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 the direction @Staff is mentioning is what I would lean towards myself. There needs to be something resembling the core game loop at least hinted to in the new player experience. I mean, what happened to toast messages, and server-wide events? Is there anything driving players to compete, or teaching them that this is the main concept of the game? God's Reach was supposed to ramp up players to understanding the concepts within Crowfall's campaign worlds. Ramping them up in a purely material manner does nothing to set that precedence, and it actually sends new players the exact wro
  2. Veteran players will have a path around it, but new players will be forced to endure it. It's not an ideal approach to me. We can't assume every new player is going to reach out to join a guild day 1, and that boring slog might be the only impression of the game they get. God's Reach shouldn't just be the game without PvP, and no high-grade resources. It needs to show people the point of objectives, sieges, and at least SOME element of the risk and reward gameplay that is at the heart of this game. It's essentially like teaching someone how to bowl with bumpers and no pins.
  3. There is little constructive about this video, so it deserves all of the flack it gets. Comments on performance are spot on though, and while I've heard from others that there has been improvements made to performance, it still doesn't feel that good if you're used to/expecting a stable fluid play experience (especially when you are by yourself). Also, I couldn't agree more about God's Reach being a mandatory PvE snooze-fest. I understand the ramping they wish to accomplish through this zone, sparing new players from having the shark tank thrust upon them, but to be completely fair, there
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 trainin
  7. 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 you
  8. 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 train
  9. 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.
  10. 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 play
  11. 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,
  12. 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.
  13. I think the proposed in-game catch up mechanic is intended as something achievable, not necessarily immediately accessible or convenient.
  14. 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.
  15. 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 in
  • Create New...