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

ACE Q&A for November: 5.3 Expectations - Official Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lephys said:

I don't recall saying anything about "just as hard." But... *shrug*. I'll take your word for it.

Just as hard and "That's like asking" are pretty similar. I will agree they are not 100% the same.

2 hours ago, Lephys said:

Also, "when will mounts be in" isn't a very good question. That's like asking "when will Thomas Blair die, do you think?".

 

1 hour ago, Lephys said:

If you can always tell everyone the exact day on which each system will be implemented and operational, by all means, be in charge of all development projects.

Seems like you are making a bigger leap than I did. Never said anything about exact day. Pretty sure I just want them to address promised content at release when it appears they may be releasing soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood you. I was merely illustrating that exaggeration can go the opposite direction just as easily.

You actually have a valid point, but it's almost impossible to tell that when you ignore the simple fact that knowing when a specific thing is going to be done in their development process is actually quite difficult. I do agree that some kind of addressment (I'm not sure that's a "real" word, but I think it works), at least, of their current idea of the timeframe. At the same time, there are perfectly legitimate situations in which they have no accurate assessment of when a particular thing is going to make it into production.

Your valid point shines light when there are far too many things that are pegged for release in roughly-less-than-a-year, but are all still giant question marks. I couldn't really say "5 is too many, but 4 is okay," or "It's unacceptable to not know about mounts, but acceptable to not know about Thing X," however.

So, again. Good point, sort of, but I don't know what kind of responses you expect if you roll in like you're sure of exactly what they should and should not be on top of right now.

Until the game releases and everything's not in it (or at least really close... stuff happens), I don't think any of us can reasonably say "Yes, you guys aren't handling things like mounts properly." By all means, raise a concern for the sake of constructive illustration and discussion, but mic-drop conclusions and judgments are somewhat missing the mark.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lephys said:

.

Also, "when will mounts be in" isn't a very good question. That's like asking "when will Thomas Blair die, do you think?". They could say "Well, I dunno... I mean he's pretty healthy, so probably another 40 years or so. But, really, I mean, a bus could hit him tomorrow. So... *shrug*"

I find it a pretty valid question because they are selling mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, canvox said:

They're also selling the game, so here's my question: when will the game be done?

It will never be done, but when it will launch who knows anymore.  It was said to be this year but that was a few months ago before they added more things to work on. 

I think they are quite a ways away from a successful launch and a point where not wiping anymore would be good. 

It would actually be smarter for the game as a whole if they just decided to move skill-training to a per campaign format where you start at 0 (early game) and train up and get stronger as a campaign goes on.  This would allow them to soft launch without permanently punishing players that won't play until the game is more complete.  Their catch up mechanics are a bit p2w and that's going to be a terrible label attached to the game if players feel forced into it just for getting into the game after it is closer to a release quality product. 

The account level permanent training is a bad idea for the context of how they plan to launch and some of the obstacles they are currently up against.  Just let the EK be the permanence in the game and give people campaign level training that gives people weeks or months or a year of permanence to mess around with characters and then gives them a nice healthy reset to try new builds.

This would give the game a lot of benefits, build progression through a campaign on an individual and group level could be more like rts early mid and late game.  Resetting after X amount of weeks or months gives you more of the diablo feel where the game stays fresh as people get to try new builds (or repeat old ones) with a fresh twist in each new campaign. 

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

It will never be done, but when it will launch who knows anymore.  It was said to be this year but that was a few months ago before they added more things to work on. 

I think they are quite a ways away from a successful launch and a point where not wiping anymore would be good. 

It would actually be smarter for the game as a whole if they just decided to move skill-training to a per campaign format where you start at 0 (early game) and train up and get stronger as a campaign goes on.  This would allow them to soft launch without permanently punishing players that won't play until the game is more complete.  Their catch up mechanics are a bit p2w and that's going to be a terrible label attached to the game if players feel forced into it just for getting into the game after it is closer to a release quality product. 

The account level permanent training is a bad idea for the context of how they plan to launch and some of the obstacles they are currently up against.  Just let the EK be the permanence in the game and give people campaign level training that gives people weeks or months or a year of permanence to mess around with characters and then gives them a nice healthy reset to try new builds.

This would give the game a lot of benefits, build progression through a campaign on an individual and group level could be more like rts early mid and late game.  Resetting after X amount of weeks or months gives you more of the diablo feel where the game stays fresh as people get to try new builds (or repeat old ones) with a fresh twist in each new campaign. 

You know this is kind of funny, you complain that the game is not near ready to launch, and yet you propose ANOTHER major overhaul of the skill system, to make it per campaign, they will have to cut like 90% of it off, meaning the rest need to be heavily adjusted, as would a lot of other systems, because as lot of it is built upon the assumption that there will be a permanent specialisation through the skill tree (and funnily enough you always seem to talk about there not being enough permanence, and now you want to remove the one that actually exist... SO what is it you really want at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

It would actually be smarter for the game as a whole if they just decided to move skill-training to a per campaign format where you start at 0 (early game) and train up and get stronger as a campaign goes on. 

I believe Krakken presented this idea a while ago somewhere and I always liked it. I think the current progression system is a huge slow boring turn off with a p2w mechanic tied in, which is a bigger turn off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

It would actually be smarter for the game as a whole if they just decided to move skill-training to a per campaign format where you start at 0 (early game) and train up and get stronger as a campaign goes on.

Then there's even less persistence which is something I believe they're trying to avoid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, blazzen said:

Then there's even less persistence which is something I believe they're trying to avoid. 

The world isn't perfect, they might have had an interesting vision but they need to change certain things to adapt to the reality of the situation.

If they launch without a desirable product and then on top of it punish late comers that wait for a polished product with the p2w catch-up mechanic that is just setting themselves up for set back upon set back.

No one needs persistence for a game with temporary campaigns.  We've seen tons of games that benefit from fresh start worlds and the replayability of building new characters from scratch.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gummiel said:

You know this is kind of funny, you complain that the game is not near ready to launch, and yet you propose ANOTHER major overhaul of the skill system, to make it per campaign, they will have to cut like 90% of it off, meaning the rest need to be heavily adjusted, as would a lot of other systems, because as lot of it is built upon the assumption that there will be a permanent specialisation through the skill tree (and funnily enough you always seem to talk about there not being enough permanence, and now you want to remove the one that actually exist... SO what is it you really want at this point?

This wouldn't be a major overhaul.  And it would be one that is actually worth taking because right now what they are doing is unintuitive for a successful launch and life for the game.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

The world isn't perfect, they might have had an interesting vision but they need to change certain things to adapt to the reality of the situation.

If they launch without a desirable product and then on top of it punish late comers that wait for a polished product with the p2w catch-up mechanic that is just setting themselves up for set back upon set back.

No one needs persistence for a game with temporary campaigns.  We've seen tons of games that benefit from fresh start worlds and the replayability of building new characters from scratch.

Those games don't have a subscription or VIP fee and fizzle out pretty fast (this describes most survival games).

ACE is not making a survival game they're making a MMORPG with some unique twists on it. Proof of concept and marketability was proved during the successful kickstarter. Now it's a matter of implementation/execution not so much the concepts or marketability of those concepts. 

I think ACE has made the right decision.

I was beginning to miss our arguments and thought you left after you lost the VIP one. Welcome back! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Those games don't have a subscription or VIP fee and fizzle out pretty fast (this describes most survival games).

ACE is not making a survival game they're making a MMORPG with some unique twists on it. Proof of concept and marketability was proved during the successful kickstarter. Now it's a matter of implementation/execution not so much the concepts or marketability of those concepts. 

I think ACE has made the right decision.

I was beginning to miss our arguments and thought you left after you lost the VIP one. Welcome back! 

Diablo didn't fizzle out fast.  I never lost the VIP one?

The proof of concept through a successful kickstarter doesn't mean anything when they've literally changed the vision a ton AFTER the KS.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

Diablo didn't fizzle out fast.  I never lost the VIP one?

The proof of concept through a successful kickstarter doesn't mean anything when they've literally changed the vision a ton AFTER the KS.

Agreed, looking back on my post KS video and its like almost everything has changed.

And I whole heartedly agree the current soft launch, permenant skill trainning, p2w catch up mechanic (how it will be viewed) is going to kill this game the second it officially launches


MOkvLlm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ziz said:

Agreed, looking back on my post KS video and its like almost everything has changed.

And I whole heartedly agree the current soft launch, permenant skill trainning, p2w catch up mechanic (how it will be viewed) is going to kill this game the second it officially launches

Skill boosters didn't kill EVE off so I doubt it will have that big of an effect on Crowfall.


   Official Moderator of the Unofficial Crowfall Discord!  Come join the discussion @ https://discord.me/crowfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ziz said:

Agreed, looking back on my post KS video and its like almost everything has changed.

And I whole heartedly agree the current soft launch, permenant skill trainning, p2w catch up mechanic (how it will be viewed) is going to kill this game the second it officially launches

It's just unwise decision upon unwise decision.  Soft launch is already dangerous because you are launching with a lot of promised features missing.  Then to actually make players that wait for a polished product feel punished by needing to try and catch up after is just not going to be good publicity or attract players in general.

6 minutes ago, Weebles said:

Skill boosters didn't kill EVE off so I doubt it will have that big of an effect on Crowfall.

EVE is not crowfall, and the launch conditions are completely different.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ziz said:

Agreed, looking back on my post KS video and its like almost everything has changed.

And I whole heartedly agree the current soft launch, permenant skill trainning, p2w catch up mechanic (how it will be viewed) is going to kill this game the second it officially launches

Agreed. This game is so effed currently. It is just sad as I had huge hopes for it.

47 minutes ago, Weebles said:

Skill boosters didn't kill EVE off so I doubt it will have that big of an effect on Crowfall.

EVE introduced skill injectors years after launch. EVE is a beast and a very rare exception to typical MMORPG success. To try to relate anything to EVE is a complete waste of time. A waste of time that ACE has been actively involved for quite some time. EVE also is so different from Crowfall and has so much more content that again this is a waste of time to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory crafting about big picture what will/could be is more exciting than knights HP has been increased by 10% but at least they aren't lying to us about what they are going to do in these videos. And catch up mechanics and the type of training generally don't cause the downfall of a video game or cause it to be a non starter. Things like is it fun to do over and over or does it have enough variety of non fun things to make them all together fun? Or has what was advertised been what they've actually done? Or is the game riddled with bugs? Are much indicative of the success of a game. Not the background exp system or catch up systems.

Edited by Holyvigil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...