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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by vucar

  1. Yeah i enjoyed this game and only played it on hardcore, but after getting stuck in a wall and dying to one boss, then getting to ~60 something and dying to lag, it just becomes masochism at some point...
  2. So if i'm understanding this correctly, basically we reach our hands out and apply vigorous force to these things until they're ready, at which point they blow their load all around us.
  3. I feel like this is the game i keep hearing about that seems to perpetually be asking for more money than any other game in development. I watched one of the latest videos on it reviewing the latest updates, and it still seems like they keep adding more single player / co-op assets and less mmo functionality. More ships, more missions, more things to buy -- but not that much about bringing it together into one persistent world. The impression it all gives me is like they're designing one of the most ambitious co-op space fps / tps you might see for the xbox one or ps4, while the mmo part is an afterthought. That could just be because im not following it as closely as others, though.
  4. At this point you have to start getting into "what is health"? In LOTRO, they solved this by calling health "Morale", so that when the healer minstrel sang a song or played a tune, he "improved their morale". Which made sense, because why would a cheerful song by some hobbit have any impact on this uruk-hai? In this game, it seems like health is more ambiguous and takes on multiple meanings. In one way its physical, in another way its morale. Are those green orbs mending the wounds from sword strikes? Is there some magical essence from the Lego's presence that restores vitality? This is the kind of nitty-gritty road that i think most of us want to avoid going down just for the sake of "immersion". Heals are heals. They replenish health. Just like a weapon, they can and should have the ability to hit the wrong target and work in the expected way.
  5. Its a weak argument because dedicated healing is either present or at least supported in several pvp-centric mmos; Albion, Darkfall, Archeage, even EVE. Even in classic darkfall, cross-healing was the foundation of winning outnumbered fights. A solid tight-knit group that was great at cross healing and doing a rolling retreat could slaughter groups twice their size if the zerg they were fighting was only focused on offense. This was even more true in water fighting. Granted, those cross-healers were fully capable of offense -- but they weren't forced into it, and if they wanted, they could choose to just heal buff and support their team. The idea that some gimmicky mechanic that requires your healer nuclear reactor cores be cooled by going on the offensive, when you don't necessarily want to or need to, is just that -- a gimmick. It takes the choice away from the player. Why? "To make it more deadly" Yes. More deadly to small groups fighting zergs that don't even heal their enemies or hit their friendlies with melee swings. This would be more evident if friendly fire was on, and healing your friendlies (and NOT healing your enemies) was critically important. It all goes back to beating unskilled mobs with smaller more effective groups. You're just not going to get a chance to see that level of skill or play without friendly fire, and you won't see how paramount a GOOD dedicated healer is to winning that kind of fight. I would not have a complaint if druids had the option to choose offense, rather than being forced into it. As I understand it, apparently even in the "heal spec" druid, some amount of offense must be done to balance the healing. If i'm entirely mistaken and you can heal without being forced to switch to different role, please correct me.
  6. Uh, you might want to try that again, or point out where i "chastise them for not being different". My entire post was criticizing their fixation with being too different for no good reason. Ostensibly their "rationale" is that "firehose healing" is only needed for PvE raids or some such nonsense. That is just such a weak argument it doesn't warrant defeating.
  7. That does not answer how they're reconciling a "pure healer" or "dps spec" druid with the following
  8. Another schizophrenic archetype.... well, at least the ranger won't be lonely. Seriously - why don't they just add a branching spec option -- you can pick to either spec into pure melee ranger, or pure ranged ranger; you can pick to either spec into a pure healing druid, or a pure dps druid. Why is ACE so hell bent on not having pure healers? Where are the thousands of people who were crying out "please god no more pure healers they ruin games"? When did this alleged outrage over healers happen? The more i follow the development of CF, the more it seems that they're not trying to be wildly different to try and create innovative or balanced game play, but just for the sake of being wildly different, even at the cost of poorly made sockstier game play. It feels like i'm watching ACE try to reinvent the wheel here and it is painful to watch.
  9. The Ranger is a walking identity crisis. And your answer is to ensure she continues to have one. Worst psychiatric team ever.
  10. I had a feeling based on the thread title this would be something i did not care about. I was not disappointed*. *By how much i don't care.
  11. If not Darkfall, how about Mount and Blade Warband then? Those not in the know: Warband multiplayer had full FF and reckless sword-swinging resulted in a lot of FF casualties. Anyone familiar with the clan Black Shields knows they used to do some truly impressive fighting in Warband, both as groups and individually. I once saw one of them single handedly kill four people in melee with footwork and positioning, using the threat of FF to his advantage. I've never heard anyone refer to fighting in Warband multiplayer as "boring" or "slow". In fact to the contrary, i would say any game where one guy who enters melee that is moving so slowly that his enemies can safely slash at him all at once without fear of hitting their friends sounds more like a snooze fest turn-based rpg. The irony here is that Darkfall embodies the bolded here, but few on this thread ever got to the skill level to understand it. At the end of DF1 every player had over 40 spells and abilities at their disposal, on different hotbars, most bound to different keys or key-combinations. I still have the vast majority of them in my muscle-memory. Having 40 options at any given fraction of a second, combined with the complication of friendly fire, meant that using the wrong ability at the wrong time could heal an enemy, or hurt, blind or kill a friend. Being able to make split-second decisions was critical and friendly fire only added to the dire need for having your wits about you. If you guys are more interested in a game that has less to do with coordination in conjunction with decision making, and would rather just focus on the decision making part, i have just the game for you -- and there is zero friendly fire to worry about:
  12. Wait. Be careful with who you invite into your groups or guilds? Terminate with extreme prejudice when someone tries to grief you, your friends or your faction? That's stupid, lets just go back to complaining about the risks of FF!
  13. So are you saying there should never be a 2v1 where the 1 can win? Or are you saying you only want to see combat where two guys can chain-stun 1 guy into the ground until hes dead? Because according to you, not being able to ensure at least one of these is "ridiculous". Individuals on the street get jumped by groups all the time in real life and win, go look up youtube vids -- there's dozens of them. Friendly fire exists in real life and yet somehow, real life is not "ridiculous" when one guy beats up four.
  14. A common tactic in Darkfall was to push melee into a group of bad players who would all simultaneously try to melee you. You would take a bit of damage inevitably, but you would cause them to deal tremendous damage to each other as they all desperately swung at you and hit their friends trying to do the same. It was like a cartoon. Bad players will try to multiple-melee individual targets and they'll either learn that its a dumb idea and pick a new target, or they'll continue to be bad.
  15. Not exactly equivalent. Everyone knows the crafting dimension of the game isn't being considered right now. The combat being designed right now is going to have to be retested and rebalanced with FF, which doubles the work they need to do unnecessarily. One example is the Legionnaire's healing; the devs themselves said they were interested in "player behavior", and have already made changes to the game as a result of player behavior This is what concerns me the most - the behavior being seen is not reflecting a Crowfall with FF. Friendly fire being turned on will have a ripple effect, and any changes they made in the past could have been the wrong change once FF is accounted for. That means two outcomes are possible: they give up on FF, or they accept that they have made concrete waste of time and resources on designing a combat system that will have to be changed.
  16. The way i see it, is as two lines. One line is going straight, from left to right. The second line, starting from the same left point, is going up and to the right (upward slope). At the beginning, they're still pretty close to each other. The farther we go to the right, the farther they get away from each other and the more different their Y values. That difference is how much must be overcome in turning FF on. The longer we wait, the more it will appear insurmountable because it will break so many more things. Better to turn it on now, when combat is not "done", so that it can be "completed" with FF in mind.
  17. "Hey guys, we made a combat system that is completely unplayable when FF is turned on, and made zero effort in trying to balance around or optimize combat with FF in mind. How much fun is it?" That'll go over like a lead balloon. As for the compromise in "partial FF" - i can't speak for anyone else, but I think its a step in the right direction. Especially if they added that now, while there is still time for ACE to see the repercussions of their design on FF even in a limited capacity. The longer they take before trying it out, the smaller it becomes in the rear-view mirror until they totally forget about their "promise".
  18. My post had nothing to do with "what was wrong with Archeage". I used Archeage as an example of how mediocre pvp becomes when ranged-blob volleys is the meta. Who cares if its point-and-shoot or tab target when the result is the same? Right now, five confessors on the same side could ball up, spam their pulsing fire-nova attack along with their flamethrower (I don't have the real names memorized) and melt most people that push melee on them; meanwhile none of them will get hurt by the other throwing fire in their face. Its only going to get worse as we get more AoE attacks like these
  19. Where did I say hardcore pvpers wanted this ludicrous "semi-FF" i'm hearing about? The concept of friendly fire as being anything but "true FFA friendly fire" is alien to me, and never occurred to me even to specify it. To the posters who claim FF would never work in Crowfall right now - you are absolutely correct, and that is why it is so dire they add it in before they compound their mistakes even more. You can't clean your room if the lights are off. You can probably get your room to a level of "walkable without tripping", but you won't really know how your room looks unless you turn the lights on and start actually cleaning.
  20. Complex problems requiring thoughtful solutions = More challenging game play = Deeper, richer and more satisfying strategic element to the game. Hardcore pvpers want strategically rich battles because they're harder (that's why they're called Hardcore), Casuals don't want friendly fire because it makes the game more challenging and they're interested in a casual experience. The 17th and 18th century of warfare in the world best demonstrates how the threat of friendly fire impacts tactical decisions by being one of the few eras where we see that rare hybrid of long-range fights (muskets, cannons) combined with infantry (bayonet) and cavalry melee charges. If cavalry hit the side of a battalion, the defenders couldn't just all turn their cannons on the cavalry -- they'd be just as likely to decimate their own forces as the enemy cavalry. That means you have to pre-plan for cavalry charges, or else the enemy gets a serious advantage by pushing into your ranks, effectively splitting up your forces. Darkfall gives us the best recent demonstration of this: a melee push by cavalry means the field-AOEs stop, it means the long range magic has stopped -- now you have to deal with hand-to-hand and things get a magnitude more difficult and messy. Without friendly-fire, all you have to do is spam all your aoes and literally blob anyone who pushes melee. The same thing happened to ESO and Archeage because they had no friendly fire: you had a mega sh**-ton of ranged classes trading volleys. If anyone was dumb enough to charge melee, they got swatted down in seconds because everyone in the group could turn on a dime and unload on them without their friendlies getting hit. If they dont add and start balancing around friendly-fire, we won't just see pure blob tactics. We'll eventually see pure ranged blob tactics, and all melee classes will fall by the wayside in place of field-aoes and Deathstar focus-fires.
  21. If they don't add in friendly fire and start balancing around it, the entire meta of all pvp on release will be reduced to zerg size and blob rolling. "How many do we have?" "20" "And how many do they have?" "30" "Well f*** it lets just go home then, this is over"
  • Create New...