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

Job

Testers
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Job last won the day on September 14

Job had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Language
    English

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Job's Achievements

  1. I don't know why it's triggering me so hard, but I think it's because there are so many good suggestions here. Stop putting multiple suggestions in the same post! Just flood this thread with individual ones so your ideas can be heard and ❤️ on separately. Don't make everyone agree with all your ideas to give you a ❤️ !
  2. Small One. Please make jewelry droppable from mobs in the world or maybe a specific type of mob. Similar to regular gear, it can have reduced durability. This will help close the gear gap for smaller guilds so they at least have something to equip in these slots.
  3. You should split these up into three separate suggestions. It creates three posts, but would allow everyone to ❤️ them individually in the event they disagree with one. Same with @Retchet
  4. Please spool up a copy of the current dregs map, cap guild participation at 24, and disable alliances. Run it in parallel with the current dregs campaign. Note: You'll be tempted to keep alliances enabled and the guild cap at 50. Don't. The inclusion of a ruleset that is as biased to small guilds as the current is to large guilds is immediately necessary to bring players back and to buy time to arrive at a more balanced approach. Potential Benefits: It demonstrates a commitment to a large portion of the player base and immediately follows through on verbal statements of priority: Following the recent live stream, there was no immediate commitment to improve quality of life for small and medium sized guilds. However, it was verbally recognized by Gordon as an immediate priority with a verbal commitment hungerdome was now moved up in priority to mid-term. This would provide immediate relief, use tools current in place, and provides recognition to players’ concerns. It’s inclusive: Assuming this dregs is run in parallel with the current dregs, all size of guilds will benefit. Small and medium sized guilds will be more competitive in all aspects of the game from rewards to personal progression to durability hits. Large guilds can engage with the percentage of individuals that crave additional risk and those that don’t, can remain in the current dregs. As they will have the resources to commit to both, they will receive more rewards than they otherwise would have gotten from only one campaign. It’s another way for them to flex their strength. It uses the tools at hand: Part of point one, it deserves its own. Most current suggestions to provide content and relief for smaller guilds will require significant cost of design, development, and test. An example is Zybak’s recently advocating for limited use of instancing to provide content for smaller guilds and a recent reprioritization of hungerdome. These are great suggestions, but too costly and slow and will likely require a population number that is currently not present. I would personally LOVE an arena with associated ELO, but it’s just too expensive to do right now. We already have tools to help address this issue. We just need a dregs with an alternative ruleset. It will increase engagement: There will be smaller fights, but more of them and more engagements with the systems designed to promote conflict in the game. Small and medium size guild excitement would be sky high and we could see the return of individuals and content creators that left because of the current struggles. More conflict means more opportunities for the emergence of new content creators generating excitement for the game, free marketing, and bringing new people into the game. You may want to decrease the size of the map. Don’t. Just because smaller guild sizes will be present does not equate to need for less room. There will frequent engagements with the size as is. There will be more competition: With more guilds participating, there will be more competition for rewards. That means increased engagement, more players optimizing personal and group compositions, and more community involvement as we poorly made dergs talk, theory craft, and define the meta. The stakes will be higher and that’s a good thing. It will help bring into focus the areas that need attention: A positive and a negative, but I think there is more positive. As an example, as engagement sizes decrease, class balance is going to come more into focus. For this perspective, we’ll have way more intelligence about what is working and what is not. We already know there are issues with class balance either through the class itself or systems such as armor pen and PDM. With more frequent engagements, the player base will provide way more free testing, feedback, and discussion. It will bring into focus areas of the game that are problematic and help prioritize work into what will provide the most benefit. It mitigates the implicit bias in design: As the game has matured, systems have come into focus that have shown how skewed they are against small and medium sized guilds given the rulesets that have been available so far. I’m not talking about the ability to compete in conquest. Durability, buffs, and access to farming experience and resources are three quick examples. I’m not saying anyone has it out for small guilds, it’s just become abundantly clear that to accomplish goals you are heavily incentivized to join a larger and larger group. That has shown to lower engagement and lead to a risk-adverse style of play where very little is risked but everything has gained. While I’m implying it’s a bad thing, I’m not even sure it is from a particular perspective. However, it is a bad thing from the perspective of a large portion of the player base who want to engage in the game and its systems in the way of their choosing and in the way that is consistent with the sandbox Crowfall is. Their perspective is no more right or wrong than anyone else’s. Providing this ruleset will immediately provide a more normalized environment for these groups. It gives you some breathing room: I’m taking off my Karen wig and picking up the olive branch. This ruleset addresses what I believe to be the single largest community concern and point of contention in a way that is elegant enough to hopefully allow the organic evolution of the game. A lot of these concerns don’t need a sledgehammer, and in turn, tons and tons of work and rework. This ruleset would address the complaints by a large portion of the community and generate a huge amount of goodwill and patience as other areas are addressed. We know there is a huge list of to do’s as is apparent by the recent addition of design reviews. They are all great and needed, but this relief is needed immediately to allow a large portion of the community to engage with the game in the way they envisioned. Implement this ruleset and give yourself some breathing room to address what is currently in design review and the root cause of some of the things listed here and in other places. It’s not perfect, but it will make the game bearable for a potion of the community that feels more alienated with each passing day. To beat the horse a bit more, we know you don’t have it out for us, and we are more than willing to wait for things as they come online. Help us help you. Potential Cons: This may all be wrong: There is the possibility that you implement this map and ruleset and engagement is low and people have problems finding fights and no problems grinding and getting resources with no conflict. However, the potential benefits eclipse this risk by such a margin that I’m confused and disappointed it hasn’t already happened. It exposes handshake sieges: I want to be positive, but this point needs to be mentioned. First, if nothing else, I hope this post demonstrates that this ruleset should be a perfectly legitimate ruleset available for campaigns. If you agree with that statement, it doesn’t take long to understand the problem that handshake sieges introduce. With more, but smaller guilds, a small number of guilds will be able to own a keep, but you would likely have more guilds that show up to contest a keep when it is venerable with only one coming out on top. Sounds like fun, but with handshake sieges as presented, this storytelling will never take place. I don’t know if it is possible to make this a switch that can be part of the ruleset, or to change directions, or address this concern through design, but it’s clear the playstyle handshake sieges disproportionately benefit in its current stated form. While I have this in the negative section, the positive is we as a player base can provide more intelligence about if we have this ruleset. Reserve spots for attackers and defenders, but with the leftover, allow for third party engagement. It’s still exploitable: Large guilds will still be able to ensure they are always at the max cap for the ruleset by having people lock and unlock and there won’t be enough keeps and there is the stuff I’m not thinking about. However, that is still preferable to what we have now and if you have the personnel to accomplish that, I’m not opposed. It splits the player base: This ruleset might be popular and there will be many different guilds participating, while small guild involvement in the larger dregs will all but disappear. It likely won’t be good for the health of the current dregs, but it’s moving in that direction regardless of the creation of this ruleset. The natural evolution, due to small guilds quitting, or joining larger and larger guilds, is the same outcome. This rips off the band-aid and faces the problem head on. It has to be addressed because we are inevitably going to end up at the same destination soon. Let the two environments compete and see what works best. If one works, we know what direction the game should head, if both work then we have two rulesets that satisfy a larger proportion of the player base. You thought ahead. The tools are in place. Trust the system and flip the switch.
  5. This interview came out today: https://www.mmogames.com/gamearticles/crowfall-interview/. There were a few responses from Gordon that I thought fit the theme of this conversation. Also, I just want to reemphasize that the inclusion of a ruleset that is as biased to small guilds as the current is to large guilds is immediately necessary to bring players back and to buy time to arrive at a more balanced approach. Obviously, full context is in the interview. I'm including just snippets of the response. In response to, "Outside of The Dregs, team battles tend to be large 100-player armies. How are you planning to cater more for players who enjoy smaller group combat of say 5-20 players?" "As we look at how to create more opportunities for players to engage in small group combat encounters, we are looking at several tools that we believe will create the conditions needed to enable more of those types of fights. One of those tools, mentioned above, is the process of the changing of campaign rules inside Campaigns. We have some things planned that will limit the forming of massive teams or make them less optimal, and once we see this working, we will expand the approach into smaller scale PvP combat outside of Campaign worlds." - Gordon In response to, "On a similar note, do you have any plans to make the Throne War aspect of the game more accessible for smaller guilds? Players report dwindling engagement between small and medium sized guilds – a key feature in the warring dynamics that give life to the world." "Our intention with the Alliance system was always to embrace and foster opportunities for smaller guilds. Alliances were conceived initially to allow small guilds to ally with or join larger guilds. We are finding that we may need to adjust our baseline for guild sizes and alliance sizes. So I would expect both the guild members allowed in a campaign and max alliance size to get campaign specific knobs (we can adjust campaign-to-campaign) as we move forward." - Gordon
  6. In general I like these proposed changes, but at the same time barriers for Warden and Blackguard need to be looked at. I feel the barrier aspect of this would imbalance those promotions even more than they currently are. Any barrier that is proced for free off of an attack should be looked at case by case.
  7. I would really like to see mobs drop jewelry. Crafted jewelry is prohibitively expensive to even get started with. I'd very much appreciate it if I could get basic jewelry from mobs. The vast majority of my characters have no jewelry and I don't want to use the jewelry I have because the durability is so low on it and I can't replace it at the rate it is destroyed.
  8. I'm all for hungerdome and Gordon verbally committed it was now a mid-term priority during the last livestream so there is hope. However, I'd rather get some immediate relief in the form of alternative rulesets.
  9. Gordon specifically said it was in their plans in the last live stream.
  10. OP, I'm having a lot of fun with the game. I'll have a lot more when they make it more friendly to smaller groups. Thanks for asking
  11. They are going to do that regardless of the system in place. It's not a compelling argument against trying it. Agreed. Given alliances can be capped, there at least remains the possibility the work is in place for capping guilds or would not require a huge amount of work.
  12. Please spool up a copy of the current dregs map, cap guild participation at 24, and disable alliances. Run it in parallel with the current dregs campaign. Potential Benefits: It demonstrates a commitment to a large portion of the player base and immediately follows through on verbal statements of priority: Following the recent live stream, there was no immediate commitment to improve quality of life for small and medium sized guilds. However, it was verbally recognized by Gordon as an immediate priority with a verbal commitment hungerdome was now moved up in priority to mid-term. This would provide immediate relief, use tools current in place, and provides recognition to players’ concerns. It’s inclusive: Assuming this dregs is run in parallel with the current dregs, all size of guilds will benefit. Small and medium sized guilds will be more competitive in all aspects of the game from rewards to personal progression to durability hits. Large guilds can engage with the percentage of individuals that crave additional risk and those that don’t, can remain in the current dregs. As they will have the resources to commit to both, they will receive more rewards than they otherwise would have gotten from only one campaign. It’s another way for them to flex their strength. It uses the tools at hand: Part of point one, it deserves its own. Most current suggestions to provide content and relief for smaller guilds will require significant cost of design, development, and test. An example is Zybak’s recently advocating for limited use of instancing to provide content for smaller guilds and a recent reprioritization of hungerdome. These are great suggestions, but too costly and slow and will likely require a population number that is currently not present. I would personally LOVE an arena with associated ELO, but it’s just too expensive to do right now. We already have tools to help address this issue. We just need a dregs with an alternative ruleset. It will increase engagement: There will be smaller fights, but more of them and more engagements with the systems designed to promote conflict in the game. Small and medium size guild excitement would be sky high and we could see the return of individuals and content creators that left because of the current struggles. More conflict means more opportunities for the emergence of new content creators generating excitement for the game, free marketing, and bringing new people into the game. You may want to decrease the size of the map. Don’t. Just because smaller guild sizes will be present does not equate to need for less room. There will frequent engagements with the size as is. There will be more competition: With more guilds participating, there will be more competition for rewards. That means increased engagement, more players optimizing personal and group compositions, and more community involvement as we poorly made dergs talk, theory craft, and define the meta. The stakes will be higher and that’s a good thing. It will help bring into focus the areas that need attention: A positive and a negative, but I think there is more positive. As an example, as engagement sizes decrease, class balance is going to come more into focus. For this perspective, we’ll have way more intelligence about what is working and what is not. We already know there are issues with class balance either through the class itself or systems such as armor pen and PDM. With more frequent engagements, the player base will provide way more free testing, feedback, and discussion. It will bring into focus areas of the game that are problematic and help prioritize work into what will provide the most benefit. It mitigates the implicit bias in design: As the game has matured, systems have come into focus that have shown how skewed they are against small and medium sized guilds given the rulesets that have been available so far. I’m not talking about the ability to compete in conquest. Durability, buffs, and access to farming experience and resources are three quick examples. I’m not saying anyone has it out for small guilds, it’s just become abundantly clear that to accomplish goals you are heavily incentivized to join a larger and larger group. That has shown to lower engagement and lead to a risk-adverse style of play where very little is risked but everything has gained. While I’m implying it’s a bad thing, I’m not even sure it is from a particular perspective. However, it is a bad thing from the perspective of a large portion of the player base who want to engage in the game and its systems in the way of their choosing and in the way that is consistent with the sandbox Crowfall is. Their perspective is no more right or wrong than anyone else’s. Providing this ruleset will immediately provide a more normalized environment for these groups. It gives you some breathing room: I’m taking off my Karen wig and picking up the olive branch. This ruleset addresses what I believe to be the single largest community concern and point of contention in a way that is elegant enough to hopefully allow the organic evolution of the game. A lot of these concerns don’t need a sledgehammer, and in turn, tons and tons of work and rework. This ruleset would address the complaints by a large portion of the community and generate a huge amount of goodwill and patience as other areas are addressed. We know there is a huge list of to do’s as is apparent by the recent addition of design reviews. They are all great and needed, but this relief is needed immediately to allow a large portion of the community to engage with the game in the way they envisioned. Implement this ruleset and give yourself some breathing room to address what is currently in design review and the root cause of some of the things listed here and in other places. It’s not perfect, but it will make the game bearable for a potion of the community that feels more alienated with each passing day. To beat the horse a bit more, we know you don’t have it out for us, and we are more than willing to wait for things as they come online. Help us help you. Potential Cons: This may all be wrong: There is the possibility that you implement this map and ruleset and engagement is low and people have problems finding fights and no problems grinding and getting resources with no conflict. However, the potential benefits eclipse this risk by such a margin that I’m confused and disappointed it hasn’t already happened. It exposes handshake sieges: I want to be positive, but this point needs to be mentioned. First, if nothing else, I hope this post demonstrates that this ruleset should be a perfectly legitimate ruleset available for campaigns. If you agree with that statement, it doesn’t take long to understand the problem that handshake sieges introduce. With more, but smaller guilds, a small number of guilds will be able to own a keep, but you would likely have more guilds that show up to contest a keep when it is venerable with only one coming out on top. Sounds like fun, but with handshake sieges as presented, this storytelling will never take place. I don’t know if it is possible to make this a switch that can be part of the ruleset, or to change directions, or address this concern through design, but it’s clear the playstyle handshake sieges disproportionately benefit in its current stated form. While I have this in the negative section, the positive is we as a player base can provide more intelligence about if we have this ruleset. Reserve spots for attackers and defenders, but with the leftover, allow for third party engagement. It’s still exploitable: Large guilds will still be able to ensure they are always at the max cap for the ruleset by having people lock and unlock and there won’t be enough keeps and there is the stuff I’m not thinking about. However, that is still preferable to what we have now and if you have the personnel to accomplish that, I’m not opposed. It splits the player base: This ruleset might be popular and there will be many different guilds participating, while small guild involvement in the larger dregs will all but disappear. It likely won’t be good for the health of the current dregs, but it’s moving in that direction regardless of the creation of this ruleset. The natural evolution, due to small guilds quitting, or joining larger and larger guilds, is the same outcome. This rips off the band-aid and faces the problem head on. It has to be addressed because we are inevitably going to end up at the same destination soon. Let the two environments compete and see what works best. If one works, we know what direction the game should head, if both work then we have two rulesets that satisfy a larger proportion of the player base. You thought ahead. The tools are in place. Trust the system and flip the switch.
  13. Safwan, what does "best" mean to you in regards to a healer? For example, are you looking for just raw healing, survival, or the ability to flex a bit into another role?
  14. Job

    Some Archdruid Feedback

    I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. There are elements of the class that work. There is a whole lot more that don't. I'm hoping we can provide feedback that will help address the elements that don't. I've made an attempt at editing the original post and rolling all the feedback everyone has mentioned into it. I'm sure I missed stuff so I'll revisit it occasionally to improve readability and add additional feedback that is added to the thread. If I missed something, just repost and I'll add it. If you disagree, feel free to chime in and we can all kick it around.
  15. This looks like a great update! Thank you for letting us look at the design. One exception I would suggest to the automatic removal of all other tabs is Guild chat. Guild chat should be a default channel always present, or populated when joining a guild. Currently a primary way someone will learn about the game and its systems will be from the community, and particularly the guild that they join. Having it as a default channel will facilitate their adoption of the game and its system and allow them an outlet to have questions answers immediately. I believe it is a good way to capture players that might otherwise have their engagement with the game decrease due to confusion. Lastly, this maybe outside the scope of this current work, but a pass at the event tab would be great. It currently provides too much information and lessens the reliance on scouting. It should anonymize player name, guild, and alliance.
×
×
  • Create New...