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

APE

Testers
  • Content Count

    2,474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by APE

  1. Would love for them to do a stream going into character design and explain how the different systems involve meaningful player choices.
  2. I think character design as a whole is kinda meh. There is an illusion of complexity/depth but it's superficial.
  3. The current state of the class and the struggle for games to balance stealthers seems to go back to that question. The idea that any class should be able to blow up another just because they pop out of stealth is silly to me. Even if they manage to hit every key right or whatever it might take. Combat built with stunlocking in mind is poor design. Practically removing one side from the fight is not ideal. There should always be room for everyone involved to win depending on the builds involved. However, this is not a 1v1 duel simulator. IMO, all classes, including Assassins should offer group utility beyond just stabbing someone in the back for a million damage. Sure have some potential to build up to some heavy hits if an enemy isn't paying attention, but not just sneak up on someone invisible (super hard...) and then hit 12345 fast enough. I'd like to see things like Plaguelord and Agent Provocateur be part of the base kit or promos for Assassins. Along with any number of debuffs that could be applied through toxins and stealth attacks. If Assassins could essentially decrease the power or remove a healer, range, or melee from a fight briefly, that is more valuable to the overall game design then then making them for perfect moments with stars aligning and 100-0 some rando banging on a rock. Things like -75% heal output, -80% range distance, cause every other attack to miss, severe power cost multipliers, "blinds" that decreased FOV for a brief period that couldn't be removed. Things like this would be game changing not because of the 1v1 or kill potential but what they would allow a group to accomplish. Lunge is certainly not a solution to the issue and especially not how it has been poorly implemented. Only select weapons for select builds that allow players to fly across the screen at will. Amazing design This game's stealth class design and mechanics might be the worst I've ever seen.
  4. Why would they have to be enemies? If you've played Albion then you should know that it isn't difficult for large guilds or alliances to manage multiple smaller guilds, including not blowing each other up. Feeder guilds (harvesters, crafters, new players, whatever) exist to feed larger guilds that usually contain the "best/veteran" members that will have the best chance to earn whatever rewards/goals that will benefit everyone. I was in a guild with several hundred members and we had no problem playing as an organized group, but rarely did we have hundreds online at once so it wasn't really a "massive zerg" rolling from zone to zone. There have been multiple "alliances" in Crowfall happening of various guild numbers and sizes and they manage to not step on each others toes while fighting a common enemy be it during siege or out in the world. It's very easy to say 20v20 or 50v50 is ideal, but without instanced battlegrounds or hard caps on zones, people will do what they want. Capping zones too low runs into a bunch of other issues. Like logging in alts or players showing up early to block others from entering a zone, which is not fun game play. It makes sense that Albion has instances with one shared world. I don't see that model fitting Crowfall. You might think 50v50 is more then enough but you are one person. I would like to see a bit larger and someone else might want to see even more. Limiting guilds to 50-100 would likely be enough for most, but again, doesn't stop multiple guilds from working together. Already had ~150 in Crowfall with poor performance and still had fun. If they can improve it, I don't see why they couldn't push it to 200+ for sieges. Maybe not the norm every single time, but at least a possibility. That ~150 was several guilds, not 1 or 2 larger ones. Making massive guilds doesn't make much sense logistically or for other reasons when smart players can just work together in an alliances with or without friendly fire. We've never experienced Crowfall with an actual realistic population so it's hard to say how most things would work. If there are 500, 1000, or even 2000 players online in one campaign, they'll either need to make way more maps, caravans, strongholds, etc or tons of players are going to be trying to fight over limited resources. My main point is there is nothing ACE can easily design that will prevent players from former larger armies if that is what players want to do. At least not with making the game into something it isn't or wasn't sold to be. With campaigns having end points and the card system potentially rewarding less zergy guilds, hopefully massive armies are not a requirement. At the moment it is too early to tell as references other games with very different designs doesn't prove what will happen in the future.
  5. Anything could happen, but I'd like to see Crowfall resemble an actual game before ACE starts playing with the big picture stuff. Lots of things they could try with campaign rules and the card system to reward smart play vs throwing numbers at everything.
  6. Sorry, I might have missed it in your response, but how does ACE stop players from working together. Regardless if guild size is 20, 50, 500. Players will work around any restrictions. Ex: Guild cap is 50? Have a guild of 500? Make 10 smaller guilds that can all focus on different things, work together, screw with the card system and have 10 times the chance to win the campaign. Performance is a factor, but is improving. While I don't see this game ever running smoothly with crazy high numbers, it should be able to handle a couple hundred. Much older games have pulled it off. Even with it being laggy, people still find large encounters to be fun. The more restrictions in place the more artificial the experience. Players should be able to play with who they want, when they want, where they want. ACE has mentioned 2000 player limit on campaigns. Not sure if that is total or logged in at once. To me it seems silly that there will be guilds of 500-1000+ on at a time spoiling your fun. The game doesn't really support or reward such numbers. PVPers want to PVP, not defend/attack empty castles or roam around for hours not finding anyone. If everyone is on the same side the game will die. Players will naturally split into guilds/alliance sizes that fit the game. Some will be larger, some will be smaller, and many will be in the middle. I understand your POV, but I don't want to see Crowfall be overly restrictive. I play a variety of games and genres, Crowfall's niche doesn't really exist. There needs to be more "open world" games where players can use whatever resources they have to win or lose. There are already plenty of games that try to balance numbers and restrict players. I want to experience fights with a lot of players, a bunch of smaller guilds taking down a zerg, and other experiences that can't happen in other games. ACE hasn't marketed this as a "megamassive guild" game and I don't see why that would even be an issue. They have marketed this as a "Throne War" with the concept of large scale fights which to me isn't 20v20 or 50v50 that is pretty small for a modern "PVP game." We've already seen larger sieges then that with multiple guilds involved. Not one guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 or whatever imbalance you believe will happen.
  7. I don't believe they need a ton more for launch if everything already in is very polished, but I'd like to see more conquest content related to controlling more types of POI that impact day to day and in the moment gameplay and not just a point pool. Expand on timed/random world boss events and random swarms of mobs that have high drop rates but are harder and obviously fought over. Some sort of gathering version with hot spots that give a lot more materials, like a motherlode explosion. Basically anything that gets people out in the world doing PVE and PVP in hot spots and not trying to avoid others. I'd really enjoy some sort of PVP talent/progression system like many games have. Give value to all PVP to the individual so random fights have more importance.
  8. What should ACE do to make it better to be in a smaller guild? Why would a guild want to be 30 instead of 50 or 500? What games reward smaller guild sizes or limit guild size to smaller numbers? ACE made large castles built for a lot of players to fight over, why would they change the focus to be for smaller guilds? That's an entirely different subject and hopefully they add rewards sooner then later. Players will player with or without rewards it seems. Someone can like to PVP but prefer to Craft. Some people just are very good at PVP and will play games like this if there is other stuff they enjoy, including supporting their friends/guild. Currently non-combat roles are more important then people just running around trying to chop of heads of anyone they see. Albion Online is probably more popular then Crowfall will ever be. It has its own strengths and weaknesses but is doing good regardless if you believe it is pathetic. It still has different size guilds that have different influence on world control and isn't only dominated by zerg guilds. When I play it is mostly 1-5 players in hellgates or random PVP. I have fun despite not being in a 1000 people alliance. How do they do that? Why wouldn't a guild of 90 split into three guilds of 30 and share rewards or work together? Why is 20-30 the correct number? Why not 50-100? 200+? If it is just about being easy for people to form 20-30 player guilds, why not make it 5-10 players? Why not just make it a 5v5 match game and make it instanced arenas? None of this is what ACE built or sold to anyone over the last 5 years. Your suggestion goes against the entire point of the game. There are large guilds relative to the current population fighting it out while smaller guilds help the larger or do their own thing. Already seen different size guilds benefit from working together, using the card system to their advantage, alliances, and all the other things people likely bought this game for. Adding more people will grow the potential, not guarantee that every guild will be 500+ people or whatever your fear is. It's great to predict the future, but you fear something that hasn't happened yet and that ACE is trying to discourage through various ways.
  9. Crafters, Gatherers, Builders, Traders, Pig Runners, etc might disagree that PVP is the most important thing. It's nice to have good combat, but these games have more then one thing to enjoy. Crowfall is not going to be the best combat game ever, accept it or not. Performance and character options are improving sort of but the core combat design is never going to change. It isn't possible to adjust or limit players working together in such a game. Any artificial restriction will be worked around. There is always a numbers advantage on the battle field but when it comes to winning campaigns, that isn't the most important thing entirely. That is why MMOs and genres with structured PVP are so much more popular. People like PVP/competitive games but they like it where it is as balanced as possible. Crowfall and similar games are not build for fairness on purpose. That is what people enjoy about them. Allows players to use whatever is available to their advantage, to win or lose trying. There isn't a guild with 75% of the population controlling 100% of the map, winning every campaign.
  10. I enjoyed BDO and Ashes seems like sort of a Western version in some ways. Hopefully without the P2W and extreme grindy PVE that Eastern games typically have. Combat is not the most important thing to everyone in a game. Believe it or not, we all like different things. It is very important to me, but I've given up on this game having amazing combat or class design. It's the larger GvG, open world, and campaign features that have me still interested. Also backed Camelot and Ashes but for different reasons then Crowfall. It isn't one size fits all. If you aren't even playing or following what is happening, not sure your view is accurate. This game is definitely going to reward larger teams out powering each other, but the card system allows for a lot of potential in regards to winning campaigns, which is ultimately the game's predefined goal. Not everyone will even care about winning a campaign, some just want to PVP or craft or sell stuff on vendors and make a billion gold for whatever reason. Some will just want to gank people and make highlight videos. I haven't played an open world game that wasn't like this. These are few and far between though with most games having some form of arena/battlegrounds which remove the value of open world PVP or chance to zerg or defeat larger enemies. If you want even/structured teams, there are tons of quality games across plenty of genres to enjoy. No reason to make this just another one of those. It's niche and maybe too niche, but that's on ACE to figure out. I'm willing to at least see if it works out or not. If it fails, oh well, on to the next one. For me, if I was going to play a MMO or any game for arena/battlegrounds or some sort of even teams, Crowfall wouldn't even be on the list. Have to approach it for what it is, not as if it is one of those other games.
  11. They have a roadmap? June 2018: "Alpha by end of Summer 2018" January 2020: "Beta Q1 2020" "Launch 2020" Maybe their roadmap is like the game's? Form over function. I hope they don't rush, which they seem to have avoided, but have a feeling we'll be seeing Beta much sooner then we should. Making a good game > the masses being able to log in, be dissatisfied, and uninstalling.
  12. Not holding my breath but these are things I'd like to see if Advantages & Disadvantages ever become a reality.
  13. IMO there is quite a lot more to do before beta. If the whole point of beta is to get backers to return and free players a good first hands experience, it needs to be dang near launch ready. Not just functional. Those that have been around for any length of time have likely grown accustomed to many things that new and returning folks will not accept. Bugs or QOL things that a current player might overlook could be uninstall worthy to others. Beyond financial and time limitations, I really hope we have a lot more updated before beta and launch. As in months/years if necessary. Great games have done poorly because of rushed launches and taken years to recover if they ever did.
  14. Yes please. Rodent stealth FX have had problems in some form since release years ago. Hilarious that they just let it be. How hard is it to use regular stealth FX in the meantime or just disable the popcorn?
  15. There's no need for "precise" aiming in this game but pointing a reticle directly at someone shouldn't result in hitting the person next to them using a raycast. If they are going to have fake/easy aim at least make it appear like aiming actually works. That isn't adding a "mechanic" but just tightening up visuals/hit boxes or whatever to make it look decent. Makes no sense to design combat around the reticle yet it doesn't function properly. Tab would of been an easy/cleaner option and allowed for a lot more interesting powers, yet combat would play basically the same.
  16. I agree in Crowfall land this is one of the few ways to stand out. I'm just not going to be impressed if someone points a camera at their hands while playing and shows off how much it takes to swap a power. Probably a pre-teen in SK that could do it with their eyes closed. You don't have what you don't have on your bar, regardless if you have it available from your power pool. Various mechanics make me believe that if we were meant to have access to 15 powers, they'd give us 15 slots. Again, I don't care if people hot swap powers in combat or whenever. Just wish more classes/builds benefited from it. Get any challenge you can out of this game. Hard counters and swapping disciplines allowed people to do just that depending on who they saw in the distance or whatever the situation was. I like the idea of hard counters, but like much of ACE's design they go too far one way or another. It was mainly Elementalist that gave too much in one Disc. Instead of adjusting it and the other less used hard counter Disc along with removing hot swapping, they just removed them completely. We've had more Disc/Powers removed then added over the years. IMO, being a hard counter to a specific enemy is fine as long as it comes at a cost. What they did to Illusionist could of been done to them as well. To a lesser degree, this can currently happen as well. Slotting anti-stealth, anti-heal, anti-melee, etc powers that might not be on a bar normally. If people want to hassle with the UI to get a slight advantage, go for it.
  17. I agree it isn't easy, but I don't see it as "superior mechanical skill" either. At least not compared to other games/genres that have skill ceilings much much higher. On a scale of easy to hard, Crusaders/healers likely benefit from this mechanic more so then most others. How many builds have plate, healing, high sustain, fire n forget powers, play back line, expect peels, can hold block negating enemies while fiddling with UI windows? Not that those classes are easy, but the playstyle allows hot swapping a bit easier then a melee slapping people around or range/squishy being smacked by a few attackers. They removed the extra bar/passive slot disciplines, hard counter disciplines, ability to swap disciplines on the fly, can't remove powers on cooldown, and have tray swap delay. All that of that points to them favoring preparation, risk v reward, having strengths/weaknesses depending on a build, etc. I'm not in favor of removing the option, but I wasn't in favor of changing the other items listed either. As is, few classes likely benefit from hot swapping in combat due to the shallow and limited character design system. I wish my preferred builds had decent options to swap ever, let a lone mid fight.
  18. That's a brand new game and engine, CF is working with 5 year old tech, don't expect too much. Who do I have to throw money at to get a game that doesn't pale to much older games that also didn't have massive budgets, huge teams, 20+ years of experience, access to much better tech.
  19. The concept of interdependence, social gaming, specializing and making passive training or progress in general not be terrible are not mutually exclusive. If ACE really wanted the bold items to be important then allowing one account to train everything over time and zero effort alt accounts are a very backwards approach to that goal.
  20. Result of scrapping the original concept design, going with more tab friendly mechanics but forgetting to add tab targetting.
  21. Standing still, opening a window, and dragging a power to the bar takes "superior" mechanical skill? Kind of sad that is considered challenging in this game.
×
×
  • Create New...