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

Kastor

Testers
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kastor

  • Rank
    Magpie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

469 profile views
  1. I don't think Black Mantle would be such a issue if gameplay didn't revolve around mass healing so much. Currently healing is treated as life support, of course anything that cuts it off will be strong.
  2. It's also worth noting that there are more reasons to change a thing than to change it's power level. Often a class or otherwise will feel unbalanced within itself. If a less interesting part of a class is strong while it's interesting and thematic segments are weak then it should be re balanced to change that with a corresponding nerf and buff. That might make the class weaker or stronger compared to the other class but this and that are two different things.
  3. Nerfs and Buffs are both required to achieve a balanced game design. A buff only approach is not functional in a game with this many moving pieces. If I have 20 options and one of them is overpowered then buffing the other 19 to compensate is a gross misuse of developer time. Game balance is putting all options on a graph finding the best and worst outliers and giving them a nerf or buff to bring them towards the center. Rinse and repeat. They may sound like a gross oversimplification but that's the key idea. If you play the best class expect a nerf to remove your crutch, if you play the worst class look forward to riding the wave of buff.
  4. I advocate such a system, I use a similar -1 to 4 (almost 0 to 5) system for my pen and paper RPGs. I have strength pool into carry capacity, recoil, melee damage and so on. However I can do all this because I know I'm working on a system of -1 to 4 where starting characters can have up to 3 points in a attribute. Crowfall is a different type of game, all of the attributes are very high capped. We work on a system of 1 to 250 where starting players have less than 100 in each stat. It's a upwards progression system rather than a trade-off system like my game and SCUM. A highlevel character won't choose between str and dex, he'll have both and the rest. If we assign addition traits to the attributes then those high level players will be far to much to deal with. Can we take some things from it? maybe, maybe. Can we go whole hog? no. It's the wrong sort of game to have every single stat linked to an attribute.
  5. Pfffttt hahahahaha. Frykka, your a blast as always. A minor quality of life change = easy mode. Difficulty is inherent to the complex pvp combat, not the obtuse menu systems, they're just tedious, not difficult.
  6. This! I think we can all agree that what's good for EA is bad for everyone. As the prices to make a modern game go up then crowdfunding and all it entails is a absolute must. I managed to wait for Elite: Dangerous to get up to spec 4 years after I brought it, I can wait for this. (though I feel really bad for all those star citizen suckers.)
  7. I too am pretty worried about the combat. That said I live in New Zealand so my ping to the American servers is... substandard (and this game really doesn't deal with ping well). But to me it seems overly mobile. All the dodges are massive making it trivial to relocate. As such many tactics are simply sidestepped.
  8. And add similar abilities to other classes? I don't think relying on one class to solve a game wide issue will be good in the long run. Thank you for understanding (glares at the two that did not). As for the solution, I'm not so sure about that anymore. I used to think that just dropping the numbers bit by bit would be the best choice but now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, we can nerf all of the discipline based healing as much as we want but if we apply that same hit to the druid/cleric then they may begin to feel ineffectual to play as. As core classes they need to be competitive to ensure gameplay is varied. That said, just dropping the numbers might work out just fine but i'd like to see what over approaches the community can come up with, do you have any other ideas?
  9. There's a good chance this will blow up in my face. I accept that possibility. On this forum and on may other game forums many posts on threads fall into three categories or a combination there of. Accuse the game of a problem. Suggest a half baked solution. Dismiss the problem or others solutions. Hold up, don't get defensive, I'm not pointing fingers, I'd just like to try something else. I'm gonna post a test case problem below. If you don't agree that it's a problem, that's okay, this isn't a post about deciding if it's a problem or not, this is a thread about refining the possible solutions to the perceived problem. If the devs don't see it as a problem then they can ignore our solutions and if they do see it as a problem... they can still ignore our solutions. It's more about the exercise of refining solutions than actually changing the game. To be clear, I want insight on how people would best fix this hypothetical problem. If you are going to say the hypothetical problem isn't a problem then please excuse yourself from the thread. Pretty please. If you do have ideas on how to fix the hypothetical problem then read on. Next I don't want the straight out shooting down of other peoples ideas. If you don't like a idea compare it to a different idea or refine the idea to solve the issue you don't like. I'm hoping doing it this way will gradually improve the quality of the suggestions as the post goes on. Hypothetical Problem: It is possible that there is to much in-combat healing leading to exceptionally long group fights with no upper limit. Additionally simply nerfing the healing output of support classes would require a considerable rework of them and be a blow to healing focused players. It is also possible that this is not a problem, I am not here to argue that case, I am just here to find and refine theoretical solutions. (and also to judge the effectiveness of this thread format)
  10. STAWMAN! I said you want an above average player, not a "crappy player" or a "below average player". You want someone who understands that the deep intricacies exist, but not someone who wants to cater to them. And actually no, I don't want Grubby or Dendi making games as they would make games that have too high a skill curve to be approachable to the average players.
  11. I agree with Pope, the best PvP designers are not the best PvP players, not by a long shot. The perfect PvP designer sits with his skill just above that of the average skill of the player base. That way he can design things to benefit his particular level of skill and in turn have them benefit the majority of the player base. He also needs a lot of general game design experience as well, obviously. The ideas of the highest skill echelons of the playerbase are the ideas that you explicitly do NOT want to listen too. They typically represent a very small chunk of the player base and the majority of their ideas undermine the entertainment of the lower levels of the player base. They typically glorify the skill=power (as a linear equation that is) mentality, when really optimal game design is log(skill)=power. If anything the feedback one should take from highest skill players is to invert their feedback. Prosniper84 wants to make 360 no-scopes more powerful? It'll probably be to the benefit of the player base if we dump un-scoped accuracy, so that Prosniper84 and his friends don't curbstomp so hard. In general the biggest example of this is raising or lowering the skill ceiling. Pro players ALWAYS want to raise the skill ceiling, as it gives them more room to grow and helps them stand more clearly above the rest. If they have their way however then many mid tier players will undervalue themselves, perceive the skill climb as being insurmountable and/or get jaded by being curb stomped by the elite, all of which can lead to them dropping the game. Games are always about people having fun, the more the better (both fun and people), it's not worth increasing the fun for a tiny chunk of your fan base at the cost of decreasing it for the majority. edit: Just noting that there is also a political lesson here, I won't get into it here but you can probably work it out.
  12. Be fair... eyelashes can have a conclusive effect. Just pointing out that we are missing a class, not a race. We have 12 races and 11 classes
  13. I definitley like to see a mage-tank type character that specializes in barrier shields like overwatch, that would be cool. But for now I'm going to focus on how almost there the knight is compared to Zarya. He's basically a melee version of her already, he's got the damage bonus from shield mechanic and he even has a melee range gravitation surge as his ultimate. Now he just needs a melee range shield other and he'd actually be a complete tank.
  14. I'd personally like a much more grounded approach to tanking, at least for the knight, leave the taunts and defense aura to the Templar. Simply put I'd like the knights guard to have a small AOE, such that the closest ally within... i dunno, five, ten meters gain the damage reduction from the knight as well as charge up the knights shield meter when they are hit. Currently the knight plays very similarly to Zarya from Overwatch, you try to get people to hit you when you are shielded and then strike them back with the damage bonus that gives, however unlike Zarya the knight cannot apply that shield to other people, which is critical to Zarya's design.
  15. I do think that the ranger has a bit to much going on. I feel like the traps (which i realize are not part of the problem) for example arn't really required. They would make a awesome discipline. I also have some pretty strong views about their suppression AOE. Easily one of the strongest AOE CCs in the game... and on a DPS class? This is something I'd rather see on a tank or support.
×
×
  • Create New...