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

Lightsig

Testers
  • Content Count

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Darksun_ in Duelist - The only Class remaining with a single Race option? Lets remedy this by supporting other "Dextrous and Dashing" races ASAP!   
    As a Guinea/Duelist fanboi I approve of this restriction.
  2. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Farvann in Nation EKs   
    Nations EKs as a concept would be allowing individual EKs to dedicate their EK to a player-made faction. This would create a campaign-like web of player EKs allowing players to travel seamlessly between them using runegates.
    Additionally these could allow greater player control over events, possibly allowing for additional off-season campaigns based on borderland-style zones and player structured campaigns.
    These could require resources that players typically acquire in CWs to act as a form of maintenance but could also exist as an off-season game mode where players influenced the design. This cost could potentially be offset with a system that reduced the resource demand or extended the duration of Nation EK CWs. Perhaps even with something like a prestige system where every team that fails to defeat the game mode increases that nations prestige. This could be an overall ranking to incentivize off-season shenanigans, or a way to recycle won resources in a gambling like effort to spawn higher rank nodes than would typically be found in EKs, or extend the availability of the borderlands.
  3. Like
    Lightsig reacted to starrshipcs in Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)   
    I hope that balancing doesn't need to be tweaked like this once the numbers are up and once the campaign rules and reward systems are in place as intended, but if not and more mechanics are absolutely needed to address the issue then I think this is a clever mechanism that could have some potential as a tool in the belt (not a silver bullet) for some campaign types.  As organizations grow, productivity per-capita (not to mention general morale) generally trends downward, so the debuffs make perfect sense in this context and the verbiage also fits the game thematically.
    Really hoping additional mechanics aren't necessary, and I'll quibble details on the debuffs when and if needed (don't touch combat stats, please!), but if they are necessary then this is a better concept than most I've seen.
  4. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Aeriav in Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)   
    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.
  5. Like
    Lightsig reacted to APE in how to rebuild passive tree   
    There is definitely skill needed to excel in this game model, however "skill" comes in many forms. I value mechanical and strategy. Some value account age and grinding. Everyone should value good comms, leadership, and organization. Not sure anyone should praise lopsided numbers.
    Early on it seemed like ACE would going for a combat system that rewarded aim, positioning, and strategic use of powers. Unfortunately none of that seems very true and over time they've made these less and less important. Wouldn't say we can just faceroll to victory, but they aren't really pushing the limits at all and barely requiring much from players.
    Some seem perfectly fine with the game model being about out grinding, out numbering, out gearing the enemy along with ganking others to prevent them from matching those areas as well. This seems to be a big part of the "skill" in this game. 
    I don't come to MMOs looking for eSport competitive systems so it isn't surprising but I do wish they raised the bar a bit. That would require too much at this point though so I don't see it changing much.
    Will be interesting to see how things turn out when Beta rolls around and hopefully more people come in. Along with a wipe of everything including passive training and it turned on at snail speed. Even with multiple accounts, I believe this system is going to be a pain for everyone and progress will be slow. Which is fine if the rest of the game itself is entertaining. Getting Legendary a month in shouldn't be the main focus. The rest of the game needs a lot of work though.
  6. Like
    Lightsig reacted to mystafyi in how to rebuild passive tree   
    I tend to agree with you. I really don't want p2w in any game since it cheapens the experience for me. I Would rather not need to have a catch up mechanic at all. But, currently there is too much relative power gain with passives to not have mechanic. New players are disenfranchised by having to wait for harvesting/crafting skills while waiting to make gear/vessel in order to compete in pvp. Having no way to catch up with power gap will not sit well with many. 
  7. Like
    Lightsig reacted to Jah in how to rebuild passive tree   
    New players would be much better off leveling their first character, gathering gear from war tribes, and learning to play.
  8. Like
    Lightsig reacted to Jah in how to rebuild passive tree   
    Harvested resources take time as well. In fact, they take time and effort, which is arguably more valuable than "passive" time.
    I'm not saying I know it will work, but it isn't as clear that it won't work as you say it is.
  9. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from bignick22000 in how to rebuild passive tree   
    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.
  10. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from oneply in Suggstion: Thermal Vents and Hang Gliders   
    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!
  11. Like
    Lightsig reacted to APE in Combat Feels Bad Still   
    As is, I believe a mix of tab/soft lock would result in a better overall experience. Good chunk of powers could have some sort of combo/option built upon positioning and movement keeping it in the meaningless "action combat" box. With so many powers being cone, aoe, raycasts and forgiving overall, the pretending to be a FPS with the reticle or that aim is a big deal seems silly. Games that mix it like GW2 feel better IMO. Unfortunate that tab targeting has such a stigma when it allows for devs to get more creative from past game examples.
    Glad other upcoming games are going with a mix and option to choose between tab, soft lock, and aim. Allows more freedom in design and player choice based on playstyle and skill level.
  12. Like
    Lightsig reacted to APE in Combat Feels Bad Still   
    It's hard for me to put into words but combat still feels off.
    Combination of movements/attacks not having enough weight, animations/visuals effects too fast or too unnoticeable for being proactive/reactive, positioning isn't rewarded greatly, lack of collision/physics/aiming, forgiving targeting or lack of despite several design choices focused on the reticle and supposed aim, messy UI and visuals, and so on. Along with optimization and the issues you addressed.
    My hope is some of that gets cleaned and tightened up, but not sure if this team has enough talent with experience in this area.
    While those things could improve, I have stronger doubts about the powers and character design that make up combat itself.
    While there is some variety, most classes seem rather one/two directional with little complexity. Hit left mouse a few times, get a buff or trigger something, hit 1-2 other things that benefit, repeat. Toss in some oh crap buttons and whatever DMG+CC for filler.
    While games like WoW had maybe too many spells, others like GW2 cleaned up the bar and went more with variety. GW2 classes with the weapon system can play fairly different even with a small hotbar between builds. Promo classes and Disciplines (sub-classes?) simply do not add the variety I believe is needed or that ACE seems to say they provide. This makes Crowfall's learning curve not so high which is good, but the ceiling is low as well.
    Not sure if there is any way to improve this beyond going over each class and promo one by one and putting a good deal of time into them. Sounds like ACE plans to look at early classes to maybe spice them up to be as interesting as newer ones, but overall even the newer ones don't differ too much.
    I wouldn't say all classes are homogenized but the variety of powers and effects is bland compared to several much older games. 
    When it comes down to it the typical stack and burn a target combat happens and is how most games go, but I guess I at least like the illusion that what I'm doing matters more then just adding more DPS/Healing to the pile. Then again I like the more niche support roles and powers like debuffs/buffs/shields/cleansing and other combat modifiers that change how fights take place and less about how fast/slow someone dies.
  13. Like
    Lightsig reacted to starrshipcs in Balancing sides   
    These things are not untrue at all.  The import rules still mitigate the potential advantages for campaign play so I don't think the impact on balancing will be very significant, any more than tethering export allowances to campaign victory status would be and for the same reasons, but this is one of those early adopter boons that can be hard to overcome; if you have the resources at launch then you will likely get and hold the economic advantage for at least a while.
    Of course, those who intend to capitalize on this must do so right at launch in order to "establish their brand" because even spending a whole bunch on EK down the line to try and catch up may not actually give the same advantage as those who spent the same at/prior to launch got because latecomers will have to chip away at established go-to economies.  It also depends on what value you actually place on gold, or any other forms of payment they may intend to allow (like dust, embers, etc).
    Vendor searches could be a way to further mitigate this particular issue.  Query the item you want and get a list of vendors on the various public EKs with some sort handles.  But I digress, that is a totally different balancing conversation.
  14. Like
    Lightsig reacted to starrshipcs in Nation EKs   
    Since EKs all sit on their own servers which go dormant under certain conditions (hopefully those conditions change dramatically), they would need to wake up all connected servers at once most likely, but detail details; VERY much dig this suggestion: +1
  15. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from starrshipcs in Nation EKs   
    Nations EKs as a concept would be allowing individual EKs to dedicate their EK to a player-made faction. This would create a campaign-like web of player EKs allowing players to travel seamlessly between them using runegates.
    Additionally these could allow greater player control over events, possibly allowing for additional off-season campaigns based on borderland-style zones and player structured campaigns.
    These could require resources that players typically acquire in CWs to act as a form of maintenance but could also exist as an off-season game mode where players influenced the design. This cost could potentially be offset with a system that reduced the resource demand or extended the duration of Nation EK CWs. Perhaps even with something like a prestige system where every team that fails to defeat the game mode increases that nations prestige. This could be an overall ranking to incentivize off-season shenanigans, or a way to recycle won resources in a gambling like effort to spawn higher rank nodes than would typically be found in EKs, or extend the availability of the borderlands.
  16. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from PinkFluffyPanda in Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)   
    If they let them hold onto those holdings they would be gaining both loyalty and points. There also wouldn't be any tyranny gains, but they would have to effectively maintain that hold without other factions gaining loyalty somewhere else and mounting the offense where the larger faction might be vulnerable.
    Overall it would depreciate some of that faction's gains if they continued excising the loyal holdings of smaller factions.
    The loyalty would theoretically act as insulation from tyranny so that short term captures aren't treated with the same significance as an established faction holding.
    The issue here is that some portion of players will give up if there are too few ways forward. Players should always have some play against larger factions snowballing the campaign anyways, and even if it doesn't dramatically change who is on top it does allow for there to be more players, as well as a greater variety of players, on the bottom that stay in the shuffle.
    It's better to maintain more players in total for the health and longevity of the game. We don't want to end up an accidentally-more-niche-than-intended community if the game ultimately appeals to too few people, otherwise what sense of a kingdom is there for a throne to have any significance in the first place?
  17. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from starrshipcs in Balancing sides   
    However export/import limits are applied they could always be a gating mechanic at the import level. There just can't be too many different campaigns if it splits the playerbase beyond playability, and import limitations as a trend would dictate the value of exports as a reward.
    I would prefer to see rewards that focus on EKs rather than cosmetics. IMO gating cosmetics in any way is wasting the resources of the art team or applying a demand to their contributions that might ultimately create conflicts within the game's aesthetic. Badges and mugs are fine, just not sure it is the best reward structure in the long term.
    I know Apex leaves a bad taste in a lot of folks mouths but I loved the design of the player cards (or I guess they are called banners) but it would be cool to see aesthetics added to the game in a sort of "end of campaign", "start of campaign" highlight of VIP (not the sub) players or guilds.
  18. Like
    Lightsig reacted to mandalore in Balancing sides   
    The same alliance on NA has won every campaign or trial for the past year and half (it’s like 12 or 13 consecutive wins).  Some of them close, some of them snowballs.  You’re arguing that with every win we should have gotten more of an advantage over the players we already beat Bc since we won we deserve a prize?  There should be no in game advantage for winning.  A cosmetic reward: titles, weapon skins, mounts, badges, armor dyes, banners, eq stuff are all appropriate for winning but an advantage that helps the team that just won continue to win is the very definition of Uncle Bob and is bad. 
  19. Like
    Lightsig reacted to Yumx in Balancing sides   
    Numbers is not always everything.

    We've seen this on both NA and EU, time and time again people win outnumbered fights, because there's almost always a way to win outnumbered fights, even when it comes to over double your numbers.

    What this thread is ultimately trying to do, is punish those who actually put in the work to figure out what they can do in their current situation.

    My guild has been there, we used to fight 5 vs 20, later 10 vs 40 etc. but we kept our goals realistic, kept working and kept practicing.
    Now we suddenly have the numbers to compete with any current guild in the game, and now our enemies have given up and are taking a break or hiding.

    The 'imbalance' have always been that it's casuals vs hardcore minded people - and when the hardcore minded people put in a lot of extra work with practicing, theorycrafting, min/maxing etc. it starts to show.
    If those hardcore people then start to have even numbers with the casuals, they will almost always win, because the casuals just haven't practiced as much - they just don't try as hard.

    But as mentioned it's not always about numbers, it also come down to other factors such as leadership, experience, tactics and just outperforming your enemies in a fight.

    When you start asking for a buff so you can eventually one shot your opponents, then you do not really want to win.
    You just think it's too hard to put in the time and work to figure out what you can actually do, and how you will get there.

    Start doing your homework, start practicing.

    Setting a realistic goal for what you want to achieve in your current situation, is a great way to start out.
    You might not win the current campaign you are in, but luckily campaigns start anew after a month.
  20. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Audin in Balancing sides   
    I find this statement confusing. Zerg forces will always form because it is an inherent and simple to understand strategy when there are no forced activities to divide player numbers, either by forcing them to choose between multiple high value POIs or  providing some form of diminishihg returns after faction stacking and I see hints of both but we will have to see how it fleshes out once more of the game is completed. But these issues only become far worse in a pure GvG like the dregs where player coalitions can be more easily reformed than in the 3-faction mode.
    I don't really know any of the specific details that have been released about the dregs but since it is clear this game is all about the largest, most geared and organized zerg then it should be no surprise that there won't likely be much diversity of powerful alliances because those who want to win will just team up, because if winning is all that matters who cares if it is fun... Fun doesn't dole out the rewards.
    The concerns OP has are legitimate, but I don't like the idea of flat modifiers as a tool for compensation. I'd rather see players get divided by events that could be procedurally generated based on the standing scores. Something like if an alliance loses a keep to a much larger force who has double the lead on them then this defeat precipitates an event where the losing alliance can sacrifice something to their Gods for a limited time buff that can be activated at their choosing but maybe pops up something similar to one of the siege trees, so that the opposing force has the opportunity to stomp it out cancelling the effect... if they can find it. But it shouldnt just be given to the players for losing and instead should cost them something of significant value that they still hold, like a settlement or POI that becomes corrupted by the transaction infecting that settlement or POI with the hunger in a more noticeable way and is thereafter rendered somewhat unuseable for a duration of time, giving the losing alliance the ability to hold trick/power play up their sleeve to release at a key tactical moment of their choosing to turn the tide of a battle or campaign.
  21. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Mankong in Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)   
    Tyranny as a concept would be a debuff applied faction/guild/alliance wide. This debuff would build up anytime a victory is won by a team that already controls a majority of the campaign. Think of it like dishonorable kills -- a consequence of driving more "unfair" outcomes in the path to glory. This would be because the faction holding the majority of settlements (or it could be point based) would simply be depriving enemies the opportunity to compete by destroying access to settlements or POIs necessary to progress. No one is saying the GOAT, BMOC, straight-up DNA-based WINNERS shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of their... advantage...but this idea is meant to reflect some of the real world consequences dominion to such a scale would have... and hopefully make for a more enjoyable outcome in any campaign.
    So what would Tyranny be in effect? Over time inharmonious actions would create a compounding effect with associated consequences (debuffs). Upon reaching certain thresholds this would begin to effect the faction in a number of ways. For example;
    First rank Tyranny could apply a debuff to all thralls employed by the faction, reducing their added benefits. If they are helping to automate or speed up production then that would be reduced.
    Second rank Tyranny would then compound the first debuff, increasing the reduction even further, as well as increasing any associated upkeep for the thralls (acting as an abstraction of turn over/attrition)
    Third rank Tyranny, would broaden this impact to also drive the efficacy of resource gains from POIs (overall dissatisfaction with the tryannical leaders)
    The fourth and final rank of Tyranny would then broaden this effect to any agricultural or animal husbandry production (if it exists, otherwise rank 3 would be max)
     
    Tyranny as an idea isn't meant to be a fix all, and obviously some tyrannical factions will do everything they can to maintain their grip on power even if it means maintaining a more burdensome and inefficient heirarchy, but that's the conquerors cost. 
    Additional ways to give this more nuance would be to have settlements reduce their Tyranny over time by adding a loyalty score based on the duration a settlement is under that faction's control. For instance, if taking a fort would be a matter of reclaiming a holding that was previously "loyal" then there would be no impact to that faction's Tyranny level.
    Thoughts?
  22. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from ConstantineX in Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)   
    Tyranny as a concept would be a debuff applied faction/guild/alliance wide. This debuff would build up anytime a victory is won by a team that already controls a majority of the campaign. Think of it like dishonorable kills -- a consequence of driving more "unfair" outcomes in the path to glory. This would be because the faction holding the majority of settlements (or it could be point based) would simply be depriving enemies the opportunity to compete by destroying access to settlements or POIs necessary to progress. No one is saying the GOAT, BMOC, straight-up DNA-based WINNERS shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of their... advantage...but this idea is meant to reflect some of the real world consequences dominion to such a scale would have... and hopefully make for a more enjoyable outcome in any campaign.
    So what would Tyranny be in effect? Over time inharmonious actions would create a compounding effect with associated consequences (debuffs). Upon reaching certain thresholds this would begin to effect the faction in a number of ways. For example;
    First rank Tyranny could apply a debuff to all thralls employed by the faction, reducing their added benefits. If they are helping to automate or speed up production then that would be reduced.
    Second rank Tyranny would then compound the first debuff, increasing the reduction even further, as well as increasing any associated upkeep for the thralls (acting as an abstraction of turn over/attrition)
    Third rank Tyranny, would broaden this impact to also drive the efficacy of resource gains from POIs (overall dissatisfaction with the tryannical leaders)
    The fourth and final rank of Tyranny would then broaden this effect to any agricultural or animal husbandry production (if it exists, otherwise rank 3 would be max)
     
    Tyranny as an idea isn't meant to be a fix all, and obviously some tyrannical factions will do everything they can to maintain their grip on power even if it means maintaining a more burdensome and inefficient heirarchy, but that's the conquerors cost. 
    Additional ways to give this more nuance would be to have settlements reduce their Tyranny over time by adding a loyalty score based on the duration a settlement is under that faction's control. For instance, if taking a fort would be a matter of reclaiming a holding that was previously "loyal" then there would be no impact to that faction's Tyranny level.
    Thoughts?
  23. Like
    Lightsig reacted to APE in Balancing sides   
    I agree with this on the surface but a game can't be comprised of only winners. Losers need a reason to come back and there needs to be at least the semblance of a chance at winning if XYZ change. If the hill just keeps getting steeper and those on top just get stronger and stronger, why come back?
    Competitive games (lobby/esport/arena) have rankings and leaderboards to attempt to provide a solution. Without that in place, I'm not sure if the "campaigns end or go to another" will have the same value.
    My hope is there is enough population to run multiple servers with different entry requirements and ceiling caps. Along with a reward system that looks at risk/reward not simply who has the most points after a period of time.
    ACE needs customers to stay in business and a server with 100 hardest of the cores isn't going to keep the lights on. If they are increasing their stance on anti-P2W and cash shop options, then other design decisions will need to make this accessible enough to bring people in long term. Which includes losers.
    At the same time I don't believe people should be rewarded for playing poorly. This needs to be a higher design layer, not charity.
  24. Like
    Lightsig got a reaction from Kraahk in Nation EKs   
    Nations EKs as a concept would be allowing individual EKs to dedicate their EK to a player-made faction. This would create a campaign-like web of player EKs allowing players to travel seamlessly between them using runegates.
    Additionally these could allow greater player control over events, possibly allowing for additional off-season campaigns based on borderland-style zones and player structured campaigns.
    These could require resources that players typically acquire in CWs to act as a form of maintenance but could also exist as an off-season game mode where players influenced the design. This cost could potentially be offset with a system that reduced the resource demand or extended the duration of Nation EK CWs. Perhaps even with something like a prestige system where every team that fails to defeat the game mode increases that nations prestige. This could be an overall ranking to incentivize off-season shenanigans, or a way to recycle won resources in a gambling like effort to spawn higher rank nodes than would typically be found in EKs, or extend the availability of the borderlands.
  25. Thanks
    Lightsig reacted to Medicaid in It seems like the people forgot...   
    Reading through the forums it become quite clear that people feel like they have signed up to currently play a game.
    Even though it's been up and running for a while now people seem to need to be reminded that this is still in an early development cycle. We are not "playing" we are "playtesting".
    That being said I've started to play a game while reading the forums where anytime I see the words "play" and "game" with more relevant words like "testing" "development phase" 
    If u do that a lot of posts seem to make little sense and come across poorly. Then u begin to understand why the dev's might not feel the need to reply alot of these
×
×
  • Create New...