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


ACE Development Partner & Investor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by KrakkenSmacken

  1. 6 hours ago, Yumx said:

    Yeah, it's going to be a challenge for sure, what happens when we go into 100v100 fights sometime in the future?
    Healthbars would have to be ________ thin :D 

    Also hiding full healthbars would be cool as an option, as long as they keep their name visual.

    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.


  2. 14 hours ago, Deioth said:

    Either we're talking about two different things or we've gotten entirely different interpretations of Todd's spiel.  The point I am making, and the thought process I'm coming from, is that every class should have value in every scale of PVP. 

    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.


    "Your goal as a player is to seek out situations in the game where you are going to be strong, and try to avoid those situations where you are going to be weak".

    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.

  3. 19 minutes ago, Deioth said:

    I clearly stated my take away from what Todd was saying.  The question you time stamped suggested to me that they want players to have roles they are good at and simply not being as good in other situations, but in no way does it sound like he's trying to suggest that your role means you're only ever good in that one roll.  DPS is useful everywhere.  Peel/utility is useful everywhere.  Healing is useful everywhere.  Tanking is useful... just in sieges?  The example he gave even suggested more of a one-on-one situation.  There is a problem with the design of the tank if they can't make their survivability consistently valuable.  Every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation and if tanks aren't then that needs to be addressed.  That is what I'm asking for feedback.  They obviously do not intend for builds to be good only at single situations and I doubt their intention of multiple slots is for people to swap characters just for specific roles (more likely it's because, like every other MMO, people like playing alts and seeing what they like).  Sure, you can have a set of characters all meant for a specific activity, but most players will stick to their "main".

    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". 

  4. 1 minute ago, Toadwart said:

    Maybe you cant force them, but you can greatly encourage them.

    Warhammer Online pretty much solved this by having their tanks taunt function as normal in pve and in pvp it would place a debuff on the enemy that would greatly increase the tanks damage vs that target until the taunted person struck the tank 3x. This left the decision of what to do up to the taunted target. Did they continue to attack their original target? or did they pause and hit the tank 3x to take 30% less damage from them for the 8s or so until the tanks taunt refreshed?

    All non-ranged archetypes that were traditionally melee were given a "throw" of some sort to allow them to pull mobs, it was very low damage. The tanks version also acted as a ranged "execute" doing hundreds of damage when the target was below 20% life (i forget) when the ability did like 15 damage otherwise. This encouraged the target to stay and fight the tank at low health instead of running away like they would from a dps class like a rogue. The choice whether to do so or not was always in the hands of the player and with terrain, ect there were times it made sense to run...but, for the most part, players were "encouraged" to target tanks in pvp.

    And it was awesome.

    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.

  5. 13 hours ago, Deioth said:

    I don't think they're trying to differentiate roles in this, I think they're trying to differentiate what a character builds for as their base class.  If your class build is mostly AoE utility, a class build focused on single target damage will outclass you in a one on one, but your utility will have value in small and large groups both.  My experience thus far with a tank build is that I'm not really a tank, I just take a while to die after everyone else is killed because they pose a threat that I simply do not.  A tank drums up images of taking the brunt of your enemy's attacks, so in PvE they hold mob aggro.  However, in PvP a player can simply ignore the tank.  That's why in PvP a tank needs mechanics and a natural game play loop that allows them to force that focus.  Crowfall currently feels as if it is lacking that.  Every single class spec should bring value (damage, utility, healing, or protection) in all situations.  Yes, tanks shine in sieges, but if they aren't effective anywhere else then there is a problem with their inherent design.  I'm pretty sure they intend for balance in this game to mean that your class has value in all situations, but they have a certain situation they are best at in every case.  Coleman seems to be inferring that rather heavily.  If a class is only good in a specific situation, then there is a problem with that class's design, and being good at only one thing should come from discipline specialization rather than the base class and a chosen prestige.

    You may be right about the need for more peel and trying to draw focus, BUT you can't FORCE humans to give you agro like you can PvE MOBS in a raid.

    Pve tactics against players don't work, because allowing a class to FORCE other players to play the game the way they want in all but minimal ways, would just suck for the player being forced.

    The bold is pretty much also where you are wrong.  Did you even watch what I linked? 


    "in the other areas,.... your going to get your ass handed to you... in most other situations, they are going to be some degree of not as good."

    Classes are not supposed to be valuable in all situations, they are supposed to seek out the situations they are good in, and excel at them. There is a reason we all get more than one vessel slot to start out with.  Your crow/account can have a bunch of different options, but individually the vessels are supposed to be really good at one thing, and at best palatable in the others.

    Part of getting good, is knowing how to avoid those situations you are weak in.

  6. I've suggested this before.

    Keep using the current re-spawn timer, BUT subtract one minute from the remaining time for every non-boss killed in the camp. If that becomes to frequent, then turn up the default delay.

    This way, if you are not part of a farming group you still have a chance to find and kill one, but if your group is actively farming a camp, the bosses will show up frequently enough to make it so you don't need to run from camp to camp.

  7. On 8/4/2019 at 8:35 PM, Deioth said:

    So far, after finally having a chance to give Crowfall some proper play time, I'm trying to figure out the best fit for tanks.  Having done a lot of skirmishing, small-to-medium group forts, and a couple sieges my Pit Fighter feels great in siege but near worthless elsewhere.  People tend to focus healers hard and my Q feels worthless a lot of the time in smaller group PVP--so I can always use Neckbreaker outside of Siege--but the fact still remains that I feel like I lack utility.  If the enemy also has a healer, I can't seem to generate value outside of Siege.  I've also got a Battle Rager but only did some 1v1 and small group fights in an EK.  I'd need more time to experiment and learn him (if I bother, thematically I prefer a 2h mace tank) and he plays quite differently, but I only have moderately more utility (that is, more consistent value utility) with the net pull.  He similarly feels unfulfilling.  The survivability is up there for both when played right, so it's not that I have an issue there, but it does feel like I cannot "tank" very well.  With an apparent lack of taunt and protective abilities for me to make good and consistent use of my survivability, I feel really lacking outside of sieges where it can shine to initiate a push, cause panic, and actually draw fire.


    What are everyone else's thoughts?  I'm aware that the consensus seems to be that the CC classes are in a similar boat given how strong Retaliate can be.  I want to be able to skirmish with my pit fighter (granted the group I am in right now isn't the best comp for synergy but still) rather than need him for siege and an Alpha Warrior everywhere else.  Is there a good discipline I can take to get me the damage and utility for skirmishes and small scale?

    I think that "really lacking outside of sieges" might be intentional design.


  8. 10 hours ago, mystafyi said:

    Its also not fun knowing that anything done in the first 2/3 of the match doesn't matter. In fact you can not even show up to the match until the last 1/3 then win. 

    You did notice that they changed the formula for stacking bonus right?  Camps collecting zero bonus in spring etc?

  9. On 8/2/2019 at 4:55 PM, oneply said:

    night capping isnt the issue. the way points are gained is the issue. One keep siege decided the last campaign, that is like a slap in the face to anyone even slightly paying attention that there is an issue. you can take 3/4ths of a campaign off and win it all in the last 1/4th defeats any purpose of pvp/sieging in the first 3/4ths. 

    That sounds like a great mechanic, as long as it was part of a build up to that climactic battle.

    • One hit can decide a baseball game.
    • One field goal, a football game.
    • One over time goal a hockey game.
    • AND one game, and any one of the above can decide the annual national championship (pick your sport).

    There are more examples of that sort of design than I can count. So the main point is great competition including professional level competition is often found to where exactly where "one" event can win or lose it all, preparation and planning notwithstanding.

    What isn't fun, is knowing who is going to take the championship 1/3 of the way through a season.

  10. 15 minutes ago, twitchy_play said:

    There has to he a world wide notification for that server this fort is under attack. The second the wall is below 75% it rings out for help that will cause other groups to see that and go defend. This timer cause a quick pvp then the numbers take over who can stack the most people to take or defend. It just forcing everyone there and obviously balance has more active players then chaos and order and numbers matter in timer capture forts and keeps.

    Won't fix the core problem of no schedules.

    They take it, "defenders" make a note of time, and then show up 45 minutes later to take it back after the original attackers get bored of waiting for opposition.


  11. 1 minute ago, whisky said:

    Both valid points, one quick fix to this would be to implement what Planetside two does a faction balance cap. If you have 25 of X then you can only have up to 30 of Y and Z. Arbitrary numbers.  That would allow the other 2 factions (or 1) to have a good chance of winning and keep the underdog faction, poor order, competitive as well. 

    That really only encourages stacking ALT accounts, and playing those sorts of games. Any zone limits that are not higher than peak population, are subject these sorts of shenanigans.

    Would rather they work on missing systems, than adding in faction balancing limits just yet.

  12. 11 hours ago, Ble said:

    Not a fan of high level GR.  I think that mobs could give the same-ish XP no mater what level the mob or vessel quality is, and higher rank mobs could just drop more/better stuff and that would be the PvE progression.  That way you can make GR low level, but still be a place to get decent xp to meet CW level requirements.


    Secondly, @monchiezz had a great idea that I thought merits posting.  We need a map that promotes PvP.  Is it possible for you to generate a slightly larger adventure zone and flood it with resources?   A map like this would force everyone to fight during non siege hours in a single zone, would be fantastic.




    This is one of those things that looks good on paper, but is practically a bad idea due to current instance population limits.

    Two (of probably many) tricks to look for with a layout like this.

    1. Lock up access to sieges by overloading the only access path adventure zone.
    2. Gate camp an entire faction, making it impossible for new players to enter the adventure zone areas.

    Strip all good resources out of temple, especially since the GR will get you minimum viable safely, and that will be a better first step.

  13. On 7/29/2019 at 12:56 PM, Werebeast said:

     I feel that we have too many elves/humans and we need more unique races.


    1 hour ago, Werebeast said:

    Which is why Its not an issue, but later down the line I most definitively want more races. I most assuredly expect more and more unique races; Once there isn't so much on the dev's plate. The game needs to be finished... before all else in my opinion.

    It was the use of the word "need" in your post that set off my alarm bells actually.  "Need" is for things that fall into a category of "must have at beta or game will fail", not post the game being in a ready to launch state.

    Glad we are on the same page now.

  14. On 7/29/2019 at 12:56 PM, Werebeast said:

    I made a post about this as well, I feel that we have too many elves/humans and we need more unique races. Mainly because a lot of people will look at what we have and be like "Oh look, another game. Neat I guess." Where as if we had races typically unplayable a lot of people would come to be like , "Wow they never let us play as these, this is cool. I should tell my friends about this!" We have enough regular, we could use something more spicy but I understand its not the priority right now.

    I know orcs/goblins would bring a lot of people and since there are so many variations of them you could make them your own variant, Demons as well could bring a lot in. More beast races ect; I go over it in my post so Im not gonna go into details here so go check it out and give some feedback. Id love for the dev's to see it and maybe think about it, heck go post your ideas in there too. We could make a huge catalog of ideas for them which is half the battle in the conceptualizing phase.

    Seriously, you think we don't have unique races? Out of 12 races, 4 are rather unique, and a couple of others are new takes on old tropes (Stone born).

    Considering the amount of art resources necessary to build a new race, it's not surprising that just less than 3/4 of the starting races (I expect more post launch), are what would be considered genre "normal".


    Image result for crowfall races


    Related image

    Image result for crowfall races

    Image result for crowfall races


  15. A few things to add.

    2.) Loot rules will vary from world to world. The GR (God Reach) is like newbie Island, which is why there is no looting, and no need to find your way back to your body.

    6.) The level cap is very, very, unlikely to change. The goal is for players to become participants in the greater PvP war ASAP, which is why leveling is so quick on the default "white" vessel.  Progression is however possible, in the form of crafted vessels, which have better base stats, can be customized with specific goals in mind, and more stat points to spend as they level. They also take more XP to level.

    9.) Currently there is only the cap and hold points, however several times on Q&A I have heard them talk about adding in other mechanics similar to "longest road" in Catan (if you know the game) that will make sure the winner of a world will not be known too early. 

    20) Vessels are "locked" into the campaigns they join, and can not move freely in or out. EK to EK and GR travel, which is what you are seeing prior to the next campaign start, is free via the logout and initial selection menu.

    21) There has been talk about solving the late player problem, but up until now, nothing.  I would not expect it prior to launch because of all the corner cases and other issue.  Travel in the world with materials and risk is supposed to matter, so people teleporting around has to be very carefully thought out prior to implementation, if there ever is something like that.

    24) there are no recipes to remove/delete.  The real issue is using the correct material combination to get the effect you want. Currently, every crafted item is a one of a kind, but there was/is talk of manufacturing of runs of componentes and products, but that keeps getting pushed to the back burner in favor of more vital systems.

    25) http://winterblades.net/crafting-combinations/

    29) Very, very responsive.  You should watch for and check out the regular Q&A on twitch.  (https://www.twitch.tv/crowfallgame) ,and check out a few of the videos on the Crowfall Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHVjXO-WdYHUIdxC8buCkzQ)



  16. On 2/2/2018 at 9:48 AM, jtoddcoleman said:

    This is not surprising, given that we haven't built a new player experience yet.

    new player experience is typically the LAST thing that you work on, because it's heavily scripted and (as a result) incredibly fragile.  whenever you make a change to any system, any balance table, any user interface -- even moving a button -- the damn thing breaks.  because it's so custom crafted.

    Doing it early in the development process, when everything is in flux, means that you spend an inordinate of time fixing it every. single. time. you put up a new version.

    Better to just put it off until things are settled (i.e. do it last.)  It does mean that many (most?) incoming players have no clue how systems work, but that's the lesser of the two evils. Development velocity is paramount.



    On 2/2/2018 at 3:14 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

    I would love to quote this answer to the plethora of players that complain about the new player experience. 

    Lord knows I've bitched enough about it, and it's importance, along the way.  I sometimes lose sight of the fact that there must be a time budget built in for systems needed to support that experience, and keep mentally trying to imagine how the current model can be adjusted to accommodate a more entertaining start.

    So just how LAST is it?  Is it LAST right before Beta, or LAST right before initial launch?


    On 2/5/2018 at 8:30 AM, jtoddcoleman said:

    yes, you can quote it.

    Last meaning "I will put it off as long as we can, to give the systems under it the maximum amount of time to solidify".  I wouldn't even be shocked if we put a draft version in at soft launch, then change it completely in the period between soft launch and hard launch (i.e. once we run enough players through it to get a statistical bead on how effective it is.)  




  17. 2 hours ago, VaMei said:

    When the 5.100 test CW was up, I was mowing R8 elites like grass solo, and the captains were a pretty trivial fight.

    When it came to the R10s, the line of cairns leading to the mobs was the 1st clue that this was going to be something else. 1v1, the R10 elites weren't hard, but they don't often travel alone. When your dealing with 3 by youself, and that ranger leaps into another pack and agro's them too, it's time to be thinking about an exit strategy.

    No idea what the R10 group & raid bosses are like.

    It may be just me, but I would much rather they "balance" the mobs as glass cannons, than tanks. 

    So if your skilled, and manage your CC with them, they go over pretty easy, but if your sloppy or make a mistake, they beat the crap out of you FAST.

  18. 17 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

    You are correct. The larger ballista were indeed used for launching large projectiles similar to a catapult, incendiary, sometimes even diseased animals and people and recently even pumpkins. They are very difficult to aim and in many cases require repositioning after every couple shots. Load times were measured in minutes between shots and mechanical breakdowns were very common. 


    That sounds like the same role as a catapult in CF terms.  I would rather the fire effect moved there, possibly to a specific "type" of catapult to connote ammunition type. 

  • Create New...