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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Language

Recent Profile Visitors

254 profile views

PaddyFitzpatrick's Achievements

  1. The issue from where I am sitting isn't timers and whatnot. It is a territory war type of PvP game it isn't "just rules". The problem is the timers along with others are done wrong. Timers for when a keep is up should as others have said make all keeps go up. Be able to declare a handshake siege sometime into the start of the timer too in order to allow another group opt in. Or just drop the handshake system altogether. Keeps everyone on their toes. Forts should be the same way, more of them should be made and more value should be added in of themselves. You can have big forts which have guards or something to provide a bit of additional defense and keep the small forts the size of the current ones. They all should be open on the same time, perhaps even make all of them open at the same time as the keeps. That way even the largest zergs can't possibly conquer everything without being backcapped. It opens up a whole new world of strategies and tactics for that level of gameplay that guilds that aren't super zergs can still manage to pull off a victory. As far as hotzones go, make more of them throughout the day and make two per zone instead of one. Always have at least one that isn't near a respawn statue either since that gives whatever group who owns it too big an advantage.
  2. I like the idea overall. I also agree with making the coin cost for respec books lower so this can go over better with new players. Also, as was mentioned elsewhere give XP to PvP kills. Make it scale based on level or gear difference too if you can but PvP XP is of itself helpful. Make sure these new quests give good enough rewards to either help this new character be better or roll up a new one. Maybe for completing the full chain of quests you even something like a green weapon and armor set that's better than war tribe but not as good as crafted. That way they have something decent to go into dregs or shadows with.
  3. I will say a lot of the changes look good. I particularly like that all the caps will finally be based on concurrency and not numbers listed on the website. I don't like the any of any rule set in dregs or shadows that restricts races. Unless you make everyone level a new character from scratch anyone who didn't make a build with that race will either have a huge disadvantage or just not play. You don't want things that will further split the player base you have at this juncture. This is even assuming the race choices covers all classes, which would be the bare minimum required to make it doable at all. Finally, really need to do a lot more with the Factions gameplay in Shadows. Shift a lot of the focus to that cause that is where you can get a lot of new players to go before finding a guild at their own pace and going to dregs. Add another faction or two, give underdog buffs for the last place faction, give more individual rewards and so on. Shadows is the place where you can really afford to tinker with larger group balance changes and where it would make the most sense to do so. Up the max level of resources and drops and make it a bit more comparable to Dregs rather than GR.
  4. No matter what kind of cap you put in there will always be some workaround or exploit. This new cap is no exception but can make it more difficult to pull off an exploit and make them somewhat less game breaking. The current zone cap rules have been untenable ever since launch. This will at least fix the problems with that major set of exploits.
  5. Totally agree with you on most of this. I'd add that in terms of where we all feel dev teams should put their priorities, we don't and shouldn't have the final say. The devs should take what the playerbase tells them and sometimes some players can make good suggestions, but it isn't a license to act like an armchair project manager.
  6. Those won't be enough to prevent both faction hopping and preventing shadow campaigns from being decided right out of the gate. The latter is a major cause of the former. If one faction dominates a campaign so completely, easily and quickly, a number of these rewards will be much easier to get if you are part of that faction. Wealth would be a good example since it would be a lot easier to accomplish when your faction is the only faction. It would actually make more sense to either jump factions or go to another campaign where your faction has taken over. You could then just keep one character on a different campaign simply to get the minimum for conquest points or something but overall we are back at the core problem. Without additional changes to make it so a shadows campaign isn't already decided from day 1, this will give more incentives to faction hop. Incentives are needed for competition is what the issue is.
  7. I played an MMO a few years ago with a mix of FvF and GvG, trust me you might think guild drama doesn't sound so bad on paper but it doesn't work like that. It only leads to faction disunity, power struggles. If enough people are tired of it they leave the faction and the faction dies entirely. This playerbase is larger than that one was so maybe it wouldn't play out as badly. Nevertheless I would prefer the group project problem to this one. That said I'm sure some compromise can be worked out so that guild participation gets some extra rewards and perks without changing the core mechanics. You do have a point that guilds and individuals that do more should have some additional rewards for putting in the effort. It just can't be such a fundamental change that it may as well be dregs by another name.
  8. I agree with adding rewards based on personal activity. However, measuring by guild participation and dividing everything up by guilds instead of being shared by the whole faction is a terrible idea. If the shadows are going to be one keep per guild, this eventually will cause infighting and drama over who gets what and unlike in dregs one guild can't simply take the keep from the other if the current owners become a problem. If you are going to make a campaign for factions, make it about factions only. If it is a campaign for guilds, make it about guilds only. You can't mix and match them, a half and half campaign wouldn't work.
  9. Any meta shift would make some old talents less viable and other ones more viable. We do have our attachments from time and effort but this literally happens in all PvP MMOs or competitive games in general. Not sure what is so special here. Do I like all the changes or think all of them are good? No. Do I think they are well intentioned and have the right idea despite that? Yes. Does any of this give justification for demanding the devs to burn themselves out fixing what you consider core issues that you didn't even bother listing out? No.
  10. This still won't work because the metric is based on members listed on the website with a clunky guild management system. Though hopefully the next patch will fix that at least. This isn't based on number of people in dregs which I am willing to bet even the largest guilds do not field close to the max 500. Some are in the 200s and 300s but you can just check the leaderboards in any dregs and see for yourself. So your really complex system still won't work on that alone. Furthermore the big zerg guilds are just gonna split their members into 4-5 subguilds anyway and still field the same numbers as before. So do the math for other guilds that aren't the big boys. Guilds will get more members at first to try and grow mid size which I would put around 40-70 actives give or take. So that takes up two alliance slots. You get a second guild who does the same and now that is two more and the third one now can't get beyond 50 because of the other two. One guild always is left behind, nobody is gonna want that. If one guild gets around 150, then that leaves only one 100 or two 50s. That from a social alliance dynamic creates a new set of problems when there is clearly one guild taking the lions share. Then when you get a 150-200 guild you may as well absorb the remaining 50 man guild at that point. If we go this route why not use something like a straight 100 member guild cap with 3 alliance slots instead? You won't stop the big guilds from working around it either way and you can let all three guilds in other alliances have an equal opportunity to grow and progress to the same level. I've seen that setup in another MMO I played and that was pretty successful.
  11. Not sure if you are posting this seriously or sarcastically. If it is serious then that first part I can sympathize with but...50 player guild cap??? If you wanna prevent small guilds from growing to mid sized ones or harm existing mid sized ones, this is a good way to do it.
  12. Don't you think this is painting way too broad of a brush on this? Any given player can have the same kind of good experience whether it is a small, large or medium sized guild. It depends on the leadership and culture of the guild overall. Size is irrelevant. I'm all for encouraging people to join smaller guilds too but these are some major stereotypes.
  13. I must not have communicated correctly. I meant join the dregs campaign. Sorry for the confusion.
  14. While guild pruning is common in some MMOs and lowering guild/alliance caps are good in theory, this is using the wrong metrics. Alliance caps in a campaign should be based on a hard number or percentage of members in dregs not on this website. If more members of a guild in an alliance want to join and it has hit the cap, it would be better to just not let the individual member join. As a side note I really don't understand why an entire guild would be kicked out of the alliance for this. I can't see how that ends well for anybody. Other kickstarter MMOs that had early guild signups on their websites don't use that website roster as their basis for guild size once the game itself is up and running.
  • Create New...