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

ACE Q&A for October - Official Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Yes I am positive Blair wishes to cause me pain, because he is wearing a shirt that says murder, and I am pretty sure he is specifically targeting me with his wardrobe choice.

Anyway, why in the Holy Mother of Dragoons would you fix cutting grit and ignore animal bone? It's a bigger pain than cutting grit. But instead of turning up the drops on the animal node, turn down the bone requirement for potions on the crafting side.

Ok harvesting rates. I understand you are standing this upside down on it's head trying to separate your system from all the other systems out there. But it sounds backwards, it feels backwards, and people will not enjoy less reward for more risk, they won't farm and they won't finish out the campaigns through participation. They will just sit out fall and winter until it's time to take their 10-15-25 percent losers fee at the end of the campaign instead of enduring extra boredom smacking nodes. This is 3 faction right now and i understand it may be different for other less forgiving rule-sets but it won't work here.

I also understand that you are committed to this survival mechanic and you are not going to change your mind about depreciating harvest rates. Your solution is to make hunger shards valuable, and make them go up in rank and quantity, in fall and winter.

Winter= less apples, but more and better hunger shards

Edited by corvax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, corvax said:

Ok harvesting rates. I understand you are standing this upside down on it's head trying to separate your system from all the other systems out there. But it sounds backwards, it feels backwards, and people will not enjoy less reward for more risk, they won't farm and they won't finish out the campaigns through participation. They will just sit out fall and winter until it's time to take their 10-15-25 percent losers fee at the end of the campaign instead of enduring extra boredom smacking nodes. 

You can see the dramatic drop off in players after summer currently. If there are multiple campaigns to have overlapping seasons, players will simply change campaigns to a spring/summer one. New players wont typically join a fall/winter stage of campaign. Without thriving player base, pvp orientated players will flock to those campaigns with more players. Playing a dead campaign through fall/winter in order to get additional 10/15/25% resources out of campaign at the end will not be worth it. Best to just take the the flat rate and move on saving weeks of playing on empty campaigns. I know this is a core concept that probably wont be changed much, but sadly its a flawed concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To adress the "Resource Vendors". You guys have it half right. Sure, it allows ease of access and availability to craft. But... given the wipes(timesink to retrain to make harvesting worth a custard, and please...... I understand where the game is at this point), plus the RNG for crafters, you have killed dedicated harvestors with time sink involved and the threshold to get colored mats at any descent return. It sounds like you realize you made resources too cheap. Good Game! I can harvest 40K gold in an hour at Nasty Nick.....Think of the resoiurces I can buy... and spam.. on a crafter to get good rolls for gear. The blues and greens however, currently,  can take a giant poorly made socks on combine making it worse than a white weapon if i am unlucky. Time wasted. If you want to make harvesters coveted, you're poorly made socksting the bed. 80 to 90% of the yield you get is whites, and given RNG, why bother as a harvester (on ore at least). Why not just go back to allowing people to make advanced weapons out of basic materials? As of now, the only way you get good resources is going out for Mother Lodes. Solo harvesters are marginalized now. Don't get me wrong, You've given a crutch that will eventually be evened out through time... you are creating false expectations. Why initiate that change?

I like to PvP.... but.. If/when no one else is on I have ground out hours on nodes for little return on colored mats due to the training level you have implemented. Given the seasons.. it only compounds. People do not log in. That being said, it will catch up, so it's all good right?... unless.... you decide to wipe for 5.8. Long story short, I think the introduction of basic mat vendors will be  a detriment to the game. I hope it's only for testing purposes.

Overall I think ACE is doing a great job. 


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, moneda said:

In future you'll be playing in Fall and Winter to make sure you actually win the campaign.

If the withdraw rate from lost campaigns is only a 25% penalty, then why bother? I can fill up banks in 2 campaigns spring/summer while you finish out a dead campaign in order to get out 25% more then me? And this is only if your side manages to win. If you are on a losing side for whatever reason it is in your best interest to cut losses and start on another campaign. If ACE would have staggered campaigns now players would be able to see this will happen. This whole system would work only in a PvE environment due to PvP requiring a healthy playerbase in all campaigns and this system actively discourages that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moneda said:

That may be the penalty; you may get nothing for losing.

I have thought about that, but too many players would be really upset to get nothing after a longer campaign. Perhaps -50%/0%/+50% ratio would help.

Edited by mystafyi

Share this post


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

Yes I am positive Blair wishes to cause me pain, because he is wearing a shirt that says murder, and I am pretty sure he is specifically targeting me with his wardrobe choice.

Anyway, why in the Holy Mother of Dragoons would you fix cutting grit and ignore animal bone? It's a bigger pain than cutting grit. But instead of turning up the drops on the animal node, turn down the bone requirement for potions on the crafting side.

Ok harvesting rates. I understand you are standing this upside down on it's head trying to separate your system from all the other systems out there. But it sounds backwards, it feels backwards, and people will not enjoy less reward for more risk, they won't farm and they won't finish out the campaigns through participation. They will just sit out fall and winter until it's time to take their 10-15-25 percent losers fee at the end of the campaign instead of enduring extra boredom smacking nodes. This is 3 faction right now and i understand it may be different for other less forgiving rule-sets but it won't work here.

I also understand that you are committed to this survival mechanic and you are not going to change your mind about depreciating harvest rates. Your solution is to make hunger shards valuable, and make them go up in rank and quantity, in fall and winter.

Winter= less apples, but more and better hunger shards

I think this is another indicator of the scarcity of resources to craft with problem in general, and not with the seasons specifically.  The fact is with spring/summer harvests, there isn't anything left over to want to stock/remove from the world.  You get the best gear you can in spring/summer, and hope for it to last through the fall/winter fights.  

There just isn't any colored surplus to bother with exporting.

I think there needs to be a different distinction that just "Spring = more".  I think every season should have certain types of items in plentiful amounts, and others scarce.  Summer would be high food, wood, ore drops, while winter high shard, thralls, body parts and certain other rare items.

Having it just be a single direction slope on all resources is part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mystafyi said:

If the withdraw rate from lost campaigns is only a 25% penalty, then why bother? I can fill up banks in 2 campaigns spring/summer while you finish out a dead campaign in order to get out 25% more then me? And this is only if your side manages to win. If you are on a losing side for whatever reason it is in your best interest to cut losses and start on another campaign. If ACE would have staggered campaigns now players would be able to see this will happen. This whole system would work only in a PvE environment due to PvP requiring a healthy playerbase in all campaigns and this system actively discourages that.

The idea is to stockpile resources in spring and summer and then use them as needed in fall and winter. If you play it smartly, you won't need to do much, if any, harvesting in fall and winter. You also are forgetting about training. The penalty in winter is -2 plentiful, which can be offset by using a major harvesting discipline and potions. Someone who is trained to 5 plentiful in harvesting will still be able to get to 5 plentiful in winter. That's when dedicated harvesters will be really valuable.

The losers of a campaign only get a percentage of their exports. The campaigns with the highest resource qualities will have the lowest share going to the losers (down to 0% in some cases). This wiki shows the information we were given in the kickstarter regarding the rewards for each campaign band:

https://crowfall.gamepedia.com/Universe

The losers get 30% of their exports in God's Reach, down to 0% in the Dregs.

We have no idea if these will be the actual numbers when the game goes live, but I would expect the same sort of format will be followed. So even if you are doing all your harvesting in a God's Reach campaign, you aren't going to get a large percentage of your exports, and you will mostly have only common quality. The winners will get a much larger share, so it is in players' best interest to win the campaign if they care about the exports.

Finally, I think you are underestimating peoples' desire to win. There are more than enough people who care about winning more than they do whatever exports they get. Many of those people may quit the campaign if they feel like they can't win, but that's a different issue. We need to see how it plays out. If people are more focused on harvesting and building in spring and summer, then they should stick around through fall and winter, when the real competition will take place.

Share this post


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

If the withdraw rate from lost campaigns is only a 25% penalty, then why bother? I can fill up banks in 2 campaigns spring/summer while you finish out a dead campaign in order to get out 25% more then me? And this is only if your side manages to win. If you are on a losing side for whatever reason it is in your best interest to cut losses and start on another campaign. If ACE would have staggered campaigns now players would be able to see this will happen. This whole system would work only in a PvE environment due to PvP requiring a healthy playerbase in all campaigns and this system actively discourages that.

You're assuming a fixed season change rate. The length of a season in a campaign can (and probably will) be dependent on player census.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Armegeddon said:

To adress the "Resource Vendors". You guys have it half right. Sure, it allows ease of access and availability to craft. But... given the wipes(timesink to retrain to make harvesting worth a custard, and please...... I understand where the game is at this point), plus the RNG for crafters, you have killed dedicated harvestors with time sink involved and the threshold to get colored mats at any descent return. It sounds like you realize you made resources too cheap. Good Game! I can harvest 40K gold in an hour at Nasty Nick.....Think of the resoiurces I can buy... and spam.. on a crafter to get good rolls for gear. The blues and greens however, currently,  can take a giant poorly made socks on combine making it worse than a white weapon if i am unlucky. Time wasted. If you want to make harvesters coveted, you're poorly made socksting the bed. 80 to 90% of the yield you get is whites, and given RNG, why bother as a harvester (on ore at least). Why not just go back to allowing people to make advanced weapons out of basic materials? As of now, the only way you get good resources is going out for Mother Lodes. Solo harvesters are marginalized now. Don't get me wrong, You've given a crutch that will eventually be evened out through time... you are creating false expectations. Why initiate that change?

I like to PvP.... but.. If/when no one else is on I have ground out hours on nodes for little return on colored mats due to the training level you have implemented. Given the seasons.. it only compounds. People do not log in. That being said, it will catch up, so it's all good right?... unless.... you decide to wipe for 5.8. Long story short, I think the introduction of basic mat vendors will be  a detriment to the game. I hope it's only for testing purposes.

Overall I think ACE is doing a great job. 

The whole time Blair and Todd were praising the vendor idea with self-congratulatory high fives, I was thinking about how we were desecrating the bodies of our enemies by dropping 100 stacks of useless white ore on their cairn as an insult :) 

I mean at our current crafting level what else we gonna use it for. And as far as increasing the vendor price, how is that going to solve anything, when it's just cheaper to die to Winterblades and get a free 100 stack of white resources:) :):) 

Jah is right, bring back slag-gear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, moneda said:

In future you'll be playing in Fall and Winter to make sure you actually win the campaign.

No, won't happen that way. 

I know this guy, and you know him too, that is going to log into one of his many accounts and harvest spring/summer on your campaign. Then if you do a good job and win the campaign for him in fall/winter, he will log back on your world and collect his 100% winners prize from his embargo. If you do a bad job and lose, he will collect his 25% losers fee instead. He will always have the summer sun shining on his buttocks in some campaign somewhere, and you or someone like you will be working for him. He may even put one account on each faction of your campaign and collect a total of 100%, 50%, 25% from three different embargo accounts.

 

18 hours ago, moneda said:

That may be the penalty; you may get nothing for losing.

Now you are talking the Dregs, which was outside the scope of the original premise. But the underlying issue is player participation and keeping people engaged in the campaign they started. Depreciating overall resources does not in my opinion help reach that goal, I think Kracken nailed it down with a pretty good idea to fix it.

I have been playing this game almost every night for 3 years, and the pre-alpha we have been playing is a bigger empty sandbox in terms of things to do than the Dregs will ever be. And to illustrate why player participation is important let me ask you something... 

Where are you guys?

We see Sobersoul regularly, but where is Sugoi, where are You, Cuddles, and Uya? Where is jjohnson and all the rest? Is it that you guys aren't playing because there is nothing to do. 

Winter is here, right now, and you guys are not around to help supply content. Would you play if there was more to do. I for one would like to see you guys back, but I don't think offering less resources to farm is going to entice you guys to login tonight.  

Share this post


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

No, won't happen that way. 

I know this guy, and you know him too, that is going to log into one of his many accounts and harvest spring/summer on your campaign. Then if you do a good job and win the campaign for him in fall/winter, he will log back on your world and collect his 100% winners prize from his embargo. If you do a bad job and lose, he will collect his 25% losers fee instead. He will always have the summer sun shining on his buttocks in some campaign somewhere, and you or someone like you will be working for him. He may even put one account on each faction of your campaign and collect a total of 100%, 50%, 25% from three different embargo accounts.

 

Now you are talking the Dregs, which was outside the scope of the original premise. But the underlying issue is player participation and keeping people engaged in the campaign they started. Depreciating overall resources does not in my opinion help reach that goal, I think Kracken nailed it down with a pretty good idea to fix it.

I have been playing this game almost every night for 3 years, and the pre-alpha we have been playing is a bigger empty sandbox in terms of things to do than the Dregs will ever be. And to illustrate why player participation is important let me ask you something... 

Where are you guys?

We see Sobersoul regularly, but where is Sugoi, where are You, Cuddles, and Uya? Where is jjohnson and all the rest? Is it that you guys aren't playing because there is nothing to do. 

Winter is here, right now, and you guys are not around to help supply content. Would you play if there was more to do. I for one would like to see you guys back, but I don't think offering less resources to farm is going to entice you guys to login tonight.  

Yup, that's a flaw with the whole embargo % model to be sure.

What I think should happen is reward for participation in the "real" game, as it progresses.

Start with for example say 5 import/export slots.  Enough to bring in one suit of gear, no rings etc.  Then to bring in more items, you have to actually play the game.  Take a tower, get an import. That's a way to get players behind to bring in more tanks.Take a keep, get an export slot. Reward of export for winning.  Maybe for crafters it's a sacrifice of a full durability finished item to get an export, or a type of hunger shard they can trade for.

Basically reduce the "free ride" on the import export to actual participation. Perhaps even have slots you have earned set to zero the moment winter hits with no way to earn imports. 

Then at the end of the campaign, give the winners a bonus multiplier or something of earned export slots.  So if you win you get for example 5X the tokens, but if you lose you get only what you earned by trying to win.

In the case of parked alts, that would be nada.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

Yup, that's a flaw with the whole embargo % model to be sure.

What I think should happen is reward for participation in the "real" game, as it progresses.

Start with for example say 5 import/export slots.  Enough to bring in one suit of gear, no rings etc.  Then to bring in more items, you have to actually play the game.  Take a tower, get an import. That's a way to get players behind to bring in more tanks.Take a keep, get an export slot. Reward of export for winning.  Maybe for crafters it's a sacrifice of a full durability finished item to get an export, or a type of hunger shard they can trade for.

Basically reduce the "free ride" on the import export to actual participation. Perhaps even have slots you have earned set to zero the moment winter hits with no way to earn imports. 

Then at the end of the campaign, give the winners a bonus multiplier or something of earned export slots.  So if you win you get for example 5X the tokens, but if you lose you get only what you earned by trying to win.

In the case of parked alts, that would be nada.

 

Thanks for having ideas and solutions to offer.

My example above was extreme because we don't yet know what the gate rules are for CW access, or just exactly how the embargo system will impact the game. But I do know that I have been accused of being on Brazil server once or twice ;)  So evidently it's possible now for one crow to be many places.

 

 

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...