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

Tiberius_Invictus

Testers
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Tiberius_Invictus

  1. This is great info, since it helps reduce the grind by making the search more focused. Any chance we can get similar info with the minor and major discs when those become enemy specific drops as well? Same thing if there are plans on making the tool belt items and recipe scrolls enemy specific. Thanks!
  2. RIP. Game is unplayable in current state.
  3. I can log in to TEST, but neither God's reach nor a campaign are open. Is this intended?
  4. Another percent/integer decimal place error. I'm pretty sure many of the passive skill training trees also contain similar errors.
  5. I would very much like to see all campaign exports require a good amount of gold. This is beneficial for several reasons: 1. It gives gold inherent value to all players. 2. It prevents runaway inflation since most gold will be spent at the end of each campaign. 3. It allows various campaigns to experiment with changing export costs and gold availability until a sweet spot is found. 4. With exports no longer being a fixed number per account, it makes it so that buying more accounts no longer reeks of P2W. 5. There can exist special campaigns where legendaries drop more frequently, or crafted items get additional experimenting bonuses, but exports from those campaign require a huuuuge amount of gold.
  6. For what good? Slowing down progress doesn't address the fundamental problems with passive skill gain, which are: 1. Later players to join are permanently behind and can never catch up 2. Greatly rewards players for buying more accounts, essentially P2W.
  7. What kind of ratio were you thinking? How many embers for each ambrosia? @Jah
  8. Given this new system for obtaining disciplines for higher tier vessels, is there going to be an inventory wipe when 5.92 goes to live? Right now most people with higher tier vessels there already have their disciplines equipped and won't experience this new system of obtaining disciplines, so feedback will be limited. Also, many still have the crafting major disciplines slotted, which, based on the non-availability of those on the test server, I presume are being retired (though it would be nice to still be able to get the bonuses they provided through some other means)
  9. Song twisting passive, from the twisting minor disc does not seem to work.
  10. This is another good reason to have these desired items be craftable from many mats that are more likely to be dropped. it's easier to distribute loot after a war tribe run.
  11. There are plenty of incentives to be on the dominant side other than the final campaign reward. I have more respawn points, I'm less likely to encounter hostiles while PvEing, and when "Spirit Bank Anywhere" is abolished, I'll have more places to bank. The devs will have to consider all of this when creating incentives to join other factions, otherwise the dogpiling will continue.
  12. Read the post above yours. There are ways of doing it that are neither instant gratification nor an RNG lottery.
  13. No loot table should include items below 10% probability IMO. If you want us to kill 500 of a certain enemy before we get what we're looking for, that's fine. However, make the item we're looking for require 50 mats that have a 10% drop rate, instead of being 1 thing that has a 0.2% drop rate. At least in the former case there is a sense of meaningful progress.
  14. How is this ironic? Because I play Balance? Look, I freely admit to acting selfishly in my own interests. As long as it is beneficial to me to do so, why would I do anything else? My point is that a game design that is predicated on some hope that players will do anything other than acting in their own self-interest is a flawed game design.
  15. Good idea. Make exports something that must be earned, and therefore independent of how many accounts you spend your time in-game as.
  16. Definitely agree with this. The developers' vision for this game isn't happening because they made huge barriers to entry for participation in the economy. The hardcore PvPers wouldn't be complaining if they didn't have to PvE so much, and the PvEers wouldn't be complaining if they could actually exchange their resources for useful stuff. Seems to be simply an issue of making exchanges more easy (a more liquid economy).
  17. I mentioned how to do it. Make skill advancement be a result of actions performed while actually playing. Provide enough inventory space that we don't need extra mules. Make zero import/export campaigns fun by making appropriate adjustments to duration and loot tables.
  18. There are other ways to make a game P2W besides microtransactions and premium accounts. Setting up game mechanics that greatly favor purchasing multiple accounts is another way to make a game P2W, which is what they're doing here. Want to advance more skills? Buy more accounts. Want to have more inventory space? Buy more accounts. Want to import/export more stuff? Buy more accounts. There IS something they can do about people having multiple accounts, and that is: don't design a game where doing so gives a huge advantage.
  19. Yeah, I'm getting pretty uncomfortable with how P2W this game is getting. At this point, I'm only interested in playing a campaign with strictly zero imports/exports for that reason. (This assuming zero import/export campaigns rain legendaries because, why not?) They should also abolish the passive skill training, and instead make skill advancement tied to actions done during campaign (and said skill advancement can be the permanence that carries over between campaigns)
  20. Will we get a chance to try this out on the test server? It will be beneficial to evaluate bank size, fort/keep changing hands functionality.
  21. This, absolutely. More games need to adopt this mentality. Don't program an item to be a 2% drop rate from bosses. Program that item to be craftable using 50 mats that drop 100% of the time. The end result is the same, (you have to kill the boss 50 times to get what you want), but at least in the latter case there is less variability, and a sense of progress after each kill.
  22. <wipes away tear> I think I got some ethereal dust in my eye...
  23. Nah, this is taking it way too far. You don't want the incentive for losing to be better than the incentive for winning. Also, any game mechanics that are instituted to preserve faction balance should be based on faction population, not faction score. If a group of players can be in the faction with the lowest population, yet can still rack up the highest score, they deserve both rewards.
  24. See, expecting players to act against their own interests for altruistic goals of preserving a server is a losing battle. If the devs want balanced population, there needs to be incentives to join underpopulated factions so it isn't like this after launch. For example, splitting campaign rewards among all the players in a faction would result in more for you if you're in the small faction. If they really want to fix it quickly, give PvE loot drop bonuses to members of the under-populated faction. I guarantee the problem would be resolved after 1 or 2 campaigns then. If anything, I hope things become even MORE lopsided during pre-alpha so it becomes glaringly obvious to the devs that they need to address this.
  25. What the game really needs is an incentive for people to not always side with the expected winning faction every campaign.
×
×
  • Create New...