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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Knicklaso

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
  • Gender
  • Location
    Deep in the Dregs
  1. Likewise, someone has the ability to make their resource harvesting and transporting business quite successful. As a direct result, someone else takes advantage of the demand for resource location services. Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of entrepreneurs embark on the resource intercepting and ransoming business. Fourth quarter 2016 can't come soon enough.
  2. As mentioned earlier in the thread, horizontal progression is paramount to this system working and it's great Uncle Bob has confirmed that's the plan here. The idea that new players can contribute in meaningful ways before they're competitive in combat is also pretty necessary. It's worth noting that EVE does both of these things very well, and still turns off what I feel is the majority of their potential player base. The list of people who at one point or another wanted to get involved in EVE or tried EVE after launch and just couldn't get into it as almost a direct result of their passive skill system is huge by my estimation. Without other motivation/objectives in place simply switching from an active training 'grind' to a passive training 'wait' really doesn't solve either problem but it does lessen the negative effects of each. You're eliminating much of the grind by chopping off the right of the exponential growth curve and letting players get to a competitive middle ground quicker. Once they're in that competitive middle-ground, you're making them wait for skill gains passively, but in theory they now have the ability to get involved in the PvP and end-game type content. They can siege and crush and get better at doing those things without wasting any time grinding or macroing. I would still probably prefer a gating mechanic that rewards in game accomplishments with skill unlocks before you can passively train them, the icing on the cake is if this skill unlock was socially cooperative and/or competitive in nature. Edit: I feel this is possible assuming everyone is guaranteed easy access to that competitive mid game.
  3. I agree import rules fill the exact role I was talking about. They are a control system to prevent power carryover from one campaign to the next. This logic breaks down though when we start to make assumptions about the playerbase, specifically any particular campaign worlds playerbase at any given time. Even if you enter campaigns that allow zero imports, because that's the only way you play, that doesn't hold true for everyone else entering that campaign world. There will be a number of people who are motivated by resource gains, in that world with you, people who may intend to join servers that do allow imports when that campaign is over or people who do care how shiny their Eternal Kingdom is, people who are crafting and playing the economic game. It also stands to reason a new player without anything to import may choose to play in a campaign where nobody is allowed to import anything, that would be logical. If significant portions of the playerbase put any value on exports though, they can be bought and swayed, and the guilds that are able to buy/sway those players will be the ones with the largest coffers stockpiled in the Eternal Kingdoms. They can quickly catapult to the largest/wealthiest guild in that new campaign. I'm with you, those are the people I'm gunning for. They'll buy nothing but a huge target on their ass from me. But we're counting on the fact that the majority of the campaign we're partaking in feels the same way we do? That may or may not be the case.
  4. That's fine in theory, but they were in a position to win the last campaign remember? And then divided up the resources and entered the next one. They're getting bigger, more powerful, their influence is growing. Their Eternal Kingdom brings all the boys to the yard if you will. Their ability to buy victory only increases with each campaign bought. This is because despite starting each campaign with limited resources, they're 'budget' for any particular campaign grows. A good parallel to draw would be professional sports without salary caps or prospect drafts. It doesn't matter that they play a new game every night, that they start a new season each year. It doesn't matter how much everyone hates the evil empire that is the Yankees (now Red Sox?) Without rules in place to level the playing field, the victors get the spoils, and use the spoils to win again. It spirals out of control, much like Uncle Bob at Thanksgiving. There has to be rules in place to prevent this, other than resetting campaigns. The sooner we as a community and ACE as the developer figure out what accomplishes this without sacrificing the political intrigue and ruthless battles, the more likely Crowfall is to deliver what we all are hoping for.
  5. Would it not also be called politics when FIFA fixes the World Cup? or the NFL the Super Bowl? If Mayweather vs Pacquiao was obviously fixed would it ruin the fight for both boxers and millions of spectators? Would the sport lose it's appeal for many? This game is designed around a political competition. The competition is as important as the politics. I've said it before and I'll say it again, ACE's built-in ability to tinker and tweak worlds to adjust balance flaws is probably the most promising bit of design here, and there's a lot of really great design going on.
  6. While we're on this topic, I would also prefer if I could taste the tears of my enemies... you know, like I would do in real life.
  7. Just to be clear, I have no qualms with the way my example plays out. It sounds absolutely exhilarating, and I'm an eagerly anticipating plenty of political drama and a shifting power struggle. It's important that we also maintain a healthy level of competition, that's the point of dying worlds. I have some concerns that those minimal reset mechanics alone, may not eliminate the ability for Uncle Bob to put himself in a seat of power that is all but unassailable after a period of time.
  8. If the top 10% win and get an immense amount of resources, then that allows a guild of 100 to decimate their enemies, claim victory and return to the Eternal Kingdoms with the greatest possible rewards. Which I have no problem with inherently, but it becomes indiscernible from the Shadow worlds. It's also very specifically not what we have been told the Dregs are. I'm not saying it is winner takes all. I'm speculating that that may be one of few ways to make it work, and avoid outright victory by massive guilds, which to reiterate, is what we're told doesn't happen in the Dregs. To be totally honest, even King of the Hill winner takes all FFAs could potentially be fixed by large guilds operating together and setting up their leader for the win. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with organized guilds dominating a campaign and securing victory, that's great. I'm simply speculating how a playset that specifically aims to avoid that is even possible. And theorizing ways that could possibly work/remain fun for those involved.
  9. Channeling was suggested if the game doesn't use in/out of combat flags more than anything. You could also open a window, that you can stack items in. A temporary bag essentially with one destroy button, that channels before clearing the contents of that window. This would follow the same principal but allow destroying many things at once.
  10. Let me rephrase: If my Eternal Hero, who roams the universe destroying worlds is ever running around a field pleading with the closest stranger to please kill him so he can get where he's going then someone made a pretty significant design error. Regardless of how it worked in Shadowbane.
  11. Suicide in combat would be something to be weary of for sure, because if it's possible it will happen every time. The other thing to avoid is DayZ style suicides to pick spawn points. If I enter a new campaign, what's to prevent me from repeated suicides until I pop up in an ideal location?
  12. This is a great idea, and is not difficult to implement. The particulars vary and we're not super knowledgeable of Crowfall's combat system yet but I'll throw out a few preventive ideas: Assuming the game flags people in combat/out of combat, make destroying items an out of combat action. Another option would be to make destroying items a channeled ability with a several second long cast time, trying to do it while being pummeled is sure to result in interrupts. Aside from the fact that you're obviously not putting up a fight while doing it. This all assumes item destruction is possible and you don't just drop it and wait for it to decay Minecraft style, in which case your attacker could just pick it up after the fight.
  13. And this wouldn't be isolated to the Dregs. You could potentially game all the campaigns: http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2957-worried-about-campaign-fixing/ I'm curious what ACE will come up with to prevent this sort of thing.
  14. This is what causes me to question the validity of greater risks/greater rewards as we move from GvG to FFA. I could only really see that being case if you were not splitting the pie. In other words, any single victor in the Dregs is going to make out like a fat rat, but the total prize pool will still be less than the Shadow campaigns, therefore, splitting it up for a large guild is unattractive. You would definitely still have small groups banding together and splitting the Dregs Powerball Lotto among themselves back in the Eternal Kingdoms, but those people would be open to betrayal and thus likely bound by out-of-game ties in order to foster trust. The whole thing raises some other issues I have with 'campaign fixing'. http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2957-worried-about-campaign-fixing/
  15. Eternal Heroes, Dying Worlds. What about the resources that are jumping from world to world? Aren't campaigns essentially bought and sold by guild leaders on the Eternal Kingdoms once they've amassed their fortunes? Example: Guild A and Guild B are locked in a pretty serious power struggle on a Shadow world. There's a lot at stake, the world is in the midst of Winter and firmly gripped by the Hunger. As other guilds are statistically eliminated and the clock ticks down, victory for one or the other seems eminent. They continue to slug it out, until they suddenly don't. Guild A has made a deal with Guild B in the Eternal Kingdoms, they've granted them some parcels of land, supplied them with resources and lavished them with gifts. Suddenly Guild B either quits the campaign outright, or actually helps Guild A finish off the stragglers and achieve outright victory. Guild A gets the spoils from the campaign and the prestige/trophies associated with it. Guild B is content with the chunk of resources they got in the deal, and have improved their power considerably, all while avoiding a long drawn out war of attrition. Both sides save time/energy/resources and are better suited to dive into their next Shadow world. Will any campaigns legitimately end in hard fought victory? Isn't this a bit like a M:TG tourney or Texas Hold 'Em sit-n-go where they all just decide to split the pot once they 'make the money'?
  • Create New...