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

Lephys

Testers
  • Content Count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lephys

  1. I know the article/breakdown touched on it, but adding a random factor to your game/system isn't at all bad. Giving it too much weight is what's bad. A blatant example is a coin toss: heads results in you get 200 million gold, tails results in your account being deleted and you have to buy another copy/license of the game to play again. In this, the existence of a coin toss isn't bad. The the degree to which the sheer outcome of a random coin toss is affecting my experience, is. If the coin toss was to determine whether or not a given goblin in a group of 10 tries to flank me or tries to
  2. Looking good! Definitely keep up the good work, though. Don't get complacent with it. Now it's at least an engaging system. I honestly still think the whole quarter thresholds system could be made more intuitive, or replaced with something that's more intuitive. Actively juggling combos and timings of buffs and such to maximize efficiency doesn't group together very well with "but make sure X things are in effect whenever the node hits Y health, exactly!". I'm not saying it's impossible to do or too hard. It's more that it just doesn't flow together very well. I honestly believe that stuff lik
  3. I'm gonna second (or third, or fifth, or whatever I'm at here) the whole "Thanks for this message, and I encourage you to be more transparent in the future" idea. Honestly, you're screwed if you do and you're screwed if you don't, as in people are going to misconstrue and complain no matter what you do. Just, if you don't tell anyone about stuff, they're going to do it with NO truthful info, rather than with at least some. I know that sucks. Humans are crappy at times/in ways. But, we'd much rather hear your ideas on your designs and goals, etc., than just sit around waiting, then hear what's
  4. The abilities feel a bit lackluster. Don't get me wrong... they look amazing, and the general idea is good, but I feel like they're just trying to meet the minimum criteria of a role in a class-based RPG. They're all just circles that heal or deal damage. The "tether" heal one is the most interesting. The rest seem hard to make feel distinct from any other damage/root/healing abilities, other than "the circle is a different size" or "the healing value is different," etc. Perhaps the intent of the current state of the class is simply to cover the basics of the role, and you're going to do
  5. I understood you. I was merely illustrating that exaggeration can go the opposite direction just as easily. You actually have a valid point, but it's almost impossible to tell that when you ignore the simple fact that knowing when a specific thing is going to be done in their development process is actually quite difficult. I do agree that some kind of addressment (I'm not sure that's a "real" word, but I think it works), at least, of their current idea of the timeframe. At the same time, there are perfectly legitimate situations in which they have no accurate assessment of when a particu
  6. I don't recall saying anything about "just as hard." But... *shrug*. I'll take your word for it. If you can always tell everyone the exact day on which each system will be implemented and operational, by all means, be in charge of all development projects.
  7. Those are usually pretty relevant questions, as they deal with the inter-workings of mechanics and intended design. If stuff's doing something crazy and they didn't intend for that, it probably needs to be discussed. Also, "when will mounts be in" isn't a very good question. That's like asking "when will Thomas Blair die, do you think?". They could say "Well, I dunno... I mean he's pretty healthy, so probably another 40 years or so. But, really, I mean, a bus could hit him tomorrow. So... *shrug*" Would you like to waste your life with "an hour" of "Well, we're working on this, but i
  8. Just be careful with the amount of eye candy you provide, or we might get... ... EYE-a-betes!
  9. Honestly, the names for Plentiful Harvest and Beneficial Harvest seem backwards. Intuitively, "Plentiful Harvest" makes me think it's going to increase the quantity of my harvest (or, at the very least, doesn't sound like I'm going to get better quality things by any stretch of the word), whilst "Beneficial Harvest" sounds more like the harvest quality is going to "benefit." I know it's minor, but this was honestly very confusing to me for a while now, as I have yet to get to actually download the new client and sit down and test the game's harvesting.
  10. Danger and people protecting gatherers is not a part of gathering. It's a part of how combat and gathering relate to one another. The danger and conflict of resource acquisition is there regardless of whether or not anyone's standing around "actively" gathering the resources or not. Gathering, itself, needs to be fun. It doesn't have to be so fun that everyone in the universe decides to drop combat for gathering. But, if you approach it with the attitude that "it's just a boring thing to do no matter what... let's just let combat make it exciting," combat's never going to make it exciting. All
  11. While we're in agreement on the flaws of hunger for hunger's sake, I must clarify that realism isn't invalidated by imagination. You still want to draw from how fire actually works, or what deficits a minotaur would face. So, just because things aren't real doesn't mean realism becomes moot. It's more that you don't want to copy something from reality without STILL asking the question "how does this help me in the game?" There are a lot of abilities and such going into Crowfall that stem from combat abilities in real life, not because Crowfall is trying to present virtual real life, but b
  12. It's not the same in a video game. SOMEone in the world wants to do ANY given thing, so you could just say nothing's a chore, in which case we could justify every tiny thing being simulated. Having to guide your character into the woods to relieve himself is SOMEone's jam. Doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it should be in this game. The "eat or die" implementation of hunger/food is functionally no different from "You have to juggle 3 marbles with one hand like the Goblin King from Labyrinth the entire time you're logged into Crowfall or it'll log you out." It's just something you
  13. Hmm... what if instead of individual, manually-tackled hunger, it was more of a resource? What if another resource was actually like... "townsfolk" or something? Or thralls? There are already thralls, which is why I mention this. Basically, NPCs as a resource. So that, you have some little fort, and maybe you can do fine without any NPCs, building on it and upgrading/repairing it, etc. But, you get a big fortress, and it's just not feasible for your player group to fix it up without extra manpower. So, you manage to acquire 200 townsfolk to help out with it. Well, your personal character is fi
  14. Apologies, as my brain's stream-of-consciousness often gets ahead of my text. I will definitely amp up my focus on distinguishing between these. My biggest point, which kind of touches on all three of these (though Production the least, I suppose), is to emphasize the necessity of active, engaging interaction within these activities. The resource chests is a great example, for Harvesting. If you're just going to take that and make everyone actively gather the resources sheerly for the sake of saying "Yay, people are gathering now instead of resources just coming out of chests," then there
  15. My reasoning is: If all your hard work and effort is to work towards automation, why not just start with automation, and have all your hard work and effort be training towards the optimization of the automation? As literally as I can possibly mean this, why does the player character have to be the one doing the harvesting/crafting? I'm sorry if it came across some other way, but I have every interest in harvesting and crafting, in-and-of-themselves. So, as long as they don't make it a begrudging task, I'll do it. I understand that the role of harvesting is expeditions of danger. I get tha
  16. Sure, but why not then just make white materials a "mass-produced" thing? If the only functional difference we're going to see is "You're higher-trained, so now it takes you less time and effort to harvest more materials" vs "your skills are lower so it's going to take you longer to get the same quantity of materials"? Why does the player need to directly "DO" the harvesting? Especially if you're going to do all that "one time" (per design), then make it into a blueprint and mass produce it? And what's the relationship between mass production and individual crafting, if not an MMO mount moveme
  17. ^ I agree. Additionally, they seem to have latched onto that very specific idea of "Ohhhh, man, it's gonna be SO worth it after you spend 37 millenia optimizing JUST the right combination of factors in crafting Item X, then spend the rest of your life mass producing it." Except... apparently the equipment is, by design, not game-changing. basically, as long as one big group of 50 people has at least decent equipment, they can feasibly take on an opposing group of 50 with better equipment. So, the gear is actually LESS important, other than that someone keep making SOMEthing for people to
  18. The game IS in pre-alpha, but the problem thus far has been the attitude of ACE towards the conceptual design of harvesting and crafting. Despite the "find the fun" slogan they've been rolling with (which has worked pretty well with combat and ability designs and progression), they were super cool with a "you can just stand around and waitingly harvest and craft, since the logistics and optimization are the only thing that are important there, aside from socializing with peeps whilst harvesting for 17 hours a day" approach, even though it's not fun. Optimization can be fun, but it's not very f
  19. I really wish people would be more open-minded about things. The second people see "PvE," they go a bit crazy with "OH NO! THIS IS A GAME THAT ISN'T ABOUT PvE!" We get that, but... PvE is an EXTREMELY broad term. Heck... finding a node in the woods and harvesting stuff is PvE. The woods are your environment. That node was neither created by, nor is it directly affiliated with any other player. You could harvest that whole node and never see an enemy. But guess what... it exists within a huge, over-arching PvP campaign. So, yeah, it works. Crafting isn't PvP. But it facilitates PvP combat.
  20. Honestly, if they're going to go the "just pass the time while you gather" route, then simply having big harvester devices that do the harvesting for you would be more ideal than having your character stand there occupied with passive waiting. In other words, if you're going to make it so that you're free to just chat the whole time you're harvesting, then you might as well be able to go do other stuff as well. There's no reason to be tethered to harvesting if it's just going to be passive anyway. It's a waste of your character's time. I do agree that you should be able to chat during the proc
  21. While that's interesting, my concern would be that that would be too much passive effect. What I mean is, you're now the most awesome, maxed-at-255-skill Harvesting Leader there is, so the entirety of Harvesting is just your summoning up an abundance of boosted nodes, then everyone tediously chipping them all down into doobers. EDIT: That is not to say scrap the idea. Merely... I would want to make sure the balance was shifted more towards collaborative, in-the-moment effort, so that you could celebrate having actively affected the outcome of doober-looting to a significant extent DURING the h
  22. I see the problem with simply changing the node tier, as it changes a lot more than just "durability." Also, your idea of "the fewer swings, the better" is a pretty good one. The general gameplay there is puzzley, but you could have time-sensitive stuff (not like "MILLISECONDS LEFT TO CLICK THIS!", but more... "you can't just take all day, as once you start hitting this node, every 10 seconds that passes, the roll chance count drops" or something), and/or just lots of room for collaborative combos, such that it's actually interesting and dynamic to use teamwork to break the nodes faster. And y
  23. Apologies. I clearly misunderstood. I understand, and I respect that you don't really like that idea. One more thing (and I promise this is the last thing) that I'll say regarding it -- a comparison that for some reason I couldn't think of before -- is that the idea I had going into it was that of durability on weapons. You essentially have two things you're dealing with: 1) The health of your enemy (you want to maximize damage) 2) The health of your weapon (you want to minimize damage) Those get paired pretty easily in the context of combat, so my brain was just pairing them
  24. Hey... I can appreciate your perspective on this. My way is not the only way to view it. And I appreciate your efforts to make sure I understand the possibility of my ideas being unrealistic in the scope of the game's current state. I do. I'm merely trying to collaborate on the brainstorm. I know I have a weird brain, and a very particular way of seeing things, and I know I have only a novice's understanding of programming at the moment, and not even that of game programming/engineering. The only thing I can say is, I can at least understand from updates that ACE has presented, that, when a sy
  25. *Sigh*... I understand where this is coming from, as you're "detecting" a pattern based on many previous experiences you've had with other humans online. I truly do. However, I am not those people, and you are arbitrarily applying a tone and meaning to my text that simply is not there. It COULD be there, potentially, if I were the right person trying to say it the right way, but text only states what text states, which is one of the reasons I use as much of it as I do. I cannot tonally describe to you what my words mean, exactly, so I have to syntax out the meaning to the best of my abili
×
×
  • Create New...