
  1. OK, if that is the case then the video shows -W- being pushed back and off their position 4 times by something close to even numbers. Further, -W- was unable to take the breach on their first attempt and had to retreat as well. Given you are stating that actual numbers in the fight were even, this also suggests that gearing didn't play a part since Chaos was controlling the battle ... until .... Chaos sallied forth to knock -W- off the bane tree hill they had retreated to. That was a tactical error and you lost the hill fight. You were pushed back to the gate away from the breach. -W- was then able to get in the now lightly defended breach. All Chaos had to do is defend the breach and they would most likely have won. No numbers disparity and gear disparity did not matter. Chaos lost due because they lost the hill fight and did not defend the breach plain and simple.
  2. I also have a similar and perhaps related issue ... using Chrome. When I access the forum I am logged out. When I select login from the forum page I login which sends me to my account page. When I try to access the forums again from the account page I get to the forum page but am logged out. The only way I can get into the forums in a logged in state is to go to the main page and logout. Log back in on the main page and then I can access the forums in a logged in state.
  3. Locking a character to a faction simply removes or mitigates the ability for players to self balance as they enter new campaigns. Clearly this has already happened in the past here multiple times as larger guilds have switched factions expressly for the purpose of creating a more competitive and improved game play for everyone. So I would not think we would want to remove that ability. Nobody wants to have to level individual toons for each faction. Further, if they did go through that grind you are simply back where you started; That is, players then have the ability to play whatever faction that want in a particular campaign using the toons they leveled for that faction. So this does not 'fix' the problem. It just a grind mechanic that players will not like. Players and larger guilds will self balance over time. Sitting on a keep wall night after night with no action in pursuit of some innocuous campaign reward is not the game play people are looking for. At least I would hope not.
  4. White to blue vessel is a decent jump ... blue to purple, not so much. I was recently offered a new purple from one of our crafters. And, we have really good crafters! Yet, the stats on the purple were simply not that much better than my blue to warrant triple the time to level a purple, at least at this time since everyone is starting fresh. I will eventually level to purple. So yes white to blue is a very noticeable difference. But I believe gear to make a bigger difference in 'power' than the vessel. And I know ACE is looking at that and there is talk about removing the HP bonuses from armor and rolling those bonuses into the leveling which I think makes sense. If you know how and where to level, its really not that long for a blue .... something like 8 hours. I can't remember how long. But ya, get blue as soon as you can.
  5. Well there is that, and this is probably a discussion for another thread .... but to be fair and accurate, Chaos did not lose their keep last night due to gear or numbers. Chaos had 63 in zone against 37 for Balance. Chaos successfully pushed Balance off their siege position and destroyed Balances siege equipment at least 3 times. Balance did get a hole in the wall after about 25 minutes but could not get through the breach. Balance retreated to the west away from the breach and took up a position on the bane tree hill to regroup. And that is where things went awry for Chaos..... All Chaos had to do is hold the breach and it is doubtful we could have got in. But apparently encouraged by their previous abilities to push us, they decided to sally forth and complete their victory pushing us off the bane tree hill. They were unable to do this got damaged pretty bad repeatedly getting blown off the hill. This coupled with some timely druid bombs weakened their left flank. We were able to roll up that flank, pushing them back to their west gate ... further away from the breach. After they were pushed back we about faced and rushed back to the now lightly defended breach.... I certainly don't relate this to rub sand in a wound as it was one helluva fight by both sides. Just making the point that while I fully agree on a change to the HP allocation between levels and gear, we have to recognize that experience, communication, and organization is playing a substantial role in these fights. This, as opposed to numbers and gear.
  6. Those imbalances do shift from map to map. Also, relative to the keeps, it can create some more interesting strategic decisions for a side. Rather than going all in on defense of 'your' keep with the R9's, go all in on taking the keep with the R10's.
  7. I do not see a reason or rationale for extending the campaign length. I don't believe it will create more PvP. Rather, it has the potential of creating less PvP as people get bored and/or an under populated faction falls further and further behind in the scoring. No amount of 'handicapping' or scoring mechanic manipulation will keep things interesting for a faction that is getting rolled, not to mention I feel those mechanics are generally undesirable. Further, while I agree that linking exports to scoring at the end of a campaign makes sense, it further exacerbates the problem for an under pop faction. Why keep playing? The op states the longer campaign will have some impact on the economy. I don't see a relationship here?? Enlighten me. So I see ACE and others pushing mechanics that may make extended campaigns more palatable. But why? What is the purpose in doing so? The whole premise of campaign based Crowfall is that fresh start. It's an opportunity for a new map, a new ruleset, and most importantly some re-balancing as under pop factions seek to re-energize and draw guilds and players to their side. Without question, the highest server pops will occur at the start of a new campaign. In addition, having played campaign style games for many years, the biggest drops in population occur when campaigns extend into months and either experience stagnation or when the losing faction has little or no chance to turn things around. Again, why is a long campaign better than a few shorter campaigns?
  8. The rallying cry works quite consistently no matter how many years the game has been going on. It can actually be more effective as the game progresses. Of course you can't do it every campaign and its more than a rando posting 'hey we need more guys'. In games that run for a long time like EVE, SB, or WWII Online for that matter, storied players, clans, corps, or groups will be known. These folks have will have developed larger networks of players and their leadership skills in making thing happen is established. The marketing blitz is generally more than a forum post. Phone calls are made. Emails are sent. Posts are made on guild websites. People respond as its a lot more fun when you know a side is bringing some leadership, organization, and numbers into to a campaign.
  9. Hmmm .... on one hand the original posts cites concerns with false notifications. I think the concept underestimates the degree to which this will be gamed.....one alt and some mats. No one will care about durability and guilds will have plenty of mats to throw up at a whim.
  10. I spent many years in WWII Online, a side V side campaign style game that experienced the problems the OP states. Over many years the game tried to address population imbalance with a plethora of mechanics designed to give the under pop side hope of turning things around. Side Locking / Spawn Delay, faster captures for under pop, more equipment availability, etc.. etc.. None of these 'handicapping' mechanics solved the problem and virtually all were not well received by the player base regardless of the side they were playing. IMO there are really only two things that work ... - Shorter faction V faction campaigns in general - A mechanic that ends the campaign if a side achieves an 'overwhelming' lead ... however that is determined or calculated. It is the start of the campaign that provides the opportunity for a fresh start, making new alliances, encouraging other faction players to join your cause. Players will eventually re-balance. A good example is the rise of Chaos these past couple campaigns. They did a forum marketing blitz and have picked up new players. A lot of people on these forums dismiss the faction V faction play, but I believe it is still an important part of the overall game. The game needs modes that make it easy for players to get into the game, join a team, and learn the game at their personal pace. etc... I view faction as a crucible for eventually creating more players who want to play dregs. So I don't think we can dismiss it and certainly need to make it a fun experience as well.
  11. I think the notification on siege engine deployment in a zone would be gamed .... doesn't cost that much to trigger the early warning system with one player. I agree with @Glitchhiker that if its too hard or time consuming people would not bother, especially given the fairly low reward with fort taking when compared with keeps. I think forts should be a viable cap option for 5+ groups. Again, if it is too hard or takes too much organization there will be less fights as opposed to more. An early warning system that reflects the number of enemy within the fort range could reduce false positives and also help a defender gauge what is needed for effective response or counter attack. Further, it does not take 15-20 minutes to mount a defense if people elect to respond. A couple minutes can make a difference. Once they get mounts back you can get around fairly quickly. Forts should be tough enough that it would take considerable effort and time for a 5 group to take it down. Again, I believe there is time to respond should players choose to do so. Finally I think I agree with most .... no vulnerability timers on forts. Lower cost light siege that could effect for walls but not keeps might not be a bad idea couple with tougher fort walls and an increase in fort points.
  12. Yet your video was a montage of stealth ganking unsuspecting noobs, a number without armor at all. I am sure those considering playing can't wait to experience it..... Hoot! That said, the music was great!
  13. No, your right and I'll own that but the results would have been the same if we had to stop to take down a wall. It really is a question on whether the campfires need to be reassessed and siege firing into the tree room is valid .... Walls are not generally going to be bugged but now every keep take will have to deal with the two strategies you employed and I mentioned. Look I am certainly not butt hurt because we didn't take the keep. I am happy enough we could provide some player content by conducting the attack. You reap what you sow brother
  14. Hoot! Ya I made a post on your 'Epic Defense' ... I am running a sale on Campfires if you need some of these back ... That said, well done!
  • Create New...