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

Dondagora

Testers
  • Content Count

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dondagora

  • Rank
    Rook

Recent Profile Visitors

2,626 profile views
  1. If they just allow gems to show up in regular lodes that can be solo-harvested, at maybe an decreased drop chance, it would make it all a lot more bearable.
  2. Another idea, I think, is attaching outposts/towers points to the keeps/forts. An outpost will send a pack animal and a guard to the nearest ally fort/keep and only once that reaches its destination will the points be cashed in. All the while, PvE mobs will wear down these caravans so that the further a camp is from a keep makes it less likely to cash in any points unless the road is somewhat guarded. At the least, it reduces the issue to the nightcapping of forts which act as the cash-in points.
  3. I wouldn't mind aligning Night and Day with the night and day of the server, make playing at night fundementally different than playing during the day. More Hunger creatures spawn, a "Cold" debuff that can be warded off by a campfire or torch (but makes you more visible in turn), and such things so that while nightcapping is still more PvP and backcap safe (gaining greater value), it is also more perilous with PvE survival elements. Just throwing ideas out there. I do see issue with the idea that it will lock some people into a certain environment (Night/Day) depending on what hours they can play, so that'd have to be figured out.
  4. Not how time works. Depending on the time I go to work, I could either hit traffic or not, differentiating the value I get out of my time in the distance I cover depending on what time it is. Same applies here. Not all time is equal when talking about finite space/resources. And, from a gameplay perspective, why encourage a way of playing that exists to avoid PvP?
  5. I would like to join. Just started playing recently, but so far just really want to make me some Epic-Legendary equipment with Illusionist, Fashion Statement, and Hand of Glory. Also glad to see a merchant guild about.
  6. Just to address this, it isn't unrealistic for a person to have more items than their export slots allow on a single account, indeed it is often assumed that you'll have more than your export, which is how multi-accounting might help simply expand your inventory. So, truly, you aren't farming 5x, you'll be farming the normal amount, as your export isn't assumed to supposed to fit in the amount of items a single account can procure, if that makes sense. In other words, a person doesn't need to farm 5x the items to take advantage of 5 accounts worth of export inventory.
  7. All modes have embargo rules which determine how much you get, but for the Dregs I'd like it to work something like this (just my personal preference): Just as suggested here, there's an amount of slots given to the victor for them to export items from the campaign. With kneeling mechanics, though, the winner may distribute their slots to others. In a similar fashion to other rulesets, making and promising export slots to too many that kneel to you might diminish your own reward a good amount, should you follow through. In this sense, victory will be seen as a limited resource which engages players more with each other than making campaigns giant gather quests. We have differing opinions on this and probably won't come to any agreement here, but I feel there's merits to both our concepts. Yours considers exports to be capless and, in that sense, provide players an ultimate freedom to take everything. Mine takes exporting, and therefore victory, and makes it into a limited resource to further engage and incite players. To which I say thus: literally no downside to testing both, benefit of temperary campaign worlds afterall.
  8. So you say this, but when a faction wins, who's to decide how the exportation is split up? If it's "everybody gets 10 slots to take stuff in", then isn't that "fair and even" hogwash? It sounds to me like you want to give everybody on the winning side participation trophies for picking the right faction if you prefer this way about it. But I say this: if you spend $100 on a chocolate bar, you'll have lost money for over-investing on the chocolate. You spend $5 on the chocolate bar, you're getting what you put in. You spend $1 on the chocolate bar, you negotiated a steal. This is, of course, an analogy for how I view how the conquests should work. Just as you say, if you win you take everything, if you lose you get nothing, but not all victories are equal. If you spent $100 dollars on a chocolate bar, you've still "won", but you just exerted the most amount of effort and probably got the worst end in terms of chocolate per dollar. And you're also talking a lot about "letting the community decide what to do", but this alternate to the system wouldn't prevent that in any way, at least not any more than the current one does. Guilds can still redistribute their loot from a campaign victory, and people can still steal from their guilds, and guilds can still punish thieves, and thieves can still get away with their misdeeds. The community is still in control, but now victory is just a single chocolate bar and it's up to the community to decide how much it's worth to them.
  9. I wouldn't consider it "interfering in politics", just another mechanic which entails managing a limited resource which, in this case, is Export. Just like how you can't "have the cake and eat it too" with any other resource, it will incite player interaction, but not dictate it in any heavy-handed manner, I feel.
  10. Saw a post on trying to even out the populations for each faction to keep things balanced, and while I do feel the system should keep it loose so that we can benefit from alliances and politicking and such, there should be pros and cons to everything. So, for discussion, here's an idea to play around with: Instead of having every world have a "Export X Slots Per Player", have it "Export X Slots Per Faction". In this, you could have a hypothetical campaign that has an export of 100 slots per faction. If that faction only has a single player, they will receive all the slots, being able to export 100 slots worth of items if they win. But if the faction has two players, each player will receive only 50 of the 100, evenly distributing the slots to the players. This will create a balancing effect in which players self-police the population of their faction, weighing the pros and cons of whether it's worth the loss per-player to bring more people in or if it's worth the risk to join less populated factions for greater reward. Thoughts on this sort of system? Are there any obvious problems that might arise from this?
  11. I liked this Q&A. Much more detailed answers, better questions, and generally more informing. It's not everything I wanted to know, but at least I'm coming out knowing more about the game than I did before.
  12. Dondagora

    Ek Wars

    Yes, it definitely would not be boring to go to places nobody wants you to be, attack people who don't want to fight you, destroy things that have no meaning or purpose other than for a very specific person or people to enjoy, get joy out of being a general jerk in bad faith (contrasting to being a jerk in a place where everyone expects and appreciates you being a jerk, like a campaign), and gaining little to nothing from little to no challenge. This is me full-heartedly agreeing that having EK's being openly attacked is a good idea.
  13. I'm not saying rely only on box sales, and didn't mean to come off that way, but I don't think subscriptions are the way to go. They're too annoying for my tastes, and likely many other people's tastes. I'm open to any ways Crowfall can use to make money, just not subscriptions. Just a thought I had: High-Reward campaigns. Each player pays, let's say, 5 dollars to enter this special campaign world which has a concentration of unique or rare materials. They wouldn't be too often, maybe one per 3 months, but it'd promise some good loot if you win. Not too taxing on the in-game economy, and is relatively cheap way to get decently reliable income from large and competitive guilds, as well as equally accessible to all players who have some pocket cash to join into these rewarding campaigns. So, while this may not be the perfect option, I'm just saying that there are a variety of ways to incentivise supporting the game without a sub fee, nor relying solely on box sales. Edit: and yes, definitely make VIP worth it.
  14. Subscriptions drive players away. Admittedly, it'd drive me away. I love the game and its progress, and will support it when I find it prudent, but I will not pay monthly to play because, for me, that's value lost. And, honestly, it's bad for the game. The game is good when there are plenty of players to play with. The game makes money when players join because the game is good. Subscription fees will drive away a number of players, AKA casuals. The game does not have plenty of players. The game does not make money. At least, that's my train of thought, but it is widely known that pay-to-play models have decreased and are heavily disliked by the majority. Some people, I'm sure, are willing to pay to play a good MMO, but if the majority aren't... well, you'll just have an MO.
×
×
  • Create New...