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

Roux

Testers
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Roux

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Hello, Very new to the game. In the first 10 minutes of playing I wanted to switch vessels. Someone said all you have to do is go back to 1000, 1000. However I spent a silly few minutes trying to figure out which directions were moving the second number. Later I find out that the second number is vertical and the first and third numbers correspond to NSEW. For me, the intuitive method is to list the flat directions first and the vertical third. If this is an easy fix, it might help other new players like myself find directions just a little bit easier.
  2. 5v1 is a great example, it scales perfectly with 50 vs 10 (or 20 as you've changed it). You use control and other positional mechanics to outnumber your opponent. Classic ZvZ, you'll always try to outnumber your opponent and over power them with numbers, not skill. (Or I suppose you could argue that outnumbering your opponent *is* skill, which is totally debatable too!). I'm guessing in ESO where there is no collision/FF you were able to do that using a similar positioning/strategy tactic. And again I just want to point out that collision detection and FF will not eradicate zergs. Zergs will still be the best thing to do for a battle because any enemy small groups breaking off to try anddo a special tactic will be swarmed by the zerg, causing the enemy zerg to lose numbers. Continue that strategy by breaking them off and eating them, and voila -- zerg strategies. If it's like most other games now a days you'll go in, clash and cut off what you can with all your burst, regroup, recharge, and repeat. FF causes you to simply clash for less time, collision requires that you cut the zerg off with your meaty players. Different strategies, but not nullifying zergs imo. If anything, collision detection has made it easier to zerg with a dedicated frontline/meat-sponges. FF could be an argument, esp if there were "disadvantages" built into it. AKA -- hit an enemy, if the attack hits a friendly, damage is reduced 33% on enemy. That would be an interesting mechanic that punishes players for hitting their own team mates and literally crumbles a zerg. Counter argument, if your zerg is made up of all ranged classes whose skills arc, then suddenly 50 (casters/ranged) v 20 (half melee) is a joke collision/FF or not. Ranged seems to circumvent most collision/ff problems. You'll probably say "then play smart, just use cover, and position better". Okay, what's to stop 50 equally smart players from not falling for that? Numbers rule most games, and I'm curious how this develops, but I wouldn't say it one way or the other yet (esp without any testing).
  3. Collision: 1v5 will lose, and I'm sure 5 people can get around a target (and that single target may actually jump over all 5 of them, who knows) so to me this does not prevent zerging at all (as those 5 will still chase you) Friendly Fire: This helps thin a zerg, but not much. Again let's do some simple maths: 5 people crowd around 1 guy, they all activate a skill that hits a person adjacent to them. 5x damage done to one player, 2x damage done to yourself. Assuming every player can take 3-5 hits, zerging was not prevented in this scenario. Lack of Healer: A healer doesn't create a zerg. (See GW2 for reference). So a lack of a healer doesn't break a zerg. FFA and GvG settings: This implies that there will not be big giant zerg guilds already xP In the end, I respect the possibilties you've pointed out, but I don't think they make or break a zerg really. And it's because in most games it's always easier to just have multiple people hit one person. Collision and friendly fire are discouraging it, but not actually breaking it. We'll have to see how they balance it out
  4. That is all fine and dandy. As long as ACE balances ranged classes and melee classes accordingly. If for instance two ranged players don't require as much skill as two melee focusing the same target, the ranged should not be doing as much damage. I had heard ranged will be weaker in general, but I can't remember where I read that so I'm not sure anymore It would be nice to see high risk - high reward with two melee and friendly fire on.
  5. Body collision already stops zerging. You can't have 5-8+ people hitting one target thanks to body blocking. That's the kind of number you expect for zerging. Friendly fire is also going to help stop zerging, but I don't think that's the primary reason for it's implementation. Just seems like a unique mechanic you have to get used to and play differently with. If it's affecting a duo-melee gank, for example, it's clearly affecting more than zerging.
  6. So it just hit me, if friendly fire is on and two melee buddies go in to hit a lone target, aren't they increasing their chances of hitting each other than a pair of ranged characters would attacking that same character?
  7. I honestly wish we could vote more than one. Because there are 3-4 "interesting" archetypes to me and I'm not a decider until more information comes out. Something like this maybe: http://strawpoll.me/4310009. Especially having a hard time between Ranger and Frostweaver for me. I'm a big fan of stealth/mobility characters, but the frostweaver has a really interesting weapon (rope javelin/meteor hammer/flying claw) whose animations I might fall in love with. Plus they have this whole "embrace and be one with the winter, cuz we're already frozen or whatever" which I find interesting as a "in it for the long haul" investment character.
  8. Ah, was not aware of that! Well it is enough to allow discussion and hopefully enough for the naysayers to realize there is a demand. Whether or not it's worth it is obviously up to ACE. It'd be interesting if they had some unique take on voice communication in game. Like sure, you want to communicate with players. But why not communicate with the game too? Like super stretch goal Siri/Google Now dictation lol! "Build 5 copper ores". Then you'd just see a bunch of people talking to their screens all day That'd be very difficult I think (but also the coolest implementation)
  9. I think it'd be nice to offer some suggestions as to how it can even be implemented. It's not always required for ACE to do a full on implementation. There is an open source program called "Mumble" which can interact with game codes. For instance, if you and two others meet in the middle of nowhere, you can say "channel 12" like you would in a walkie talkie. This "channel 12" put in chat can also be a link (perhaps) and directly opens Mumble into the correct server/channel. All ACE would need to do for that is host an open source (free) Mumble server with channels inside it. And to make it easier to link in game (mumble links look like: "mumble://[username[:password]@]<address>[:port]/[channelpath]?version=<serverversion>[&title=<servername>][&url=<serverurl>]" so you can totally choose the channel inside the server etc). That would probably be the hardest part actually. Not saying I'm a developer or that I understand all the intricacies of what's required, but even if ACE doesn't want to do it for us, gamers can find alternatives. If ACE doesn't host the public Mumble server then someone else probably will if the game is very successful. It's hella cheap and requires low bandwidth. Plus if ACE were so inclined they could expand this "Voip" system with positional audio (If a player is to your left, you'll hear them in the left speaker). And just for funs, an outrageous set up of what ACE's mumble server could be like: * Player logs into game, is also logged in hidden to a "voip server" with channels like "Lobby, World 1, World 2, EK#1345" which automatically mutes all players * Player goes into a campaign and is hidden switched to channel "World 1" * Player runs into 2 other people and decides to communicate by offering a "call" (basically moves them into a temporary channel inside "World 1") * Server unmutes channel so users can hear what's happening And all that would be quite a lot of work (not just including what i've written but the in game ui and the settings like push to talk calibrating voice activation etc). For sure. Without knowing how well it would be used it would be a gamble whether to invest time into it or not. As always first priorities go to the PvP system to make sure the fighting/combat is truly spectacular. All these things are hypothetical additions, which are fun to talk through, but we can't obviously say one way or another whether they should be invested in without doing things like polls or discussing possible alternatives like a public Mumble server hosted by one of us, a whale in the community, or ACE themselves. --- Edit: Just to be clear, I want to explain what I think is the "simplest compromise solution thingy". As a TL;DR if you will. * ACE "partners" with a mumble host (this could be their own server, a whale in the community's, or some other random people helping to pay for it; kinda like how they're "partnered" with gamepedia for their official wiki, cuz it's a wiki, and it's free for them). * ACE implements a way to "link" to this server in game (already set up by mumble, just needs to be "clickable" in game by ACE) * Players can click the link when it pops up in chat and talk, or if they don't want to waste their time they can start killing each other. Of course this just requires everyone to have mumble installed. If they don't, they can't talk. Easy peasy. --- Edit2: And just to help "moderate" the discussion, if you want at least some form of understanding of what the community wants, you can (in part) get an idea by doing a poll here in the forums. This isn't everyone voting, but you'll at least see what active forum members might want out of a Voip system being integrated in game or not.
  10. Personally I'm a fan of splitting cycles so that each day is the same. I know those that play at the same time every day will get the same environment, but to me that makes sense. I would instead make it so the cycle is short enough to experience at least one full day in one sitting. Average gamer plays 2.5 hours (according to some random study in 2013) but I would say it's safer to put it between 1 and 2 hours in one sitting. I would therefore make my cycle 1.5 hours (24 / 1.5 = 16 full cycles a day) and then tweak the moon cycle to be 16 phases instead of 29.5 days on Earth. Server Midnight could be "new moon"; Server noon-ish could be "full moon". 1.5 hours would be enough to get something like: * 15 minutes Sunrise * 40 minute Day * 15 minutes Sunset * 20 minute Night If night time truly has environmental disadvantages of not being able to see well (I know a lot of people have focused on combat and that is awesome, but I think for some it'll just be straight up annoying if they're into crafting, might be worth just waiting the night out then), then a 20 minute cycle isn't too bad to wait through. An hour and 10 minutes of play time without night is plenty imo.
  11. Since they have "campaigns" it'll be really interesting to see what happens in campaigns with a map and those without it or those with a radar instead of a mini map etc. Hoping they have this kind of flexibility for campaigns and are willing to try different versions out!
  12. That's pretty intense. You'd want to fit all these in one day? So each day has a full moon cycle? Or have it split across multiple days, cuz then it get's really complicated for players to figure out what the cycle is without an external tool keeping track.
  13. You have no idea how many times I re-watched this. So many layers. I've de-constructed it to it's essential soulbytes!
×
×
  • Create New...