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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ArcJurado

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It is a relevant comparison as it's the same amount of accounts but even comparing those numbers, as i had mentioned in my post: - Once you hit a certain number of members in a guild you can effectively cover all needed specializations. - Because people will be able to spread out in other areas over time this has the largest effect at launch and lessens over time. - Even if they're multiboxing they're not going to be playing all of those characters effectively.
  2. I legitimately don't think this will be a huge issue for this game. If it was every man for themselves sure we'd have a problem but it's not. Crowfall is built around playing with a guild and people running multiple accounts aren't going to have any advantage over an active guild. You get a dozen or more people in a guild and you have enough to cover almost everything and that would be considered a small guild. 15 people running 3 accounts isn't going to have an advantage over 45 people running single accounts. The biggest difference being all of those characters on single accounts ca
  3. I think this is an important point that is being overlooked constantly. The game is built around guilds and communities. If you're only interested in combat then you 100% will need the support of a guild so you can focus on just that. Does gathering/crafting all of your own gear feel like a long grind? That's because it's not meant to be done by one person, especially at the start. When you first start playing the game you will suck, there's no way around that. But with the support of a guild you can easily become well equipped and participate in battles where you can learn how
  4. The thing about saying new players will be under-powered completely misses the fact that the game is 100% group/guild centric. You're not supposed to just be going it alone soloing everything. This isn't most MMOs where it's basically a single player game with other people around. If you're not with a group/guild then you're going to have a bad time even if you had every skill trained. New players won't feel as under powered or disadvantaged because they will be grouping up with people either in their guild or their faction and everything will be a group effort helped by people who aren't
  5. Literally all you've been asking for is for progression to be per-campaign and then to reset after the campaign is over, essentially making all progression tied to that specific campaign. This would make every campaign it's own self-contained battle and mean you're starting every single campaign with 0 training. That's not asking for options, that's asking to have every single campaign inherit this rule. I'm all for having a set of campaign rulesets that ignore all account bonuses but don't make all of them that way.
  6. Actually the game works because of all of the systems together. No single system 100% makes or breaks the game. Everything, together, is what people are buying into and playing. Asking for a Hardcore ruleset is fine but demanding that they outright remove a key system of the game is completely selfish. And to be clear, your title is "Get rid of the passive skill system." Not change, not revise, not flesh out or add depth. Outright removal is what you're demanding. Adding options for hardcore players in rulesets that ignore any account bonuses makes sense and certainly could help t
  7. Yes games should evolve but just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's inefficient. The notion of eternal heroes and dying worlds seems fairly integral to their vision for the game. Asking them to completely remove the eternal heroes part of it is a bit much honestly. We can all voice concerns and make suggestions but at some point you have to respect the dev's vision and consider if this is the game for you or not.
  8. Absolutely no one is opposed to having that as a campaign ruleset. I haven't seen a single person saying they don't want this to be possible. What I'm opposed to is completely removing the passive skill system without an adequate replacement for long term persistent progression. Why is that necessary? To give player some sense of permanence and long term goals outside of the immediate campaign.
  9. It wouldn't be impossible for them to have a campaign rule that ignores any bonus from the passive training system. It would take some time to develop and it could be a bit tricky yes but it's not impossible. If you're suggesting having specific campaigns that make you start from square 1 that's fine but to tell the devs to entirely remove it is a bit selfish. You're asking them to remove something they implemented which others find enjoyable simply because you don't. Having campaigns that ignore the passive skill tree is a far better solution than just removing it outright.
  10. Yes and it's also sold with the promise of some degree of persistent long term progression. If the game didn't have that honestly I'd never have bought into it because that's not something I find enjoyable or fun. It seems like you find resetting back to 0 more fun and interesting which is fine but that's not what this game is. Yes there's already a large degree of resetting with the campaigns which I actually do think is a good thing but if there was literally 0 persistent progression it would feel like whether you win or lose or any progression made within a campaign would be meaningless.
  11. This misses the point of the current system though, it doesn't replace it with something that achieves the same goal. The goal here would be giving players some persistent progression outside of the campaigns so it doesn't feel like progression is ultimately meaningless because it will be reset every time a campaign ends. This will already happen to some degree with the different import/export rules, you won't have every last thing from a previous campaign in a new one. This game isn't framed or sold like a moba where you know each match you're going to be reset.
  12. Yes and after that I admitted that saying "It gets better later" isn't great but also you need to start being weak so that you can feel the difference in strength later. Skills are one of Crowfalls main mrtjofs of progression and to make that progression feel meaningful you have to feel like your character is better than it was when you started.
  13. Purchased items being able to be traded is helpful though, even if there is the possibility of some level of abuse. If things like VIP couldn't be traded then people who don't have the means or desire to pay cash would have no access to it. In this way there's nothing that can't be gained by just playing the game, there's nothing that is exclusively locked behind cash with no other alternatives. To me having things locked being cash with absolutely no alternatives is more P2W than being able to trade it. Is it possible that someone could trade it to someone else for help in a battle or
  14. Final Fantasy XIV A Realm Reborn (the remake) did launch in August 2013 so still under 5 years at this point. Has had subs since then, released an optional cosmetic cash shop and two expansions.
  15. Honestly I don't agree that you need to be provided with equipment from the start. Making your first set of tools is not a painful process and it shows you the basics. You start with nothing and you can very quickly and easily figure out how to make a full set of tools. 3 wood for your first axe and then 6 more for the hammer and pick. It teaches you the very basics of crafting and gathering. It shows you how to get materials, how to make them into equipment and that the basic logic of what tools to use on what. Starting with literally nothing is how the devs have decided they want
  • Create New...