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

Tooltip

Testers
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tooltip

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Guild
    Seeds of War
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chicago

Recent Profile Visitors

104 profile views
  1. For your consideration (not sure I fully agree with my argument, but try it on for size): I think fundamentally, healing is useful insofar as it allows more damage to be done to your enemy. If healing doesn't result in more damage, then it did not directly contribute to the war effort: For example, if you're running around with a mate and they take fall damage, and you heal them... well, it saved them a run-back or whatever, but that is a few steps removed from adding points to your faction/clan. If healing does result in more damage, then it directly contributed to the war effort: For example, if you're running around with a mate and encounter another player(s). Your mate engages the enemy and they spar. If you weren't there, your mate would have died based on damage received, but you kept them alive and allowed them to deal more damage to the enemy. Outcome: The enemy dies: This is a direct result of your healing since your mate would have died without you there. The enemy doesn't die: This is a bit trickier, since it's not exactly analogous to the "fall damage" scenario. There was still a fight, and you contributed to the war effort by allowing your mate to continue fighting. The difference, it seems, is whether the damage your mate took was a result of combat, or non-combat, AND whether the healing was done in-combat, or out of it. In order to calculate the actual "contribution" of the healer in the second set of scenarios, I think it could be done based on: damage received beyond the player's healthpool. This is some indication of how many more points of damage that player was able to absorb as a direct result of the healer. It also ignores overhealing which is nice. ( (Damage received - initial max HP) - healing done ) while in-combat = contribution points. contribution points would then have some conversion rate into leaderboard stats. I also think you could just report the raw contribution points as a rank system among healers and not try to compare them to DPS stats. So to track this, they'd need to track healing received from the healer, and not healing done by the healer. I don't think that should be too much of an issue. It's pretty crazy that this late into game dev, folks haven't figured out how to appropriately credit healers. What am I missing? How is this broken?
  2. Well, only in the most trivial of senses. Willing assumes you have the *free* time devout to this goal. Sure, people could quit their jobs and sacrifice friendships and so on to play the game. It can be interpreted as willing, but that's not any metric to go by. I might be as willing as anyone to invest time, but I just don't have it. Or not enough other people who I want to play with / want to play with me. In these cases the game still needs to work, be playable, and fun. This is a well known issue and millions of dollars have been spent trying to correct for "no-lifers" / people who have significantly more time and better social frameworks with which to play. You also point out that the winning guilds are playing the way it's meant to be played, you're right, and what we're seeing is that the way it's Meant to be played is a losing framework. That's the point I think we're all talking about here. Uncle Bob is guaranteed to be invited over for dinner, and when he fouls the atmosphere and everyone leaves, why would they come back?
  3. I agree. And this is bad news for the longevity of such a game. "It's lonely at the top" is not just a saying. Conan Exiles is a great recent example of exhaustive predation that seems somewhat analogous to the current situation. Large guilds crush smaller ones and solo-duo players to the point where they don't want to play anymore. That leaves large guilds with no one to fight. I guarantee that Balance is bored AF right now because there's no one to fight... in a fighting game. Restarting the game, or wiping, or whatever is not an answer because it doesn't address all the points you brought up. So in faction war, this will happen constantly, and in Dregs (GvG), why would I ever stick around if Guild X enters the match? I'll just stop, or find a different one / not invite Guild X. Maaaaybe the really big guilds will set up matches and go at it, but that's again, not enough to sustain a game long term. You need numbers. You need people to have fun playing your game whether they win or lose. It's seriously easy to just stop logging in and pick up one of 10 other games just waiting to be clicked. I think there are solutions, but I'm not sure what they are exactly. And I'd like to see ACE brainstorm more options. Catch up mechanics only work if the losing side isn't crushed (demoralized) and can "rally" which is not common at all. Better carrots are fine if they're willing to rally but don't see the point. But you need to avoid the situation where your opponent pushes back from the keyboard and says "why the heck would I spend another minute fighting this fight? Lemme just load up X until things change".
  4. Nope, not at all. In fact, when I posted I had no information on the size and composition of the winning side. In fact, it doesn't matter. The numbers are what they are. Whether it's 3 people or 300. There's a problem here. And what I saw from the devs is "we need a better carrot". I don't think that even an ambrosia carrot will make a difference. Folks didn't stop playing because they thought the reward wasn't worth the effort. They stopped because they were demoralized given the current system and mechanics. That's not something more shines can fix. That's a design issue, not a loot / reward issue (though yes, loot/reward is design as well)
  5. @Oaths thanks, I was so excited when I saw that thread. Alas, it's a dumpster fire of accusations and politics. No headway was made on the issue at hand and so now it's locked. My point is that CF is a competitive PvP game and we just got a taste of how mega guilds are gonna play it (@mandalore: no, dude, I'm not saying Balance is a mega guild, I'm saying when it goes live, the big no lifers are gonna step in and this will be a daily special. Just look at pretty much any CPvP game out there (Atlas, Conan, Ark, etc.). If folks think this was bad, there are guilds out there that will school Winterblades) I just don't know how more carrots are going to solve this issue. What happened (it seems) is that the other factions lost the will to fight. That's a huge problem. It's huge. It ends games and it's not just the players. Not everyone is part of a large well organized guild. Not everyone has the time to spend farming and staying up and the massive investment it takes to do anything in this game. That's a big problem because the 1,000 people who do are not going to be enough to support this game for 5-10 years. This is why PvP brackets were made, why millions of dollars are invested in "intelligent" match making, ELO rating exist, leagues, etc. It's because even though I like basket ball (I don't really), I don't want to play 1v1 or 10v10 with NBA players. I'll just stand there and watch them dunk. So how is this mediated? I dunno that multi vector rewards is enough to stop this from happening and motivate players who are being crushed to keep fighting. I did like the suggestion of the game assigning players to factions (a la match making in most games) would help break up hegemonies and prestacking but I dunno
  6. Is it even realistically possible to lose? On paper, perhaps, if everyone in Balance stopped caring and the other factions capped and held, but... I'm pretty sure this is not going to be uncommon occurrence at live regardless of how many catch up points can be gotten. When the mega competitive 200 person guilds show up and sit on a side, I can't see how any amount of attrition will matter. Perhaps there needs to be some "Finger of God" moments that shake things up?
  7. Awesome, dunno how I missed that thanks for the link!
  8. Thanks! But I mean, seems like they should make an announcement on their official forums, no? This is clearly something that affects everyone. Seems pretty standard to communicate big oopsies with your dedicated customers.
  9. Where is the announcement that there was a rollback?
  10. I also agree that a leveling system is a good mechanic to have in. But it's a PvP game, why not give XP for PvP? To curtail collusion: Track how many times a particular player has killed a particular player and give DR --> 0xp after X kills in Y time. and / or, track each player and give them an XP pool that grows the longer they haven't been killed (a' la forts and keeps). and / or, track each player and only give out flat XP for X deaths in Y time. and / or, only give out XP if there was an actual fight (both parities did and took damage) There's like 20 years of ideas for how to give out XP. I'm just not sure why they hard gate PvP behind PvE in a PvP game.
  11. Well that's my point. And yes, our "jobs" here is to playtest and provide feedback. So complaining when things are a chore and not fun is part of that task. Don't accept a ludicrous system like this. There are a million ways to make it better and more fun to play. So saying "you have it easy now" is no solution at all. Why would anyone want to go through this with a blue vessel? Players will at best tolerate it, not enjoy it. Games should be fun, no?
  12. I completely agree, but the current system doesn't encourage this. There are so many ways to encourage players to go out and not stay in EKs or the temple area. Heck, even removing sacrifice pits from those spots would do it.
  13. So, the way things go in this game, you basically need to be level 30 to fully play most (all?) classes. In some cases, like the Druid healer, you need to be 15 before you can even start healing, and 25 before you don't have to endlessly tray-juggle. This leads to players finding the optimal way to level. In 5.8 that was sacrificing architectural frames. While NOT AT ALL INTERESTING, it was at least fast. You basically got 2 levels per craft and it was over quickly. 5.8.1 "fixed" that so now crafted items basically give 10xp per 1 basic mat. This means that players need to find the best way to mass produce items at that conversion rate in order to level. Turns out (from what I've seen) that basic axes (30xp) made with 3 knotwood (not rank wood), and or basic bows/books (118xp) made with 12 knotwood are the way to go. They require the least amount of effort, and can all be done in total safety. Sure, fighting the right mobs is faster and also gets you gold, but it has obvious risks and is arguably slower (not to mention you cannibalize your own faction xp by monopolizing spots) So it's basically Player vs. Trees gameplay before you can even play the actual game. 17,500xp to 30 at 10xp per knotwood = 1,750 knotwood. I'm specced into wood gathering (not exclusively) and it takes me 3 swings with a basic axe to pop a knotwood tree. The average drop rate is 1.5 wood per tree = 1,167 trees. Come on, now. Is this really how you want your players spending their time? Fighting Knotwood trees? Can we please do something about this ridiculous leveling problem? Give XP (with DR per character-character kills) for PvP. Increase mob density, or at the very least allow us to respec until you can get the whole mob overhaul in. Please don't just reply with "go fight mobs instead". Many players are not playing that way and there's a reason for that. It's poor design, not poor player choice.
×
×
  • Create New...