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

Marth

Testers
  • Content Count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Marth


  1. 21 minutes ago, VaMei said:

    If the passive training is replaced with grind to skill, then there's zero reason to have multiple accounts, since you can only grind one account at a time. (unless group points are shared, then we'll be seeing skill bots)

    Unless there are skill point caps to prevent you from mastering everything, or daily skill point caps to insure it still takes 3 months to get a mastery no matter how much you grind, I see no reason for multiple accounts in a grind to skill game.

    Edit: there is no skill system without a downside. It's either a time gate, a time sink, or both. The only other option is to give anyone their choice of skills, but that's not very mmorpg.

    i liked Albion online skill tree


  2. 23 minutes ago, Angelmar said:

    We are 60d out from an the last full item/vessel wipe demanded by people that mostly don't play.  That wipe led to guilds like UxA quitting.

    So full wipe in October and then 60-120 days later do it again?  

    The pre-alpha population has essentially been stable and stagnant from bigworld to 5.8 (50-75).  The news of 5.8 brought a huge boom up to 200 concurrent and then declined back to 100 concurrent the last 5 months.

    Wipe without new content will not bring in new blood and may drive away current players that don't want to rebuild every 60-90 days.

    Calling it now two weeks post wipe, the siege concurrent pop will at best be the same approx 100 players there currently are.

    I think the wipe will point out a major flaw in cf. That the game is pretty unplayable for the first 1-2 weeks post wipe. 


  3. 1 hour ago, Vaylesari said:



    I agree that many AAA games have come out as utter garbage with predatory cash shop options. And just like most of you, I'm glad to see those games fail. Not because I'm happy about developers losing their jobs (which is horrible) but because those game companies need to learn that that is not what the market needs. However, that's a whole different conversation. The short of it, is no I don't want kickstarter developers to turn into AAA developers pumping out cash shop games. 
     

    the reason they keep making cash grabs is because people complain about them then spend money anyways. If it wasnt profitable they wouldnt do it. 


  4. 1 hour ago, VaMei said:

    @Pann

    Nearly 10 months ago Ace broke the connection between VIP & the second training track, but that news has obviously not outpaced the P2W stigma, even among old crows like ConstantineX.

    Marketing has its work cut out for them.

    Not to mention people still have no idea what eks do. P2P trading hasnt been addressed yet either. I find it more p2w if i can just paypal someone 200$ for a full reroll yellow vessel and gear. 


  5. 1 hour ago, Kameleon said:

    I don't know if this idea has been brought up before but the num locking running to a region afk 10 minutes is pretty boring especially with such low population...

    I believe it would be interesting that PVP captured areas like forts and even towers or respawn points should be teleportable to when you have them captured.

    This would again give an incentive for capturing stuff and PVPing. 

    I think captured locations should be teleportable to when they are between 50% and 100% captured. When they are below 50%, the teleport option dissapears and the final fight for the location is underway.

    Thoughts?

    currently you full cap things in .2s 


  6. 3 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

    I have to say, I really agree with this. 

    First stage focus on development was the sandbox aspects and basic combat in a battle royal style, with piles of time spent developing ore whacking for stuff, and crafting stuff into other stuff next. All the conquest strategy and what I would consider "real" aspects of a game that bills itself as a "Throne War Simulator" are now being added in after those, and in many ways being forced to fit square pegs into round holes. In every RTS game I have ever played, (another type the game is compared to), the less you think about the mechanics of harvesting and instead focus on territory control, the more you can make strategic choices about what harvesting areas to fight over.  From Age of Empires and that third gold pile close to your enemy, to Company of Hero's where simply holding territory was enough to gain resource income.  The less you worry about the details of harvesting, (one unit type, "peasant" for ALL harvesting in AoE at a fixed rate, to simply gaining resources from holding territory),  the more fun the game seem to be. CF is largely the opposite of that.  It's gotten better with PvE places to "farm", but the fact the word "farm", which really isn't fun for most, and is used as a common game play activity seems problematic. 

    Personally I think it was done backwards, but crafting and old harvesting models are what developers were the most familiar with, so that's where they started. Cart before the horse if you ask me. I only hope they can find enough corners to shave off the edges of square pegs to fit them into the round holes they are aiming for.

     

    people wouldnt play most rts if 90% of the game was watching the peasants hit rocks.


  7. 2 hours ago, ConstantineX said:

    I suppose for me it isn't that they are breaking away and doing something new, it is that they are combining some of the best elements of MMOs and introducing a level of strategy play that I personally haven't seen in an MMO. Granted that strategy is all but not there currently. But it has to function like the top of the skyscraper metaphorically. Every shift at the bottom drastically changed the top.  The elements of strategy we are seeing should be looked at as placeholders.  Just taping up the holes to give it the absolute bare minimum functionality while they iron out the core.  

    strategy play atm is seen in most other pvp mmos. Hopefully dregs shakes things up. Seems like it will be atlas tho with no pirates/water/pets/ but better combat. 


  8. 22 minutes ago, VitnirTL said:

    Hello Crows,

    the current Vendor-System isn´t that great, in my opinion. You never get the chance ( or very rarely ) to get one in GR
    I think there could be a better system to get a Vendor place than just speed and luck.
    Thats why i want a bit of discussion and your opinion of my ideas. Also you can post your own.

    I thought it would be a good idea if u have to purchase the spot. ( You have to craft the Vendor first if you want to take place in this auction
    So in some time ( maybe 1 week, 1 month, you name it ) is the time to go to an Vendor auction. Or to the place where you want to place your vendor.
    Than you can bid with other players who want to place there vendor there. The highest Price gets the Vendor and can place it. So you can cycle the Vendors
    and get a chance to sell some stuff. Also you need the gold for the upkeep. If you dont pay for 24H the Upkeep cost you lose your Vendor. 

    What do you guys think about this idea ? Could it be better ? And if yes what could be better ? What are your ideas ? 

    Best Regards 

    VitnirTL

    gr shouldnt have vendors


  9. 1 minute ago, VaMei said:

    Agreed, those goals are mutually exclusive without some significant changes or additions.

    I'm not interested in bling, flashy skins, or shining my e-peen. In the game we have today, I want to win the campaign, gather my spoils, & use them help win the next one. So how is my EK going to be important to me without having an impact on the next campaign? That would take a significant evolution, like Hunger Dome to CW evolution.

    how do you convince people to make walls / gates ect if they cost gold every campaign for upkeep. A majority of players beside people with packs / rpers dont care about eks. 


  10. Just now, VaMei said:

    They certainly do, why else would we take the time to go there, let alone waste resources to build anything there?

    I recall hearing that JTodd wants the EKs to be valued as a central part of the crowfall player experience, and that they are the reason we should want to brave the hunger & the dying worlds.

    How he intends to make that a reality, I have no idea but we're not quite there yet. 🙃

    How ACE is going to bring EKs up to that level remains to be seen as the goals we've heard are:

    • EKs should have little to no effect on the competitive balance of any given campaign.
    • EKs should be the thing that makes you want to export, and by extension, the thing that makes you want to win.

    this is from a recent thread. Currently the two things that are talked about on eks are not compatible. 

×
×
  • Create New...