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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kino

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. My other question is the buildings. As Todd said, yes they are cosmetic, but you can slot NPCs and crafting stations inside them. It also is a question of what does it take to get one of these buildings of equal value? Would it take a few compaigns to get a manor compared to just paying for one via Kickstarter? Also how important is it to have these npcs and crafting stations? Would a player that pledged money and got a building that could have a crafting station be ahead of a player that has to make one? For example, Player A pledged money and has a building that can have a crafting station. Player B pledged no money. Player A and B play Campaign 1 and gather resources. Player A gathered and exported resources to create gear. Player B gathered and exported resources to create a building. Player A and B go back to EK and craft. Player A used the resources they exported from Campaign 1 to craft gear using the crafting station they were able to place since they spend real life money on a building. Player B used the resources they exported from Campaign 1 to craft said building. Campaign 2 comes around. Player A comes into Campaign 2 with gear they were able to make from Campaign 1. Player B comes into Campaign 2 to gather resources for gear. They come into the Campaign without the gear since they had to spend Campaign 1 getting resources to build the building in EK.
  2. Going with your example: Player A has real life money. Player B has a sword. Player C has nothing. Player A buys VIP ticket or cosmetic items then trades for the sword to Player B. Player A goes out into the forest. Player C comes across Player A. Both Player A and Player C have equal skill. Player A wins because he bought a sword before Player C had a chance to gather materials and craft one himself. Player A won because he spent real money to trade for in-game items. Yes people will argue that gear doesn't matter in this game and it's all skill. Well take equal skill, the person that has the better gear will win. And there will be better quality gear. Like Crit Chance and Damage is better than just Damage or whatever people end up finding. Thus the gear that becomes better will cost more in-game. The mats that make the gear will be harder to obtain due to people fighting over it. In a game that has no end, this doesn't matter as much. Eventually everyone will catch up in gear. However, in Crowfall, where Campaigns are limited time, a week in a three month Campaign will have a great impact on the outcome of the Campaign. And before you say that VIP market is limited, don't forget you can buy cosmetic in-game items and in-game items can be tradable. By logical conclusion, you can trade cosmetic items bought from the cash-shop. Also, before you say you can't enter the world with your fancy sword, yes there will be Campaigns that you can enter the world with your things. Or even if it's a brand new Campaign, this is still a risk. You'll have those players that don't work, like students for example, that can spend far more time but have no money. Then you'll have the working adults that have less time but more money. Evens out yes? But what about the students that don't have time and don't have money. Or the working adult that doesn't have time and can't or doesn't want to spend money. Or the ones that do have time and can spend money. Either way, the people that can and are willing to spend more money will gain an advantage. Even if you're not thinking made items, think resource holdings. Guild A owns a copper mine. Guild B has a lot of real life money to spend. Guild A gives the copper mine to Guild B for X amount of VIP memberships to give to its guild members. You just won at an entire resource mine that will put you ahead of other guilds. Being ahead and having an advantage in a time-based game is winning. Or if you want to go cosmetic: Guild A owns a copper mine. Guild B has real life money. Guild B offers Guild A to buy cosmetic furniture for Guild A's EK for the copper mine. Guild A agrees. Now a useless cosmetic thing with EK gave an advantage to a Campaign.
  3. Same here. Thanks for the info Tully! Keep the work up! You guys are doing great.
  4. From what I heard from a friend that played Shadowbane, it was plagued with lack of balance. Also from what I played in original Star Wars Galaxies, in combat, there was a severe lack of balance. Yes Jedi was eeextreeeemely difficult to get, but if you got it, well no one could stand up to you. Also, I'd appreciate it if the title of my thread wasn't changed. If a mod changed it, there's no reason to change it as it wasn't a troll topic name, so please change it back to the original "Archetypes not balanced?" If a dev changed it, would like some clarification in a post rather than just a change of topic. Thanks.
  5. I actually wouldn't mind. For some reason it didn't capitalize my forum name.;(
  6. Oh thank god. Glad to have confirmation. Was getting worried! lol
  7. Actually, the origins of high heels were for men and for the battlefield. No I'm not talking about thin stiletto heels, I'm takling about like boot heels. Men originally wore high heels for horseback riding. The design was to keep your feet from slipping off the stirrup while galloping into battle. The stirrup sat between the balls of your feet and the heel and the heel of the shoe extended your actual heel to keep it from slipping. It just happened that the nobility started wearing them for their non-combat horseback riding which then they started wearing them to court. Then women picked them up because the nobility was wearing them. Eventually it became a female only thing. But before, heels were used for battle!
  8. I swear she had a different icon. I remember it being the melee dps icon! I was comparing it to the legionnaire. Hax!
  9. This is actually the kind of balance I'd like to see. A balance among different playstyles. A rock, paper, scissors type thing. One class might be good at 1v1 but horrible in group fights and pretty useless. Or vise versa, a class that's really good in large groups but find them on their own and death. Or a class that's really good at sustaining but doesn't deal a lot of damage. Or a support class that can be good with another class but on their own they have nothing. But even within that, having one build within a class that absolutely wrecks all other builds will still lead to cookie cutter builds within that class. I get this game isn't for everyone but you'll end up seeing the same build within the archetype over and over again because it's the strongest.
  10. Actually they have said that they're not going to be balancing Archetypes. It's in their FAQ. "The natural result is that some character builds will inevitably be better than others." Sooo yeah since they're specifically saying some character builds will be better than others, there's an issue. Why would people play those character builds that are worse? They wouldn't, that's the point. And no, there were not a lot more than 5 viable classes. You saw these classes for the most part: Templar, Daggerspell, Abolisher, Darkrunner, and Primeval. Occasionally you'd see Stone Arrow, Revenant, Dreambreaker, Tomb Warden, or Defiler, but rarely. If you played anything other than these, you were considered bad or couldn't perform as well. Out of the 120 class combinations, 11 classes is not a whole lot. Cookie Cutter is used because it works. A vast array of options doesn't necessarily work. Like my example, ArcheAge had 120 different class combinations and you literally saw the same 5 over and over again. That's still a type of balancing. I'm not saying make each Archetype equally strong against each other Archetype, but do make a balance. Making Archetypes better in different situations is balancing. Going back to my ArcheAge example, you had classes like Templar which were the best tanks in game and the best healers in game that could still put out decent damage. Then you had Dreambreaker or Daggerspell which had the best CC and best Damage in game that could still self sustain. People flocked to the small amount of classes that were good in various situations. So by making Archetypes good or bad depending on the situation is a sort of balance.
  11. I'll be honest, this concerns me a little. Yes it's important to have players be able to customize their characters and finds what suits them, but in my opinion, balance is very important. If there's no balance, there will be a strongest. If there's a strongest, people will only play the strongest. If people only play the strongest, everything else will never be played. People will find the strongest Archetype and strongest Promotion Class and strongest Disciplines and strongest stats and attributes and then everyone will play that exact thing because it's the strongest. By not having balance and having a "strongest character" there will be cookie cutter builds because cookie cutter builds work, that's why everyone plays them. Take games like ArcheAge, which allowed players to be 120 different "classes" due to the combination of three skill trees. How many of those classes were viable? Not many. How many were the strongest? Like five. I saw the same classes over and over again because they were the strongest and there was no balance. Everyone had the same skills and same passives and same gear because it was a PvP game and to succeed you have to be strong. Without balance, it becomes more about if you're playing the right class with the right build than the skill you put behind it. So like I said, this is my own opinion and I'm sure others don't share it, but not balancing archetypes worries me.
  12. You think the gods are all moral? I mean really? They're Order, Balance, and Chaos. Why would you think a group of gods that are flagged under Chaos would be sunshine and puppies? They're chaotic not virtuous. Besides that, evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We consider Hitler evil but he and his followers legitimately believed they were making the world a better place. Same goes for the Fae. They believe that males cause wars and become tyrants. They've done this for generations and have known peace. They don't believe themselves evil. After all, to them they kill males swiftly and painlessly, which as they say, others don't give that courtesy. You only have to look at the latest news in our world to see how war is treated. Burning good men alive.Torture. They don't take pleasure out of it, they do it for safety and peace. That doesn't make them evil.
  13. Also, just because it's humanoid, doesn't mean it's not gender-locked or that they'll make one if extremely popular. Take the Stoneborn Forgemaster. We already got official word that even if extremely popular, they won't make a female version due to lore.
  14. Selfish Question: I live in Austin and an aspiring game developer. Any way to see what you guys are doing and how you're doing it? Maybe after the full reveal? Like maybe a community day or office tour type thing?
  15. I don't understand how buying housing and boats is not pay 2 win. At the very least boats. If they have naval combat, well you're out of a likely large part of the game if you don't spend money to buy a boat, or hope someone you know pays money to buy a boat. If there's no naval combat, what's the point of boats? Or if there isn't, it's still likely important. Like fishing or transport. Which if you don't spend money, you're still out of. And they're claiming that Revival is a game you "live in." Well if you don't pay money you can't live in a place of your own. I want to know what the role of housing and boats is in Revival and how important it is. Like in ArcheAge, housing and boats were absolute necessities and based on how it sounds to be in Revival, they will be too.
  • Create New...