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

kroked

Testers
  • Posts

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,326 profile views

kroked's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

216

Reputation

  1. No factions. Friendly-fire protection is only applied to members of your group ,No PvP safe areas, Full looting on death, no damage splitting? Sounds awesome. No need to implement any of that stuff, ever.
  2. Crosses fingers. Not Daybreak. Not Daybreak.. please God no!
  3. I went to E3 a few years ago. What a soul crusher. If you love gaming, don't go to E3. Most of the people who go there hate their jobs, and hate gamers more. The videos you see on E3 are nothing like the event itself, and many aren't actually even made there anyway.
  4. First, the reason zerging is considered bad is that it is boring, and players will leave if that becomes the dominant play style. Players are dumb in a way, and will do what it takes to win even if they hate doing it, right up until they quit. Now, there is more to 'zerging' than just balling up. I think of that as a tactical zerg. This can be stopped with combat mechanics, some as discussed in the videos and also proper handling of damage splitting. But there is also the strategic zerg. A strategic zerg doesn't necessarily entail balling up, but simply overwhelming the enemy with numbers, allowing no counter-play. This was a problem in GW2 for example. A big alliance can 'zerg' from castle to castle in a short amount of time giving no chance for the smaller team to use clever tactics to hamstring them. The zerg can then move from castle to castling like so many scrubbing bubbles, conquering the entire map very quickly. This makes defending completely pointless. It makes having squads, sub-alliances and any other sort of fun strategy worthless. This sort of zerging should be counterable with counter attacks, guerrilla warfare, spies, cutting supply lines, and generally encouraging the zerg to get mired in wrong place. These sort of things didnt work in GW2 because the castles are too close to each other, and the zerg can resurrect its dead, thus never weakening as it overextends. Finally, there is the server zerg. The philosophy of this zerging is essentially a version of a internet denial of service. This sometimes happens a mega-alliance decides to humilate a game developer. What if 20,000 people decide to camp a server designed for 10,000 people? Yeah, that is not very fun. You can't log in, if you do the lag is terrible, and then you are spawn camped. The goal is to make people quit. Once one server is killed, the zerg moves to another server, repeating the process. This works just like a strategic zerg works against castles, only instead of just castles, its whole servers. Something like this happened in Elder Scrolls. One way to prevent this is to have no free accounts, and each account is limited to a server.
  5. I'm not talking about OP abilities. I'm talking about a whole class being destroyed because a good player can beat a bad player with one finger. Game developers are not usually very good PvPers. The way they balance stuff is ludicrous. Like the topic of this thread. As if kills is some sort of legitimate measurement (hello, healers,support, hybrids?). Just thinking about it is making me cranky.
  6. Well its not fun to make a post that says "I can't get my guild to play". But I can't. They won't. I'm just saying this now because you haven't see enough posts.
  7. This has got to be the worst possible way to design a game. Rather than getting meaningless numbers based on unfinished prototypes, you should be ensuring the archetypes fit the vision of the game. Vision driven design will lead to a great game. Data driven design will lead to the same copy-cat WoW clones that plague the genre. I also want to re-emphasise exactly how stupid this method of data acquisition is. It is not taking into account a million variables like player skill and latency/fps performance. Also, player intent. I can tell you that I am personally sandbagging it. I am purposefully not trying to do well because that leads to my favorite archetype being nerfed.
  8. Don't call it a release or a launch! Just call it BETA and let people who have bought in play. Once released, MMO's don't get a second chance. Let people know there will be a hard release day, probably late 2018.
  9. My biggest dislike and worry is that it is not robust to latency. A recent comment by a dev implies that they think the server is working great! I am not seeing this. As I have suggested before, the devs should VPN to Japan and play on the east coast servers to get an idea of the problems with latency. (thus not only play from work on the singapore server for example) For example, is DPS, inputs per second, run speed the same for someone in the same city as the server as it is for someone in Japan? Do targets actually take damage? Is the server predicting the angle of attack and timings differently from the client? At this point in the pre-alpha, latency is a still a big problem but even once it is ironed out for the alpha and betas, it still doesn't mean it will work in release. Case in point is TESO where 500 players were laglessly playing simultaneously even on the same screen (it was amazing!) in alpha, but after launch the game turned into molasses. If you look back at the big hits and big failures in MMOs, one key thing you might notice is the big hits all function well with high latency. While games that seemed pretty good but had latency problems all faded away to freeware.
  10. Yesterday I disabled 2FA on my account. When I did so I got a message that I would receive an email to complete the operation. I never recieved an email, but 2FA does seem to have been disabled.
  11. This is an awesome video, something we just don't hear from other game companies. The lack of ass-covering and equivocating is refreshing.
  12. There is something that trumps both reason and common sense. That thing is experience. After playing so many pvp MMORPGs, a pattern emerges. Players exploit algorithmic boundaries. Often these abuses lead to the boundary doing the opposite of the intention. Also, complex combat systems have more failure modes. Full friendly fire solves several problems endemic to MMORPG pvp. First, it solves the problem of zerg mechanics where large groups of people 'stack' on one spot causing distortions in the gameplay. Friendly fire weakens the zerg. Also, friendly fire solves the worst of the griefing problems. If someone is doing something wrong (and abusing the arbitrary 'marked as friend boundary'), you can kill them anyway, just like they are the enemy, even if they are on your own team, in your own guild, and in your own squad. But it also increases political intrigue; is Bob just bad when he accidentally killed the guild leader, or is he a spy? Next, having multiple game mechanics in different modes is exponentially more complex than one mechanic for everything. Even if that one mechanic is complicated to perfect, it is still less complex than getting all the possible combinations correct. (eg In Wow, the resilience mechanic for PvP combat caused all sorts of balancing grief when it interacted with other game mechanics, and Blizzard says they regret it) For Crowfall, balancing skills around sometimes damaging friends and sometimes not doubles the number of combat scenarios. Every special case doubles the number of cominations as they interact with all the other corner cases, thus the exponential math. (ex adding non-FF mode doubles the number of modes, adding resilience doubles the amount of modes, adding both quadruples the amound of modes)
×
×
  • Create New...