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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Language

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Drakano's Achievements

  1. Please leave my pally alone. They are balanced well and if played right can fit into any small scale or large scale group. You do require some level of brains in your friends but I dont have an issue. If they step out of the circle and they die laugh
  2. In my opinion Leave Pallies alone! Those who know how to play them they are well balanced and bring a ton of value to the fight. Issue with asking for fix here is they will probably over nerf it like they have done in the past. #donttouchmypally!
  3. I think everything in this plan is good but I feel like we are the wagon before the horse. What are you doing about the zerg? With that said. Plan is great. The only question I have is this. If the archetype fast level option is not locked behind VIP anyone can use this option. Since I imagine some people are like me and keep VIP for this specific option I can just cancel my VIP which I totally support that plan but I would like to ask will you be providing an alternate benefit to VIP subscribers in lieu of fast leveling?
  4. Damn it Bobby gotta let me finish typing
  5. Tbh at this point I do not for see any adjustment salvaging players that will be leaving on New World Launch. This is a systemic issue causing the massive loss of player base. I imagine this is why we cant not see server numbers any longer. With that said. I do not see how Shadow or Dregs would impact each other so far into the campaigns. Jah made an excellent point that taking down the more popular of the two would not be a good move. I personally think since DEATH has been utterly destroyed in this campaign it might be time to think about ending early. Content has died off so much its not even funny. That is something for the absolute silent powers that be to decide. With all that said. You know its funny last night we had less than 20 running around and it would have been awesome to see you guys out there in dreg so we could have fought. I am been very intent on holding crowfall accountable for their utter lack of response to this community but to be fair. Your 100 could unify and come fight the other 100's on the battlefield. I cant help you ATM with the MASSIVE DEATH ZERG but I can say if you really want to have some good PVP fun bring you players to the more productive server. I have an idea why not try to unify the guilds on shadow and create and alliance and come fight us? Just my thoughts. Now back to the real issue. Crowfall what actions are you taking to reduce the ZERG issue. Have not heard any plans yet would love to hear some.
  6. I am confused on this topic Bobby! sorry sounded funnier in my head than on paper. Anyway What on earth are you talking about in this post? You saying that some how dregs broke shadow in the middle of both campaigns? If that is what your saying can you explain how on earth that happened?
  7. I could not agree more. We spent the entire Alpha and Beta phase saying its ok it alpha or its ok its beta. NOBODY except crowfall is responsible for the issues like this. If you must place blame on anyone else then blame all the players who played the role of unreasonable supporter for ALL (including myself) action from crowfall during Alpha and Beta saying its Alpha or its Beta its ok it will be fixed by release. This was said because people believed in crowfall. I also still believe crowfall can be fixed if they start to listen and respond to its players. We will not fix the issue if we try to shirk blame onto the player base on this because the issue that drives population down has been called out and said over and over. I will personally take this lesson and learn from it and never become an unreasonable supporter again. Crowfall please respond to your players not just super special ones in certain forums/discords.
  8. I really hope someone takes a look at this. Its actually a really good idea. I think some details would need to be hashed out a little bit but its a really good idea! If this was taken up it could have a positive impact on the MASSIVE ZERG ISSUE. Currently crowfall has zero anti zerg mechanics. If you know of one actual anti zerg mechanic in crowfall please let me know. I would be happy to retract that statement but yesterday I talked with someone from ACE and I could not get an actual answer to this question. Note to crowfall - Any response to these threads would be better than zero response to the threads.
  9. From the sounds of it based on the previous posts it was reported. It also appeared there was some response and back and forth discussing solutions but no correction was ever made. TBH none of it really matters because we don't get much response in here. Honestly if we had anything. Good news though you might have group loot options soon and handshakes that could be manipulated.
  10. Posted by Tiggs in previous thread Summary We have a social issue caused by performance-driven server population caps on the zones. When a large defending or attacking alliance wants to lock out the competition for a siege event, defending players will log into the server hours ahead of the event and “lockout” all other players by flooding the zone with their team. Worse, the fear of this happening forces other alliances to do the same thing, just to keep it from happening to them -- resulting in uninteresting gameplay sessions with no action on either side, waiting for siege windows to open, then close. The proposal in this document is to combine the current siege scheduling system with a zone reservation and handshake sieges concept, allowing these 2 teams within a zone for the period that there is an active siege in that zone. This new siege model becomes an option in the Siege Schedule for a particular campaign, which means Dregs can use either the reserved handshake sieging mode -or- the current non-zone reserved sieging for any given campaign. Note: This design is assumed to be Dregs-only, and for Keeps and Castles-only initially, as the design is intended for coherent groups with specific leaders, unlike the leaderless factions of The Shadow. Note: Assume for this entire document when we talk about a “group of players” we are discussing an alliance, and if a guild isn’t part of an alliance, then default to the guild. Zone Reservation The proposed solution is to allocate player slots available (up to the max Zone Cap, currently set to 250 for sieging zones) and grant these slots in a siege zone to alliances based on a Handshake Declaration prior to a siege. Additionally, we need to revamp/upgrade the player queueing system to understand and apply these allocations and deal with it appropriately when more players from a given alliance attempt to log in (or Runegate into an area) than that alliance has been assigned allocation slots. Challenges: Recognize that we have a limited number of player slots available in a zone, and it is unavoidable that sometimes more players will want to engage in these events than we can support. Allocate the limited player slots in a way that is the least offensive to all players (as no group is going to be happy, even if they were allocated all the slots -- because without conflict, the game is boring). Solution: Allow players to reserve player slots (from the Zone Cap) based on a Siege Handshake; the defending Alliance reserves 45% of the zone cap and the attacking Alliance reserves 55% of the zone cap. (these are tunable variables in design config data) Note: This maximum amount per alliance is enforced even if one of the teams is short players. (ie defenders can have a max of 112 players but only have 92 players in the zone, the excess amount (20) does not allow there to be additional attackers, it just means defenders are fighting short-handed and others of their alliance are free to zone in.) There is also a desire to be able to define the max zone size during a siege hour based on the size of the keep in the zone (design set the value somewhere) whereas a small keep has a max player zone amount of 150 (during the siege) instead of the standard 250. The players thought it would be valuable for the smaller keeps to have smaller sieges such that a smaller alliance couldn’t get zerged by a much larger group. This is data design could setup in the Siege Schedule where we already plan to define Handshake siege or not, basically a max_zone_players field. Initial Designer Data Small Keep - 150 Medium Keep - 250 Castle - 250 Allocation Enforcement at Start of Event — the Snap! At 10, 5, 3, and 1 minute prior to the start of the siege event, notify the zone via one of the message types as well as the events tab in the chatbox, that a siege will be starting in X minutes and the zone will be cleared of all players not eligible to participate in the siege. Different messages will need to go to different groups of people; People not involved in the Siege zone People involved in the Siege zone but will not be removed because of Rank(Guild Leaders) People involved in the Siege zone and are in danger of being snapped because their alliance currently has more than would be allocated to the zone. There are 3 different types of messages we can use in a zone ; Toast - Middle of screen announcement Broadcast (false) - left side of the screen Broadcast (true) - Modal Center of the screen and requires a Yes Confirmation At the start of a keep or castle siege event, notify players that the reservation system is about to engage for the next hour in this zone (The Siege is about to begin! Alliances who do not qualify to participate will be removed from the zone!”). Then divide the players up into separate lists, one for attackers, and one for defenders. Then divide the players up into separate lists, one for attackers, and one for defenders. Calculate the number of slots for each alliance. If the number of players in an alliance's list exceeds their allocation of slots, remove excess players (except guild leaders ) from the alliance back to their Bind Spots/Temple until they only have as many players in the zone as they have allocated slots. If they have fewer players than allocated slots, that’s fine, it leaves room for more players from this alliance to arrive later. The Algorithm on who gets the boot and who doesn’t when it comes to alliances is as follows using the example of a 300 person alliance with 112 available slots as defenders. Guild Leaders within the alliance and in the zone are guaranteed to be chosen. The remaining people in the alliance are apportioned related to Guild size, i.e. if guild a, b and c are 50, 100, 150 in size, the algorithm will first try to pick 19, 37, and 66 people from each guild that are in the zone to keep in the zone. If there are extra slots because one or two of the guilds don’t have that many players they will be equally divided between the remaining two guilds or given to the last guild. Preference in picking people to stay will be given to officers in the guilds, then full members. The algorithm runs every time the messaging is about to be sent up to the 1 minute last warning message, so someone may be in at minute 5, but out by minute 3. Players in alliances that have no allocated slots should likewise be informed and removed from the zone. (Attempt to place them at their Bind spot first, then their Temple, and as a last resort any other zone with a valid Runegate start point for their alliance/faction that has available player space.) (Internal note): There are start markers for Runegate start points, but not generic start markers for zones like we have in Temples.) (Internal note T.C): I really want us to add visual effects to make this look like “the Snap” from Avengers endgame.) Messaging When a player is removed to the temple, inform them that their Faction (or alliance) only has X slots and they are being removed (or if not part of the alliances reserving the zone, inform them when the zone will be available again), but are welcome to queue back into the zone via a runegate. (“Your Alliance has more members in the zone than allowed! You are being moved to a safe location!”) Here is my statement and question. I was looking over some previous posts and ideas and I wanted to bring this topic up for the Handshake Siege topic. I was going to post in first thread but the thread is closed. How will you prevent guilds like death trying to do the thing they did the other day by dropping tags and trying to the keep from themselves. Here is the bottom line. Guilds have proven that they will manipulate the system even if the spirit of the system was to prevent said action. Crowfall has been slop to take actions on this so I would like to make a statement (IE Infinite tree bug that was only removed after it was made known to everyone who played. FYI was a massive load of Chaos Embers). If you do this it may result in guilds dropping tags forming new guild or asking their "Friends" to siege their keep so it is never able to be taken? I heard recently that you all will be cracking down on certain behavior. Have not seen this really so wanted to make sure I voice this issue before it was live. How do you plan if you plan to stop this from happening?
  11. Bring back the system that allowed for Per play points. The system that allowed smaller guilds to compete. Allow guild that have smaller numbers to have a benefit that allows them to compete. This has been an issue that was said to be being looked at before you released the game. Many Months before the game was released. Also I would like to say the reason I understood you removed this system was because it was said that it is creating an environment that did not allow all to join the dregs campaign with their guild. FYI same thing with the changes to the alliance system if you really really think about it! Really Really think about this point you will see its 100% the same thing with out giving any reward to the smaller guilds. Another idea would be to remove the simplistic scoring system and create a more detailed scoring system that allows rewards to smaller guilds. Make it rewards people would actually care about not just fluff! And last but not least. Remove the rewards that only go the guild leaders of the guild. I am lucky in the fact that my team is awesome and this is not an issue for us. I will not speak for any other guilds but this system could be abused and if you this and allow rewards to go the players based on their contribution I believe this would be good.
  12. Can anyone from crowfall please clarify if this was just an oversight or is the policy of ACE to only correct the issues found in dregs? I am asking because I truly want to do some playing on shadow but not if you don't care about it like you do Death and Dregs. I am seriously asking because based on the statements made here its clear that Death is being favored over the guilds that play on Shadow and lost points. If this is not true please say so instead of just ignoring the issue. Fact 1 - A technical issue happened and crowfall was willing to correct it for the guild/alliance Death to ensure they get credit for the work they provided. Fact 2 (Maybe its hard to tell with zero response from the powers that be!) A technical issue happened and crowfall was unwilling to correct it for the guild/alliances playing on that faction to ensure they get credit for the work they provided. I would also like to ask WHY does it take us calling you all out like this to get some kind of respond to the problem? #anyresponsewouldbeagreatstep!
  13. At this point the only guild that has been given this level of support is Death. So Mandalore is pretty spot on lol. I would like to restate the anger the frustration level you all have and that you are directing at the guilds/players is so silly. I would like to say. crowfall had protections for the small guilds back when KGV (a smaller guild) won the campaign. Then crowfall removed the structure that allowed that. So in my opinion your hostility should not be at the players or the guilds that are playing with in the rule set placed by Crowfall. Just my opinion.
  14. I would agree with this being a valid conversation that needs to be had. If its true then it would appear that the rules apply only in some instances. Words like competitive dont lose value just because its not Dregs. SO I thinks its a fair ask. What I think a lot of people DO NOT understand at the end of the day we are customer. We should demand responses or give up on them for lack of response. We all want Crowfall to succeed at least most of us do. @KayNine Please keep voicing YOUR opinion as no mater if agree or not I don't want your opinion suppressed or ignored.
  15. Would it be possible to get a response to this thread. I have been a for crowfall and have made it very clear in my streams on the official crowfall twitch. I am utterly shocked and amazed at the lack of response to so many ideas being placed here. its now over 1 week and unless I missed it nobody from crowfall has responded. If I missed it please let me know. I will say sorry if not come on man!
  • Create New...