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

starrshipcs

Testers
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About starrshipcs

  • Rank
    Magpie

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Interests
    DB Manager and an aspiring DIY Robot Overlord
  • Guild
    Corvus Citadel
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lost in the Corn

Recent Profile Visitors

1,040 profile views
  1. Water sources could either dry up or freeze as the seasons change too, which fits thematically. Could even put a debuff on ice that increases knockdowns (in a converse-yet-similar way to how roadways will likely grant a speed buff). Hard pass on any swim mechanics though; no value add there IMO.
  2. Thematically, I could see graves dropping lower quality (desiccated) additives while higher quality additives need to be... extracted... from fresh-killed mobs. Regardless, I'd think there should be SOME additives that drop from graves eventually. Hoping Grave goods will end up as more than something to simply sacrifice or recycle for a few mats. Will see what next update has in store.
  3. Found this via search for "zoom", and I'd agree that this would be very helpful (as would every other suggestion made here). I can see @Soulreaver's point, I would like to see combat success require actual user skill, but this seems more like an arbitrary limitation as opposed to a game-enhancing design choice. Compromise: add a "Situational Awareness" minor that buffs zoom stats, ha! +1 across the board from me
  4. Agreed. No way that will happen anywhere near launch; WAY too many things that still need done for the rest of the game.
  5. Vendor search, in my mind, is a location tool only; you would still need to go to the EK to make the purchase.
  6. These things are not untrue at all. The import rules still mitigate the potential advantages for campaign play so I don't think the impact on balancing will be very significant, any more than tethering export allowances to campaign victory status would be and for the same reasons, but this is one of those early adopter boons that can be hard to overcome; if you have the resources at launch then you will likely get and hold the economic advantage for at least a while. Of course, those who intend to capitalize on this must do so right at launch in order to "establish their brand" because even spending a whole bunch on EK down the line to try and catch up may not actually give the same advantage as those who spent the same at/prior to launch got because latecomers will have to chip away at established go-to economies. It also depends on what value you actually place on gold, or any other forms of payment they may intend to allow (like dust, embers, etc). Vendor searches could be a way to further mitigate this particular issue. Query the item you want and get a list of vendors on the various public EKs with some sort handles. But I digress, that is a totally different balancing conversation.
  7. Since EKs all sit on their own servers which go dormant under certain conditions (hopefully those conditions change dramatically), they would need to wake up all connected servers at once most likely, but detail details; VERY much dig this suggestion: +1
  8. Player A is an established player who actually has stuff to sell on NPCs while Player B doesn't have anything to sell anyway, Player B could and should work with their guild to pool said resources to build their EK faster so they aren't at as much of a disadvantage once the do have things to sell, and Player A is still gated by import mechanics so anything they wheel and deal to get will still be subject to those rules if it is to be used. Players who start later than others will always be at a disadvantage at some level or another, and that can never (nor should) be completely eliminated. This is all diverting from the OPs topic, but if there is any space that is safe for ACE to monetize without significantly messing with the game balance it is the EKs, and we will ALL want them to monetize something to a degree because we all clearly have grand plans for a lot more development post-launch, and that costs money. In the context of the discussion about finding ways to reward winning conditions without giving too much of a rolling leg-up, awarding EK funnery does seem to me a very good compromise, but if they are going to monetize it then I'd also guess that it is largely off the table as a possible solution for addressing balanced rewards. Probably a lot of folks here to don't care about EKs as much and who would raise a stink at that anyway.
  9. That is news to me, and I'd agree that those percentages are not slight. What type of campaign was Shadow again (faction, guild, free for all)? Awarding something like that to a faction could be catastrophic to balancing, but awarding something like that to a few individual much less so... It think it would very much depend on the rules (how many uses, can it be imported to campaign or must be used in EK, can the relic boosts stack, etc.) built around that as to whether that could end up creating a standing imbalance. I'd still say lets see how the campaigns ultimately play out before making any judgments there, but I concede that this could potentially create a problematic rolling advantage. I'm not looking to eliminate ALL rewards for winning but also don't want to see a group truly become unassailable because of campaign rewards.
  10. I feel your frustration at the seeming one-sidedness of the wins in the current test environment as that is very much an accurate observation at the macro level (see @Yumx's vid above for counter-example of a specific battle, I've heard others make similar claims), but a few notes there: 1) There are, seemingly, only a few active guilds at any time doing a majority of the recruiting, and those guilds mostly have gone Chaos which results in Chaos heavy numbers. I learned this for myself recently when I went guild shopping. Unless Crowfall goes down in flames shortly after launch I doubt this will remain the case for long after launch regardless of what any outstanding mechanics may do to alleviate the situation. 2) For loners, such as our vast group of "4G_" friends, joining the obviously larger faction also makes sense because they can't have an organized guild to get their back and so it makes it a lot less likely for them to get ganked, which exacerbates the one-sidedness. They will eventually get a server more suitable for them and will not likely have any effect on the imbalance come go-live. 3) The ONLY advantage the winning team was ever purported to get was a slight advantage on campaign exports. Obviously the amount of loot ultimately allowed to be imported/exported is yet to determined, but I sincerely doubt that the exporting was ever to be so restricted for losers as to make it so that you can't export your absolute best loot. Even at that, the import rules in the next campaign are ultimately what will determine just how much of that "advantage" can be put to use in the future, which is a control they already have in place and which is applied without favor to any previous winners. It is totally possible that this will still be an issue at launch for some campaigns, and that should totally be discussed in detail once the pieces are in place and we can see how it actually works instead of how this limited test version works, but I really just don't see how completely removing the only small boon for winning a campaign really fixes anything but hurt feelings. It amounts to punishing the winner, especially if any of these proposed balancing mechanisms simultaneously give advantages to the loser, however minor they may be. Very curious what ACE's most recent stated intentions are here, and also very much looking forward to next version.
  11. To me, what you just said was "the winning team doesn't deserve to win anything"... If exports are flat and not affected by the campaign victory status then PvP is, itself, the primary incentive to PvP in a campaign (with the only other incentive I can think of being the Keep crafting bonus). That is fine for short term, for some people, but seems like a seriously short-sighted move as an MMO business model, particularly for this game. It provides very little incentive to stay with a campaign to the end for a lot of players, as the collector-minded players will export out once winter begins and the loot starts to get scarce and all that is left to do is PvP for the sake of PvP. It also does not align with their credo of "big risk, big reward" in any way, because the only ultimate campaign reward will essentially be an imaginary participation award. Where is the fun in that? I apologize if I have misinterpreted, and please correct me if I have, but talking about not rewarding winning teams on a thread about giving boosts to losing teams all sounds sounds a lot like preemptive sour grapes.
  12. Thank you for this @Arkade! Helpful.
  13. Is tethering export allowances to campaign success no longer part of the ultimate design? Once upon a time (a year ago when I was paying closer attention on a regular basis), this was clearly part of the plan and I haven't seen anything to contradict that, though I admit I have missed a LOT of the monthly updates in the past year and so may have missed that detail in the summaries I've read...
  14. Can't argue with that. I think OPs point is that not all topics are worth discussion at this point. Discussing what functions by design and what doesn't function by design makes sense at this juncture, but discussing things like balancing and stub systems that aren't even completely implemented does not make much sense because all of the relevant pieces aren't yet there. ACE could indeed, and should, get ahead of this for the sake of maintaining all of the testers they have acquired; no one wants to feel ignored for years when they opened their wallet to buy in to the discussion, as we all did. That said, they also can't react to all posts on the forum where the topic is a moving target that they may have already changed in a more-recent-but-unrealeased build. In development, game devs need to walk a line between "we need new players/testers to fund and test development and so need to put something functional together to attract them and hold their interest" and "we are trying to develop a cohesive game with a lot of complicated interlocking systems and working with our testers is paramount to delivering the vision", and I think ACE's communications are more in line with the former than the latter of late. I'm sure resources are spread thin but I think what they have together is significant enough that they can new attract and keep play testers without obscuring the current state, so they should make more of an effort to make it clear that 1) this is not a functional game yet and 2) to broadcast which systems are in flux and which are test worthy. I'm pretty sure this will need to entail some label changes and disclaimers in-game to be maximally effective.
  15. It is my understanding that Dregs are Guild v Guild events, so there won't be giant random pools of newbs stuffed into the same teams by happenstance as there are in the current faction campaigns where you don't even have to be a member of a guild to participate. It is also important to remember that this game was designed from go to foster participation between players and teams, so there will occasionally be some bigger coalitions by design (and a well-organized coalition of experienced players is not a zerg), but that it was also designed with a lot of "knobs" to tweak the campaign rules to help balance without introducing blanket stat mechanics to do so. Right now, the raiding game is meaningless because the only thing you really win is cred, and maybe a place to craft that grants crafting buffs and a convenient place for gathering mats. Ganking raids aren't even as much fun as they could be right now either because harvesters can just stuff their haul into the world bank as they go. Eventually, however, campaign rules will be polished and scoring will impact the export allowances so you could still participate in a campaign and lose horribly while still having fun and bringing at least some good gear/mats out (not the case currently where the export numbers are flat and you can export whenever you want to), so the "losers" aren't actually losing out on THAT much and there will still be incentive for them to play. I'm not trying to say this is definitively not an issue or trying to invalidate the OPs point, and I even like @Lightsig's suggestion above in particular as it feels like it better fits the idiom of the game and could be an interesting mechanic regardless of the zerg issue, but I guess what I'm trying to boil it all down to is this: this game has a lot of pieces in the design that could potentially alleviate/eliminate this issue and, given that it is currently in the Beta test state it is in with as few concurrent players as we are seeing at any given time, talking about implementing additional mechanics to address balancing when the first wave of campaign mechanics aren't even fully implemented seems premature. I'd personally like to see how their design plays once fully implemented and populated before any additional balancing mechanics are introduced to prevent them from wasting time when it may not even be necessary. Side note: while I do have a great appreciation and understanding of the development process and the delays such projects can encounter, as well as an appreciation for the design ACE has laid out, I am crazy impatient to see this game delivered and would love to not have to remind myself that it is still in development as I encounter things that are sub-par in the current test version; it's close enough to a functional game at this point that it is an easy fact to forget while play-testing.
×
×
  • Create New...