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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bytestream

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Backing via paypal is a way bigger risk then using your credit card. Going through kickstarter means you have till the campaign actually ends to change your mind. At any point, you can increase or decrease the amount you pledged or even cancel your pledge completely. When using paypal that's not the case. Your money is "gone" the moment you decide to pledge and there is no easy way to get it back. That's why paypal backers usually wait till the last moment, till they know as much about the project as possible, before they pledge. Oh, and it really doesn't look good for EU servers. I really hope this doesn't cause too many kickstarter backers to jump ship last minute.
  2. Two words: Tactical View Inquisition worked kinda fine with a controller but, to achieve that, it did what people are always afraid of: It completely screwed up the interface (not just the GUI). poorly made socks was designed with a controller in mind. /edit Just to be clear: The tactical view is only the tip of the iceberg, there is way more wrong with Inquisition's controls than that, it's just one of the most obvious issues.
  3. Gamepad support for a real PC game can never work cos it always would require to dumb down the controls and to seriously screw with the interface.
  4. It sounds like a catch22 but it really isn't. ACE publishing the game themselves in the EU is a prerequisite for me to even think about backing Crowfall. If they are not publishing it I am not losing anything. You also have to remember that backing via Paypal is way more risky than doing it via Kickstarter. If you go for the Paypal option the money is gone right away, you can't easily change you mind in a few days when you learn something new about the game you really don't like or even hate. It's not a pledge that turns into a payment if you don't revoke in time.
  5. Yes it is. So far, third party mmo publishers half always either screwed horribly with the monetization system, held back on patches for ages cos it took them way too long to localize them or messed with content and even core mechanics.
  6. #3 is the problem. There basically are no good mmo publishers in the EU. Unless ACE is doing it all on their own, without anyone else being even able to influence their decisions, backing Crowfall is sadly a big risk.
  7. If they really act as the publisher and we won't have to deal with anyone else I will probably back the game once the server stretchgoal is reached.
  8. But the stretch goal is only for a BETA server, nothing more.
  9. Cos I am from the EU. As long as it is not set in stone that ACE will provide at least one server and act as the EU publisher I simply can't justify backing.
  10. I don't think that knowing what people want is the problem here, it's more about getting the money to make it happen. It should be pretty clear that most Europeans would prefer it if ACE would publish the game in the EU themselves.
  11. @huangye So you mean something similar to Mighty Quest For Epic Loot but with raid- instead of solo-content? Something like the multiplayer in the The Wheel of Time game? I can totally see that work and it has the potential to be a nice PvE addition to the rest of the game, but it also probably need to be instanced in order to not be horribly frustrating. @Mytherceria The question is: Would people actually do that? I don't think so. Just take a look at all the Minecraft servers. Everyone is building stuff but only very, very few people are actually wandering around and looking at what others do. In a game about creativity people don't seem to feel the need to explore as much as they do in adventure games. Maybe I am a pessimist, but, when you give people a persistent, open world they will primarily use it for war. Especially when there is nothing to gain by exploring it peacefully.
  12. That highly depends on how exactly this huge EK - or our individual EKs - work. If EKs are basically nothing but CFs version of horizontal endgame progression (which would be cool enough) there probably won't be any problem. People would still fight for kingdoms close to the famouns ones so that they get more visitors, or cos of some other arbitrary reasons but nothing more. However, if there is meaningful PvE content to be found and valuable resources to be gathered in the EKs things totally change. Now there are locations that are objectively better than others, and those will be claimed and hold by the major guilds pretty much forever. Smaller guilds or casual groups of friends won't stand a chance against organized hardcore guilds that have a raid leader present 24/7. It will be DAoC and GW2 all over again (oh god those endless nights, how I not miss them). But no matter how meaningful PvE and resources in the EK end up being, people will only fight over kingdoms if they have a reason to do it. And in that case the "uncloe bob" situation ACE desperately tries to avoid by making the campaigns non-persistent occurs. The strong and powerful will become more strong and powerful and the rest won't have much fun anymore. Not their goal, not at all. Just cos it is called MMORGP doesn't mean that the battlefields have to be persistent. In fact, in most MMORPGs they aren't and people played them for years. They aren't in DotA and I - and many others - have played that game for way more than 1000 hours. Also, your argument is flawed, if every-changing campaigns become boring after a while so will static trench warfare in the EK, only way faster. Watch the Kickstarter video, the whole point of the campaign system is to avoid what you seem to crave. In theory yes, but in reality it will lead to a situation where the powerful get more powerful and the rest will simply be wiped out. Tactics and strategy won't matter if you are outnumbered 10:1, small guilds won't have the manpower to compete and will be crushed by bigger ones that want .... whatever reason they have to attack another guilds territory in the first place. Your assumption also implies that there will be a real reason to upgrade your guild's EK (besides the wish to make it look cooler). If that's the case, if you need a upgraded EK to stay competitive, there are even more reasons to not let other players destroy it. In that case, war would have to be something both parties agree upon, which, in turn, would mean that it will basically be impossible to conquer someone else's EK cos they simply won't let you do it. And if you can force war upon someone it would be horribly frustrating for those of us that don't have the manpower and time to protect their EK. Even those long attack timers mentioned early won't help, especially not when people fight across different time zones. Having all EKs in one persistent world creates more problems and frustration than the benefit of having it feel more immersive is worth. It sounds good on paper but it sucks when you really have to deal with the consequences.
  13. But such a system would create exactly the kind of "uncle bob" situation ACE is trying to avoid. The major guilds would lay claim to the "best location" - if not objectively then subjectively, we are humans, we work that way - and no other guild that doesn't have as many members as they do would be able to challenge them. It would basically be like it currently is in Archage, just worse. Also, such a system would distract people from the campaigns, which are supposed to be the main unique feature of CF. People will not fight in campaigns when they have to defend their kingdoms or when they have the chance to burn a hostile kingdom to the ground.
  14. It was done and it had the exact same problems I listed (and more). If such a system is used it's freaking hard to get a city/ek/whatever close to your friends/guild/enemies after a while, it is doable in the first few weeks or months but after that you are screwed. Neither can you show off your stuff when nobody enters you kingdom cos they don't travel by foot but by portal. In a persistent world the vast majority of players will treat your beloved EK as nothing but an obstacle or an annoyance on their way. They won't be wandering around looking for cool stuff in other players kingdoms, that's just not what people do. The only way you would have random visitors is if ACE would be stupid enough to not implement a fast travel option, but even then the outcry would probably big enough to force them to do it within the first couple of weeks after release. No matter whether EKs are instanced or part of a huge, persistent world, the only way random people will visit a specific players kingdoms is if that player has made a name for himself. Only players that are guild masters of larger guilds, renowned raid leaders or managed to somehow create a followership (e.g. through youtube, twitch or a well known forum) will have a constant stream of visitors.
  15. The important question here is: Does it make sense to have all the EKs in one big and consistent world? Would it add to the experience or just annoy people after a while? At first glance, persistent sounds great, but when you think about it for a while there are actually tons of drawbacks. Expansion for example. If everything is located in the same persistent world how big your EK can get is basically determined by how many neighbors you have and how close they are. Everyone that has ever played e.g. Minecraft on a server knows what I am talking about. Another point is that guilds or even just groups of friends will have a hard time getting their kingdoms close together. Maybe if you back the game or join it at the same time there is a chance that you will start close together and share borders, but it is not guaranteed and most certainly nothing you can just "make happen" later in the game when you find new friends or join another guild. Sieges would be problematic too. Waging a war against your neighbor is easy and, given that space would be limited, basically mandatory, but fighting someone a couple of kingdoms away would just feel awkward. These are just a few problems that came to mind, but there are probably way more. Some of them can be solved via the implementation of a portal system or something similar. But, then again, what's the point of having a huge, persistent world when everybody is teleporting all the time anyways? No, in my book separated EKs is the better solution. Just implement them as shards, as islands that float through the void between worlds and give characters a way to travel between them. Heck, you could even make it so that the EKs of a players guild mates, friends and even enemies are part of his EK's skybox. That way the universe looks and feels massive even though it technically isn't.
  • Create New...