APE

Testers
  • Content count

    1,387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

APE last won the day on February 12

APE had the most liked content!

About APE

  • Rank
    Raven

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,101 profile views
  1. Atlas MMORPG

    Will keep an eye on it. Not a fan of ARK so will have to be fairly different to get my attention. On hype filled paper, seems to have a lot of what "PVP" fans have been looking for, including ship battles which seems to be one of the first "they should add X" suggestions for any remotely similar game, including Crowfall.
  2. Dashboard for upcoming Features

    Not sure what you'd want to track. Things are pretty slow around here, patch or not. Small group of posters and testers at this point. Seems to be an uptick when big updates happen, but taking a look at forums can see that not many topics get much if any activity beyond that last few and only briefly. Maybe down the road they will do more to get players involved, but I don't really see it as a need or priority. Soft launch is "approaching" but not anytime soon. Maybe once they hit late alpha or early beta the need for more players, feedback, testing will increase. For now it likely would just be too much for them to comb through. Can't bring myself to test without guidance which they don't do. I'm fine just reading updates and logging in once in a while to check things out. Surely they appreciate/use feedback, but at the same time it's their project and design so probably don't need us telling them what to do anymore than we do. However, polls and other interactive options wouldn't be bad. I wouldn't mind some sort of sticky post with feature status (White Board, In Progress, Internal Testing, Test/Live, etc). Almost 4 years in, I'm guessing they have a system and don't need to do much different until they do. They can't seem to get the FAQ updated and keep changing things so that would be more of a priority IMO.
  3. While I don't mind the format/speed at which ACE doe's it, I also don't mind how CU's weekly updates work either. Something in between would probably be my preferred style. ACE seems to wait until something is pretty much ready to go to test/live and or has already been pushed out to go over it. There isn't a lot of updates of day to day happenings. Which might have little value really beyond feeding curiosity, but I'm guessing someone tracks what is being done around the studio and likely could type up a weekly/biweekly/monthly overview beyond the big picture stuff. To be fair they do also give tidbits through other formats (streams/videos) but having to watch them fully to maybe get a few new insights vs reading something likely much faster does make it harder to be in the know. Long as things keep moving forward all is well.
  4. Combat needs to be more accessible

    Could be but at the moment serves little purpose towards development and finishing the game at some point. 5.8 will bring people, or 5.9 or alpha/beta/launch...
  5. They still have a long way to go and while I'm not super hopeful, possible they might make it happen. Is what it is at this point and it will either it ends up working or not. For their sake I hope they get it to work well enough as it will be a lot of wasted time/money for everyone if not.
  6. There is a difference between zero lag, minor lag, and a slow motion slide show. Several MMOs can handle "large" numbers to some degree. Sometime one needs a decent PC/internet and to sacrifice some visuals by turning down settings, but played several that are acceptable even with a lot of players on screen. For CF with PVP being a central focus along with siege and planned "large" scale PVP, 30 v 30 is not acceptable IMO. Not that it can't still be fun for what it is, but MMOs have handled a lot more than that with more than acceptable FPS for years. I was hoping the character creation/builds would be deep/complex, but I've yet to see it. Beyond playing the RNG game and trying to get better random stats, there isn't a lot to build a character uniquely or with min/max. Passive training is entirely linear/vertical without min/max, you just slowly go towards max. Disciplines add choice, but they are limited in number of discipline slots and bar slots and have no further options once slotted. I see room for strategy long term for a team, but seems more about who has the most/hardest working folks that just put in the time. Which goes into passive training benefits of having an older or more trained account making harvesting/crafting more efficient. Just have more numbers and benefit due to the vertical/linear design. Skill/strategy plays into this for sure, but a lot will depend on having more than someone else (players, hours, accounts, etc). Wish they had gone with a full or at least more horizontal approach, but no such luck.
  7. Environment or Player. Banging on rocks, RNG casino crafting, and facerolling mobs are all forms of PVE to me. Don't need others to do these things and especially not enemy players. Even got the hunger meter so you have to play against that as well to continue playing productively. While playing the economy/trade wars, capturing POI/land and gobbling up resources all play into the indirect conflict which then impact PVP, they aren't direct stab you in the face PVP. If someone wants to log in and go out and attack others, they'll likely need to do non-combat related tasks first or have someone willing to do the work for them. With the heavy cost of training such things and doing them actively, I see potential for more time to be consumed by PVE or simply non-PVP activities then some themepark games. Even if someone is aimed at being a PVPer or combat only person. Don't know of many (any?) games where this works without a rigid team structure with feeders providing for others constantly. I could log into GW2 and be doing nonstop sPVP arenas relatively quickly and little PVE (at least when I played). WoW and such MMOs allow players to play all day in arenas/battlegrounds once they've met basic requirements (level usually). Although the incentive to PVE for gear to make PVPing easier is usually a key component. Find it funny that it is easier to find and sustain doing PVP in games looked down upon for being themeparks or PVE focused. Same goes for survival, mobas, fps, etc that are more short term. These games have ranking that attempt to balance skill level where zerging or just far out skilling someone aren't such a huge factor. Not surprising MMOs and especially PVP focused ones aren't top of the gaming world for the most part. Competitive players play structured "fair" games that value PVP skill over who banged on more rocks sooner. Obviously games like CF are attempting to scratch a more long term, time consuming strategy itch, but I don't see them as "PVP only games," not by a long shot.
  8. CF is far from a PVP only game, if anything there isn't enough focus on it. Will be interesting to see how easy it is for a "PvPer" to actually PVP on a consistent basis. As in, how easy will it be to be obtain gear/vessels and what not and how active/meaningful will PVP be beyond dueling out in the middle of a field to see who's better. Maybe they get enough feedback from the handful that give it that they don't need more. No clue as they don't seem to communicate about it much. They can see everything on the back end so my idea of what would be more useful/efficient might be useless to them. As is though, I only check the forums when I'm waiting for a match to key in another game and don't have something else more interesting opened or someone responds to me. Hasn't been much "news" for a few months that couldn't be summed up in a few bullet points. 5.8 and adding in more game loop will be more of the same and that's how it's supposed to be IMO with how they are going about it. I don't expect one patch to bring in hundreds of people. Just isn't enough content or excitement which could very well translate into the finished product.
  9. So people that can't take the slightest initiate to understand what they are paying for, installing, and logging into need their hands held the whole time? For the chance they might return months/years later when things are actually finished? ACE could do a better job at making it blatantly obvious how unfinished things are and how this isn't a "game" but a test of an in-development project. I guess they believe "Pre-Alpha" and other indicators, the out of date FAQ and other things should cover it. Which they should IMO. How someone can see "Pre-Alpha" and be confused as to why it isn't a ready to ship game is beyond me. Having a BR mini game, limited tests or whatever else trying to simulate unrealistic gameplay doesn't do much good overall. Been there done that. Regardless of 1st impressions (which do mean a lot), if CF ends up being a decent game come launch, the news will spread and people interested in these things will check it out. If someone is looking for a PVP focused fantasy MMO, they have few options. Would be silly to go "Man it sucked 3 years ago, no way I'm going to check it out now despite all the praise it is getting..." Then again some people don't understand why a Pre-Alpha isn't a finished game, so logic might not work so well. Doubt such people would enjoy/stick around with such a game anyway. With all that, I do believe ACE should/could do more in regards to getting people actually testing specifics to make logging in have some focus/meaning instead of just chopping more wood or doing random PVP for the the lulz. Like 10/27/18 focus on XYZ, 10/28/18 focus on ABC, and so on. Less care about no PVP happening or no population, but people getting in for a period to actually focus fire specific mechanics/features. To me this would be good for everyone.
  10. Why is it scary? It is what it is and they don't pretend that is something more than it is. 5.8 might add more "game loop" and what not but it will still be a far from finished project and I doubt will see much difference in population overall. I don't believe there is such a thing as too much transparency in this situation, however, simply letting people log in without much guidance or goals/action plan does seem like a big missed opportunity. They have people paying them to test their product, yet don't use us to the fullest. Having a playable test version isn't the same thing as a company/devs being transparent of current/future happenings either.
  11. Transparent sounds nice when trying to get money from people.
  12. It's possible, but guessing for dates over a year a way is just a guess.
  13. They mentioned in the "Mid Year Checkpoint" in June of this year (~4 months ago) that they anticipate Alpha by the end of Summer. Didn't seem to imply 2019. Missing: FW, Mounts, Guilds/Social Structure Systems, Pack Animals, "Pets," Caravan (is this even a system?), World Bands/Campaign Rulesets, POIs done, Various Thralls, Win Conditions/Rewards, More Mobs, Complete Passive Training System, Cartography, Complete Siege Mechanics, extra helping of Optimization, Polish. This on top of finishing everything that is available that likely needs more passes. Also hopefully a decent tutorial/new player experience added. Unless they plan to launch with a good chunk of that missing? No clue since there isn't much talk about these things beyond big picture concepts.
  14. It's all relative to the resources available and planned features. One of my favorites, DAoC, supposedly took 18 months, 2.5 million, and 25 devs to get it out the door. Launched with 32 classes, 12 races, open dungeons/PVE, questing, travel system, crafting, 3 realm RvR PVP end game, etc. Others of the time weren't all that different. However, it's relative to what was possible then and what is now to produce a modern product. There is no time line as to how long any will take. All dependent on the team, cash, tech, etc. New World could launch before these others but isn't a similar product. Having played it a bit off and on, can see it appealing to those that also like these games, but it is much further away from at least the CU, CF, AoC. With those being different from each other but less so.
  15. Seems like they have missed the "end of Summer" goal, but not surprising. Curious what will still be missing by the time "alpha" arrives even though they seem to have implied that most systems will be in place. Really wish they had some sort of roadmap/milestone list with current status of features or just the game in general. Would be nice to see how XYZ are coming along even if it's just "in-progress, not started, whiteboard, 75%, in-house test, public test, etc." Don't know why devs are afraid or unable to do such things. Maybe it is too transparent, which they all claim to be? Which game started first or has particular features already doesn't mean a whole lot. CU has an in-house engine which might allow them to speed through things that a 3rd party engine slows. Having 100+ employees early on like Ashes is likely going to help them as well. All three have different goals/features planned so until one launches and shows a game worth playing, which came first or has shown whatever seems irrelevant to me. Hopefully all of them turn out well in time and don't see any of them trying to rush things.