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

syiss

Testers
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by syiss

  1. Thanks for this post. I like the concept behind passive training, but in every iteration of the passive training trees in this game so far it has just felt really... wrong, but I couldn't quite figure out why or how to make it better. I've never played another game with passive training so I didn't have any other reference for how it could be done right - or even just differently. Having to basically max out every skill in the entire passive tree just doesn't feel engaging or like I'm actually making any choices, and I can see it being extremely frustrating when the passive training speed slows down to its 'intended' speed at launch. I haven't had enough time yet to experience the more de-treeified version of the passive trees to make a judgement on it. Again, I like it in concept (the tree version felt REALLY bad), but I'm not sure its enough to mitigate the other issues described in the OP. I'd also like to bring up the idea of a partially passive, partially active system. Basically actions you do in game can add to the speed of your passive training, but only to a certain degree. I'm not sure how exactly this would be implemented, I know its an idea the devs have floated before, not sure if its still something they are considering. It would help new players get up to a base level of competency faster by helping them get through the early parts of the passive skill nodes, and also provide more of a sense of progression early which I feel is really lacking right now, while still allowing for longer term progression from passive training only. I logged into Test 2 days ago and still havent accumulated enough points to get past the very first node in the combat basics tree, a rather boring node for low level gameplay I might add (anti critical strike) - a useful skill for anyone, but one who's effect I won't actually feel as I put points into it while fighting mobs and other low level players. I get that the leveling and talent system is supposed to provide some early game progression as well, but frankly even with the accelerated speed of leveling right now, the leveling experience feels extremely bland and I don't find the talent trees to be very interesting either (perhaps even less interesting than the passive trees). Final point I'd add is that many of the individual nodes just feel really underwhelming and sometimes even just confusing. -3% critical strike? 5% movement control defense? These don't seem like stats I'm particularly interested in as a brand new player, yet they are in the very first parts of the combat basics group. 100 resist all? 300 organic resistance? How am I supposed to gauge the relative value of these stats again each other, and more importantly to others like 5% hard control intensity. Some of this comes down to lack of experience with the game mechanics I know, but these are all stats in the combat basics group, the one almost every player is going to start in, and there is no reference for how useful any of this stuff is. How common is hard control vs movement control vs attack control? How badly do different debuffs affect my particular class or playstyle? How common is organic damage? Do I have more problems dealing with classes that do organic damage or cold damage? How useful is crit damage vs crit resistance vs physical resistance? It doesn't feel good to look at these skill trees as a new player and have no idea what to aim for. Perhaps the slow accumulation of passive training points will alleviate this, as you'll be a week or two in before you even have to start making any choices and somewhat more familiar with the game mechanics by then, but as a new player just looking through the passive trees trying to see whats there and plan out a build, none of it makes a lot of sense and my instant reaction is 'blegh I don't even want to think about this right now' rather than 'wow I can't wait until I start unlocking all these cool stats'. Right now I'm looking at this and thinking "Oh look in 2-3 weeks I can invest some points into a skill that can drop that 3 second root down to 2.85 seconds... yay", and that doesn't get me invested in the progression system at all.
  2. I haven't spent a lot of time in game lately, so I can't comment on the state of vfx right now. But I'll add that I think it's important not to rely too heavily on in-game settings where players have to set their vfx settings based on what they (or their computer) can handle. This often leaves players who choose lower settings at a disadvantage, as there are visual cues in the 'normal vfx setting' that get dropped in lower settings, making it difficult/impossible to tell what your opponents or allies are casting.
  3. I also don't understand why this mechanic is in the game. It's something that has been part of ACE's plans from the very beginning (or at least as far back as I can remember), and I've hated the idea ever since I heard about it. Maybe ACE has some as yet unrevealed plans to make this an interesting mechanic, but I've never played a game where it was anything but an annoying, monotonous time sink.
  4. They probably need to keep it simple early to save on animation costs, but if they just animated a few simple things like horse/wolf/tiger they could easily make a ton of skin variations for those that wouldn't require any additional animation work. For me personally that would be enough for entire game, but I wouldn't be opposed to additional types of mounts being added after release. Just as long as they don't get too nuts with it as others have mentioned.
  5. I'm thinking the vessel system is probably not a high priority though. So when they do start using semi-permanent test worlds, I would agree with the OP that (assuming the vessel system is not online) players should be free to create multiple characters and bring them into the same test worlds (if there even is more than one). It would just be an unnecessary hassle for testers to have to delete and recreate characters over and over in order to test changes made to different classes.
  6. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, which is fine. I will concede though that adding in more social systems, like guilds, would help to keep a larger number of testers interested for longer. Kind of hard to do with the current testing environment though. I suspect we'll see at least a basic version of the guild system in place when the first persistent server comes up (or shortly after).
  7. Wrong. You design your test environment in a way that will most accurately or efficiently provide you with the test data you need. The question then becomes what test data do they need, and what kind of data does organized group vs group combat provide? I put an emphasis on organized to highlight the implicit suggestion that there is a large overlap between the data that it provides and the data that is provided by simple 1v1, unorganized group combat, and FFA type combat. When you filter out all of the overlap, the type of data that organized group combat provides that can't be obtained by any other combat testing falls almost entirely in the realm of balance and strategic depth. Now consider that we only have 5 of 13(?) archetypes, no disciplines, no promotion classes, no skill training, no stat distribution system, no itemization, and so many other things. All that in mind, trying to tune anything for organized group combat is a downright waste of time. Now I'd like to remind you at this point that I simply said organized group combat is "not a necessity at this stage". Point being that I was not saying it would be useless, only that it wasn't needed yet in order for ACE to continue with their development. Could they have added systems to facilitate such testing and still got the data they need? Yes of course. But that's development time currently better spent elsewhere, and it would also open the floodgates for a whole mess of data and feedback that is absolutely irrelevant - and that's not free either, it takes time to sift through data and player feedback, so opening the door for players to provide feedback on systems that are not being worked on is a waste of time. They don't want feedback on the resource gathering and crafting systems right now, so those systems aren't in the test. This is by design, not an accident. The economy will play a HUGE role in all aspects of the game, including all types of combat, but that doesn't mean we need a fully functioning economy (or any economy at all) in order to do basic combat testing. This all goes back to my first point - you design your test environment in a way that will most accurately or efficiently provide you with the test data you need. Finally, I only suggested that it hasn't been necessary so far. I do agree though that it will be necessary eventually, and a critical determining factor in whether this game succeeds is going to be how well organized group combat is designed and how fun it is. At some point the test environment does in fact need to be as close to the live game as possible - it's called open beta.
  8. They are still building core game mechanics and system architecture. Organized group combat is hardly a necessity at this stage.
  9. I understand where you're coming from OP but your whole plea is based on faulty assumptions, and best case scenario it's useless, worst case scenario it's detrimental to the future of this game. There are a lot of valid reasons why there are so few consistent testers compared to the number of people with access. Take me for example. I backed Crowfall with such a large contribution not so that I could do alpha testing, but because I just wanted to support the devs and their vision. I've popped into a few of the tests just to see how progress is coming along, but never spent much time playing because honestly it's not very fun right now. That's not a knock on ACE or the game, it's just a fact of play testing a game so early in its development - one I fully expected. And I don't feel like there's anything wrong with not testing even though I have access. If I, and everyone else who pledged, had only spent the absolute minimum amount of money needed to get into the latest testing phase that they would be willing to participate in, would ACE or Crowfall be better off for it? That's a resounding no. Besides, if ACE needs more testers then they can just start inviting more people from later phases. I suspect there are a LOT more people in the same situation as me than most people would expect. Other posters have also made some good points. Many people will get burnt out and lose interest in the game if they spend a lot of time testing. Some have already done this, while others are intentionally not testing to prevent this from happening. Work/school/life prevent a lot of people from participating in the tests too. I understand ACE's logic behind the limited testing windows, but the fact is that it also means quite a few people rarely, or never, get a chance to participate. Probably the most common reason for people not participating in the tests is simply that they don't find it fun though. Whether they expected this like me, or were surprised by it, really isn't relevant and either way its a valid reason not to participate. Nobody should feel pressured into participating in the tests, which is exactly what you are trying to do OP. Those who enjoy testing, whether its because they are simply having fun playing the game or they get some satisfaction from helping the devs or shaping the direction of the game, will participate of their own free will. Those who don't enjoy testing aren't going to have their minds changed by some plea about how they are letting the developers down. They are either going to just ignore you, or worse, start participating in the testing process and end up writing off the game due to bad experiences in an early part of development that they never wanted to be part of anyways (not to mention how useless feedback from unwilling testers would be).
  10. It's telling that you use 3 champions as your comparison example, since in most games your odds of survival when being ganked by a stealth class are about as high as your odds of surviving a 3v1. But lets be honest, that's exactly what the vast majority of players who drool over stealth actually want. They don't want an interesting unique mechanic, or new game play options, or a stealth vs anti-stealth meta game. Hell they don't even necessarily want stealth, they just want a massive, almost insurmountable pvp advantage against unsuspecting targets, and the ability to pick and choose exactly who they fight and when, and to do it all without any risk to themselves.
  11. More likely they would just lower the cap on how many crows can join a CW. Wouldn't cost anything but would be very effective in lowering the size of 'large scale' battles.
×
×
  • Create New...