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

Ussiah

Members
  • Posts

    697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Ussiah last won the day on June 15

Ussiah had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Ussiah's Achievements

  1. To clarify. If the chat tab we are currently on does NOT have say or yell as an enabled option, we will not see chat bubbles for these? Or do we always see them unless we disable them across the board?
  2. Write it out.... I don't want to click your monetized content. I agree with the title, but I'm not watching that.
  3. Yes I am quoting myself. This is an example of why this seems low effort. This is now an actual talent in the druid tree. Please take a look at the feedback in this thread and see everyone wants you to go in this Direction, but put more thought and time into it and address the issues that have been brought up in this thread.
  4. The bright side is ACE heard some of the complaints. TTK is crazy different depending on scenarios due to Massive Offensive Scaling PDM Stacking Low Armor Amounts Stacking Pen The problem is the changes put forth seem to be low effort(sledgehammer). Wish I could put it a better way, but thats what it looks like. Armor needed buffed, but you should buff ARMOR not Resist All in talents. Pen needed Nerfed. Wish you had just gone the % base instead of keeping it flat, but I am glad you have lowered the amount. PDM stacking could be lowered, but if you are going to do that you need to look at every ability instead of just saying "change it to 5". Ironwood body is laughable now because you just went through and changed everything to 5. Also nothing was done for the biggest PDM abuse. ULTS with sub 500 cost. NOTHING was done about the massive offensive scaling with auto crits and 220% crit damage. We like the DIRECTION of the changes but it seems like execution is the issue again. Take time and do a real balance pass instead of sledgehammer changes.
  5. Completely agree about Ult Spam. Everything should be 750 base with SOME lowering to 500 IMO.
  6. This is now perhaps one of the most useless talents ever. If you're going to do changes, actually look at everything. Don't just do blanket changes with no thought of how it effects each thing individually.
  7. Yea I don't understand putting the resists on the talent. Make armor choices matter. Right now all this does to me is encourage leather wearing tanks. The difference in leather/mail/plate is miniscule and putting more stats in talents instead of balancing armor seems like a mistake. Additionally the stat you are buffing has a very low cap which could lead to issues going forward. If you insist on putting this on talent nodes, put it as base armor not resist all. Lastly, I am concerned nothing is being done about the massive offensive stat stacking that is possible. There are multiple classes that can get max crit damage with auto crits and multiple damage multipliers. Damage scaling in general needs to come down.
  8. You keep bringing it up. You don't get to keep replying to the topic then get mad when others do too. The max alliance cap (500) will make guilds split up. These guilds may still have NAPs (like what it looks like LoD/Conflict have). Because of the handshake sieges the power of these large guilds and large guild NAPs are diminished, which is a good thing IMO. So you can say your video shows the fun aspects of CF, I can also use it to point out the problems with the current system and how these new systems will help prevent those problems. If you don't add in the reserved slots, you will still have the same problems we had before where you have to log in hours early to reserve a spot so you don't get screwed by a mega alliance + their NAP friends abusing the technical limitations of the game.
  9. Use of "safe space" as a negative term. 0/10 There are merits to the system they proposed that outweigh the 3rd party possibilities.
  10. you wiped them after the battle to make it look nice. And sorry Blazzen, you didn't have that in your video, zilch did, at this timestamp. Yours stated they were friendly. Simple fact, the only people that are kicking their feet is the huge death alliance. Seems..... predictable? Edit: As I have stated in previous posts. I do agree I would prefer counted in CW, but lower than 500. Also I do think safe guards need to be put in to prevent self-siege.
  11. The video literally has one of your guys saying "i told conflict to go around" That video is a perfect example of why limiting alliance numbers and having set attackers/defenders is a good thing.
  12. The other reason for this implementation is in congruence with the handshake sieges. If you aren't in the alliance you can't participate in the siege. Both of these items lower the power of huge alliances in keep sieges.
  13. All the loudest complainers are the same guild/alliance which regularly is the largest force during siege. This diminishes their power so they disagree with them vociferously. Once again, I agree I will miss "third parties" but I'd rather have it so you can't get zone locked out by defenders or attackers simply by having a huge amount of people. With technical limits, allotments are best option. Also I love the lower caps to make it easier for smaller alliances to field a full offense/defense.
  14. Yep every extreme opinion against this is the same alliance. Do I wish they would tweak some things? Yes but come on with this killing the game talk. TBH I wish they would also progressively cut down the max # in a guild.
×
×
  • Create New...