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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lightsig last won the day on December 26 2018

Lightsig had the most liked content!

About Lightsig

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Language

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think this has come up before and the problem with artificially inflating power (if that is what you meant by 'heroic' -- correct me if I misinterpret) is that it's purely a handicap system that offers no little potential for broader gamification. Your levers simply become make the underdog more or less powerful. I tried to align this idea with the systems of upkeep and sacrifice so that a new mechanic like this could be interlaid within preexisting mechanics as to maintain some broader configurability for both sides of the win-lose scales.
  2. The bonus any person will receive within a week's time will be neglible, but yes the sum will have some noticeable impact, as intended. Vessels will really only be limited by gear to the extent that a bonus to plebtiful harvest will require a corresponding tool for said harvesting but for the most part their bonuses are independent of each other and are all cumulative. Neither are limited by passives aside from crafting.
  3. I'm not sure the relative power gains are really that much compared to other forms of stat boosts that will be available from gear, vessels, and consumables. That said, I think it's okay for some capabilities to be locked behind the passive training system because it offers a solution to player progression in that can't be sped up by playing 24/7 while also allowing casual players to equally progress skill training even if they can only play a few hours a week. I think some easy solutions for passive training would be to take away the different training types and make the passive training all a uniform xp, less convuluted/penalizing and then it can just be invested with increasing costs as players progress through the various trees. It would also be cool if some disciplines were made available as part of the passive training so that players could get in right at the start to place "starter points" and get a discipline that allows them to immediately fill some role as a harvestor or crafter. Preferably, thralls and Runecrafted version would be there for specialty or improved disciplines that aren't solely a kinda core/baseline for harvesting, crafting, etc.
  4. To your first point: There are/will be consumables that cover gaps in harvesting. I think crafting training needs a rework for sure though. To your second point: It's possible because if you put power behind a pay wall rather than some other form of achievement (in this case account age, or in-game effort to purchase this valuable commodity from more veteran players), you inherently force players to spend money in order to remain competitive, and that is textbook P2W. It doesn't matter if the benefit is miniscule or massive, the demand on players becomes the same and the perception of your game is marred for it.
  5. I think in order for it to operate as a veteran reward system it would have to remain time gated and if the catch-up mechanic was anything other than a marketplace created by players then it would cease to function as such and may as well not exist at all -- especially true if there was ever any consideration to place this time training in the cash shop (because that is totally P2W). However, I believe very strongly that it should exist as a time-gated benefit and any content explicitly gated by passive training be moved to another system entirely or be made accessible earlier on in training.
  6. That's my point. Grinding and collecting materials to help upgrade yourself to blue equipment, vessels and so on will do way more for your individual success than any reliance on stats from passive training. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing, but white gear is fodder gear, and you aren't expected to fair better than fodder if you use it. Passive training wouldn't make up for that disparity even if you maxed it out.
  7. That is really it though, "catching up" on the passive training system is not what you need to win a campaign. It's just a catch up for the passive training, it's not what is needed to catch up to other players in a way that allows them to be competitive. Passive training is just a veteran's convenience but even new players will be able to catch up to the vets through skill tomes. To emphasize it as some form of time-gated benefit required to win is just demonstrably false. As an aside, it also shouldn't feel "unfair" to be incentivized to gather materials based on the demands of the playerbase in a sandbox game with an emphasis on crafting in order to have generally competitive gear or success.
  8. The point is that the game is built around a gauranteed outcome where a limited pool of players achieve more while others conversely achieve less. Feeling like a "Birch node" in this scenario is hopefully a good motivator that helps drive competition and fuel drama that could fracture even the strongest of alliances. The catch-up mechanic would merely change what innate bonuses the account imparts to player characters. It isn't a catch-up mechanic in the sense that it is the end-all-be-all factor that decides who wins because that is more a matter of organization and effort in campaigns, not the passive-bonuses starting line.
  9. Here's how I see it... Theoretically, if you can gear up to hit caps then established players may become more incentivized to trade off their reliance on the passive training, seeing more incentive to acquire more currency for gear than to reach those gains in continued investment in passive training (which might arguably be the faster way for established players). It does seem like it would be difficult overall to maintain the incentive for acquiring passive training while also providing an incentive to sell it.
  10. I think the proposed in-game catch up mechanic is intended as something achievable, not necessarily immediately accessible or convenient.
  11. Any sources? Because that would be a terrible decision by ACE. It would also be tone deaf in light of the decision to take the extra passive training out of the subscription.
  12. The passive system should be recognized as a passive gap closer. Nothing should be unreachable during the progression of a campaigm assuming hard work, cooperarion, and dedication to a shared goal will still allow you to stay competitive without the need to exclusively rely on your personal progression through the passive training. It is in essence a veteran system that will help you cover the gaps of your desired playstyle to help expedite reaching your skill and attribute caps. You would otherwise be that much more reliant on grinding out to obtain gear and consumables that a long invested player will be able to ignore at the start of a campaign or forego when considering what to obtain once gaining access to higher tiers of gear when the campaign has progressed. A catch up mechanic would be there to allow players the ability to work to catch up as compared to the long term players that accrued it automatically over time. It makes sense because that way there will theoretically never be a statistical advantage that is unattainable solely due to your join date.
  13. To expand on what Oneply offered, the games that do offer this feature are doing so because getting between point A and B is somewhat trivial, or the content between those points is not as important to the developers as the activities that await at said destination. In Crowfall the world is not trivial, it's brutal and you traverse it at your own peril. At some point when we have caravans online it will be clear what the designs around travel have to take into consideration. For those that really want to glide around (where applicable) the choice is simple, just play as Fae!
  14. I also want to add that while I agree wholeheartedly that victory conditions will do a lot to drive player behaviors, it would be best to avoid anything too convoluted. It's better to have scaling granularity in rewards than to dramatically move the goal posts based on the distribution of players across factions. Drama and politics would ensue for certain but would it fundamentally change the issue of lopsidedness in any way other than incentivizing top guilds to divy up the top tiers of reward slots? Arguably with mixed success and agreement but it is ultimately a game decided by the largest coalitions of players and does little to provide an enjoyable experience for those outside those coalitions. Important enough because it will be the starting place for every new player. Ultimately the issue is that concentrated power is and always will be an inherent benefit in this style of game and what needs to be done about it is not likely something the community will agree on. So I concede there is not likely much to do to benefit this issue unless this can be driven by the vocal investor circle or trends regarding player attentiveness and retention prove the model is lacking in this regard.
  15. The game already leaves a lot to player autonomy, too much to feel like a game imo, but I understand there are many systems of impact yet to be implemented. This makes it somewhat difficult to crystal ball how experiences will change with those additions. I also understand I represent a different cohort of players than the ex-SB crowd, but admittedly I'm for just as many tools to be provided to players to structure their own outcomes as I am for putting in place bumpers like this that ensure an enjoyable experience from the top to bottom of player-made hierarchies. I think it is worth acknowledging that a lot of player frustration is being encountered within the campaign loop itself, not solely with the near non-existent rewards that are expected to be provided at each campaign's end. While the structure of hypothetical reward distribution is a great place to look at maintaining a positive outcome from one campaign to the next, I see a lot of frustration from players about the way things are playing out in the campaigns, and it is my estimation that those negative feelings and the underlying holes in the design will be greatly exacerbated once we have the chad campaign mode -- the dregs. I feel this is especially true if we expect the game to maintain healthy campaigns that last for multiple months on end. We might be insulated by enough like-minded backers right now to use the "git gud" response to new players but I think if this is a common enough impression that newcomers are having then it is gauranteed to be a legitimate problem facing the game at launch where high-level insights from the current backers are likely to be overlooked by new players simply excited for a new PvP-focused MMO. My take is, if players feel punished by gamification then they should probably try to see the other side of that experience which is players feeling punished by a lack of gamification.
  • Create New...