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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Darguth

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

326 profile views
  1. Because development resources are finite and this is pre-alpha testing. They implemented a rudimentary spirit banking system to basically make the "game" functional for testing purposes. I'm sure by now they've heard the testing feedback loud and clear about the inadequacies of that placeholder system. They are working on a replacement embargo system which will presumably address those inadequacies. They should be able to assume that people that signed up for pre-alpha testing can tolerate less-than-polished placeholder assets for short durations until MVPs of real assets come online, because...y'know...that's a reasonable expectation given that we're essentially QA at this point and that's exactly what QA testers do. So why distract from the strategic goal for throwaway work to make impatient/unreasonable playtesters happier in the immediate term? I also think the average gamer dramatically underestimates the effort and complexities of "quick" fixes in software development. Not to knock ACE or the game industry in general, but their QA standards in game development are just not that high. And with generally good reason, because they aren't developing life-and-death technology like surgical instruments or missile systems. It's a game. So every time you tweak the game you introduce a relatively high degree of risk in regressing functionality. Which then angers gamers and leads to more iterations of that "quick fix". To implement something you need to, generally: Design the solution. Get some kind of approval/consensus that the design is good. Implement the solution. Peer-review the implementation. Run automated tests locally. Integrate to a shared code branch. Run integration tests on the shared branch. Deploy a build from the shared branch. Run manual smoke and exploratory tests. Iterate over all of the above steps until it's working and not introducing regressions. Then all of the steps necessary to deploy batch changes to a production branch. A "quick fix" still needs to go through those steps -OR- they can skip those quality controls but risk breaking things that aren't small/trivial/unimportant and disrupt the players and testing more than the original problem ever did. All of that knowing they are choosing to delay a go-live date to achieve the "value" of the "quick fix". That just doesn't seem worth it to me in the vast majority of instances where I hear playtester asking for a "quick, small fix" to placeholder assets and systems. TL;DR - Suck it up. This is playtesting and exactly what you signed up for. Let them focus on building the actual game we want, not the game we currently have.
  2. Because development resources are finite. Any time/thought/energy put into implementing, testings, iterating, and deploying a minor fix for a temporary system is time/thought/energy *not* being spent on a desired, more long-term solution. I'd prefer they not polish anything that we absolutely know is a very temporary placeholder of functionality. I'd much prefer everyone's focus remain on a genuine embargo system that we can test and iterate on, rather than iterating over what essentially amount to placeholder assets.
  3. Play a pre-alpha test build + expecting fully polished game loops = Recipe for disappointment
  4. "You can do better!" is not particularly constructive feedback. What exactly should they be doing differently that they aren't doing now? Your story seems to suggest you expect to be able to jump into *and reasonably compete to win* PVP combat while playing solo and without investing really much or any time into your character's progression. Those aren't reasonable expectations, I would say. Crowfall is not an FPS or MOBA that you can just queue up a match and engage in some quick and dirty PVP fights. It's meant to be a long-term, campaign-driven combat between organized groups (guilds, alliances, factions, etc.)
  5. I don't think Crusaders tend to run their passive, at least I don't. "Always on" defensive passives like Hushed Prayer, Dig In, Sturdy, etc. just push out room for something as situational as the minor bubble on low health targets that's got an ICD attached to it.
  6. I disagree with Phr00t. There should be an innate 2% chance to fail, but only for Phr00t.
  7. My preference would be to totally de-focus any balance concerns with points accumulation in the Faction CWs and redirect that time/energy/thought cycles on Dregs design and system-creation.
  8. Follow-up idea: Tie a lot of those aura/AOE buffs and CC to melee abilities that are relatively costly with regards to resources and/or higher CDs but with a solid effect or duration and then buff up general ranged damage. Could lead to a flexible class that in RvR combat would spend it's time diving momentarily into the "melee ball" to hand out some solid buffs/protection to the dedicated melee and then disengaging back to range while you recover resources/await CDs. Would make more sense as a mail wearer that you only want to spend part of your time in the thick of things. That said if they want to keep with the relatively hamhanded approach of having Archer = Ranged, Warden = Melee, and Brigand = Melee with essentially no incentive for tray-switching I'm fine with that too so long as there's *some* kind of coherent vision for the role the promotion is meant to play backed with a solid implementation. Tray-switching/stance dancing, and proper reasons and incentives to do it, would just be "ideal" I guess in my view on what I'd want from a Ranger.
  9. Warden really do seem to be lacking a coherent vision. I'm a "brawler" but also anti-stealth? Brawlers want to be in the thick of melee on the front-line. Anti-stealthers want to be protecting the support ranks. I like your general proposal to push Warden closer to a Melee/Support class. Not too dissimilar from a Templar/Paladin but replace splash healing with things like barriers, mitigation buffs, and CC elements. Maybe if they shunted the anti-stealth mechanics to the Archer promotion class it would both A.) make more sense because they're actually useful in a back rank DPSer and B.) flesh out that promotion tree which seems pretty vanilla they could make room for more Defense/Support elements for Warden.
  10. Interesting that you're more concerned with a perceived insult than the behavior that spurred it. My only point is that what's happening is fine. If you're this worked up over it, I really recommend you just step away for a bit. If losing virtual goods unexpectedly, in an impermanent world, on an early test build upsets you, then you probably shouldn't be playing this game. At least not right now.
  11. It matters to me because these forums are a valuable source of feedback for the development team. I'd like my opinion to stand against reactions like yours, so they realize they can cater to a player-base that is not overly temperamental and reactionary.
  12. Proper heads-up defined by who, you? I think the heads-up was fine. I'm playing a pre-alpha test build, even if it's a more "stable' version of the test build than TEST it's still a test build. I set my expectations accordingly. No.
  13. ...you knew a wipe was coming. How could you not? What's it matter if it was a few hours, a few days, a few weeks, etc? *Nothing* is permanent, particularly at this point in development. If that rankles your feathers, you probably shouldn't be investing any time in playing.
  14. That was your mistake. Don't come in with unrealistic expectations and you're less likely to be disappointed. You're testing an MMORPG, not a matchmaking and instanced PVP game. You're on a pre-alpha test build, not an early-access game. If you understand those key concepts, I think you'll be better positioned to enjoy what currently exists and to provide more valuable feedback.
  • Create New...