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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Deadman

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Vidja Games, Strategy and Traitor Board games, books, and girls. (Sorry guys. But remember, 20 bucks is 20 bucks.)
  • Gender
  • Location
    New Jersey
  1. I'm kind of concerned that everyone in the game just became a miner.
  2. You know, I was wondering that myself but I kept getting distracted by arguments about gender-locking or zergs. I think you get titles based on the amount of land you have available. Therefore if you vassal someone a certain amount of land, they gain the title under you equal to the amount of land they were given. Just my guess.
  3. You can't really do a dodge tank when there's no passive dodge. You can make someone dodge more but that would be a very unpopular class in a world where character physics exist. Just runnin' all up into people.
  4. I think this is an awesome idea. If the combat doesn't keep me coming back, the strategy wouldn't be enough to hold me.
  5. Don't forget that while a thousand people may think something is a good idea, there could be something fundamentally wrong that a non-developer wouldn't realize. It could be applicability of the idea, an unseen balance, misrepresentation of the data, or, as ACE has pointed out before, cost-effectiveness. I think we can trust they'll acknowledge issues even with a simple "Sorry, no."
  6. Deadman

    A race idea.

    I don't really have a reply. But I saw the thread. I read each post. I think I have to leave something to show I was here.
  7. The videos were for cinematic purposes I'm sure. There's no point to building if the destruction mechanics will be that fast - they'll balance it out to make building fortifications worth it. As for tunnels, I'm sure that will be a lengthy process considering its "stealth siege" element. You would definitely have to defend the entrance against enemy patrols and defend the entrance if it was discovered. Hell, if it was discovered you'd probably want to abandon the tunnel - sure you're through the wall but now you're trapped in a hole!
  8. I mean, they seem like they are going to balance campaigns sort of how a normal MMO would add more servers. I don't imagine you having trouble getting your zerg guild in a campaign together. That said, I would feel a little abandoned if 140 people suddenly disappeared from my faction because ten people couldn't get in and I started at a disadvantage. I think giving an "easy out" if they ARE creating a "lock in" feature encourages abandonment. I mean its only a few months, cmon now.
  9. I see a lot of potential issues with this. First being the potential to segment the community between even more campaigns than those officially offered, providing smaller player pools for all campaigns involved. How would you manage the rewards? A guild who pays for a custom ruleset would likely have the jumpstart and the advantage on a campaign they knew was launching. They could also choose to launch it at a time when several of their major competitors are locked in another campaign, reducing competition. This would create what a lot of developers try to avoid in the way of "favoritism" for gametypes or maps. Its the reason that Turbo mode is a once a year event in League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth despite massive appeals to get them added to the core game - if everyone played Turbo, no one would ever experiment with other rulesets and the rest of the game would die. (This is also the reason CS:GO developers sometimes resent the map de_dust because it has been dubbed "the perfect" map and is the reason everyone wants to play JUST that.) It is potentially P2W because you get to pick and choose what rules you liked or didn't with money. It doesn't necessarily matter whether YOU want that set just because it is more fun, it matters if the next guy likes it because it gives him an advantage. (I think I could go on further but I type a lot as is.) I think what I would like to see (and I hope is already being included) is a system of voting on which campaign are favorable and a listing of the individual rules/characteristics for that campaign so that players my upvote or downvote which aspects they like. That way certain admirable features will show up more often mixed in with other rules completely.
  10. I have noticed with this game more than others before that there are only three type of people concerning the Fae Assassin: Love - These people love her, love rogue classes, etc. Hate - People hate her either because they hate rogue classes or because specifically they hate that the Fae is THE rogue class at the moment. Fae Who? - This is for people kind of like me who don't even pay attention to rogue classes because they are so far away from our normal play styles for one reason or another. Hell, the only reason I even wandered over here is because I've noticed this in other topics. LETS FIND OUT WHY!
  11. I'm not a fan of the Champion. We have a Knight, a Templar, a Legionaire and now the Myrmidon with all the promotion classes therewithin. It all makes the Champion seem kind of redundant to me. Behind that would be Stoneborn. I don't like dwarves as a rule, but the Stoneborn semi-escaped this irrational dislike for some reason. It does have a fairly epic look to him.
  12. When it comes down to it, both sides have their negatives and positives: One Character One Campaign: +No multi-character spying +No hording resources in embargo vaults to maximize profits +Commits you to finding new strategies based on the choices you are locked into for that campaign -Cannot change character for potentially months in that campaign -Unable to continue playing with invested friends if you want to switch Archetype -Gives people with multiple accounts advantages in Embargo space + spying. Multi-Character Per Campaign: +Allows you to switch gameplay based on whims (caster today, warrior tomorrow) +Allows you to adapt to other people's gameplay for the day (So and so wants to DPS today. I'll tank or support.) +Allows spying (yes its on both lists!) -Allows faction or god jumping depending on who's winning (Three characters, three factions, I win resources no matter what) -Tripling resource intake and its effect on the economy -Potentially capping a faction/god with multiple characters when you can only play one at a time. There are more to each list and you can argue both points on any one. What I am saying is that there are reasons to do and not do both but its a matter of figuring out what is better for the gameplay meta. Frankly One Character per Campaign settings aims more towards the Crowfall vision, despite its potential negatives (more hardcore, consequences of choices, encourages strategy based on what you have and not what you could have, etc). And then the added disclaimer that nothing is really disclosed permanently yet so we really can't firmly speculate on what system will rule best... :-D
  13. Deadman

    I'm Sold

    I mean I would definitely be down with him ditching a shield to fight one handed and gain a suite of grab attacks. Picking someone up and throwing them would be awesome.
  14. The time limit is definitely necessary. If you don't have a time limit, then when do the seasons shift? Are you going to have multiple winters? Your world can only almost die once. I feel like a lot of assumptions are being made about the "victory" conditions for these campaigns. People are assuming that the game only matters at the last minute of the cycle. Take the Bloodstone ruleset that was outlined recently: the guild in the example above has been earning victory points the entire time they have held onto their holdings. If they lose everthing, they can now either try to retake it to maintain their points or pick a new strategy and start raiding other peoples' source of victory points. The whole point of limiting the time and resources is to give people a reason to fight - if you only have a month to get the required victory points to win, then you will play your hardest and smartest during that month. A lot of people are also worried about how their Embargo will work and their resources doled out. I have a feeling that this system is going to be reworked from "punish the losers" to "reward the winners." i.e. All players get 100% of their Embargos, but winners get an additional 35% (this could be done by having "Guaranteed" Embargo slots and "Victory Slots" that players fill depending on what they're willing to risk vs. not). If you give everyone 100% of what they fight for, then someone joining for just two months won't miss out on anything but a bonus if they end up joining on the losing side. (You could even make it more interesting - players that win get 35% of the Total Potential reward plus their time spent in the campaign. I.E. You get 25% of the normal Embargo space for joining in Winter, but if your side suddenly wins around the end due to your involvement, you get the full bonus 35% space as if you were in the entire time.) I like listening to myself type.
  • Create New...