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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Language
  • Gender
  • Location
    Balearic islands (Spain)

Recent Profile Visitors

809 profile views

EnsaimadaBlanca's Achievements

  1. My thougths are that making a game f2p is not equal to success either. I mean i don't want to be pesimistic but it's what it is ACE team need to work much harder and feels bad to say it like that cause i know they already do so but at the end of the day you look at the game and after that long time the game loop should be atleast be functional and still it's not. As far as i know taking albion as example again they turned in to free to play cause they reached the celling being b2p so almost everygame at some point do that and the only way to increasse it is by making it f2p looking for new horizont of monetization. They recently sold it's own studio (i would say to a bigger company cause its the most common but im not sure). The point here is some games cannot reach even a viable f2p style cause they are just bad and at this point i think to bring alive those campaign and crowfall universe in general it's needed a very good systems from social, economic, anti zerg, and strategic systems to prevent lack of socialization, overwhelming zergs leaving behind small groups or solo players as masacred peasants and strategic systems to prevent the 24/7 equals win. PS: Masacred peasants means players leaving, Masacred warriors means players joining. In other words for those that may be lost EQUAL FOOTING.
  2. As long as they want to make a f2p game its fine!
  3. i believe that if Ace launch this game too early it will be terrible no one will buy it and you are gonna make your own cripte. PLEASE do not launch this game before the things are mentioned above are ready. Launch day should be a day when you show to the public a game which is a sweet candy for everyone. People started playing his mmo after a year of launch said @jtoddcoleman people should be playing since day 1 should be enjoying since day 1 do not launch the game before it's core features are done and atleast playable until you have a good core design and playable you cannot launch there are a lot of things that are already said about it. i would say the 80% of your roadmap should be done before launch if not this will be the biggest fiasco i've ever seen because look at valheim just as a videogame i'm not comparing anything else than the fact that is a game which have sold millions in 2 weeks everyone knows why it happened and it's just cause the people is talking very well of it. ACE TEAM IF YOU LAUNCH THIS GAME without the short and mid term road map already done you are gonna be in trouble because the launch date is the born day of a game and if it's sick it will be a pain in the ass to bring people and make good reviews from content creators. @jtoddcoleman@thomasblair PLAY THE GAME LISTEN TO YOUR HEARTH HONESTLY AND LAUNCH THE GAME WHEN IT SAYS IT'S TIME TO LAUNCH IT. ps: Glad to see your last Q&A Please do yourself a favor and keep doing it like this one we all are gonna appreciate it. Good job and have luck / fun!
  4. until the game has enough funny things to do 24/7 and a reason to keep playing it no matter what ruleset you put on the campaign.
  5. it's long time that i have made a suggestion arround siege schedule and why i don't like it as it's right now. It was about to being interconnected with towers and outposts and other POI arround them that affect their protection. those mentioned reduce it's time to been able to be sieged. I was suggesting that every keep should have few outpost that are gonna reduce it's protection time and every outpost a few towers that do the same to the outpost so all of them are interconected in a way that people always have something to do. I think it's the best idea to put people out there all the day but there is a problem some people will say ill not be able to deff my keep if a group of 24/7 players keep attacking my forts or my keeps but i have to say there is few things to take in consideration first of all you can adjust all those timers in different time gates in fact crowfall is the perfect game to do this cause you can stablish a campaing which timers for the towers can be every 2 hours and outposts 2-3 days and keeps a week, and make other campaings with larger or smaller timers. honestly i feel like i was ignored long time ago but today i feel like a lot of people is considering this as big problem. For example and better understanding: Guild A own a keep, which have a timer of 7 days after being captured. The keep of guild A is interconected with 3 outpost which have a timer of 3 days and each outpost have 3 towers that have a timer of 3hours. Lets say Guild A have the control of all mentioned above and guild B take the control of 1 tower from 1 outpost which reduces it's timer from 3 days to 2 days and 23h (1hour less). Guild B do the same to another tower of the same outpost and reduce it's time to the outpost 1 hour less . Guild B Also do the same to the thrid tower of that outpost which in total reduced 3 hour to the timer of the outpost. So every 3h every outpost can lose 3h of it's timer if those towers are not being contested/succesfully defended by guild A. That means with a quick math every tower can be "sieged" 8 times a day which means if guild b have owned all 3 towers 8 times a day they will reduce a total of a day of the outpost timer. When the timer end and guild B or C/D/E whatever guild but not the owner of the keep, succesfully capture the outpost it reduce 1 day of the keep timer. I hope you understand everything until here. I would say those timers are standard and the good thing of crowfall is that you can change those timer for a quicker or larger timer in order to have much more frenetic or much more relaxed campaings also can be related to the weather big timer on winter and small on summer medium at spring/fall. Always you will have something to do not only an stupid scheduled siege timer and the rest of the day an empty game. Here is the topic i made before in the past:
  6. I suggested this 1 week ago. Maybe yoa're gonna be interested in take a look guys hope you like it.
  7. Good evening, today i just created this suggestion cause i felt it lost in a post out there and i didnt even create his own post for it. I was talking on the stream of @CaptainSlashin he just motivated me to create it thx captain very enjoyable night i was thinking that merchant system of crowfall would be as an auction house and static place both at same time. A system divided by categories which i think it could work with eternal kingdoms purpose so you still have meaningfull merchants but they are not player atleast not fully player based. i mean you could make a merchant which manage wood stuff so this merchant has an auction house and an static market shop from all the offers of his owner created to the woodcutter stuff related on that category so the main idea is for example: i'm stone masonery and i put a merchant on my EK which i want him to be an professional merchant of stone masonery so this merchant is interconected with all other stone masonery merchants of crowfall creating an stone masonery auction house category and at the same time my merchant has an static market place where he is selling my offers to the people who visit him. why would you go to buy on my merchant? yes let say the merchant at static place will sell my stuff that i put on his own auction house category without fee so the merchant static prices always will be bit cheaper than auction house that's the best way to solve both problems i see in crowfall which are 0 economic loop due to this teddious system and at same time incentivize people to really walk arround in each others eternal kindoms because those fees in more rare items will be bigger(as an example: white qualiy: 2% fee green %4 an so on). if someone is still missing the idea, it's like to create 1 auction house for each gatherable and 1 for each proffesion. I might considere combining those which respective gatherer and crafting but i think its much better in a sepparated way. This should be only for vendors placed on the EK/godreach if not they would be able to cheat the import export system for campaings. @jtoddcoleman @thomasblair keep an eye on that so let me know if you think its available idea in terms of design and effectiveness.
  8. i'm sorry but this feels like a kid academy. honestly this is too much man they dont know how to play? they should get involved that's all and at top of that isn't finished yet....
  9. Hi everyone, Today i create this post because as title says this is related to the recent Q&A for August. As @jtoddcoleman said as an example about his friend that want to play but don't have a lot of time to play and because of that he got kicked of his guild because it's required his participation into the campaing to deal with those cards based on player participation. To be honest when i was talking about add more cards on the other post this just popped on my mind but i just let it as i did because i couldn't really solve it. it was a painfull result. So here is my new thoughs about that. My suggestion today are related to create debuffs that create anti-zerg mechanism as again in albion online as reference that can be found. They use a mechanism that when players stack up by proximity they got debuffed related on how many allied players are stacking. if i'am not wrong i think when they stack up more than 20 players related of how many more allys join the proximity they get an debuff on the stats. This mechanism could match perfectly with your idea @jtoddcoleman of making non-score alliances and based on groups for any purposes. So you will be always able to play with your friends no matter how many of them but you take the risk of over stacking and being debuff. I need to clarify few things numbers here are just an idea and it could be more or less speaking of players or distance to be applyed the debuff to the players. An standard example could be 20 players and 30 metters so if we agree that 20 players group is 0% debuff, 40 it's 50% debuff and they become weaker as 20 so they will stack up carefully. In conclusion you're creating a metagame arround group sizes that bring equal conditions in terms of fights for almost everyone since 20 group size or 30 are realistic numbers. other scenarios under 20 are just called random skirmishes that doesn't need to be affected about this kind of stuff. i would take as reference every player so imagine every player with a bubble arround of 30m diameter. When someelse (tagged as ally) touch this bubble with his own both bubble count as 2 and until they stack up to the "stablished" number they dont get the debuff. So the stablished number as X has 0% debuff and X·2 = 50% less stats that means 2.5% debuff for each allyed player that join the "X" bubble. Waiting for your thoughs!
  10. when you spread the word that you are laughting about others. isn't like watching a comedy it's that you're trying to show that you're handling it. so you didn't call me ignorant on that statment. i see, when you say it, it doesn't affect you for some reason, looks interesting. have luck! 🤥
  11. Ape i'm glad to see your pov as always So starting with the example i mean atleast they probably have to be enemys at some time (probably a lot of times) and it still affect the fact that friendly fire isn't allowed in between their 10 guilds. Talking about restrictions i dont know what can be more artificial than virtual stuff, but you know, it simply doesn't feel like that to me. they will just be able to play with who they want but less zerggy anyways as @ComradeAma said "I think if you design the game around the idea that in order to be successful in the game, you require a guild size of 50+ as a minimum, you are clearly saying to 73% of the player population, you have no chance to really participate in the game in a meaningful way" and as in my experience the 73% just decrease cause they group up with larger guilds which always keep growing cause of their benefits of being part of a massivemega guild. Isn't imbalance that i believe will happen. It just always happen if its not design driven. 50v50 is pretty small for a modern game, for me it's more than enough. One guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 they simply just don't face an obvious lost battle or get deleted about the speed of light which you can't reallize it happened. That said i think most of people that play games just buy games in their own purpose, yes there are exceptions there are guilds that join all together into the game, which is something good but i would say that more than 75% of players that join/buy a game are in between this numbers 1-5 lets be realistic. Then they look arround trying to find the big guild that will give them advantage. Just because the game is rewarding doing it and finally those big guilds grow up faster and faster until you created another non sense megamassive guild game. In conclusion all depends of the meta game designed. if it's allowed will happen.
  12. Keep laughting. it's much more healthy for you. "Only hearing what i want", no i just explained it you missunderstand arround the stuff that i have said and manipulate things in your favor. That's it and it can proved on this comment, that you think annoucing that you are laughting about it will give you superiority and in fact only give you an ignorant position. if not if were something that make you laught why would you put it into a post. it describe your arrogance and ignorance pereftcly at same time.
  13. You turn things that are not exactly as i said in your favor to your post and that's why mostly doesn't make sense to me so many things that you change of my meaning. I'm not gonna waste more than 15 min on details. Anyways i appreciate your opinion but at the end of the day if your opinion isn't based on the facts and instead you need to change it or take it from another perspective to negate the reality that's why it doesn't make sense to me. An quick example is: "PVP game. Alot of people get this confused. Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game? I enjoy the pvp in game so far. Yes it needs work, but pretty good for Alpha. It just seems to get better to me. I also craft and gather alot of stuff. I enjoy the crafting. So from what I read, you said that the Crafters/gatherers/builders/traders/pig runners should go play a different game so they can do those things without the pvp." I dont say that they have to play another game cause of that. i just say they know since first moment that the game is based on pvp so they are accepting this fact from first day. In fact related to " Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game?" this make no sense, of course if the game have a lot of pvp does make it pvp game ofc it's doing it wtf this i not a game where you choise when flagged or not every campaign is pvp you have an newbie zones to start the game and so on without pvp but the core base of the game is pvp. honestly that doesn't make sense to me and at top of that you start saying a lot of people get this confused. Underating other people post that are based in facts instead of opinion. It's a fact that the game it's what it's not an opinion. I don't need to deffend anymore things that "i have said" cause there is no point if you or other people that i have found on this forum are missunderstanding or manipulating facts for some purpose on his own post which is not attached to the truth or reallity.
  14. the idea is that using this card system related to the effort dedicated for each member of a guild [That actually joined the campaing] on the objective of the card. which take in count each player contribution instead as the whole guild, then you could try to add bonuses to the cards system arround a certain group size let say between 20 to 30 which honestly those are the best number for any guild or community to be able and confortable to reach and play simultaniously so you could add an bonus or the entire card focused on that numbers an example could be as follow: this objective is done by participating 20 players atleast to a maximum of 30 taking the example of the skulls for each member so you add a bonus on that card which stablishes a certain amount of players that should be in participating so you can actually manage the size of the groups of your campaigns like that establishing a minimum and a maximum of members for being able to complete those bonus of the current cards or instead of adding like a bonus thing just do it as a new whole card. This could match perfectly with your idea where campaings are more focused on lets say groups of 20 to 30 active guild mates players to any other kind of bigger numbers as could be 50 to 60 or 90 to 100 whatever i think adding those kind of bonuses to the card system could manage the direction of each campaings in teams size terms. I would create those cards related to the effort dedicated for each member of a guild [That actually joined the campaing atleast 1 time instead of the whole guild(online/offline status)] on the objective of the card. those cards are going to bring a mandatory size of that campaing and you can change it to a bigger numbers for other campaings. So i need to clarify that this is a kind of idea that i have so you need to clarify certain numbers of what's size is supposed to be on each campaing, obviously for me that is needed to be done by design. because if not people simply ignore it. That said i respect this FAQ Statement "Our intention is to make this a community-driven process. We’ll take the best ideas we find, wherever they come from, and give them a shot. If an idea gains enough traction and fits within the architecture, we’ll try it." The result of that is out there to check it out in other games which his open world sucks and their main things are instanced. So one more time if you make it as community driven it just follows their own needs which always translate the more players on our side the less we have to deal with and every one want to take part of the piece of cake instead of fighting each other which is more healthy for a pvp game. Finally i do respect it but i think it's incorrect point of view. i have already explained why and how i see it from here related to lots of mistakes done out there and if your decision is to let it open to a whole community driven i will have to accept it but never will become a better game in that way. Recently speaking of AoC (Ashes) Steven said that he don't want to call his mmo as sandbox because the developers vaguely missunderstand the concept and they make the statements of a game and then they call it as sandbox on purpose to dont create more content maybe this could be one example. i trully dont think it's the case because i have seen this team for years developing his game so in conclusion my personal opinion of this point "community-driven" it's a mistake.
  15. well i dont know to me doesn't make sense creating worlds for bigger and worlds for smaller groups of player and it's just because the biggers have the option to split themselfs in different groups and still being competitive in any campaign (if the meta game is mandatory in that way if not they just ignore it) but there is no way to think that small groups will duplicate in size or triplicate and the most important of this is that normaly it's much more than duplicate or triplicate in size the difference in between. another thing to take in count is what number determines what is a big guild or smaller so now you have the same problem as before multiplicated by 2 times now you need to predifine the small guild number and the big guild number which means you have to create both worlds with different meta games in terms of population which highly increase the dificulty of it's own purpose and at very top of that let say the "big guild number" you have to make an average so what happens with the bigger guild they actually have to split aswell because they're above the average. In conclusion that just add more dificulty on this purpose and doesn't really solve any problem at all.
  • Create New...