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

Kaffe

Testers
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kaffe

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Interests
    Coffee, cooking, school (Software student), reading (fantasy, life)
  • Guild
    Non
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denmark
  1. Hey man, thanks for the comparison! Didn't know that it caused that much problems, it definitely needs to be changed or a temporary solution to disable some elements.
  2. Hello! Your suggestion to changing/customizing the HUD/UI is a good idea. I think everyone would like that. However, I don't think that the HUD is what is causing the FPS drop. I am quite sure it is one of the following, or both. 1) The game is probably simulated on the servers. Our FPS is therefore linked to the FPS of the server. Due to many updates when many players are cluttered, especially near a Bane Tree, the server has to update values a lot, and the FPS drops. 2) It might also be that there is too many particles or other elements, and if the rendering pipeline isn't optimized the FPS will also drop. I have some, but limited, knowledge in this area. I can only imagine that the FPS will get fixed by server/render optimizations and not HUD/UI changes.
  3. And here is a link to the information as well: https://crowfall.com/en-US/trials
  4. With your all caps title and this quote, I feel a rather aggressive vibe from you. Don't know if that was intended. I really like the above mentioned suggestion by @Tinnis. It seems like a feasible solution. It might be a technical limitation at the moment, since it could cause more updates/events happening than they would like/be able to handle. Or it might just be another thing they haven't gotten to yet. Difficult to know.
  5. I think this curve makes sense. If it was more linear, r10 would almost always be best to farm. With the current curve, you can choose to go to one place to farm more green quality (lower rank) and another place to get more blue/purple. This spreads people more instead mass gatherings at r10 resources.
  6. Kaffe

    Leader board

    Neat idea, it can really be a mess to find yourself. Since you have the same score, I think you are seen as equal, it is just displayed unordered. Maybe alphabetical order would also help.
  7. Bumping people off is a really neat idea, since it doesn't restrict the use too much (everyone can try, even solo players) It would probably need a message to alert the bumped player, something like: The commander has forcefully removed you from this machine This mechanic can also be misused, but it is a good way to stop possible griefing from spies.
  8. Kaffe

    Feedback

    Hey, and welcome! 1) I am curious to why you would need to repair the game before downloading the new patch, could you explain? 2) In what way was feedback difficult to give? Was the suggestion forum difficult to find, or could you explain further?
  9. Hey! If you are not familiar with the intention/goal of having different campaigns with different rule sets, here's a brief description of it. The idea is to have several types of campaigns, Faction, Guild vs Guild, Free For All, and possible more. Each can have different rule sets as well (import/export, reward, etc.) Here are some pictures describing it: Currently only the Faction type is implemented. So I think your suggestion is a mix of Faction and Guild vs Guild. It's a cool idea, but I think it is better not to mix it until we have the systems in place.
  10. Find a group/guild to play with and/or harvest Rank 1 materials in forests at the temple.
  11. In the last Q&A Todd said that he doesn't like participation trophies, so I don't think they will be in the actual reward system. Remember, they already said that these Trials rewards are just to give people a reason to start the game, because more players equal more/better testing. It is probably also used to test the reward system before the real one comes out. It seems like people are forgetting that these rewards are only treats while they focus on developing. We will for sure see more elaborate leaderboard metric and reward systems in the future, but developing takes time.
  12. Todd himself gave the example of top X players, so I was following that idea. You are asking specific implementations details, but I think the high-level design needs to be decided first. I can give a example of what they can track and use for a multi-vector approach (for skinning): WH - number of white hides harvested GH - number of green hides harvested BH - number of blue hides harvested PH - number of purple hides harvested SM - number of special materials harvested TH - number of traded hides (maybe track how those resources were used afterwards even) Then calculate the vector with weights: W (0.001 * WH, + 0.001 * GH, 0.01 * BH, 0.1 * PH, 0,2 SM, 0,3 TH) (This ranks harvisting rare resources higher, but due to scarcity of them, it is somewhat balanced) And this can of course be applied to many factors and other disciplins. So quantifying top X players, might not be too difficult to do, but hard to balance. It is also limited to what data they save. Other approaches, again limited to what data they save, is to model all players and their interactions or the flow of what they crafted/harvested as a Social Network Graph and find the top X influencers. Those are just examples, there are many approaches to ranking people or data mining. But I was more interested in more high-level design issues than specific implementation details such as this.
  13. Here's a few suggestions to rewards systems for faction based campaigns. To start: I think balancing the number of players in each faction is the most effective way to avoid one large faction farmed in faction campaigns. I know it comes with a downside of guilds not being able to play together, but I think that factions campaigns should cater more to solo/friend groups, and let The Dregs (or other campaigns) be guild-focused. But, I believe Todd has stated that we would like to avoid restricting players, so for the rest of this topic, I will focus on reward systems that would minimise the reasons to form one big faction. Todd also described that rewards should be scarce, so I have had that in mind. Current System (for Trials of God rewards) All participants in the winning faction is rewarded more than the losing factions. Problem: The larger a faction is, the higher the chance are for winning/being rewarded. Scarcity (Top X) Reward the top X players in each faction. Better rewards for top X in winning faction Idea: You are more likely to win if in a large faction, but you are less likely to be rewarded. Joining the largest faction is not optimal. Problem: (as someone pointed out in the post by Todd) Creates inter-faction competition: players have a reason to undermine players in top X (or close) in their own faction. Scarcity (Boundary) Reward all players who (in some metric) were large contributors in the faction. The boundary should be difficult to pass, resulting in only a fraction of players being rewarded. Idea: Remove inter-faction competition. Problem: Forming a large faction is again the optimal choice. Scarcity (Variable Top X) As a campaign progresses, if the number of players is within a rough balance, increase the number of top X players, otherwise decrease or leave it be. Idea: Make it less optimal to form a large faction while minimising inter-faction competition. Problem: Will only minimise, not remove, the reason for inter-faction competition. Underdog Whichever scarcity design is chosen, a different way to minimise large factions are simply rewarding the underdogs (small factions). If a faction are underdogs, whatever they manage to capture is a more impressive act than the other factions captures. Increase all points gained if a faction is underdog. Idea: Make it less optimal to form large factions, as by doing so will make other factions more powerful. Can both be variable by number of online members, or static with total members in a faction. Problem: A large enough faction will still make it close to impossible for the underdog to capture. Other Some ideas of multi vector(s) metric, and other suggestions Metric: Multi-Vector: A players place on the leaderboard is measured by multiple values, i.e. kills, crafted/traded goods, harvested/traded materials etc. Metic: Multiple Vectors: A single multi-vector metric might be to "boring". That it, it might be unrewarding for a crafter to be compare himself to a pvp'er with the same metric. Multiple vectors could be having a vector for each crafting disciplin, fighting role, harverster disciplin and reward top X players from each vector with vector specific rewards. That way crafter might be rewarded with Acknowledged Blacksmith token they can display in the next campaign. This idea can be further developed, possibly with levels (Apprentice, Novice...). That's my two cents. I think it is a very interesting game design challenge, so please feel free to comment/discuss further.
  14. @ACE_Jackal Dunno if you noticed, but I would suggest that future live stream announcements include more timezones for convenience. Might be a small detail, but something that bugged me when the announcement came and I had to google the conversion (and forgetting to convert to CEST instead of CET, but that is on me )
  15. 1) Twitch is by far the more popular service. The hassle with setting up a YT stream will for most people not be worth it. 2) I can personally watch a crisp stream or VOD on my PC, old iPad Mini, or even my Huawei P9 Light without problems. So it might be a issulated case for you. Or it might be a internet problem. 3) Running two live streams will demand attention to both stream chats, something I can imagine many wouldn't want to bother with. 4) It might help stream quality if their Twitch account was partnered, which they can likely do. This option seems better for me, instead of multi-streaming
×
×
  • Create New...