Nerd

Testers
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Gameplay wise it looks like we are ready to go, the major systems are in place. I will agree that at this point effort needs to be put into polish. However, some of this polish might require that these features be tweaked heavily, or new systems might need to get added. I don't agree that there should be a point in time where you essentially initiate a change freeze, if there are critical things missing they have to be implemented. My biggest fear (and probably yours too) is that the game gets released too early with key quality of life features missing and the big population wave that comes with new games does not stick around, at all, and a month later the playerbase is gone. When you do that big marketing push, you get one shot at it. There are many features missing right now that could cause this to happen, some of which I have expressed previously. What I think might be beneficial is if you let us know exactly what features are going to make it, the current status of each of these features, and which features are going to be held back so the community can help you prioritize. Something like a roadmap, I'm sure you have one internally that you can make tweaks to and show us.
  2. While capturing outposts, they did not neutralize when they hit 0 capture and instead ticked up as the hostile faction. Tried this on both a tower outpost and a campfire outpost. Some guards respawned during the "tick up" stage when the point should be neutral and they were aligned with the hostile faction, so it was not a UI bug. Once it hit enough meter to capture it flipped over to my faction like normal. I did receive the capture bonus, with the 0.9x season bonus so that's working properly. Removing mounts is a drastic change and it hurts but I guess it makes more sense to roll characters with intrinsic speed buffs now for roaming around.
  3. I would say that the majority of people who rolled NA Chaos since day 1 of 5.8 were new players. For the most part they did not organize, they did not join guilds, they just did their own thing and mostly got farmed by vets and guild groups then slowly stopped playing. It wasn't a lack of players, or a lack of skilled players. If they would have organized better a lot of the problems that your friend would have experienced (no access to forts for crafting and a perception of nothing productive to do) could have been resolved. That being said, this game is not ready for a marketing push for new players until solid group/guild mechanics are accessible in game. Players mingling around in game is what creates communities, and it needs to both be easier to spontaneously mingle through proper group/raid mechanics and a group finder, and to create a guild or invite friends to one. Once there is a sense of community it's easier to get people to join discords, read up on guides etc. out of game. The growing expectation that you have to find a guild to play with before you even log in for the first time I think is asking way too much. As we are experiencing, many players are not willing to put in the effort out of game to apply to guilds on the forums, to find people on the community discord, etc. Those who do so are outliers and more often than not, not successful. It's too large of a hurdle for many people, and right now these are people who are knowingly signing up for a pre-alpha! Not your typical player. What will make or break this game is the success and evolution of player communities. If what is playing out right now happens on launch the game is not going to be successful. The most important mechanics in the game will be the in-game group/guild community building systems and we need them in our hands sooner rather than later, not only to test them but to help with player retention at this early stage.
  4. If you don't put enough gold into your vendor's coffers and it goes inactive, everything that you listed disappears when you pay the bill. Not sure if this is intentional or not but I dislike this mechanic.
  5. What do you feel that the testing of this patch has accomplished thus far, aside from minor bug fixes? What are your general feelings on how the game is being played out on the current live servers? Is there anything you think you have done extremely well, or anything you feel could be done better? Has there been an experience in this patch where a player has done something unexpected and what was your reaction to it?
  6. This shouldn't be allowed

    I'm not sure what you mean by chaining CCs as a Ranger, to my knowledge and as a Ranger main you can't permaCC chaining your abilities together as one even if you execute perfectly. Otherwise I think we would see more forum posts about it. Utility CCs does not make a CC class, and having a couple of classes that have utility CC is not enough for a large group to faceroll everything, as you have experienced. To me this is not a game where you should be able to faceroll someone down if you have enough numbers no matter what. It's just too easy to roll alts and change your characters around. Group composition should matter. To clarify again, I am not completely against pit fighter nerfs, I just don't think survivability is something to focus on when the expectation is that there will be big fights, where classes like the pit fighter would be in the front line. The clip sure looks to me like it was three groups, none of which were in a unified voice channel, no group character builds, no tactics, just running at the enemy and facerolling when in range expecting something to die. Some of you might have tried to do random CC on your own. Should that level of coordination result in a kill on a tanky character in a big, organized fight? I don't think so, and it would cheapen the game if it did.
  7. This shouldn't be allowed

    What the video comes down to is: Poor group composition Bad group coordination Clever use of terrain Some of which might be expected if you have three+ groups of players coming together. Should players who have specced into survivability have the tools to be focused by a group? The answer to me is, yes, absolutely. You need to have shot callers, cc machines, and other force multipliers in groups who will be focused and giving up some potential dps/utility for the ability to be targeted many times over the course of a fight and survive comes with the territory. This is how you differentiate between uncoordinated zerging and elite group play. IMO the way to tweak these classes is not to nerf the survivability talent branch but to balance their DPS and other utility. For the record I have been involved with Endless's death with a smaller group of players with less coordination than that.
  8. The seasonal changes to point accumulation make total sense. I like this change. I'm not sure what to think about the capture bonus system though. To some extent it does provide specific targets to fight for however it promotes backcapping to get the points multiplier rather than fighting. The points system has to be built so that it generates fights for it to effectively moderate the PvP aspect of the game. I'd like to see these changes in action! I could be wrong! I have talked about the points system being more reflective of current player activity in previous posts, you might be able to use the capture bonuses and multiplier mechanisms to do this. For example wiping a hostile group in a fort while taking it could fill up the bonus pool. Another example would be, after a certain amount of kills or gathering activity around an objective, it could be "leveled up" for an increased point multiplier which would be reset if the objective is flipped. Perhaps you could give attackers more bonus points for flipping these leveled up objectives. Maybe an objective needs a little bit of love before it gives you the full point count. Lots of possibilities, it doesn't have to be super grindy either.
  9. To me, what matters from this event is getting test results and getting people excited about the game. If you expect player numbers to be about the same I don't see why not to just continue as is, it would more accurately show the results of a "mid game" campaign and players would appreciate not having to grind up again. The only concern I have would be the unrealistic stockpiling of items which could be remedied by having a low import limit of around 20-30. IMO the current level of 150 imports would damage the ingame server economy, promote farming on the "opposite" campaign server, result in players burning out BEFORE the campaign even starts, and ultimately the test results would be skewed. If you believe there is going to be a spike of new players, you'll have to do a full wipe to keep things fair. It would be a poor idea to have a "first campaign" with players, 15 minutes after the servers open, on epic mounts running around in blue vessels and gear with a month's worth of combat training indiscriminately slaying every level 3 vendor geared noob in sight, who then proceed to ragequit, tell all of their friends that the game is full of nolifes, and opt for a refund. Although many on the forums would have lots of fun, it would be a disaster and hurt the game. To some extent it is unfair to advertise a "first campaign" but give people access beforehand to build their characters and there are bound to be complaints but majority rules!
  10. I would be careful using EVE as an analogy because end game players in nullsec are effectively so rich that subcap ship loss does not matter, and for the most part logistics is a gigantic pain in the ass and done optimally results in barely any risk. Wars are won and lost on player morale, people showing up (or not showing up) to fleets, and drama, the actual state of the battlefield is pretty much meaningless because you can gum up the works by changing timers to when you're asleep (don't we all love alarmclock ops?), make fights take 6+ hours, and alliances typically hold enough territory that they can do this to you for months. Also "blueballs" is a valid and well used technique. While being highly effective strategies for winning I don't think anyone actually has fun doing this. The game is sustained not by its nullsec content, but by carebears in highsec as shown by the reluctance of the developer to make any tweaks to it and all of the economic data they release. The game has lasted a long time however and there are lessons you can take from that. I think one of the key things to take from EVE, as you have mentioned and to enlighten those who have not played the game, is that if you had ore from mining you could sell it to the market, if you had good processing skills you could buy ore and process it for minerals, if you were a manufacturer you could buy minerals and turn them into items, if your items needed to be moved to a staging area you could hire someone to do so, and if you were looking for combat you could buy the items and use them. At any point in the chain you could decide "I don't want to do this" and put your unfinished goods on the market. The highly robust and easily accessible marketplace allows for many different solo/small group play styles and gave you something productive to do that you enjoyed when your guild wasn't active at the time. The open marketplace connects everything and the game would not have survived this long without it. Crowfall is missing this currently, but it's very early days and I would say the tools that are currently in place for this (the vendor thrall) are not being used to their fullest potential. As crafters and gatherers start going for green/blue materials the plain mats become easier to come across however it has to be easy for these players to put those mats up for sale, or make a profit turning it into equipment and selling it to noobs rather than trashing it or stashing it in your bank forever. This becomes a question of, is the current individual vendor thrall system going to be enough or do we need to have single marketplaces per location? How do we get more people participating in the player marketplace? If you close the marketplace off and put it in the hands of big guilds, forums and discord channels, you make the market more difficult to access and choke it to death as we are seeing right now. It makes sense for high level equipment and vessels, but you shouldn't need to jump through all of these hoops to get easy access to whites and greens so you can compete at a basic level in PvP.
  11. The Role of Negativity in Crowfall

    The bitter Shadowbane vets in this thread need to realize one thing: Shadowbane is a dead game. Sure it was entertaining at the time. Yes it made some memorable moments. Is it still a commercial success? No. The game is dead. It's not even on life support like Eve or Albion Online. It's done. If you've come here looking for an exact replica of Shadowbane with better graphics and some minor QoL changes you are simply dreaming. The developers are here to make money. Shadowbane has been proven to not be successful 10 years ago, and without learning the lessons from all of the failed games that have come after it will result in it dying again, we will have all wasted our money, and it will join Shadowbane in the trash heap of dead games. That's not to say that you can't take some positives from Shadowbane. Most of us bought into Crowfall for the PvP aspects of it which use a similar framework to Shadowbane. I think posters like OP acknowledge that certain mechanics need to be tweaked which is a perfectly valid opinion pre-alpha. The bitter Shadowbane vets need to understand that some elements in their game resulted in a terrible death, and instead of rejecting change, embrace it. Find areas of common ground. We have to work with the framework of Shadowbane and make it better. Put the nostalgia away and lets get to work.
  12. I agree with most of what the OP is saying but the one thing I have a disagreement on is that there should never be any sort of hard cap on population. You might run into a scenario where you can only play with some of your friends or some of your guild which is a deal breaker. The way to balance population and eliminate bandwagoning IMO is that campaign win rewards should scale based on the level of imbalance. If your faction dominates the server population wise, you should get a smaller reward (or maybe none at all). Likewise, if you are able to win while outnumbered you should receive a bigger reward. The key is getting players and guilds wanting to swap around and mingle.
  13. Most of the complaints are coming from crafters playing the game sub-optimally. The current optimal crafting path takes players out of the PvP environment and puts them into a risk-free EK. This should be concerning to anyone who enjoys PvP and a clear indication of something that is broken in a game that should be revolving around PvP. There's no point in actively defending crafters, because the easiest way to make sure they never get killed again while crafting is to tell them "lol go to an EK noob". Players in typical Crowfall fashion will be punished until they figure this out, at which point the faucet of noob tears will run dry and a source of conflict is lost to the detriment of PvPers who are constantly looking for content.
  14. Observations on the 5.8 scoreboard system

    I'm going to agree with srathor here. Player activity is key. The capture/points mechanics should be fight generators. The current system is an exercise in backcapping, nightcapping, and hiding behind guards. There should be points reward for ongoing player activity and some map indication of it as well so people can find fights. I'm thinking something along the lines of creating sectors on the map, getting enough NPC kills/farmed resources/captured outposts will result in your faction getting some points for owning the sector for that tick. A "points earned within the last 15 minutes" indicator, "player deaths in the last 15 minutes" or some sort of "players active in this sector" counter could then be implemented per sector, obviously nothing too specific to keep up the fog of war. I'm thinking about 6-7 sectors per individual map would be enough to make it viable for solo players/small groups to contribute, this may need to be tweaked if the population counts increase. You could tweak the outposts to lose capture points every tick so after an hour or so of being uncontested they would go back to neutral. They are an indication of player activity as well, under the current system they are very static and more of a grind and best to be avoided if they aren't already taken. You do still need to have forts and keeps to have big fights. The point rewards for those can be adjusted as required.
  15. I don't think we've ended up in a scenario in the test environment where players are running around with blues and purples, massively skilled accounts, and huge vessels destroying other players with white advanced gear. Solo players more familiar with game mechanics are using low-damage, tanky classes with massive self heals or classes designed for hit and runs to full effect. If anything is wrong it's the fact that there is little faction unity, and aside from a handful of very helpful people in general chat, not much in-game knowledge exchange going on. This is what is creating two classes of players right now, you're either part of a group/guild and you figure out the "tricks" to the game together or you're not and at a massive disadvantage. Most new players fall into the latter category. If you severely limit the ability for players to make their characters more powerful the game turns into one big meatgrinder, whoever has the biggest blob wins, and the playerbase will die off just as fast. There has to be some counterplay and players need to feel like the time they put in matters. There will be enough silly guild drama and faction swapping to take care of the elite groups and they can and will be zerged down, you're just not seeing it now because the group/guild mechanics aren't being used/haven't been developed to their fullest potential yet.