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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I've thought since the beginning they should restrict players to 1 character per campaign world. It makes players less self-sufficient(aka more reliant on others, which is good in this kind of game) and makes it easier in the running narrative of a campaign for a given player to make a name for themselves(they always do the same thing as they are on one character). Abuse of import rules is just icing on the case in my mind.
  2. Also honest truth be told, if the games good, Winning the campaign won't be a prerequisite to having a good time. If that's the case it's fine if the old established hands win- casual players can thrive in the margins and those that enjoy the game enough gain motivation to get better and catch up to the veterans.
  3. What if rather then rather then permadeath slain players become pseudo monsters- in that campaign they lose the ability to harvest/craft, have their reward structure change to being based on number of "living" players killed- this approach prevents depopulation driven slowdown as the server progresses.
  4. Relying to heavily on player ideas and giving the majority of players what they want ruins games every time. What it creates is a watered down vision design to satisfy the expectations of instant gratification and lack of consequence that has been built by a generation of game development targeting the lowest common denominator. The main problem is a voting system- better organized and in duplicated suggestions are a good thing, but at the end of the day for a game to retain it's unique vision and charm it's best that the decision on whether an idea is good/fits the game is made entirely by the devs without showing what the masses want.
  5. Came into thread thinking "Yes". Saw picture and now want to play that.
  6. I think having any super long term non resetting median for serious competition violates one of the core tenants in the game's philosophy-See uncle Bob for details.
  7. I have said repeatedly that I'm not advocating balancing by enconomic costs. I merely stated that there's no real reason why "everything should be equal melee versus ranged" is far from the silver bullet argument so many people seem to think it is. Again I mentioned on multiple occasion making melee weapons wear out and break faster whereas ranged weapons need to deal with the ongoing need for ammunition. I'm all for having parallels(though loose parallels are more interesting then making everything identical), I'm only focusing on the Ammo side of things at present because that is the specific topic of this thread. I think all classes should find themselves worrying about being force to go into battle unprepared and ill equipped if their faction doesn't mind it's logistics.
  8. More like if a poster starts throwing around P2W accusations....90% of what they say is doomsaying hyperbole...
  9. And why MUST the costs beperfectly balanced? Ranged weapons represent a huge tactical advantage in most largescale PvP scenarios. Unless they plant on make melee universally so tanky they can wade into enemy zergs without give a rat's bottom why bother with the guy that has to go into suicidal range and can't be useful while the keep walls are still up? While we're on the topic though this is a large part of why in so many games Ranged is so hard to balance against melees- Ranged players basically expect parity and equality in pretty much every measure while still keeping their ranged advantage. They act like being able to deal their damage at a range is just a different mindset or a personal choice between equally powerful mechanics- it's not; Range is a huge advantage, so arguing against an arbitrary disadvantage with "it has to be equal" is ludicrous, being that SOMETHING has to be inequal,and in a big way, for the game for be balanced. I'm not saying this is necessarily that thing(in fact above I advocated balancing the entropy by making melee weapons wear out and break faster)- but the whole argument "X hurts ranged more then melee and thus is unacceptable" is not a very sound argument being that ranged is going to need a big disadvantage on par with the inherent advantage of their range. And no "at a disadvantage once the enemy closes the distance" doesn't cut it being that if the ranged guy just stays with their zerge closing the distance usually means certain death for a melee. With all that said, again I don't think this has to be an argument about ranged vs melee. we have a few nobs to turn to balance it(relative rate ranged weapons break vs melee, cost of making arrows). With the right number it could mostly just mean archers need to plan ahead more and make sure their guild is on top of short term logistics before big battles.
  10. This kind of tautology is absurd and yet is being repeated over and over verbatim. What if you could carry 2 million arrows? I ghighly doubt that finite amount would actually have any effect on gamplay much less "destroy archers". I'm not endorsing a limit of that level of course(a limit of that level would be pointless), but the statement "If class A has this weakness in any degree they will be useless" is ridiculous. And frankly range has enormous advantages of it's own-chiefly it's RANGE. That is an enormous advantage in any large scale PvP scenario, as you can deal you damage without wading into the enemy zerg(which for a sufficiently large enemy force is suicide). The range advantage only gets larger in siege scenarios where one side is standing up on fortifications, out of each of melee for much of the battle, during which time ranged character can do their thing while melee twiddles their collective thumbs. I highly doubt Archers having to stock up on arrows and without guild logistical support eventually run out pales by comparison to the enormous tactical advantage of range in a game like this. It's worth noting those, I don't think any limitations to ammo should be "realistic per se"-obviously a max quiver size of 30-40 arrows would create a major distrotion to balance- I don't even think a max carrying capacity is even necessarily important- what is important is that someone is paying resources for each arrow shot, so that funding a war requires resource control and effective logistics or by a few battles in the guild with a poorly planned war effort finds themselves unable to equip all their soldiers for the next battle. And I'd like to note that making this about "melee vs ranged" is kind of insane from the start, being that just about everyone who's advocating finite AMMO is also advocating melee weapons wearing out(In fact I think it would make a ton of sense if melee weapons wore out and broke substantially faster to counterbalance Ranged character's dependence on ammo). This was never really about melee vs ranged for the people argueing against it, it's about them wanting to play ranged and not have to deal with the distraction of logistical planning and communication.
  11. This. If your war potential isn't fundamentally diminishing with use it removes the necessity of effective logistics and resource control. Remove a need for effective resource management and logistical planning and the game just becomes a "Who can herd the biggest zerg" simulator.
  12. Make it finite. And while you're at it add material components to spells and upkeep for melee weapons. Keeps demand for crafters up, adds a logistical component to winning wars(more leadership and organization required then mindless zerging), and forces players to vary their play(even bandits need to take a break from KoS PvP to gather/repair) all in one go. Also opens up the option of rare valuable ammo too costly for regular use, jealously hoarded for special occasions and emergencies.
  13. There's nothing unusual about the entire goal of a game beyond the experience of competitition it's self being to gather "trophies"- In point of fact I think the overt focus on some form of progression rather then the actual gameplay experience inside campaigns is the problem- The resource you take out of capaigns aren't really what the game is about- the game is about the campaign: the memories, experiences, decisions, and results therein. What you take out of the campaign is more about giving you a tangible reminder of those old adventures and struggles, not being a measure of total progression. I suspect what most campaigns will allow you to import if anything will be so relatively minor that the aggregate wealth of one player versus another will be irrelevant(after all, pretty much anyone who has been in previous campaigns has at least that much to bring in). I suspect import/export will be more about decision making("what type of tools/resources will I choose to bring") rather then wealth("what can I afford to bring").
  14. I'v esaid it before, but I think people are too focused on the "Win"- yes, Crowfall is defined by having an end condition and win condition, but that doesn't mean that winning should become a core expectation for a player to have a good time. With the scale of the game and the inevitable number of players/guilds ona give campaign, an overwhelming majority of players in a given campaign will "lose" each time. If the game is going to succeed it need to be more about how much you were able to achieve, the decisions you made, and the struggles and events that lead to that result. Even if on the global scale greater powers vyed for dominance, a given player in a less prominent guilde will remember the relatively small war they had with a like sized neighbor far more then the sluggfest the campaign superpowers were having 100 miles away the same day. Memories of diplomacy, deciet, war, and the resulting consequences to their personal organization are what could really make this game memorable. I'd value the memory of a perfectly time betrayal or a personal diplomatic masterstroke over a "You Win" messages and some extra resources I ultimately had nothing to do with any day of the week, This is not to say winning as a small guild will be impossible- and frankly I think the existence of the fealty system gives small guilds a better chance then they would ordinarily have(Conquer enough like sized guilds and your vassals will give even a small guild the resources and might of a much larger guild). If you want to win while literally only ever having to manage a small group of people(no vassal guilds), a GvG ruleset probably isn't for you. This game is designed to reward effective leadership, diplomacy, and logistics in such settings over individual play skill- and honestly that's what makes the game to me so interesting and unpredictable.
  • Create New...