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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gilgamer last won the day on July 24 2016

Gilgamer had the most liked content!

About Gilgamer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,615 profile views
  1. How about about these ideas from two years ago
  2. Taken from the EK FAQ #4: Each LOT is 8 meters by 8 meters in size. Each SUPERLOT is 5 lots by 5 lots. (40 meters by 40 meters) Each CELL is 5 superlots by 5 superlots. (200 meters by 200 meters) Each SUPERCELL is 5 cells by 5 cells. (1000 meters by 1000 meters) Each KINGDOM can be up to 5 supercells by 5 supercells. (5km by 5km) (Note that the “supercell” and “superlot” designations are merely for convenience. Buildings are sized in “lots” and land parcels are sized in “cells”). Examples: A blacksmith shop might sit on 6 LOT footprint. A dwarven keep might sit on a 7 CELL footprint. Bo
  3. I wouldn't count it. I think the OP's observation might be the result of a short-sighted limitation of the parcel-stitching method of procedural generation. Meaning, each individual landscape element likely has to be wholly contained within a single parcel, regardless of it's shape. For mountains to be four times taller they would also have to be four times wider at the base or they would be stupidly steep, and it's my estimation that they simply won't fit within the current parcels. Maybe they can create new parcel shapes that are less elongated or perhaps one-off parcels that are much big
  4. Since this isn't designed as a "playable" milestone, why not turn on friendly-fire, as something to play with in the vast empty world.
  5. I made a similar post today, in the now closed, "So.. How's that friendly fire going?" thread. Maybe I was being naive, but I was hoping to evolve the conversation away from defining the terms FFA and FF, and towards what FF might look like in various forms rather than just a binary switch that is either on or off. I think enabling all damage to hit all players, each and every time, would be pretty detrimental to the combat in any game, even ones designed with FF in mind. So the questions I am asking are: Should the game create for you the distinction between friendly and non-friendly t
  6. I won't go into whether or not friendly-fire was promised, or what it does of does not add to the game, but I will suggest some ways it could be implemented into the current combat model. Just suggestions, because some people are seeing it as all or nothing, and turning FF on without some way to mitigate the ensuing chaos would most likely break combat, more than it already is. Ideas: Allow casters to place a buff onto a fixed number of targets that would make those targets immune from the caster's own elemental damage. The buffs would be fixed in duration but persist through target's
  7. I would agree with this if, CF was going to have a complex tool set for free-form building, but I wouldn't call the placing of prefab buildings and set pieces into an environment that can't be terraformed anything like Landmark. From what's been shown, it appears the voxel engine is being used for destruction only, not building, and not terraforming, which although I think would be cool, is well beyond the scope of this game.
  8. Exploration is one of my favorite aspects of gaming, and I love environments that offer scale variety (like the new Tomb Raiders, or the Dark Souls games), especially verticality, where you can see spaces that are currently out or reach, above and below. Exploring such spaces naturally means jumping, climbing, crouching, etc., and I would love to see more MMOs incorporate platforming type elements to facilitate exploration of the environment. Such elements could also lead to emergent tactics as players use terrain in creative ways to sneak up on opponents, find sniping spots, put vertical di
  9. Tools can go a long ways towards emergent behavior both in a tactical combat situation but also in the social aspects of a game. What I think goes under-explored, are the impact of social tools on player behavior. MMOs used to lack looking-for-group tools, guild management tools, and auction houses and those tools certainly changed player behavior, so what might adding more social tools (contracts, player-made quests, bounties, ransoms, black markets) do to an MMO. These are systems that could open up options, and change the way we problem solve, and such tools may be used in creative unexp
  10. You could make it like an ante in poker. A certain buy-in for each campaign that allows for an embargo multiplier for the winner at the expense of the losers. It wouldn't help you win but would certainly increase the risk-reward of high buy-in campaigns, some people might enjoy the extra stress.
  11. If Guild A is winning in the campaigns, w/o the better vessels that Guild B possesses, because they lack a good EK infrastructure, I don't think they will be bothered by it or seen as inferior, they are after all the victor. Now if Guild B uses that better EK organization to eventually topple Guild A's dominance and it proves true that all other things being equal (number of and competency of players), the guild with the better infrastructure will more likely than not prevail, then EKs become a pivotal part of the game. But since EKs are safe-zones, they are intentionally insulated from inf
  12. I think the important part is that without proper tools, some choices are off the table because the leg-work on behalf of the player necessary to facilitate those choices using just the social tools, becomes too burdensome, clumsy, and lengthy; in a fast paced game with situations that are always in flux, people will, like electrical current, follow the path of least intellectual resistance, favoring an expedient decision over being indecisive. A game developer should help their playerbase make deep, strategic decision quickly and decisively by facilitating those choices with in-game systems.
  13. My take away from this thread so far is: People seem to be conflating Pollice Verso with the down-state in other games, the way I read the OP, only the victor who lands what would normally be the killing blow, is able to decide the life or death of their opponent, nobody else. As long as the default state is death, so that letting an opponent live is an intentional act, and the window for deciding is small enough that people are not left in a death lurch for an extended time, I don't see a problem with it. As Deloria stated above this is not a unique mechanic, though in some games the de
  14. I am not much of a programmer, so I am running the risk of sounding ignorant, but you would think you could do better than a RNG even with a single collider per character. If you can determine the vector where the two colliders first intersect and compare it to the center point of the target collider you should be able to determine if the hit was high, low, wide, or near center. With a pill shaped collider the greatest distance from the collider center that could still register a hit would be one-half the collider's height in the Y axis or one-half the width in the Z/X axis. Easy enou
  15. I am familiar with asset stores, but I was thinking more about two or more development teams, designing different products around the same art style (perhaps even in a shared universe/lore/mythos), with the intent of sharing art costs in common. I wonder how varied two games could be sharing 90% of their art, perhaps even cross genre. Could you create a FPS/MOBA using the Crowfall art assets per se?
  • Create New...