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

goose

Testers
  • Content Count

    712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    goose got a reaction from Jjohnsin in Please nix the term "early access", for our sanity.   
    You are not wrong. It says it in large, screen-dominating letters that it forces you to click through and scroll past twice every single time you download the client, plus more times when purchasing the game. They are pretty ham-fisted about it. People just don't read.
  2. Like
    goose reacted to Pann in Assassin is op needs nurf   
    Please join one of the recent threads to discuss the Assassin rather than bumping one that's a year old and was started before the Assassin was being tested. 
  3. Haha
    goose reacted to Vectious in Assassin is op needs nurf   
    Agreed, the animation times are way to short so she basically does no damage.
     
    Please buff animation times.
  4. Like
    goose got a reaction from KrakkenSmacken in Streaking: The Pros and Cons of RNG - Official Discussion Thread   
    Other people have already discussed the "deck of cards" analogy and how it might add a facet of player skill to crafting, but I haven't seen much discussion about how much better this system potentially makes factories.
    If you have a blueprint for an Amazing roll of an orange metal bar crafted from all orange ore, each copy of that bar a factory produces is going to cost 3 orange ore. If you got a lucky upgrade, or even more reasonably, if you actively pursued it, using your 3 orange ore (or even 30 orange ore) to get that one perfect roll made from 2 white and 1 orange that bootstraps, THAT factory run will cost you 1/3 as much orange ore to complete.
    This makes it a balancing act, where you choose whether it's more important to have what you need right now consistently at high quality, or if you're planning ahead to mass-produce something powerful. And that's without even factoring in the potential player skill vis a vis card counting. I think this is an excellent change.
  5. Like
    goose reacted to KrakkenSmacken in Streaking: The Pros and Cons of RNG - Official Discussion Thread   
    That is offset though by being able to potentially grind out dozens of higher quality items with lower quality materials once manufacturing comes into play. 
    Only that first try is going to get the fail roll, everything else will just work.
     
  6. Like
    goose reacted to Greyowl in What’s more bannable?   
    Have you forgotten thieves in SB??? Most of you here are coming with some experience with that game....it’s all fair in love and war in my opinion. I can remember farming mobs with a whole group and some thief came in and ninjas our whole group. Sometimes he got away sometimes we’d find him and kill him and then hunt him down for days lol...
    That was the fun in that game. I had commander runes stollen for me that took me a week to farm sometimes lol...risk is what we asked for to come back in mmos and in this game specifically so I’d say meh..looks like you guys got him good, congrats. Maybe next time he’ll think twice or maybe he’ll come back with more friends and retake it and more lol
    edit: if it’s someone on your own faction that’s a tougher issue...in that case have it flag him for PvP by everyone or put some kind of bounty on him or possibly a ban but I think what you guys did by body blocking him is fair justice. 
  7. Like
    goose reacted to Tinnis in What’s more bannable?   
  8. Like
    goose got a reaction from KanashiGD in What do you think about removing doobers?   
    You're definitely right about doobers in survival games, and realistically speaking, that was probably why it was added in Crowfall - it was and is, in many ways, a survival game. But since the game's conceptualization, I'd argue that the survival aspects have largely taken a back seat to other aspects of the game, but doobers stuck around because they had already been coded. That was precisely what I was alluding to when I said "they were added, so they are there," though that specific logic hadn't occurred to me until you pointed it out, though it seems obvious in hindsight. xD
    The closest analogue to this game specifically, the one that it is functionally a spiritual successor to - Shadowbane - didn't have ground loot, but it also didn't have a crafting system, so it is possible - though, again, I would argue unproven - that adding ground loot adds another layer of risk to a game that really needs to generate player conflict to succeed.
    As to why we call them doobers...you got me. xD Everyone else did and it made me laugh, so I started too.
  9. Like
    goose got a reaction from Mayhem_ in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    So..I've been giving this a bit of thought, and I think I have a reasonable solution. Even within factions, let inter-guild rivalries and wars persist. That is to say, if your guild and another guild just..custard hate each other, you might still end up on the same side of a faction campaign, but that doesn't mean you're both working together, just that the condition for victory within the campaign is the same for you as it is for them. So if friendly fire was only disabled by default, and not locked as such unless you were in the same guild with someone, your guild in Chaos could murder someone from a different guild in Chaos if they were flagged as hostiles, but when someone from Order showed up, you would both turn on them. Or not. For large-scale engagements, the guild leaders should be able to write up some kind of treaty, maybe as an actual item or a toggle both guild leaders had to activate that enabled a temporary truce.
    I'd liken this to Shadowbane's Game of Realms, where guilds could own cities (or not) and have other guilds swear fealty to them (or not) and swear fealty to other guilds (or not), and if you or your guild decided that one particular person was being a hooligan, you had options. You could take it to the leader of your Nation (large guild to which other guilds have pledged fealty) and ask them to deal with it, such as by having the sub-guild in question gkick the person, thereby revoking their protection from you murdering the poorly made socks out of them, or you could deal with it directly through that sub-guild, or you could just leave the nation if you disagreed with how they handled the situation and murderize that guild on your own.
    Obviously, having campaign-wide alliances in place that can't be changed for the duration adds yet another layer to this already fairly complicated game system (which I loved), but I don't see it as being insurmountable. Just add an inter-guild Friendly Fire toggle within campaign worlds, attach a delay to it through either use of in-game resources to make a physical treaty or declaration of war, or just add a time delay, and let the players hash it out.
    Of course, there's also another option: if there's a guild that you know is full of trolls, wait for them to join the campaign and then...join a different faction. And murder them dead. Not every in-game problem needs to be resolved by the devs, or immediately at all. Take the long road to your revenge - suffer through a few people being dickbaskets for a few weeks, and get your revenge with style. Ruin them financially in-game. Destroy their carefully-orchestrated political alliances with real-life subterfuge. Don't expect ACE to hold your hand - they might give you the tools to resolve this in-engine, but if they don't, you are not devoid of choices.
  10. Like
    goose reacted to KanashiGD in What do you think about removing doobers?   
    Ground loot is typically seen in survival games. You kill/gather X thing and it appears on the ground. Generally the reason for this is to force the player to have to pick up the loot. This adds time to gathering and creates the urgency to collect the resources before A. someone else does or B. Something causes you to flee/move out of the area. It has a different type of feel when it comes to playing the game that the devs are aiming for. Games like Rust, Don't starve, Minecraft, etc all of which contain survival aspects of design also have this.
    Are they necessary for this game? Eh it could go either way. If it comes down to optimization, say something needs to be cut to help with stability of the game, then I would remove them in favor of optimization. If there is no issue once the game is more stable then they add a bit of flavor to the monotony of gathering items.
    Also, can someone explain to me why everyone is calling these doobers? I'm assuming it is a term from one of the older games that inspired this one, I've just never heard that term describe ground loot before.
    Side Note:
    I notice that loot has physics turned on (they bounce a lot and some of them slide far). This seems somewhat costly, perhaps the devs could enable physics for the initial pop but turn physics to false once it hits the ground. Perhaps use a lerp, or turn friction up? Not the most important of focus atm but wanted to throw it out there.
  11. Like
    goose got a reaction from KrakkenSmacken in What do you think about removing doobers?   
    This entire argument is fundamentally flawed, since it's already been roundly confirmed by no less than Blair that they are disabling that, so...the issues you mentioned are already going to get addressed, and figuring out what doobers actually add is a comparatively small puzzle to solve versus "ninja looting doobers - yes or no?"
    If they can solve that one...I'm not worried that "but who will get the loot?!" is gonna break the brain trust. That is to say, if you keep everything as it is except remove doobers, your problems don't have solutions that are any different, and the gameplay loop involved doesn't change, except on the surface. Assuming doobers are in a big pile, you still have to have someone physically pick them up, then figure out what goes where. That particular calculus is entirely unchanged by just removing doobers and letting people assign a loot master or something.
  12. Haha
    goose reacted to corvax in What’s more bannable?   
    I''ll tell ya what the community is organized around FREE THE PACK PIGS! 
    Hey hey! Ho ho! Leather armor has to go!
    Say it loud! Say it clear! Wild boars are welcome here!
    Boars grab back!
    You woke yet?

     
    Tark is most likely responsible for 97% of all Trolls, griefs, and hacks, on the severs and forums. And that's just for this game. He is the most intelligent young man I have ever met and is exceptionally mature for his age. He is highly educated and extremely driven on everything tech related. He's a savant.   
     
    The TOS does not apply to Tark he is not old enough to enter into a legal contract, he's only nine years old,
     
    Oh hi there VN I was wondering when you where going to come in and talk about Friendly Fire again, whelp there's the other 3% 
  13. Like
    goose reacted to BarriaKarl in What’s more bannable?   
    I think doober stealing is the worse of the two. If there was some risks about stealing i wouldnt mind but just exploiting the faction immunity is really shameful.
    The way you dealt with is also okay IMO. The game rules didnt allow you to just fight it out so you had to improvise. If anything the fault would be with the game or ACE for allowing such player behaviour.
    In your shoes i would memorize the player name so that i can hunt and kill him at every opportunity and probably rally people on chat to do the same. This is what might be going too far.
  14. Like
    goose reacted to miraluna in What’s more bannable?   
    Neither seem like bannable offense, and it's a good argument for playing on a FFA server 
    Valid solution to the problem and preferrable to ACE policing every player interaction.
     
  15. Like
    goose reacted to McTan in What’s more bannable?   
    What looks like griefing on faction rulesets is good play on FFA. One of the reasons factions are annoying in a (PvP) game. Neither should be punished.
  16. Like
    goose reacted to jetah in What’s more bannable?   
    One time toward this person and it's sweet revenge, if you proceed to constantly do it then you are grieving them. however...
    i'd prefer if ACE kept their hands off of it much like CCP does with Eve Online. I want to see scams being ok so long as there are systems in place for a person to realize it's a scam (again it's ok in eve online). if a person wants to clean a guild out it should be OK so long as there are roles and systems in place that could prevent it. if you promote a person to a rank and they now have access to you bank it's on you to make sure it isn't cleaned out.  CF should have bank role along with tiered ranks so a player could be a CFO/Treasurer but not have a high officer role.
  17. Like
    goose reacted to KrakkenSmacken in What do you think about removing doobers?   
    Might have missed it, it's on a previous page, but there is another more useful solution. A new ability to toggle same faction players hostile.
    /hostile on krakkensmacken
    Both players get a countdown timer that it's going to happen, and 60 seconds later both players are now hostile to each other.
    That would turn it into a PvP issue.  See someone hanging around, mark em hostile and take them out if they don't leave.
    This "fix" only deals with this single problem, doober scooping.  It's doesn't deal with door blocking, or other ass hattery you can get up to when your completely invulnerable to someone.
  18. Like
    goose reacted to Tinnis in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    BLAIR - revisiting doobers, making them for the group that harvested them
  19. Like
    goose got a reaction from KrakkenSmacken in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    Actually, my second solution is extremely easy and is absolutely a "real" solution. Discourage the behavior hard enough and people won't do it. Just because it doesn't require the dev team to lift a finger doesn't make it any less of a fix for the problem.
    Edit: for that matter, my first solution also leaves the agency within the hands of the players without putting the game on rails, and both of those suggestions came before this post.
  20. Like
    goose got a reaction from KrakkenSmacken in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    So..I've been giving this a bit of thought, and I think I have a reasonable solution. Even within factions, let inter-guild rivalries and wars persist. That is to say, if your guild and another guild just..custard hate each other, you might still end up on the same side of a faction campaign, but that doesn't mean you're both working together, just that the condition for victory within the campaign is the same for you as it is for them. So if friendly fire was only disabled by default, and not locked as such unless you were in the same guild with someone, your guild in Chaos could murder someone from a different guild in Chaos if they were flagged as hostiles, but when someone from Order showed up, you would both turn on them. Or not. For large-scale engagements, the guild leaders should be able to write up some kind of treaty, maybe as an actual item or a toggle both guild leaders had to activate that enabled a temporary truce.
    I'd liken this to Shadowbane's Game of Realms, where guilds could own cities (or not) and have other guilds swear fealty to them (or not) and swear fealty to other guilds (or not), and if you or your guild decided that one particular person was being a hooligan, you had options. You could take it to the leader of your Nation (large guild to which other guilds have pledged fealty) and ask them to deal with it, such as by having the sub-guild in question gkick the person, thereby revoking their protection from you murdering the poorly made socks out of them, or you could deal with it directly through that sub-guild, or you could just leave the nation if you disagreed with how they handled the situation and murderize that guild on your own.
    Obviously, having campaign-wide alliances in place that can't be changed for the duration adds yet another layer to this already fairly complicated game system (which I loved), but I don't see it as being insurmountable. Just add an inter-guild Friendly Fire toggle within campaign worlds, attach a delay to it through either use of in-game resources to make a physical treaty or declaration of war, or just add a time delay, and let the players hash it out.
    Of course, there's also another option: if there's a guild that you know is full of trolls, wait for them to join the campaign and then...join a different faction. And murder them dead. Not every in-game problem needs to be resolved by the devs, or immediately at all. Take the long road to your revenge - suffer through a few people being dickbaskets for a few weeks, and get your revenge with style. Ruin them financially in-game. Destroy their carefully-orchestrated political alliances with real-life subterfuge. Don't expect ACE to hold your hand - they might give you the tools to resolve this in-engine, but if they don't, you are not devoid of choices.
  21. Like
    goose got a reaction from Dragotek in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    So..I've been giving this a bit of thought, and I think I have a reasonable solution. Even within factions, let inter-guild rivalries and wars persist. That is to say, if your guild and another guild just..custard hate each other, you might still end up on the same side of a faction campaign, but that doesn't mean you're both working together, just that the condition for victory within the campaign is the same for you as it is for them. So if friendly fire was only disabled by default, and not locked as such unless you were in the same guild with someone, your guild in Chaos could murder someone from a different guild in Chaos if they were flagged as hostiles, but when someone from Order showed up, you would both turn on them. Or not. For large-scale engagements, the guild leaders should be able to write up some kind of treaty, maybe as an actual item or a toggle both guild leaders had to activate that enabled a temporary truce.
    I'd liken this to Shadowbane's Game of Realms, where guilds could own cities (or not) and have other guilds swear fealty to them (or not) and swear fealty to other guilds (or not), and if you or your guild decided that one particular person was being a hooligan, you had options. You could take it to the leader of your Nation (large guild to which other guilds have pledged fealty) and ask them to deal with it, such as by having the sub-guild in question gkick the person, thereby revoking their protection from you murdering the poorly made socks out of them, or you could deal with it directly through that sub-guild, or you could just leave the nation if you disagreed with how they handled the situation and murderize that guild on your own.
    Obviously, having campaign-wide alliances in place that can't be changed for the duration adds yet another layer to this already fairly complicated game system (which I loved), but I don't see it as being insurmountable. Just add an inter-guild Friendly Fire toggle within campaign worlds, attach a delay to it through either use of in-game resources to make a physical treaty or declaration of war, or just add a time delay, and let the players hash it out.
    Of course, there's also another option: if there's a guild that you know is full of trolls, wait for them to join the campaign and then...join a different faction. And murder them dead. Not every in-game problem needs to be resolved by the devs, or immediately at all. Take the long road to your revenge - suffer through a few people being dickbaskets for a few weeks, and get your revenge with style. Ruin them financially in-game. Destroy their carefully-orchestrated political alliances with real-life subterfuge. Don't expect ACE to hold your hand - they might give you the tools to resolve this in-engine, but if they don't, you are not devoid of choices.
  22. Like
    goose reacted to soulein in Dealing with gathering loot theft within faction   
    I'm actually very curious to know how building and city ownership will work on a faction server.
  23. Like
    goose reacted to KrakkenSmacken in Get rid of the passive skill system.   
    In other MMORPG's this would be called vendor trash.  Loot that mobs drop that you have absolutely zero use for, and would pile up if you had to keep it.  Typically NPC vendors in those games would buy this "trash" super cheap and hyperinflate the currency in the process due to volume of uncontrolled currency printing.
    Having all the players dump this junk into the equivalent of XP for temporary vessels for marginal power gains is a really elegant way to control hyperinflation.
    If sacrifice was allowed to create training books AFTER you capped your vessel through some mechanisim, tied to the planned limitation of max skill possible by VIP cap, would effectively create both a passive and an active way to gain training.
    If you were at VIP total lifetime cap, you would not use this, but as a catch up mechanic all the parts are already intended, all that is needed is to hook them together.
     
  24. Like
    goose reacted to KanashiGD in Get rid of the passive skill system.   
    I mean, numbers? Give us some in-depth numbers showcasing the difference from a green character with basic gear and a veteran player with basic gear. You have to back up claims like that with factual proof. Post it here if you do crunch the numbers.
    Doesn't matter where design comes from. That is the beauty of game design is that all things can inspire the design.
  25. Like
    goose reacted to KanashiGD in Get rid of the passive skill system.   
    Just to preface, I am playing devils advocate. 
    "Passive training simply contradicts the appeal of restarting and entering fresh new worlds" - Think about this. One of the elements of Crowfall is that it is taking design aspects from survival games. One of these aspects is that death and or restarts hard reset the player. 
    Now, Crowfall is also attempting to take design aspects from MMORPGs. One of these aspects is persistent player advancement, i.e. I put in X time I get X reward.
    Merge these two together and you get the passive system. A system that persists throughout the various Hard resets. This makes a reset a "soft" reset because they have something that persists throughout all campaigns.
    To me, the passive system will give veteran players a slight leg up, like most systems on the market. At the moment that leg up doesn't appear to be enough to worry about. What will truly give veteran players a leg up is the knowledge of builds and how to attain the rarest crafting items. Those contribute much more to the players power than the passive system. Hopefully that helps to pain the picture a bit more. If you just don't want the passive system then I can't really help you. I just challenge you to look at it from a few perspectives first.
×
×
  • Create New...