buc0727 got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Crowfall & World Of Warcraft
Treating this like a riddle and puzzle, and assuming that the clues given are honest, most people are talking about the wrong things.
Quotes edited for emphasis:
So we know it has something to do with WoW's business model, something that we're expected to not like.
The last line is a bit ambiguous, as it could be read "Artcraft might do, [and if so] every day" or as "Artcraft [will do at least sometimes and] might do, every day".
So what is WoW's business model?
* Monthly subscriptions
* Content unlocks (expansions)
* in-game store? I've never played WoW so I'm not sure but it looks like they don't have one.
At just that level, I think Crowfall's revenue model resembles that of DDO (which I have played) more than it does WoW. The monthly subscription provides nice-to-have benefits, but is not required. Similarly, while the paid content is desirable for a number of reasons, Turbine had free content available for all character levels (or at least they did when I last played regularly, it has been a while).
But, the business model is bigger than just the things players pay for, it includes how you entice players to pay you in the first place, and then how to keep them paying you once they start.
We all know that for any long-term WoW player it's all about the raids. Large group activities that can be done with pick-up groups but are best done with guilds or regular groups of friends. This creates peer pressure for people to keep playing with their friends, increasing player retention and possibly even player acquisition.
Crowfall may have similar dynamics with large-scale PvP battles for control over POIs and territory. One key difference, as I see it, is that with Crowfall it might be possible for a player to drop VIP and keep playing (and training) the one character that they've been playing with the rest of the group. ACE has said that they want to build an experience where a player could be very entertained and satisfied with playing only one character, so if they do rig mechanics such that every player needs three fully-skilled characters in order to even show up for the big events, it will be right to call "foul" on that.
The other thing that we've seen some hints of being a possibility (that is, it's only a step or two removed from what ACE has said that they will do) is that ACE could make some Archetypes permanently VIP-only, rather than VIP-only for a limited time. As long as those Archetypes fall within the power scale of the existing free Archetypes this wouldn't be Pay2Win. But, to me this sounds more like what DDO does with the half-elf and half-orc races than anything I know of that WoW does. Finally, it could be that, even for VIPs, some Archetypes will require paid content unlocks to use. I'm not necessarily opposed to this because with only six character slots, at most, it won't be possible for everyone to play every Archetype so having them pay to unlock will only affect those who would play that Archetypes.
The final thing that I could see as a possibility is that some Campaigns could be VIP-required. They couldn't have better loot drops, export conditions, or other rewards than free campaigns of similar rulesets without being Pay2Win, but they could possibly have different-but-similar rewards that (in theory) could have more community prestige associated with them than the "open" campaigns. I don't see any way that this could be viewed as good for the community, and thus for the long-term viability of the game, as it would create segregation even within guilds.
Anyways... that's the limit of my analysis abilities, and I fear I've stretched things a bit (or maybe a lot) due to having never played WoW and having only done a few minutes of fact checking on their revenue model.
My best guess as to the similarity is that both games will favor large groups of players that play together regularly, and that might create similar peer pressure for people to join or retain their monthly subscription, although to a lesser extent in Crowfall than in WoW due to the possibility of playing for free after the initial box purchase.
edit: some clarifications about which game I was talking about in spots
buc0727 got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Let's Change The Slogan.
Crowfall: The PvP Dwarf Fortress of MMORPGs.
* Drawing on the "Losing is Fun" mantra of DwafFortress, acknowledging that most of us are going to die repeatedly (i.e. lose) and hopefully still have a lot of fun while doing it.
* Dwarf Fortress is known for being a deep game, with lots of details you can control that have subtle effects
* Crowfall is going to resemble Dwarf Fortress' adventure mode more than it's fortress mode, and that mode isn't as well known
* Dwarf Fortress has a reputation for having a difficult interface and we hope that Crowfall will be much easier to use
buc0727 got a reaction from doc gonzo in RIP Doc Gonzo
I tried to PM doc to thank him for his work, both as a mod and as a contributor to the forums.
Alas, I was unable.
I hope he'll still be around, even in his de-modded state.
If not, he will be missed, but at least we'll have "gonzo" to remember him by. The exchange that led to that filter configuration is priceless.
buc0727 got a reaction from HermaeusMora in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
Given the way "Game of Thrones" has been thrown around by ACE, and the tales I've heard from the Shadowbane days, I'm pretty sure that spying is within scope for "playing the game as intended".
buc0727 got a reaction from baerin in A Grain Of Salt
The video ignored one very important dynamic, one that is very applicable to Crowfall: someone has to front the money for building a game.
Back in the "glory days" of the monthly subscription (any SBers want to weigh in on the polish and quality of that purcahse+subscription game?), it was the publisher who fronted the money. This gave them a lot of power over the development of the game. That also wasn't always a good thing for the players, the community, and/or the long-term viability of the game (think UO:Trammel and SWG:NGE).
Crowdfunding is a way of raising that funding in a "more democratic" manner. If you look at Crowfall's Kickstarter tier names you'll notice groups of base names:
$5 - Supporter
$30-$40 - Contributor
$60 - Backer
$100+ - Patron
Every tier that costs more than a "standard game" is labeled as being a "Patron". There are several possible meanings to choose from for "patron", but the one that I think most closely fits is: giving support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid on another, especially in the context of the arts.[1, paraphrased]
Wikipedia has this to say about patronage:
It is with this context that I say I am an Amber Patron. I consider every dollar beyond the $60 "typical game price" to be a donation to the cause. Yes, I know that there are the years of VIP to consider, but at this point I don't even know if I'll play Crowfall for the month that every backer will get, so I can't attach any monetary value to all of those years. Similarly, I don't attach any monetary value to any of the in-game rewards.
I hope that I'll see return on the $155 donation that I gave ACE (I got an early-bird slot), but in a similar manner as if I had donated that money to a local performing arts theatre.
Now, with all of that out of the way...
Early access, when tied to crowd funding, can be viewed as paralleling the common practice of providing a demo for the publisher (i.e. the one fronting the money), and it has synergistic overlap with recruiting a group of dedicated and passionate test players.
As someone who has donated money to the vision that is Crowfall, I do hope that ACE is responsible with the timing, content, and messaging of their alpha and beta tests. That they balance the need for additional feedback with the knowledge that the game will be under a microscope during those tests.
I believe that our interests are aligned here, and that the ACE team has the experience get this right, something that the examples cited in the video may have lacked.
buc0727 reacted to tsp_maj in A random addiction
The word fun is far too subjective. I'm going to simplify their side by calling it the dueling complex. They want to load one round into the same weapon, walk their ten paces, turn and shoot. With the environment being as equal as possible only true skill will win. Essentially they want to pit their skill up against the skill of others and see how they stack up. To them, that IS the most fun they could have.
The trick is how do you make a game that is still fun for them, while being still fun for you? Compromise.
buc0727 reacted to Cirolle in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
Ok, I see.
You are focused on time, while I am focused on mechanical lock outs.
I agree, if it all boils down to time, then everything would be equal.
En easy example is in games like Rust, where there is no skills and everything is based on time.
I usually gather, one of my brothers craft and the last two shoot things.
There is no need to log in or out for me to start shooting things though or for one of the shooters to start crafting.
However, there are some mechanical locks that prevents you from doing things here.
You will have to take some runes to craft the best, to fight the best or t gather the best.
If you do not take the runes to craft, in some cases you wont even be able to use the skill it seems (alchemy grants you potion making?).
In fights, IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL (which is the only baseline we can go from), then the ones with only combat runes will always win.
Again, if we only consider time, then I doubt that logging in and out will have a great effect, if any, on effeciency.
Travel time should be equal as well. Everyone will have to travel right?
Still struggling to understand though.
Let us make the guilds 30 instead and devide them into 3 specializations and assume that guild "One Character Only" will devide it equally.
If they 10 crafters, do you really think they will be able to craft as effeciently as 30 crafters?
Take into consideration, that there will be more than 3 runes, crafting seems to take some time (work orders, thralls etc)
The guild with 30 crafters are also less dependent on having the right people online at the right time.
Same thing with gathering. 30 people gathering should be able to gather more effeciently than 10, over time.
Again, remember, there is almost no point where you just get to decide what you want to do.
The 10 crafters in guild "One Character Only" have 0 effeciency if they cannot craft for a period.
In the other guild, they can simply log onto another character and be effecient in another role. So they will rarely, if ever, have any periods of 0 effeciency.
The whole 1 character vs more per campaign.
I have been arguing for 1 character, simply because I noticed that the devs have been very consistent in wanting to promote interdependency.
If you want to stay true to that design choice, then you have to limit the players options, so they are more dependent on others.
It is perfectly fine making games where interdependency is not very important. There is nothing wrong with that. They are very popular even.
(I want to make sure this is understood. I have NOTHING against games being made like this. Because, custard other people. Not kidding)
I just think it would hurt the game to have one design goal and then developing it in another direction.
buc0727 reacted to Cirolle in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
The difference, TO ME, is in how I will build my character(s) in the two systems.
If we can bring more than one character, then every one of my characters will be build as specialized as possible.
My crafter will only choose crafting runes and nothing else. Yes he will be logged out in whatever place you craft when he is not crafting.
My gatherer will only take gathering runes and focus on being able to get away as fast as possible. No fighting here either.
My fighting character, will only have to worry about taking things that makes him better at fighting.
If I can only bring one character, I will most likely only focus on one crafting skill (instead of 3), have one area of fighing I try to max and I will have to consider if I want to gather or have mobility.
Or maybe I won't focus on fighting, but just gathering and crafting.
OR I could be the total fanatic and only focus on one aspect. I will have to make some friends then.
Point is, I do not feel like there is any cost to specializing if I can spread everything I want to do over many characters.
If I only have one, I will have to start making some serious choices, and maybe even try to get along with others better.
buc0727 reacted to PopeUrban in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
There is no significant advantage in taking multiple characters to a single campaign. This isn't about a "choice of builds avaliable" or the ever-popular "Have a crafter and a fighter!"
Crowfall's design, as per JTodd, is specifically intended to virtually eliminate passive play. The advantage of having a crafter/harvester is miniscule when taking in to account that the most 'passive' play advantage you could gain is having a toon to do your crafting. For which you need materials, for which you need to actively play because there's no system in place where one can click button and wait.
You're going to have to actively stop playing one character to get anything of merit accomplished on another. You crafter will be funneling more money is to the pockets of the guy that makes a career out of resource exploitation for crafting, doing it more expensively for himself, and generally losing market PvP altogether. That, or your guild will be a man down every time you need to go gather your own mats at best, or at worst several men down because they have to put a detail in place guarding a crafter who is objectively worse than a full time participant.
The case of "multiple builds to choose from" is also irrelevant in this context. This advantage only stands when your "swap alt" can reliably make it to the field within the time frame of a given enemy encounter. Unless I've missed something, fast travel is very sparse in crowfall's design to combat a number of problems, including rez-zerging and FOTM swapping. On top of that, now that you've got 14 combat toons to choose from among your accounts, you now need to equip,repair, and maintain what amounts to a small guild by yourself, by only playing one member at a time.
Consider that this isn't a one time investment, but something you'll need to do every single time you start a new campaign so even if the argument here is that your total distributed equipment wealth only decays by one character at a time, you're playing the early game at 1/14 efficiency. Anyone who has ever played an entropy heavy system like UO, EVE, or any of the trendy new zombie games will tell you that early game efficiency snowballs in to late game stability.
Your 14 max skilled toons aren't an asset to you, and they're not an asset to your guild. They're a liability compared to your contribution to expense ratio on a single character.
I'm all for allowing people to play as many characters as they want in a given campaign, if only to illustrate the above argument. We could also keep the current restrictions and watch as the smart players focus on upkeep of a large group of single-toon players while the whales attempt to turn a roster advantage in to a men on the field advantage and simultaneously fail at both.
The most impassioned arguments on both sides of this ludicrous argument are both wrong. It isn't pay to win, and there's no practical imperative to limiting people to one toon per account assuming working economic entropy and active play required to exploit resources.
buc0727 got a reaction from pang in A random addiction
For some people, having no uncertainty in combat feels as exciting and satisfying as combat in chess (and I'm not talking wizard's chess).
These tend to be the kind of people who fill in a role-playing narrative in the heads as the combat is playing out.
"... and as Thargor swings his sword in a mighty blow to cleave the goblin skull, a bit of moss underfoot causes his stance to slide, just a little, so that the blow glances of the goblin's helmet instead, leaving the goblin dazed but alive..."
"Thargor hit the goblin for 32.437 damage. again. exactly the same as the last 3 times. exactly the same as he will the next time, after the goblin hits him for 12.845 damage. again. *yawn* wake me up when combat is over."
Some people are looking for that sort of thing whenever they play an RPG, whether it's single-player or MMO, and Crowfall is being marketed as an MMORPG.
I'm not trying to convince you that it's wrong to want things to be precise and completely lacking in RNG, just the same as I wouldn't try to convince someone that they need to introduce dice-based combat resolution into chess (although that could be a fun variant).
What I am trying to do is help you understand the other perspective. Competitive online games can be fair, fun, and reward skill (both player and character) independent of whether or not they have RNG.
Oh, speaking of RNGs affecting the outcome of things...
What about the unique random map for each campaign and the initial player spawn at the start? Those could potentially have very significant effects on the ultimate outcome of the campaign. Do those RNG influences need to be eliminated as well?
buc0727 reacted to Lephys in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
*Sigh*. It doesn't work like that. "Why do you need cake? You don't." "Uhhh, okay, that's true, but why do you need to NOT eat cake? You don't, right? So you should just eat cake!" No, that just keeps going in a circle.
Not having access to 6 different roles per player in the same campaign has a reason of "because that messes up some of the game's intended design." Having access to that many roles per player per campaign has the reason of "It'd be nice." It's not that there's NO reason to do it, and 100% reason to restrict it. It's just that, for the purposes of the design, one trumps the other.
And no, limiting it doesn't "encourage" multiboxing, any more than putting a price on a video game encourages piracy, or locking money in a bank vault encourages robbery. Crowfall isn't urging you to try and figure out a way to play 2 characters in one campaign. Your own selfish human brain is. (General "you" here, as in "the person who decides to multibox for that.")
It's not complicated. It's like any other limitation in the game. We could ask this same question of anything. "Why can't my Archetype use ALL weapons and combat types?" Because he can't. "Why is there no firehose healing?" Because there isn't. Do those things encourage people to hack the game simply to bypass any limitation they see as silly? No.
I'll say it again... if a game has a deliberate limitation in it, and your enjoyment of the game is contingent upon that limitation not being there, then that game is simply not for you. That's just how things work. Something is either valuable enough to you, or it is not. I don't think anyone's dumb or ridiculous for wanting to play multiple characters in the same campaign. That desire is not stupid. That kind of gameplay is pleasant in its way, but it is mutually exclusive to the design of only 1 character per campaign, which opens up a whole 'nother atmosphere of gameplay. We can't have both. ACE is picking one. What is ridiculous is insisting you're owed a different type of gameplay from a game. Telling someone "I want to play the game you aren't designing, but I want to achieve that via your game."
People can get king of personal in these debates, but this isn't a personal issue. It's fine to like either option, but, ultimately, one has to be chosen, and there are different results for each choice.
And yes, there are still some unknowns, and yes, things could change. You know what? If ACE thinks up something that makes everyone happy, then awesome! That would be truly great. And if the whole one-character-only thing fails, then so be it. They can find that out in testing, I'm sure. That's part of the purpose of testing; getting a sample of player-based reactions to various design choices and iterations. But, I'd hate to see them forego the attempt simply because a bunch of people lacked the imaginative capacity to see how cool playing a limited part in a huge wargame could be. Truly... we should at least give it a chance before we knock it, shouldn't we? Before we give in to innovation intertia, and go with the safe option that everyone knows they like, out of fear that the unknown option might be less likable.
buc0727 reacted to sneaky_squirrel in Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..
If you are a small unit, everybody needs to be at a significant disadvantage and in great need of other players if they wish to win the Campaign or kneel for a percentage of their embargo.
Crowfall is not a game where your friends can mess around and have a good time despite not taking the necessary measures to succeed. Crowfall is not a Sandbox, it was never advertised as a sandbox, the EK are the only sandbox here. Your friends can mess around in the EK, or roll their alts in different 3 Faction Campaigns if you just like fighting.
Crowfall is a game of conquest, if you want to succeed you are going to have to either create a large faction, join a large faction as a subordinate, or pay tribute to the winning faction to let you kneel to them. You can't ignore the top dog of a Campaign and just do everything yourself. You can try avoiding them in the Campaign, but in the end you will end up with 0% of your embargo unless you are willing to relinquish a portion of your embargo to the only people capable of letting you export it. And even then, they can easily choose to take your valuable resources and not let you export anyway so that you progress even slower than they do (EK popularity competition).
Yes, it's practical, you can still run alts in different servers. No you can't win, because your not supposed to win if you are not focusing all your attention to one Campaign. No, your not supposed to be able to roll multiple different archetypes on the same Campaign, kind of takes a huge dump on the strengths and weaknesses of an archetype when you can just polymorph into the best crafter build on a whim and play PvP Combat Hotshot whenever you can't be bothered to craft and just sniping the poor sods trying to craft. Non combat archetypes immediately become crafting alts and not archetypes you will see in actual combat situations (Druids, Rangers, Forgemasters, these are likely to only be used as utility alts instead of Knights, Champions, Legionnaires, and Myrmidons which excel more in combat, specifically close combat).
Crafting builds are not meant to be used as alts, you are picking at and undermining the crafters. Crafters want to become a significant assets, crafters want to market their character, crafters want to be vulnerable in combat situations, crafters don't want crafting to be a side activity, crafter alts transform crafting into a side activity. Crafting builds, crafting characters are supposed to be tangible and a factor in Crowfall, not PvP builds logging out and back in to craft their new armor set so they can go back to killing everything in sight for three hours.
If players can have crafting alts, no one is going to give a rat's bottom about crafters, they are not going to try to get on their good side or barter with them, they are going to taunt them and kill them on sight because they don't need them. Crafters are trash now, because everybody can do it, why should crafters be feared if they are no longer a factor towards victory.
Crowfall is a a game of Conquest that gloats about a significant economy, its calls to crafters and promises them a home. ACE is telling us that we can join, craft, and become known for being capable in crafting if we excel in it. They are saying that our build will not be the very best for everything, if you build a crafter you can become the best at crafting, if you build a PvP you can become the most capable combatant under certain conditions (Warmth starved or warmth stocked).
Builds are supposed to limit what you can do in one specific Campaign, if you wish to break out of a build because you can't be bothered with other players, you are not supposed to be able to compete for victory or reward, you are supposed to lose. And that's ok, because regardless of victory or defeat, your character will still earn experience (Including your most unsuccessful alts), and the rewards have a very small effect on future Campaign, they all go towards a trophy room.
That's why there can't be alternative characters inside the same Campaign, it saps strategy, interdependence, and emergent gameplay from Crowfall. This game is not meant to cater to everyone, they are catering to seasoned PvPers looking for a tough and competitive experience, eagles, not alt characters. Even I don't expect them to cater to crafters to the detriment of their target audience, ACE will never allow crafters to craft in safety. Ace will never let Uncle Bob milk his one victory. Ace will never let players be good at everything. ACE will never let E-peen PVP all the time Rambos fight without having to rely on items that came from a crafter. I recommend you read their crafting article on MMORPG.com (A very informative resource for players who wish to learn what ACE wants to achieve with crafting).
buc0727 got a reaction from Pepperoni in A random addiction
TL;DR: I believe we need some amount of randomness, but not so much that RNG dominates skill (both player and character)
What about tournament poker? Lots of randomness there. Not only is it a competitive space but they're usually playing for real world currency, sometimes at a scale where paying for a Crowfall Bloodstone backer package would be lost in a rounding error.
Do we want our gameplay dynamics to look more like a poker tournament or more like a chess tournament?
A RNG acts as a damper on skill (both player and character) disparity, pushing things closer to a 50% win/loss percentage. This is both good and bad.
On the plus side, it keeps things more interesting for everyone. If the skill disparity is large enough that the outcome of a matchup is 100% certain before things even begin, then there's very little fun to be had for either the winner or the loser.
On the negative side, if RNG is overdone then skill (both player and character) are meaningless and there's also very little fun to be had for either the winner or the loser.
The key phrase there is "if RNG is overdone". How much is "overdone"? That depends on many things, most of which haven't been ironed out yet for Crowfall.
One thing that I think would be interesting is if the amount of RNG could adjust itself dynamically based on skill discrepancies, with more RNG (but not "too much") being used when the discrepancy is larger. It's fairly straightforward to calculate the discrepancy based on character skill disparity, but before you can calculate the disparity for player skill you have to first measure player skill.
I don't know if anyone has even tried to implement a system like that, but I'd be interested to see one if anyone knows of something.