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

Livestream 12/1/2020 Discussion, Feedback and Questions


ACE-Tiggs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right now GR has rank 4 nodes in places, need to reduce them to R3 and make even green materials rare drops to encourage people to go to infected. Yes, infected is rank 4-6 now, and that is ok.

My point was that we already have t he mechanic to get people into dregs.

Another thing they could do is to only have the runes drop from rank 4 nodes and above, meaning you would have to at least be in a pvp zone to get them.

They could also adjust the drop rate based on rank of the node so that maybe a rank 4 node would have a .25% chance, while a rank 7 node would have a 1% chance, and a rank 10 a 2% chance.

If they were to change the mechanic, getting away from the RNG, i proposed earlier that then have the node drop some sort of currency or item that can be traded at a vendor for the rune. So a rank 1-3 rocks would not drop this token, maybe rank 4-6 would drop 1 rock token (every time, no RNG), 7-8 would drop 2 tokens, and 9-10 would drop 3.

These Rock tokens would only be able to be used to purchase a Quarryman Rune at a vendor. these tokens would be able to be sold and traded, enhancing the player based market.

This would take the RNG out of the equation, while using systems they already have in place so they would not need a lot of redesign work. Only having to design the tokens, add  them to the loot tables, and then install vendors with  the runes.

Additionally it takes a lot of the grind out of the game. A guild of 20 on day one can go into infected and hit rank 4-6 nodes and get green and sometimes blue resources, but also get these tokens. So they go to places with alot of rocks and pound on them for awhile. Each person can destroy about 4 nodes a minute, 20 people =80 nodes a minute. If a rune costs 200 tokens, 2-3 minutes and they have their first rune. 3 runes in 10 minutes for a blue, and 9 runes in 30 minutes for a purple.

But once they have one purple they could then go about getting a foreman disc, and then start doing motherlodes, getting minerals, and they would also be hitting the smaller nodes around them. They might only have a group of 5 doing this, and the other 15 off doing pvp or whatever. But it would not take them too long to get the first minerals they need to get their alchemsits and necromancers started, and all the while they would be getting more tokens, and more foreman runes etc.

Meanwhile those other 15 would still hit rocks from time to time, they just would not be dedicating their gameplay to it, so they would still get some tokens. From time to time these tokens would be collected, runes purchased, and distributed where needed.

Eventually they would have all the runes needed with a surplus and would be able to start selling the tokens.

I also believe that that they cannot replace all the stats that the passive trees gave like leadership, mount speed, pack pig speed, stealth speed etc. They could create another rune category and give everyone 5 of these slots so they can acquire one of these lesser runes that would give their pack pigs a speed bonus. Or they could put back a passive skill training and only offer those side traits. Nothing from the combat tree, almost nothing from the exploration tree, and almost nothing from crafting. Only putting the missing skills on the passive trees. ie. pack pig speed, foraging skills, leadership skills, thrall bonuses etc.

Personally it takes most of the grind feeling away. I would rather hit 200 rocks and get 200 tokens and thus one rune, than hit 200 rocks each with a .5% chance of dropping a rune. It is a definite reward.

The same can be said for crafting. I would much rather them give me one token for every body part i reanimate, and maybe 5 for each vessel i create, and sell me a green rune for 25 tokens, then have 40% chance to get a rune on every vessel i create. Theoretically it is the same result, but by using tokens it would be a definite result not one left to chance.

The inherent problem with RNG is that a huge guild could theoretically collect enough resources to make 100 vessels and not get a single rune, while a solo player could buy the resources for one vessel and get a rune.

One other idea might be to only have one currency for crafting runes. This could reduce the amount of wasted materials. Ie once you get the alchemist rune and belt you need to reduce the cost of ambrosia and add the extra 2 philosopher solutions, you could donate all the additional currency to the another profession to speed them up. Thus, runecrafters would make tons of runic tools, get the runes they need and then could donate extra currency to the alchemist, reducing the amount of philosopher solutions he would need to make to get his needed runes.

Edited by Nikko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

You're adding a bunch of repetition of stuff that doesn't contribute to campaign wins as a solution to "why is campaign population so low"

You're requiring repetitive bulk crafting in a system that you yourselves admit wasn't designed for bulk crafting. It was designed for factories, which were cut. It wasn't designed for players to craft a metric ton of terrible items to maybe advance a little, but not too far, and also make sure you bank all that stuff again every time you want a new vessel.

You iterated on passive training literally twice in five years time. The designers that worked on this. How many of them actually checked out other games that used this system to try and understand why those games are using it successfully? From out here, it looks like you removed the race/class trees way back when there were no vessels, XP, or talents and just... barely remembered they existed for several years, barely touched them at all, and then suddenly decided "ah this isn't working"

Did you look over the reams of feedback, proposals, and solutions your player base gave you about how to make that system engaging for new players? Did you forget you used to have salvaging and mass production on the plan?

Did you forget you sold this game on the concept of playing a game that matters, doing stuff that matters, against other players, to TAKE A THRONE in stead of grinding an endless series of progression widgets?

You are ripping out passive training without even making a single good faith attempt at fixing its flaws, while remaining completely blind to the other side of why the people that hate your game hate your game. Namely, that the grind to do literally anything the game tells you is the reason you're in a campaign is either a massive impediment to competitive status for those that aren't already winning, or so trivial as to be nonexistent for those already winning.

You sold a game on a lack of grind and a solution for stagnant winners and losers, and are producing a game entirely dependent on grind and which rewards winning with raw economic power that cements a stagnant position for future wins.

It's like a monkey's paw, reading patch notes now. Added excellent build diversity, but also massive grind. Added campaign rewards, but also made those rewards only accessible to the handful of players that don't need them. Removed passive training, but replaced it with massive grind that must be repeated with every vessel upgrade.

Why the hell do you think people spending all their time staring at a crafting interface, crafting garbage they don't care about is a good thing? Why do you think people hitting nodes they don't even care about just to grind out progression is a good thing? Isn't the point of the game supposed to be competing for campaign wins? Where the hell are we supposed to find time to do that if we're constantly grinding out literally hundreds of green disciplines for every new crafting or harvesting vessel?

Your assertion that people are "just getting things for stuff they were going to do anyway" is categorically false. People aren't making terrible white armor, going to fight in it until it breaks, and then making more terrible white armor until they eventually progress. That puts you at the mercy of the people that did the only sane and efficient use of this system: Grind the most time efficient throwaway items and nodes until you have a legendary everything before you bother crafting "for real" and actually playing the campaign game.

If you don't, you'll be facing off against the people that did, and you'll be screwed by a massive gear discrepancy.

This is such a boneheaded, short sighted, ill considered system I can't for the life of me understand how anyone at ACE thought it was a good idea.

You want to give up on passive training without even trying to fix it? Cool. Why the heck would you add some interim grindy RNG trash in stead of waiting until you have a replacement system that doesn't require this level of male bovine excrement?

I used to have fun playing crowfall. I made vessels for people. I gathered resources to make things people used, and then we took those vessels and went and did PvP because what I'd given them was the best of my ability.

You know what I do now?

I grind. I make tons and tons of stuff nobody needs and nobody wants just to try an get to a place where I can make things people need and want. It sucks up literally all of the time I have available to play the game.

I have an entire chest full of terrible green vessels I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, my other crafters have made and vendored entire inventories worth of gear over and over that nobody will ever wear because the mob drops are better, and nobody in my guild even cares to compete for anything approaching quality resources because it's stupid to waste them on substandard crafters. The only saving grace of all this was that at least part of that advancement was ticking over time.

You're about to extend this system to harvesting as well, making the entire problem even worse. You're replacing the passive system because you think its not "fun" but I challenge you to sit down and actually use the system you've built, or the one you've proposed for 6.3 and tell me its any more "fun"

It isn't "fun" to constantly throw away resources that represent my or someone else's time making literal garbage. In fact, it's less fun. While being behind on passive progression might have been disheartening, you know what I could do while it ticked? Play the rest of the game. You know what I can't do if I have to constantly hit rocks to upgrade rock-hitting, or craft vessels to upgrade vessel-making? Or craft armor to upgrade armor-making? Play the rest of the game.

You know what I and everyone has to do to play the rest of the game? Grind until our stuff is as good as the people we're fighting.

You know how good that is? No, of course you don't, and neither do we, therefore the only sane option is to grid until we've got the best stuff.

 

100% this. They have decided to gut a core system at the 11th hour without much thought as to fixing it's flaws (time gated essentials) or about it's replacement (if there even is one). 

 

Either there is no replacement and all progression will be folded into items / discs and the game becomes even more grind dependent (supported by the no lifers who are cheering for this change) or there is some vague replacement that they "Think" is a good idea but may very well be another failure because they don't workshop it with the playerbase

.

Those saying this will "Get people out more" are mistaken in that it could have been achieved by making the item durability system better paced. We have been complaining about decay and the game loop being too stagnant for months. That alone would have fixed a good bit of player activity issues if people actually needed to farm for spare sets of armor when theirs broke. 

Edited by Ranik

Shadowbane style advantage / disadvantage disciplines when? ~Yianni 1/21/21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am sad to see the passive training go for many reasons, I think it MAY be a positive overall. One of the biggest things that kept me from playing test early on was missing a wipe. If I didnt login within a couple days of a wipe, I just didnt play. That being said I think a good catch up mechanic would have fixed this. We will see how it goes. BOLD MOVE! I LIKE THAT! This is why I backed this game, I like the way you guys think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RBH I suppose a large part of this community, myself included, rejoices hearing ArtCraft took seriously the problem of barriers created by (lack of) passive training.
Realizing a catch up mechanic or dropping the whole system, I agree with you, is their decision.

Some of us are pointing out that unfortunately they not so boldly:
1) replaced passive training with a ripetitive, boring chore.
2) tossed the accounts progression and diversification.

Some of us baked the game according to a vision which included exactly the contrary.

Edited by RikForFun

Catelyn: War will make them old, as it did us. I pity them.
Mathis: Why? Look at them. They're young and strong, full of life and laughter. And lust, aye, more lust than they know what to do with. There will be many a bastard bred this night, I promise you. Why pity?
Catelyn: Because it will not last. Because they are the knights of summer, and winter is coming.

A Clash of Kings, Chapter 22, Catelyn II.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowfall Discord Channels: international (english) - italiano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of removing passive training and going for more active progression but something needs to be in its place besides rng discs. I like the idea that i would be able to have multiple crafters on one account with enough time and effort. I am concerned about how that will affect the economy of the game if everyone can be every crafter now though. I think the respec for vip is fine but make non vip able to respec for a price of in game currency in case their spec gets utterly destroyed by nerfs in a patch.  I also think that maybe a xp bar for crafting should be implemented or something instead of rng discs.

Also off topic but please do something to help knights. They have to be the worst overall class in the game now. Where every spec they have is so exponentially outclassed by every other class. You have swordsman who cant bleed stack and are squishy while dealing less than almost every other dps spec. Secutor is suppose to be the tank spec but with 0 sustain and hardly any defensive talents worth taking, it is just completely useless. Especially when myrm and champ both have more sustain and damage than it.

Also i do think there should be a full wipe so that we can test this better. We are already losing passive training and discs. Might as well wipe items and vessels so that people will test more and wont just stockpile items and mats so that they dont have to actually test the progression.

 

Edited by Kaoz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's pros and cons to both systems. But honestly, it just sounds like it will be even MORE grind in a game that was supposed to have no grind. Not to mention more time and resources down the drain to make this radical change. The passive system just needed to address the issue of crafters being useless early on and that was it. There were other ways to do it that involved far less radical changes. 

Honestly ACE should have stuck with their own vision and  gut feelings instead of spending years in kneejerk reaction mode  listening to the hundred or so active testers on these forums. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rikutatis said:

There's pros and cons to both systems. But honestly, it just sounds like it will be even MORE grind in a game that was supposed to have no grind. Not to mention more time and resources down the drain to make this radical change. The passive system just needed to address the issue of crafters being useless early on and that was it. There were other ways to do it that involved far less radical changes. 

Honestly ACE should have stuck with their own vision and  gut feelings instead of spending years in kneejerk reaction mode  listening to the hundred or so active testers on these forums. 

I see the problem with passive training being that they would be unable to balance the game. Its like they said, if someone has 3 months of passive training and someone doesnt then that makes it hard to see the balance since most everyone would be at different passive training. That and any actual balance changes to classes, specs, or races would make trying to balance that along with passive training a total nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 7:08 PM, SAM_BUKA said:

Looks like you prefer forum wars much more than the actual game. We already have a group of people who do not play their own game. But they are smart enough to seek for players' feedback. I strongly recommend other 'advisers' who do not actually play Crowfall to follow these guys' example.

 

Dude, chill with your ad hominem stuff. APE has consistently provided insightful viewpoints about Crowfall over the years, regardless of how much time he has spent in game.

I admit in the past I acted the same way on the forums here, but let's be honest, probably the majority of the people on this forum don't play a ton. Realistically, you only have to play one campaign (7-10 days) to get a sense for where CF is at the moment. Playing more than that every release is either because you enjoy the game loop or you enjoy punishing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rikutatis said:

Honestly ACE should have stuck with their own vision and  gut feelings instead of spending years in kneejerk reaction mode  listening to the hundred or so active testers on these forums. 

 

I think the reactions are stemming from the evidence of such a small testing population (a hundred or so as you put it) and lack of sustained interest.

Let's be real, beta is a marketing ploy, and also a way to gauge interest and get feedback. This beta phase was "super-early-soft-launch". And in my opinion, it was not well received.

Based on that premise, if that is an accurate assessment, should ACE stick to their vision and just continue without course correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2020 at 6:31 AM, weaponsx said:

I see a few problems, but the one I want to focus on is the map size. IF you are going to make it to where you can only farm up the resources needed are in the campaign, then you need to really UP the size of these maps. As it is right  now, you have 4 little zones to farm in. That is is. The problem is you  have these huge zerg guilds cuckholding it up and taking all the forts and keeps so that the little guys can really do next to nothing. Now if they can not go to the infected or the noob area to farm resources needed, you are going to kill your small scale guilds / pvp. The zerg guilds that will post after this will say, its FINE, its great small maps more pvp. The problem is, if you have nothing but large guilds killing any small guilds farming... you will have a vacant game filled with 2-3 cuckholding zergs. So think wisly when you start your next campaign maps. Just remember, when you let the beta guys in we had almost a 1000 people in the campaigns, until you screwed it up with a small map. ALL small guilds were forced out by the cuckholders and the pop is back down to crap. So if you want to just make a crap pop game for cucks, then you are doing great.. if you want to make a real game with crap for all size guilds to do stuff all day.... re-think your map sizes and amount of forts / keeps/ times they go off etc.

zmMlosi.png

 

Right now in campaign, there are 23 players across 3 temples, 1 free city, and 4 fairly large maps.

  • At least some of those players are in my guild or alliance, so I can't fight with them.
  • Some of them are likely crafting, afk in temple/keep/city, or otherwise in a safe spot, so I can't fight with them.

So if we're down to say .. half of the original number - 12 players across 4 maps, how long am I going to have to roam before I find one? It probably takes 15m to fully scout a map with a swift mount.

If I do find some opponents, are we even going to fight? Are they just a gatherer that is going to stealth and run? Are they in a group of 5 and I'm just going to stealth and run?

I don't think larger maps is the answer to this problem. Ultimately, I think the population in the world is low because there is no reason to be out in the world doing things during non-siege hours.

The maps are already big enough. I could roam for 45 minutes and not find anyone. Trust me. I've done it. It sucks. The maps are absolutely full of wartribes not being farmed - of resource nodes not being harvested - of outposts not being captured. 

At this point, I'd welcome either some smaller maps, or a better incentive for players to actually play.

Edited by nihilsupernum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nihilsupernum said:

zmMlosi.png

 

Right now in campaign, there are 23 players across 3 temples, 1 free city, and 4 fairly large maps.

  • At least some of those players are in my guild or alliance, so I can't fight with them.
  • Some of them are likely crafting, afk in temple/keep/city, or otherwise in a safe spot, so I can't fight with them.

So if we're down to say .. half of the original number - 12 players across 4 maps, how long am I going to have to roam before I find one? It probably takes 15m to fully scout a map with a swift mount.

If I do find some opponents, are we even going to fight? Are they just a gatherer that is going to stealth and run? Are they in a group of 5 and I'm just going to stealth and run?

I don't think larger maps is the answer to this problem. Ultimately, I think the population in the world is low because there is no reason to be out in the world doing things during non-siege hours.

The maps are already big enough. I could roam for 45 minutes and not find anyone. Trust me. I've done it. It sucks. The maps are absolutely full of wartribes not being farmed - of resource nodes not being harvested - of outposts not being captured. 

At this point, I'd welcome either some smaller maps, or a better incentive for players to actually play.

I agree with this. There needs to be smaller maps with the smaller population. Also they should add nodes to farm around keeps and forts like they had in the old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kaoz said:

I agree with this. There needs to be smaller maps with the smaller population. Also they should add nodes to farm around keeps and forts like they had in the old days.

We need purpose to play the game.
Today only the top 3 of each cards type matter.

Once you are stuff ( vessel + weapons ) and cant get to the top 3 what is the point ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aedius said:

We need purpose to play the game.
Today only the top 3 of each cards type matter.

Once you are stuff ( vessel + weapons ) and cant get to the top 3 what is the point ?
 

If you ask me, it should be enriching yourself. This requires some semblance of an economy.

Players should want to go harvest and farm get resources that they can sell to other players or hoard for their guild. Either way, it means competition over those resources in the world. Right now we don't have that.

Instead, we have a few minutes of forts per night and some pigs. The fort fights are good, don't get me wrong, but they are not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like lots of people have legitimate concerns about the new progression system's grind. These are totally fair concerns, but let's remember that the RNG Discs is a temporary "band-aid" fix. 

It's not going to be the final system, just a place holder until they can get a new (and hopefully better!) progression system in place. I for one welcome the change, and look forward to the new progression system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, nihilsupernum said:

zmMlosi.png

 

Right now in campaign, there are 23 players across 3 temples, 1 free city, and 4 fairly large maps.

At this point, I'd welcome either some smaller maps, or a better incentive for players to actually play.

 

This is an example of the rationale for why I've been promoting instanced content you can queue for like the the stuff that Albion Online has.

There is a chicken and egg problem and a feedback loop with CF campaign population.

The campaign needs higher population to be fun. The campaign game loop needs to be fun to encourage higher population.

But overall, the game needs more concurrent player engagement in some form or fashion.

When the campaign has a low population, people thinking about logging in to the campaign see that, realize how hard they will have to work to find some fun, and then often choose to not log in - reinforcing the population drop. 

The opposite holds true. When beta release happened and there were like 500 people on, it was shocking and exciting to me and couldn't wait for the game to load.

-

Now, instanced content doesn't necessarily mean people will be engaging with the campaign, but it doesn't have to mean they can't. Albion Online hellgate 5v5 instances are accessed by portal spawns in the open world map. You often have to fight to gain the right to enter them. 

Between fort fights, maybe instead of logging off people go queue for a dungeon zone like a WoW Island Expedition, or go hunt down a portal to a Hellgate 5v5 PvP zone. People sure as hell don't seem interested in roaming around the campaign map as their only alternative, otherwise they wouldn't be logging off.

 

Why don't they want to roam? One reason is because they cannot be sure they will have any fun given the time they have available. 

If you have less than an hour to play, presently, logging into Crowfall is a low percentage chance option of finding something fun to do or experience.

Crowfall essentially has two game modes.

1. Roam and hope for the best.

2. Show up at siege timers.

 

Randomly spawning (location and time) content like loot drops that were worth fighting over would potentially be great for keeping people in campaign world.

Instanced content that you could queue for or at least enter a match making queue from a portal in game, would give something for people to engage with the game in general if they have less than an hour to play, or the time of day is low pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nihilsupernum said:

zmMlosi.png

 

Right now in campaign, there are 23 players across 3 temples, 1 free city, and 4 fairly large maps.

  • At least some of those players are in my guild or alliance, so I can't fight with them.
  • Some of them are likely crafting, afk in temple/keep/city, or otherwise in a safe spot, so I can't fight with them.

So if we're down to say .. half of the original number - 12 players across 4 maps, how long am I going to have to roam before I find one? It probably takes 15m to fully scout a map with a swift mount.

If I do find some opponents, are we even going to fight? Are they just a gatherer that is going to stealth and run? Are they in a group of 5 and I'm just going to stealth and run?

I don't think larger maps is the answer to this problem. Ultimately, I think the population in the world is low because there is no reason to be out in the world doing things during non-siege hours.

The maps are already big enough. I could roam for 45 minutes and not find anyone. Trust me. I've done it. It sucks. The maps are absolutely full of wartribes not being farmed - of resource nodes not being harvested - of outposts not being captured. 

At this point, I'd welcome either some smaller maps, or a better incentive for players to actually play.

It's BECAUSE of the mapsize, and control the handful of big guilds have across the small maps that the rest of the playerbase doesn't go into dregs. That's the MAIN REASON, you're pointing at the RESULT and saying that's why it needs to be small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, nihilsupernum said:

If you ask me, it should be enriching yourself. This requires some semblance of an economy.

Players should want to go harvest and farm get resources that they can sell to other players or hoard for their guild. Either way, it means competition over those resources in the world. Right now we don't have that.

Instead, we have a few minutes of forts per night and some pigs. The fort fights are good, don't get me wrong, but they are not enough.

Yes, resources need to be available for people to harvest. But because of the nature of the game, where you have a handful of guilds that dominate the map and destroy\kill anything that exists, your playerbase finds other things to do... then the handful of big guilds complains that there is no PvP... Vicious cycle, where Player A is complaining about 1 thing and Player B is complaining about the opposite. There needs to be enough DEPTH to provide play for all. Currently, there's not enough depth for any. It's a shell of a game on Dregs, and the Makers just do not understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nihilsupernum said:

If you ask me, it should be enriching yourself. This requires some semblance of an economy.

Players should want to go harvest and farm get resources that they can sell to other players or hoard for their guild. Either way, it means competition over those resources in the world. Right now we don't have that.

Instead, we have a few minutes of forts per night and some pigs. The fort fights are good, don't get me wrong, but they are not enough.

I agree with this. The desire for enriching yourself/guild/group should drive all of us out into the world, which should force us all into conflict over the resources. However there's little to no incentive for most players to do so, certainly for new players. Newbies like me and my friends are so underperforming thanks to the passive skill tree, and the HUGE RISKS compared to the small potential rewards that we all agreed not to bother with campaigns until we've teched up. I imagine lots of new players come to a similar conclusion.

This is a problem. If you can't make meaningful contributions to a campaign, why bother with it at all? That's why I don't bother with PvP. At the end of the day, we need compelling reasons to engage in PvP. Be it wealth, fewer resource nodes, or territory/outposts (that also needs work, what's the point of an outpost or watchtower?).

The TLDR of this is that I agree with the general sentiment that there are many things in the current design working against PvP. I believe the passive tree was one, this temporary grind system may be another, and the lack of design encouraging/ reasons to partake in Campaigns/General PvP .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fahrenheitM said:

It's BECAUSE of the mapsize, and control the handful of big guilds have across the small maps that the rest of the playerbase doesn't go into dregs. That's the MAIN REASON, you're pointing at the RESULT and saying that's why it needs to be small.

I'm not buying it. I've been on during siege hour when campaign population was at its highest and no one is 'controlling' any map. The big guilds move from fort to fort. They don't come across harvesters or roamers for the most part. They might while they travel, but that's just unlucky for the harvester / roamer.

No, those maps sit empty. They are more than large enough for small groups to go out and harvest/farm/capture and yet they don't.

It just doesn't benefit them at all. Why would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DocHollidaze said:

Based on that premise, if that is an accurate assessment, should ACE stick to their vision and just continue without course correct?

I mean the beta was already released with some considerable deviations from the original pitch and core design anyways. Honestly I just don't think the passive system is even remotely close to being the main issue why the beta was so poorly received and the servers are so empty. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...