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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cosian

  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!
  15. Once again, a Balance victory at the Chaos Keep was not to be had. I suspect Chaos is still burying their dead because we killed a ton but failed to take the tree. That said, the Balance defeat here did not happen by force of arms, but rather by Chaos employing a couple interesting strategies that turned the tables ... I was wondering why so many we looted were running around with multiple campfires in inventory. It quickly became clear that you were dropping campfires all over and they were mass healing the tree, severely mitigating any damage we could cause. And alas, campfires cannot be attacked or destroyed but are on a timer. So its like having a butt ton of pocket healers that cannot be attacked. The second strategy of impact was being able to fire siege into the tree room. At first I thought it was a bomb but it was siege that pretty much created the ability for you to force our withdrawal and wipe us from the tree room. So well done! Seriously, you employed strategies permitted by the current mechanics and won the day. That said, do you guys feel this is the way it should be? Eventually you will be on the attack at a keep and be facing the same thing. The campfire seems especially gamey... Your thoughts?
  16. I think Blazen has some good ideas here... that said, some comments ... I am not sure about the concept of fort vulnerability. While it may serve to focus the combat, it also removes the strategic element of deciding what forts a side wishes to attack. We already have the bonus capture points so a side already knows what forts are priority defense. One thing that could be considered is revamping the warning system. Rather than a message when a wall goes down, consider a system that messages and shows the fort threatened if X enemy players are within Y distance of the fort. This provides a bit more opportunity to respond to an attack. As an example, this evening we attacked a fort and the defenders did show up but it was too late. Another few minutes of warning and there would have been a better fight there. I think the contribution of outpost points seems about right and should not be adjusted to play a lesser role in point scoring. I favor more mechanics that result in more choke points that must be taken to progress further into the map as opposed to free roam and free port in mechanics.
  17. More of a feeling without collecting actual metrics. Small scale PvP feels the same and in general FPS and MSG when not in large scale combat are 60 and 70 respectively for me. That said, in the last two keep sieges it was a slideshow and in both they had to do zone resets. We had a big three-way ... no not that kind of threeway .. at the Chaos keep where I suspect there were more than I normally see. But the prior day was probably 30 on a side at the order keep and we could not stay connected. Login and watch MSG climb to 20000. At the end of the day it did not feel like the problem was simply more bodies in the zone.
  18. Large scale keep combat is worse than before 5.8.1
  19. Dude ... when 50000 Kickstarter backups showed up there was no Hunger Dome or even talk about that to my knowledge. Hunger Dome came about simply to test larger scale PvP. I get it ... you liked it and it became your definition of what the game was going to be.
  20. OP is Original Poster .. thats you! I would not classify this game as sandbox MMO. I would define the core principles of the game as campaign style - team centric - objective based PvP. Now certainly there are the games supporting peripheral systems ... such as the Eternal Kingdom. Admittedly the function of the EK and integration with the campaigns still seems to be a bit in flux. However, what you noted in your hidden content is in there. You could, with the permission of the EK owner setup a vendor in a Kingdom.
  21. This may have been your interpretation or your personal original idea for the game, but as an original backer of the game, the campaigns represent what I envisioned. I certainly did not get the impression that the campaign mode would the next Battle Royale game you continue to seek.
  22. You won't be able to stop spying with second accounts, but I feel the concern about it, specifically regarding the implications to newer players, is overblown. It appears that new solo players will have options besides jumping into a Dregs campaign. With Faction RvR they already have an alliance with other players and there is talk of a campaign which could be like a COOP against an ever increasing AI Mob population. So @hamon scenario is generally invalid as I do not see a mass of newbie solo players jumping into the Dregs. It's not rocket science ... you or your group gates in and you see Zyback3 or another toon sitting on the gate.... First, there is little point in wasting a gank group or solo gankers time chasing down some new player. What's the point. Secondly, regardless of spies, your merry little band of harvesters will need appropriate security to avoid getting surprised. That's just part of the game and its not too hard to avoid problems with a bit of planning.
  23. @ferorious With respect to the OP. I do not get the impression from your post that you really understand the market that Crowfall is targeting, nor have you had any experience with this type of game. Instead, your suggestions seem appropriate for some kind of single player kingdom building game. Perhaps start your own Kickstarter as this is game is a far cry from what you are proposing.
  • Create New...