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

Slashin8r

Testers
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Slashin8r last won the day on March 13 2017

Slashin8r had the most liked content!

About Slashin8r

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chicago, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

458 profile views
  1. The Devs come from games with some of the most customize-able interfaces and most (if not all) included customized key-bindings, usually allowing multiple key-bindings for the same action.
  2. Their physics limitations when it comes to ranged projectiles is the main reason I chose to stop playing the Ranger that I initially started with. I am hoping this issue is definitely addressed and I am also fairly confident they will fix it. The having to aim "directly under the health bar" concept is a bit offsetting as well, even for melee. I aim at where I see the character, but a hit will only occur if the target reticle turns red (which is directly below the health bar, instead of including the entire character model). For instance, aim at a Legionnaire that is standing with their side facing you. Try to aim at their head and hit them, it is impossible. Aim at their chest, impossible to hit. Aim at their arse, impossible to hit. You can only hit them dead center, lol.
  3. Haha, @VIKINGNAIL I used that same logic you quoted in your edit against @mivius in another thread which he took one of my comments calling out his "ignorance" as an insult. The word "ignorant" is not insulting I explained to him, as ignorance can be fixed. Not like I called him stupid. @mivius is obviously just a troll looking to argue with anyone and everyone. Now back to the current topic as you suggest. I know many of us have been butting heads on how combat should be balanced, but we were at least making progress towards a reasonable compromise. @mivius seems to love stalling progress, so let's just ignore him for now. I currently have him set to ignore and until I start seeing him actually contribute to the forums he will remain that way. I can see situations where a very skilled player, with the best end-game gear equipped, being able to take down a group of all basic weapon/armor wearers. Now against a group of basic armor, but advanced weapon, that same player should have a lot of difficulty. Also, that same basic armor/weapon group should be able to take down that same skilled player if those basic gear players are on the same (or similar) skill level. Since everything will be weighed 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 as in 3 parts of equal weight, then being better than someone in any one of those aspects should only result in the higher possibility of an additional kill or simply the higher probability of you getting at least 1 kill and surviving. Edit: FYI, the word "moron" is definitely an insult. I may even start a thread to see if the community agrees.
  4. I could live with that being the difference between basic and top gear, but I still think that would be a bit drastic. I guess the resulting difference will really all depend on how many different weapon/armor tiers there will be. The crafting trees have multiple "recipe unlock" skills. Will those open each tier of all items for that craft (e.g. blacksmith first recipe skill unlocks all items we see in playtest, then skill 2 would unlock stronger items we have yet to see) or will those skills open individual item recipes and what we have currently seen in the playtests is all that we will get?
  5. It depends on what you are reflecting that +500% on. The naked player? The Basic Weapon/Armor player. The player with a white set of advanced weapon/armor? Skills should never make a large difference since they train passively and for the most part that holds true (Some balancing is still needed I'm sure). A player who joins a year after launch should not have to worry about not having certain skills at the moment. Gear should not make a large impact either as it decays. This is no MMO where you get end-game gear and have it forever. You lose that gear sooner or later and have to get it again. Sometimes you need to temporarily play with a lower grade set. +500% against a naked player, I'm ok with this. What do you gain from that kill? They most likely have nothing or maybe they are trying to trick you into not killing them, seen that done. +500% against someone in basic gear, probably a bit extreme. +500% vs someone who has the same gear as you but lower grade? Hell no!
  6. Whatever you say man. Have fun with your +500% over everyone else in the game you dream of. Have fun slaughtering newbs. Have fun ruining a game that could have been great (already happened to plenty of other great games). Have fun wasting other players' invested money (backing a game is an investment).
  7. I am not starting a new thread to make my rebuttal to re-validate my previous point just because it strays a bit more off-topic. Most valid arguments for and against this topic have already been made and many of them rely on the validity of the current discussion. Should I start a new thread to say this?
  8. So maybe they do intend it to be "niche" in that sense. However, we are more so speaking of "niches" within the game itself, the % that prefer hardcore PvP, the % that prefer PvP, the % that prefer PvE. The "niche" part could be as in they will offer many campaigns with many different rulesets so it will fit more "niches". Actually their payment model can give many indications of how the game intends to be. The players who play mostly in their EKs will generate the most profit through store purchases. Is the cashflow from one "niche" supposed to allow another "niche" to remain free to play? In other words, the PvE players are going to end up paying for the majority of PvP players. Since we all know it is more economical and more efficient (training skills) to simply buy 3 accounts vs. getting a years worth of VIP, most players won't even bother with a subscription and most revenue will come from the store and most purchases will be from PvE players to build up their EKs. The players who play in their EKs that they invested $1000s (real money!) can only make crappy gear and experience a fraction of the game because EKs play no part in the rest of the players' lives, I see them getting bored and/or angry very fast and quitting expecting some sort of compensation. The game will quickly turn into "free to play" Shadowbane again. The whole purpose of the EKs was to draw in that whole other type of gamer. Then tie the EKs into the Campaigns to keep these PvE players busy with the constant rollover of decaying items and decaying worlds. Why even have these EKs if the Devs intended the game to only support the PvP player and that "niche"? Maybe it truly is a "game of niches" like I suggested is the true intent of the word "niche". Or maybe they really do plan to screw over the PvE players in the end to make the tiny game that many of you suggest. Don't go confusing me as a PvE player only. I do both PvE and PvP and is why I chose to back Crowfall. I can simply see the entire story and can see how all aspects of the game could possibly fit together smoothly. Everyone needs to take a step back, look at the game in its entirety and then see how things may unfold in the end.
  9. If it were a niche game, why would they offer any type of FREE play after initially buying the game? If it were a true niche game and they expected a small population of players, there would be a mandatory monthly subscription upon release. Edit: ACE is in this to make a great game that generates profit not make a free game for a few people. Further thought, the "free game for a few people" concept.... wasn't that the end result of Shadowbane? I stuck it through from beta to the very end of that game and slowly watched it dwindle down in population, go free to play to try to boost pop, but the hardcore PvPers and their continuous griefing caused all new players to leave, and the game slowly lost even veteran players as they no longer had newbies to prey on and they realized in true PvP they were not "good players" as you would say. I doubt ACE's goal is to repeat this.
  10. Haha, just caught up reading the last few pages of this thread and this is exactly what I was thinking the whole time too.
  11. 1) Pretty sure you are wrong here. The Devs have stressed on many occasions that the EKs will interact with the CWs. There may be some with a lot less interaction or maybe even zero (I honestly doubt any campaign will have no interaction at all with the EKs). 2) Agreed. This is needed for a healthy economy. 3) True, however, just like every system the Devs create, they can be modified to fit other tasks. The current "Spirit Bank" is that module as it includes all the functions necessary to take care of the "Embargo System". It is at the account level and has a timer system (the 2 mins we currently wait). All it needs to become the "Embargo System" is the requirement of being inside a "Summoning Circle" to use and an increase in the duration of the timers (Indefinite timer, until end of Campaign). 4) I'm almost 100% certain that the Devs do not want any type of "Auction House". They specifically mention how most other MMOs go this route and they are trying to stay away from it. See quote from FAQ below. The Devs have always planned to create a single game with many different ways to play it, but NOT SEPARATE ways to play it. They want all players to have to interact. Whether they play mostly in their EK or play mostly in the Dreggs, those players will come across each other whenever that Dreggs player wants to sell some loot or buy gear for an import server. Put yourself in the shoes of the Devs. If the game turns out your way, then there will essentially be many different "small communities" instead of a "single large community". Do you understand how much more difficult that is to support? What happens when the communities clash and disagree on major aspects of the game? Which do the Devs side with? Do they allow their game to be split due to game mechanics? Edit: Even more importantly, what happens when the Devs get into many more disagreements because of the different communities that each of them choose to support? I sure hope I didn't choose to back a game that will "split apart" at the seams before it even gets to start. I didn't buy into 5 games, I paid for 1 game.
  12. It would definitely be per Campaign as @Xenotor mentioned. As for the God CWs, I can possibly see them adding in some conversion system. For the realism; not like people stay true to a single religion their entire life (missionaries often went all around the world to convert other people). This would need to have a time delay though (maybe a day, and during the wait you are an "Athiest" with FFA rules) or a limit on how many times you can switch per campaign, or maybe you can only serve a god once per campaign, so if you leave that god you can never return to it.
  13. I almost said the same thing multiple times. I kinda have that same feeling that the Devs are still mulling over a few big ideas of their own that they have yet to release to us. This is very close to how I was imagining the economy would work. I figured each Campaign would have its own "timer" or "travel time" as you call it, makes sense since there would be x distance between kingdoms. Distance actually makes sense as the modifier for this, further away the Campaign, longer "travel times". The most difficult Campaigns would be "furthest" from the EKs, kind of how their mock server selection landing page looked in some of the videos. More and more can be pieced together if this existed in game, but who knows, it may not ever come to be. I agree that we need more continuous movement of goods, I called it "flow of players" in another post. Restrictions on this flow for some Campaigns are expected. We need players bringing their stuff to EKs and also buying things there too, which will truly make them the "centers" of the economy the Devs envision.
  14. I did search the FAQ and you are absolutely right. I was misinformed on the embargo system. It did read that it will be a one time import and one time export. This does pretty much confirm separate economies in the no import CWs. I'm fine with this, let them be reward only to build up the EKs and other CWs with different rulesets. Knowing this changes how I'd have to imagine the economy working as a whole, but I still picture the other CWs working in a similar fashion to what I envisioned. Edit: I am now wondering why they even added the timer upon transfer to spirit bank on the individual item level if they plan to scrap this concept on release. The timer only delays testing, so why not instant transfer then if transferring like this won't exist later? A timer like this suggests being able to transfer items during a live Campaign (at least in some CWs). Embargo system sounds more like a separate bank that is simply "deposit only" until the end of the Campaign. I'm probably still thinking too far into it, but it still bugs me that they would code a function to be tested that actually delays testing (to a small degree) to never utilize it in some fashion on release.
  15. I agree with you completely and I think we are honestly arguing over semantics right now. What you suggest is still a form of balance, more so the natural balance that players will create due to an imbalance that existed with release. I'm simply suggesting ways that could possibly balance it from the start and allow it to remain balanced. Slight flux is good, but that will really only occur in the beginning (of the game and not of each campaign since this is the item market). Once all the guides are created and all the veteran players know what is good and what is not, the market will reflect that. Then, the only thing that will change the market is a patch.
×
×
  • Create New...