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

APE

Testers
  • Content Count

    1,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

APE last won the day on March 24

APE had the most liked content!

About APE

  • Rank
    Raven

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,309 profile views
  1. Seems more like a smart business model. People like vanity and are willing to pay for it. ACE was selling housing/skins for hundreds and thousands of dollars. If Ashes is a cash grab then Crowfall is too? I backed both so whichever ends up better for me it doesn't matter. All of these things have potential to do well and not so well. However the strengths I hoped Crowfall might have seem to be neglected so likely won't end up being the one for me.
  2. Why? More games the better IMO. True, but apparently what some consider a "PVP game" differs. Crowfall currently doesn't fit that tag for me.
  3. Started playing these types of games with MUDs so graphics aren't my highest priority. Obviously subjective, but CU fine to me and it will have fancier visual tech that will allow a wider range of graphics for those with the machine power. World and player models are higher detail compared Crowfall, but if you mean you don't like the art design, then ya it is different from the more cartoonish CF design which I like as well. I'd rather play something that look like this if the combat and experience were fun. Although they've already shown better models. Rather funny to see what people can do with little to no funding compared to CF/CU which have pulled in millions. Raises some questions. https://massivelyop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/y1wL3xN.png
  4. Same situation with combat and how it was the main focus for what seemed like years. Isn't garbage, but not anything special either considering the game type and focus put into it. Is what it is. Never had any faith in Unity to begin with and they've never seemed too concerned with large scale combat as ~100 is apparently more then enough for them and some fans. Ashes seems likely to perform better and most likely Camelot as they've started from the ground up. Doesn't matter to me as long as one of them is worth playing more then a month.
  5. I use this account on Test sometimes. Beyond that, I play one of my alt accounts when I do rarely play as Chaos. Also log in to get my participation prizes with the few accounts I have. Have no intention on harvesting/crafting come launch so don't find a need to do so now. As that seems to be a big chunk of gameplay along with PVE which I also have no interest in, can see why the current design isn't for me. Apparently some people like to do these things. Originally crafting and harvesting were to be full time roles, but seems like everyone is expected to do a little or lot of each as well. Every account should have at least harvesting or crafting training, if not both. Factories as described don't seem likely with the current design with the ever growing number of components needed. But as Blair seemed to like the idea and with SWG/EVE being inspiration, I can only assume they are still planned in some form. No clue how it will work come launch. Can we move freely between EK and ongoing Campaigns? Can we transfer items between them? Gear being looted or going poof from durability leaves players in the same position. Will we actually see a thriving economy outside of guilds? If players don't have access to craft, what can they do? If nothing, then I guess they play with what they have until it's gone then give up? Campaigns need to end some how. Maybe there will be a Free City of some sort that allows crafting a certain quality of gear or comes at a tax/cost? I see the obvious issues and why I mentioned that it wouldn't work with the current design, at least not the current math. If it takes weeks/months to gear a team, losing it all in one session is highly unlikely to be by design. Hence, tweaking the numbers where it doesn't take months of grinding to get there or whatever hurdles of which I find less then fun already. Albion Online is a recent game that does full loot fairly well and continues to improve. Most used gear is fairly easy come/go but there is still a tiered system and high end gear to obtain that has risk/reward value in using. It also has systems in place that reward various types of play beyond bring 300 and roll people. This assumes some things. That they'll actually get performance to a level that people can swarm others, that the game will be that popular, that they won't implement any anti-zerg mechanics, pure numbers will win the day, world map will remain some what small, no guild limits, no risk/reward system, etc. Along with copying SB in a few areas that have yet to be seen or discussed that I know of. I don't disagree with your view or prediction. Just saying that they could change things here and there to make alternative campaign rulesets a possibility. Which seemed to be one of the main strengths of their concept. Unfortunately seems they are trending towards only one or two ways to play which will be unfortunate. Seems like Uncle Bob will love Crowfall regardless of what happens. As is, I don't see how 300 showing up against a smaller force won't dominate regardless of full loot or not. If that is standard gameplay, this game is done anyway.
  6. Store is also a form of RMT if they allow us to trade VIP and other store items for in-game goods. Is what it is, money is going to play into this one way or another. Was hoping the game would be worth dealing with such things when I first backed during KS, now not so much. No way I'm going to play a mediocre game that also has some form of P2W. Not to mention grind to win. Still have a bit of hope left though. Anything can happen, but I prefer Camelot and Ashes more firm and "honest" view on P2W then ACE's "we aren't P2W cause we're like EVE."
  7. Would seem so unless they come up with something of value. Only thing of value that I know of that people will actually pay for is advantage. Cosmetics and store discounts aren't going to cut it. Can't remember the exact amount but I believe they mentioned maybe 25% or more of revenue would come from VIP post-launch. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.
  8. Sad but true. Training speeds/potential, resource amounts, crafting requirements, etc can all be dialed in. Remember blueprints or whatever mass production system is supposed to exist at some point. Unless this is supposed to be click and forget to make 1 sword a day or something, I hope it actually allows players to stock pile resources and craft a good number of XYZ relatively easily. As is it wouldn't work but there are tweaks they could make to at least make full loot a potential campaign type for those that want to give it a try. Full game, probably not going to ever work. This design is solely lacking in this area.
  9. 1) Yes please. Give us something to do beyond standing in circles, ganking those doing PVE, and timed blow a hole in a wall to kill a tree siege. A map that had choke points, travel route difference/benefits, hard to reach strongholds, land control, buffs for POI ownership, guard placement, capture XYZ to be able to capture/siege ABC, etc. None of this is new or out of place in something like Crowfall. If they had all of that, I'd accept stand in a circle to get points system for winning (maybe). There are lots of possible win conditions and resulting rewards to try. From simple, capture X POIs and hold them for Y time. To complex requirements of completing a list of time sensitive, multi-step, map wide, multi-organized guild/alliance objectives. I'd rather have a jammed packed action adventure over a week days or week instead of weeks/months of doing the same repetitive activities that likely the outcomes will be known early on (hello current model). 2) I don't see combat changing drastically unfortunately. Would of really liked melee needing to use positional attacks, ranged being physics based, physics in general, combos being fully realized for all classes and a lot more powers. The current design is zerg/melee ball friendly. Some form of anti-zerg mechanic would be welcomed. Be it some form of friendly fire or limited/diminishing returns on a target or more precise targeting with friendlies blocking damage if not being hit themselves. 3) Would be interesting to see a cap on how much training could be accessed in a campaign. Ex: 1 year in someone might have XYZ fully trained but they could only access X fully during the current campaign or they could access 50% of X and 50% of Y. Which would possibly bring some balance to new/old/alt accounts. If Tomes or catch up mechanics actually caught someone up in a line, this would even the field. Still would reward alt accounts and guilds having enough of all the necessary harvesters/crafters. If specializing and dependence are a big deal, keep it that way. Find it rather funny that they put so much value on this yet time removes the value. Of course this is a "future dev" concern but seems avoidable. Would also like alternative campaigns that allow everyone X points to spend for training at the start and regular training isn't available. This would really remove any difference between accounts being new/old and require players/guilds to pre-select what they will do prior to the campaign. That is risk/reward/strategy/logistics insert whatever sounds cool. Toss in stricter guild limits, no alliances, the less you bring in (item value) the more potential export/winnings, etc. Everything above could apply to Factions as well. My fear is Dregs will be Faction rules we have plus claim/build strongholds and POIs for a guild instead of the Faction. Would be a real bummer and no go for me.
  10. Not currently. Gave an "advantage" with passive training that they removed due to training changes and likely not wanting to be seen as P2W. Beyond that not sure what they have planned that won't provide an advantage over those not paying. Well as in perfect is likely not going to happen anytime soon. Several games have handled it well enough though. DAoC, GW2, ESO, BDO all did it decently well all things considered for the time/tech being used. Camelot Unchained hopefully pulls it off a bit better then others as they've spent so much time on the engine specifically for this. As is though, Crowfall doesn't seem to be meant for anything beyond 50v50 with how combat and siege function. Would of liked to see larger experiences, but seems they want a less then large throne war. It is better but not a huge difference IMO. Still have the fall back of "pre-alpha" so they have time to continue improving.
  11. They do serve a purpose, but could be a fine alternative to the Dregs as likely intended. However, God's Reach sort of screws with this dynamic a bit if it remains the same. Also with pride/bragging being something that will likely be a driving force, losing to the point that people have to go to the minor leagues will likely be a bit much for some. Instead of grinding for higher end resources/rewards, now you can grind more for less of each, YAY! With ranked games this is less of an issue as there is an ever present scoring system that makes the grind and performance easily seen. With campaigns potentially going on for weeks/months, might not be as obvious. Could be too much of an never ending uphill boulder push with the occasional boulder getting knocked back to the start. My concern is that the basic concept is fine, but there isn't enough content in of itself or for us to make for ourselves where the grind won't be the front and center focus. As I mentioned, some seem to love this but I'm doubtful that enough are willing to slog through it long term, not to mention pay for VIP and other things that ACE seems to believe will be a decent chunk of income. There are F2P/B2P games that offer quite a bit more and require less effort to jump in/out. Guess we'll see in a year or two or three...
  12. If they started with Dregs, population would probably be half of what it is, if that. People whine about losing in pre-alpha as it is. Imagine if it was every guild/alliance for themselves without any safe spaces. From recent comments it doesn't appear that ACE intends to appeal to "average" or "normal" players. It's the "hardcore" no lifers. Which seem to want Dregs so not sure what point Factions will have once Dregs are available. The target audience and the design goals seem a bit off. As is, CF offers little to nothing in comparison to other games in regards to RvR/Factions. Especially true if Camelot ever launches and is half way decent. Those that think an arena/hunger dome option is crazy will likely see the end of Factions as well. Who wants variety... Got the not-so-complex crafting system, Dregs, and matches that come to an end yet don't thwart Uncle Bob. Not sure those will be strong enough selling points.
  13. Seems some are more then happy with grinding to grind. Will be interesting to see how they market this thing while staying honest.
  14. Barely when it launched but quickly went back to DAoC. So I have few memories of the system details. Looking over the list of SB Traits, I see it was mainly +5-10 stat/skill but there is also +% to run speed, health/stamina recovery, weapon unlocks, see invis players which all provide more utility that I prefer. Seems to be little negative options besides a couple + to one stat and - to another. I might be incorrect but it seems like CF has a lot more stat availability where 5-10 points in things like Dex/Str likely don't make as much a difference as they did in SB. If talents, passive training, and disciplines offered more then I wouldn't care but there is a lot of reuse of the same stats which I find limiting. Just hoping that Adv/Disadv go a bit beyond what we can already obtain in multiple ways. Gaining 5 STR when I already have 200 < giving up 50 STR to gain 10% Stamina Regen or whatever example might happen. It's fine to copy from other games but that doesn't mean they can't add more on top of that. Also looking at Camelot Unchained's Banes/Boons system has me expecting more.
  15. Can you comment if there has been any talk to make Adv & Dis more then basic core stat stacking? @vkromas We get stats from race, vessel, leveling, talents, passive training, and gear already. Being able to start with less/more of particular stats isn't very different. You've made a lot of stats/attributes that can be obtained here and there, but could be used a lot more on top of quite a lot of things that either don't exist or not in a way that can be modified currently. Things like Far-sight/Stealth Detection, Runspeed, Stealth Run Speed, Mount Speed, Food Consumption Rate, Dodge Pips, Resists, Range, Heal/Damage AOE Size, CC resists, Dodge/Evade chance, Life Steal, Attack Speed, Debuff/Buff % increase/decrease, Encumbrance/Bag Space, For every empty Discipline/Passive slot gain +X% of Dmg/Heal/CC Resist/Armor/etc. All of which could be an Adv or Disadv with +/- modifiers. Exchange increased food consumption for increased run speed. Swap an extra dodge pip for less CC resists. Some of these add to the hit harder, heal more, take less damage that most stats provide, but several are more utility and expand ways to play and build a character. Races and Disciplines add some of these things, but I'd really like to see them be part of character creation as a way to customize further beyond the core stat stacking that comes from multiple systems already.
×
×
  • Create New...