• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About canvox

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

423 profile views
  1. Yeah and then destro speed determines how many, I can dig that.
  2. Yeah maybe like a "bonus timer" that ticks down to 0 after you start hitting. I think resolving armor, rank, penetration, skill, and QOL in a way that both isn't boring & also doesn't let you own rank 9 with a basic hammer is something ACE has struggled with, and something like this would be a good solution. Take on a high-rank node with trash and you lose out, but even in the worst case you won't be there all day. Then have motherlodes not have higher yield based on bonus, but instead smash up into 1-3 small nodes that the yield miner can clean up. Faster destruction = richer nodes. Decoupling damage & yield in motherlodes is priority 1 for making them not be despised imo.
  3. This looks really great. My main issue is exemplified by the weak spot chance/power stats. Reducing TTK for nodes if you remain engaged is such a great idea and will make a huge difference in making things fun. However, nodes are scanty enough & respawns are long enough that node TTK basically has 0 impact on harvesting yield. So, why would I prioritize weak spot stats when they have no impact on harvesting yield? A ton of the gathering discs work like this, giving more stamina, adding ways to get stamina, adding weak points, destroying the node faster. Okay, so you stack all these up and, and now you can kill the node super fast and then like, do what? There's nothing to do afterward. These seem to be built around your test environment where lower node TTK = higher yield. But that's not how the game you built actually works. The funniest quote from the Q&A was "yeah we're going to have to balance that so you can't keep 100% uptime". I mean, not really, right? Uptime's main bottleneck has nothing to do with stamina or mining speed. You could add a minor discipline that just made harvesting not consume stamina and it would not really impact balance for anyone except harvesting knights. Miner/Logger/Etc.: +1 Plentiful Harvest Major is everything I've ever wanted and more. This ensures that from the moment I plug in my first advanced tree +Plentiful I'm looking at potentially 4 Plentiful and from the moment I finish my first subtree I'm looking at 5. There's a clear moment for shutting off Laborer, when we get access to the major + either harvest leadership or potion production. The capstone's +Plentiful bonus is now more about reclaiming a major slot than providing a badly-needed bonus two years in. All this while maintaining specialization. Basically every problem I had with PH advancement is fixed now. The node TTK passive is just icing on the cake, and much appreciated. Connoisseur/Survivalist: Connoisseur is a great discpline. Seems weird as a major but I guess if the boosts are significant then that's fine. I'd rather see Finer Things as a minor with other similar minors for boosting dust, higher low-qual volume, and lower volume but higher quality chance. Stuff like that. Make them work like bard songs where only one can be active at a time. I'd hate to see Finer Things on a major just because it's strapped to a 17th TTK-reducing ability, only this time it consumes an item. Same with Survivalist. Foreman: Foreman is I guess the main exception here- TTK makes a material difference in being able to take down motherlodes at all, although as others have pointed out, the yield benefits of doing so are extremely iffy. Lead From the Front is the most useless passive imaginable. It seems to be built around the idea that you are with multiple other dedicated harvesters working on several nodes together. ???why??? Why would anyone do this, given the current game? Allowing anyone other than the most adept harvester to work on a node is a recipe for missed crits and regret. Like I guess if I was spec'd into tin and my friend was spec'd into copper and we happened to find a copper and tin cluster right next to each other Lead From The Front might be useful, but.... like how often is that going to happen? You guys need to decide if the harvesting paradigm for Crowfall is an EVE thing where resource nodes are so plentiful that having as many people as possible show up and mine is helpful, and TTK improvements make a big difference in yield, or whether the harvesting paradigm is how it currently works where one guy with as many relevant yield bonuses as possible mines 8 nodes and then you spent 3 minutes moving somewhere else. The fact that it currently works like the latter is the main reason that nobody likes motherlodes, among other things. One solution would be to make motherlodes not have a health bar per se, but rather a visible timer after you start hitting them. Chunks fall off the motherlode as you deal damage and become regular nodes, so a yield-miner takes on the small nodes and damage-miners with a team of Foreman-empowered schlubs take on the mother. Since motherlodes don't have loot yields, they just accept damage, you don't have to worry about one of the schlubs eating the loot roll. Gems could be a swing proc. This would add a place for these TTK-focused abilities to go, as well as add the group-based harvesting content you seem to want. Since dealing more damage doesn't just exhaust the node faster (as it currently does) but instead give you more basic nodes before the motherlode expires, it'd allow some amount of variation of builds. Motherlodes should probably be somewhat rarer & bigger in this case, with current motherlodes becoming just double-HP/double-yield basic nodes to make node clusters more visible. Motherlodes should probably be temporary events to discourage people from hanging around trying to put together a "perfect" group to take them down, and spur them to more immediate action. I would love to be able to put together an ad-hoc 3 man group with 1 Foreman+Miner to pick up nodes while the other two bang it out in combat spec. I'd love to put together a "static" crew that runs every week with 1 yield/foreman harvester, and 4 stamina/weakspot harvesters with a mob of bodyguards. Maybe nodes would spawn too fast with a group like that and I'd have to revisit the relative importance of yield vs TTK, who knows? Lookout: Lookout seems like a good compromise on recent dizzy discussion, and it comes with a little TTK bonus, just like Miner/Logger/etc. This is my favorite "genre" of these disciplines: give me something materially great, then sweeten it with a TTK reduction. Conclusion: Overall I want to emphasize that I really do like these changes. It just seems like reduced node TTK, which is a QOL change, is being treated as something valuable we should be willing to trade stuff for, when my experience in this game is exactly the opposite- even with the insanely high TTKs that exist now, I don't feel like it's impacting my yield whatsoever. So reducing TTK does not appear to provide any material benefit to me. I'd like lower TTK, and coupling it with something I'd kill for like +1 PH or Dizzy immunity is a great, great thing to do. But I'm not going to trade combat effectiveness for lower TTK, and I'm sure as hell not going to trade yield. I don't think anyone else would either. Maybe with the introduction of "combat harvesting" during sieges these skills will become more valuable, but right now they seem super iffy, so it sucks that they make up the bulk of our options.
  4. Keeps are the safest place on the map to keep stuff, do crafting, etc. and expect it will still be present the next time you log in. The robustness of keeps are offset by their distance from the action- if the safest place was also right in the mix, logistics & forts would be less im portant.
  5. Tug-o-war Campaign

    I think the way it works is fine as long as victory-dependant resources change hands only occasionally & owning resources translates into materials gains (which will be the case once the mechanics are filled out). Forts undermine this currently.
  6. I think the biggest problems are represented by the forts. There are a lot of them, even if the game is populated in the way you like, there will always be cheesy ways of capturing them, and I get the impression that that's ok. Even without the cheese, it's always going to be a switch that you can flip if you happen to be online lookings for trouble, whereas keeps require a lot of preparation, etc. to attack. The idea is that a structure you take should provide, long-term, more benefits than the cost of defending it. That might be the case with keeps if people are online to defend against sieges. I still think the keep siege system should have schedule-based sieging like EVE citadels but whatever. It's never going to be the case with forts. Forts are intended to change hands regularly. So here's my thing about keeps vs. forts: with keeps you can get this axis and alllies game going where every keep you take contributes to a long-term victory at the end of the campaign. You can build a movement that goes somewhere and results in victory. And if you do that, the things you take at the beginning absolutely matter at the end. Forts are never going to work this way, though, because they're not supposed to. And the problem is, if I can just go cap a bunch of forts and move the slider in a meaningful way, that makes keeps less functional too. Devs need to start thinking of logistical benefits for holding forts, and remove them from the tug of war calculations. Obviously they will allow some practical benefits like the ability to house thralls, store items, do crafting, etc. Requiring a nearby fort to be able to siege effectively due to logistical considerations makes them important, so making sure that keep attack & defend have heavy logistical requirements will help their usefulness. Make the protection gates for keeps near the road be attached to guard forts, so you can't take stuff along the road toward a keep unless you own one of the forts. Giving relics additional bonuses if you remain within a certain distance of them while the buff is active can make forts vital relic platforms for things like high-throughput gathering, blueprint fishing, etc. Maybe just give stacking bonuses from a fort the longer you hold it, like within N parcels get an increasing buff of some sort. The point is, make holding forts useful, make defending them worthwhile, make clearing forts be a fun thing you can do to the enemy at the drop of a hat, but don't let them be an easy way to change the current victor- it's the main thing driving the impression of the endgame as the only thing that matters, and it makes both keeps and forts fail at the thing they're each supposed to be doing.
  7. Oh, yeah, papa was a rolling stone.
  8. Make Keeps Worth Keeping

    Yeah I mean, local banking, advanced crafting at stations, also increased emphasis on thralls & factories are all going to mean that "stable" structures are sought after, and forts aren't that.
  9. Forgot to mention last week but slag nodes don't drop ore at 100% at Plentiful 2 like other nodes do.
  10. Tomes P2W Model

    This was covered in the Q&A on Tuesday: you cannot do that.
  11. Tomes P2W Model

    I am not aware of any MMO in history that does not double dip into player pockets, given that even classic MMOs had both a box price and subscription model. Replacing the subscription with something that's not a subscription would not be necessary if you could sustain a large enough population for a game to function on subscriptions alone, but you can't. It's not about some absolute metric of quality, everquest 1 wouldn't meet the bar today but it did in 2001. Games are more expensive, people have less disposable income than they did 20 years ago, and survival shooters are the time sink du jour of teenagers and college students who filled the benches of MMOs 15 years ago. Modern MMO business models are about filling the benches so that paying customers can have fun, and structuring your income draw from customers to represent the increasingly-unequal incomes of those customers. Offering a playable version of the game to people who can't afford a regular purchase is the only way you fill the benches, and taking whatever cash from those willing to hand it over is how you fund the project. You can call it buying power or whatever but the question is, "is it fun to play the game without a monthly sub, are people who can't afford a sub going to have a good time" and the answer is, yeah. You get to do the things that are your top priority, you just don't get to do the things that are your secondary priority. If you find a quarter million people with $180/year to spend on a single game under a rock somewhere or come up with another solution let us know.
  12. Sorry can't log in atm to check myself: - What happens when you bring control to 0, does nobody own it? - How does it work if balance & an allied faction are both standing in the area?
  13. Tomes P2W Model

    As a socialist, I endorse this idea- if you don't believe money should buy power, you are a socialist & should join me. However, as a socialist I understand that people are forced to engage in contradictions in order to survive in the corrosive system of capitalism, so as much as I'd love the employees of artcraft to be able to eat and live under a roof just because people love & play this game, and people could pay this game for free, that is not the economic system we labor under. Additionally, as someone who's got $15 to spend on MMOs each month, I'd love if hustling could be separated from game mechanics, but that is not the capitalist market landscape we labor under either. Artcraft will have to incorporate money hustle into the game mechanics for the same currently-intractable reasons that they have to hustle for money at all: capitalism doesn't care about your moral framework. So instead of screaming into the void of an uncaring system, please try to come up with solutions that are compatible with real life. Or, you know, advocate for socialism so we can eliminate cash from the game entirely, I'm down with that.
  14. I would love that, provided it's worth it. Making choices with your build (choices you can always change later if you don't like it, instead of after wasting months) is a good way to make meaningful choices without screwing anyone.
  15. I think remove hold F is a requirement, just so you can socialize. Maybe leave it the same otherwise, just you can type or whatever while you're mining. Increase the maximum damage to 25 so great picks can wreck nodes. If necessary increase either the base +skill on toolstones or the +skill from skill nodes so that a solid blue-quality pick can bring you down to like 8 swings per rank 7 node. Really let us blow them away. Then, imo, go all-in on gathering disciplines. Let's get pick/hammer/axe weapon disciplines that add harvesting abilities that let you stay in combat and in motion if you want, toggling on a free-motion harvest but putting you into combat. Let's get major disciplines that change destruction levels to 80/60/40/20 instead of 75/50/25, or a major that gives you a bar action that lets you upgrade a small node to a higher rank. Let's get a major that gives us a soul power ability that gains soul when you harvest & is an AOE insta-miner, doobers flying everywhere. Let's see some really crazy poorly made socks.