Bramble

Testers
  • Content count

    680
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bramble

  • Rank
    Rook

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • Interests
    Story telling, wood turning, gaming, teaching

Recent Profile Visitors

1,889 profile views
  1. Dizzy Down

    Do I remember correctly, that if a harvester is harvesting their viewpoint is locked forward/on the node? Help me out here, am I remembering that correctly? Because if that's the case "paying attention" is significantly impacted I'd guess. And how does a Harvester "pay attention" to a Stealthy Hamster, of which there will be legion on the maps? "But you aren't listening Bramble, you nub . . . WORK WITH PARTNERS IF YOU WANT TO HARVEST!" Blah, blah, blah I am listening: You want that Harvester, WORK WITH PARTNERS if you don't think you can take them down before they run off. This isn't about handing Harvesters one-sided advantages, but the opposite should also be true. My 20lb mining hammer should have plenty of "Dizzy Down" capability if it connects with your face, helmeted or not (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) Dizzy Down feels off to me because it places (IMO) a too heavily one-sided onus to "but pay attention-zors!" on the Harvesters, while encouraging Hunters to have the game play attitude (expectation) Harvesters are "required" to simply be easy, fall over targets just because they want to be Harvesters. Specifically: That the only "skillful game play" needed by Hunters is to simply stumble onto a Harvester any-ole-way, and that the Harvester's "job" at that point is to simply be taken down. So of course the game should be coded to legislate that. I don't agree with that philosophy. I expect Hunters be required to play smart and engage in astute teamwork with partners, or be an astute player and know how to manage/cycle CCs, cooldowns, sprints (on cooldowns), and DPS to drag that Zebra down, because . . . it's a PvP game on the PvP map. What if the "Harvester's Job" at that point is to GET AWAY with their hard earned goods? The ones in their packs anyway as opposed to packed out on a pig? What if THAT'S part of the excitement and challenge for that mode of game-play (being a Harvester in dangerous territory)? With gimmicks like Dizzy down it is my opinion you pollute the view pointing that filters HOW we think about multi-role game-play in a PvP game, skewing it improperly. Limiting and stifling creative/expansive thought for human game play. There can be GREAT fun/satisfaction in learning how to "outwit" Hunters, as much as Hunters get to rub their hands together when they've been successful. Unless of course things are skewed and we crank in stuff like dizzy down. Either because we are short sighted, or "the whales" have it all figured out in the background because they'll be playing both sides simultaneously, Harvesters and Hunters side-by side via account stabling This is an opinion, you don't have to agree, and again I'm not suggesting Harvesters suddenly become "combat capable". So sure, pay attention, work with partners . . . as a Hunter: LEARN how players move and groove, flee instead of fight. In many cases you WILL be able to identify repeating behavior by some individuals. As a Hunter LEARN the maps and how the herds of "deer" (Harvesters) are choosing travel routes (deer runs) to get to resources, as well as anticipated vectors for escape at given watering holes. Learn where/who always travels with armed protection . . . and who doesn't. Then ANTICIPATE, setup with your partners, spring the trap, watch the Gazelle break and run . . . . and have your positioned Hunting partners cut that off. The point here is: When Gazelle or Zebra break and run . . . they might make it. Sometimes they don't . . . if the ambush is sprung really well, but that's a game-play statement for a human player, not a code induced effect that auto-procs because you ran up and bonked the target once (Yay for "skillful" game play - not). Way, way more opportunity for dynamic, interesting, interactive Hunter/Prey game play in that environment. Here's my prediction: Dizzy down will be removed or severely nerfed within the first 6 months of release amidst a fair degree of dissatisfaction from players. When the rubber meets the road, and the SWARMS of face-rolling Gerbilkins boil across the maps, Harvesters will start abandoning that mode of game play because it won't be profitable or viable or satisfying to a human as a time sink investment. Inclusive to this idea are situations where you have groups trying to protect Harvesters. . . who in turn are simply zerged over by larger groups, etc., ad nauseum. From another game, and another forum: " . . . the game will be left with the Dregs of the community too dumb to realize that for Lions to exist the plains have to be full of herds of Zebra . . ." IMO mind you.
  2. Dizzy Down

    C'mon Jah . . . that's intentionally being obtuse. Usually your responses feel more considered and focused on game-play. You can disagree with my stance that I gave in good faith, but note I'm articulating a game-play dynamic that more relies on human strat and tactics and less on embedded "gimmicks" to secure targets, for lack of a better way to put it. The more that's (reasonably) left in the hands of players to work out in human-game play, the less overhead ACE has to manage in balancing embedded advantages/artifacts/"gimmicks", as well as there being fewer variables out there all those speshul-clever peepls work to exploit, add-on, or outright cheat with. I like it way more player-centric, less code-legislated, to whatever degree the dev house decides to "balance" to.
  3. Fair enough. However: I've typically seen "godly" neutralizations, even if on cooldown, the focal point of class balance issues. Much like OP attack skills are often times. Or skills multi-triggered through animation cancelling (depending on game), etc. It is my personal belief that you open the door for unnecessary complexities when introducing arbitrary 100% (anything), particularly when it's unnecessary. In this case I'm referring to the fallacious idea that doing this is the way to go to see "more skillful gameplay" introduced, when introducing "more skillful gameplay" is a goal you have for ANY implementation. There may be different shapes to "more skillful" gameplay depending on approach, and it's not exclusive to this idea Barriers should provide a 100% absorb if completely blown through. Again, my opinion, I find the idea of a 100% one-off neutralization of an in-coming attack, regardless of damage magnitude, a needless gimmick. There are lots of other, more creative ways to alter / adjust / modify how Barriers might work other than a binary, unimaginative, anything-over-the-absorb-level-of-the-shield is . . . ta daaaa! 100% neutralized! (drum roll). Heck, I'd be far more in favor of expansions on earlier suggestions by some others related to alterations to Barrier attributes based on character development / stats. Thinking free form here, off the top of my head and no farther: Based on some type of character progression / skill levels Barriers might see the introduction for the CHANCE for an additional proc on Barrier collapse: Say a REFLECT of some % of the overage to the attacker. You might still die because you were smacked for 3x of what was left of your shield, but, as RNG would have it, say 25% of that overage bounced back into the face of your killer's hit that trashed your barrier (or whatever). Makkon's suggestion paved this (general) path for me with his suggestion about making Barriers more interesting / varied. Calibration is everything of course, not just the idea itself, so, regardless of approach (if one were taken) . . . it would have to be "balanced". Whatever that might mean. I've never been a fan of "far ends of the scale" (in this case an arbitrary 100% damage block) because it always seems to be a magnet for "trouble", whether raw abuse either "legally" or "exploited", or simply introducing unforeseen class / capability balancing issues once it's off paper and in the field. And all that when really it's not necessary for "skillful" implementations, or fun/satisfaction with a class. IMO of course. So, no more for me to say here. Philosophies are out . . . it's in ACE's hands now as it always is. /salute
  4. "Skillful Timing" is a wash: It applies to any mechanic, whether well or poorly implemented. The "use for a barrier that currently doesn't even block a single auto attack anyway" is a calibration issue. On the one hand we are saying it's way to far on the weak side right now, so why is the "fix" to simply let it absorb 100% of whatever comes in next, including anything that might be 10x in power of the barrier's initial 100% full state?
  5. This identifies what it would do. This does not identify what the value-add in game play would be. I'm not splitting hairs here: Lots of stuff in a multitude of games "do what they do", and are awful for the game. So the idea here is, have some mode of criteria that allows you to evaluate any set of mechanics for net value-add so you can throw out the chaff and retain the grain. Simply stating what it does fails to identify why it's a good idea, or even a bad idea, or anything in between. Why is having this feature altered to this model a value-add for game play?
  6. This effectively maintains the "objection" on my part. If what you are saying is that any pulse of damage that exceeds the rating of the barrier at any point in time, whether 100%, 50%, or 1% remaining, will still invoke full nullification of that pulse of damage. What's the value-add in game play for this?
  7. Dizzy Down

    I'll reiterate a philosophy mentioned in a different post on this topic: We are potentially making it too complicated, creating a "code artifact" intended to "legislate" how harvesters vs hunter contention is "supposed" to work. This is a potentially "dangerous" approach given what you may see born is an endless, and often cried about/debated dynamic, code-founded which creates the platform for debate. Assertion: The domain of this topic is a CW, meaning it's a PvP-centric discussion. The number of passionate claims regarding "groups" will rule, "make sure you are in a group", "forget being solo having any advantages", etc., are legion. This must apply to the Hunters as well, otherwise it's a Red Herring or double-standard. Do away with dizzy down and gimmicks. You want that Harvester, and are afraid they'll run off? Learn to wolf pack, work with partners, cut their run-path off. Learn to be a better hunter.
  8. I do not agree with approaches that suggest a Barrier suddenly gains vastly greater power (potentially in multiplicative magnitude) when it's DRAINED as opposed to when it's at 100% of capacity (e.g. barrier has been impacted/drained to 1hp, then it suddenly is capable of absorbing a shot 10x in power of 100% of shield full capacity). I consider this a counter-intuitive, arbitrary "gimmick" injected into the dynamics/mechanics - just because we (a programmer) can. I am more in favor of discussions that massage such ideas as scaling of barrier attributes based on character stats (as example - see Makkon's post a couple up). IMO.
  9. Autorun hotkey

    Autorun isn't that important to me. I'm not "for" it or "against" it - - - it's never played a critical role in any game I've played, and I've never strained my fingers by always being in control of my character's movement and travel. Someone mentioned Tyrant (?) was against it at some point (or was that J. Todd?). Anyone with a link to that dialog? Frankly (again, AR is irrelevant to me, pro or con), given the large number of invisible Hamsters that will be lurking throughout the CWs, my "needing" to have auto-run is a problematic attitude, if I were to have it. If this was going to be a WoW, or FFXIV, or other game with wide-open, not dangerous, zones and territories I needed to repeatedly marathon across, maybe. Otherwise, I'm expecting to be keyed up 100% of my foot-time in any CW. Again - I'm not "against" it. It's simply never been an important function for me in other games, rarely used, and in a PvP centric open-world situation becomes even less "needful" to me than it already is. Just sayin, relative to me.
  10. Dizzy Down

    Do you have a link to the dialog on this from T-Blair?
  11. Dynamic Events to Reward Scouting

    There are two areas where I see this (theoretically) addressed: 1) Relative to scouters patrolling areas already discovered . . . their reward is the pushback possibility from opponents. In other words: The adversarial/competitive dynamic on the maps will (should) keep things active for scouters. "It's the Military thing" that should be pretty much constant. 2) Relative to "doing other stuff the world provides" . . . I see this as a function of the CW world SIZE, coupled with what ACE plants within that world to discover. Generally speaking, what I'm alluding to is the idea the world should be LARGE enough that it's not easily "fully discovered" in any sort of short time frame. Whatever "short" means. There should be environmental push-back mechanisms that keep the landscape from being a manicured golf-course go-kart-ah-rama by swarming Gerbilkins. This might be mob levels / density, or this could easily be landscape features that make it very difficult to traverse certain areas unless (X) is built (e.g. a bridge over a chasm, stairs/lifts up a bluff to a Plateau area above, etc.). Discovery. It's one of the primal motivators for humanity. I'm hoping to see a lot of that in a CW, because it's that bedrock of motivation to go out and explore a CW, which is what Scouts do, yes? I'm not terribly keen on the game popping up overt "events", at least in a manner similar to say a GW2 or even FFXIV Fates (not knocking those really). As an example here, I once suggested the idea of "Archeaology Digs" as some kind of skill system, used to perceive/locate, then excavate Ancient Ruins. Dig out the voxels to uncover the (whatever), and also unearth materials that would have to be packed out, like anything else. It's not an overt world event that's announced, but it's buried in the map somewhere to be discovered, dug up, then packed out. All where PvP lives. I do agree with having diverse mob types in the game as part of the environment. And, I'd prefer to see them WAY smarter and unpredictable than the dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks we get in other games. Overall that would make the CWs feel like they lean more to the direction of a "living, breathing, world" everyone is competing in, as opposed to a big arena staffed with manikins.
  12. little idea

    I've seen people spend incredible amounts of time on acquiring "cosmetic" items, be it mounts, weapon skins, mount livery, mounts, what have you, in other games. And, having something that might go on your troops (e.g. a "uniform", some kind of unique visual signature) to help distinguish friend from foe in a large scale battle sould be handy. And having it tied to crafting unlocks and the crafting side of the dynamic helps to make that side more desired/useful. Seems Ok to me. Chariots, I guess I don't know. And craftable crow statues I don't know. Too early for me on those. I need my carrot juice first to wake up !
  13. Catchup as Currency

    @Verot I'm "concerned" about a particular dynamic that will come into being in CF CW's in either balanced fashion, or not. And it has to do with what you alluded to in your first sentence. First, some caveat's: I'm not "concerned" because I want harvesting to be risk free, I'm not "concerned" because I want everyone to be perfectly solo-capable all the time. I understand people will be at a disadvantage solo, and being in groups makes sense. This isn't about endorsing "care bear", it's about a swiss watch having it's guts working properly, all of them together, so the mechanism tells the correct time, or even works at all. Having said all that: The best corollary I have at this point is the Trade Running vs Pirating/Theft dynamic in Archeage, intercontinent sea runs. My personal experience and observations were: The game was structured to promote Trade Running and Pirating as complementary, interconnected game play styles for players. Generally the same as our discussion here. What played out however was: The SIZE of the game world, specifically the relatively short distance between the continents combined with only a small number of trade harbors allowed the prolific number of "rabid" Johnny-Depp Capt. Jack Sparrow wannabes the ability to rapidly SHUT DOWN inter-continent trade runs. This is essentially the appearance of a breakage in the game. Once Traders were continually LOSING MONEY, and by extension all the effort and time spent in that endeavor . . . they stopped sea runs. Of course. Once Traders stopped engaging in sea runs, all the Johnny-Depp cos-players started crying to the heavens above that Traders shouldn't be allowed to make money doing safe land runs, that wasn't fair. In their view Traders had the obligation when logging in to be nothing but targets feeding the Pirates, that was their purpose, because it was "A PvP Game". The Traders ignored the piteous wailing and continued on with their chosen play style, to the extent the game allowed it. Once the oceans cleared of the "fleets" of Johnny-Depp cos-players who were now giving up on Stealing Ships and Goods because the game wasn't working right not providing them an endless stream of targets . . . some sea trade started to reappear . . . right up until Pirates started becoming too successful again, too frequently, with no real relief valve to bleed the situation off some . . . and the Traders stopped doing sea runs again. Because THEIR TIME wasn't going to be wasted in continual losses. Rinse and repeat. Where did AA the game fail here (IMO): The mechanism was designed to fail by virtue of faulty CALIBRATION of some factors, not the implementation of the concepts. Specifically: The inter-continental sea distances were too short/small, and the hand-in port of calls were far too few. This created a pressure-cooker situation where it was entirely too easy for Pirates to effectively blockade ship travel between the narrow straights between continents. This in turn allowed them to far too easily choke off ship trading. Once that happened, players with an alternate game-play focus (Trade Running) saw that outlet terminated by the Pirate segment of the community, and so turned to land running. How could that have been calibrated better (IMO): Wider distance between continents, many more trade ports to turn in to. Basically take away the easily patrolled and staffed choke point across the sea and cause thieves and pirates to work a lot more to track down prey. Full circle to CF: SIZE of the CWs, and configuration/distances within a CW between harvesting points and such, are, imo, going to play a BIG role in what you've mentioned, for all the same reasons. My prediction: If we see the CF community adopt the same binary philosophy in game play relative to PvP vs Harvesting, that "everyone else is supposed to be a victim", things are going to be bumpy. Note again: I'm not saying give Harvesters a free pass. I'm saying it's all in how you interpret "balance", and how you think it should work.
  14. CC Problem

    I believe it's OK for ranged classes to have CC. It's rather short sighted to insist the game force/insist Ranged can only leverage CC if Melee opponents have them trapped within the melee sphere of influence already. Having said that, is there an argument for some creative counters to CC? That leverage one of the concepts that will be stand out in CF: aiming? What I'm thinking of here is . . . off the top of my head without detailing beyond that . . ., as example, some form of deflect or reflect? I'm imagining someone with a SHIELD who's in a fight, and they manage to pick up on the fact someone is casting/shooting a CC their way, and if they get their shield up in time, pointed in the right direction, the CC effect is either blocked, deflected (perhaps snaring someone else in the deflection path), or perhaps even REFLECTED to the caster (depending o n range, type of CC, or what have you). ?? I suppose, in it's way, its sort of a corollary to Friendly Fire. One way to reduce "rampant CC spam" is to attach consequences to careless or face-roll use. And getting a face-full of your own CC because you didn't wait for the guy with the shield to look away might be an incentive to make deployment of CC more considered. ???
  15. Catchup as Currency

    @Krakkensmakken For myself, and some of the crafters I've known in other games over the years, the "only relevant" factor as a brand new player has been: Are my goods useful, needed, and valued enough to sell. That's it. There can be no expectation of "competing" with established, capped out crafters. If I'm new to a game and I start the journey crafting, all I care about is the fact that, at whatever level I'm at, the stuff SELLS. The obvious issue then is: so how is the crafting system structured to promote that most basic of issues? Or, does it squelch it? Back to my two examples. So long as ACE doesn't build in any silliness that allows players to put their alt-armies on auto-craft-macro-dance crafting, you could, for instance (as example) require significant quantities of low level mats for a higher level recipe. The intent is to create an incentive for high level crafters to patronize lower level crafters . . . based on time constraints. And I hear what you are saying in regards to quality hits being better for higher level crafters. But all this does is bring us full circle to the following I think. So what this comes down to is two options, yes? 1) Assume the current structure of crafting mechanics is "finished", with the only fix being catch up modes for what you've mentioned or 2) Have as one piece of criteria that guides finalization of crafting mechanics the idea I've mentioned so that (theoretically) having to patch in catch up modes as a cover isn't such a requirement. AKA - continue to adjust the design as needed. And, I'm guessing that someone who is a dedicated harvester is going to be "better" than non-dedicated if we consider net gains in harvesting. Wouldn't the issue of where time is spent come into play here? Meaning: If player 1 is combat focused and burning time in combat, they aren't gathering. If I'm a dedicated harvester, I am. I collect say 100 units of (whatever), while the combat guy only comes home with 35, or 50, or 20, or whatever, because he's not spending the same amount of time on Gathering. Even if, as you say, we both stand side by side burning the same time at the same activity we are about equal (for around the first year), the point is: Because of where people are spending their time. (?) I would hope the game is structured in a way that makes that natural balancing factor stay in play: material / profit inventory levels. Then, at some point (you've indicated about a year out based on the current state) a greater shift starts coming into play for the gatherer on his/her gathering capability. I guess I'm stuck on the idea that simply chasing after catch up modes as the only, automatically must-be-assumed "fix" to this, perhaps more of a mislead than is apparent at first glance. If you don't want a boat to take on water, don't build it based on a blueprint illustrating holes in the hull. Anyway, ACE has undoubtedly hashed this around, I'll back out of this at this point.