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

tsp_maj

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tsp_maj

  1. So your ideal game loop this? Kill someone and take their equipment. (that you will probably have no real use for) Force them to have to farm more resources. Rejoice that you've forced them back into the world as you kill them again. This logic fails because it assumes that a game has a monopoly on a players time. A player losing gear that they worked hard to get doesn't automatically translate to them sucking it up and trying again, especially not after a few attempts, it leads to them playing another game. You could argue that the result of this natural selection process is a
  2. Not a fan of equipment drop. The only way it can work is when equipment is easy to replace, and therefor has little value. People have claimed that full loot makes for better, more meaningful PVP. This is true in my experience, but only from a perspective of the side of dominance. The argument that "winning feels so much better when you have something to lose", fails completely when you're always losing. In an open world with no restraint, dominant groups are always formed and ultimately all equipment will just flood to them. The rest of us will be weeded out from the bottom up. The
  3. @Nyamo 死んだ馬を打っていそうだ。
  4. I'll agree with anything you say, just make it better.
  5. For some reason this made me smile. Sounds like you've got a lot of gaming experience but not really in this type of game. Even without that experience you've realized one of the biggest challenges, and possibly downfalls of the sandbox PvP style MMO. That alone should give you some extra respect for the challenges they are facing in attempting to make it work despite what seems like a crippling flaw in the design. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this idea, but I've spent a ton of time trying to come up with a system that would be a viable compromise. I encourage the br
  6. So an alliance of 120 is ok as long as it’s broken up into 4 guilds? How is that any different then just allowing a 120 man guild in? I could formulate that team right now.
  7. That includes you right? That part of my suggestion is more of a brainstorm. I knew it was controversial when I suggested it, pretty sure I’ve been convinced that it’s better to not have it, though I still have concerns that don’t have any attempted solution.
  8. I don't want to keep on this path of 20 questions but don't you feel like you went from "Free world, do what you want" to a lot of very specific restrictions? Is there going to be a tribunal that presides over cases of a 3rd party guild coming in mid fight and wiping one team from behind? Whos to say that they werent working together?
  9. Seems like a lot more assumptions then I feel comfortable with. How do you stop a 60 man guild from splitting into two groups and dominating by working together?
  10. How do you account for the difference in activity between guilds with very active players and guilds with lesser levels of activity?
  11. Truth, above all I've learned that population is everything in an MMO. The best game mechanics in the world are worthless without players. When it comes to PvP when there is only one P left, it doesnt really work.
  12. I still think you're missing something here. There have been no real decisions announced and the majority of playtime will be doing things that are not within a window. I'm also going to be overseas for a year after CF launches. No big deal man, if you need someone to run with hit me up and I'll make sure you get your fair share of the action.
  13. I mean the cap of 300 is likely an arbitrary number and its not really worth using as a point of reference as I doubt they put much thought into it at the time and its likely to change. I guess my question would be, if there is a server that is made for 30 man guilds, how do you stop a 150 man guild from playing on it? If you can solve that problem I think you may be onto something (though I think most of the people in our community would revolt against any attempt at restriction).
  14. Fair point, I take back what I said. Sorry. Again, scream away. I know you dont see it the same way, but Crowfall is one big community. The more people that play on your server the less will be playing on mine. I'll grant you that you will also attract a few more players only interested in what you're talking about. What it boils down to is that I only see epic failure coming out of the server you're suggesting, you're trying to repeat so many mistakes that have lead to the downfall of previous play to crush style games. There is some grandure and romance in the ideas you sugge
  15. All, probably just some arbitrary number made up on the fly.
  16. Do you know something I dont? I've never seen them mention a guild cap, and I have a feeling that most people would not be in favor of it. The main reason is that 50 hardcore players will never equal 50 casual players. Typically hardcore players are few and like to stick together using tightly controlled tactics, this generally keeps their numbers low, say 30/50 members play each night as an example. On the other hand a casual guild may have 150 players but only 50 on each night. If they were to fight I'd put my money on the more cooredinated group of 30. I'm sure you can see how th
  17. You post a lot for a guy that claimed he didn't waste time in these meaningless arguments like 8 pages ago. Screaming this is a Throne War Simulator is pointless. There is no actual definition to what that means. Your mentality is very destructive to the game, and that's why we're trying to guide you down a different path. The only true counter to a zerg is another zerg, and that's the problem. You start the game on a cycle where numbers are the thing that matters most. How big will a zerg get you ask? I can tell you fairly precicely. A zerg will grow up until the point where the
  18. I suppose we have different opinions what A Throne War means. I take it in a very arcade sense, and in no way historically. Not a very important point either way. In regards to "why didn't you", that's a very complicated question, but interesting I suppose. I don't think I can truely give you a suitable answer but I'll try to express my observation. The short answer is, we did, all of those things. Frankly, being young at the time and not really caring about high school I look back very fondly at that era. It was everything a "throne war" should be, enemies hated eachother, peopl
  19. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hear your plight. This is where I feel your logic breaks down however. From what I read, you're coming from an RvR perspective instead of a GvG perspective. It's a little easier to understand why you don't seem to quite get it. That may be a little rude but no insult intended. First I'd like to understand what you really want. From reading most of your comments you basically seem to want the ability to do anything at anytime. When you realized that, that might not be popular, you pitched the idea of multi-day sieging with windows chang
  20. Hmm, having the event last more then a few hours starts to complicate things in my book. With that system, from the moment the event spawns in the world, until its over there is potentially constant action. Why not just start a new PoI event the next day? A multi-day event would have a lull period over night that would sap energy out of it. While I understand your logic, I only marginally agree that to an extent that the overall meta should be getting material to win the campaign. The truth is, a lot of people are not going to have much of a chance at winning a campaign. What's going
  21. Other things aside, someone convince me that throwing down strongholds outside of a PoI inorder to capture it and or reap its rewards isn't the ideal way to handle these nightly events. Here's why I think it's the best solution. **#1 you create a very high likelyhood that fighting will last for the duration of prime-time in that area. (This means that players that only have 30 minutes to play, can participate.) **We build stuff in the world that has meaning. **We just created a localized respawn point. **We've now put two+ teams in a localized area. **If we're pushed back we can re
  22. Usually when people have a failing argument the resort to personal attacks. It seems you've run out of counter points with any substance. I respect that you want to get your point across to the Devs, as do we all, for your sake I hope you get what you want out of Crowfall.
  23. First, that control would have to be programmed. It could be difficult or easy depending on several variables. Then the server would have to be set up and monitored. Not to mention balancing decisions would have to take this ruleset into consideration. Of course your not wrong that if they see profit in it they would allocate resources, but once again you just made my argument for me. Allocation of resources toward this project by its very nature means you're allocating them from something else. Regardless, to make my point clear, I view this server has having an extremely low popul
  24. The current ruleset is only the way it is because there are huge pieces to the game missing still. They basically made it just playable enough to test things. I think what we're trying to say is that, although you think that having a special ruleset that I wont play on wont affect me, in reality it will. One, in the loss of development time towards other projects that are more vital to the game, and another in the form of splitting a population even more. I mean you made your own case against yourself in my eyes. How many italian people, living in japan, that are interested in playi
  25. If they solved the latency problem in the world I could see your argument, and would definately love to play on a truely international server. Unfortunately I'm not willing to play with a 150+ ping anymore and I wouldnt expect less from anyone else in the world. I'm not against trying out a ruleset CW that does it but I think people are more likely to go where the population is, and this server would be a novalty at best.
×
×
  • Create New...