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

Anakte

Testers
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I don't disagree with you that the majority of development time should be spent on furthering the more advanced features, but it seems like campaigns are going to be more than just getting your feet wet, they're also the introduction, the meat and potatoes so to speak. They're already spending some time on balancing capture point totals and making sure you can feel the impact, so it isn't that far out of reach to tweak the system with this in mind such that it fulfills: "The proving grounds for Order, Balance, and Chaos. Players join one of three divine Factions and battle for control of the World. The goal for Order and Chaos is to capture as much territory as possible before the World is destroyed. The goal for Balance is to ensure there in no clear victor between Order and Chaos." And since it isn't the high end portion of the game you can balance it in a way that is 'close enough' but still get an engaging feeling. Even if you completely ignore the second suggestion of my post that would actually involve development, the first half would fulfill that O/B/C game play within the current framework without much effort and at least distinguish the factions a little. Side note, suggesting that the faction worlds are just to get your feet wet so don't bother putting time in to development is just saying "nothing before end game in an mmo matters". It may be true for a large percentage of players, and for a large percentage of time played, but that doesn't mean the leveling process can't be engaging, thought out, and entertaining.
  2. I remember that, and I liked the concept, but at the time all the other pieces weren't in place yet, the accumulation of time and all, and it was just the bum rush at the end for victory. Then they moved away from that with the current system. But yes, I thought the slider was a much better representation of the factions before they moved to the current point total system. Ideally that slider would use the current fleshed out time/point system. But I also think it's important for instance that Balance points aren't just "points for Balance" but taking from the current lead should matter more than taking from whoever is behind.
  3. So right now we basically have 3 generic factions that might as well be labeled A, B, and C. They all want the same thing, they all accrue points the same way. I have two thoughts on the matter that could help add flavor to the idea of "Order' 'Chaos' and 'Balance'. 1- Instead of each faction accruing ever increasing points, have the campaign itself have a point value that is centered on 0. Order adds positive points, Chaos gets negative points, and Balance removes points from whoever is in the lead (potentially only by taking land/forts from that faction that is in the lead.) Then the win condition would be to figure out how far the Balance range would be, how much 'order' was brought to the land to be considered an Order victory. I don't know where that balance would be, but at X% Order or Chaos would win, and if kept under that percent, then Balance would be considered victorious. 2- My second thought is less fleshed out and maybe less viable, but my thought is that Order would literally be trying to bring order to the world, building things up. They could accrue their points by how expansive and how long they can maintain structures. Chaos would accrue point by trying to raze everything to the ground, gaining more points (proportional to how Order accrues them) for destroying more expansive and longer standing structures. And Balance again is trying to maintain a middle ground, perhaps destroying some order structures that are getting too expansive, while building up some smaller ones that have been destroyed. I think this could also separate from the actual Forts/Keeps/Outposts for the sake of gameplay and combat balance, so perhaps something like the statues to the gods can be used for this. Inside a fort statues can be built, they can be improved in number and size through resources, and they can similarly be wrecked by either combat or picks/hammers or whatever. I think with this it could add flavor to the factions, could vary gameplay from campaign to campaign "Oh I went around building everything last campaign, now I want to burn it all to the ground" but fundamentally wouldn't change that much else.
  4. The shop is absolutely something you should innovate on. The system of buying odd amounts of middle man currency just to transfer it immediately to a purchase is enraging. I can think of various accounts off the top of my head that I have a balance just sitting there. Frankly it's similar to buying a gift card and waiting to use it until random fees are charged to it. There's a reason most places were forced to remove those charges. Since you need the system of crowns, in my mind it can be solved buy being allowed to buy an exact amount of crowns, in the lowest common denomination (50?). Then having the price be discounted based on tiers of how much you want to buy. So if 50 crowns is $0.50 baseline and I want to buy 6500 crowns, I buy exactly 6500 crowns. But since I passed the 6250 tier you currently have set up I pay $0.40 per 50 crowns as a discounted price. The separate issue being talked about is time in game vs resources you can buy in the store. If you want a Manor for example, the resource cost in game and thus the time cost is enormous compared to the store. I actually found it funny tallying up the resources just how much harder it is to build a simple cottage than to craft an entire section of land. I could see this being the sticking point where someone buys a building for cash, then sells it in game for an enormous amount of non-basic resources, turning that into high level gear. It's the one area that needs to be looked at so the pay2win voices don't have a legitimate concern.
  5. I completely disagree, it takes at most a few minutes. 3 wood to get your first axe, that's 1-2 trees. 6 wood to make a pick and a hammer, which is really fast in 5.6, then 6 stone and 6 wood to make basic weapons. If that's taking you 2 hours then what's needed is a quick tutorial or pop-up message (which isn't in game yet), not a change to the system. As far as a starter axe vs punching trees, I think it's good that people are taught a very basic principle right at the start of the game - if all your stuff is looted out in the world, you are not helpless. I wouldn't mind seeing junk gear come off risen, but mostly because I like the thought of a gear model that looks like it was worn by someone who was not kept alive by said gear.
  6. I like everything about this post with the exception of modified creatures being tied only to the day/night cycle. I'm not sure entirely how I feel about that one. I think as a progression it should be tied more to the season than the time of day, but in a variable way. Perhaps something like: Spring 60% day/40% night, and 15% of your monster spawns at night are hunger infected. Summer 50%/50%, and 25% of monsters at night are hunger Fall 40%/60%, 50% of monsters at night and 15% of monsters during the day Winter 25%/75%, and 90% of monsters at night spawn hunger infected, and 60% monsters during the day I also think the 4-5 hour window most are suggesting for the cycle would feel good. Variable, but not frenetic.
  7. As long as you have to choose between combat, gathering, and crafting (and even for VIPs, especially if the 2nd track is slower) it will always be beneficial to have a second account building up time. You can just use that first account as a combat/gatherer and the second account as a crafter and you have now increased your potential without any downside to where you spend your play time. In fact, that might be preferential with significant build times even if they rearrange things. Second screen crafter in the EK while you wait 4 hours for something to build? Take your combat/gatherer out and do some farming or pvp. It's a different story for people trying to actually multibox in the world environment, but it's not hard to see how multiple accounts would be beneficial in a crafting aspect. You can expand this too, maybe you don't want to have an account for every profession, but what if you had one for Way of the Leader to sit there and buff your crafter? What if you had one to specialize on a trade, and one to go "wide" so you could make the basics in every profession? To clarify I don't think it's the biggest problem because the main aspect out there, the pvp, multiboxing won't be beneficial and would probably be detrimental because of armor durability hits. But to say it has no benefit at all in this environment is not true.
  8. Good stuff, great things on the horizon! One question with dungeons - you have these great expansive mountain models, couldn't you place an entire labyrinth inside them with varying entrances and then completely avoid the issue of going under the tiles but still have that dungeon crawling feel? I could see that being procedurally generated once you have the interior volume of the mountains known. With testing, I'll often get emails for games to do a weekend test- could you do a weekend test with a new campaign where everyone starts with X in the time bank? I had a great laugh with your comment about torching farms, can we get pitchforks as special weapons usable on farms to attack/defend? I'd love a torches and pitchforks brawl!
  9. I now like to think the raven in the lower right corner is just questioning that as well
  10. It does seem surprisingly more taxing than mail/plate, but it's also hard to say if it's because there's less things to skin vs ore to be mined on Abattoir. I could see it flipping if we don't have an ore heavy map and they start adding more skinnable mobs in the game.
  11. I've experienced the invisible wall on the Abattoir map. If that's what you joined you should instead start with the Wrath maps until you get the lay of the land so to speak. If you hit the invisible wall you can just use the Recall spell though, and it will bring you to an appropriate spot. For game crashes Miraluna is right, email Crowfall support, they're very helpful. There have been an assortment of little patches coming out and it's very possibly a new or existing bug, but for the most part I haven't heard of widespread harvesting issues lately. As far as the bug goes, I haven't personally seen that. To clarify: What were you trying to harvest, and did you have the proper tools? Was is that something mechanical ie you had no targeting reticule at the node, had no ability to act on it, or nothing would happen?
  12. I disagree, I think that while there are a lot of people who vehemently support the game, I don't think I've seen a whole lot of "this game is perfect and nothing needs to be changed. Personally, my benchmark is the FFXIV alpha, where there was zero communication from the dev team, and the player base was largely Square white knighters. Now I love Square, and I played FFXI, but FFXIV was *not good* during the alpha, and it launched that way in part because the dev team had no/minimal interaction (even on the Japanese side) and the player base largely fell back on "it will be fine". Here is very different- the devs are interactive, supportive of criticisms of the game mechanics with a willingness to change course, and even the people who love the systems the most will often qualify their support in favor of "when the game is ready" or will offer suggestions for improvements. Even debates like this thread I think feel a lot healthier than similar debates in other development cycles. As for the question of soft launch vs commercial launch I see both sides of the argument. I have friends whose initial reaction was "oh some people are going to be ahead at the start?" And they were kind of turned off. But they weren't completely sold on the premise itself, and this game won't be for everyone and that's ok. I think that the right marketing campaign won't use the terminology we're using now during the development phase, and the word "launch" seems to be what people are hung up on. The "commercial launch" isn't going to be a "HEY WE'RE LAUNCHING THE GAME IN A MONTH" it's probably going to be "Come join our active community with some really cool new features!"
  13. I like the system mostly the way they have it set up. Your time is going to go somewhere, so in the end an individual character is going to have vertical progression, and it's necessary to feel your character evolve. What I like is that it's not just a straight run up to a specific level at which point everyone is the same. The idea that I liked that someone else in this thread suggested somewhere, is add more branching options within the skill trees. That way a path to the end could be wildly different between people. Hitting that last node is homogeneous now when every player is filling out 90% of the same nodes to get there, but with more connected branches you could hop around a little more. Especially since everyone won't be filling out every node once training is slower.
  14. I think the new skill tress are a great step forward, here are a couple comments I have based on current experience and where it seems they're going. Removal of basics trees is fine for people who have a grasp of the game, but might be harsh for new players. That said, a few days into the game if they decide to try something else out they'll only lose a few days and those points won't actually be lost if they want to come back later. Also once we no longer have the 10x speed training the early stages of the advanced trees should probably be tuned so that you are advancing reasonably early on so it doesn't feel like you played for a week and got 2 points. Early character growth generally feels good. Changing from a time based bank to a point based bank seems counter intuitive. Before I knew how long a point was, how long finishing a point was, I could calculate a path easily. Without actually getting in and testing it, it seems points might feel arbitrary. With the removal of any possible double dipping scenario vip status probably shouldn't be throttled to any significant degree, or even at all. It would feel bad to be paying monthly and then after a couple months think to yourself "I should've just bought another account and I'd be twice as far along in this". Or even worse, paying for a year and thinking "gee if only I had bought 4 accounts instead". As far as how to explain certain situations I have a suggestion. You should be able to train parallel classes, races, etc and all you would need to do to make it understandable is to grey out the trees while something is training, and add a hover note "This tree cannot be trained unless you pause training in X". If you are training Scoundrel, you grey out Rogue. If you are training Rogue you grey out Scoundrel AND Mercenary. But this would let you train Scoundrel and Mercenary at the same time and it's understood why. Suggestions on nodes and abilities (especially as more get added in the future). When a node needs to be completed fully to get the benefit of it, it should just have one pip OR the description should clarify "You will only gain this ability/passive/pattern on 5 pips". And similarly when a node needs to be completed fully as a pre-requisite the ui should clarify as well. You go through a tree using 4 pips at a time to move on then all of a sudden you have 4 pips and you can't advance and there's no real explanation why. I could see the use of a lock symbol on the lines leading to a final node, when you complete one path the lock is shattered but you still see the locks from the other paths that are required. Or instead of 3 paths each pointing directly to the final node, have 3 paths merge at a single point, then a single line connecting to the node, signifying all 3 paths are needed. All in all I'm really excited to start testing out the new system though, looks great!
×
×
  • Create New...