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

Impossum

ACE Investor & Tester
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Impossum

  • Rank
    Magpie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Carolina

Recent Profile Visitors

517 profile views
  1. This is probably one of the strangest things about Crowfall. Combat clearly needs a major overhaul, or stats need an overhaul,etc. Something is very off. Entering and exiting combat should be determined by the game. The speed at which you move should be predictable. Why isn't it? Running away or picking a fight is way way too easy for a select few. Exiting and entering combat needs some kinda of rules of engagement. Mobility is all over the place.
  2. It would be nice to enter a campaign as a group. Seems like picking a campaign won't be a snappy decision. How exactly should a guild determine if they can get everyone in and on the same faction? How this system will be implemented will determine the size of guilds. Zerging could be a viable option, depending on how loose the limits of each faction or campaign. It feels like this goes without saying, but good idea to address it now.
  3. Artcraft should make the two systems of talents and passive training interact in some way. If we could swap out talents we've unlocked from the passive training then it wouldn't be a flat increase of stats. A system of trade-offs, leveling to plug them in, etc. Artcraft has basically stated they want passives to be just that, passively stacking stats. If these passives have to stay, then the amounts should be lower greatly. It would be a lot nicer if the vessel tree came back in some fashion, instead of combat training. Start off with a "basic vessel tree" then a race, a class. This would
  4. It was far more interesting than this combat training. And would it hurt to sprinkle some active abilities in there? Let us unlock new talents options, this way instead of just stacking stats, it would just add choices.
  5. You can see why they would be locked in, from a technical side. Keeping the talents after changing the disc, the system would lose some of it's charm. The game has too much variance. Does everything really need to go from 1-1000? The games needs to hone in on what should be highly variable and what should be static.
  6. Export only. Depends if you value doing anything in EKs. You could easily take that stuff into campaigns with import rules. Personal EKs would become guild EKs if they are large enough. You couldn't use the same vessels in this lower band ladder campaign, but could use it in another higher band campaign. Of course if you had no interest in those you would just free up a slot, when needed. Guessing Artcraft is going to make the cost of respeccing, the cost building a new vessel. Sounds good to me. Maybe each campaign we will re level, this will make lower quality vessels still valu
  7. Would definitely like to see a campaign where you can only start with a white vessel and could only use vessels made within the campaign. Each new campaign would mean, new vessels! Passives should work their way to unlocking talents. The talent would have a "locked symbol" until you train it in the passive tree. It would also be a neat idea if some talents could only be unlocked by the quality of the vessels. Are stats the only different between quality in vessels? Seems a little bland, why tie talents to the vessels at all? Do passives still add a lot of stats? As time goes on, ho
  8. Rather shift where you fill up, after a death. We already have a food meter, do we really need two of them? Sorry for anecdotes , just a feeling that Artcraft will make the more lower band campaigns a punishment instead of challenge. Right now durability feels a bit too long, but way too short for the basic gear.(I know lol) Ultimately would be happy with an eve online system, you die and it explodes/drops. Trying to find a middle ground. If artcraft needs to tweak durability degradation, then there is still that issue of it snapping while in use. Players would experience this more and
  9. Only thing we're disagreeing on how an item gets it color. Right now the game is basically just slapping a color from one of the items. You know a lot about that type of stuff. Jumping back to an older post. Pumping durability is basically a new player trap then? Totally agree that in the end that suggestion adds nothing if durability is something everyone is ignoring. Typically don't like the idea of removing an option from players just because the majority aren't using it. However, the suggestion comes with other things along side this one issue. You have a base dur
  10. Unsure if it's that interesting. The color of the resource means something, so shouldn't higher colors typically mean more stats? Also if a crafter was plugging in higher quality materials, and saw a green item come out, chances are that crafter won't do that again. It would be more confusion in the long run. It would be interesting to see a crafter plug in green resources and with high rolls produce a blue item.
  11. You're right. My point was that crafting is too time consuming per item, without blueprints. Some campaigns might not allow any or low amounts of imports, so it's important to have a well run craft-force! Leaning toward not able to increase durability at all, and instead turn it more into a resource. Removing the pip option for durability all together. Items seem to have a problem, a blue item could be better than a purple item.(If the purple had poor rolls) Depending on how much durability has been removed will determine the color. Kinda like an item-level. This way your
  12. Starting this off by saying that durability degradation isn't the greatest system in the world. With some tweaks it could be less frustration to new players and enable the option for harsher death penalties in lower band campaigns. Revamping how durability plays a role during the research portion of crafting could also be important. Stronger gear should come with the trade-off of lower durability. Last but not least, death should be where items go to die. Losing items while using them, either by harvesting or entering combat stance, is a poor system to say the least. Cranking up durabilit
  13. It just doesn't sit well with me that your gear could just, poof, while going into combat stance. If it's really slow, there is a good chance I'll start to ignore durability or gear breaking all together. When it finally does snap wouldn't it be preferable to replace it after dying and going back to base? Talk about a buzz kill because someone forgot their weapon was about to break and having to go back. (How long can your gear be in red before it finally does break?) Having my gear decay is really something I don't want to think about in the field, or during combat. It's anti-fun. If tha
×
×
  • Create New...