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

mivius

Testers
  • Content Count

    292
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Tyrant in 5.110 TEST Bug Reports for 4/21/20   
    Woodworking (uncertain if it affects other ts')- making Wooden Boards only uses my basic crafting experimentation & exp points (I am 100% trained in woodworking + disc.) - I have not tried other sub-combines as I don't want to waste more materials or time.
  2. Like
    mivius got a reaction from APE in Brutal, but honest question...   
    So I feel the need to preface this with a couple of things...
    I am coming up on 5 years of watching, waiting, reading, testing...as are a good number of you.
    If you are a "fanboi", or a blind faith follower, you should stop reading now, as this will be upsetting, and your commentary will fall upon as deaf ears as my words here will upon yours.
    I am going to ask the question first, and list some (and please note, I am specifically being very concise thereafter, this is, not by far, a comprehensive list).
    I am aware this is "pre -alpha", hiding behind such a tag will not diminish the relevancy.
    Simply:  Why will people come play this game? More importantly? What will keep them here?
    First, the game is not what we were "promised".  While I have read the post(s) trivializing the pve 'grind', I throw my hat in the ring that we were assured there would be NO pve grind.  Some > 0, no matter how you cut it, and the changes that brings vary in people's opinion on significance, but it has SOME effect, which is undeniable. The "grind" was to be resources, or pvp . Let's not forget to mention entering a campaign is barred if you're not lvl 20, so it is significant enough to have induced a hard stop/bar mechanic unless you pve level. 
    There were supposed to be NO dropped gear, or coins, it was 100% supposed to in the hands of the players, again, we've been lied to numerous times. (I don't care about business decisions, your word is your word, ACE's has thus far been broken too many times to hold any value.)
    Necromancy has turned out to be at least as OP as feared, perhaps more-so now that they do not poof when something ends, and do not decay.
    Most of the mechanics are unimaginitive, I'd go so far as to say "lazy" when it comes to the CC/counter-CC 'mini-game', just rehashing of tired tropes.
    "Uncle Bob" isn't  eliminated through dying worlds, as "Uncle Bob" is just the people who get VIP training from day1. 
    The ONLY interesting/new mechanic is the "dying worlds", otherwise we are just playing a mash-up of rehashed ideas, and the touted 'skill' has been negated by following the same tired patterns we have all seen before.
    Are dying worlds 'cool' enough to keep people's interest?  It's not longer just a pvp game, and sieges offer exactly what that's new, refreshing, and interesting enough not to get tired after a few cycles?  Not much.
    The long and short of it is that I would not have scraped together what I could to support a Kickstarter for the game as presented today as I did 5 years ago. The things that I found most interesting no longer apply, or the easy way out has been taken, and I've gotten rehashed blah instead.
    And while a good online/other PR campaign might raise curiosity enough for people to log in to check the game out, what is so different here to keep people?
    I remember at one point they were more concerned with developing those awesome ideas, even if it meant more limited 'commercial success', but I feel they've sold out, and likely to their, our, and the game's peril.
    Where is the game we were lured in and sold on?   Because what Crowfall is shaping up as is not that by a country mile...
     
     
     
  3. Like
    mivius got a reaction from JamesGoblin in The First Campaign - Official discussion thread   
    Didn't see this asked (and i didn't see it indicated either, but..):
    Will there be a skill wipe?
    Also: Is the ally for Balance hard-coded on change?   This derives from two ideas, first being, if you've pvp'd before, you know there is always at least one 'derp' on your side you wish you could grief into the ground, so just because the game says Order/Chaos is my 'ally' doesn't make it so; ie can we 'over-ride' this ally for a faction that is not balance? 
    Secondly, is it immediate? IE if we are fighting a group of Chaos and the scales tip whereby Chaos is now my 'ally', do we just suddenly stop fighting and get all chummy, just because?
    Balance has to be able to hold forts/keeps, because that is where they are migrating the advanced crafting (stations) for campaigns.
  4. Like
    mivius got a reaction from coolwaters in The First Campaign - Official discussion thread   
    Didn't see this asked (and i didn't see it indicated either, but..):
    Will there be a skill wipe?
    Also: Is the ally for Balance hard-coded on change?   This derives from two ideas, first being, if you've pvp'd before, you know there is always at least one 'derp' on your side you wish you could grief into the ground, so just because the game says Order/Chaos is my 'ally' doesn't make it so; ie can we 'over-ride' this ally for a faction that is not balance? 
    Secondly, is it immediate? IE if we are fighting a group of Chaos and the scales tip whereby Chaos is now my 'ally', do we just suddenly stop fighting and get all chummy, just because?
    Balance has to be able to hold forts/keeps, because that is where they are migrating the advanced crafting (stations) for campaigns.
  5. Like
    mivius reacted to moneda in The First Campaign - Official discussion thread   
    I hope taking damage interrupts this process. 
    POIs will spawn high-quality resources? Will there still be nodes scattered about the map? Will their output be better in quality? 
    Will BALANCE need to ensure the other two own only the same amount of strongholds, or can BALANCE simply own the majority and still win? 
    I have zero faith in this happening. 
  6. Like
    mivius reacted to Duffy in Tone....Respect and Logic when dealing with the Dev's   
    Crowdfunding has just changed the 'who' when it comes to funding and has made things that used to happen behind closed doors visible to the public. No one used some sort of mystical 'their money' back in the day, they raised funds from some source looking to make investments (which ACE has been doing, they've done two separate raises besides crowdfunding). Usually by approaching a group that specialized in their area. That is how the now giant publishing companies came to dominate the game industry, they were the original sources of funding and bought up studios as they needed more funding or found themselves failing on a bad game. Delays, collapses, and cancellations all used to happen back when it was 'their money' but it was behind closed doors. The public only ever saw a fraction of the high profile ones and only saw projects announced when they were nearly done. Usually closer to the end of a typical 5 year dev cycle than at the start. 
    The big companies will rarely risk money, they will pound out the same game over and over until we stop buying it then repeat the cycle on a new cash cow. Crowfunding has opened the option of going straight to the consumer and bypassing the publisher's restrictions and demands while reducing risk by spreading it over many small donations. If they fail the result is the same as the old days, someone is out of money, but at least now its individuals out of $100 or less instead of a company out of millions. This allows potentially riskier projects to gauge potential interest and possibly get made when they had little to no chance of being picked up by a publisher. But the trade off is that with public funding comes public scrutiny and the public is notoriously bad at understanding the reality of an industry they have never participated in. What we've been seeing with crowdfunding games is par for the course, some will fail, some will succeed, and some will go way out of scope and balloon their budgets. This is nothing new, surprising, or sinister, this is how business works.
    If you don't want to participate or risk your money, that's completely fine. But if you do decide to support these sorts of projects, understand what your doing, how it works, why it's being done this way, and most importantly that you may never get your money's worth in the end.  Personally I find myself disappointed with the results of the old system and the companies that have been dominating for the last 15 years. So for me it's an easy choice, what I give is no major loss for me, and if the projects succeed it's a potential major gain in entertainment for me and many others.
  7. Like
    mivius reacted to KrakkenSmacken in Test Environments: Official Discussion Thread   
    Since these servers are now separate things, I wonder how hard it would be to configure the test environment to have a much faster skill training time (24-72X), and a player controlled personal "reset", so we can run through multiple iterations and variations.
    Leave the "live" with the current skills to reduce rage, but give the test environment a way to roll through passive training quickly. 
     
  8. Like
    mivius reacted to srathor in Test Environments: Official Discussion Thread   
    Start the new server with a total wipe. Banks, skills, All the recipes freebies. That or port over what we have now and wipe the non 24/7 completely. We need a snapshot of what the game really is, not the bandaided monster it has become.
  9. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Telonos in My Death Star sized worry about Crowfalls PvP campaign   
    Again, while I do throw out 24/7 as the least-restrictive start point, I am not blind to possible negative experiences that may or may not arise. 
    Similarly, there are multiple variations that could also appease many's sense of "reasonable loss"...a stronger innate defense period upon initial attack (30 or 60 minutes to rally the troops, "protected" area takes say 5 or 10% of regular damage in this time)...or a "natural" defense (think thralls with magic and bows) that is "strong enough" to allow an off-hour window to rally (again, I would advocate a maximum of 30-60 minutes, but who knows how that might work out?)...or other solutions. 
    I want whatever is fun & viable for CF, what I don't want is one set of pixels protected by the game because they are somehow viewed as "more valuable" (reason irrelevant tbh).
     
  10. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Dondagora in Resource cost need serious investigating and   
    I generally see two issues here:
    1)  PCM doesn't affect all classes 'equally':  negating an entire weapon stat for certain classes is extremely powerful (exception apparently being an un-modified 'grey' quality weapon), as well as a seeming disproportionate burden on some classes.
    2) The curve on which 'normal' lies is non-intuitive and seems out of line with expectations.  +/- 0.0 would seem to be the 'norm' people would expect as a 'baseline', which is not achievable under blue quality under the majority of normal circumstances.  While I recognize there are four tiers above "common" (white), they should be increasingly more rare, and at the same time wonderful.  Considering the very limiting factor of experimentation pips, higher quality already have the built-in limitation mechanic of having more possibilities than you could ever spend pips, the "steep" curve with PCM seems out of line.  I do not seem to be the only person to hold that opinion.
  11. Like
    mivius got a reaction from rebelgb in What's the least enjoyable aspect of the game?   
    From the testing perspective:
    -Information: "fluff", misleading, missing, inaccurate, and poorly worded dissemination of information via both update notes and 'tool tips'
    -Information: Lack of details on what numbers are intended to do, and inconsistency in how those numbers are presented (0.1, 10%, 0.1%, +0.1 as examples). This is especially troubling given that we were recently told that some systems were designed 0-1, and some 0-100...one would think consistency in the area/genre where numbers are KING would be a design choice that would have been standardized/normalized early on.  We often see evidence how these dysfunctions translate into various systems,
    -Information: No log files.  No hard numbers.  I know I would, as would other I could rationally postulate, create a plug-in for ACT (or similar) log parser and be able to analyze a lot more information than we can now.  Right now we test and give feedback primarily on 'feel' with some videos to show some numbers etc.  The game already has a file that is set to start logging, but it isn't functional.  One would 'think' that getting accurate data would be more useful than "I feel this is not working, but here's a video and my thoughts".
    -Chat: This befuddles me to no end.  Chat isn't new, and it's not new to the Unity engine.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel, a basic, versatile chat system seems paramount to any multiplayer game, and we are given an old "Rolls Canardly" and told to go with it.
    -Guild/Raid- (I use the term 'raid' here to simply mean multi-group cohesive units, not necessarily made entirely of a guild or faction, but consider the 'fealty' system and alliances as well). With the sheer amount of 'hammering' I see about how this will be a guild/PoI/"larger than a soloer or small group" the fact that only factions and terribad group mechanics exist is perplexing. "Hey, this is a big group/guild game, but we're going to give you none of that to start even though it's at the core/heart of our system design."
    -QA- While I understand there isn't a dedicated QA team, I often wonder how certain things are 'a good idea' and even get released for our testing.  While a myriad of examples may be made, I'm going to just use the recent Weapon Efficiency debacle.  I made a green book a couple of weeks ago, which modded to +0.376 weapon efficiency, and this is supposed to be the new 'norm'.  No a basic weapon has +0.2, and an advanced weapon starts off at +0.75 (as far as I can tell, if this is working as intended, if not, see above).  This means you need a really good 'rare' (blue) weapon, or decent 'epic' (purple) weapon to come to the point where a "normal, rational" human being would intuit the 'standard norm' in weapon efficiency: +/- 0.0 ...and THIS  seemed like a good idea to put out to us?  This also literally tilted the scales from 'useless stat' when crafting to 'must do' along with damage.  And utilizing one of my favorite lines, from the late-great Billy Mays: "But wait, there's more!!"  In their 'infinite wisdom' didn't even make the most remote attempt at balancing this: For example some classes got uber-hosed by this change (Myrm or knight are my pinnacle examples here), some classes didn't change much (Confessor as the example, as long as we equip our original passive) but restricted our choice in passives (again, already pointed out knight, they get the shortest straw there), but then to say "Well, we put all this work into pip combat, you pip users get to completely ignore the weapon efficiency stat!"...and this is a good idea in their eyes? It's almost like no one will speak up when there is a bad idea floating around, and it's left to us to go .."Really?".
     
     
  12. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Avloren in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response)
    Let's start off with the base premise:
    24/7 vulnerability (caveat, again, not all CW bands necessarily, but say GvG & Dregs at the least) is the least restrictive option. All counter-arguments have stated that this option is 'restrictive' in some manner, discouraging gameplay or pvp.  However, 'siege windows' are the restrictive ones, as you are now up against the game-mechanics themselves as a restriction (ie you cannot attack/take over said PoI). Most arguments for the window revolve around some sense of "fairness"/"equal opportunity" waving the rally-flag of "people have lives" (which also infers some people do not), which is borne of the bias from theorycraft or prior experience (or both potentially).  However, 24/7 vulnerability, by it's nature, is the least restrictive option possible: we, as players, will only get out of siege mechanics (PoI acquisition, or whatever else you would like to label it) what we, the players, put into it. 24/7 being the least restrictive option available is the only fact we can point to at this time.
    While I respect @APE desire 'not to have something I built destroyed while I sleep' (not exact quote), that is what we have EK's for, that sense of permanence in what we build.  CW's are impermanent, as with everything else, by design.
    Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever.  This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated.  So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward.
    Siege windows are an artificial restriction, the game sets the 'pace'.  24/7 vulnerability the players control every aspect of the gameplay surrounding it, and it can be a constantly evolving 'thing'.
    Bonus: If there are no artificial mechanics a) dev's don't have to take time and resources to create those mechanics b ) dev's don't have to fix bugs/issues with those mechanics c)  those mechanics cannot be exploited (either via bug or it's own nature)
    There are also numerous other potential issues with siege windows, as well as a lot of questions, but I've rehashed enough I think to start to answer you.
    "it's not at all clear to me how you think guilds could defend in a game with 24/7 vulnerability. It seems to me like that inevitably leads to a game where everything is easily destroyed, and building isn't worthwhile."
    So, I want to start with the second half of the above quote: As noted above, PoI's have a built-in reward system (or, to be clearer, it has been stated they are supposed to), therefore, even if 'destroyed' that will likely be a temporary state, as some organization will look to make use of that reward.
    As stated in previous posts I am not going to detail any of the various ways that 24/7 defense could/would/should/may/is/etc possible.  Here's the kicker, for me at least.  In many corners of this (and every MMO I've ever played or read anything about) 'game' is the prolific reference to that ever foggy idea of skill (which, in literal terms is defined as "doing something well"). The interesting thing with 24/7 vulnerability is that it is one of the few aspects of the 'game' that will allow for actual use of some real-world skill(s).  To defend something on a 24/7 basis "should" take one, or a combination, of at least some of these real-world skills: leadership, organization, strategy, and/or logistics. This goes beyond the simple "button pushing" that defines the vast majority of what people deem "skill" in any given MMO.  As a quick example, anyone can throw together a guild, but we have seen (assumption on my part that people have played at least a handful of other MMO's) countless guilds fall apart for numerous reasons, but leadership, as a skill, is not as common as one would think: some don't have the temperment, the intellect, the attitude, the tact, the charisma, or any other of countless potential qualities.
    A siege window takes far less 'skill'. If the window is chosen or time based can reduce the skill required further. Siege windows also make it tend towards a numbers game over player skill (the in-game kind).
    To put the answer more succinctly to this part: You will adapt and overcome using actual skills and organization.
    Not everyone or every guild will hold PoI's (well, I mean, I guess they could if there were enough of them, but big, strong guilds tend not to like to share their 'toys').
    " Assume the defending guild has plentiful numbers and they're well organized, and assume they have to protect their city against a guild with equal numbers. The attackers tell their guild "Set your alarms, be ready for the siege at [redacted] AM on [redacted] morning." How can a defender guard against that? "
    If you have the manpower to take and hold a PoI, would it not make sense to have a plan to hold/defend that PoI, in some way other than the game holding your hand and making it invulnerable for you?  While I am hesitant to put this out there, I notice a general assumption people keep making...that the only way for a guild to hold a PoI is to have just that guild hold that PoI...that's patently silly...there's a free hint for the day.
    However, this again comes down to the same real-world skill set(s) I mentioned above. "How DO you defend a PoI 24/7?"....us, the player base, devising, refining, changing, innovating, etc, those answers, for ourselves, is interesting, dynamics, and conducive to emergent game play. (Opinion, clearly, as some people want their hand held to protect their precious, ultimately impermanent anyhow pixels).
    " Even if the defender has a guy on watch, when the attackers show up at say.. 3am on Tuesday, I don't see a way for the defender to muster near equal numbers. Not when most of their members are naturally asleep and not expecting an attack, while the attackers can plan for this in advance and set their alarms. "
    It seems to me that many people think that just showing up at some off-hour is like an "I win" button for the attackers, this is not true. As previously discussed, at least some siegable PoI's are supposed to have walls, and thrall-guards.  That's not to mention that an active guild, in control of valuable PoI's would be foolish to just all play on the same schedule (it's also almost impossible from a human standpoint). If you have the appropriate skill-set(s) you will have a plan, and a back-up plan, and probably at least one more back-up plan. 
    It also gets so much more interesting if you are talking about holding multiple PoI's.  With siege windows multiple PoI's are infinitely more defensible, and defenses can be more or less standardized.
    Everything I hear in response is based on  the fear that somehow "I" won't be able to participate in sieges, or "I" will lose my PoI while me/my guild sleeps/works/etc, it's not fair to "me"/my guild. I have taken into consideration the game as a whole, the fact that not everyone will be holding onto PoI's (again, my assumption based on the limited information available), advantages and disadvantages to each style (as far as can be with what information we currently have), and the restrictions, potential for bugs, and potential for exploitation: it's not about "me", it's about a healthy, vibrant, interesting, brutal Crowfall.
    Also, this is an ongoing war.  All is fair in Love and War...
  13. Like
    mivius reacted to Teufel in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    This is what EvE does in POS warfare (or at least it was, not sure how takedowns happen now).  The attackers could attack at any time, but would put the station into a reinforced mode, then depending a timer the attackers would have to come back x hours later when the station came out of reinforced mode.  The defenders set the timer limit and then both sides know when round two will take place.  This allowed the attackers the flexibility to initially attack whenever they wanted to, but also allowed the defenders to fight back and actually defend.
  14. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Telonos in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response)
    Let's start off with the base premise:
    24/7 vulnerability (caveat, again, not all CW bands necessarily, but say GvG & Dregs at the least) is the least restrictive option. All counter-arguments have stated that this option is 'restrictive' in some manner, discouraging gameplay or pvp.  However, 'siege windows' are the restrictive ones, as you are now up against the game-mechanics themselves as a restriction (ie you cannot attack/take over said PoI). Most arguments for the window revolve around some sense of "fairness"/"equal opportunity" waving the rally-flag of "people have lives" (which also infers some people do not), which is borne of the bias from theorycraft or prior experience (or both potentially).  However, 24/7 vulnerability, by it's nature, is the least restrictive option possible: we, as players, will only get out of siege mechanics (PoI acquisition, or whatever else you would like to label it) what we, the players, put into it. 24/7 being the least restrictive option available is the only fact we can point to at this time.
    While I respect @APE desire 'not to have something I built destroyed while I sleep' (not exact quote), that is what we have EK's for, that sense of permanence in what we build.  CW's are impermanent, as with everything else, by design.
    Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever.  This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated.  So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward.
    Siege windows are an artificial restriction, the game sets the 'pace'.  24/7 vulnerability the players control every aspect of the gameplay surrounding it, and it can be a constantly evolving 'thing'.
    Bonus: If there are no artificial mechanics a) dev's don't have to take time and resources to create those mechanics b ) dev's don't have to fix bugs/issues with those mechanics c)  those mechanics cannot be exploited (either via bug or it's own nature)
    There are also numerous other potential issues with siege windows, as well as a lot of questions, but I've rehashed enough I think to start to answer you.
    "it's not at all clear to me how you think guilds could defend in a game with 24/7 vulnerability. It seems to me like that inevitably leads to a game where everything is easily destroyed, and building isn't worthwhile."
    So, I want to start with the second half of the above quote: As noted above, PoI's have a built-in reward system (or, to be clearer, it has been stated they are supposed to), therefore, even if 'destroyed' that will likely be a temporary state, as some organization will look to make use of that reward.
    As stated in previous posts I am not going to detail any of the various ways that 24/7 defense could/would/should/may/is/etc possible.  Here's the kicker, for me at least.  In many corners of this (and every MMO I've ever played or read anything about) 'game' is the prolific reference to that ever foggy idea of skill (which, in literal terms is defined as "doing something well"). The interesting thing with 24/7 vulnerability is that it is one of the few aspects of the 'game' that will allow for actual use of some real-world skill(s).  To defend something on a 24/7 basis "should" take one, or a combination, of at least some of these real-world skills: leadership, organization, strategy, and/or logistics. This goes beyond the simple "button pushing" that defines the vast majority of what people deem "skill" in any given MMO.  As a quick example, anyone can throw together a guild, but we have seen (assumption on my part that people have played at least a handful of other MMO's) countless guilds fall apart for numerous reasons, but leadership, as a skill, is not as common as one would think: some don't have the temperment, the intellect, the attitude, the tact, the charisma, or any other of countless potential qualities.
    A siege window takes far less 'skill'. If the window is chosen or time based can reduce the skill required further. Siege windows also make it tend towards a numbers game over player skill (the in-game kind).
    To put the answer more succinctly to this part: You will adapt and overcome using actual skills and organization.
    Not everyone or every guild will hold PoI's (well, I mean, I guess they could if there were enough of them, but big, strong guilds tend not to like to share their 'toys').
    " Assume the defending guild has plentiful numbers and they're well organized, and assume they have to protect their city against a guild with equal numbers. The attackers tell their guild "Set your alarms, be ready for the siege at [redacted] AM on [redacted] morning." How can a defender guard against that? "
    If you have the manpower to take and hold a PoI, would it not make sense to have a plan to hold/defend that PoI, in some way other than the game holding your hand and making it invulnerable for you?  While I am hesitant to put this out there, I notice a general assumption people keep making...that the only way for a guild to hold a PoI is to have just that guild hold that PoI...that's patently silly...there's a free hint for the day.
    However, this again comes down to the same real-world skill set(s) I mentioned above. "How DO you defend a PoI 24/7?"....us, the player base, devising, refining, changing, innovating, etc, those answers, for ourselves, is interesting, dynamics, and conducive to emergent game play. (Opinion, clearly, as some people want their hand held to protect their precious, ultimately impermanent anyhow pixels).
    " Even if the defender has a guy on watch, when the attackers show up at say.. 3am on Tuesday, I don't see a way for the defender to muster near equal numbers. Not when most of their members are naturally asleep and not expecting an attack, while the attackers can plan for this in advance and set their alarms. "
    It seems to me that many people think that just showing up at some off-hour is like an "I win" button for the attackers, this is not true. As previously discussed, at least some siegable PoI's are supposed to have walls, and thrall-guards.  That's not to mention that an active guild, in control of valuable PoI's would be foolish to just all play on the same schedule (it's also almost impossible from a human standpoint). If you have the appropriate skill-set(s) you will have a plan, and a back-up plan, and probably at least one more back-up plan. 
    It also gets so much more interesting if you are talking about holding multiple PoI's.  With siege windows multiple PoI's are infinitely more defensible, and defenses can be more or less standardized.
    Everything I hear in response is based on  the fear that somehow "I" won't be able to participate in sieges, or "I" will lose my PoI while me/my guild sleeps/works/etc, it's not fair to "me"/my guild. I have taken into consideration the game as a whole, the fact that not everyone will be holding onto PoI's (again, my assumption based on the limited information available), advantages and disadvantages to each style (as far as can be with what information we currently have), and the restrictions, potential for bugs, and potential for exploitation: it's not about "me", it's about a healthy, vibrant, interesting, brutal Crowfall.
    Also, this is an ongoing war.  All is fair in Love and War...
  15. Like
    mivius reacted to Tinnis in Pre-alpha 5 Live! - Official discussion thread   
    notes:
     
     
    CAMOUFLAGE WOOD ELF TOGGLE
    CLERIC - TOGGLE HOLY AURAS
    Values on resource pools in new character sheet
    Punch drunk - cooldown - once every 90 seconds or two minutes
    Cleric is designed - first class that will require no new tech. Will be the first class that starts with more powers than they can slot in.
    Trailblazer and trailmastery - move to specific races and discs
    Adventure world - ai coming online - things to fight other than poor newbies
    Spirit bank will be tied to physical local bank location and limited by import and export rules of that world
    12 hour stream upcoming - in a month - make videos
     
     
    druids essence is affected by weapon eff / power cost modifer.
    spark is OP aoe punching damage </s>
    tinnis 720p videos scrub quality and video framing.
    thanks @thomasblair for that triple whammy.
  16. Like
    mivius reacted to Apok in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    That's a big part of this discussion people are either missing or choosing to ignore, when Defenders get to choose when to defend a large part of the Assaults strategy gets thrown out the window. Catching defenders off guard or with their pants down is one of the single most valuable strategies the Assaulter have. I'm not talking about hitting a Structure at 4 am when their all logged off, I'm talking about the Defenders being preoccupied with something else whatever that may be, they then would have to weigh the choices, continue doing what they are doing (could be assaulting a keep themselves) or abandon ship and go defend. Giving them the option to set a Defense takes so much away from the game. Find a way to prevent alarm clock Assaults and Defenses if that's what needs to be done but don't strip away strategy, lets not dumb down the game especially a major part of the game. 
  17. Like
    mivius reacted to APE in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    In part you are correct. CF as a whole should/could support 24/7 siege and goes with the harsh style of open world PVP.
    Regardless of this being logical or not, entertainment value usually takes front seat to what might make sense.
    Would such a system support enough players to keep ACE's lights on? No clue, but I doubt it.
    Can go down another road, permadeath. Why do we have no "skill" passive progression and character/resource retention in a game that is so "harsh?" You die, lose everything from day 1. Seems logical.
    Why have EKs all safe and cozy? What is even their purpose? Seems like a safe haven to people to play interior decorator. Lets rid it and free up resources for the ways to kill each other better.
    Why do we have dodges, retaliates, heals, and other easy mode abilities? Lets have 100% skill shot attacks that require top tier reflexes and aim.
    While being a bit sarcastic, I've seen these or similar ideas proposed and they aren't wrong. However, there is no right or wrong in video games.
    The promised options are what got me to back CF and stay interested.
    There is no ONE way to do anything. Siege windows, win conditions, friendly fire, factions/FFA, import/export embargo, name tags over head, grouping, labeling nodes, autorun, etc etc.
    I would likely not play on a 24/7 siege CW just as I likely wouldn't enjoy permadeath, at least not as my only option. If that makes me an insert colorful word, oh well. I'm looking for XYZ and hope that a particular ruleset will meet most of my expectations.
    If someone wants to spend time building something up and have it open to be destroyed/taken when they are a sleep, so be it. I don't.
    Has little to nothing to do with how logging into the world works, being attacked while holding F, or any other system. They all provide a different piece to an overall design, but aren't all treated the same.
    I'm not a fan of logging in to be insta ganked and hope ACE thinks something up to deal with this. When it comes to gathering, team work and hopefully a provided set of options/skills make it a two sided experience, not always attacker wins, the end.
    Siege windows absolutely make sense to me and what I want out of CF, which is just one way to experience it.
    Ultimately, it doesn't all have to fit or make sense (bunch of body parts provide class skills?) and ACE will make the call on what they want and hopefully enough of us show up.
  18. Like
    mivius reacted to SirGeorge in Crafting: Improved Compass   
    Improved Compass
    5 Powdered sand
    1 Premium Ore
    1 Premium Ore
    Effect: While in your inventory or equipped your top screen compass will be improved with degree measures.

  19. Like
    mivius got a reaction from srathor in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    You realize sieging literally could not happen without players online?  I know, I know, semantics, you meant specifically "defenders"..again, can't defend it 24/7? Don't build it.
    What I also forgot to mention in the other post was: Why is it that this singular mechanic should be exempt from the negative experience/grief mentality that permeates literally every single other aspect of this game?
    If they do go with siege windows: Bad Show ACE, bad show.
  20. Like
    mivius got a reaction from srathor in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    This thread amuses me.  I used the quote above because it's the closest I have seen to a reality check.
    As a disclaimer, I could see variations based on the band, however:
    There's another thread about people's widely varying opinions on "safe zones", as Srathor points out a good number of people do nothing but spew about risk versus reward for gatherers (shortest end of the stick), and crafters and the (potential) loss of time and resources, and about the transient nature of everything in CF, except EK's...
    And this is where a lot of you are choosing to get overly attached to your pixels?
    You are advocating for artificial "safe zones" for these same pixels (buildings, town, tree, etc), whereas you want nothing to do with a safe way to spawn into the world, but your town is so g/d precious?
    Why is your building/town/tree so special that it should get special treatment?
    It doesn't take "real man hours"  to gather materials, be it for building, gear, discplines, or vessels?  Does it matter if from a PoI or node?  Not really, it's all an investment of the most precious of all resources, time.
    It doesn't take "real man hours" to craft buildings, gear, weapons, discplines, vessels?  Oh, it does, so again, why are your buildings/town/tree so special?
    I do not care if it takes months to build, it takes months to get to certain craft points (skills), and gather points (skills), why is it okay to lose some pixels, but not others?
    If you can't afford to place thralls (guards), or devise ways to protect your building/town/tree/materials 24/7, then don't build it? As with everything else, you have the choice as to whether or not participate in that aspect of the game.  It's amazing to me how one could advocate for no restrictions in many areas, and yet here, you value certain pixels so highly you think they deserve special treatment you rally against in other threads for other aspects of the game?
    Hypocrisy is never a good look.
    Barring various rules on various bands, everything should be attackable and destructible 24/7, you can't defend it 24/7? Welcome to Crowfall.
  21. Like
    mivius got a reaction from srathor in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics. 
    Right now you can kill me as I log in before I can react; and the community as a near-unanimous whole agrees this is "okay" and "acceptable".  So it's okay to lose your gear and potentially vessel without being able to defend yourself, but these particular (buildings, tree, etc) deserve special rules? Why?
    Why is it okay, besides the inbred sense of this somehow being SB's spiritual successor, to make this single mechanic different?  Why are these  pixels so much more valuable than literally every other pixel in game? If this question can be answered logically (to my standard/satisfaction), I'll let it go, and I am not psychologically attached to the nostalgia, time invested I have already countered, and I don't accept that just because it was in another game it should be here, 'spiritual successor' or not. 
    If this holds true, I feel they should change the slogan from "Play to Crush" to something akin to:
    Play to Crush, except during seiges, where we hold your hand.
    or
    Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare!
    or
    Play to Crush, except, you know, that one part...
    or
    Play to Crush (*as long as you don't participate in sieges)
    or
    you get the idea...
     
    Crushing your opponents is merciless, you take every advantage.  Down with the care bear sieges.
  22. Like
    mivius got a reaction from srathor in Ace's vision for Siege's   
  23. Like
    mivius got a reaction from srathor in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    How so?  You need to gather materials, just like every other craft...check, plus you get special PoI's to help gather more materials here.  You have to craft them, just like every other craft...check.  The point about time, effort, and teamwork are theorycraft.  Right now Wood Worker has an undue burden of interdependencies and variety of materials, necromancy takes considerable time and rare(r) materials.  All of that aside, this actually boils down to a two-word question.... So what?  Nothing there warrants special rules (imo).
    Group effort, not about the individual.
    Assumption.  And if they are producing a special siege mechanic a, or some, dev's have a nostalgic attachment to, then this is false.
    I only have a preference based on the materials presented to us, the ideas presented to us, and the general workings of the mechanics as we see them.  It makes zero sense to have people against mechanics like 'safe zones', safe login, ganking, inequity in combat ability between all UT types, etc., and be for negative experiences, all the while advocating the complete antithesis of the idea/concept of the game because of notions of 'fairness' when, again, there is literally not a single other 'fairness' mechanic in the game.  I think it is an exceptionally poor design decision that counters everything they have ever presented as the core idea for the game, and seemingly because it is touted as the 'spiritual successor' of another game (mental bias).
    I am also for temples being safe zones, having a safe login mechanic, etc (I have a post in that recent thread).  But I also can take what we are given and question why a single mechanic deserves special treatment?  I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is not an actual, logical reason for it, other than the 'spiritual successor' factor: everything else has just been excuses.
    It's their game, they can do whatever they want, but again, seems very backwards to present a 'hardcore style' pvp game, and then care-bear up one of the core game principles/ideas/designs for some false sense of 'fairness'.
  24. Like
    mivius got a reaction from coolwaters in Ace's vision for Siege's   
    It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics. 
    Right now you can kill me as I log in before I can react; and the community as a near-unanimous whole agrees this is "okay" and "acceptable".  So it's okay to lose your gear and potentially vessel without being able to defend yourself, but these particular (buildings, tree, etc) deserve special rules? Why?
    Why is it okay, besides the inbred sense of this somehow being SB's spiritual successor, to make this single mechanic different?  Why are these  pixels so much more valuable than literally every other pixel in game? If this question can be answered logically (to my standard/satisfaction), I'll let it go, and I am not psychologically attached to the nostalgia, time invested I have already countered, and I don't accept that just because it was in another game it should be here, 'spiritual successor' or not. 
    If this holds true, I feel they should change the slogan from "Play to Crush" to something akin to:
    Play to Crush, except during seiges, where we hold your hand.
    or
    Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare!
    or
    Play to Crush, except, you know, that one part...
    or
    Play to Crush (*as long as you don't participate in sieges)
    or
    you get the idea...
     
    Crushing your opponents is merciless, you take every advantage.  Down with the care bear sieges.
  25. Like
    mivius got a reaction from Windwaker in What's the least enjoyable aspect of the game?   
    From the testing perspective:
    -Information: "fluff", misleading, missing, inaccurate, and poorly worded dissemination of information via both update notes and 'tool tips'
    -Information: Lack of details on what numbers are intended to do, and inconsistency in how those numbers are presented (0.1, 10%, 0.1%, +0.1 as examples). This is especially troubling given that we were recently told that some systems were designed 0-1, and some 0-100...one would think consistency in the area/genre where numbers are KING would be a design choice that would have been standardized/normalized early on.  We often see evidence how these dysfunctions translate into various systems,
    -Information: No log files.  No hard numbers.  I know I would, as would other I could rationally postulate, create a plug-in for ACT (or similar) log parser and be able to analyze a lot more information than we can now.  Right now we test and give feedback primarily on 'feel' with some videos to show some numbers etc.  The game already has a file that is set to start logging, but it isn't functional.  One would 'think' that getting accurate data would be more useful than "I feel this is not working, but here's a video and my thoughts".
    -Chat: This befuddles me to no end.  Chat isn't new, and it's not new to the Unity engine.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel, a basic, versatile chat system seems paramount to any multiplayer game, and we are given an old "Rolls Canardly" and told to go with it.
    -Guild/Raid- (I use the term 'raid' here to simply mean multi-group cohesive units, not necessarily made entirely of a guild or faction, but consider the 'fealty' system and alliances as well). With the sheer amount of 'hammering' I see about how this will be a guild/PoI/"larger than a soloer or small group" the fact that only factions and terribad group mechanics exist is perplexing. "Hey, this is a big group/guild game, but we're going to give you none of that to start even though it's at the core/heart of our system design."
    -QA- While I understand there isn't a dedicated QA team, I often wonder how certain things are 'a good idea' and even get released for our testing.  While a myriad of examples may be made, I'm going to just use the recent Weapon Efficiency debacle.  I made a green book a couple of weeks ago, which modded to +0.376 weapon efficiency, and this is supposed to be the new 'norm'.  No a basic weapon has +0.2, and an advanced weapon starts off at +0.75 (as far as I can tell, if this is working as intended, if not, see above).  This means you need a really good 'rare' (blue) weapon, or decent 'epic' (purple) weapon to come to the point where a "normal, rational" human being would intuit the 'standard norm' in weapon efficiency: +/- 0.0 ...and THIS  seemed like a good idea to put out to us?  This also literally tilted the scales from 'useless stat' when crafting to 'must do' along with damage.  And utilizing one of my favorite lines, from the late-great Billy Mays: "But wait, there's more!!"  In their 'infinite wisdom' didn't even make the most remote attempt at balancing this: For example some classes got uber-hosed by this change (Myrm or knight are my pinnacle examples here), some classes didn't change much (Confessor as the example, as long as we equip our original passive) but restricted our choice in passives (again, already pointed out knight, they get the shortest straw there), but then to say "Well, we put all this work into pip combat, you pip users get to completely ignore the weapon efficiency stat!"...and this is a good idea in their eyes? It's almost like no one will speak up when there is a bad idea floating around, and it's left to us to go .."Really?".
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...