• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bramble

  • Rank

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,809 profile views
  1. There are two areas where I see this (theoretically) addressed: 1) Relative to scouters patrolling areas already discovered . . . their reward is the pushback possibility from opponents. In other words: The adversarial/competitive dynamic on the maps will (should) keep things active for scouters. "It's the Military thing" that should be pretty much constant. 2) Relative to "doing other stuff the world provides" . . . I see this as a function of the CW world SIZE, coupled with what ACE plants within that world to discover. Generally speaking, what I'm alluding to is the idea the world should be LARGE enough that it's not easily "fully discovered" in any sort of short time frame. Whatever "short" means. There should be environmental push-back mechanisms that keep the landscape from being a manicured golf-course go-kart-ah-rama by swarming Gerbilkins. This might be mob levels / density, or this could easily be landscape features that make it very difficult to traverse certain areas unless (X) is built (e.g. a bridge over a chasm, stairs/lifts up a bluff to a Plateau area above, etc.). Discovery. It's one of the primal motivators for humanity. I'm hoping to see a lot of that in a CW, because it's that bedrock of motivation to go out and explore a CW, which is what Scouts do, yes? I'm not terribly keen on the game popping up overt "events", at least in a manner similar to say a GW2 or even FFXIV Fates (not knocking those really). As an example here, I once suggested the idea of "Archeaology Digs" as some kind of skill system, used to perceive/locate, then excavate Ancient Ruins. Dig out the voxels to uncover the (whatever), and also unearth materials that would have to be packed out, like anything else. It's not an overt world event that's announced, but it's buried in the map somewhere to be discovered, dug up, then packed out. All where PvP lives. I do agree with having diverse mob types in the game as part of the environment. And, I'd prefer to see them WAY smarter and unpredictable than the dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks we get in other games. Overall that would make the CWs feel like they lean more to the direction of a "living, breathing, world" everyone is competing in, as opposed to a big arena staffed with manikins.
  2. I've seen people spend incredible amounts of time on acquiring "cosmetic" items, be it mounts, weapon skins, mount livery, mounts, what have you, in other games. And, having something that might go on your troops (e.g. a "uniform", some kind of unique visual signature) to help distinguish friend from foe in a large scale battle sould be handy. And having it tied to crafting unlocks and the crafting side of the dynamic helps to make that side more desired/useful. Seems Ok to me. Chariots, I guess I don't know. And craftable crow statues I don't know. Too early for me on those. I need my carrot juice first to wake up !
  3. @Verot I'm "concerned" about a particular dynamic that will come into being in CF CW's in either balanced fashion, or not. And it has to do with what you alluded to in your first sentence. First, some caveat's: I'm not "concerned" because I want harvesting to be risk free, I'm not "concerned" because I want everyone to be perfectly solo-capable all the time. I understand people will be at a disadvantage solo, and being in groups makes sense. This isn't about endorsing "care bear", it's about a swiss watch having it's guts working properly, all of them together, so the mechanism tells the correct time, or even works at all. Having said all that: The best corollary I have at this point is the Trade Running vs Pirating/Theft dynamic in Archeage, intercontinent sea runs. My personal experience and observations were: The game was structured to promote Trade Running and Pirating as complementary, interconnected game play styles for players. Generally the same as our discussion here. What played out however was: The SIZE of the game world, specifically the relatively short distance between the continents combined with only a small number of trade harbors allowed the prolific number of "rabid" Johnny-Depp Capt. Jack Sparrow wannabes the ability to rapidly SHUT DOWN inter-continent trade runs. This is essentially the appearance of a breakage in the game. Once Traders were continually LOSING MONEY, and by extension all the effort and time spent in that endeavor . . . they stopped sea runs. Of course. Once Traders stopped engaging in sea runs, all the Johnny-Depp cos-players started crying to the heavens above that Traders shouldn't be allowed to make money doing safe land runs, that wasn't fair. In their view Traders had the obligation when logging in to be nothing but targets feeding the Pirates, that was their purpose, because it was "A PvP Game". The Traders ignored the piteous wailing and continued on with their chosen play style, to the extent the game allowed it. Once the oceans cleared of the "fleets" of Johnny-Depp cos-players who were now giving up on Stealing Ships and Goods because the game wasn't working right not providing them an endless stream of targets . . . some sea trade started to reappear . . . right up until Pirates started becoming too successful again, too frequently, with no real relief valve to bleed the situation off some . . . and the Traders stopped doing sea runs again. Because THEIR TIME wasn't going to be wasted in continual losses. Rinse and repeat. Where did AA the game fail here (IMO): The mechanism was designed to fail by virtue of faulty CALIBRATION of some factors, not the implementation of the concepts. Specifically: The inter-continental sea distances were too short/small, and the hand-in port of calls were far too few. This created a pressure-cooker situation where it was entirely too easy for Pirates to effectively blockade ship travel between the narrow straights between continents. This in turn allowed them to far too easily choke off ship trading. Once that happened, players with an alternate game-play focus (Trade Running) saw that outlet terminated by the Pirate segment of the community, and so turned to land running. How could that have been calibrated better (IMO): Wider distance between continents, many more trade ports to turn in to. Basically take away the easily patrolled and staffed choke point across the sea and cause thieves and pirates to work a lot more to track down prey. Full circle to CF: SIZE of the CWs, and configuration/distances within a CW between harvesting points and such, are, imo, going to play a BIG role in what you've mentioned, for all the same reasons. My prediction: If we see the CF community adopt the same binary philosophy in game play relative to PvP vs Harvesting, that "everyone else is supposed to be a victim", things are going to be bumpy. Note again: I'm not saying give Harvesters a free pass. I'm saying it's all in how you interpret "balance", and how you think it should work.
  4. I believe it's OK for ranged classes to have CC. It's rather short sighted to insist the game force/insist Ranged can only leverage CC if Melee opponents have them trapped within the melee sphere of influence already. Having said that, is there an argument for some creative counters to CC? That leverage one of the concepts that will be stand out in CF: aiming? What I'm thinking of here is . . . off the top of my head without detailing beyond that . . ., as example, some form of deflect or reflect? I'm imagining someone with a SHIELD who's in a fight, and they manage to pick up on the fact someone is casting/shooting a CC their way, and if they get their shield up in time, pointed in the right direction, the CC effect is either blocked, deflected (perhaps snaring someone else in the deflection path), or perhaps even REFLECTED to the caster (depending o n range, type of CC, or what have you). ?? I suppose, in it's way, its sort of a corollary to Friendly Fire. One way to reduce "rampant CC spam" is to attach consequences to careless or face-roll use. And getting a face-full of your own CC because you didn't wait for the guy with the shield to look away might be an incentive to make deployment of CC more considered. ???
  5. @Krakkensmakken For myself, and some of the crafters I've known in other games over the years, the "only relevant" factor as a brand new player has been: Are my goods useful, needed, and valued enough to sell. That's it. There can be no expectation of "competing" with established, capped out crafters. If I'm new to a game and I start the journey crafting, all I care about is the fact that, at whatever level I'm at, the stuff SELLS. The obvious issue then is: so how is the crafting system structured to promote that most basic of issues? Or, does it squelch it? Back to my two examples. So long as ACE doesn't build in any silliness that allows players to put their alt-armies on auto-craft-macro-dance crafting, you could, for instance (as example) require significant quantities of low level mats for a higher level recipe. The intent is to create an incentive for high level crafters to patronize lower level crafters . . . based on time constraints. And I hear what you are saying in regards to quality hits being better for higher level crafters. But all this does is bring us full circle to the following I think. So what this comes down to is two options, yes? 1) Assume the current structure of crafting mechanics is "finished", with the only fix being catch up modes for what you've mentioned or 2) Have as one piece of criteria that guides finalization of crafting mechanics the idea I've mentioned so that (theoretically) having to patch in catch up modes as a cover isn't such a requirement. AKA - continue to adjust the design as needed. And, I'm guessing that someone who is a dedicated harvester is going to be "better" than non-dedicated if we consider net gains in harvesting. Wouldn't the issue of where time is spent come into play here? Meaning: If player 1 is combat focused and burning time in combat, they aren't gathering. If I'm a dedicated harvester, I am. I collect say 100 units of (whatever), while the combat guy only comes home with 35, or 50, or 20, or whatever, because he's not spending the same amount of time on Gathering. Even if, as you say, we both stand side by side burning the same time at the same activity we are about equal (for around the first year), the point is: Because of where people are spending their time. (?) I would hope the game is structured in a way that makes that natural balancing factor stay in play: material / profit inventory levels. Then, at some point (you've indicated about a year out based on the current state) a greater shift starts coming into play for the gatherer on his/her gathering capability. I guess I'm stuck on the idea that simply chasing after catch up modes as the only, automatically must-be-assumed "fix" to this, perhaps more of a mislead than is apparent at first glance. If you don't want a boat to take on water, don't build it based on a blueprint illustrating holes in the hull. Anyway, ACE has undoubtedly hashed this around, I'll back out of this at this point.
  6. Thanks Krakken for the considered reply. I have a followup if I may: " . . . taking a year to become relevent . . ." is defined how? What is it, in playing the game, that we are being DENIED in game mechanics that's prohibitting any of us, in professions, from playing the game through that time? Again, going back to the analogy I gave relative to crafting, if you had a dynamic where low level mats and such were NOT also required for higher level recipes, then you clearly have a demarcation point where you could say the community moves to a point crafters (new blood/lower level) are no longer relevant. Their efforts and time as new blood engaged in crafting is no longer really relevant in a participatory way with the rest of the community. If, however, low level mats are woven through the whole fabric of the crafting system "relevance" is maintained regardless of where any crafter falls on the scale, or for how long at any given point. We can still enter CWs I assume. We can still engage in PvP I assume. Crafting WILL be occurring as the World flowers and grows (defined as the community of players). At no time will the game mechanics actually be denying participation in playing the game, per se. So where does the idea of "not being relevant" fit? (not a challenge, just a question). Or, am I missing your point relative to crafting/professions: That feeling satisfaction in performing crafting is too drawn out and anemic?
  7. The "need" for a catch up system is directly proportional (imo) to the magnitude of power-gap between players across a skill/stat system, and in CF's case Time Played. Taking a WoW or Archeage example, both of which represent games having a draconian power-scale model, there's a clear argument there for "catch up" systems being incredibly important to keep the game alive from the perspective of new players (new life blood) willing to try the games . . . and keep playing: Once a game based on that kind of model has been out for a while you truly do have a case where catch up modes are very important: New players are literally BLOCKED from being relevant, being able to participate, with where the game has gone in relation to the community, who are "all" playing waaaaay up a power curve that has been traversed over a long period of time. Without a catch up mode to leap levels or power to catch up to where "everyone" is playing, they really don't get to play with others. Salient Point: It's an exclusionary dynamic P)layer vs P)layer. In order to play, players are forced in a redirect to "the grind" by raw mechanics. Time (now introduced in this argument) is perverted not in participatory game play, but as a "punishment" to the grind. Catch up mitigates this for new players. In a different example, lets say a Guild Wars (original) for instance (and I'm hoping CF to greater, as opposed to lesser degree) that had a very SHALLOW power curve between players relative to raw stats / levels / power: The functional need for a "catch up mode" doesn't exist anymore, to greater degree: The scale of power between characters was modelled such that veterans clearly still had advantages (elite skills), but never to the point they were simply invulnerable to new players. Salient Point: They dynamic was an INCLUSIVE dynamic P)layer vs P)layer. New blood to the game, which is the locus of attention for any sort of catch up mode argument, were NOT excluded from PvP game play. They could still spend TIME "grinding" to progress their characters, as the veterans had to do, without being relegated for a prohibitive length of time and/or effort and/or p2w swiping in draconian fashion. Their login TIME was in fact spent playing the game, with others, even when facing vets with advantages . . . the game itself never arbitrarily excluded them from being able to have an impact in a fight, or from participating. So, I've never actually heard anyone from ACE talk about that philosophy, where their stance is. Where are we going with CF in relation to the combat system, the skill system, and the resulting SCALE of power differential between players? For the sake of argument lets say a brand new player vs a 2 year veteran? Specifically: Are you building a system where it is expected the new player will be completely ineffective against a 2 year vet - defined here as no action by the 2 year vet required. They get to simply coast on the code. Summary: I'm not poo-poo-ing "catch up modes", per se. What I am pointing out is that it's flat out not a given any game "needs" catch up modes . . . unless the game is structured to require it once the initial rush of players has packed on a year or so worth's of play and/or the game goes through expansions that magnifies power-gap between players. Crafting and Harvesting, yeah, a different animal here. In my view that's a separate argument due to the differences between the domains. Still, there is a corollary (perhaps) between the two: If you have a game structured where low to mid-level mats are restricted to low to mid-level gear, you have a situation where exclusion . . . separation . . . within the player-base occurs: Newbs have not conduit to participation with vets, because the vets have no economic need for low level mats. If however you always maintain the need (saturation) for low level mats all through the crafting pyramid, you institute . . . inclusion . . . by new players to the entire economy. The ability to participate. Someone help me here: Do we REALLY think catch up is going to be that "dire" in Crowfall?
  8. I can see it now . . .
  9. I believe his suggestion however was NOT: Stop it from doing this, it's dumb. It WAS: Please provide a prompt/warning for attempting the action, given the "dire" consequences it carries with it, if it was unintended. The technique of confirmation/warning dialogs prior to engaging a potentially high-impact action (of whatever sort) isn't a new concept, and a wise technique to use where warranted.
  10. I appreciate the spirit of the intent for the thread, but my perception is: It's not targeted at all properly for Crowfall. Or is at least deficient. It's my perception that the term "PvE" is a form of charged-language for a great many MMO gamers. When it's said, every member of the receiving audience, individually, applies their picture/perception of what "PvE" is based on their experience. This isn't a knock, it's just human nature. The Problem: "PvE" in a game that supports either primarily or in some measure a traditional "PvE" progression and gaming path are used to seeing entire quest chains, challenges, etc., all linked to progression and rewards. Be it leveling, acquisition of loot and goods, etc. This isn't the model CF is going to follow. As a result there is generated all sorts of immediate, and sometimes "passionate" denial in the CF forums regarding "PvE" having any part in CF. That it's a PvP centric game, we don't need none of that PvE drek in our PvP game. In my view that's both a "right" and "wrong" answer: Its correct in that the manner in which "PvE" is deployed in the game can't act like it does in a traditional MMO, it's wrong in that the virtual world we will be playing in is supposed to be more open-world (large world environment) and less boxed-in binary Arena. This means "PvE" is going to end up playing a key bio-rhythm role within the CF community IMO. My view: "PvE" (the envnironment) is a very important piece of what Crowfall hopes to be. We want "PvE" to be well thought out, very interesting, engaging, diverse. But NOT in any traditional sense. Not for progression, or loot gear rewards, or boosting skill path gains, etc. No Raiding dungeons to farm the boss, etc. Rather, I see it as the warp and weft of interest and various motivations to engage in time-sinking in the CWs. ACE already understands this, because at it's most basic level is the thing we are all aware of: You want necessary goods and materials? Find it in a CW. There are all sorts of creative ways to create "PvE Content" . . . that does not operate like a traditional PvE MMO's model of PvE . . . that instead DOES SUPPORT THE CROWFALL strategy, and provide various motivations to time-sink in a CW. Maybe I'm not articulating anything new here. I guess my intent was to throw out a caution regarding blanket statements about PvE content, without specific qualifiers that help people understand the context of the term in question. Because the kind of robust PvE (or just environment-incentives perhaps) content pertinent to CF isn't present in your list of options. I can't find the post now, but I submitted a suggestion once regarding having "Archeaology Digs" in a CW. The short version is the premise you might find a rare location that needs to be dug up, like ancient ruins or tombs. Depending on the "level" of ruins it might be a relatively simple dig, or more elaborate with spawn-guardians at stages requiring killing to progress. In the end, uncovering the Ruins unearths Resources of some form that have to be packed up and transported. And all this is happening on the CW map where PvP lives. In essence, it's a creative re-skin to the idea of resource gathering. That keeps it operating within the bounds of supporting the CF vision while broadening the interest outlet for reasons to go to the CW to "do stuff". It is NOT traditional PvE content from games tailored to provide PvE progression and looting. So, I guess my answer to you directly is: What kind of PvE content do I want? Lots of interesting "PvE" that provides a variety of motivations for objectives in a CW, started at the most basic level with go to a CW for mats if you want to craft or buy/sell. If I'm in a CW, regardless of why I'm there . . . then PvP will take care of itself and happen. Heh-heh: Necro alert I suppose. /sigh
  11. All over the place today:
  12. Ah man. I'm very sorry to hear this. I didn't personally know him other than his presence on the forums here during backing. Always read his posts, seemed like a . . . Gamer who had some heart. Condolences to his family.
  13. @Leocarian Caveat: I've not watched the vid yet, I'm at work on lunch. I'm not sure this "breaks immersion and fantasy". Depends on how it's implemented mind you. But the thought I've had comes from some experiences in other games where too much segregation in physical use of objects was more responsible for "breaking immersion". AC2 Ranger: Bow only, period. That's it. That's sort of weird, given a real "Ranger" would be familiar with swords, knives, axes. Heh-heh. Lunch is over . . . I'll watch the vid tonight. My only thought here is that I'm not really arguing with you, per se, just challenging the idea we have to weapon-lock things absolutely to maintain immersion. I will agree it's got to be done correctly. /waves
  14. 1) This is the internet. That means the fantasy of an "anti-idiot" anything is just that. A fantasy. Heh-heh. (I'm generalizing in good humour). 2) Within context of a "zerg" being overwhelming numbers . . . that issue will always remain. FF simply nudges "idiot zergs" to alter their formations some. Greater numbers will still steamroll smaller numbers just as before, no change, no matter the . . . slight . . . nudge in the direction of consequence to sloppy greater numbers positioning, and thereby a slight nudge in the direction of opportunity for smaller numbers. It's a slight influence, not some arbitrary game-play switch that nullifies zerging-greater-numbers now can't steamroll smaller numbers. 3) Reinforcement to #2 above: Consequence to "idiot zerging" will be immediate in the FF environment. Thus, dumb groups will be rare. It'll happen once or twice to someones, maybe, and they'll simply make the . . . slight adjustment . . . needed to continue with the Salient Maneuver: Steamrolling smaller groups with a larger group. That's the goal, that's the objective, THAT is the pertinent warfare dynamic on the map functionally for all parties involved, both victim and victor. That it's done smartly or dumbly is simply emo driven charged language smoke screening. In the end it's meaningless. NUMBERS rolling smaller numbers will never change. Not one wit. It seems to me the "issue" of FF and it's affect on battles flexes around some in two different scenarios: Small Group engagements versus Large Group engagements. Where is it most beneficial vs less so, small or large? FF can add flavor to combat, for those who want to play with it. Assuming it's "balanced" I supposed given class profiles, DPS thresholds, prevelance of AOEs, influences from tab targetting vs what we will have - AIMING, etc. But, there's nothing really "wrong" with having FF given what I think I'm hearing: There will be bands where those CWs will have the option of FF. So appearances currently suggest FF will be available in some bands. Admittedly I'm assuming, but if that's the case, your wish will have already been granted. 4) Why are we discussing this again? Shame on me. Going back to Main Story Quest chaining . . .