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


ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Destrin

  1. Inventory/Spirit Bank:

    • I had been in one EK spirit banked my goods (Vessel, weapons, armour poison) then went to another EK.
    • Tried pulling the vessel in to my inventory and it disappeared from my SB but never made it in to my inventory.
    • Tried to relog it did not appear in my inventory.
    • Tried pulling other items in to my inventory then other items started disappearing when i was moving them around.
    • EDIT: Waited for my EK go down, came back in.  The poison i pulled from my SB was in my inventory, my Harvesting Axe was no longer in my inventory. Vessel is not in my inventory.


    • Able to see Assassins in stealth in an EK.

  2. This is why when anyone who has been here a while is asked about the game most people will say:

    "There is no Game yet, no game loop, it's just a murder, crafting and harvesting sim on a tiny map.  If you are unsure about testing please wait till it's further along in the dev process to purchase.

  3. 4 minutes ago, darksousou said:

    ok thanks for your reply - do you have fun so far?:P video looks amazing

    It's "fun" to some extent yes.  Though be warned.  There is no game loop yet, the game is pretty poorly optimized atm, you can kill, harvest, craft, take a fort or a keep and that is about it.  The map is pretty small and there is no tutorial to get you started.  The population can be pretty low at some times and you may find no fights if you go for a loop around the map.

    If you are looking for a full game experience i would hold off on purchasing access and wait till later in development.

  4. 1 minute ago, soulein said:

    Templars are hands down the best area-denial tanks in the game. They really don't need any love, rather, they need to put the Riposte on a short cool down and fix the bug where the Templar get's locked in parry mode. 

    Or that they can parry while in another animation and not cancel the previous cast while parrying and not indicating to their opponent that they are parrying.

  5. 1 hour ago, Tark said:

    I'm using real world examples to help you and others understand where these idea's came from, and why this change actually makes sense. If I run 5 miles every day in plate armor, then I'm going to have no problem running 5 miles in leather armor, I'm going to be as strong or stronger during that whole duration. But if you run 5 miles every day in leather armor, you might have some difficulty running the full 5 miles in plate armor and you are going to be quite a bit weaker (bye bye 10 percent dmg bonus). Real world examples are valid because the game is designed partially from a real world perspective. This is why when you jump in the game, you fall back down to the ground (well most of the time). For you to argue against this is ludicrous. Go watch some dev streams and watch them talk about decisions they make and you'll find very quickly that a lot of design is based on how we perceive how nature works.

    From a fantasy perspective this argument has been had a million times. In fantasy a mage does not possess amazing physical prowess. They do not spend their time training with swords or wearing heavy armors. They spend time studying magic from books and using their mind as a weapon. Wearing plate armor would slow them down in combat and be cumbersome. But, every now and then you might have a mage that bucks that trend and spends some time working on physical prowess as well as studying magic. He'll never be as good at magic as a regular mage (damage) and he'll never be as good as highly skilled knight (tank). But he can combine the two and be just as good overall. However since he split his time learning multiple things, he knows less in each of those area's ( -2 minor disciplines).

    The 10 percent you get from leather was actually built into your class because your class was designed around an armor type. Its no coincidence that the majority of the pure DPS characters get the armor that grants more damage. A Templar that steps into leather still does not meet or exceed the DPS of a pure dps class that was designed for leather.

    You are getting more options. A restriction would be not allowing you to have it at all. But they are allowing you to have it with some trade offs. As i said earlier if you want to argue that 2 minor's are too much, then I can respect that. However you are also moaning and groaning about a system you have even yet to play and see how it feels. Again I think you are having a inferiority complex moment (as we all do at times) and you have this false expectation that you wont be viable and missing out on the fun.

    The two out of eleven getting to pick whatever they want comment validates my point earlier about you trying to assign "fairness". We could play that game all day long. Its not fair I have to use pips instead of mana/stamina. Its not fair that I can't close the distance on ranged. Its not fair that you and your guild had trouble with Templar's so you came to the forums and got parry changed. I might add that change has made crowfall worse and exacerbated the problems with ranged ruining good balanced game play... but i digress.

    Wait until you actually get to experience this change before you get all up in arms about it. This was a step in the right direction, and its been something we've all been asking for in one form or another for a long time. Maybe at some point they might think of something else you can sacrifice other than minor disciplines. But you have to sacrifice something...

    I'm also waiting for you to point out how that previous post's logic was invalid. 


    I already told you why, twice, and about as simple as I could but you just keep using the same points. I also don't have to stoop to level of throwing out personal insults to try to get my point across.

    As per your PM saying you are going to "Spank my ass so hard" and then decide to just regurgitate what you said in your last few posts and throw in some insults I am sorely disappointed.

    My point still stands. As it is described to us, leather wearers will have to sacrifice more to build tanky than plate wearers will have to sacrifice to build for dmg. That just seems off to me.


  6. 15 minutes ago, Tark said:

    My logic is invalid? Would you explain to me what makes my logic invalid. Please be detailed focusing on only validity and leaving opinions out of it.

    You are trying to explain restricting what types of armour people can wear using real world examples of why this makes sense, but gating the access behind magical stones I keep in my pocket? It's highly contradictory to say "this works cause it kind of works like this IRL, but you need magic to make it happen".

    As Blazzen states above the cost is already in the armour itself. I am already giving up damage for the mitigation just by wearing it. Why does someone wearing leather as a base have to give up two minor slots sacrificing even more? Unless the mitigations on plate are more than say Sturdy and Overwhelming odds, no one is going to use plate if they wear leather as a base.  They will still get the damage bonus from leather, where if i was wearing plate i would not.

    31 minutes ago, Tark said:

    I think this really boils down to Destrin wants what Destrin wants but Destrin doesn't think that Destrin has to have a good reason because Destrin is biased for Destrin's own self interest.

    What Destrin wants is more options on how to build any of the classes he plays, not restrictions.  I don't only play one class that has a base armour type of plate so he can wear w/e armour he wants and not have to sacrifice those precious magical stone slots.  I also play Templar, and having those options to go full DMG is awesome.  I also play Ranger, Confessor, Druid, a little Cleric, and most likely Assassin and Frostweaver as well when they are released.  I also want to play Champion, i just haven't gotten around to it yet.

    I just don't see how it makes sense allowing two classes out of the eleven pick what ever they want without sacrificing minor slots while the other 9 are required to.  The other 9 classes are going to have to sacrifice more for wanting to equip something different, while two classes have free reign on their builds without sacrificing any minor slots.

    I wouldn't be opposed to requiring a single discipline for leather wearers to wear plate, or plate wearers to wear leather.



  7. 9 minutes ago, Tark said:

    Yes giving a Templar free reign is acceptable because they are a class that is designed around wearing plate armor. It makes sense you can move down but not up. My character is strength based and therefore strong and can wear heavier armor. Where as some of the other classes rely more on quickness and precision or intellect but lack physical strength. Wearing heavier armor on the weaker classes is more taxing and therefore more resources (in this case, minor disciplines) must be allocated to  make up for the deficiency. Also my Templar is actually stronger when wearing leather because I don’t have to bear the weight burden of wearing plate this is why I get a damage bonus. If I can wear plate then it’s no sweat that I can wear a lighter armor.

    This logic is invalid.... This is a video game... with magic...  If this is your argument you should be saying that that armour type should be gated by a str and or dex threshold.  Currently for all classes STR is arguably the best DMG stat, that would make all classes strength based.

    10 minutes ago, Tark said:

    You might think  this is silly but game design has revolved around this type of design before video games were a thing. It’s not a question of fairness. The fairness comes into play with balancing the numbers. If you want to wear plate without having to give up disciplines then play a class that can do that. 

    It's not about fairness, it's about options.  Which we all want.  I just don't see why some classes don't have any cost, other than HP, and can stack damage minors to get quite a good bonus to damage. While other classes have to sacrifce dmg from the gear and two minor slots as well so they won't get the same level of benefit cause they only have one minor they can slot as a defensive minor.  You restrict the options of how people can build their character if this happens.



  8. 2 minutes ago, Tark said:

    You are making a lot of assumptions there. The new design is good. Numbers can be changed to balance. But giving free reign for all classes without an opportunity cost is awful design. 

    But giving free reign to two classes is okay?

    from your other comment you posted in the wrong thread:

    3 minutes ago, Tark said:

    You can’t just have free choice without oppotunity cost. A ranger shouldn’t get plate and not have to give something back in return. Choices without consequence is boring. Metal armor makes sound in reality, a stealther shouldn’t get plate by default because they would make sound. The game isn’t based on reality so you add a cost to these to simulate the same idea. 

    I would argue that why should Chain and Plate wearers get the free option for more dmg, when leather wearers get no free option to have more hp or mit.   The cost is built in to the selection of armour they choose. Give up HP for more DMG.  Leather wearers do not get the free option to give up dmg for HP.  They have to double their sacrifice and equip minors.  If they are going to keep it this way they should make it so plate wearers can only wear chain without a disc... if they want leather, they have to put on a disc to do so.  They should also give leather wearers the innate option for chain.  Or.... just make it free choice...

    The only downside to free choice is that leather wearers would ALWAYS wear a plate chest and probably leather helm, gloves and boots.  Unless of course there is a dmg bonus stat on the chest as well, but from how they described the system that is not the case.


  9. Just now, Tark said:

    You can’t just have free choice without oppotunity cost. A ranger shouldn’t get plate and not have to give something back in return. Choices without consequence is boring. Metal armor makes sound in reality, a stealther shouldn’t get plate by default because they would make sound. The game isn’t based on reality so you add a cost to these to simulate the same idea. 

    Wrong thread.

  10. 55 minutes ago, Tark said:

    I’m not sure the question “how does this benefit harvesters” is really the right question to ask. This change wasn’t made in regards to harvesters nor should it be in my opinion.  Plate wearers have less effort because it makes sense in reality. If you can wear heavy plate armor you can wear lighter armor. But if you are a leather armor class then by design you are usually more agile and mobile. You have to wear leather to keep that mobility. They could design it so everybody can wear everything but then why have armor classes to begin with. The other option is they physically make you slower the heavier you armor is. This is something I’ve been in favor of but most people are not.

    As a light armor class you need to sacrifice something to move up. Plate wearers are sacrificing survivability the move down into the lighter armor classes. The system works and logically makes sense. You have to have some type of cost associated to moving outside your classes designed armor type and they have delivered on that. On the surface one might assume there is no cost associated with plate wearers moving down but it’s there. 

    This was a great change.


    I'm looking at this a little differently.  When the system is put in place as described plate wearers can keep their plate chest, put on leather helm, gloves, and boots.  This will keep their mitigations high as a plate wearer but the dmg will be about 10% higher and require no disciplines to do so.  They will be sacrificing HP, but how much HP?  If it brings them down to like 4.5k - 5k they will have the advantage of higher mitigations but the same damage bonuses that leather wearers get.... at zero discipline cost.

    Leather wearers on the other hand not only will have to give up the damage bonus from leather, but will have to give up 2 minor disciplines to wear plate.  So they will be potentially sacrificing about 30% of their damage to wear full plate. Seems a little out of whack to me.  They could also just throw the plate chest on, and continue to wear the leather helm, gloves, and boots.  But they have to sacrifice 2 minors to do so and will potentially lose out on about 20% dmg.  It really depends on how much HP the helm, gloves, and boots have... but it still seems to favor plate wearers at face value with no indication of how much HP/Dmg bonus these other pieces give.

    I would rather it just be a free choice on which armour people want to wear. 

  11. 1 minute ago, Scorn said:

    I would argue the display is part of the operation. Information provided to the player should be accurate.

    I have to agree here.

    1 minute ago, Scorn said:

    Strength of the Legion's Tooltip describes 100 Attack Power (10 displayed), however it seems to be giving 75 (7.5 displayed)

    Never trust the tool tips! :P

  • Create New...