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

Gilgamer

Testers
  • Posts

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Gilgamer last won the day on July 24 2016

Gilgamer had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,634 profile views

Gilgamer's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

803

Reputation

  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. Both footprints can be any arrangement of square lots or cells. Think of them strung together like tiles or a long Tetris piece. The other major difference between a kingdom and a housing instance is the concurrent player population. These are full MMO servers, so we expect them to support hundreds (if not a thousand+) concurrent players. Taken from EK FAQ #6: Each parcel represents a contiguous tract of land that can be dropped onto your kingdom map. Parcels can have unique shapes (like Tetris pieces) that always fit within the boundaries of one or more cells. Parcels cannot be overlapped (again, like Tetris pieces) but they CAN be moved, so placing them is not a permanent decision. Taken from EK FAQ #8: Land parcels can be as small as a farmland (1 cell) or as large as mountain range (5+ cells chained together). Strongholds can be even larger. The new land parcels simply overwrite the wild terrain. MY CONCLUSION: From reading the above it appears to me that "Cells" (200m by 200m) are the largest building blocks off which the Tetris pieces are formed, and that each cell has a predefined terrain type like mountain, so to form a mountain range you would string together multiple cells. While this would effectively extend the length of a mountain range it will NOT increase the maximum base diameter for any given peak, putting a very definite ceiling on how tall any given peak can be. Will mountains be tall enough to create a tactical obstacle? They can be, because it's possible to make them very short and still impassable by simply changing the slope. My point was that they will not be tall enough to look impressive (to me) and give the sense of scale and awe that I wished was possible.
  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 bigger, but they would likely have to re-write the code that places parcels if some vary greatly in scale. Hopefully a dev will correct me on this, because scale and verticality are important aspects to me, for that sense of awe and immersion, and the OP's screenshots are very lackluster.
  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 targets? If so, would friendly targets be chosen for you based on some combination of faction, group, guild, or alliance? Should said distinction be uniform across all CWs and world-bands? Should friendly targets be uniformly effected, in part or full, when in the path of another friendly's attack? Can a FF system incorporate game play mechanics, that allows thoughtful players, to mitigate some but not all of the risk, thus creating that heightened risk-reward paradigm (higher than no FF) without having situations where it's never advantageous to attack an ally? 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 death, but not the caster's. They would be cancelable by either the caster or the target, but would have a resource upkeep cost to maintain. For melees, I think that friendly targets should not be immune to physics abilities and effects (knock downs/backs), but should take reduced or perhaps no damage. Melees could have abilities like "Weapon Reach", that creates a bubble around their character, warning party members when they're at risk, of taking FF. When they absolutely have to fire into a crowd, ranged characters could have a short duration self-buff, named something like "Called Shot", that allows their projectiles to ricochet of friendly targets (party members) and continue on at a slightly different angle. Perhaps the friendly takes a small percent damage and the intended target takes something less than full damage. Create skills or disciplines, that players can train to decrease the damage they do to friendly targets. Abilities like these, would still require player agency to prevent the negative effects of FF, while providing a softening to the unavoidable chaos that would be full-time, full damage, friendly-fire. Perhaps scale FF damage by affiliation - group members take 25% damage, guildies take 50%, faction members take 75%. I know that FF will remain unpopular with some or seem unworkable for others, but I think creative solutions are to be had that could still give some of the benefits, without requiring a complete rework of the combat system.
  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 death, but not the caster's. They would be cancelable by either the caster or the target, but would have a resource upkeep cost to maintain. For melees, I think that friendly targets should not be immune to physics abilities and effects (knock downs/backs), but should take reduced or perhaps no damage. Melees could have abilities like "Weapon Reach", that creates a bubble around their character, warning party members when they're at risk, of taking FF. When they absolutely have to fire into a crowd, ranged characters could have a short duration self-buff, named something like "Called Shot", that allows their projectiles to ricochet of friendly targets (party members) and continue on at a slightly different angle. Perhaps the friendly takes a small percent damage and the intended target takes something less than full damage. Create skills or disciplines, that players can train to decrease the damage they do to friendly targets. Abilities like these, would still require player agency to prevent the negative effects of FF, while providing a softening to the unavoidable chaos that would be full-time, full damage, friendly-fire.
  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 distance between them and their opponent with pre-planned retreat routes, use physics to knock their opponents off ledges and so much more. I am of the mindset that using the terrain to your advantage isn't an exploit as long as your enemy can get to your location the same way you did. So, in short, I am in favor of jumping (and other acrobatic skills) in general, with double-jumping perhaps restricted by archetype or discipline. Exploration and terrain tactics aside, those acrobatic skills should definitely be usable in combat to make characters more mobile, though I think a steep stamina penalty for jumping in combat would be in order to prevent, constant hopping tactics.
  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 unexpected ways, allowing perhaps for non-traditional victories by those with the best business sense.
  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 influencing too much power on campaigns, through import restrictions, which the OP struck at in their concluding thoughts. This is distilled into the question: "Are EKs relevant to campaigns, or are they, should they be completely optional?" I want to see EKs have more relevance, but they can't be simultaneously important and safe, or the risk-reward paradigm is broken, and the Uncle Bobs will leverage their EK wealth to amass more wins (and since many EK elements are monetized, this opens the door to pay-to-win). So if EKs remain largely irrelevant to campaigns, then you have no real kingdom building, no permanent throne, just a bunch of would-be pretender kings playing house; you won't know if that EK is earned through campaign spoils or bought with RL cash, and in the end it's all just for show. EK irrelevance is thought of as a necessary evil to prevent winners from carrying too much power, in the form of resources, into the next campaign (Uncle Bob), but I think it does have its short comings. Aside from the whole, victory for victory's sake, the only tangible for campaign winners will be their embargo and artifacts, both of which we've been promised will have minimal impact on the consolidation of power. Most resources that come out of campaigns will stay in EKs, with a small percentage being used to craft finished goods, for low import campaigns. The other thing that the OP hit on are the themes of continuity versus transience. Will a campaign duration be long enough for politics to effect the outcome, will people have a strong enough investment in or emotional attachment to a stronghold, to make losing it a big deal, as was the case with having a city destroyed in SB. If some don't care much about EK building, will they care just as much and fight just as hard as those that do, to secure that embargo that they can't put to use?
  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. See Chronicles of Elyria for a game attempting to do this on a large scale. I am not sure the developers necessarily need to force the use of said systems, but without any such systems in place, emergent gameplay opportunities will be fewer.
  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 default is to let players live (Chronicles of Elyria) if you don't coup de grace your opponent, I would say that should be turned on it's head because CF does not have permadeath and most go onto the field of battle expecting to die; so your opponent will surely die if you don't immediately intercede on their behalf. I do agree with some in this thread that the game shouldn't incentivize moral decision making even if it were balanced across both decisions, and or given a lore justification, because then the motive will always be suspect and the strategy of the moment will be outweighed by the pre-calculated benefit or lack of benefit from the buff or w/e incentive is proposed. This would lead some to argue that without any incentive their is no need for a "complicated" system because if you want to spare someone, you can choose to not engage them or let them flee when they are outnumbered or outclassed or in a weakened state. The only problem with this, is that in the fog of war, it might not be clear to someone that they were intentionally spared or shown mercy, they might attribute their survival to any manner of things. It's humbling to know you've been beat, and maybe even more humbling to know your opponent fears you so little as to let you live. That said, if there were to be an incentive for such a system, I would like to see something like a "life-debt". If you spare someone they have a debuff placed on them that prevents them from attacking you, it lasts until they die. That would create some emergent gameplay! Why would someone spare the life of another in a game, where there is a lot to risk and little to gain? To win through all means necessary is usually the name of the game, but to win and be merciful at the same time could distinguish you and your guild, it might even become a recruitment tool. I've argued on these forums that due to limited import rule sets, embargos and by extension EKs (which many decry) will not be an adequate incentive for victory in the campaigns, and I always get the same responses: win for the sake of winning, glory, power, prestige, reputation, bragging rights, etc.. All the incentives for winning appear to be intrinsically emotional, not tangible. Why play for glory and power, but not for honor and mercy, are these ideas mutually exclusive, I don't think they are. I think people do sometimes need tools built into the game to facilitate emergent gameplay (see Chronicles of Elyria for an ambitious list of such systems), because in a fast paced environment the lack of functionality will preclude some deeper gameplay. For people worried about it interrupting the flow of combat, for the victor it could be as simple as a small yes/no box that's only on screen for five seconds (which they can choose to ignore), for the victim, bleeding out for five seconds is probably the least of your concerns. My fear is how disruptive the vessel system will be when you die, because it sounds to me like you have to travel to a GY then roll up a new character on the spot, before you can get back into a body. In honesty we'll probably never see such a mechanic in game, but I think people are too overly fearful of creating complex systems. I don't think anyone wants complexity just for complexity sake, but right now I feel like CF, which ACE advertising as having GoT characteristics, lacks emotional attachment and that is what is inherently necessary for fierce political drama. Transient gameplay, non persistent worlds, passive character progression, swappable bodies, safe-zone player housing; in short - not enough attaching the player to the game, emotionally.
  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 enough to get the distance between the two vectors and as that number approaches the maximum hit distance in the Y direction it becomes more likely a head shot, or feet if the Y values are negative. As the distance moves toward the maximum width on the horiztonal axis, the chance for hitting the hands increases if the collision is above the center or legs if the collision is below the center. How costly the computations are I am not sure, but surely cheaper than keeping track of multiple colliders.
  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...