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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Tomorrow's my birthday but I won't get to see any of the crowfall stuff til 10:50-ish cause of school. Curses!
  2. I think the most intriguing possibility here is if gravity can differ between worlds. Archers and projectile-based mages would have to change their aim drastically to account for different arcs. Possibly the Duelists as well, depending on how fast their bullets travel. How about that example of a mage who calls down meteors? They'd travel slower in lower gravity. I am kind of disappointed that Voxel Farm-ian physics don't seem to take into account structural stability. Based on the sponsored physics videos for them, it seems gravity doesn't take effect on a part of a structure until it's fully detached. However, it would be very interesting if architectural stability (ie, Arches vs walls vs columns), strength of materials, and gravity made styles of building different on different worlds. I am worried that gravity will be static, but it would be expected. Still, here's hoping?
  3. I think OP's goal is workable, and that the major opposing force is a playerbase of bored, bitter, hardcore-pvp-enthusiasts. Think of it in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma. This is a problem in Game Theory in which two rational parties could both cooperate and have a safe, quick, and ideal dual victory, but will most likely fight each other such that either one wins, or they both win, but only after a long, hard fought struggle. This is because: If your opponent catches you off guard, they gain a huge advantage. If you catch your opponent off guard, however, you get much closer to your victory, while screwing theirs. However, if neither of you try to destroy the other, or you are evenly matched in trying to do so, you both end up winning. In the first case, victory comes relatively quickly. In the second, it comes relatively slowly. If both parties want what's best for their selves, they'll probably end up clashing and slowing themselves down. If they're evenly matched for a long period of time, I think they both deserve to have a win. If they manage to somehow use politics to keep from attacking eachother AND fend off any third factions from breaking the balance, I think they deserve it as well. Either way, in most cases, it will probably play out like any other map because people don't get along. Potentially even more gruesome, in fact, because there's a lot more room to backstab in this configuration. Everyone is strawmanning the idea of multiple parties achieving victory, but in practice, it's actually usually more complicated and conflicting than raw conflict. Take, for example, the Tragedy of the Commons. In which no one directly conflicts with one another, but in doing what they need to do for themselves, they run the risk of destroying the long-term feasibility of success for EVERYONE. If only one person stops, then everyone is still screwed, that one person is just moreso. If no one stops, everyone's equally screwed. If everyone slows down, they can all potentially win together. Or one person can eliminate everyone else, which is most likely. (And yes, this implies that there could be NO WINNER as well) In both of these common socio-game theory constructs, the most likely conclusion (At least, when in a game like this) is CONFLICT on a BLOODIER and more BACKSTABBY manner than plain relentless conflict. Yet they also add obvious opportunities that are surprisingly hard to take advantage of. So if some maps, somewhere down the line (not immediately) had win conditions and map design that exploited these two surprisingly antagonistic "Co-op" game theory constructs, I think everyone would be a lot more interested than they think they are right now. Backstabbery and temporary alliances are very much in the plan for this game (The Winter example is described as having a coalition of clans combatting the dominant one, and backstabbing is specifically mentioned somewhere or other I'm sure.) One LAAAST point of interest for this style of gameplay is trust. As far as I know, the most successful Prisoner's Dilemma AI have a measure of trust in their opponent, and when betrayed, are more likely to betray back. Being that Crowfall has persistent characters and clans, this metric of faith or lackthereof will probably make for some interesting group dynamics. Soyeah. Just know, everyone. Thinking outside of the box doesn't mean you have to think in a box that is the exact opposite shape and type as the original box. Don't shut down an idea because it is vaguely reminiscent to the first box, or because you're too lazy to think through the consequences. That said, don't blindly support things that sound different without thinking them through. If you don't have a legitimate, non-bandwagon opinion in (pre-)Alpha/Beta, you probably won't get to voice it to any effect later on. Thank you. That was a bit of a wall I hope I didn't do anything wrong ;
  4. I feel everyone's taking things too literally for what little information we have.
  5. My personal bit of speculation on the EK is that "(To make sure these Worlds don’t compete with the “main” game, i.e. the Campaign Worlds, we’ve completely stripped them of resource factories and anything but common reagents. If you want to fill your trophy room, you have to go out and earn it.)" only means the EK won't be capable of providing you anything of worth. Right now, the trend of thought seem to be that it's literally only a series of housing realms, standard mmo fare. Purely for ego and storage if you can't bring your stuff to a certain campaign. I suspect it would be the place where non-risk duels may take place with your best gear without fear of it decaying. I also think there will be aspect of open-world-ism in the EK, since common reagents are there to be scavenged, and a kind of vibe of anti-small-instancing makes me suspect they'll try to fit as many houses and Guilds in an EK world as possible. Other than that, it says "Player Monarchies" and the game has emphasized Throne conflict. If the only thrones you can ascend are in the EK, then there must be some incentive beyond ego to warrant the effort, and that incentive must be presented in the EK. I'm guessing you could analogize it to the Cold War. As opposed to directly fighting for supremacy, you send your soldiers and resources to an extraneous conflict (In this case, a campaign) and attempt to establish dominance by winning Campaigns and gaining the Fealty of lesser guilds. I could be entirely off base, but I don't think they would make it as boring as they're letting on. I disagree with Toxophile's judgment on a lack of top-level story though. I think this set up, however the EKs are maneuvered, will make it much easier to make players feel like they're part of something bigger. Since the worlds are unique, if a major event happens in-story, the devs can start trending the maps toward a certain style without the technical overhead of, say, WoW's Cataclysm. Since campaigns will have different rules, they may also change in reaction to story. I think they're just going to hold off on a coherent lore interpretation until the countdown ends.
  • Create New...