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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. (As an aside, in Guild Wars normally, characters end up moving at different speeds because players move at different speeds. It's one of the determinants of whether you win a fight or not. If characters moved naturally at different speeds, my initial inclination would be for everyone to move at the speed of the slowest character.) Anyway, I'm not sure that that's true. Lets think of a thought experiment, if in guild wars characters moved at different speeds, they would still be working toward the same objectives. So, for objectives that are close to a waypoint where a group has a very low time-to-rotate, a team would still be able to have pretty much all their forces very quickly. If I'm attacking a distant objective where I know they can all defend easily, or if I know there's a numerically larger enemy near me, should I string in with each type of charcter onesy-twosy or should I move slowly? It depends a lot on if it's viable to harass without getting wreck-9'd when you're fighting 3 v 30, and just how fast the slowest character is in relation to the fastest. How long do the front liners have to sustain before the back liners can support? Overall, detailed physics isn't what I expected when I backed the project, but that's not a bad thing. I'm excited to see what comes out of it. As long as it ends up contributing to combat scenarios and doesn't create tedious strategies, it could be pretty interesting.
  2. The problem with 24/7 windows of attack is that nobody has implemented one that doesn't turn into herbalife pyramid scheme online. If someone can find a way to make that happen then cool. You're constantly fighting the coverage war where selling different time zone players on coming over to your side is a lot more important than actually playing the game. It also devalues NA and EU since they generally have higher populations and are more likely to fight to a stale mate based on numbers, whereas anyone can beat an empty structure.
  3. More important is how you take over someones house. If establishing a foothold is too taxing then the path of least resistance is the GW2 karma train style where you blow it up and leave. I don't really mind that but I get the sense it's not what people want. It's probably something better as a campaign setting if people are actually down for that.
  4. I don't really like the idea of mounts influencing combat too much in a game where you have an entire archetype dedicated to having the advantages of a mount in combat. Then again maybe i'm overblowing the influence of Centaurs. Maybe animal husbandry hasn't gotten too far in crowfall and mounts are just like NOPE NOPE NOPE when they see a fight.
  5. You can have both. Some items can be global and others local. Stuff you need to siege or that a lot of people have to make work, like siege equipment, doesn't have to be global. Stuff you need constantly (or the alternative to not having it is to take break from the game) should be global.
  6. I don't like the term "fire hose healing" because it's inaccurate. Have you ever used a fire hose? It's not exactly easy to control. Constant healing is more like garden hose healing. At the risk of promoting myself I'll post a video of the type of healing I like, which is healing that requires coordination between multiple people. This is a video of an ancient GvG in guild wars 2 where I take 30 seconds to set up a heal that I get one chance at or gg. We take an ok engagement at 0:55 where we get two downed that we have to punt back or just lose the effort, but this means that the other team gets to regroup 5 or 6 seconds faster than us, which might as well be eternity, so instead of a regroup we just say welp, we have to take a straight up push on them with a disadvantage. To mitigate that I pop my elite skill which gives me a group heal, but the problem with that heal is that it's proximity based, I can't just pick and choose who to apply it to. We know who is low so I call the heal and those players-- while taking an engagement-- position themselves closest to me and they get a full heal while sitting at a silver of health at 1:30. It's not completely decisive and I suck hard the rest of the round, but it's enough to keep us in the fight and win. So, those are the types of heals I like, the ones that require some form of coordination with the people being healed and are high risk, high reward. https://youtu.be/-lVmqtS01JE?t=1m2s
  7. Re: corpse spying-- there are few things more satisfying than dropping an object on a dead player to keep them from seeing things. CC that launches people backwards through the air is slightly more satisfying.
  8. In combat resurrection should be very limited if it's possible at all. It's a limited version can be appropriate in settings where people are going to get focused down and die because it's a valid strategy for them to take the hit as someone in a tanking role, but it has to be a limited resource. E.g., a tank pops an ability that draws projectiles toward him, but it's problematic in contexts where the sheer number of players leads to early game attrition. It also depends on the role of commanders. I think it's kind of cheap for people to be able to pick off a commander and completely disperse a zerg because they killed one guy out of 20. You might say "well someone else has to take over" but in my experience most players just don't want to be the guy leading because of social pressure. Also, and this is the biggest thing for me, it can greatly diminish combat frequency for defenders. Yeah, it might be fair, but is it fun for defenders if attackers have to spend too much time regrouping?
  9. A lack of resurrection in an objective based open world game encourages graveyard rushing as defenders spawn closer to their objectives then their opponents, and becomes a decisive factor in who wins. It diminishes the value of winning a fight against someone with a very significant advantage and probably doesn't need an extra one. In other words, it makes death consequential for one party, but not the other.
  10. Unfortunately, this is impossible. Even in professional sports grounded in the physics of reality, chance can't be eliminated. A football kicker has to deal with the wind. A coin toss can affect driving into the sun or out of it, or whether you go first or second. In basketball the whimsy of the ref has to be accounted for. An older pitcher would rather play the best teams at the beginning of a long season than the end. A zamboni can't make a hockey rink perfect. Chance is something that you have to overcome. Maybe it goes against you, maybe it favors you, but it's intrinsic to competition. Where it's feasible, the influences of chance are mitigated by playing each other repeatedly. Crowfall is a resetting game where this is supposed to occur, so it's appropriate for the type of game it wants to be, and it creates the highs and lows that keep people playing. There's nothing more deadly for an online competitive game than a lack of chance helping you out sometimes. You have to give a worse player a chance for the stars to just align once in a blue moon, or else people just feel done once they hit their personal skill cap, and the population declines accordingly as the game empties out from the bottom up. Chance encourages players at roughly the same skill cap improve to the point where they can consistently beat a player that's slightly worse than them at the moment. It's also encouraging because it slightly mitigates the chance reality gives you; sometimes people are going to lose due to chance that the game didn't introduce. A team with a few more players is probably going to consistently beat a team of the same skill level with a few less. A player whose playtime just corresponds to a resource spawn because of when he gets off work is going to have better gear.
  11. I don't really care if it's toggleable, that's fine with me, but honestly preventing anyone from seeing them is just a gigantic pain in the rear if you're trying to help friends gear up. So you help someone out, which means they have to take a screenshot and post it to imgur and then they have towhisper me stat changes from every piece of armor they put on? Really? And god forbid they're actually a new player and have a hard time identifying things on their character sheet. Yes the one with the arrow is your critical damage, the other one is your crit chance. No, look, you don't have a 98% critical chance, that has to be your damage. I know the icons look similar. Kind of a needless hassle.
  12. Gamble boxes are frustrating in direct proportion to how bad the coal is. I like CSGO's because even if it's junk, well, there's that trade up contract, so It's never a total waste. Of course, CSGOs are literal gambling since you can easily launder a skin into money to buy another game. GW2s are awful because you might instantly throw out everything that's in there. Some of those items are particularly pointless; crafting booster for example.
  13. In any game some comps are going to be viable while others are not. I'm not suggesting that people be easily able to switch into FoTM builds, merely that it not be so restrictive that they're locked into clearly unviable compositions. Generally, the least viable composition is the one where everyone is the same thing. This is a problem that you have to address in most games because generally, one class or role is more popular than the others. Unfortunately, we can't all play mid in LoL. We can't all run the AWP in CSGO. We can't all be DPS in a raid. We can't all be pre-engage specialists.
  14. Encouraging poaching is incredibly problematic because environments where people leave/join at the drop of a hat don't feel persistent. You're perpetually living off the past five minutes and how your reputation is based on the night you just had. It's always "what have you done for me lately." If you're hyper competitive it can be fun, but that experience is more akin to a MOBA experience and probably not what I'm personally hoping to get out of crowfall. I mean It's a thing I've done and I might end up doing it, but that's a pretty hefty opportunity cost you're talking about. It's really not healthy for a game to demand that certain players always be present for a raid to work. This was really insane in 2005 bleeding edge wow raiding where the people with the limited supply of gear absolutely had to be reliable and show up every night. (Or you could share accounts, obviously.) As a consequence top tier guilds in that era might actually be good at the game, but it was far more important that they be full of people who could always be there. That hurts me a lot to say but it's true. It also explains why raid encounters in WoW were so simplistic for so long. I mean, none of those encounters in early WoW were especially difficult, it was just that you could count on one out of forty people to be asleep at the switch and for the gear checks to really be punishing. The analog to gear checks in PvP is a comp check. No matter how good another driver is at GW2, I know that I'm going to beat them if I have a significant composition advantage, even if I'm half to mostly drunk and unable to differentiate between left, right, and mustard. But here's the biggest bummer of all: Say that you are really great at always having the right composition and bringing the guns to every knife fight, and most other guilds aren't. It's not that you're better than them, it's that they can't mechanically beat you because the game doesn't allow it with their composition. If you're really a competitive player, how fun do you think it is to club baby seals?
  15. People like to bandy this about without really thinking about what makes a choice matter or not. It sounds great and lovely to just say that choices matter and impact you over the course of your gameplay, but sometimes this can create false choices. Eve online is a good example of fake choices; they hung onto the idea of keeping your attributes the same for eternity because it was a "meaningful" choice. Of course, it wasn't a meaningful choice; the consequence was too dire, so most players chose the exact same character race and stat combo as everyone else because one race and stat combo was strictly better than all the others. The only thing you got in exchange for being permanently gimped was a slightly better looking character portrait. Eventually, they introduced attribute remapping because the choice between an attractive looking character and a character with good stats was the sort of choice between eating a steak with a knife or with a really sharp spoon. I mean, you CAN do it. I bring up the Eve online scenario mostly to illustrate that increasing risks at character creation increases the risk that everyone starts to look like an identical cookie cutter of one another. Obviously some people will still take unpopular choices that aren't likely to work (that's why casinos can operate) but it's a question of how weird do you want weird to be, and how much of a stigma do you want attached to a "bad" character? Is restricting players to six characters an acceptable mix between creating meaningful choices, allowing the meta to be explored, and making people feel like what they chose was interesting? I kind of doubt it, but hopefully that can be explored in alpha and beta before something becomes hardlocked. If I was to make a statistical guess on what the right number would be, I'd personally want to cap the number of characters at no fewer than half the total base archetypes, because that more or less is the minimum at which you can guarantee that someone will have more character slots than there are super effective builds that you can read off a website, and at that point you're actually forcing creativity. Below that point I think you discourage it.
  • Create New...