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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cejo

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Language

Recent Profile Visitors

978 profile views
  1. I also continue to get FPS drops on map use on the live server.
  2. Opening and closing the map continues to cause a massive drop in FPS. I go from ~50-60 (which feels nice) to less than 20 (which feels like garbage). "Dodge" still doesn't avoid damage. Stopped testing.
  3. 10v50 might be a bit aggressive. But 5v25? You should fail more times than you succeed, and it should be legendary, but possible. I agree that CF is nowhere near allowing for that kind of "outplay" or "skill expression."
  4. Overall, I was pleased to hear that passive skills are going away. Even as a "casual" tester and likely to be "casual" player, I disliked it, even though this will mean that at least one progression vector will likely be slower for me, now. I'm not thrilled with the temporary fix, but still glad to see progress in what I considered a major drag. There are a lot of interesting discussions in this thread (and a few uninteresting ones), but a few things jumped out at me that I'd like to comment on. I wanted to connect the dots between these two comments, as I see them related:
  5. Perhaps also killing other players can get you some kind of currency/points that can be converted to keys. I mean, I get that you could loot them from people who are carrying them from harvesting or whatever, but actually rewarding kills might further reinforce the PvP.
  6. It's not long before winning an internet game by cheating stops to provide even that little ego boost, in most people. Also, the thrill and novelty of it wears off quickly, as well. Those players are usually done with a game by the time they start cheating, anyway. Edit: There's also this talk on anti-cheating which profiles types of cheaters that is pretty interesting. The vast majority of cheaters aren't really in it to dominate, they're in it b/c they're bad and want to stay competitive. If literally everyone was in fact doing it, it might actually encourage competitivenes
  7. The game needs to be fun enough in its own right to encourage end-game play. Going back to the basketball example, once he's got millions in the bank and endorsements coming in, why would LeBron even want to play a pickup game at your gym if not for the sheer fun of it? It certainly wouldn't be about the money or the ring...the game itself would be the reward. If that scenario were to actually occur, you wouldn't expect all 5 all-stars to team up, because that wouldn't be any more fun for them than it would be for the scrubs. In other words, I think you have it backwards. Player
  8. My point is that sometimes, what seems like the answer only has appeal because it seems better than nothing at all. Like back when leechcraft was the cutting edge in medicine. Or I guess more accurately, I should have said leeching. In other words...just because this is better than 2019 doesn't mean it's good.
  9. Seems more like saying: hey, at least we have this new-fangled leechcraft. I remember when we didn't have anything at all.
  10. If the issue is that forts weren't generating PvP, it might be that as a mechanism, they're not very good at doing so. From my experience elsewhere (GW2), whether playing in large groups or smaller ones, the best fights were to be found in the open field, while running in between objectives. The actual siege was usually pretty boring. Yes, things flipped at a fast pace, and you could theoretically back-cap and not have to fight. But even large groups had to go out and capture supply camps if they wanted to build siege equipment to get through the walls, and that meant exposure,
  11. I never liked the idea of siege timers. It shouldn't be such a travesty when your fort gets capped at 4am. You should just be able to re-cap it when you're active. The rewards for ownership should be such that holding a fort while you're not even playing isn't really a big deal. (Yet another passive gameplay mechanic...) Once there is an active population, an appropriate number of objectives will still result in fights during prime time, but eliminating the siege window would also open up the other 23 hours of the day for gameplay.
  12. I'm not concerned with the number of choices in the tree. Rather, I want to see that each option is viable, and that in the end, many different (and distinct) playstyles are accommodated. This doesn't need to be accomplished through the active tree alone, but the tree should be part of the holistic build process that also includes disciplines and races, and even gear to a lesser extent.
  13. I think this could actually potentially help the economy for the scavengers if implemented correctly. Giving guilds something else to fight over could mean less incentive to hoard access to things like vessels and gear. Though ultimately, some sort of gold-sinks not directly related to basic in-game stats would go even further towards this end.
  • Create New...