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

KrakkenSmacken

ACE Development Partner & Investor
  • Content Count

    5,328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    77

Everything posted by KrakkenSmacken

  1. Or drop the "Armor" on nodes. They did it for Knotwood,Cobble,Slag so that any tool can take them out in three swings.
  2. I just don't agree with you here, at all TBH. Large guilds will want to play like a large guild, and small guilds will want to play like small guilds. If you have 35 very active players, your guild will not make the choice to play in the 30 member worlds by splitting your guild into two, less effective groups, that will still have problems coordinating and working together because they split their efforts. Since guild membership is on the account level, not in the campaign level, there will be a metric crap ton of messing around to try to support scenarios of multiple sub groups playing in one world as a single group, AND at the same time try to participate in a big guild world at the same time. This game is also not kind to teams who decide to split resources. It requires enough effort that focus on one world at a time will be critical to success. There is also in the presented view, an assumption that winning one type of world will be equal to winning another, but that is not a valid assumption. If ACE gives out 30 top team rewards in the 30 member world, and up to full guild membership in unlimited worlds, do you really think that sub guild members, or split guilds will be happy getting no rewards because they split teams into the 30 member world? Personally I am not worried about this, because of the way CF is designed to have different worlds, with different rules. Lets take a guess at 200k users, with worlds that hold 10k users each as an absolute cap. (Other games with campaigns seem to cap out between 1/3 and 1/4 of those numbers). That would mean that there would be 20 different campaigns going on at once. Given a moderate lifetime of a campaign of say 2 months (60 Days). That would allow for 2.5 campaign starts per week. So say every two weeks there are 4 small group (<30) campaigns, and 1 large group (>30) campaigns, I think you would find a pretty close balance. IF and that's a huge capitals IF, a large guild (>120 active members) decided to try to split into 4 seperate guilds of 30 to dominate a small guild server, the answer for the small guilds would be simple. All smaller guilds that found themselves in an early "Uncle bob" roll over, could simply wait 3-4 days, abandon the large guild dominated server, and jump into a different small server where they had a competitive chance, leaving the large guild to play kings of an empty hill. In short, I very much believe in the promise on the FAQ.
  3. Like I said above. There are not many comparisons to be made in MMORPG land regarding campaign resets. Those sorts of things however are common in elimination/RTS type games like Travian, and the currently in beta Starborne. It's going to take a while for ACE to find all the dial settings that are ideal for specific group sizes. Smaller groups will tend to enter campaigns for smaller guilds, or those campaigns that don't have known large guild presence. The grease for those wheels is supposed to eventually be the EK's, which have been deliberately neglected during the build of the core game, where players and guilds can trade for the interdependent things they can't get for themselves. So some worlds can be configured to favor the larger guilds, and other worlds the smaller ones. It's a question of how many of each at any given time should be running, given the active population. It's not one size fits all, and anyone who thinks that way is doing so with limited vision IMHO.
  4. Well, first off, I don't think our current testing group is at all a valid sample size of guilds. That said, the last couple of winners have been from "smaller" guilds. One study I found is WOW classic related. It shows that PVP guilds are generally smaller than PvE, average below 60 at all times, and are (as expected) generally larger than Role Play focused guilds. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-guild-size-over-time-by-server-type_fig1_221518133 There is also this spreadsheet, from a year ago, on Albion by someone who I can't verify the authenticity of the information, but if it is accurate, it show basically what I was saying. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NpQpg0RQdTj7NoTMNNmG_gAfETFBMXIA_iwS9ATTchM/edit#gid=0 Taking that, looking at guilds 40 members/day or higher, you get 28% of the total server population and 44% (almost double) being in the range of 5-40 active members. If you go to all guild players below 50, that number represents 73% of the player population. If the perception is that guild sizes are larger, it is likely because the game is favoring, promoting and lending success to larger guilds in it's design. I am pretty sure the original numbers I got actually came from Raph Koster, but I can't find a specific reference. Regarding group size in terms of what is needed in the game, that can be adjusted by changing the availability of resources, cost of buildings in terms of "endless caravans" and interdependence requirements. I do remember many sub components like parchment, used to require a trained player with the skill to even make, and that dial was tuned back because it was in fact too much. In summary, I think if you design the game around the idea that in order to be successful in the game, you require a guild size of 50+ as a minimum, you are clearly saying to 73% of the player population, you have no chance to really participate in the game in a meaningful way. That is just bad business.
  5. IIRC, from the studies I have read, the average guild size in competitive PvP games hovers around 15 highly active players. These 50+ guilds that some seem to think are the pinnacle of players that should be targeted are outliers, represent guilds in PvE games, and as such will be outliers that will never provide the amount of ongoing support a game like CF needs. The game has to work at some capacity for these smaller guild, far more than the pie in the sky fantasy guilds that have huge membership, if it is going to work. I have played.... over a dozen different games that strongly emphasize guild play and co-operation, and been part of a similar number of distinct guilds, and know from experience that players usually feel lost in larger groups, and they they get increasingly difficult to keep together as they get bigger. I don't know why, or who, thinks that more is better (read more fun) when it comes to multiplayer interaction, but from my experience, the most enjoyable games seem to cater to a range of 10-20 guild size. Now, as for CF, fortunately this game has all sorts of potential dials. From absolute limits they can put on guild sizes at the account level, to having some campaigns that hold tighter limits on how many members from a specific guild can represent them in the game. Because guild membership is at the account level, and not the campaign level, playing sub guild games against a backdrop of adjustable guild sizes by campaign world would be possible, but a real pain in the arse. Heck, they could even open up some worlds with minimum guild size limits, for those that do happen to be part of those massive groups, and do find that fun, just to make sure that guild size doesn't become the sledge hammer of Uncle Bob.
  6. KrakkenSmacken

    Archer Quiver

    Wait and see. There is a massive amount of changes coming to CC in 5.125 just dropping on TEST servers.
  7. Yea, TBH, the ease of aim or rather almost total lack of it as a requirement, has been an often brought up topic historically. I think there was even a Q&A where they tried to explain the problems. I think CF runs on Amazon servers (AWS), so I suspect that the limitations (other than hosting costs) would be similar New world in regards to latency.
  8. The problem is, when you rely on a server to tell you where the enemy is, where your actually aiming is (ms latency * distance traveled) away from where you are actually aiming. The reason aim bots and such work on many games, is because the individual client is trusted enough to declare it's own hits. rather than reliance on the server to simply track a shot, and then calculate the places it will travel through. Actually aiming with > 100ms latency is damn near impossible, because that results in a 200 ms round trip, so your client is 1/5th of a second behind at all times, and if you travel 10 Ms, that is 2 meters difference in location at a 90 degree travel direction. PUBG and other games get around this by all sorts of trickery, but the reality is that in a game as complex as this, in terms of "what" is being aimed, from Arrows to AOE damaging effects, with an expected higher population and more complex graphics rendering than shooter games, it's really a HUGE ask to have aiming be pixel point accurate. *Maybe* it is something that can be looked at and improved AFTER the FPS and any network latency is brought under control, but not before.
  9. It's not useless, in fact there are some rather good points. The problem is, the tone, and even the title. With a sensationalist title like the above, it doesn't scream to be noticed, it just becomes more noise that is easy to dismiss or even more importantly, requires the dev team to deal with a strong internal negative emotional response to simply ignore what appears to be hyperbolic hate at first glance. If I had a very limited time to review feedback, a title and first three paragraph tone like the above, "This game should have NEVER left its Shadowbane roots" would make me at least want to skip right over it like a resume with 3 spelling mistakes in the first sentence. If I read the salient points correctly, this is what I surmise the main point was. Characters don't feel unique or powerful enough, especially in regards to what should be a capstone power. If you look at 5th ED D&D, capstone powers and distinguishing powers along the way literally define the character, while what CF has built does not. They *feel* homogenous and very much the same, as basically level = DPS scaler, not real variety. That is actually a valid criticism. There are differences that if you know how to use each class and have explored them are in fact there, it is just hard to get any sort of sense of that without direct experience. But really, if you want to be read and your points to have the most impact, I would suggest dropping the click baity hyperbole.
  10. Waiting is boring. Maybe just put one of those "fill/heal" totems like they have in the Temple shaped like the food cart, and call it a day. Take a camp, hit the totem, and your all ready to go again. Solves the "stockpiling" issue because you simply can't take it with you.
  11. I know for a fact those tables have not changed. Changing that part of the game has not been any sort of priority. There are too many other moving parts to start tweaking those. Just trying to get the Caravans output to not totally eclipse the harvesters makes that dial the first to adjust, then possibly training/harvesting effectiveness in early game, and then maybe looking at these tables. That was one table of one node type. Not sure how each copy/paste works on the back end, but that change could be a metric crap ton of snow shoveling to change the 50+ tables for all the materials and harvest types.
  12. So you are replying to a post asking a million questions (which is how some people learn), that would take a guide to fully answer for exactly what reason?
  13. Except when you have players that have built macros to do it for them. Since you can code your way out of the problem, that is not really a good way to add risk/reward. There are other very good reasons to not have players go full loot pinata when killed. But risk/reward doesn't seem like a good one. One way to do the pinata doober thing for players, and not base risk/reward on coding skill's/knowledge, would be to have it require decapitation. So PvE deaths, and casual dual/test fighting would not result in a frequent doober spray. There is already a doober mechanic in place at that point, because a head goes flying. That would be to the way to do a doober spray model for PvP.
  14. Yes, but those don't get placed in the GR general market for every noon to trip over the moment they enter the game. That would be a good model. So and So's vendor with an Icon. Could be changed to Guild/Icon as well. Let the icon be whatever any inventory icon can be. People then get to know the names of the actual shop owners, and will seek out the best/favorites. That I think would work quite well.
  15. The problem with free text, is now you have to deal with free text trolls typing in vulgar descriptions. It will be bad enough for players to have to deal with trolls marking stores with Armor Icons, and only being filled with carrots.
  16. It would also be nice if that icon would change to have a circle/slash over the originial icon if the store didn't have any of what was represented by that icon in stock.
  17. Could have him travel around from camp to camp on a schedule. If you own the camp you get notice, but if you don't and you know the schedule, you would know where he is going to be.
  18. I've always thought the motherload content would be more interesting as large, very difficult to kill, golumns that disgorged piles of material doobers when killed. Putting something like that on a schedule, and now instead of disgorging doobers of regular mats, they drop the construction blocks, would make for a different way to try to drive the same sort of competition as the caravans. Maybe put only white materials in the caravans, and better materials in something like this. TLDR; I'm all for PvE content that drives more PvP and you compete over. I do not however want more PvE for the sake of just PvE.
  19. It used to be far more extreme, when even making things like parchment took passive training unlocks. I made a good amount of gold just making leather padding for armor back in the day. At least now that dependency is more optional than required. You "can" make a white vessel, and with the correct runes and no training, make pretty much every dependency item, albeit poorly.
  20. This is just wrong. They are not going to "turn off" war tribes gear. The whole point of war tribes gear is so a new player can get to a minimum viable baseline in under 3 hours and get into the PvP. Being a crafter is the "long game", and will take a long time to realize success in. Once that has been realized, crafters will have better things to sell than the war tribes gear, but war tribes gear is meant to feel like you can contribute within hours of joining a campaign. It will always be an avenue for getting geared up quickly, that is not going away.
  21. I see your point, but there is an auto logout timer to mitigate that somewhat. If someone is deliberately preventing that from doing its job, then that's on them.
  22. Officially against EULA. Unofficially, used frequently by many, and there is a big difference between a home rolled connection system to the service, and a macro program that rides on top of the existing service that only does what a human player "could" do if they were at the controls. For example, when XP was harder to come by, and there was a flaw in the value of basic error sacrificing, there used to be piles of people that would macro making arrows out of knotwood to get to level 30. To date, have not seen any sort of anti-macro enforcement. Bigger fish to fry than chasing EULA breaches like that in pre-alpha. This does not constitute advice, and I will not be responsible if you take it as such.
×
×
  • Create New...