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. 5 hours ago, Arkade said:

    Something does need to be done. They can start by limiting vendors to one per account in each world. Some people will just use multiple accounts, but it's a start. 

    I would also suggest changes to the cost. Maybe make it have a large upfront cost, and after a certain amount of time, it expires and the vendor and any remaining items are sent to your bank. Maybe you have a wait a certain amount of time before you can place a vendor again. 

    Project: Gorgon has a vendor system where you rent a vendor and each day, the cost of the vendor goes up. Eventually it becomes prohibitive to afford, as the cost will outweigh any profit you make from the sales. So you will have to give up the vendor at some point, but your daily cost doesn't go down immediately. Each day you aren't renting a vendor, the cost decrements. Something like that might work.

    There's also EKs where we can place vendors. Unfortunately, they aren't likely to get much traffic now that vendors are in the GR and Campaign worlds. Hopefully ACE can find a way to make EKs relevant again. Being able to provide crafting buffs would be one way to do it. How about an NPC that can only be placed in player built cities (EK or Dregs) that gives the leadership buff if you have it trained? That way you don't actually have to stand around and group with people to give them the buff. There are also the relics and artifacts first mentioned in the kickstarter. They could be another way to provide buffs for players while in the EK. 

    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. 3 minutes ago, Duffy said:

    Doesn’t work, you just created a different grinding system if it’s done fairly as any activity contributes towards “winning” (which again creates a scenario where player seek the optimal grinding routes in exclusion to overall goals) or if you literally mean winning only gets XP then it reinforces uncle bob.

    There’s not a great way to combine grinding and passive in a single system. It removs the perks of either system when you do.

    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.


    Each of our gods (there are 12) will offer different goals, so players can choose different objectives to try and win the strategy game beyond just territory capture.

    We divided these cards into three sets: Glory, Wealth and Power. ... and we tried to provide a nice mix of options so that we provide strategic alternatives for smaller and larger teams

    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. 1 hour ago, Duffy said:

    Passive Training and Grinding Systems are at the core, equivalent. They are both time taxes on the player where they will seek optimizing gains over other productive activity patterns they would pursue once said skill/training level has been achieved.



    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. 27 minutes ago, BaronLovat said:

    But, that isn't entirely true is it.

    Every profession outside of Alchemy, Necromancy and Jewelcrafting, can not only get their own materials (solo), but some components required from other crafts are also not mandatory to come from a trained player in that craft.

    You don't "need" another player to make you stitched leather to craft a weapon. Will it be the best potential for the weapon? No, course not. But you can, make that component yourself, and the weapon yourself. You also don't "need" to train skinning to get the higher quality leathers, you can use better crafted knives, skinning potions and harvesting food.  The difference is, better tools, will not unlock harvested ingredients. You HAVE to train to get them. Could you buy them from other players? Course. But a Blacksmith who trained Mining, isn't forced into training a track specifically for Silver, just to turn around and start an entirely different track for Copper. Not unless you're talking MASTER tier harvesting, but by that point, you've long had the capability of gathering efficiently every Ore and material from Ore nodes. 

    The part I'm mostly missing though, is why there shouldn't be end goals for Chefs. I understand the front end of a profession be accessible, that's great. But why that front end accessibility mandates a lack of meaningful end goal or progression is where you lose me. Even if the end goal was simply crafting food that lasts a little longer in terms of the buff, like a full trained chef adding 5 minutes to a buff. Or, being more efficient with the materials; requiring less to craft the recipe. Or as another option, being more precise with the same ingredients and producing extra portions of food when crafting. 

    It doesn't necessarily have to be a power / combat affecting end goal. But something to work towards, that would be nice.

    [Didn't intend for this to be a cooking thread. But I do enjoy the back and forth, fun to bounce ideas and opinions off other people]

    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. 15 hours ago, BaronLovat said:

    Oh wow, didn't expect this to suddenly get as much traffic as it's been. Also I wasn't aware Cooking was expected to not be a true profession. I was made aware a long time ago that as it is in-game now, it's not seen as a profession, as is mostly treated as 'fluff' with the minimal goal of staving off the hunger bar. 

    I do see a few points being made as to why it shouldn't become one, but I feel compelled to play a little bit of devil's advocate if no one minds?

    My initial Cooking concerns stem from the fact that Cooking as a, sub-routine? requires resources from all forms of harvesting. 

    • Mining is needed for Ore for the Cooking Pots, Cooking Foil and Hunger Shards. Hunger Shards being the big one as it requires a large investment in training.
    • Quarrying being the least impacting, as you can simply buy the stones to make empty Flasks.
    • Logging being the biggest contributor, needed for wood to craft roasting sticks for kebabs, Apples for many recipes, Wax for Cheese, and Pine Nuts for various recipes.
    • Skinning for Meat, Bone for bone broth, and Blood [if I recall for Bloodworm Stew]
    • and soon Plant Reaping for Herbs like Mandrake, Garlic and Ginseng, along with both types of Mushrooms.

    Seeing as I already, in order to be self sufficient as a Chef, have to completely break normal training expectations to acquire the materials for recipes, by not going down a focused path until completed; it feels awkward to see all that work is not rewarded by having a specialization in cooking those materials into valuable food items. 

    That being said, Cooking has always been treated as a non-profession in every MMO I can recall, so I don't have hopes for it to be made a strongly supported main profession. But Crowfall does feel different enough with such an in depth crafting system, that I had hoped seeing the various NYI tracks hinting at further implementations was a sign that Cooking was to be a primary profession. Providing Harvesting Buffs, Crafting Buffs, Combat buffs and even some Novelty items like Cake, Cookies and Mead. 

    The other thing I found quite confusing which made me believe Cooking was not yet fully implemented, was the seemingly random item grades of food. Some food will be uncommon, while another with the same buffs, will be rare. To top it off, others seem even more random, not doing anything significant, but being marked as Legendary, like the Roast Pig. It's not a particularly powerful food buff or hunger restoration item, but I guess it's Legendary? 

    So, being done playing the half-hearted opposition, I can see where other points are coming from. Seems like there are concerns that food buffs could become too powerful and develop a 'meta' of which food buffs you need to craft high end crafts like Vessels, or a particular food that is seen as a must have or BiS for Harvesting. Even the utmost concern is no doubt there being foods that impact the outcome of sieges. Things like a resistance buff that works against Trebs could be seen as too much of a 'must have'. ;)

    But no really, buff stacking can get out of control, and buffs should have an upper ceiling absolutely. However it does seem the present community is whole-heartedly committed to cooking not being a supported, primary profession; and as a new player, I don't have any delusions of changing anyone's minds. If cooking is to be a fluff profession, are for a lack of better phrasing 'baby's first profession' experience, then so be it. 

    As for the rest of the answers about tracks, I appreciate the information where it was given, and will stay tuned to see how the tracks develop. 

    Cheers, Baron.

    (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. 59 minutes ago, vkromas said:

    So this is an interesting question and I'm curious to know what feedback I'll get after I answer this. Initially, we thought about adding a cooking track to the skill tree but ultimately felt that cooking should be considered a secondary crafting group in which all players are able to cook items.

    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. 38 minutes ago, bionicchop2 said:

    Defenders have an advantage in most situations. I am not sure letting the entire server teleport to a location as soon as an enemy shows up would serve any kind of purpose.

    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. On 9/6/2019 at 11:01 PM, mandalore said:

    It’s very complicated and deserves more nuance than they are incompetent.  I think at its core CF is trying to be too many games, appeal to too many genres and doesn’t clearly identify itself.  Is it a moba heavy mmo? No.  Is it a PvP mmo?  No.  Is it a PvP survival game?  No.  Is it a group PvP siege game?  Sometimes but then part of the pop doesn’t want that.  Is it a solo gank/harvest simulator?  Some of the time yea but that’s not what it was marketed as, what it claims to be and where it comes from so it’s confusing.  


    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. 41 minutes ago, mandalore said:

    I don't think these are as viable of solutions as you do.  Gracen, WeaponsX and the rest of the 10th (they go by UxA now) all played SB and small guilds didn't really have a place in the ecosystem of guilds.  They either hide on the sidelines, got absorbed or got smashed and quit: I see nothing different that can prevent that.

    Lets say there are 20 servers at launch, each with different time zones, different expected lifespans and a smattering of faction/dregs and each of those servers has 2,000-3,000 players (the dream).  Your expectation is that the find a way to measure both regular and irregular mechanics to accurately "tier" players to prevent stacking and I don't think you can accuracy track the irregular aspect of warfare and logistics that will help shape the battlefield.  This isn't a moba where the team has the same amount of people and are of relative skill.  How do you track a spies metric?  How about people who play for politics and sabotage?  Commanders?  Scouts?  Logistics?  Theorycrafting?  CF isn't a game of personal skill.  What you bring to the fight, what they have geared, what the commander leading that force does are all just as important as somebody's personal skill.  MOBA's lack all of that, it's easy to track my moba metrics: they are static.  After a few campaigns have ended then they can start adding victories to the metric (track it by guild/account) and then limit some campaigns with a few of those but even that's wonky imo.  Not every campaign will be the same length so is somebody who has won 3 two week campaigns better than somebody who barely lost a 6 month campaign?

    Travian games isn't part of CF anymore.  That's an odd connection to bring up.  I also don't think Koster has been involved past the kickstarter so I'm not sure how influential his ideas from 3+ years or how closely they followed his ideas. 

    CF is a game struggling to not be about Uncle Bob but almost every mechanic it has supports it.  Imports = Uncle Bob.  Winning Guilds carrying over their player knowledge, logistics chains and command knowledge = Uncle Bob.  Any system that allows the winner to carry over advantages from its victories to the next campaign will be Uncle Bob imo.  If I was them I'd allow exports to EK's but I'd be stingy as custard with imports.  CF is too esoteric too allow any advantages to be carried over.  Small guilds claiming sovereignty they can neither protect or enforce is another issue. 

    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. 45 minutes ago, mandalore said:

    Wouldn’t you think after losing 9+ fights that maybe you’re doing it wrong?  I don’t mean your guild I mean anybody.  If I’m playing league and I lose 9 straight games I have to acknowledge that some of that is on me and I need to change something.  If guilds are struggling with 20 man guilds in faction it’s going to suck with 50 man guilds in dregs.  

    I empathize with it not being fun.   It hasn’t been fun for me for a while Bc of the forced faction play.  

    Do you think this game is going to work for small guilds?  Shadowbane def didn’t work for them.  Will CF? 

    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.

    1. 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. 
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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. On 9/5/2019 at 7:42 AM, mandalore said:


    Whats the sac value of a trial?  


    They are so defeated by 2 20 man guilds that they would rather tank a trial than rally cohesively and unified against a competitive force.  CF is about alliances, people should make them instead of throwing a tantrum because they have lost 9 (+ ?) campaigns because they would rather act like a horde than an army.  

    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. 16 hours ago, Audin said:

    I would make it so that Forts no longer gave points every 10 minutes or whatever it is currently.  Instead, make it so that all the points are accrued during the Fort siege window.  Meaning if the faction wants to gain points from said fort they'll need to actively hold the fort to accrue maximum points during the siege window.  Basically a king of the hill scenario.

    Example: 2 hour siege window

    Faction A holds fort for 25 minutes        1,250 points

    Faction B holds fort for 70 minutes-       3,500 points

    Faction C holds for for 25 minutes         1,250 points


    I would develop the fort siege system even further by having small points of interest in the vicinity of the fort that could be captured at lower value to generate points as opposed to just one circle.


    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.



  15. 7 minutes ago, miraluna said:

    Having a schedule system for objectives is good, and it does help with the nightcapping issues that is so frustrating in Survival games, or any territory control scenario like GW2 WvW.

    This issue though is really a hardcore players problem:

    I'm not sure that casual players have burnout, and for that segment of the playerbase it's more important to make sure there is fun content available when they can play. Once the Dregs is open for hardcore players (and 3-Faction has it's intended audience) ACE can tweak the schedule again if needed. It might turn out that nightly sieges are better in 3-faction but hard to tell with low testing pops. Either way, now ACE has a nice tool they can use to make the adjustments.

    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.

  16. 3 minutes ago, Crushedvelvet said:

    I personally dislike this fort/siege schedule as it only fixed a few minor things like back capping, and created a slew of new headaches.

    1 - yes night capping forts is dead.....bc no pvp allowed at 98% of forts lol, theres only one objective fort to fight over for 17 out of 24 hrs of the day.... in 6 zones......really, really, boring and anti sandbox feel going on.

    This also removes any strategy for map movement or control as you are literally forced and pointed to what you have to fight over or care about.

    This directly helps the faction with the more active player base as now they know exactly where to stack their troops and what they have to defend. (as admitted by most balance they are having an easier time keeping stuff capped)(reference scoreboard)


    The 5 man fort group now cant use geography and movement as a weapon to get around numbers, they are forced into non winning fights or, to not pvp and farm n craft to try to eliminate any numbers advantages with gear n vessel upgrades.

    Also now the “night capping” is just towers and gy’s, it definately still exists, as shown by wb roaming group doing towers last night at 2 am in marq with 7 dudes (not funneled to active fort bc forts are pointless still)

    This directly ties to why the campaign map is dead, pvp has no purpose for character progression or reward and you can make epics in gods reach and campaign temple and eks, why would any one trying to get geared up risk getting slaughtered when you have designed the game to have more safe havens than pvp locations? No one is on campaign because of this, it is by design advantageous to not pvp or be in pvp locations.

    2 - i agree on back capping being dead and this being a good thing, shorter fort timers might make the last ten minute strat be less viable if fort windows were only 30 mins? more people might d up for 25 mins over 55 mins etc.

    3 - reduced pvp siege burnout is now replaced with pvp boredom.

    fort locks and less towers have removed almost all campaign map participation, with a main reason being they are all still absolutely pointless for account/character progression.

    Why would me and a buddy go try capping towers when we could be farming up gear or vessels for guildmates or factionmates, there is no reward to pvp only risk and detrimental gear hits.

    The game in current format is minecraft with a 5 hr pvp window.

    4 - circle standing time is much improved, good job 

    5 - Respawn cap points have all the same problems forts n towers do, usually they have no strategic purpose bc, capping alerts enemies to the zone, usually not near a valuable objective, and also again they do nothing for a characters development. gy’s are pointless, besides in siege zones during 10-11 if you dont have a fort. 

    All in all im really surprised how vocal some are in support of these mechanics because it sure seems like its killing the pvp and world persistence. There are far to many hideouts for people to progress outside of pvp, and far to little pvp objectives with meaningful purpose that people care and want to fight for. Fights for just points on the scoreboard hasn’ t worked for 6 months. Make pvp have a purpose towards something and people will pvp, until then, this is what crowfall campaigns will look like.

    Big yes on all the bold points.


  17. 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.


  18. 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.

  19. 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". 

  20. 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.

  • Create New...