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

KrakkenSmacken

ACE Development Partner & Investor
  • Content Count

    5,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    76

Everything posted by KrakkenSmacken

  1. 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.
  2. They also have to test the management of test/live dichotomy, and there are many/most players that will play what they think of as "live" like it's a full game, while they would never touch a "test" server.
  3. 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.
  4. I have NEVER liked the "engage in combat, charge your ultimate" model as it's designed. It's not FUN, and it's not adding anything strategically. Anyone who hasn't charged an ultimate before a fight against... something, even just fort walls, your doing it wrong. I think either the ultimate should have a decay rate, or should just be on a set long timer rather than a "combat activity" charge.
  5. Todd has talked about werewolves before, but new races of any type are definitely a post live thing.
  6. Looking at these, I really don't see how/why a ballista even has a long term AOE. That seems more the purview of a pitch throwing catapult. Ballista should be devastating, but instant. A difficult to aim narrow band of death that streaks rapidly, and disappears just as quick.
  7. On number one, perhaps the effect of not paying upkeep, could be more vulnerability windows. If your not paying your upkeep, then you can be attacked more often. You can never pay enough to keep the location fully protected, but if you don't pay the upkeep they could be made to me easier to flip.
  8. Yup, that's a problem for factions. Can't put in any sharp objects the kids can poke their eyes out with.
  9. Turn off all FF protection from all siege gear. Point it at the tree room, and watch your tree burn. I think that might be reasonable. I think it's the personal powers that have built with group limit sizes in mind. Siege gear could easily be designed around the idea you could do as much damage to your side as theirs if your not careful.
  10. Do you realize this is a pay to play game? Every "character" is going to cost them real $$ to buy a new account, and with the way things are named, with forum, chat, and in game name always being the same, there will be literally no hiding from ACE. Break a no spam policy, ACE gets money from them buying a replacement account. If spamming trade becomes prolific, ACE can afford to hire full time people just to block those accounts, because each account blocked will help pay for that persons wages. But really, after a couple of dozen times of it costing the spammers, they will realize it's not worth it financially. EDIT: Oh look, this CCard was used to by three spam accounts, lets block purchases from that card in the future. With a policy like that in place, the spamer/farmers now have to play CC merry go round to try to bypass. It's not nearly as hard as you think to identify and isolate specific bad actors when money is changing hands on account creation. Your suggestion of stopping player trade is simply cutting off a nose to spite the face. This project has been funded by people wanting everything you are currently suggesting be removed. "Player driven economy" is foundational to what CF is. Maybe you are looking for a different game.
  11. Being pre-alpha, asking to bring back the population is a premature request, really. The problems can not be laid at the feet of the passive tree, or even the current gear divide. There are several that I can see right off the top, that need to be addressed before Beta, which is the correct time to "bring back the population". New player experience. The forced interdependence has created may points of "can't go forward at all without another player/group", VERY early in the players experience. This has to be addressed, and is being worked on now. Throne war. There are not enough mechanics in place to make it interesting. No "Longest Road (Settlers of Catan)" equivalents, no victory points for anything but keeps/forts and camps. Without some TLC into what is effectively the RTS elements of the game, it's not really delivering on it's promise as a conquest/dominance game that has ways to deal with Uncle Bob. Performance. With zone caps where they are (low), and players still experiencing issues after the 5.8 controller update in group combat, the user experience from that point of view could not survive if thousands of players all decided to show up and start playing. Bands (or the Dregs). A big part of why things in the faction world are so skewed, is the players that would normally run in dregs, and occupying the faction bands. Quality/power filters. When those come into play, segregating the white geared from the purple will be possible. Right now, not so much. There are simply too many missing pieces still to "bring back the population". It would be like opening a mall with no stores. I think when enough of the above are fixed, especially item 1, more of the "lookie loos" will stick around longer than it takes them to hit the first stopper and quit.
  12. 2016 video on Blue Prints.
  13. Gone because they are no longer necessary. Recipes put back onto the tables, so anyone can make anything, just really crappy versions. So less "getting started" interdependence because you won't get totally stopped by not having a "padded leather" and access to a leather crafters.
  14. FYI, for those that don't know, ACE is pulling those manually currently. This is part of the testing and balancing process, to find out details about all the different victory conditions, and what focused players that do care will end up doing to the scores. The territory points are there as a base line, and ACE is trying to figure out what weight to give to the other metrics. It would not do for a single crafted item to be worth more points than holding a fort of over 24hrs.
  15. @nblottie I think maybe the recommended level text color should match a recommended "quality" level of vessel and gear as well, with a mouse over with a text description.
  16. One of the problems with any model that has a lack of points, is that hunger is the lore "clock" we are all fighting against. But there are other models out there. For example travian has a "world wonder" goal. https://travian.fandom.com/wiki/World_Wonder I wonder if something like that could work as world ending option eventually Build a giant statue to your god, with a periodic vulnerability window that enemies can use to try to knock it over with siege gear.
  17. That's usually what a pencil box means (seen in the article images) and I for one will be very happy with that change.
  18. It's not the points that are causing the fun problem. There are many many factors to why things are in a rough to play state, here are just a few. Wipes and expected wipes, Effort required to become competitive gear wise Frequent whiplash inducing balance changes, both mechanically in terms of race/class powers, and economically with things like critters not dropping gold before the replacement of "you can sell anything to AI vendors" was in place. Summer has started, so populations naturally drop off as the weather warms up. Bank space. That one missing feature adds a whole lot more squeeze requirement before you get to the juice. Standing in circles for 20 minutes is not fun or good game play, but that's what is often required to get points. I could go on, but in reality, it's not the points or winning that's the problem, that's been part of the original idea for the game since day one, it's the paths needed to be taken by players to get the points that's causing the "un-fun" state.
  19. Maybe that could work. Part of the missing piece, is that other than points and a nebulous idea about access, there are no direct personal or guild level rewards for participation in PvP. A captured keep by an ally guild is just as valuable to me materially as one I took myself. So if I'm on the Uncle Bob side, why bother fighting, especially for forts which we have plenty of, and if I am on the slippery slope side also why bother fighting, because I can just export to EK and craft there? There needs to be some tangible, limited resources other than points and access to fight over. Export tokens happens to be one I have been rather fond of suggesting for quite some time.
  20. That sort of describes a part of the population problem. All of your conflict scenarios here assume everyone is on at the same time to fill all those spots. One extra open chair in the musical chair dance, and everyone has a place to sit. One potential option would for there to be a "victory chest" of some sort for all the conflicted spots. Maybe the "Iron Keep" is not just iron because it has Iron around it, but also because at the end of every siege there is an Iron Chest that (guild leaders only) can open like those in the wild, loaded with iron resource goodies, like 100d4 rolls on the crit iron 10 PH 5 table. Then you would be fighting not to claim just an area to harvest, but to claim actual resources, and the alliances would have to agree on who gets what from the big chest.
  21. Ironically enough, the steep interdependencies and high guild requirements for a wide variety of resources, plays against POI importance being high enough to generate PvP as well. If -W- is camping the iron mother loads, and HoA is camping the Granite, it's time to head to the forest and skin cats, or maybe head to the graves and dig bodies. -W- and HoA will not be at those locations forever, so waiting for a more quiet time at specific locations is an option. War camps have generated some conflict, mostly because they are where a very specific, required, and only available periodically resource (runes and tools) can be found. Another part of the problem is, when your engaged in PvP, your spending harvesting opportunity cost time as well. When harvesting, you really don't want conflict, because that will only impede your ability to obtain the goal you are after.
  22. From another thread, "activity" could simply be kills of other members of the tribe. Use the current sixty minute timer, but every time a tribe member dies, the timer gets a minute knocked off.
  23. Guard choice in factions is a bit tricky, because bad actors can make bad choices, no matter when that choice is made. If the choice is at capture time, and for example it's a hippo interaction, it then becomes a click race to see who can interact before the faction spy manages to put in the "wrong" choice. If there is an upgrade cycle, then the same applies for every step of the upgrade. If there is a way to switch, then that bad actor can act at any time. Much better would be simply defining the variance by location, maybe with only one or two options that are equally good at the intended locations role. For example, it would be horrible for a guard hippo on the fort wall corner to be a templar. No range, no pull, no reason to expect close by allies to group heal. Total dud. So that hippo should only have range classes as an option. Additionally, a lack of synergy could also be done, if for example the fort room could be one of 1-5 melee/close range classes (assuming they become mobal like the camp AI), but if no healer melee class was selected for any of the hippos, then a key piece of the group puzzle could be missing, so even if the options are limited by each hippo, a bad actor could still mess with it if those options are not very narrow, and possibly cross dependent. (E.G The first three hippos in the fort room are knights, fourth can only be a cleric, druid or templar). Not sure that the juice is worth the squeeze on that engineering work, at least not for worlds like factions that can have people on the same faction be bad actors you can't do anything about. That leads me to a question actually. What are the group mechanics as it relates to AI? Are AI of the same faction considered in the same group for purposes of heals/buffs, or do they have the same 5 per group limitation?
  24. It would even be cool if they were named for what was local. "The Iron Keep", or the "Granite Keep".
  25. Here is an idea for an outpost type generation. If your order of operations when generating "resource guard" outposts was to first plant the outpost, then generate a bunch of resource nodes around it, it might feel like someone set up the outpost because of the resources close by. I know from my own behavior, if there are resources close by, I tend to cap the outpost.
×
×
  • Create New...