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

Gilgamer

Testers
  • Content Count

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Gilgamer last won the day on July 24 2016

Gilgamer had the most liked content!

About Gilgamer

  • Rank
    Rook

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,542 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. 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. #crowecho #thevesselsvoice #murdersdin #crowsofafeather #birdsofallfather #crowcompendium #carpecorvus
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...