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

EnsaimadaBlanca

Testers
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About EnsaimadaBlanca

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Language
    Spanish
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Balearic islands (Spain)

Recent Profile Visitors

598 profile views
  1. 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! 🤥
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Completly agree. yes i completly agree with that there is no poin comparing wow guild sizes with crowfall wow is open world but instanced pvp pve and crowfall it's not it's "open world" with pvp and pve inside of it. Caravans need to be improved related to building changes, dosn't make sense. Albion has an Auction house market system which is far better than the system from Crowfall to be honest. i was thinking that merchant system of crowfall would be as an auction house and static place both at same 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. @jtoddcoleman @thomasblair keep an eye on that so let me know if you think its available idea in terms of design and effectiveness. Of course it's a player realisation that you mention above of course it's since i played for first time albion online in a beta stage. that being said that's exactly i dont like from albion online this alliance system which works as follows: every guild no matter size no matter nothing else than a negotiaton between leaders will actually turn into a friendly mode that they prevent themselfs to being even enemys on the open world they create not only an friendly system in between everyone guilds who join on it in fact they have almost full acces in terms of mobility and resource gathering on their lands (obviously) the most hardcore guilds normaly create rules so if their rule is if our guild owner territory which you can benefit not only from being friendly of them and the respawn and static chest/respawn point from that territory you're not gonna be able to gather resources there but it's still a vague rule which is barely managed by it's own alliance players. Sometimes i have seen tax payments for being part of that alliances that are predominant on those high level zones. So yes this is for me the worst part of albion online by joining an alliance lets say the alliance have arround 1000 players but my guild its 30 sized people we automatically joining in we turn out from our spectre of possible enemys is reduced by the impactant number of 1000 guys that are from all those guilds on it. that's the reason which the open world make no sense to me in albion online and at top of that it ruins the game in so many many other ways related to economic/gatherer things/fighting stuff. In my experience there we used to make a group of less than 10 because if not you're tagged at the map (anti-zerg system) to gank arround the map taking in consideration that all that people of our alliance are not gonna be able to be ambushed cause they are friendly but at same times give us an greatfully advantage because we have arround 1000 potential enemys less to deal and probably we have never talked each other or played together for any purpose any time or so i mean isn't always like that but most of them it's like that and the feeling it's like that.
  8. First of all isn't 20 a magic number i mean in between 20-50 is almost reachable number for every guild or community. The game will be rewarded in more people engaging pvp on different sides instead of being clusted in alliances over alliances as happened in albion. large castles? i mean those can be filled up with 50 ppl wtf? yes nothing o say with the next point seems like you always have something irelevant to say about thisone. yes i do played albion online since it's own first days and the main strength for me right now from a player side is that is free to play. honestly i was joking i mean there is pvp 5v5 hellgates 5v5 gvg and 20v20 // stupid arena // world random pvp which is good i had some fun in this game aswell but i can't get the point of being like 1500 people behind like 4 o 5 guild squads of 5? i dont know man maybe that's me that i'm missing arround i dont want others to fight for my land i wanted my group and me to be those who deffend those lands and not just a privilege for those out lifer or meta gamed boosted by alter accounts or millions of slaves you know what i mean? dude i'm trying to be fair. dont know about that maybe i'm wrong but if not i dont either get the point of getting guilds of 500 or 400 or 300 ppl most of them do not interact each other in the whole lifetime of the guild they are managed by officers of different guilds of an alliance to deffend 1 warcamp so the point is in that game you can find i think the map limit is 200 or so and they fill up the map for attack or deffend an warcamp which is only to send the siege to the gvg that is played by 5v5 or 20v20. this has to be a kind of a joke is like you go there to siege a castle en then everyone make a big cercle and on the middle the battle is of 5v5 or 20v20 instead of 200v200 or 500v500 it's stupid. At top of that i'm not restricting the size of the guild i'm just encourage to make the meta game on smaller number in between 20-50 why? again its obviously explained lots of times dont keep walking arround the same stupid thing. Finally i have to ask am i the only one that think like that or other people do like much more the idea of stacking for no reason even the engine is not gonna handle those big gvg in a battle by far in a castle. Either the map cap is soooo much less than numbers that you proclame "better" so whats the point I DO NOT GET IT. my suggestion goes against the entire point of the game please shaare me those drugs are awesome. i do not have even seen 1 single time that the ACE team proclamed that the game is going to be based in megamassive guilds. Mmo means massive multiplayer online but that doesn't necesarily mean that they are massive over stucked one of each other by few enormous sides and the rest of fellowers random small groups. they even can't maintain a real 500v500 batlle ashes of creation is saying that they are confident of 250v250 atleast if that was this case you can tell me that but even 250v 250 is by far those stupid numbers of 500 or 1000 people for guild. You're getting mad with that "why not make it 5-10 players? Why not just make it a 5v5 match game and make it instanced arenas? None of this is what ACE built or sold to anyone over the last 5 years. Your suggestion goes against the entire point of the game". Conclusion it's any bennefit making smaller groups arround 20 to 50 advantages? yes which ones? tons of them: - the own game card system have already barely done that mechanic anti-zerg - server stability - map still doesn't support those big numbers so those guys will be forced to get into separate maps/campaings like no sense of being the same guild - i hardly doubt from client side that those numbers on screen will ever being seen or playable for anyone i mean 300+ above - as i said is easyer to make multiple small groups. will increase it in size this time cause feels like you don't read it; it give you more sides fighting each other so there is not only a 200 ppl fighting for 1500 which means more economic/gathering/crafting loop basically improves the healthy of the game at all. - ah i was about to forget last one and the most important one. BECAUSE IT'S BY FAR MORE FUN anyone number in between 20-50 than any other extratosferic number. There are large guilds relative to the current population fighting it out?????? where? i can't find them i mean even the server population is even below that numbers at it's own day-peak. give me a break where do you buy those hallucinogens musshroms? ANBELIVEBLE
  9. It's possible to adjust or limit players working together if 20 players made better results than 50 or 100 no worry if it's not worth they will not stack up. They do it on every game because normaly its the opposite i mean the more the best. it's been known and seen lots of times. This card system it's vaguely doing it which is a good start. I mean you dont need to put a cap of 50 player for guild you just need to do that the game by itself it's more advantegous for groups of 20 or 30 something reachable for almost every community. so the guilds will be forced to split in different campaings in groups of 20 or 30 as an example or making new ones to be effective so you put an strong barrier that there is no way they manage arround because there is no option. listen for me as i have seen this problem in many games its easyer to make groups of 20 or 25 for big guilds or small guilds. i mean everyone is cappable to make this kind of group instead of 200 ppl group that will become from enormous guilds or in-game/out-game alliances of 500ppl or +. The first problem right now is that winning a campaing isn't rewarded at all. Second Crafters, Gatherers, Builders, Traders, Pig Runners, etc might disagree that PVP is the most important thing. i'm kind of understanding this point but why do you play a pvp game if you don't take in count that. it make no sense. we have plenty of games that you can do all this stuff without of pvp and on top of that you know we all need those people wich his priorty it's not pvp but they obviously will be much more rewarded if there is a looooooooooot of people demanding their stuff instead of being a puppet that is the crafter for the whole uncountless guild. so make them really important aswell simply by doing that because there will be a lot of groups that really need them simply because you make more people fighting in between which is the most healthy for a pvp game. I have that seen happening in albion online ill take it as reference again there is 300 player cap of guilds but no one cap on alliances which translates in 1000 people or more and the guild versus guild are 5v5 now i'm not sure because their plan was to increase it to 20v20 anyways 20v20 with hundreds of people behind doing like nothingelse than feed those guys, and you maybe asking why those guys are behind them and its simply cause they grant them the lands to live on that places which grant more xp more and better resources less enemys to deal with. So the game gives them the advantage by stacking in enormous sizes so people just do it. Plus the game dosn't have enough land and space for those guilds which should be created arround their own prestablished size of GVG, it's just pathetic. The campaigns, should be the most important thing if not what's the purpose? i don't get it. Give rewards equal to the time expend into the campaing so you will have everybody trying to win and then do it advantageous in many ways for small amount of players which could be arround 20 or 30 and that's all. you have competitive and balanced game accesible for everyone because is easy to build 20 to 30 ppl community. There isn't YET a guild with 75% of the population controlling 100% of the map, winning every campaign. Because there isn't yet a guild with 100 times more people than the smaller one. As you we talked about before probably if controlling the map its worthly than winning the campaign be sure that's gonna happen.
  10. What a clown appeared i like those people like you which talk in name of everyone, i love that. Real players he said. What a joke, real players or real stupid testers. It's so hard to be respectfull with that kind of ironys. This trading system is not used at all i would like to know how many pleople is using it i mean if the "player base on alpha testing is low" i can't imagine how much it's being used. listen there is no real economy/trading yet on this game between players you like it or not. I didn't play the game "seriously" in long time in about 2 months but i do it sometimes and i didn't even try the card system but i have eyes to see how it works and i look streamer playing it sometimes. if you don't like what i'm talking about, just disagree with that but don't use that nonsense parody to claim i'm out of point, it's embarassing. even if i didn't played in the history of it's development. Open world is exactly what i said you mean instanced open world which is barely the same but not exactly the same and on top of that because you used the opposite. it's an small difference that an experimented tester like you probably know it. i'm not trying to bring down it's just an opinion about guild sizes and it's own consecuences. Tell me exactly what i don't understand because i don't get it how i can speak about something that i don't understand it's stupid by itself. you must considere the basics of logic.
  11. No one massive multiplayer online where you craft you build you gather you gear up and fight in the fcking same "battleground" or "campaign", so they suck. don't change me the genre when we are talking about that one put an example if you want but dont change the genre for me! You're talking about openworld mmo as if crowfall would be. becacause it's not in fact is based on server campaings and connected zones, which means it's not as much opeeeeen woooooorlld as you say. Isn't combat the most important thing in a pvp based game? amaizing, of course farmville it's not the case you know what i mean? i'm not approaching for what it is, as if it is one of those other games because no one other game has that i said before they just have a world where you level up you do you pve stuff some pvp and then you join an instanced pvp or instanced pve content. What i'm looking and i was considering crowfall it was that would do that on each campaing in the same way as their pvp content. that's all, i may be wrong but is what i thought it would be. Not a clown fiesta of big d*ck guilds or alliances. If the game is based on guilds/alliances just adjust them to a size. I'm not looking for ranking systems or stuff like that to prove the best 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 man group i just want balanced things so the gameplay is fun interesting and bit more competitive. Because the card system looks good to prevent in someway the zergs but as you said some people do not give a fck about card system because there is no real benefits for winning a campaing or those are worst than ignoring the card system. If the card system turn into a biggest valuable reward the game itself will regulate the number of groups by default because those cards requires X amount skulls for player or whatever and all of this may create a metagame where the most efficient way is in between 10-20 man group which translate into an "hidden" cap. otherwise if winning a campaign isn't worth they just ignore the card system,they stuck together and do whatever they want as massive group and ruin the gameplay. At top of all of that add the fact that there is no trading system being used yet.
  12. Maybe you know more stuff than me cause i didn't even know that they are the successor of those games. i don't think they are. About of crowfall card system feels good for that anti-zerg mechanics i'm happy with it but i'm not actively playing crowfall right now so i must considere my own post from before as a failure because i didn't even try the card system. it's cause the combat still feels bad. i'll take sit and waiting until its improved don't forget that the combat is the most valuable thing in a videogame and it need to be fluid responsive and not clunky. The other thing that scares me is the pay to fast passive training combined with alt accounts i would highly prefer an monthly subscription instead of that kind of pay to win or pay to fast stuff.
  13. archeage or BDO get out of here i didn't even try those bullsh*t games. L2 well you know its the past.
  14. Every time i think arround unbalance between different sizes of player groups i get disapointed with crowfall and ACE Team just ignore it or don't want to talk about it even seems like they don't reallize that this will be a very very bad thing for this game. You don't want to be an full focused pvp mmorpg unbalanced in terms of size group, which will not be worth playing it from any side even winning because of group size will turn into a boring gameplay. There are some people who think that others will leave cause "i'm better" or "we are the best" so they leave but the reallity is that people will not stand losing tons of campaigns and feel like its a waste of time unless they have atleast a minimum of balance on that point. Ill put an example those days im playing hell let loose. Its a war simulator between U.S.A against Germany. They will let you join in one side only if the number is the same as the other one if not you have to join the lowest side/faction which means X+1/X it's always the maximum. Yes they are match which have a duration in between 30-min to 2h. So if you think about that atleast the game is balanced on this point it's full pvp but it's not mmorpg it's shootergame, yes i may considere that there are so many differences between those genre. But i have never seen any full pvp game without this point addressed and being succesfully. In fact survival games as "Rust" there are lots of community servers that they put team cap frequently cause of that reason (it's full loot shooter survival game). Honestly there is not any single mmorpg like crowfall aiming on full pvp game because there is no one that have the eggs to start by trying to address this thing: Group size of players. Ashes of Creation feels like it will be more like world of warcraft but the open world pvp it's more likely to be balanced because of their systems and then you will have sieges, Battlegrounds, arena and caravan. for me now it's worth than crowfall. So, i lost the interest with crowfall unless i see this is hardcore improved. Probably lots of people will feel confortable to show me the door but i just have more one thing to say about it and it's the door may be the same for you one day.
  15. Resumarized make Crowfall campaings as world of warcraft battleground. you're gonna be random queued but you're fine with that cause atleast there is the same amount of players at same time in both sides. Infact as i suggested on the thread linked above there is a suggestion about how to manage it with guilds and arround 5 +/- frame of players. sadly guys i have to say i'm happy with the stuff done from ACE team right now but from my point of view a full pvp game has to be designed to be competitive if not make no sense playing it i mean yes you can walk arround you can try to make some stuff with few friends or guild but you know this is not gonna make the game more interesting or competitive. I just want to say again that with luck or without it i purchased back in the days this game cause i was thinking this would be like a big and wonderfull world of warcraft battleground game where you build, craft, gather, conquest but unafortunately seems like will be exactly like that but without balance in terms of people which means look at world of warcraf servers where are 80% of players on one facction, the server was diying but they managed to put groups of servers in a macroserver but its not enough for crowfall cause its full pvp not like wow, only in case you agree that is good example there are lots more games with this mistake but wow is still alive because its not full pvp focused. Please Ace team make your game a seriously game not a place to walk arround with few mates and feel like you have no chance to be a winner if you're not joining the biggest/active guilds.
×
×
  • Create New...