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

KrakkenSmacken

ACE Development Partner & Investor
  • Content Count

    5,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    77

Everything posted by KrakkenSmacken

  1. Guild limits would be better than individual limits for GR in my opinion. Many guilds could fill all the booths with just one account per member.
  2. I'm saying you replace the idea of "grind" with the objectives of "win". Here is an example from the new "other paths to victory" model described in the Ten Ton Hammer interview. So, instead of "grinding" for passive XP, associate with each card a "passive" XP reward. Line up those rewards with "Glory = Crafting, Wealth = Harvesting, and Power = Combat". Make the tasks small enough that an individual can do them, (Capture 5 enemy camps), and associate both Victory points, (or whatever they end up being called), AND passive XP. In short, design this component specifically following Lesson 13. Part of the problem with things currently, is that the game experience is almost entirely "build up yourself, THEN go fight others" rather than "build yourself up, AS you fight others."
  3. Yup. So make the "other productive activity" an alternative way gain the same things. Instead of giving XP for the PvE 'grinding', give it for the portions of the game that contribute directly to winning.
  4. Simply because each new end goal of professions is an escalation in the power curve for ALL players, and ACE has had to dramatically flatten that curve from what it was just a couple of months ago so that the "minimum viable" is quickly in reach of all players. E.G. Make better food that gives you +15 stamina vs +1, and suddenly to be competitive it becomes a need vs a want. Those cooks without training suddenly become useless until they get the necessary minimum training, because nobody wants the +1 stamina food, everyone wants and needs the +15. This is a competitive game, and every edge matters. Every item added to the top of the pile makes minimum viable move up as well. Maybe it's just "efficiency", well then every guild suddenly needs an efficient cook or they are wasting time or resources, and time = resources = power. It's still a form of power escalation. If it isn't a buff to power, but simply adding 5 minutes to the buff etc, the question is "is that enough juice/squeeze to justify giving up training in another craft" because every choice is a spent opportunity cost. It's not a slight on people who want to cook, it's a recognition that we already have so many required, passively trained crafts, that more is not really needed to scratch that particular itch. I personally would much prefer if the "challenge" to cooking came from ingredient acquisition and have that not based on RNG. X ingredient is only found on the location of a harvested Iron mother load, or can only be found in winter near a quarry, or some other "exploration" play style inspired limitation. Perhaps recipes change from world to world in a random fashion, and part of being a cook is exploring what works on what worlds. Heck, maybe each cook has to discover each recipe for each type of item, figured out through experimentation, and they are the only ones that end up cooking "bon-tippers" that particular way. Passive training is a hammer, I would prefer if we didn't need to hit every screw with it as well as the nails.
  5. (In bold) There is your problem. No profession, or single character is supposed to be self sufficient by design. That is not a reasonable goal. Looking at the dependencies and thinking "Oh I need to do this and this and this" and cutting out dependency on other players is the wrong way to look at any profession. Requiring food for crafting was not my biggest concern. My biggest concern was that such requirements would be further gated behind passive training. Of all the things that a person can "craft", alchemy and food seem to be two that a day one player can get into without waiting for passive training to make them viable. In my opinion, CF really does need a couple of those so new players trying to get into the guild crafting game can produce "something" of value for their members while they progress in passive training. Not everything crafting related has to be overly complex and gated behind passive training.
  6. Personally I would say a big no to building it out in the "training required" direction. There is more than enough for the dedicated crafter types to do already, with more still to come in the form of stone masonry etc when EK buildings are worth putting in the effort to build. Ya'll just had to cut swaths out of the early crafting loop to get new players to "minimally viable", so I would hate to see things added that make it harder to achieve that in the form of essentially required food buffs. If they are not interesting, important or essential enough to be expected or required, then they are not going to interesting or important enough to put valuable passive training time into except as a dump value a few years into training. I also think food and the skill-less to gather collectibles are a great way to introduce players to the crafting system, without gating yet another thing behind passive training. But that's just my opinion
  7. Fast defense travel would be a huge Uncle Bob type of advantage. One of the few advantages a weaker/behind force can have is the ability to hit in locations that attacks are unexpected. Fast travel would eliminate the value of that strategy. In short, NO! For the record, your not wrong about the running being boring, but this is not a good solution.
  8. I have to say, I really agree with this. First stage focus on development was the sandbox aspects and basic combat in a battle royal style, with piles of time spent developing ore whacking for stuff, and crafting stuff into other stuff next. All the conquest strategy and what I would consider "real" aspects of a game that bills itself as a "Throne War Simulator" are now being added in after those, and in many ways being forced to fit square pegs into round holes. In every RTS game I have ever played, (another type the game is compared to), the less you think about the mechanics of harvesting and instead focus on territory control, the more you can make strategic choices about what harvesting areas to fight over. From Age of Empires and that third gold pile close to your enemy, to Company of Hero's where simply holding territory was enough to gain resource income. The less you worry about the details of harvesting, (one unit type, "peasant" for ALL harvesting in AoE at a fixed rate, to simply gaining resources from holding territory), the more fun the game seem to be. CF is largely the opposite of that. It's gotten better with PvE places to "farm", but the fact the word "farm", which really isn't fun for most, and is used as a common game play activity seems problematic. Personally I think it was done backwards, but crafting and old harvesting models are what developers were the most familiar with, so that's where they started. Cart before the horse if you ask me. I only hope they can find enough corners to shave off the edges of square pegs to fit them into the round holes they are aiming for.
  9. Not tier by players, but by guilds, and by the only metric that matters, wins over other guilds. Nothing and no metric is perfect and all are subject to Goodhart's law ("entities who are aware of a system of rewards and punishments will optimize their actions within said system to achieve their desired results.") but its wrong to assume that all efforts to quantify skills and create rules around those will be a failure despite some inaccuracy or deliberate gaming of the systems. Thinking that way is just a form of the Nirvana fallacy. It's on the players to join the guilds that suit them, and guilds to assimilate and bring up to speed new players, and it's up to ACE to compartmentalize the guilds that do that well consistently in such a way as to separate them from those that do poorly and want to be separated. Totally agree on stingy with imports in some campaigns. That could be one of the "easy" filters that would encourage Uncle Bobs with piles of resources, who would want to participate in worlds that let them bring all their advantages to bear, over worlds with Zero imports that they have to run into with a clean slate every time. Self administered filtering would be ideal, but as we have seen from the last bunch of trials, there is more motivation to win endlessly, than there is to stage up for a good fight, and more motivation to simply not play, than to be knocked down equally endlessly. There is a very good reason competitive professional sports have things like maximum team size limits, salary caps, and drafts where the best new prospects get forced onto the teams lowest annual results in standings, not that I am suggesting anything close to such a draconian measure for a game that is played for fun.
  10. Yea, as long and ACE fully uses the potential in having multiple worlds open, and creates some rules to support multiple styles and skills of play. Just like MOBA's and pretty much every competitive system has ranks, CF has this possibility with worlds. Many world to chose from. Right now part of the problem is the large guilds are crammed in with the smaller ones. It's not just that the three biggest and most dedicated are all on the same team, it's also that they are all competing for the one world. No team, no matter the size, can compete on all the worlds if several dozen are active at a time. Worlds starting at different times. Right now everyone is piling into the same world, same time, same seasons, same same same. There was nowhere (Infected is a start in that direction) for new or less organized guilds to learn how to do that job against similarly organized/smaller groups, and there is nowhere to go and be competitive once you know your out of the fight. It's fight the biggest and the baddest all the time, or basically nobody. It would be like trying to learn LoL only playing against platinum level players. You would get mopped up so fast, so badly, and so often, you really would not learn anything, and ultimately just would give up. Without ways to participate at some level in skill and dedication divisions, there simply won't be any fun. Worlds that eliminate. I'm a bit surprised to be honest that even with the worlds being ended, and the connection to Travian Games who already use the elimination model, that this part of the conquest model is not more often talked about and planned for. Perhaps that will happen in the Dregs, with sub par teams having to quit the field/world and move onto the next one, long before winter and worlds end finishes things, thus giving them opportunity to enter a new world without the Uncle Bob that trounced them. Right now that is already the behavior of players come winter. They move out of the campaign, and into GR. Much to the angst of the wolves, the sheep have no interest in being food. Rewards to encourage them to stay will in my opinion simply not work as fighting human nature is just a losing battle. Let them surrender, leave, and move on. Guild level restrictions. As in, Guilds and their members (marked at crow/account level) can only join X number of campaigns at a time, can only enter the same tier of campaigns as other guild members, etc. Right now that could be done between NA and EU. Join NA, can't join EU, and vice-versa. Restrict access to certain worlds based on guild size. Some worlds just won't let you in if you have a guild larger than X. Rank guilds based on success, and open some worlds that isolate guilds with less than X or even no wins under their belts. Basically encourage and restrict until Uncle Bobs fight over worlds with other Uncle Bobs because that's the best option for them. I think more people would participate in a world without the -W- HoA alliance vs what we currently have. Rules and controls just need to be put in place to fence in those that want that so -W- and HoA couldn't, and really wouldn't even want to sneak in with the full force of the guild. Oh and for the record, I believe the statistics on average active guild size is around 10. Not CF guild size, but all games guild size. I am pretty sure that Blair said that Raph Koster is fond of mentioning that statistic, and he seems like someone that would know.
  11. People play games because they are fun. They play social games like CF so they can have fun together. If people stop playing, it's because playing isn't fun for them. Gripe all you want about what they chose to do, it won't change the fact the thing they won't ever do, is play a game they don't think is fun. Losing 9+? times in a row, not fun. Feeling like there isn't anything they can do as an individual, or with the groups they are involved with to change that situation, also not fun. Don't think that they are not playing "something" together and having fun elsewhere. Almost my whole guild is off playing Conan right now because for them it's more fun. They still get together, they still work together, still play other games together, and they still have fun together. Just not here right now, because as it is, pissing up the rope that is the balance alliance, just isn't that fun.
  12. Battle Royal is a pretty full space full of land mines. If ACE tries to support it, it could dilute the amount of time they have for the core MMO project. If ACE does support it, they will be compared to games that are fully dedicated to that model. If ACE does support it, the MMO/Group/Guild centric character classes will be less viable in that sort of model, and could skew the population, OR create a lower number of options. Now, the above said, a similar MMO style of short term raid, or other type of sub world game that has a bit more group dynamic focused could be interesting. For example a way to do a fast raid to gather starting gear against other players doing the same. (1 hr CW, with camps, zero imports, unlimited exports (or zero with a "must carry everything out a gate), no re-spawn statues and short entry window. But that would a post launch, when they have time to mess with it, sort of thing, and I'm not sure that would be at all better than the current camps provided that ACE uses population metrics to drive people towards them through scarcity.
  13. Right now there is a HUGE piece missing, which will be missing until after the wipes stop happening. EK persistence. Right now the rewards are cosmetic trinkets, and things we can use in the only place that currently matters, the campaign world. There is a whole "get stuff from campaigns for your EK" loop still missing, partly because nobody is going to put in the time making buildings that get wiped, and partly because ACE has given everyone a big enough kit and sample parcels and houses that there is no need to do that yet, and partly because the economy is on a never ending sea-saw while ACE tries to build systems and keeps dramatically shifting economic balance. Bottom line, its still a pre-alpha TEST and systems that support the kind of thing you seem to be looking for, have not been built or addressed, because trying to do so early would be like trying to build a house roof down, rather than ground up.
  14. Holding territory for the highest team/faction should feel like a juggling act where you always have one or more plates too many to manage.
  15. Not a bad suggestion. It could see it working better if points were accrued not based on time held, but based on time/ticks spent with the target switching sides. So you don't get points for just standing around in your fully captured/held fort, but rather you get points when opposed and the circle starts to switch sides. I wouldn't take away what we already have, but use this as a way to accrue more points. But the above said, I would not want to distract ACE from the dregs milestone and game style to add in a change like this, and if that game style doesn't have the same points structure, I would not circle back to this until we see how dregs does play out. Cheers
  16. The majority of the hardcore deciding to be on the same "team" is more of the problem, rather than that they exist, or even play to win. It's just a different way to avoid real challenge than farming in GR, but is at least, if not more, detrimental to the game in general and people having fun.
  17. Get the "Dead South" to do your sound track. Just sayin.
  18. Health as a boarder around the faction shield might work to reduce visual noise. Heh, started this before seeing @Tinnis's and @PopeUrban's posts.
  19. Yup, two different interpretations of Todd's spiel is a pretty good way to describe it. It really feels like a very strong case of confirmation bias actually. Fantasy fulfillment does not line up, at least to me, with a goal which has never once been stated or even hinted at by the dev team of "value in every scale of PvP", especially since the linked video had these quotes. That is the polar opposite of "every class should have value in every scale (situation) of PvP". The only way to read it as you have been, is to assume that "situation" is more specific than scale of PvP, which is I think an interpretation that is only going to lead you to continuing disappointment.
  20. Latest (unofficial) word I heard was it was to be in for 5.110, and we are on 5.100.
  21. I'm not here to argue with you, I was only trying to let you know how it seems things have been designed given the statements of the devs, and that you seem to have a problem with the design goal of "fantasy fulfillment", rather than built for balance and utility. Assume whatever intent you want, but if you think that "every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation" then I really think you don't understand what the intent actually is. For example, the Templar has been described as excelling in tight quarters combat, and "area denial", after players complained that they didn't have the skill necessary to peel and being somewhat easy to escape from/hard to finish kills in an open field, despite being a very tank sort of class. The answer was essentially, "that's not really their role".
  22. I do like the direction of those, because it's not force, and leaves agency in the hands of both players. There is a huge difference between "force" (As Deioth said in the quoted post) and what I would call, strongly encourage certain behavior.
  23. Those big statues in the temple, the ones that look like the gods, they are calling them sentinels, and the goal is for them to eventually hand out quests for rewards.
×
×
  • Create New...