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

Lightsig

Testers
  • Content Count

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lightsig last won the day on December 26 2018

Lightsig had the most liked content!

About Lightsig

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Language
    English

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah, I could see how that would be one of the outcomes, but if a player has multiple accounts then they are likely using them to cover different gaps and wouldn't be doing anything redundantly if it was sacrificing the efficiency of having multiple accounts. Not saying all skills would be considered redundant but it's safe to say that over time more and more tomes would wind up on the marketplace. The other piece to consider would be how much demand there might be for tomes that a player may decide once capping something out that they would prefer to sell skill tomes from that tree as an easier way to make gold than anything else immediately available -- depending on market pressure. Not all players will be the most hardcore multiaccount-wielding players that we have now. If the system is built around these behaviors then it would theoretically be possible to guarantee these pressures remain a significant contributor to landing skill tomes on the market. Without that system in place it's hard to say in any absolute terms though.
  2. The player power potential in this game is already limited by a number of caps. Passive training helps achieve some of those more easily, but the entire purpose of the game is the collaborative build up that happens in campaigns, not the time training itself. The benefits of being an invested player are an aspect of achievement that should be in the game in order for any sense of persistence to feel impactful. Additionally, if players are chasing time worms, then we are putting in incentives that directly pull players out of the campaign for non campaign based progression and that might be a little counter-intuitive. I'd rather the new players be helping a campaign than holding back whichever faction they belong to by focusing on more trivial gains. As an aside, most of the benefits invested players have will be imparted to players in a number of ways anyways. Whether that be through market interactions or PvP ambushes, all variety of goods will be distrubuted one way or another and that is the core of player power in the campaigns. It's gonna feel a lot worse in game now because training was accelerated and players are literally years ahead in training than would be intended over a similar dilation of time in the live product. Not to mention there are still a lot of missing systems that might drive more of the crafted item availability like caravans, thralls and factories.
  3. There was a skill banking/tome system already announced just not in game yet. This would be a way for players to do exactly what you're suggesting. In the skill banking design players could take saved up time training and turn unused time into skill tomes that other players can purchase and use to catch up.
  4. Yeah, agree @Audin Not sure their idea of baking all passive into the player reduces the potency of already preferred minors, since now even more power is compounded including traits that are also really strong still. Would be nice if they just brought back the banes/boon system to the design of minors so that there could be significant and impactful choices to make regardless of getting all passives. Maybe Humans and Half-Elves could could nullify one of their "banes" as part of the human versatility theme /shrug @DeernadoI like your idea of stacking similar disciplines as a way to generate a new effect. My only concern would be how does that keep the minors unique? If they are more about their combine effect than their standalone effects my fear would be the potential homogenization of the granular options that exist now.
  5. I watched the stream for September recently and after hearing about the adjective system the engineers are bringing online, I thought this might be a good way to bring in an attribute that fills a similar gap as the friendly fire system but not quite in the same way. The issues Todd brought up about competitiveness and team size/strength got me thinking... What if there was an adjective that took the combined friendly targets in a parcel, or by proximity (based on what threshold it would seem reasonable for this to occur), giving them a debuff that creates a pulsing chance to take damage. Like an "In the fray" type debuff that approximates a reasonable chance to take damage that would act similarly to a simplified friendly fire system. Since this is literally what the enemy players are experiencing when significantly outnumbered, this randomized/pulsing damage could be a balancing mechanic offsetting some of the larger zergs numerical advantage without it being something structurally predictable that the enemy team could confidently plan around or exploit, while larger zergs could be mindful and still plan around it. Some ways to structure this multiplier so it doesn't feel purely nonsensical might be: 1) having a baseline threshold for the number of friendly targets in the combat tray to activate 2) Stacking the effect based on the duration of time in the combat tray. 3) using a gear check adjective to decide a "danger" level that increases the number of stacks that increase on the previous conditions, possibly with a very limited threshold. E.g. if nearby friendly targets have a danger level of 1, they are in whites or greens, danger level 2 represents greens and blue, and 3 is purple to orange. 4) adding in leadership traits or skills that can offset the effect of the randomized damage, or traits in the combat trees that provide similar effects like another kind of "control" stat that would reduce the stacks given to other nearby friendly players. As an aside, I wouldn't say it should be a jarring amount of damage, or if any amount of damage is jarring then something similarly disruptive applied to larger groupings of players in a similar manner. Ideally something statistically impactful, like bumping into someone except that bump is perhaps reducing your resolve, damaging stamina, or forcing you to restart a chain attack. I'm getting a little off the original mark but ultimately the idea is just about ways to tax players of a larger-than-desired-group size to either force reasonably sized engagements or offset the inherent advantage without providing some generic unmitigable handicap to the smaller team. Just a very rough idea atm but what are your thoughts?
  6. It would be cool if there was a necromancy crafted consumable that would wipe a discipline, but definitely keep it difficult to attain (rare/expensive). To me it would make sense that you shouldn't be able to swap majors especially with the unlocking of tiers tied to the vessel's progression. With balance being an ongoing effort, and needing to keep some room for new disciplines to be added, the unavailability of swapping disciplines contributes to a regular demand for the necromancy craft as players will have a specific reason to replace their vessel, and this contributes to keeping graves nodes as important as any other resource to contest throughout each campaign.
  7. Would be cool if there were more reasons to sacrifice a vessel, maybe to allow a chance to receive back some of your disciplines as well as xp on current vessel. Might help keep necromancy business going, with some incentive based against the availability of disciplines and your desire to respec.
  8. It would be nice to see conditions become a little less about an alternative way to deal core damage. Maybe provide more abilities with triggers based on those conditions and provide some added utility or effect that is not about damage to health. I'm not against there being DoT builds in any way. It's just with the core stats of gear having such a large influence on damage output, if there really is a concern that DoTs under perform, than it might be better to see how these effects might contribute to controlling the pace of combat, rather than purely speeding it up.
  9. Whole lotta feels. OP just doesn't like the concept of tutorial spaces for new players. Thread. But I disagree. Full stop.
  10. Thralls seem like the natural direction for Necromancy anyways. With vessels hanging around forever I don't feel like my decision to invest in Necromancy training will have any value at all without some other more limited use commodity coming out of this tradeskill.
  11. Another issue I can't wait to see disappear.
  12. The problems with a loot pinata are 1.) You can't loot selectively if walking through a doober automatically picks it up (which I would assume will be an issue with more limited inventory) 2.) In large sieges you will be surrounded by loot, and not only is that not matching the aesthetic of a battlefield, but if we actually reach a scale of sieges that doesn't have a hard cap below the server's total population, we will probably be two steps back performance wise. 3.) The person grabbing their body at a safe range has to go back and pick up anything left behind and will likely be waking back to a guaranteed death again. Now you might think that last part is fine but if we argued there should be no protections then why would there even be a reason to run back to your corpse, a huge durability loss won't be less enticing then a repeated gankfest on your corpse to engage in losing battle over and over again.
  13. Yeah, definitely, because if it isn't coming with war tribes then the current issues will be only be exascerbated with even more NPCs derping around the world.
  14. Didn't realize "dungeons" in an open world MMO could be so controversial. Let's look at it like this, can we even have a "throne war" without a living world to navigate and conquer? Can players feel engaged solely upon objective-based player vs player nodes on an on-demand basis any and every time they log in? No. Definitely not. And I am sure I am not the only one who would've abstained from ponying up the money had my interpretation of an "MMO" been "content that is only playable when other players make it possible", yeah, no. The opportunity of engaging other players should be massively rewarding, and the pinnacle of experiences to be had in crowfall but the outcome of not having much to do without them would make this game DOA. War tribes and dungeons create hurdles and attractions that will draw player engagement through need or want. I'd think the benefit of driving players towards similar places to create conflict would be obvious. To everyone else implying better design around pure-PvP objectives would somehow gaurantee a consistent flow of players to provide said content, uh, Age of Wushu, anyone?
×
×
  • Create New...