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

467 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 mean you would go through the Fae tree first then end with the Fae Assassin tree. Just make the basic tree much much bigger.
  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 valuable at the start of a campaign. Due to faster leveling. Perhaps you could send a vessel into some kind of hall of fame, it's gone but you can just sorta look at it in EKs? Speculate ho!
  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, hopefully the game won't have a straight vertical progression. Looking for a rock,paper, scissor,.. not pebble, rock , boulder
  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 complain. Who wouldn't try to get the most out of their epic sword?? It would be a much snappy experience if it is lost on death, you could even have a death recap showing the damage and which stuff was broken. The analogy of a dripping faucet and a clogged sink is more fitting. Gear is trickling in and exiting too slowly. You will run on [E] if you can go could another 300 miles instead of 50. Sounds like a broken gauge.
  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 durability, when the item created it's graded based on how much durability is removed. The pip system should really be determining the color of the item, not the resources.(this is a newer suggestion) Then you could remove durability further with blueprints items but it wouldn't alter the color at this stage. This would be to get more runs out of the factory, lower costs, or time, etc. edited
  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 resources you put in won't determine the color of an item. It will rely on both the crafter's skill and the resources.
  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 durability will just lengthen the time of an item's lifespan. We want players replacing gear, but we also want a system where you're not having to carry around back-ups. By changing the breakage to a death(not all deaths) this shifts where players will equip their new gear, from a fort or safe haven. Durability can tick down just like before, the big difference is once it hits "1" it will stop losing durability. On each death items will go through a check. Depending on the campaign rules, it will lose X amount of durability. IF the durability goes 0 or below, it's now broken. Now the player who was smart probably has a back-up waiting for him at his respawn location. Currently when crafting items, you start off with lower durability, this can be increased during the research phase and by using a "pip." The higher quality of the resources, the more resources you will have to increase stats and durability. You could outright ignore durability, or pump it up. The outcome is obvious, higher quality items typically have more durability. Would like to see less of a trade off, Artcraft should have the most control with item loss. Remove the ability to increase durability during the research phase(Pips can only increase stats.) Durability should be the same for all items, but as you spend a pip you will also lose durability. This will hopefully flip low durability for newer players. If items are breaking too fast, then Artcraft could have more accurate feedback.. everyone will have a similar experience. You won't be able to increase your durability, but perhaps mitigate the loss. (Either from campaign rules or passives.) Low quality items will last longer, however the goal is to normalize the gap of durability from quality. Recovering your body won't count as a death check on items, but if the corpse gets executed or if you retrieve then a check will occur. This will be great because it won't discourage players from trying to kill monsters. If you were to die from a monster and no enemy was around to chop your head off, don't see why this would count. Reviving would also prevent this. It feels pretty good to keep item-loss as a mechanic for PvP only. Of course this suggestion is keeping in mind that blueprints factories will be online. Creating items is very slow right now, once crafters can skip the research phase with factories it will hopefully allow more items to enter the market. Blueprints shouldn't last forever and should have a limited amount of runs, so you can't skip researching forever. (In other word the blueprint creation phase.) Now the durability of the blueprint item can be put to another use. You can spend it like a resource. This can be spent to reduce the crafting time or reduce the amount of resources, or even the number of runs at the cost of item's future durability. This way crafters can decide how they are marketing this item. Is this a cheap easily researched item? Or is this an expensive masterpiece? The crafter could decide to not spend durability while sending it to the factory, thus giving it an above average durability. Hope this helps Edit: Blueprints are now online and do a very specific and have nothing to do with mass producing items. They allow a limited use of a special recipe for crafting. Factories should allow crafters to use items they have crafted as a catalyst, thus destroying it. Then within the factory they can reduce the durability of all future items but could get a benefit out of it. Factory created items obviously can't be used a catalysts, and items that have been used can't be a catalyst either. Unsure how cost will be calculated now, it will probably cost dust.
  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 that means replacing gear more often because of dying, so be it. It would be a very real cause and effect for players. If it's too easy to be found and killed that's basically a combat issue. (Or if bases are just meaningless means of defense) Most importantly, it would be nice if Artcraft could simply increase the decay rate based on the difficulty of the campaign being run, without have to worry about your gear breaking by simply being combat stance. Consider decay rate increasing, during a FFA campaign. Breaking gear would go from a non-issue to a some players would think about often. Bumping the durability would just be a bandaid. New players are just going to see how quickly they are replacing their newbie stuff, get frustrated, and quit. They won't even make it to the decay reduction stuff. Pickaxes are starting to feel like ammo, instead of an item. If harvesters aren't really risking their lives for good materials, then that's a map design issue. Honestly though, not really sure about the supply and demand of runecrafters. Once the blueprint is made(and you have a customized item a player wants.) Not seeing how exactly plugging in new resources and skipping the research phase wouldn't be useful. It would certainly reduce how many materials would be used to make something desirable.(its a copy)
×
×
  • Create New...