• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bramble

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Story telling, wood turning, gaming, teaching

Recent Profile Visitors

1,673 profile views
  1. This is a cleanly worded response, based on actual experience. And, consistent with my overall message. In your example those that did those things fit in the "select choice 1" category, or the first bullet? I'm assuming that, philosophically anyway, you are in line with a desire for the second options as the guiding criteria anyway, I alluded to? Thanks for the considered and relevant reply.
  2. What's saddening to me at a certain level, is the "passion" with which everyone goes about debating mechanics related to power/advantage. And account & alt stables imo fit within that umbrella as well, no matter "but it can't be controlled" - today anyway. And less so about Playing the Game . . . with other humans. Yes, yes, I know, supposedly that IS what's being talked about. But is it really? Generally speaking, across the board in all modes of game play and progression: Anything that opens a gateway to terminal player attenuation (nonviable competition possible between both ends of the "power scale" in the community, or establishing no play relevance/participation for lower "levels") due to passive mechanics present on characters is bad. In this model advantage vs disadvantage decouples players from each other when a certain point is reached to too high a degree, enabling dominance through coasting (little or not actual human game play required) on said embedded capability when facing off against lower "powered" character models. Anything, or "calibration" of mechanics, that maintains player-action-required + keeps the lower tier of progressing characters relevant in fights (or harvesting, or crafting) still dangerous to the highest "levels", is good. Very good. Spectacularly good, particularly in regards to the life blood of any game - the new player. In this model advantage and disadvantage exist in balanced fashion, rewarding those who have a natural expectation of earned advantage (veteran players) without breaching the boundary of gaining so much in whatever the progression model is for a game that they can let the numbers embedded in their client/character carry them along. Yes, this becomes a little more unclear when talking about Harvesting or Crafting. Fair enough. What I feel I see in these discussions is the very thing we were told we should NOT expect in CF: Too much focus on "ticking numbers" in levelling. Stop being worried about "the numbers". Be more focused on playing the game. I'm generalizing here, "the numbers" and "levelling" obtusely refers to the progression path and rewards pathing developing in CF. We can spin these arguments a multitude of different ways. And there are probably, at the specific mechanics model/design level a multitude of right answers. But in having these discussions what are we using as the guiding criteria to effect pass/fail, good/bad, optimal/not so much so? Without agreeing on the strategic goal for selection of any "solution", shouldn't we agree on that criteria first? My contention is that the second bullet above is the right place to start in formulating that criteria. It's also consistent in my mind with one of the original design statements for Crowfall (e.g. don't worry about counting numbers, play the game). I'd rather provide ACE with the thing that's of REAL game-play importance to me, and leave them to work out what they feel the balanced mechanics are to satisfy that (assuming they thought the original concept was worthy). So let me ask a two high level questions: 1) Who here has the expectation that their characters will be able to squash a new player, little or no action required on your part, assuming you are a Veteran of some time. Through passive training gains, VIP, supporting 99999 accounts, what have you. Whatever ACE is developing for the gaining of power and ability in CF. For the sake of argument assume a 2 year character versus a one week old character. Do you have the expectation that a week old character is going to simply bounce off your 2+ year old character, no action on your part required? versus 2) Who here has the hope/desire that the calibration of Crowfall's progression/capability system (all inclusive, VIP vs no, etc.) will be such that advantage vs disadvantage will exist, as is appropriate, but not to the extent Veterans can stand around coasting on code/stats/training/magic muffins attached to their spaulders? That even in the face of acquired advantage, Veterans will still be required to actually play their characters to gain those advantages. That even with that "easy" kill, the noob will still see they were in the fight, game mechanics not arbitrarily rendering their presence irrelevant. Again, I recognize the topic is shaped differently when talking Harvesting / Crafting, but the same concepts in 1 and 2 above would guide a discussion within the Harvesting/Crafting domain. For instance: Keeping Copper (assumed a low tier mat) relevant to all levels of Crafting, not just low tier goods would promote inclusion, relevance, and participation by new players, because Vets would still need tons of copper to complete higher level goods. Rendering low tier mats completely irrelevant to higher tier goods decouples players from each other, Vet vs noob in the crafting/harvesting domain discussion. I contend that if your preference is #2, a great many of the concerns voiced over these kinds of issues dissipates naturally, assuming the game was structured accordingly as much as practical/possible. Because game play for everyone is not materially affected. While if the preference is #1, there's heavy interest in arguing over progression and reward mechanics as if it's the end of the world. Because of course it would be: we will have structured a game that, in it's own way, brings us back to what we were told not to expect in Crowfall: Counting numbers and "grinding" (or pay for it) for numbers (capability and power) to dominate. Anyway, first thing in the morning ponder after pulling up handfuls of weeds in the garden this morning. Going back to my hole now. Hope everyone has a good Sunday.
  3. That's not always the case.
  4. Oh, I dunno. If we want to be hard core about it, being a spy is risky business. Consequences and all if you get caught. Thus, a real focused mode of game play with a natural governor on how prolific that "bacteria in your stomach" can proliferate. Lots of alts and alt accounts on the other hand remove a whole lot of risk to negative-conduct game play, and the entire intestinal tract goes haywire giving you a bad case of the "#($@" for several days. Just sayin. Account stabling and alt stabling can be used as a mechanism to "theme park" free wheeling bad behavior.
  5. Heh-heh-heh. You make me laugh Mr. Droll! LOLOLOL.
  6. Pretty much what he said, last paragraph.
  7. Fair amount of effort to start supporting unique item constructs in inventory, when as soon as people start getting impacted by the crayon-versions no one is going to trust maps at all and go out themselves. Self-defeating in the end perhaps?
  8. @ThaddisSabbah Hmmm, that viewpoint is actually great. There are no ties to "rewards", there are no ties to milking "progression" (e.g. honor in other games). It's purpose is to allow players to practice together, learn their classes. That's a fantastic dynamic. The idea of "bootcamp", or practice-yards isn't new. (altering my viewpoint . . . processing . . . complete) /bows
  9. The nicest feature for GvG game play is found in the CWs. Sorta why they meet a design goal. /shrug
  10. You don't understand. I actually wasn't responding to transparent troll-baiting. I was dead serious. Monarchs having control of who does, and who does NOT get access to their EK is, potentially, a key catalyst component to the social weave of the community fabric within Crowfall, once it develops. People are going to LIE their asses off on the "imma be a sneaky" spy bandwagon, engage in all sorts of chicanery, versus those that want to develop things in a more upfront manner. Monarchs and players. In the end, eventually, you are going to see "pools" of individuals who will become known for certain conduct and expected modes of judgment, and as a result EK permissions will naturally evolve from that. No one's perfect, everyone makes a slip now and then. But Monarchs who show a repeating trend of indiscriminate banning and misconduct will end up with few people wanting in on that EK. Likewise, troll baiting nitwittery by players will be noted . . . and, in organic fashion per the Sandbox, result in EK permissions adjusted accordingly. I think it will be interesting to see how the overview of who's an endemic banned-biotch will end up. But you know this already.
  11. Monarchs within their own demesnes don't have to do anything. Particularly as you don't represent a standard of conduct to operate from. "Long Live the King!", and his Mighty Ban Hammer, and all that Sandbox sort of thing!
  12. What type of facility in a CW is going to have a "bank" or safe?
  13. I recall replying to an ACE thread once, that had been put up as a reminisce / their position and viewpoint on a past event in a past game. I was motivated to reply, and that summed up to something like: "I backed Crowfall because of YOU GUYS (at ACE)." That they present well from an experience and background perspective, and they present well in front of a camera, and that I felt they were being honest in dealings with everyone. That the event mentioned illustrated what kind of person that individual was (of good character) when faced with a bad situaton. And I made the point that was actually more important to me than Crowfall itself. Because even if Crowfall the Game ends up not to my liking, I'd still be willing to try other Art + Craft endeavors in the future. Because of WHO I was backing. I want Crowfall to succeed of course. But they aren't on personal contract with me alone. Crowfall the Game will take care of itself, one way or another, all by itself related to my personal desires. Because for me it's really more about WHO I backed. That's why the idea presented in the OP is important. It's about WHO we are backing. In the long run that's what carries forward. "Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime. "
  14. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. In it's day, I remember some of the best formation and group strategy play in a typical MMO in LOTRO. And it was weird to me that was the case given faction vs faction PvP was one zone only: The Ettenmoors. I'm not claiming LOTRO was an "e-sport" platform. I'm saying the human dynamics in coordination and formation-play in larger groups was, to my surprise, significantly higher and more developed than I expected. The silver lining was that the zone was fairly large, so there was some room for "stuff to happen". It's been a while, but I'm fairly certain I recall no friendly fire, the typical faction vs faction red-is-dead, green are your buds setup. There was an incredibly active PvP crowd operating in the Ettenmoors for a while. Someone(s) set up two huge Vent servers, one for each faction. There were some true Leaders playing that game, a couple almost "celebrity" status. People knew about what time in the evening those people logged on, and players would start to drop into the Ettenmoors to be part of those teams. Anyone here that played, wasn't one of them named "Scoobs" or something? This is where I'll offer a counter-point to the claim "Friendly Fire is the cornerstone for (insert anything here PvP related): It's truly talented Leaders with truly talented followers that make anything in PvP, particularly Formation, Strategy, Tactics, and Teamwork SHINE like a supernova. Not Friendly Fire. I'm not knocking Friendly Fire. I'll play with it. I'll play without it. I understand what it does. Too bad Turbine's architecture slogged down, badly, far too often. Lagtastic at times. For all it was a "red headed stepchild" of a PvP setup with only one Zone, it surprised me how incredibly INVOLVED the PvP community was. With coordinated effort. With highly coordinated 20-person Raids vying with each other, facing off. Guesses and moves from one position to another, defenses of cap points or attempts to capture. Flat out runs, the full raid, to called out positions by the Raid Leader, guesses as to what the other commander was up to based on past habit, intentionally planned ambush setups of various flavors with stealthers or spider-burrower players in hidden position. It was a ton of fun, and a whole lot of social teamworking going on. All without Friendly Fire to the best of my recollection. Again, I'm not knocking Friendly Fire. But if I had to hold up a "Holy Grail" for fantastic PvP, particularly where Strategy, Tactics, Teamwork, Coordination, and Adaptation are involved in larger scale encounters, I'm going to hold up . . . True Leaders. . . True Raid Leaders . . . with dedicated, loyal troops with them, as the core. And that's universal. From the PvE side "in the day" working Molten Core and Blackwing Lair in WoW: Lots of guilds wanted in on those challenges. You could always find DPS, Tanks, and Healers (well, hopefully anyway, you had to know how to play on a Team, the criteria used by the Raid Leader for initial selection). But Leaders? (the real thing, not some mouthy nitwit trying to figure out what his first pube means). In my experience the cream rose to the top because of Leaders who knew how to develop Teams. And the Guilds that did manage to put end-game challenges "on farm" did so because of their Raid Leaders and Guild Leaders, and the gestalt built between their will and desire paired with the will and desire of their Guildies. Thats a people thing, not a Friendly Fire thing.
  15. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. "Formations" formed by players occur (or not) via a complex chemistry on the field of battle, unique game to game in prevalence/frequency/magnitude based on some factors such as: Does the game "require" it or not (or at least to what direction the game leans). IMO the more a game leans to OP classes / characters by virtue of grinding / stats / levels, the need (in the environment) for intelligently thought out Formations is minimized (I didn't say eliminated, I said minimized by the combat environment). Lots of free-wheeling rock stars blobbing over the landscape in a tumbling mass of chattering Gerbilkins. IMO the more a game leans to the side of player-skill dominant, less stat-crutched, there's a natural push back that reinforces smart group play (formations, tactics, strategy) as the path to follow. You'll still have the best floating to the top as a result of natural skill and negotiating "skill ceilings better than most others, but, generally speaking you have less support for the "Imma Rock Star" syndrome due to a greater vulnerability to lesser skilled players . . . if, as a "better" player you slack off on your game play (e.g. run off alone, fail to use "formations" when opponents are, etc.). Are Players willing (voluntary action) to engage in playing that way? A lot of this is in the hands of the players, regardless of the points just made above. Regardless of whether the game promotes that environment or not, in the end it comes down to willingness by players to do that.