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

Niveus

Testers
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Niveus

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. From what I understand, the knight has a shield ability that applies to champions behind him. Not only that, we've also seen footage of being able to dig underneath walls and even destroy them. It seems to be more of a "hit 'em where it hurts" type of thing than a "you have x amount of people, so you practically win" type of thing (emphasis on strategy rather than sheer number wins). Also, there is so much variation in the different modes and imposed restrictions that you can choose to avoid massive scale guild on guild encounters entirely, yet still obtain equivalently good rewards (Dregs, etc.). It even seems like, if you really wanted to and were smart enough on the game economy side of things, that you could persevere well and solely through the means of crafting. Also, I don't think we're even sure yet if they're going to allow a situation where you have 20 guild members against only 5. From what I understand, for a situation like this to happen, it would need to happen in a specific campaign where 20v20 would be allowed. Several people would also have to meet the campaign requirements and then leave during the game, while the guild members stay in the campaign and remain as a cohesive unit.
  2. I want to customize my character so that it can have a massive beard that can entangle my enemies. Beard entanglement should be the next stretch goal.
  3. The sleeping bag model works but is overly complicated. Why not just have players spawn in their strongholds unless a graveyard has been captured? That way there is no "spawn camping" because the opposing team isn't going to be in your stronghold unless you're miserably losing. If you have a graveyard then you can go straight into battle in order to fight to gain control of important resource points that are nearer to the graveyard than your stronghold.
  4. I'm going to assume that you respawn in a stronghold until you capture a graveyard, which lets you respawn closer to important resource points that will constantly be fought over.
  5. I really like this idea. Since one of the goals of this game is to have a better emphasis on crafting, what if player respawn points could only be made by crafters? Honestly, it sounds like a really good idea, especially if the spawn points can be attacked and destroyed. You could get clever with placing them, as well, such as digging underneath a castle wall and placing one underground.
  6. I think this sounds like a good idea. You could also have a couple designated safe zones, like a town or a keep, where pking wouldn't be allowed or at least would incur serious punishments. The most hardcore PvP respawn situation I've seen was in a game called Rubies of Eventide where only towns and one keep near the starting area were designated safe zones. If you were out in the open world and players had a high enough scouting skill, they could track you down with ease and attack you if they felt like it. Also, someone would have to carry you to the keep to allow you to respawn, otherwise you would lose all of the items that you hadn't protected (protecting an item costed a significant sum). This also meant that somebody could pick up your corpse and have it in their inventory, preventing other players from carrying you to the keep to respawn without losing the valuable items you had just collected.
  7. I laughed so hard at this. I also like how they directly addressed the whole p2w thing in the streams. Most of the kickstarter benefits are temporal, which is really the opposite of p2w. You pay to get access to something early that anyone can eventually get and it doesn't give you any real advantage on the field.
  8. What I was saying was that players sometimes mistake toxicity for competitiveness. Also, attitude is not the same as mentality. The issue is when you bring your own "toxic" mentality onto the field by being a jerk. Which, lo and behold, happens often at higher levels of competition. Also, the league of legends statistics are complete BS because they don't give a margin of error. The supposed statistic that toxic games contribute to more losses in league is pretty much just arbitrary flavor text. I think you mostly misinterpreted my post so I'll try to be more eloquent in the future.
  9. Or at least make it so that only the best thralls can spawn in winter. I like your idea, though, because it would give another incentive to stay for the full campaign. Although it'd kinda suck if everyone only cared about winter and so joined a campaign solely during the winter season. I'm kind of hoping that campaigns will function so that you have to stay for the entire duration with a character.
  10. Yeah, and those people tend to think that the way they view the world is the only right way. They also like to commit the parts-to-whole fallacy where they take one isolated incident and apply it to everything.
  11. Not only does this happen, but it exists among various types of gamers. Unfortunately, it can't be prevented, simply because the more popular a game becomes, the more toxic the community can become. League of Legends, for example, is known for having one of the most toxic communities of all time in gaming. However, it comes with the territory... In early WoW, being a toxic player got you server shunned, although that sort of thing has become outdated. In my opinion, with a game like this, if someone becomes toxic then it'll mostly be limited to the forums since it's largely a PvP based game with an emphasis on crafting for progression. If you're toxic in game then more likely than not you'll simply be killed if you're toxic in a campaign or people wont want you in their EK since you've brought bad reputation to them. Although, the amazing thing about this game is that there is balance, order, and chaos, so perhaps the more toxic players will migrate towards chaos and etc. The true beauty about a game like this lies in the fact that toxicity can be alleviated by the community in the sense that wars can be waged, reputation can be gained or lost, and what have you. I think people have become used to artificial restrictions, but this game might eventually be able to allow the freedom for guilds and players to actually battle players that are "toxic". However, it should be noted that toxicity is often synonymous with competitiveness, and often times someone actually needs to have a "toxic" mentality to push themselves forward and be a true champion.
  12. From what I've seen, people tend to have extremely high expectations and, especially nowadays like you say, immediately bash something and quit when it isn't exactly what they wanted. It's a very dangerous mentality, I mean... Imagine a world where you try to start up a business and people walk up and willingly buy your product *before* it's introduced to the market and then arrogantly carry picket signs with all of their complaints written on it right in front of your store for days, weeks, even months?
  13. I mean, it has been said before, but I think that I like the approach to balance that the devs are looking for. You don't have perfect balance numerically per se, but instead the balance comes when you put your character in the scenario that would best allow them to maximize their abilities. For example, if you're a crafter you might not want to randomly charge into battle when your combat skill is probably not that great in comparison to someone that has based their character solely around combat. However, as a crafter, you still sway the tide of battles by choosing which faction to sell your goods to or what have you. WoW has also been trying to achieve this sort of balance for years, but the original game was so unbalanced that people had no other choice but to rely on numeric value. I think the good thing about this game is that it's starting with a combat system that isn't entirely numerically based, and so it'll be easy for people to adjust to it.
  14. I think that this is accurate to an extent. In one of the streams, a similar question was brought up in regards to why anybody would want to be in someone else's kingdom, like as a vassal or what not. If I remember right, they said that not everybody is going to want to outright rule a kingdom, and that it can take a considerable amount of work. Like say you are aligned with X deity and that ends up being advantageous to a crafter or what have you. Then it could be advantageous to simply exist under someone else's rule because of the particular options available for that player. I got the impression that ruling a kingdom isn't for everybody. Also, I mean, if you really don't like the idea of the campaigns nor PvP tournaments *nor* crafting and game economics, then this game will most likely put you off anyway, and possibly any other MMO that doesn't strictly involve linear soloing.
×
×
  • Create New...