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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ClockworkWetwork

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Language
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. What's the scoop? There's no tooltip as to what Beneficial Harvest even is.
  2. I'm looking forward to those cool new food recipes. Finding new resources in the world sounds fun. I found the increase in rank on harvesting nodes to be helpful. The decrease in sacrifice value of things may be overtuned. I might have 10,000 common wood at level 9, but there's nothing I can make it into to sacrifice for XP.
  3. 1. What's the fallacy to the reminder that we're currently playtesting a pre-alpha? 2. I didn't present an argument, only a suggestion on a change in attitude from animosity over pre-alpha behavior to acceptance that it's just testing. 3. Is it a fact that there will "probably" be no additional players after launch? I disagree. You may be right, which means the game will fail and close and nothing now matters. I'm betting that the final product will be much better than pre-alpha and the population will swell such that there will be a fine diversity of players enjoying the rich systems. For those who have the time to devote to playtesting, I thank you. Get out there and get us another step closer to launch! Show the Devs the worst behavior and exploits so they can close those loopholes for live. Make sure to post bugs on the forums. Those who do the most testing win pre-alpha and make the game better for all of us. 🙂
  4. Set campaign times seem important to consistent testing. Perhaps everyone should take a few days off. That works better than complaining that other people take time off. If certain players want another hugfest campain to call their own, sure they can do this same thing again. So long as it serves the ACE objective of systems testing that brings us closer to launch, I don't care what they do. Every time players under the current design make the game too boring to play, I take a few days off and check back. It's great. No stress. Lots of passive training to spend. I just remember it's about testing, not about fun yet. And if Winterblades gets all 100% of the best gear possible, good on them for testing the systems. As long as it's bringing us closer to launch, let them spend their free time testing. Testers they drive off will come back after launch. Given the adequate number of testers, ACE should not be spending any time chasing testers that could be spent on bringing this operation to launch. If you remember that there are no good players yet, just good testers, it might help the community's collective blood pressure. Yay. You're the best at testing. Get up and do it again. Bring me launch.
  5. The importance of playing a game that isn't finished is to test and provide data. When I have the audacity to leave my gate parcel and get killed 6 times in a row in death shroud by the same guy who probably isn't level 12 in white gear like I am, I learn to do something else with my evening. I hope that ACE gets this data and incorporates it to make the game flourish upon launch.
  6. Scientific Assumptions: The game isn't finished. This is playtesting. Different modes of an unfinished game during testing adds more variables and spreads server populations thinner, giving less useful test data. This campaign was not fun to play, but it was educational and gave the devs important data to consider for development.
  7. Some of the difficulty in learning, adapting, and countering is that visual effects aren't in for many things. Maybe the guy has a damage shield. Maybe he's getting healed. Maybe he has some mitigation CD active. Can't tell. Most of my frustration in PvP has been being unable to tell what's going on. "Press R to Retaliate" what? What's happening? Rubber band. Drop to 10FPS. Dead. Those issues will resolve as the game is finished. I don't think there's a short fix. I understand that it's all part of testing. Making new players included and valuable will need to be addressed if the game is to survive. ACE seems to know this. I have faith in them.
  8. It seems that the player economy will address this. You can likely find another player in Bartertown who will trade you their 1 green for 10 of your basics. Win-win! :-)
  9. So you do like the idea of giving bonuses for territory control, you'd just like overall harvesting to be tuned down? There are bonuses that can exist other than Harvest. 3% healing, 5% mounted speed, and out of combat health regen are in and I haven't heard of any problems with them.
  10. Perfect, thank you for the info! I'll check out the specific testing requests as they publish them now that I know that exists. I'll help point other players there as well. Cheers! The Uncle Bob issue is passive training and item retention. Accounts that have been gathering XP and materials for 5 weeks are insurmountably ahead of new accounts. The barrier is hit at login, far before you can reach a capture point. Not only is a barrier to play (not that we are entitled to play in pre-alpha, we're testers), but a barrier to move about the world and test. I look forward to standardization/wipes to open the field for more testers so we can gather more data.
  11. How do you "win" a pre-alpha test? You test the most? How is that measured? By giving feedback about the systems. We're all testers. The Devs have stated that there are current combat exploits. Testing is producing data. Great! Those exploits are part of the discussion. Players have then made new characters to take advantage of those exploits. That's corrected in patches, but still negative behavior. Well geared players who grief new testers volunteering their time to help the game are "special" all right, but not in a good way. If Bobby Fischer joined today, he would get destroyed. Not because you're a better player or planner - because you've had more time to pull ahead. As you said, "3 weeks to decent weapons." Let's not pretend it's a finished, balanced game. It's not supposed to be. You can crush naked level 6 players in Death Shroud who are trying to chop a rank 2 tree and delete all their wilted scraps. This doesn't mean you're playing well. It means you're not playtesting. If you're a player who revels in effortlessly crushing new players until they quit, I understand. I simply suggest that such a mentality is not conducive to good playtesting. Driving release populations to extinction with that mentality means that if you get your way, the game folds. As an investor, I doubt you want that. Let's say you have your way, you and your guild have the best of everything and destroy anyone who makes a character in another faction before they reach level 10 so that you "win" pre-alpha. Do you find that to meet the Dev goal of pre-alpha playtesting?
  12. Perhaps we would all be better served, and our expectations managed, if the Devs were more explicit about what we're testing in each session. "This campaign we want to see if the harvesting is overtuned." Testers go out and hammer nodes and Devs collect data on how much loot is coming out each season and if there's some broken harvesting combos. Feedback from players regarding this is organized and specific. "Now that we've gotten some harvesting data. We're looking at the crafting systems based on the resource tuning. See what kind of gear you can turn out during this session." It's a craft-off with feedback on the crafting systems and RNG severity. Feedback from players regarding this is organized and specific. "This campaign is about combat exploits. Now that you have provided the harvesting and crafting data sets, have at it!" No one is surprised that it's a murder-fest. Feedback from players regarding this is organized and specific. Currently, a vague "test the game" with the overlapping variables seems to give unfocused feedback ("this sucks/this is fun") and a lot of disappointment. Players working diligently to test the combat mechanics murdering the players testing the harvesting mechanics prevents anyone from testing the crafting. Nobody is wrong. Everyone is right. They're all just pulling in different directions. As you women/men of SCIENCE! know, too many variables makes the data lose meaning.
  13. I hope they wipe everything. The griefers just keep getting more stuff. New players can't grow, let alone compete. Walking into this playtest as a whitehat testing the systems has been completely derailed by the blackhats who found exploits and use them to crush new players over and over. Nobody wants to spend their evening chopping resources at level 6 to make their first set of armor only to get killed over and over by a maxed out player who deletes even your wilted scraps and slag. Everyone making an assassin or pitfighter to jump on the exploit wagon isn't the solution if the goal is to playtest for a better game. No one can catch up to exploiters who have been killing harvesters for 4 campaigns. We have reached the Uncle Bob scenario. Full wipes with updates closing exploits will fix this.
  14. Adding a passive faction-wide bonus to certain zones would add some conquering satisfaction in addition to points. This would give zone control more meaning to your team and could fuel strategic choices in where to assault. In the future, there are many story and art reasons a zone might give a bonus. "We're short on wood for our keep. Let's take over the Forest of Plenty zone to give our harvesters a boost." Once you decide you like this idea, you can turn the knob however you want, from buffs similar to basic food buffs to buffs like a node of a passive talent tree. Combat rewards are fun. I remember the satisfaction of games where you control strategic resource spots that give your empire a little bonus. The bonus may be small, but man you'd war over it. The juicy targets coupled with the points bonus for turnovers would fit the theme of creating appealing targets. Are you going to defend your keep or the bonus zone? While two factions fight over an apple bonus, you might lead a daring raid on their neglected forts. Reasons to fight are fun.
  • Create New...