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

Pystkeebler

Testers
  • Posts

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Pystkeebler last won the day on May 8

Pystkeebler had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Language
    English

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Pystkeebler's Achievements

  1. This is just needlessly inflammatory, and generally a mischaracterization. The primary ask of most small scale enthusiasts is just a space that supports different modes of play other than the large-scale open world PvP. It's not to detract from or take something away from that mode of play. It's additive. By taking the stance you have, you're effectively advocating against players having their desired mode of play supported. On the other hand, small scale enthusiasts largely don't care if your desired mode of play is supported, or that it remains the primary focus. One of the cornerstones of modern MMO design has been providing players more agency to define how they want to play. That's one of the great successes of EVE. Allowing for different scales of conflict and supporting more modes of play is a win for everyone playing Crowfall. There are no really strong reasons these things can't even be supported within the same campaign by providing zones with varying pop limits and zone cap partitioning that supports conflict at different scales (e.g. 6, 12, 24 per alliance or faction). It's hard to see variety in playstyle as a negative regardless of what you're primary mode is. If absolutely necessary they can even decouple the rewards, and the divine favor system already allows for that.
  2. An alternative take on stealth/detection issue... I think both sides of the coin create poor gameplay currently. If you don't run perception buffs, stealth is practically impossible to pop. If you do run perception buffs, then it's practically impossible to escape. The problem is that both scenarios require no skill, just one button press. I would really like to see something along the following lines: Remove perception buffs entirely, and give everyone stealth detection in a frontal cone. Give more access to skills like flare arrow, or other aoe / pbaoe stealth reveals. Have stealthing, and especially abilities like shadowstep, leave a visual effect at the point of entering stealth. Detection and avoiding detection would then require more active decision making and some modicum of skill.
  3. Ranger Sustain had its cost increase from 500 to 750 Reduced the duration of Trap Master from 30 seconds to 25 seconds This is massively underwhelming. I'm not asking for a knee-jerk nerf on Wardens, but they've been a problem for a very long time now. The two major problems with the class, as I see them, are: Trap Master being an offensive ability. At the very least it should be a defensive proc on damage taken rather than on damage dealt. Stacking effects on trap. This turns an ok CC ability into a great DPS ability which can apply mitigation debuffs and/or blackmantle all in one button press. Combined with Trap Master it's absolutely ludicrous efficiency. One button capable of doing all those things is clearly unbalanced. These minors NEED to be mutually exclusive and they should probably change trap from a stun to a root.
  4. Would love to see this, but, to be perfectly honest, the PvE has a ways to go to be even modestly enjoyable. It feels really low-quality and unpolished currently. I mean raid bosses feel like your standard non-elite mob with +++ the damage and health. One-shotting players is a boring encounter mechanic. I'm not going to sit here and ask for WoW quality raid encounters, cause that doesn't make any sense. But there's some modest improvements that would go a long way: More polish of and better use of mob abilities Auras and enrage timers for bosses Group pulls with modest AI improvements Patrol groups in camps More structured and polished camp design (not just a pile of mobs milling about aimlessly) and mob idle animations (e.g. animations for enbarri hammering on those siege engines) These would go a long way to making the game feel more immersive. It's easy to disregard these things and not important for a PvP MMO, but I think it's recognized that PvE objectives can be draws and flashpoints for PvP. So much time is spent grinding anyway, and it's not really practical to avoid the PvE in this game. ACE continues to add PvE encounters (chiefs, kings, ancients, heralds, demons, etc.), and these are not doing the game any favors if they continue to be these low-quality, unpolished PvE encounters. The game launched. It's past time to actually start polishing stuff.
  5. Pystkeebler

    Nerf Ranger

    It's not a great idea, nor likely achievable, to balance all classes so they have approximately equal win percentages in 1v1 vs. every other class. I think most people accept that. But if you have to break the balance of a class so badly just to give them a role in mid-to-large scale fights, clearly something is wrong. I think the issue with wardens, and some of the other over-performing classes right now, can be summed up in terms of two problems:1) how much efficiency can the class get from a single button press, 2) and how much access does the class have to different tools. Stacking buffs on warden traps is guilty of the first; it's not terribly hard to turn an OK cc ability into a strong DPS ability that applies Blackmantle. I feel like it should go without saying that you shouldn't be able to load all those things into one button, let alone a proc effect. The warden is also guilty of "having it all" - good damage at range and in melee, access to mail, OK CC, decent mobility, great sustain (barriers, lifedrains, etc.). They even get plenty of buffs/debuffs as perks to many of their abilities. It's hard to see many real weakness, or situations in which they don't excel. Maybe their max HP isn't exceptional?
  6. Would like to see additional zones added to campaign maps that have: smaller, variable sized maps with PvP objectives appropriate to the size. smaller, variable sized zone caps (30, 60, 120, ...) strict, fixed alliance/faction zone cap proportions (one group per, two groups per, three groups per, etc) Basically, just build battleground-like zones into the campaigns directly to provide variety in scale of conflicts. Want to run a 6 man against other 6 mans? There are zones for that. Want to do small scale fort sieges in a 12 man against other 12 man groups? There are zones for that too. These could contribute to the conquest game as well, which would force large guilds to compete across various size scales while providing small guilds ways to compete on similar footing in some limited spaces. It's not necessary, but some kind of fast travel and/or queue system to get into these zones would add a way to quickly find and get into conflicts that are reasonably matched to your desired group size. All this being additive to the current campaign system, so the large, open adventure zones are still there to provide the less structured, large scale PvP. Let players have some agency in defining the scale of fights they expect to get into.
  7. Would like to see them just add additional zones to campaign maps that have: smaller, variable sized maps with PvP objectives appropriate to the size. smaller, variable sized zone caps (30, 60, 120, ...) strict, fixed alliance/faction zone cap proportions (one group per, two groups per, three groups per, etc) Basically, just build these kind of battleground-like zones into the campaigns directly to provide variety in scale of conflicts. Want to run a 6 man against other 6 mans? There are zones for that. Want to do small scale fort sieges in a 12 man against other 12 man groups? There are zones for that too. These could contribute to the conquest game as well, which would force large guilds to compete across various size scales while providing small guilds ways to compete on similar footing in some limited spaces. It's not necessary, but some kind of fast travel and/or queue system to get into these zones would add a way to quickly find and get into conflicts that are reasonably matched to your desired group size. All this being additive to the current campaign system, so the large, open adventure zones are still there to provide the less structured, large scale PvP.
  8. Good luck finding 30 people in GR organized enough and willing to do that. What organized large group of people wants to kill a raid boss in GR and get practically worthless stuff? This is exactly my point. Why make content for a starter zone that is disproportionately leveled for that space? How do you see a mob that is basically just like any other mob (maybe soon they'll have glowy crowns, yay!) but is capable of one shotting people as adding a positive gameplay experience? How is this enjoyable encounter design? What good do you honestly believe this is doing? I've leveled several characters from 25-30 in the past week because I'm enjoying creating different characters. Almost every camp in Lunarium and Skypoint at this point has a Raid Boss that has been up for a considerable portion of time. I'd wager that the only thing killing these mobs is server maintenance and not players. This should be a clear enough indication that they are not serving their intended purpose and they do not fit the space. Meanwhile general chat is littered with the tears of people rage quitting because of it. How much is this "There is deadly crap in the worlds" lesson worth that you would think that it offsets the negative impacts on a population of players that are effectively trying out the game. Would you like these people to stay around? Are group bosses not enough to teach this lesson? It feels like such poorly made dergs, and it grinds down my tolerance for putting up with all the other flaws that one has to overlook to find the enjoyable parts of this game every time I see one.
  9. A relatively modest proposal for improving caravans, outposts, and forts: Pair each outpost with a specific POI - camp, ruin, forest, hills, canyon Have outpost become producers of caravans. Taming requires capturing outpost. Caravan type is related to POI paired with the outpost (gold, dust, timber, pelts, stone, ore). Have forts become consumers of caravans acting like a caravansary. Have forts become active on a 15 minute cadence with an ~hour long lock out period Turning in caravan at fort produces materials + additional rewards taken from the outpost loot box tables. Why this is an improvement: Gives objectives (especially outposts) more clear purpose than simply "hold thing produce points." Requires more active participation within the world to obtain rewards. Encourages active engagement around objectives as opposed to the circle standing, twiddling thumbs at forts, or chest timer chasing. Creates more steady pace of opportunities to, and reasons to fight over and capture these minor objectives. Provides more opportunity to produce regular conflict around objectives than the limited fort windows, and outpost chest timers. Procedural world building should be easier and yield less awkward clusters of outposts connected by bonkers highways.
  10. High-level raid bosses are a big problem for the new player experience in GR. At the very least make them level appropriate for what is effectively a new player introduction to what a campaign zone is, and put them somewhere that they don't aggro from 100 meters away making most of the camp a dead zone. Barring that, just remove them from GR. They are causing more harm than good to the new player experience. I would also add that one-shotting players is a very poor design choice for raid bosses. It makes the encounters feel very chintzy. If they're going to one-shot things it should be on a telegraphed charged ability. A better solution would be large mitigation and regen that functionally requires a minimum dps (and/or an enrage timer/stacking buff that creates a dps race), combined with some kind of aoe damage field that requires a certain amount of hps sustain.
  11. Sorry, I was being lazy... Let's be more specific I guess? Why are there level 40 raid bosses in God's Reach? They practically one shot any and all level 30 characters. No this isn't a "hey this one time I lost gold" rant. This is a constant, unavoidable thing that locks out large parts of camps (plural) across all maps in GR. It serves no reasonable gameplay purpose in these zones because they can't reasonably be killed by players at the level expected to be in the zone. It's a major turn off to new players, and like many other things in this game, is driving people out of the game before they even experience the meat of it. At the very least make them level appropriate for what is effectively a new player introduction to what a campaign zone is, and as @spawnq0459 suggested, put them somewhere that they don't aggro from 100 meters away making most of the camp a dead zone. Barring that, just remove them. They are causing more harm than good to the new player experience. I would also add that one-shotting players is a very poor design choice for raid bosses. It makes the encounters feel very chintzy. If they're going to one-shot things it should be on a telegraphed charged ability. A better solution would be large mitigation and regen that functionally requires a minimum dps (and/or an enrage timer), combined with some kind of aoe damage field that requires a certain amount of hps sustain.
  12. EDIT: I guess lead with the BLUF Suggestions: I would gladly put up with more loading screens, smaller maps, smaller pop caps, and a greater number of zones if it meant more playable sieges. I would very much enjoy having a variety of zone sizes with varying zone pop caps partitioned by group size per alliance/faction (1 group per alliance, 2 groups per alliance, etc.). Smaller zones could have appropriately sized objective. For example, multiple outposts for a 6 man alliance capped zone would make for a fun multi-point king-of-the-hill mini-game within the larger campaign world. Or a handful of outposts and a central fort for small scale siege gameplay. Basically, build instanced battleground like spaces into the campaign world itself. You guys have all the tools to do this within the campaign worlds right now, and it would immediately improve the quality of the play experience for groups and guilds of all sizes. Some form of fast travel to these smaller zones would also accelerate the pace of finding conflict that fits your group size and desired play experience. This still could support large adventure zones for more open exploration and engagement. Just not with keeps that cause whole zones to lock out every night when there's a siege. --- The Dregs experience currently: Siege Defense. Muster in zone hour beforehand to avoid zone queues. Wait an hour. Siege happens. No on shows. Wait.... Bail, go to active siege. Spend 15 minutes running between gates. Drop trebs, and attempt protect bane tree. Big fight ensues; Maybe 100+ people. Total slide show, and barely can hit buttons. Get wiped, and spend 15 minutes zoning in Crow form to rez. Spend another 15 minutes running zones, again. Hit queue. Sit in queue. Queue position jumps around erratically. Waste ~30 min in queue. Basically a waste of 2 hours for maybe 5 minutes of slide show. Why have 200 player cap zones? The whole function of the conquest system is basically to put as many people in one parcel as possible. If this produces unplayable fights, then what's the point? I get that it feels like a suboptimal solution to have keeps in instanced siege zones. But if anything produces a more playable experience, then my vote would be for that. Locking down a whole zone when one keep is under siege has a massive impact on the map. It's been said so many times, but the shear amount of wasted time is a killer for me. I don't really want to throw away 2 hours hoping something happens, and then hoping that something is a reasonably balanced fight with OK performance. Handshake sieges may help a bit, but it's not a panacea. The zone cap distribution and queuing system for Dregs is a mess. It's not likely to get appreciably better anytime soon unless some very significant changes are made to alliances in Dregs. It's not clear that handshake sieges and reservations will produce a better outcome. Different maybe, but not clearly better. It's an unsolvable problem with an unbounded and undefined number of possible alliances. It's somewhat bounded by the total size of the Dregs server I guess? But guilds are what 500 pop and you could have 5 guilds per alliance? These technical limitation issues are things that I should know are there in my head, but the game should be designed around these so that I'm not running into them ***every time I log in***. I don't feel like I'm playing Crowfall to fight other players, but fighting Crowfall to play with other players... At this point I would greatly prefer Faction vs. Faction solely on the fact that there's a better chance of being able to balance faction populations and zone caps appropriately to produce some modest quality of experience.
  13. Icecaller Cool Ice is not supposed to be able to flip to different types of ice, but if I cast stable ice weave next to a cool ice during shatter storm the cool ice will flip to volatile ice.
  14. Top 5 Crowfall likes (things you feel we're doing great on). Crowfall Launched! That's great. More than a lot of KS games can say. Small scale PvP is really fun when numbers are reasonably balanced. Feels like spec, ability usage, etc. all matter at that level. Class, Talent, Discipline selections feel deep and fun. I waste a lot of time playing with character builders. I do wish some things were more viable, and others were less "required" choices (Lord of the Forest is ubiquitous) or OP. We'll get there... Skipping the NPE and going straight to 25 is nice. I wish it gave me a mount and some intermediate gear. If you give a mouse a cookie, I guess. Respec is great and frankly feels essential. Please consider reducing the non-VIP cost. Top 5 Crowfall dislikes (what you feel we could be doing better on or a pesky game mechanic that you don't enjoy) and how can we make it better? I dislike that there are no FvF campaigns. These campaigns offer a space that is less organized, more casual, more drop-in friendly. These campaigns really need population balancing systems though, or they'll end up like the different GR servers where one side owns everything. I dislike that players have no way of filtering their experience to fit their group size. Most fights I end up in have one side at a severe numbers disadvantage. It's not fun to be on either side of that. Zones with different map sizes and pop caps could help. Or something like runegates or islands that segment different group sizes a little better. For example, EVE's FvF spaces do this through instanced rooms that only allow ships of certain sizes, etc. Something that would allow me to say "I'm a group of 5, I can go here to find similarly sized groups to fight for stuff" would be great. I dislike population and zone cap balance in FvF and Dregs. The 5 guild limit on alliances is hurting the ability of smaller guilds to band together without disbanding their guild; alliance pop limit might be better, if feasible. For the size of Dregs campaign maps we have, something is needed to address alliance balance; there is barely room for one mega-alliance. Number of active alliances in Dregs may need to be limited somehow to allow better partitioning of zone caps. Something like only allowing land-owning guilds to lead an alliance with other guilds under Faction banners. I dunno, but it sucks seeing one massive alliance owning everything. I'm not sure how this is fun even for the members of that alliance. I seriously dislike the discipline grind. It's far too grind heavy. Most of my time in this PvP sandbox is spent grinding useless crap... It just sucks. It's RNG, it's boring, it's not interesting, and it leads to specialization through inconvenience. I don't feel like it adds interesting choice or greater distinction to my characters in any way. It's just a boring power ramp. It might as well be leveling. I really dislike the huge number of stacking damage multipliers and stacking mitigation buffs. At best it's confusing. At worst it feels broken. Situations where certain classes can delete your health bar in under a second or two feels bad (I didn't want to press my buttons anyway, thanks). On the flip side, stacking resistances, armor, PDM, barriers, self-sustain, etc. can make some engagements feel infinite. If you could ask the Team member one question, what would you like to know? Be nice, seriously don't be a jerk. Any fun stories from launch week?
×
×
  • Create New...