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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kambien

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. My 2 cents regarding the frost weaver in the current patch. DPS focused frost weavers are pretty strong, I wouldn't say OP, but definitely high on the burst potential. The tank weaver seems pretty average. The healer weaver got hit pretty hard with the nerf to number of ice out at a time, but they were way too strong before, it was a necessary change. The biggest problems I am having with the class is that the ground targets are really hard to place accurately and do not seem intuitive, and this makes healing with anything other than cool ice stations very difficult. I would like to see the frost weaver (and possibly druid) get a small ground target reticle that is active when they are in combat mode. This would help ensure that ice are cast where they are intended. Another problem I am having is that retaliate spawns an ice which can replace an ice which is serving a valuable purpose, and since retaliate locks you out of free weaving and ice weaving this can lead to sometimes fatal delays in casting ice or sustaining ice. I would like to see 1 of 3 things happen instead with retaliate: 1) retaliate spawns an ice based on your focus gem, 2) it spawns a frost armor, or 3) it spawns an ice that wont replace others such as refreshing or volatile.
  2. But shouldn't they leverage a strategic advantage when their enemy has access to a larger force. Even if the current fight is even, in a game like this it's unlikely to stay that way. I mean if your going to play the faction with fewer soldiers, you have to leverage other strategic advantages in most if not all fights.
  3. I am pretty new to the conflicts in this current testing phase and have only returned to this game recently in the last week or so, having been away since basically hunger dome. Some things about the current conflict and the reactions to the war stories seems a bit striking to me. Let me preface by stating that I think both this video and the one posted by the Winterblades the day before both are targeted at sparking conflict, and both make the assumption that their content infer that the the "called out" party is unskilled and inferior on some metric. I don't think either of these videos do a good job of getting the point across. But something strikes me about the follow up comments that keep popping up in both videos wherein there is this argument about using guards, and whether that makes a person bad or good. The fact that this is even an argument is beyond amusing. Guards and fortifications are an essential game mechanic, which intentionally provide an advantage to the owner. This is and always has been a valuable resource in conflict and one that games intentionally utilize because of their strategic importance. The idea that using this resource makes a player bad is beyond absurd, it's like being angry at someone for not tying one of their hands behind their back in a boxing match. You add in the contextual information that the defenders in the current video belong to a faction who is consistently outnumbered in the majority of engagements and have no way of knowing if and when enemy reinforcements will arrive, then their choice to remain close to their strategic advantage is an intelligent choice. I have played with Spectre Legion a few nights of pvp. What I have seen is strategic choices and a willingness to take risks when it is valuable to do so.
  4. So, west server has the same L shaped forested tile repeated 21 times.... I dont suppose there is any plan to increase the diversity of the tile set on that server anytime soon is there? I mean east is super complex, and EU may be simple but the mountain structure makes it dynamic at least. West is barely going to have any dynamic terrain, its just a big flat forest with a "canyon" in the middle.
  5. The numbers I quoted were from big world based on my experience with crafted gear so far. I have used advanced crafted weapons/armor/arrows in every slot and basic in every slot. I'm not sure how this will play out in the long run, but I imagine the balance of bow left click damage vs other left click skills will scale roughly equally, assuming players have relatively equivalent mitigation and damage bonuses. I cant say that I have ever taken 50% of someone's hp off in Big World even with full armor/weapons/arrows at white or green quality using a fully charged 1st, 2nd, or 3rd bow attack versus ungeared players, so I am not sure what your experience has been? Maybe with a 3rd attack that crits you could put out 20k damage which would be close to half hp for non tanks.
  6. Yeah the bow damage is strong, and I don't want to remove "player skill" from the bow tree, but that skill gap between ranger bow skills and every other class is too much right now. The damage on a left mouse button bow shot is anywhere from 6 to 12k (averaging closer to 8k) depending on your weapons, arrows, skill levels, etc. That is a lot of damage from one attack, but the charge up time takes so long that another player can easily get 3 to 5 left mouse attacks at 1 to 4k (averaging probably 2k) damage in the same time. The rangers own melee tray left mouse button combo is going to hit 4 times for 2k each in that time (with advanced crafted daggers). The bow skills end up being a bit higher but not as dramatic as it seems, and personally, I think with the increases in mobility added to the game over the past few months the player skill thresh hold to land ranger left mouse attacks is too high compared to all of the other classes. This could be countered in a number of ways, including: reducing charge times, increasing the projectile hit box on arrows, increasing flight speed on arrows, or slowing down movement speed of all players (which I doubt would go over well).
  7. Just to clarify, when I said auto attack I meant the left mouse button skill, not an actually automatic firing attack such as with tab target games. If you misunderstood that I'm sorry. If you didn't, then I assume you like the charge up left mouse button skills that we have now? Please try to be more constructive by telling us why you don't like something or what you would do differently.
  8. The most recent new articles on the CU webpage talk about server optimization for large battles, which seems like a precursor for going into a beta level test. The screenshots look nice so far, still some work to do obviously, but that's to be expected.
  9. I think most players will eventually move toward a primary house in either their personal, guild, or conglomerate; a few crafting thrall properties; and a few secondary houses in other EKs for trading. The kickstarter and preorder packs people will likely have large empty castles sitting on their tax free parcels, either attached to their guilds EK or independent. Most guilds will try to maintain their own fort or castle but only the big ones will be able to maintain large castles/palaces. The most sociable and successful EKs will be the trading hubs and zerg guild EKs. Trading hubs will be governed by conglomerates, and these will likely consist of about half the primary groups involved and half the secondary properties of people from other EKs who are looking for space for trading. There will probably only be a few successful conglomerates.
  10. VIP allows you to train 3 different archetypes, but not 3 skills in one archetype. This is true even in the current Alpha build. Though there is a bug where you can train an advanced archetype without all the prerequisites and not counting as the same skill tree as the base class. They may allow you to train 3 different advanced archetype trees from the same base class. I have been keeping my eye on camelot unchained since it was first announced. The new screenshots dont seem bad, and they are doing some innovative things, but tab targeting is also an issue for me. I have friends heavily invested in both games and although my primary focus is on crowfall I will likely give CU a bit of my time.
  11. Moving disengage to combo off 5 (since that would have synergy) and then moving the slow to combo off the 3 skill isn't a bad idea. They could set the cooldown for the 3-e slow combo to whatever they want, it wouldnt have to be the same as the 3-3. This would definetly make it easier for rangers to disengage at will and stick to targets when they need to.
  12. I actually think the ranger melee tree is okay with a few caveats. I do very good damage in melee stance on my ranger using the bleed, the 6 skill combo, and other skills situationaly. But I agree forest step needs a significant reduction in cool down and it would be nice if it could teleport to target reticle instead of flat distance given the snare follow up. The disengage skill (3 + E) just doesn't work for me about 80% of the time, they need to fix it so it reliably moves you away from the target. The ranged skill tree needs some work. I agree with most of your comments, but I think the ground target aoe (4 skill) is good as is, useful in times when enemies do clump, and will become more and more useful as larger team fights happen. As for the bomb skill in the ranged tree it is just kinda worthless for cast time vs damage output, and since it doesn't knock people up as well as the melee version it isn't useful as a CC.
  13. The skill tree is meant to be broad and generic. True skill diversity and customization is going to happen at the vessel/runes level. The interaction between skill trees and vessels is important for diversity, and vessels aren't in yet, so we don't have a very good picture of the final outcome.
  14. Im happy, been wanting to play this class since I started following Crowfall.
  15. If I could rebuild the ranger, I would make the bow auto attacks a standard attack with no charge up (reducing damage accordingly) and nominal movement speed debuff. I would increase the size of projectile hitbox to be more in line with confessor auto attacks. I would make the ricochet shot a channel single target snipe skill (higher damage, but only 1 target). I would lower the cooldown on the first melee skill to 15 sec (down from 45) and increase the duration of the run speed to 8 seconds (up from 6). I would change the C skill to do 250% life steal for 6 seconds (down from 400% for 6 sec) and then followed by 25% for 24 sec. Then I would test all of these changes and re-evaluate for balance tweeks. These changes are largely to tweek the ranger's bow skill tray to be more effective in a world where everyone has split body, to increase their mobility in combat, and to lower the initial impact of their C skill while allowing for a longer term sustain potential. I am sure many people will have critiques of my changes, and I welcome them, but I would also like to see what others would do instead. Maybe we can generate some ideas for ACE and get some kind of changes for the ranger in the pipeline.
  • Create New...