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

Valgrim

Testers
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Valgrim

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Language
    English

Recent Profile Visitors

100 profile views
  1. That does sound like it would be interesting. I have faith that they will iterate to improve the mechanics. Just sucks waiting.
  2. I agree with the above. In wars there are lines, battlefronts. It seems illogical that you could occupy the capital (keeps) without fighting through the surrounding countryside. Right now the mechanics surrounding territory control seem very uninspired. Almost placeholder (I hope). The three main offenders: 1) Circle Standing. Universally despised as a punishing (for small groups), boring and lazy mechanic. Why not instead make it so the guards (in outposts and forts) need to be defeated before claiming. The claiming itself take like a minute tops. This would give us a reason to purchase guards and you could even throw in a boss type guard in the forts. 2) No compelling reason for forts and outposts to exist (aside from points). No one cares about the forts, and the outposts aren't worth the trouble. Adding unique tables, resources and buffs to forts would make them worth defending. Not everyone cares about the score. Particularly when they are really behind in a campaign. 3) Lack of "meaningful" battles outside of the siege window. I know that the solution to this was recently revealed as "add more timers". Maybe down the line a territory system like suggested by the above posters could instead be used. Or even a combo of the two. You take the outposts surrounding a fort. This starts a countdown timer on the fort and broadcasts that the fort will be assailable in 1 hour. You take both forts and the Keep is assailable during the next primetime window (currently 9:30 EDT). During this time the forts are locked down until the outcome of the Keep siege is decided. Successful defense of forts and keeps lock them down for several hours. I don't know that these are the best ideas and for all I know the current mechanics ARE just placeholder. I know putting together a game is a huge task. There are very compelling things that have been made. Very great work. However, territory control mechanic ideas so far seem very low effort.
  3. I've thought the same thing. The factions would seem to appeal to a certain personality type and it did sort of play it out that way. In the lore video it seemed like they were talking of changing the factions to Sun (Order), Earth (Balance), and Moon (Chaos). Not sure if this is correct or how that would affect the above but it is interesting to think about.
  4. Out of the three most active Order guilds 2 out of the 3 went to Chaos. One stacked Balance even more (And that's their business.) So far only the underdog has made any attempt to make the game interesting for both sides. I am not saying that no one is trying. The obvious solution is to break up HOA and Winterblades and something tells me that didn't occur to anyone involved in this summit of equality. Not that I think they should be forcibly broken up at this point. Telling them to like it or lump it if they don't treat it as seriously as others is not a solution. They'll just leave and do something that's actually fun, and they have. All the OP's idea is suggesting is that all of the teams need a mix of hardcore and softcore players. Right now the majority of hardcore are all on the same side and a mechanic that would more evenly disperse them is probably warranted in the future. I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. We are going to have to agree to disagree and I am going to leave it at that.
  5. Ahh ok, I hadn't thought about reward scarcity sewing discontent. I like it. I guess I thought being on the winning side was the reward. I really hope it plays out because that sounds like a lot of fun.
  6. Honest question: What do they do when one guild dominates the dregs worlds? To expand on the scenario we have now, suppose we were in dregs and everyone either quits or capitulates and swears fealty to Winterblades except for a few holdouts. This just carries from one dregs to the next, to the next and the dregs portion just becomes a huge alliance of Winterblades and their vassels beating the tar out of a handful of masochists. Again, this is an honest question. My only experience has been with the factions as we have now. I wonder if they just let it play out (because that's what they advertised) or are there mechanics that I am unaware of? I think this is the kind of the situation that killed Darkfall (in the end, I know there were a host of issues).
  7. I was just trying to point out what you've said here. Not everyone is going to be happy with whatever gets implemented. "Oh well, can't make everyone happy." Wasn't trying to offend.
  8. Yes it does. Oh well. There is no perfect solution that is not going to have a downside for a portion of the player base. What would you rather have? A small portion of players temporarily inconvenienced or a one sided gank fest that drives the vast majority of players away? I have a hard time the believing the situation we have now is going to change at scale even with the inclusion of rule sets and several CWs. I hope it does, but if the devs strategy is to simply hope that people don't act like poorly made socksheads... That's the idea, yes. Yes. History has proven that people overwhelmingly choose the path of least resistance, even if it is not fun. In the gaming world there is a long, bloody trail of PvP centric (and PVE centric) games that prove this out. OP's suggestion is not perfect, but I think the devs need to start thinking in this direction. If for some reason the masses start to break with human nature and police themselves then a system like this would just sit in the background and would only hurt a very small percentage of the player base (Those few who did not join in a timely manner). I just find it baffling that a dev team who has so much invested in the success of this venture would put the outcome in the hands of the pvp community. A community with a dubious track record at best. Here's a hint. It has never worked out and it's not going to work out this time unless you are heavy handed with the rule set. And that sucks and this is why we can't have nice things.
  9. This is not a mystery. On Chaos you have a multitude of guilds with varying degrees of commitment/gear/experience. On Balance you have two (3 if you count Clams) guilds with high levels commitment/gear/experience. At the beginning of the campaign Balance and Chaos fielded similar numbers. The well oiled machine consisting of fewer parts dominated. After getting their poorly made socks kicked in repeatedly people from the less organized and motivated faction moved on. What is a mystery is that the Balance faction somehow paints their dubious Alliance as anything more then what it is. Boring, and lame. You are killing it in this pre-alpha. We get it, but why would anyone stick around? And "get gud scrubz" is not the solution. People are willing to invest what they are willing to invest (As Zombie said). I don't think many are laboring under the delusion that this current state of affairs is anything more than what it is. A child could understand the politics involved here. All the best players decided to gang up and bully everyone else. Period. Any arguments to the contrary are only made (I assume) because Balance doesn't like the feeling that comes along with what they are doing. No one wants to be lame. You want to see your hard work and victories as some kind of heroic struggle. I get it. Those not trying to pull off your mental/emotional gymnastics have only the facts. And the facts are super not fun for a majority of prospective players right now.
  10. What we're seeing now (I think) is 2 guilds deciding a match due to low server populations overall. With greater numbers on the servers in the future I think that effect will become diluted. At least I hope. I don't think there is really any help for stacking every geared guild on one server if that's what they want. I'm looking further down the road when the player count is in the thousands, not a few hundred. If at that point guilds want to be lame then they can all go be lame in their own campaign as there will be several to choose from. All I'm saying is that a baseline 5v5 is all we can hope for and is easy enough to implement. As for the current situation... We get that a 5 on 5 of the Lakers vs a high school team is equally matched in numbers. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What people do seem to be disputing is the narrative that the Lakers in this situation are somehow locked in a heroic struggle. I'm not angry, it's just lame and no fun for the majority. Right now there is really only one campaign and it's being "ruined" so people are up in arms. In the future smaller guilds and undergeared players will just go play elsewhere I would imagine.
  11. I don't understand why they don't just limit the populations? In what other competition would you allow an imbalance of competitors? This is like showing up to a 15 on 5 basketball game. "Well they wanted to play together!". Huh? I get that people might have friends that want to come in late but Crowfall campaigns end. It's not separating people for very long. In addition there will be multiple campaigns. Add to that a system where spots open as people leave the campaign and I don't see the problem. What's worse? Separating latecomers to the game temporarily/making them play together on another campaign or inventing some convoluted system to combat (poorly made socksty) human nature and likely tanking the game anyway? Right now the problem is just a handful of guilds. People forget that once this game is ready thousands are going to flood in. Just wait until the unwashed masses all go Chaos because "hurr, durrr chaos!" (No offense to Chaos guilds). The plebs are not going to weigh the consequences of a scarcity system. What they are going to do is go Chaos regardless, realize that they might not be rewarded and gripe, so you may as well have limited the faction choice to begin with. 😀 The customer is not always right as evidenced by the current sorry state of the campaigns.
×
×
  • Create New...