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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bpiche113

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Æther, Presently
  1. I do like the system, but I don't think it's necessary. Why not just allow players to build anywhere? I imagine building won't exactly be cheap, so allowing players to just build anywhere would have a risk/reward element to it. Sure, you can build that chain of impenetrable fortresses across the valley... but doing so would be exceedingly expensive, and would take so much time a group of bandits or a competing guild could just wreck you before you finish. Hadrian's wall would never get completed, so to speak. I just worry that having some kind of building node system restricts the benefits of building or changing the landscape to those that can afford it - i.e., those that have the resources to continually man and transport resources. In rulesets like the Dregs, where I worry that guilds who can keep their players on good terms will dominate, those without a reliable guild will suffer without some agency to change the world around them. It could be as simple as creating trap locations for caravans - hollow out an area underground, then with one fell swoop destroy the top layer as the caravan comes around. Or, perhaps a few bandits want to hollow out a small base underground and furnish it, away from the prying eyes of the larger guilds - why not let them?
  2. Hi, all you fine people at ArtCraft! I've been a backer since early on in the Kickstarter, and I'm very excited about the game. I think a lot of MMOs in general have tried to do the same thing over and over again for the past decade, and I'm glad to see a company try and break the mold and do what they genuinely find enjoyable. There are a lot of different aspects about the game that have really captured my interest, among them being the building system. The ability for players to create durable but destructable fortifications is mind-boggling for a guy whose MMO experience is limited to Burning Crusade-era World of Warcraft. Being able to create fortifications of any kind - be it castles, walls, towers, you name it - completely changes the game. Rather than the scenery being essentially decoration on the walls of the theme park ride, it becomes something that time and effort will be invested in mastering, both in terms of construction and destruction. My question for the developers (and the community at large, if they can answer it better than I've seen) is: what level of freedom will players have to build on the map during campaigns? The way I see it, the ability for players to create structures fall into two camps: Players will have complete freedom to build on the campaign map, as long as they can reach wherever it is they're trying to build and have the resources available to do so. Players will be restricted to certain areas on the map (likely strategic Points of Interest or resource nodes, etc.), only being allowed to build in these areas. This could vary from only allowing players to build at more important strategic Points of Interest to allowing them to create fortifications at smaller nodes as well. Personally, I seriously hope you guys are going for option one. I feel that restricting the player's ability to build anywhere reduces the amount of agency players have dramatically. It would make building feel less organic. Say, for example, two Points of Interest are situated on opposite ends of a valley, and a city springs up between them, built by the forces of Order. Later on, the forces of Chaos capture one of the PoI's, allowing for huge battles to take place within the city. Not allowing an Osgiliath to exist between your Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul, so to speak, would be a lost opportunity for the whole player base. Likewise, the option to build anywhere would allow for smaller guilds to have a fighting chance if they're not able to hold any of the bigger territories. Say, instead of a city between two PoI's, a guild is able to construct a fortress between several resource nodes, to allow for effective control of them or to just allow them to raid other players as they wish until forced out. If restricted to constructing in a designated area, they may not be able to compete. What are the developer's thoughts on this, as well as the community's? I've combed over the FAQs and a few of the interviews I've been able to find, but I can't recall anything conclusive from the devs about this specific facet of building.
  3. I do think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the devs have stated that the Dregs wouldn't all be "Terminator-style" ruleset games. The rulesets they put up on the Kickstarter were meant to be examples, not "this is the one static one we're working for" rulesets. Basically, there may be some Terminator games where that PVP from a clean slate takes place, but not all Dregs game will be that way.
  4. That's another thing I'm worried about - loser gets bunk after 3 months? No resources to show for all that work? And (depending on who's a part of the percentage of winners) that's most of your player base who's gotten nothing? There goes your player base after a few Campaigns.
  5. I found it a better option from the start to implement one of the higher tiers of group coordination at launch, rather than the one that is inherently the most chaotic (at least, as we understand it now). With The Infected mode (Order, Balance and Chaos duke it out), you have your three factions with large groups of players in each of them. I feel that this would be more appealing to the newcomer first off. Say I've not played any of the alpha or beta, and have just gotten into the game based on a friend's recommendation on launch day. Getting into a campaign, I already have a structure of allies and enemies in front of me. It allows me to create connections and see some of the starting guilds, while not being pigeonholed into a particular god or guild too early. My Order buddies (who I've had time to fight and craft and build with without worry they're going to backstab me) then get together and form our own guild, where we can compete with some competency in the God's Reach and The Shadow campaigns. When we finally get to the Dregs, our bonds may keep us together... or at the very least, we'll have some friends to return to after the slaughter is over. I know the more hardcore among us may enjoy the initial challenge of a no-rules, PVP free-for-all, but it may not be the best mode at launch to solidify the social aspect of the game as being core, as the development team seems to be going for. But, that's just my two cents. Edited for formatting.
  6. Definitely! Tunnel in somewhere, you may have to spend resources to reinforce your tunnel, or risk it collapsing on you if it gets too long or wide or some such thing. Likewise, undermine a structure just right... you have the whole tower you've just tunneled under come crashing down, with all of its defenders in it as well. For your benefit... or your peril, if that wasn't your goal and you're still planning on advancing. This could lead to a whole range of specialized characters who are interested in countering tunneling efforts - perhaps by building moats or creating forward tunnels to scout ahead. Or perhaps putting explosives just far enough under your fortification underground to blow up upon contact with enemy sappers without destroying your defenses...
  7. Tunnel under that stuff, undermine fortifications. Question - do we know if "collapse" physics will be in play? So when I do undermine the integrity of a structure, it'll fall apart à la Medieval Engineers rather than just hang in the air?
  8. Imagine, if you will, a campaign with the Bloodstone ruleset. After a Spring and Summer of building walls, both Order and Chaos have their own cities - but so does Balance. Balance could simply attempt to engage in combat and break up Bloodstone trips or siege enemy towns... but they, too, has trees that begin creating Bloodstones. Chaos happens to pull ahead in terms of bringing Bloodstones to their end locations, so Balance begins to funnel Bloodstones to the side of Order. Just imagine the possibilities. Does Chaos attempt to attack Balance, weakening them but creating a resource drain against Order? Could Order eventually try and attack Balance, to immediately harvest all of those precious Bloodstones by killing their trees, but losing an ally? There's just so much that could happen!
  9. I envision a few people early in the game forming specialized groups made of centaurs to act as heavy cavalry - a centaur charge that pushes enemies off of walls or cliffs or other such environmental hazards, or that could just wreck lightly armored players who are unable to get away if transporting a Bloodstone or other such items without mounts. They'd be highly specialized, but potentially very important for some instances. This'd likely be countered if, for example, the mounts stretch options are funded, but never the less, with more bulk, hit detection and the physics engine they'd be a fun tool to smash against enemy lines.
  • Create New...