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

VIKINGNAIL

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    6,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by VIKINGNAIL

  1. To me the only reasons I can think of are that visually people enjoy seeing a fountain of doobers spring out with their loot, much like a few other modern games these days, but is the performance impact and other bugs related to doobers really worth that over a simple system that places it into your inventory? From a looting perspective doobers can be ninjalooted, but there are only 2 scenarios for that. Either someone can ninjaloot and you can't attack them (design flaw) or they can ninjaloot and you can attack them, in which case why not just have it go directly into inventory anyway and if people want the loot so badly they can fight each other.
  2. I think the game would be better without doobers. It would most likely help performance, even if only a tiny bit, every little bit helps, and I personally don't see the real gameplay/fun benefits to having them. What do you think? What are the benefits to going the doober route. To me the benefit would be that they can be openly looted, but on any campaign where that element would be important I would think players would be able to kill other players if they wanted their loot anyway. Any campaign where you can't kill another player for their loot opens itself up to ninjalooting without repercussion because of hardcoded factions/friendlies. Perhaps I am just missing some sort of huge gameplay benefit to doobers though. What are the benefits of it over just inserting loot directly into the inventory?
  3. You are attempting to trade one rail for another rail. ACE wants a hands off approach to policing social elements of the game. Yet they also understand that there are certain mechanics that create issues when you have hardcoded friendlies that can grief others without repercussions. The real solution to this on servers where ninjalooting is not desired is to remove ninjalooting. Unless you somehow think you can discourage the desire for a griefer to grief without actually changing the nature of hardcoded friendly rulesets. (You cant)
  4. It's pretty safe to say that a lot of new players find the starting experience tedious. It's also safe to say that suggesting tips for things that won't actually exist at the start of the game (advanced training progression as well as the ease to attain disciplines) aren't actually going to improve the new player experience for the game.
  5. The doober mechanic seems a bit silly in general. It makes things unnecessarily tedious. Just have the loot go directly into the inventory of the person who triggered the loot to drop. Would remove another element that only serves to impact game performance in a bad way as well. Those that want doobers for player looting, I see how this could be fun but I think it ultimately takes away a cool element to player loot games. Battlefield looting tactics. It shouldn't be as easy as running over objects to loot a player.
  6. There's no easy solution to this. It's ultimately a problem with not letting players police themselves and using hardcoded themepark rails. The only REAL solution to it is to make it so people can't be ninjalooted.
  7. I'm not sure vessel looting is even still on the table. They've been softening the game in many ways over time.
  8. I don't understand how spikes on her inner thigh would be efficient for combat.
  9. The way it was balanced in WoW is that many classes had easy ways to detect or break stealth and if that stealth was detected and broken out before it got openers it was severely disadvantaged.
  10. Me not that kind of orc.
  11. They are taking a design aspect from an MMO, not an MMORPG, and an MMO that plays vastly different from MMORPGs. MMORPGs = active progression when you talk about X time for Y reward. Passive training is not that. The passive system won't give veterans a slight leg up, it will give a significant one, not through power necessarily, but through gated content with crafting and harvesting, which will translate directly to power by the ability to make more advanced stuff faster.
  12. Maybe like the action harvesting system ACE can build in a lot of tech where if you aim on a sweet spot you get rewarded with more damage and the worse your aim is the less damage you do or the less effective the spell you used becomes. Maybe this is the happy compromise, then ACE can add full FF too and the bads can go cry on god's reach while good players play dregs.
  13. Then is it ok if some classes reward people that have good aim and some classes don't focus so much on aim?
  14. I mean is it ok if everyone isn't just good at every class, if classes have different elements that make some players better or worse at them. Whether it be aim requirement, or the tactical depth of the kit, etc etc.
  15. I can't tell how long they've been thinking about it. All I can tell you is that before they started building the game they didn't have everything fleshed out, and things have had to change along the way, including major things like combat. Passive training simply contradicts the appeal of restarting and entering fresh new worlds, unless you want some campaigns to have uncle bob elements, which is fine then, but not all campaigns should have uncle bob elements, that isn't that appealing to the majority of pvpers.
  16. Is it ok if everyone isn't good at everything?
  17. What if they had classes designed for people with good aim and classes designed to focus on other elements? Is that something you are ok with, or do you think that no classes should be designed with precision aim in mind?
  18. Durotar, they got em all over the place.
  19. Tbh there can be both, but ACE needs to not give everything to everyone. There can be AOE themed classes or support classes that may have abilities that aren't so focused on precision aiming, but they also need classes that do require aiming and they need to reward those classes for the skill involved in having good aim. Right now it seems like they want everything to be open to everyone with easy aiming for all.
  20. That's understandable if aiming isn't particularly your strong suit, but there are many gamers out there these days that enjoy the challenge of doing both at once, and if a game doesn't live up to modern standards it generally doesn't do that well. ACE has very modest numbers for what they need to keep the game going and updated, but I don't even think they can achieve those numbers consistently with the level of combat they are at right now.
  21. I'd say a game should require both mechanical and tactical skill, CF currently lacks in both, but extremely in the mechanical department. They need to look at what happened to albion online. Albion Online could have had more skillful mechanics, they kept it dumbed down for tablet and "niche" old timers that missed UO. It left them with a vastly unpopular game because no one cares about PvP in a game where it didn't take skill to PvP.
  22. It was a concept developed for another game, that they implemented without thinking about the long term impact. You sell the appeal of resetting worlds as a solution but they aren't complete resets and you gate the ability of newcomers to catch up to day 1 players.
  23. The moment someone puts the mechanics of a LoL or Dota2 into an MMORPG world $$$.
  24. A lot of people think this. I'm honestly not sure how easy it is to fix something like this later down the line, or if it is something that should be tackled early on. I believe feel of combat things should be priority though. Combat #1
×
×
  • Create New...