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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ivellian

  1. One thing that crossed my mind while reading, would day/night cycles impact the monster canyons or eventual dungeons (or pseudo underground areas however that becomes implemented)? It would seem to me that these areas should be exempt from the changes to day/night or take on a modified table. That said, they might also simply get stronger/more dangerous as the seasons progress with some "natural" monster canyons becoming hunger monster canyons. I agree with most of the discussion above that 40 minutes seems like it might be too short, but just to play devils advocate, 15 minutes of night/25 minutes of day might feel right to keep things from going stale during a play session. If the length of a day/night cycle becomes too long, the amount of time dedicated to night at one time might also get too long. For a 60 minutes day for example based on the same hypothetical proportion would be 22.5 minutes of night. 80 minutes, 30 minutes of night. I can see a craft/harvester group bunking up for the night and focusing on crafting because of the dangers (both PvE and PvP) that grow with the night time (much like in Minecraft or 7 Days to Die or the like). That kind of play is fun for a little while, but it gets old pretty quickly because the activities one can "safely" partake in are limited. Making sure this downtime is not exorbitantly long is probably something to keep in mind to keep things interesting. I should be able to wait out the night without having to go play another game for an hour. That said, as nights get longer with winter, I can see it will force harvesters/crafts to investigate nodes to keep up with production. The same cannot be said of Spring/Summer though because those seasons will (presumably) have longer days than nights. Overall, very excited about dynamics in Crowfall. Additional additives based on night, day, and time for diversifying crafting are particularly interesting to me. Both to allow greater character customization and crafting as a profession in its own right.
  2. I nominate "Collection" to go with the other two "C"'s. You collect people through leadership, collect single resources through harvesting, collect mounts/pack animals and use them to collect and groups of harvested resources. To a degree, that makes some sense. It would be very hard to be a leader without at least some level of insight into the basics of the relevant subject matter (sometimes even more than that). Leadership skills make sense to me as a branching of choice and the addition of other skills on top of the basics. I would, however, concur that leadership in the crafting area makes little sense to me. Crafting seems to be the application of expert and minute skill and the expert doesn't seem to require a superior or supervisor but may instead require logistical support which is provided by leadership in the harvesting area. This would also avert the issue of a dedicated crafting character being unable to make the best stuff without someone else simply sitting in group providing a set of buffs and not providing any actual tangible support (unlike a group of harvesters who would all be presumably harvesting at once and might benefit from a leader pointing out how to coordinate their efforts).
  3. "Who are you?" The question hung in the air as if the child who spoke it could see past this petty world, past my deeds at the fortress near Ironside Mountain, past what I myself could even recall. I immediately began, "My earliest memory--" and almost as immediately stopped. His small hazel eyes hung on each word, looking up at me from half my height, questioning me, criticizing me, doubting me. What did this boy know? As if such a young thing could understand how much of the oblivion I'd witnessed or the power I'd grasped. As if he could know that who we are is never a concrete thing, always changing, always beyond our own understanding. But had I known once, ages ago? I couldn't remember. The words "watching the corrupted burn" died on my tongue. Was that really my earliest memory? Was that all I wanted anymore? Burning through worlds in search of... what? Could I tell him of the world I tried to warn, tried to save? That's the kind of story he wanted! But was it true? Had I tried to save that world, or had I changed my views for a brief time for my own amusement? The reflection in his eyes showed me he would know my lie. These worlds cannot be saved. Any chance of saving any of them was probably doomed at their creation. It was so since I came to be and it has never changed. This body! I could tell him its history, tell how it slayed a winter bear with nothing but a book and my ingenuity, tell how it held the wall three worlds ago. Tell how this was its last world, how it would never be used again, and how that saddens me. Saddens? Is that me, is that my emotion?! I opened my mouth to speak once more, but I found I could not. It was not so much sadness as inconvenience. Yes, I had used this body to shape the result in seven worlds and it had served me well. But there were more for me to choose from. This body never even lived as it was -- a twisted amalgamation of body parts Anita dug up and stitched together for me. I had more like it--a few that were even better but were far too expensive to use here. Would he be impressed with my wealth? If I showed him rack after rack of swords, suit after suit of armor, all clearly bearing my emblem, would he know my success? And I could tell him these were but a tip of the iceberg -- useless to me back home where my true fortune waited. But he wouldn't understand the degree of my success. He'd probably never held a copper coin in his own name. And those trinkets wouldn't answer his question anyway. I'm a crow, I thought. Maybe he'd heard of one in stories? His eyes still seemed to be piercing the very depths of my soul. Why look so earnestly if he did not at least know that? But what was a crow? An immortal being playing in worlds as if they were games? But how was I unique? My personal set of skills perhaps? But do we not shape our skills to fit who we wish to be? Don't the skills follow from our definition of who we are -- at least most of the time? Maybe we're all lairs, picking randomly and then describing ourselves to justify our choice. I should try to invent an answer then. 'A wealthy trader of weapons seeking glorying on the field of battle.' No, wait. 'A developing trader of rare weapons learning the ins and outs of siege warfare.' They say being humble makes one seem better than one is. Before I could say it, the child interrupted me again, "Who are you?" Did he know what I was about to say? Did he stop me because he knew that wasn't deep enough? It didn't say anything about my past, only about my current lot in life and I saw I had failed to answer again. I didn't have time for this. I had the answer this time. I said, "You'll know when you're older." Before he could make his objections clear, I uttered a few words, gestured once, and lit him on fire. He screamed in agony as he burned to ashes. When the flames finally ceased, I turned, throwing my crimson cloak over my shoulder, and walked away.
  4. I also recall some discussion of it being tied to the Skill Tree, but such specialization is lacking from the crafting skills at the moment. Currently, I just have "Blacksmithing" to train in support of my Metal Bar and Sword crafting pursuit, but it lacks the sub-component specialization I'd like to see (I understand ACE is planning to revise the skill trees, but, without any suggestions about how it will be revised, I'm working with what I have). I would very much appreciate that kind of specialization on the skill tree as it similarly expands the number of crows necessary to cover all the crafting bases (increasing diversity and other benefits). As you suggest, some kind of combination between skills, disciplines, and equipment probably makes the most sense because we already have some interaction between skills and equipment.
  5. I believe this falls under the trust of this topic, so I'll put this here. I generally like the concept of the crafting disciplines and am interested to seem some examples from ACE. One thing that has drawn my interest that was mentioned some number of months ago (by someone from ACE - my memory says Mr. Blair, but I could be wrong) was that a crafter might specialize in a sub-component of a final product. Say, for example, someone wants to make the best Rose Gold Metal Bars this side of the campaign worlds. Currently, the skill training system does not allow for such specialization and it might be ACE's intent to address this kind of specialization through the disciplines. For the above example, in order to craft the best Rose Gold Metal Bars might include a major discipline focused on creating Rose Gold Bars (say with a bonus to either sheen or durability), or, perhaps more interestingly, might require a major discipline in Metal Bar durability, a major discipline that enhances crafted items made from Gold or a Gold Alloy, a minor discipline that enhances the sheen of a Copper based metal bar, a minor discipline that adds some kind of special crafting statistic to a crafted metal bar (say 3% fire damage to use an off-shoot of Dondagora's suggestion), and another minor discipline that gives some other kind of bonus (say increased effect of experimentation by 10% so an Amazing success is actually a 8.855% stat boost instead of 8.05%). I haven't put much thought into which of those would be a "major" discipline and which would be a "minor" discipline, but you get my point. This kind of discipline based crafting of specialized sub-components adds another layer to differentiating crows and if supply is appropriately built in a roughly pyramidal fashion (roughly for every 1000 first stage (metal bar) crafting item, 100 second stage (cross-guard) crafting item, 10 third stage (hilt) crafting item, 1 fourth (final / sword) crafting item - or similarly linearly or exponentially scaling system of effective crafting discipline availability) allows a broad variety of basic components and a limited and specialized number of "master" crafters (the one's responsible for / focused on the final item). TL;DR I'm interested in seeing the crafting disciplines as they take shape, and I see sub-component specialization through disciplines as another way to differentiate crafting crows to expand the number of alt accounts necessary to do everything (crafting-wise) in Crowfall.
  6. I would personally commit to following and observing Boar and Cats on the Great Plains when they are re-introduced. As Chris describes, they should work well enough for our focus to be on other features on the game. Thank you for mentioning my animal friends - I've been missing them.
  7. Thank you for starting the discussion with the idea. I understand now and I tend to agree. With disciplines being a semi-permanent active game play choice, it definitely does feel like the correct area to provide statistical combat advantages (in the form of more abilities to cast or combat passives, not merely raw statistics necessarily). I believe a member of ACE (who, exactly, and where, exactly, I'd have to go searching some more) mentioned they tried to avoid raw stat boosts in the disciplines and more tried to make the disciplines situational. Along the same lines of thought, one could make skills similar (which is what I think this suggestion leans toward), but in my search for the above quote I came across this by jtoddcoleman from "On the Horizon: Combat disciplines - Official discussion thread" at 12:46 on March 3rd: This is a reasonable concern (and I'm focused on the sunk cost of passive skill training compared to the disciplines). I suppose the likely concern is by forcing passive training in order to play certain ways (like stealth or many of the other options we've mentioned), it forces a player to sink time in order to try a play style that might interest him or her. It would remove or limit the "cycle of experimentation and exploration." I wanted to hear your thoughts on this post relative to your suggestion - I'm still weighing it out, personally. Otherwise, I like your suggested skill benefits and (in view of the above) even if they do not make the skill cut, they should be disciplines in my opinion.
  8. I am having a little trouble coming up with an adequate reply because I am not sure if you are referring to the new discipline system or the skill system. I think you are referring to the skill system but you mention Crafting and Harvesting Disciplines so I am not so sure. I will assume for purpose of this post that your comments are focused on the passive skill training system. I like the idea built into the suggestion. Replacing a raw stat benefit from more training time with technical combat specialization is definitely a more interesting and adaptive idea. I am concerned though that the current system of training for crafting and harvesting really only make those pursuits actually viable in a way the combat system might arguably do to a lesser degree. Currently, the harvesting system with 1 in plentiful harvesting yields a poultry amount of resources as discussed elsewhere on these forums. (See, e.g., Harvesting Passives ... Why they hurt gatherers under Crafting & Economy.) Similarly, crafting only becomes a successful and profitable endeavor (in my opinion, we will see the details as the systems become more interconnected) as one skills up and can obtain reasonable levels of success in the experimentation phase. So, combat training making the activity a viable long term activity is roughly parallel. It makes the activity something one can pursue as a "crow profession." Additionally, I am having some trouble seeing exactly how many ways combat can be "specialized" without it effectively being similar to what we have now. The examples you have are good - seige, stealth, stealing, and perhaps others are ways to play a combat character that give tactical position based advantages without statistical differences. The strength of sneaking up on someone is the opportunity to strike first and unexpectedly with the associated benefits for example. I suppose with some thought I could come up with ways to train in "defending a point" - i.e. raising ones defense when substantially immobile; "running away" - i.e. escapes or slows against pursuers; "chasing" - i.e. to combat escape; "Town Combat"; "Forest Combat"; "Mountain Combat" - i.e. benefits applied only when in those terrain types. Now that I have stammered through this post with the idea, those alternatives to strict statistical benefits (lower CC time, stronger raw defense or offense) definitely feel more interesting and something I would support. It also makes more sense when building a hybrid combat/gathering crow skill-wise (if I wanted a ranger who was good at cutting trees, I might also specialize their ability to fight in the forest for obvious reasons or maybe improve their stealth capability; if I wanted to build a town crafter, I might specialize in town combat or detecting theft to suit my environment). I do think some of this idea is already accounted for in the ideas of siege or stealth training that are currently in planning stages, but it would be nice to embrace those ideas more fully and avoid the raw stat benefits in the combat skills where possible.
  9. There's an easy fix for that, merely shifting around how the potion and passive interact. If the potion applies first before the passive, the passive will only get a player to a max of 3 plentiful harvest (as written in its description). E.g. If I have 2 plentiful harvest, take the potion, and equip the passive, I should still cap at 3 plentiful harvest because it checks the passive against the 3 total plentiful harvest I have from my skills and potions. This kind of interaction leaves the potion useful without utterly destroying the harvesting curve. It's probable, in my opinion, that the present interaction between the potion and passive is unintentional. You may wish to report what you found about the potion and passive as a potential bug. If it isn't a bug, it's quite worrying, I agree. Even if functioning as intended, the cost to make the potion might make it uncommon later down the line. I echo anhrezcf's statement and note that the passives we are currently discussing and seeking improvement around replaced the potion system which had similar (if not identical) effects but was more annoying forcing us to craft potions every 10 and then every 12 minutes. Overall, I'd say passives are an improvement over the potion system, just not far enough of an improvement. As Vikingnail suggests, there will be more iterations that follow and the hope is with testing and prompting, the harvesting system will move toward something that feels fun and rewarding for player's focusing on harvesting.
  10. Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. As you were pointing out then, the passives being limited to Plentiful harvest is also an added benefit compared to the test potions which allowed everyone to get all the benefits of all the stats. I think these are both good points if the passives are to remain: However, do keep in mind, requiring the passive take up one of three passive slots adds an opportunity cost and might in some way justify the move not to just remove tier 1 and tier 2 plentiful harvest.
  11. The passives do not look like they will stack or at least it is not ACE's intent that they stack with skills at this time: Passive Powers and you NEW TYPES OF PASSIVES Harvesting Passives "... Each of these passives will grant the player up to three “Plentiful Harvest” ranks in the associated profession: Mining, Logging, Quarrying and Skinning. A player who chooses to train in one or more of these associated skills will, in time, have no reason to use these passives. " The "up to three" language and the "no reason to use these passives" once trained suggests the passives will only provide a benefit if someone does not yet have Mining, Logging, Quarrying, or Skinning trained to three ranks in Plentiful Harvest. The second part of BarriaKarl's post seems to highlight the issue here - a focus on other stats (i.e. focus on training other skill trees) because these passives exist. I generally agree with anhrezcf that a substitute for the potion environment in the form of a passive is substantially less than ideal. The problem, as I see it, is ACE said they would not have the harvesting potions in the final build. If that philosophy holds, it seems to be an end run around to substantially change those potions into passives and then later say, "See! No harvesting potions in the final build." I am as concerned about these passives making the final build as I was with the potions. They lessen the overall merit of dabbling in a skill tree and not focusing on it. ACE's stated intention has been they want diversity created by their passive training system so no two crows (and I do mean crows and not vessels) will be the same. If these passive harvesting powers remain and are part of the final game, they will lessen the chance some crows will dabble in the harvesting tree when they might otherwise have done so because they already have the ability to dabble (through the passives) without investing valuable time. Overall, this will then likely lessen crow diversity (and of course there will be some but less than there would have been without the passives in play). Having said that, I envision these as temporary replacements for the harvesting potions and likely to be removed before a final build or soft launch of the game. Overall, I think they serve the function better than craft-able harvesting potions since they are not time limited and I had no problem with the harvesting potion because we are still testing. Therefore, I do not foresee a problem yet - ACE has not said these specific harvesting passives will be in the final build (I'm all for other discipline based harvesting and crafting passives, and these potion substitutes might just be easy ways to start testing that tech). Also, if these (I think) four passives make it into the final build, they still do not provide some of the more specific harvesting benefits for graveyards, minerals, or gems which would still be left entirely in the hands of the gatherer. While still a problem, this will still allow some space and need for specialized harvesting characters in the game environment and provide some return on a harvesting character's training time.
  12. How long did it take you to create this masterpiece of a castle?
  13. It's not a contradiction or a change in terminology at all, technically. The original ACE video last year referred to Big World as "more test than playtest," but what else would one call testing a game besides play testing? Moreover, the "more" in that statement does not mean there is no play testing going on. I think the transition stage ACE is going for between the current version and more of a playtest (with less test and more play) is having an in-game objective to "justify" the sandbox activities we have currently experienced - i.e. a win condition for the campaigns or the ability to control POI. The technicality game was started and I sometimes I can't keep myself from playing. Edit to add citation: See around time stamp 1:50.
  14. I once knew of Love... With Gaea's fall, I know cold. You will join me soon.
  15. Solid article on the process. I have not yet experimented much with the alchemy side of the crafting system yet, but the statement that "[t]hese Philosopher Solutions are a crazy amount of effort, and the amount of trial and error I spent to determine them all was staggering" makes me want to dig into it next time I get the chance.
  16. I also agree. I have gone the extra step of training the first salvaging skill to 100 and I have not noticed any benefit. I will be ready when it gets implemented.
  17. So, as a point of clarity, the problem is the "not much" includes cinnabar from stone motherload nodes. Cinnabar in turn is fundamental in necromancy crafting. As Svenn describes with gems, if there is some other source for gems and minerals in the worlds, I would not oppose the idea of motherlode nodes being made extraordinarily difficult to harvest and impossible for solo individuals to harvest (although I'd prefer higher health than reasonably solo-able instead of regenerating rocks). As Svenn notes elsewhere in posts, symmetry might not be what we want. Asymmetry does have its plus sides. However, "larger" animal and forest nodes might be something more akin to drakes or large trees in forests of risen. This allows for the asymmetry while maintaining a sense of balance. I.e. Chess is an asymmetric game I enjoy, however it still maintains a reasonable sense of balance (both players have the same number of pieces) - similarly, this kind of asymmetrical balance might be a good middle ground here. Otherwise, individuals involved in Oak Tree harvesting, let's say, do not have a higher size of nodes to pursue (unlike copper miners who seek out smaller nodes when not grouped and motherlode nodes when grouped). It therefore seems more reasonable to provide the equivalent kind of cooperative player driven experience for the wood gather (and others) as the ore gatherer if we are going to pursue the idea of motherlode nodes at all.
  18. I agree it raises these concerns - particularly with the recent change to essentially quality based tools. We also do not know what quality level was used in making the pick in the video. Since the highest level node I found was level 7 (and the highest I have seen talked about on the forums), it seems unlikely, but possible he used legendary (orange) ore. I think it more likely he used the purple (epic?? - I'm still getting the names down) quality ore (and paper) with good rolls on Grade. He does say he was using the best pick possible in the video, I'm just curious what the actual make-up of the pick was. If we can get a quick clarification on what mining stats the pick has or the quality of resources that went into it, I think we can talk more meaningfully about the potential for 'inflation' here. If we can make even stronger picks, it might explain what Krakken saw last night. Also, we can probably conceptualize full stamina based gear of absurd quality to aid in the endeavor. I also want to note Tinnis' side comment which is a concern of mine as well. Partially destroying a motherlode node in order to prevent gaining resources from it might become commonplace if left unchecked and I believe from my testing that partial destruction of a node (any kind of node) prevents a subsequent gatherer from getting resources (at least from the most recent destructible level) - I would need to play with testing it more to be sure how this actually functions, but it is something I have experienced when coming across partially harvest nodes at random.
  19. I am not going to talk about ground already covered quite well above. I would like to note and recall, when the first dupe bug was found, ACE's reaction to its use was not negative. Instead, in the launcher, they advised players to use ill-gotten gains to test the crafting system. To the extent this is an unintentional interaction between leveling up and the motherlode nodes, I fail to see how its treatment should differ - particularly given the newness of the vessel and jewel-cutting systems and how little testing those systems have received so far. Excellent testing anhrezcf. We would not know of the potential if you had not been testing it and it sounds like it took a reasonable amount of effort hunting for it.
  20. Your kind hearted, war loving neighbor from Yelsord here. Here's hoping with you. I liked the dragon. I always carried one of those dragon related items with me just for the fun of using one. I tried to walk as much as possible to maximize DPS. My really liked the Chimeras though. The castle rush atmosphere of a Chimera push was always neat to me.
  21. I tend to agree with the points made by Ironmike with some reservations. The multiple account discussion is probably a realistic discussion, but should probably not be the intended solution (just to be clear on that). I most agree with Mike's statement above. It takes extra time to coordinate groups. How much time varies, but there is almost always some time wasted. This is, however, usually offset by the added productivity in harvesting. The most important criticism I see here from Mike is what I quoted above. It will take time to get those PvP individuals to come over to help with the motherlode node - hopefully just travel time but it might also include getting out of the prior fight. In that time, the harvester could move to another group of nodes and begin harvesting, but he or she cannot while waiting for the PvP group. Boredom and lag time is a huge fun killer in my opinion. If one is willing to admit a time loss when coordinating an activity among a group of people doing the same activity, try it with people who do completely different activities and who only come together a few times each hour. The travel time alone will become annoying for both groups. Moreover, none of this addresses the underlying concern in the OP. Why are we artificially gating this exclusive source of some important resources (including the basic building block for any vessel crafting - essential the same function as paper in the rune making process)? ACE stepped back an re-evaluated the "skills requiring pieces of armor" idea and I see this as a similar idea in need of re-evaluation. Even if harvesting the motherlode nodes is more difficult solo (hedging on unproductive as I have suggested above), it should still be possible. Therefore, our discussion should probably be more focused on if there is a reason for this kind of artificial gate and not on ways we can get around it. I am sure we can all come up with many logistical ways to solve the problem, but I do not think that's the thrust of the OP and I do not think it should be a problem to begin with.
  22. I should have clarified, but when I said "players" I meant past players. The NA version of the game only ran from 2010-2011. As such, I haven't played in years either.
  • Create New...