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

Katzemensch

Testers
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Katzemensch

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Language
    English

Recent Profile Visitors

773 profile views
  1. I don't see why the skill climb is seen as some off-putting facet of the game. EVE Online has a similar thing, and I don't think I've ever heard someone say that the idea that people who have been playing for years have much higher skills, and deal a lot more damage with the same ships (as well as having access to much bigger ships) was a deterrent to play. There are other reasons that people choose to avoid EVE, but the skill climb isn't one of them. Crowfall is heavily teamwork-focused. The idea of going into a contested area and fighting one-on-one is foolhardy. I'm expecting that even solo resource collection would be risky, when getting a few other players to come help harvest will fill up your pack pig faster than doing it solo, as well as providing some extra defense. When it comes down to it, a 5-on-1 fight is going to be death for the solo, regardless of which side are the veterans and which side are the rookies. Beyond that, though, the newbies are going to be mixed in with the long-time players on each side. It's not going to be a never-ending steamroller of one side's veterans grinding an opposing team of all rookies to paste - those rookies are going to be working with veterans. The veterans can show them the ropes, let them work on tasks where their lack of skills isn't as much of an issue, and help them get equipment.
  2. Good day, fellow Crows. I have a few questions about the unearthly rewards that are waiting for me. First, with regard to Beta Access, there's some unclear text in the Entitlements list. In the order listed in the Entitlement page, I have: Play Test SP Access Entitlement play-test-6 Play Test 3 Participant Play Test 2 Access Participant Beta 2 Play Test 3 Access Entitlement play-test-5 Beta Group 2 play-test-4 Beta Group 6 As you can see, the wording is all over the place, inconsistent in the extreme. On top of that, I've got a few that SEEM to be the same thing... but because of the inconsistent wording, I can't tell. Are any of these Alpha access? Are play-test-6 and Beta Group 6 the same thing? What's the difference between Play Test 3 Participant and Play Test 3 Access Participant? Beta 2 vs. Beta Group 2? On a similar matter (but slightly more clear), there's the Parcels available to me. I have (in alphabetical order): [Testing Copy] Cottage [Testing Copy] Fort Lodge [Testing Copy] Parcel Shire Rank 1 [Testing Copy] Small Fort Pack [Testing Copy] Lodge Accessory Pack [Testing Copy] Woodland Grove Parcel [Testing Copy] Woodland Hills Parcel [Testing Copy] Woodland Stream Parcel Farmland Parcel (standard) Woodland Grove Parcel (rank 1) If I understand this correctly, the only parcels I'll have when the game launches are the Farmland and Woodland Grove parcels, and the rest are only for playtesting purposes, correct? What is the difference between a "Standard" parcel and a "rank 1" parcel? Does that imply that the Woodland Grove can be improved? It should be obvious that I think that the Entitlements list should be better organized and more consistent in wording for similar things. =¬_¬=
  3. Too hardcore for some. Not hardcore enough for others. "Just right" hardcore for... either everyone or nobody.
  4. I've just gotten off work, so forgive me if I'm going over some items that have already been discussed. First, a LOT of the things being discussed could, and in some cases should, be determined by what sort of Campaign we're talking about. If we're talking about griefing in a Dregs world, for example, things that are expressly against the Terms of Service are griefing - whether that's racist/sexist chat, spamming chat repeatedly, and so on. Anything that isn't against the Terms of Service is fair play. Break open someone else's Chests to steal their goodies. Kill them to get their loot. Kill them repeatedly over the course of an evening. All of this is fair game. But if we were talking about a different rule-set - say, God's Reach - people who are in your own faction should be near-untouchable. Can't take their stuff without permission. Can't attack and kill them. You're already going to have some cooperation and collusion, as well as betrayals and backstabbing, from different factions. At some point, though, people are going to want to have some people that they can trust without being part of their guild before-hand. As such, finding some way to get around those restrictions should be considered griefing or violation of TOS. Note, however, that gaining someone's trust, getting them to allow you into their belongings, and then betraying them would not be griefing. This is pretty much how I see different Campaigns - each Campaign is its own world, and things that happened in a campaign a month ago should not necessarily be tied to the campaign I'm in today. I think of it in the same way that board gaming works - while you can keep a player's style in mind, you don't hold grudges from one game to the next. If I sided with the guild, War Nerds, back then, that shouldn't mean that I'm required, or even expected, to be on their side now. Similarly, if I found a deal to betray my team last month, that doesn't mean that I'm going to betray whoever I join this time, especially if it's a completely different rule-set. Players should have some opportunity to spread their wings, push the limits, without having it stain them forever. Which leads into my thoughts about API access. While I don't really have any strong opinion on whether player stats should be publicly visible, I do think that out-of-campaign data - that is, someone's account name, other characters, Eternal Kingdoms information, and so on - should be off-limits. If you want people to know that information, you can share it personally, rather than having it spammed out to the masses. That said, I think that to what degree API data is available can alter a game significantly, so with that in mind, I think that API data should be something that can vary from Campaign to Campaign. In some Campaigns, everyone can see everything - if they Inspect you, they can see exactly what armor and weapon you've got, who your guild is, and so on. In other campaigns, they can only see limited data - what class of armor and weapon, but no specific details; what faction, but not what guild; that sort of thing. And in another type of campaign, you can't get any extra data besides what your eyes see - Inspecting someone has no function. On the whole, I think I agree with Doc Gonzo's point, in that information is power, and shouldn't just be freely given to everyone who looks at you. On to another important matter: Player Tribunals and other "Justice" systems. I agree that letting the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea - it results in "might makes right" power struggles. And I think that having paid GMs is the far opposite end of the spectrum - because of the employment costs of having too many people, that can result in a distorted situation, as well. So the best solution is probably something that combines both. League of Legends had a good idea with their system, but I think they got it backwards - rather than having a GM pre-screen the events before passing it over to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should be the first step, with a GM overseeing the final result - if the Tribunal votes for "Not Guilty," the GMs don't even need to see the charge, other than having it as a permanent mark on the person's internal history. If it results in a "Guilty" verdict, then the GM steps in to make a determination on appropriate punishment. In order to prevent too much gaming of the system, you put in the following restrictions: Any fellow guild-members of the accused are disqualified from being called for the Tribunal. People who have characters in the same current Campaign as the accused character are also disqualified. This drastically reduces the number of people who would have a direct conflict of interest in voting one way or the other. It's also a good idea that people who consistently vote the same way regardless of details or circumstances gradually lose their Tribunal eligibility - people who ONLY vote for Guilty (and those who only vote for Not Guilty) aren't actually taking the matter seriously, and shouldn't be judging in a Tribunal. Alternately, people who regularly vote the opposite of the final vote can be pushed out of the Tribunal pool. There are other ways to do it, of course - rather than having the entire player base be possible Tribunal judges, make there some condition - being nominated by a GM, having a high Likes-per-Post balance in the Forums, or anything else that is considered to be a good community member. But I believe that having the player base be the first look at any reported abuses or griefing would be a very effective and reliable way to keep the actual GMs from being overburdened, without having the GM employee budget be excessively spendy. And, if so inclined, you could use "Not Guilty" verdicts as a control on the people who are trolling by making bad reports - if someone has submitted a significant number of reports that result in Not Guilty, they start getting progressively larger punishments. 5 NGs (or five more NGs than Gs) = blocked from the game for a day, for example. There are so many different ways that the game's rules can be altered by making it part of the Campaign Rules, I think the fact that it's been mostly ignored in this discussion is an important, and tragic, omission.
  5. *shrug* What can I say? I generally try to avoid speaking in absolutes.
  6. Two points here. First: the idea that a multiplayer game is completely separated from real life is a really bad idea that just needs to die. This isn't a single-player game where there are no consequences, no long-term effects for what happens. Your corpse-camping someone essentially means that they're completely unable to play the game until you stop. If that happens often enough, people will just stop playing the game. You say, "Run them out of the game." If this is really part of your idea of what PvP should be, I think you're going to be in for a rude awakening sooner or later. Players who drive other players out of the game are killing the game. And sooner or later, either the game's owners are going to kick you out (as well as anyone else that is actively trying to drive other players off), or the game will die. Seriously, it's like you think that there's some magical wall that makes anything valid in PvP. If you think that corpse-camping is fine, why not take it an extra step and DDOS them? That'll keep them from coming back to the fight, right? How about doxing them, so that they're too busy dealing with death threats to play? Maybe going to their house and breaking their computer with a sledge-hammer? It's all fair game... it's just PvP, right? The point is, there's lines of good gamesmanship. You kill someone, fine. That's part of the game. Teabagging them is just being juvenile, and serves nothing but your own ego. Camping them is fundamentally denying them their ability to play. These are beyond good gamesmanship.
  7. There are FAR too many unfounded assumptions here. First is that there's a casting timer at all. We don't know enough about the casting systems yet to make that assumption. It's very possible that some spells will have no casting timer, some have short casting timers, and some have long casting timers. A mage relying on long casting timers when being attacked by multiple foes is engaging in some seriously bad planning. Second is that if there is a casting timer, that being hit will completely reset the timer. We've seen plenty of other games where damage can reduce the casting bar, but often with these, you also have diminishing returns - hitting a mage with a super-fast, low-damage attack may not be able to prevent them from casting, just make the spell take a bit longer. Third is your idea that mages are going to be all "cloth with low HP." Even if we assume that Mages are fragile, flimsy, and poorly armored (another unfounded assumption, at this point), that just means that Mages will find friends to stay with, to be their "tank" while they cast on you from range. Fourth, even if we accept the 5-on-1 scenario, the idea that the Mage would stick around to try to fight instead of trying to escape is really unreasonable. If the mage is outnumbered, outgunned, and can't run away, the best option is to simply stop fighting and get the death over with as fast as possible, so he/she can go back to camp and warn their team/guild. Fifth, the 5-on-1 is an amusingly stacked deck. How does the opposite one look - 5 Mages on 1 armored Knight? Something tells me that Knight is going to be just as dead as the Mage in the 5-tanks-on-1-mage scenario. Numerical advantage makes the entire heming and hawing about classes irrelevant. How about 5 Forgemasters on an Assassin? 5 Stalkers on a Ranger? 5 Druids on a Templar? In all of these cases, the idea that the 1 is going to win is an extreme long-shot. Seriously, your entire argument is shallow and based on some pretty broad assumptions that are probably fundamentally flawed in the first place.
  8. All right, who reserved Studmuffin and MrBeefcake? Fess up.
  9. A couple of thoughts here, sorry if they're a little slow in coming. While I agree that UO was largely traveling in uncharted waters, saying that it had no precedent, and no way to predict players' behavior, is wrong. UO (and EQ after it) was an evolution of gameplay that existed in MUDs (text-based "Multi-User Dungeons"). There were MUDs before UO came out that had player-vs-player content, and even a few that had permadeath. It should come as no surprise to anyone at this point that there was a small but very visible group of players in those MUDs who sought out other players to kill - and, even there, the new players were the biggest targets. People who didn't understand the rules yet, couldn't possibly be any threat to their attacker, and who the attacker could destroy or even extinguish from the game. Later MUDs with a PvP aspect gave "newbie protection," which did nothing but move the bar of where and when the griefers laid in wait for victims. When one player has +5 plate armor, a legendary weapon, and a 20-level advantage over his victim wearing +1 chain and low-end weaponry, the results were, and are, obvious and predictable. Killing other players is one thing. Attempting to destroy any enjoyment in the game is another. The latter is ultimately destructive for the game itself, because every game - every game - requires fresh blood from new players. If you've got a portion of the player base that is extinguishing the new players and driving them away, the game will die. It's a complicated case, but it's not just a matter of "volunteering." When people doing work for your company are given expectations of number of hours worked per week, targeted performance goals, and (in the UO court case) managerial duties over other people, it's a bit hollow to say that they're "volunteers." UO and EQ both learned a bitter lesson - if you want to have people do work for you without payment, you can't set your expectation bar too high on how and when those people do work for you. UO's "Counselor" program managed to somewhat avoid part of that - in, from what I understand, Counselors were not given targeted "hours per week" or specific work hours (perhaps you can give us some insight on this, Lamdred?). EQ, on the other hand, got burned much harder, because they were dictating what were essentially part-time jobs, and paying people a pittance (free accounts) for it. I'm a Moderator on another site, and I'm a volunteer. One of the nice things about being a volunteer is that if I don't feel up to dealing with the misanthropes that crawl out of the shadows of the internet to troll our site, I don't have to. My work at the position is when I want, how I want, and to the degree I want. There have been a few times where I've barely even logged on to the site for over a week. There are other people who still have Moderator titles who haven't performed any Moderation "duties" in several years, but still hold the titles (at least in part) because they're considered valuable members of the site's community. You get what you pay for. If you want dedicated, effective, reliable employees, don't go calling for volunteers to fill the role. When the government comes looking, they won't be looking at the title you give a role, they'll be looking at what expectations and demands you make for that role. Video games and gaming web sites aren't the only area of the world that has been dealing with this. It's worth noting that the elements of the Fair Standards Labor Act (the one dealing with what exactly a volunteer is) to determine if a job truly is a volunteer position are: Far too many companies only look at point 1, and end up violating point 3. If you tell people, "You need to put in 10 hours a week, or we're going to drop you from the volunteer program," you're effectively trying to have employees without paying them properly.
  10. This thread brought to you by the Grass is Always Greener contingent, who start speaking up ~15 seconds after anything new is announced... There are advantages to being a Centaur, just as there are advantages to not being a Centaur. One of the big advantages of a Centaur is not needing a Riding skill and a mount to move at Mounted speeds - no time spent leveling up Mount Riding, no time spent finding, catching, and taming a mount to ride. There will also be some racial-based skills - Centaurs might have higher starting STR, higher starting Archery skill (or an overall boost to Archery, both base and max), perhaps some benefit in Mount Taming (as they can commune with horses naturally, in theory), no need to learn any Mounted Combat skill (if such exists). There being mounts in the game is far from a reason to NOT be a Centaur. Make a decision once you know what the actual strengths and weaknesses of the various races are, rather than railing against one bullet point of data.
  11. If I remember correctly, the Devs have said that the passive skilling has a limit to how high it can go, with it requiring the hard work of going out and using the skill actively to get a skill to 100 (to say nothing of getting to 150 or 175!).
  12. I'm willing to bet that if Knights don't have Spears as a default weapon choice, that it'll be something that you can choose to unlock.
  13. Sounds reasonable. Since it's an open secret that this game is loosely being based on Shadowbane, I guess the big question at this time, is how was combat in Shadowbane? Could you three-hit an enemy from stealth? My biggest concern is it being too much like WoW and other MUD-based MMOs, where you end up feeling like you've got plastic swords and rubber arrows, with how much effort it takes to kill someone else.
  14. As Torn says, you can't really declare that fast combat has no skills, or less skills. Most FPS and MOBA games have combat that can result in attack-to-death times of less than half a second, and you can't really say that people who play LoL, TF2, Planetside, or Call of Duty aren't using any skills. But stepping away from that for a moment, I'd like to point out that we've got two separate pairs of things to consider here - the first is player skill vs. character skill, and the second is reality vs. game. The first is easy to explain - the characters have some skills (active or passive), and the players have skills in how to use those skills. The second is a little more complex, but possibly more important in the long term. If we have a situation where you've got a defensive team with 40 organized, coordinated Archers standing on the roof of their Keep, and they fire a volley of arrows at an approaching army, what should happen? Are we expecting a World of Warcraft moment where the falling barrage of arrows is just a temporary annoyance that is unlikely to kill anyone? Or do we want it to be more realistic, and kill some of the approaching soldiers? Similarly, if I fire a smoking, magically-explosive ball out of a catapult and it hits the enemy fortress, I'm pretty sure we're going to want to see a gaping hole in the fortress, but will it kill - or even seriously injure - enemy combatants who are close to the detonation point? For a one-on-one fight, do you really want to be rapping keys for half a minute to finish off your opponent? Those swords don't seem very sharp or powerful, from here... But more to the point, if you're wandering out in the wilderness by yourself, it doesn't matter if you get one-shot killed by an assassin or sniper, or get ambushed by a trio of enemy players - either way, you're dead with no real chance of winning that fight, or even severely damaging the others. The Devs have already made it pretty clear that solo play is going to be very risky - while the monsters in the Spring might be easily handled by a Soldier trotting around, by Fall they're going to be a serious threat, possibly even to larger teams. They're not going to try to balance the game's skills and power levels by comparing one-on-one fights. If you're found by the enemy when you're out in the open by yourself, you should just be dead, period. Realistically, arrows and artillery (and magic, probably) should be serious threats to anyone at range; conversely, they'll be in serious danger if the infantry grunts can get in close to them. Having the game water down lethal weaponry just to prolong combat seems to go against some of the core concepts of Crowfall, to me.
×
×
  • Create New...