ACE Investor & Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Duffy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Guild
    Corvus Citadel
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,038 profile views
  1. @Cosian Have you looked at Chaos lately? People are leaving it in droves. But even then we’re talking test conditions among diehards, not a realistic view of release conditions. Some correction will happen among the diehards (most of us), but the general populace is susceptible to the pressure of picking a winning side. If you think the majority of the population is gonna correct itself just to have a good match versus win tangible rewards - I disagree. Most people want the carrot of winning prizes, maybe certain campaign styles will have player corrected balance by virtue of a highly restrictive or no carry over rule set, but those will probably not be the greatest draw for players. @Ardrea I do not advocate for any side switching mid campaign, that’s a no - no. I don’t have a solution to the problem given the resetting nature of campaigns and faction allegiance. What I can think of so far is too gameable.
  2. The problem with imbalanced factions is usually more to do with bandwagoning and we’re already seeing it in these test runs. After a couple losses folks head for the winning side - it’s just a fact of human nature (worse they sometimes just quit). The average person wants to win and the won’t play the side they think is doomed to losing. How do you combat that? How do you make folks switch to the current weak side to rebalance faction numbers without imbalancing the overall game?
  3. [=CC=] Corvus Citadel

    The Citadel is growing! If you're looking for a home on Chaos swing by our discord and say hello!
  4. Again, the whole point of the nobs and levers approach is to build out various CWs with different rule-sets, specifically to cater to the different preferences without pinning the entire thing on a single audience's very niche preferences. Even EVE, one of if not the biggest hallmark cutthroat game, is scrambling behind the scenes to keep it's audience, fight stagnation, and justify it's expenditures. To that end they've been slowly softening the rougher edges; and honestly they always had relatively safer spaces to get your bearings concerning the game to begin with. Because honestly, those looking for the most punishing PvP MMO are not a big enough audience to justify producing and running one at the production levels we want. We just aren't a big enough audience. Just go look around, how many of that sort of game are doing well? Surviving? Much less actually thriving? They're not. If the money was there someone would be chasing it, but they're not, because it's just not there. Maybe once the audience was big enough to support a few games, but the production costs have steadily increased over time while the audience has either stayed the same size or shrunk. Crowfall's entire CW shtick is built around mitigating the limited audience problem and pulling in as many people as it can (that are interested in the core premise of a PvP MMO) with the hopes that once they're in they can find the level of mechanics they're comfortable with (and maybe explore new ones) and still belong to and have an effect on the game's community.
  5. The multiple rulesets allows them plenty of room to toy with the different configurations and we already know from previous statements and this very article that the rules will differ from CW to CW. Setting up a more punishing CW should be trivially easy (and it will be a niche CW). But since the game can arguably live without catering to one specific ruleset's audience, it ultimately shouldn't matter much as long as the mechanics are setup as nobs and switches they can fiddle with when setting up new campaigns.
  6. How do i change my guild's crest?

    I followed the link on my phone to create the guild and did not notice anything about the crest creation until after the guild was made but the interface on the phone was unusable. Later when I had some time I went to make it on my desktop, however I can't access the crest UI via my desktop browser.
  7. [=CC=] Corvus Citadel

    Still growing, wave if you see us in the test campaigns!
  8. Most of it was pretty good, nice job! The race trees on the other hand, not feeling so great about. Might need to see more details before a real critique, but from what we saw it looks like the result is gonna be simpler decision making for building characters and/or some training taxes. Still happy they seem to have dropped the Vessel upgrade line, that was a good move.
  9. Potential Botting Issues

    Maybe I'm confused then, as you quoted my entire previous reply and stated "This is incorrect.", that seems to imply some sort of disconnect between the differences of your local machine's performance versus the server's performance and how that interacts with everything. Usually the higher the skill ceiling of the game via movement and targeting mechanics the less concurrent players can have optimal performance for a given piece of server hardware due to the added communication overhead. As you reduce the skill mechanics the number of concurrent players increases for the same piece of hardware. Optimizing local client behavior is another layer of performance optimization on top of that, but it's also finickier because people will have different hardware. Technically the client somewhat fakes what you see and if there's delays in the server's ability to process and relay commands you will experience desync issues, rubber-banding is one of the most common problems. Sometimes the desync is subtler such as getting hit even though you think no one is quite in range. This of course is impacted by both your ping to the server and the server's workload itself, both can create the effect as they both amount to delayed processing. In the former case only the individual would experience the issue whereas in the latter case it would impact everyone connected to that server. So are we actually agreeing that it is a balancing act between the two different areas of optimization? I focused on the server side as that is one of the reasons tab targeting vs. twitch combat was a popular choice for MMOs. In an ideal world when optimizing for large fights you'll want your server performance to degrade before your local client does (at least for a target client spec), the likely hood of that occurring entirely depends on how intensive your graphics end up being comparatively. tl;dr: it's a giant complicated pain to balance out the various aspects that impact performance and at any particular moment the source of performance degradation can originate due to local client issues, server issues, or a combination of both depending on various factors and target performance specs.
  10. Potential Botting Issues

    Yes, that is a series of local client problems and all of that does play a huge factor on your experience, but it doesn't impact the server and the server can and will be a potential bottleneck depending on how much communication is required. Even in a fairly well optimized game the server is still the bottleneck when you start adding more connections to the pool. You seem to be implying the server is never a major bottleneck for processing large fights, that is most assuredly not true.
  11. Potential Botting Issues

    GPU limitations are a local performance problem not a server problem, turning down the graphics will impact your performance but has little impact on the server itself (at least in a way beneficial to the server, it can be beneficial to you). The server is handling processing and verifying every command issued by the clients (never trust the client), when that load gets too big your experience will degrade regardless of your graphics settings. You can fix your personal side of the equation in various ways, but nothing you do will solve the server limitations. EVE used a novel solution to the problem with their Time Dilation mechanic, by reducing the tick speed they created a version of a controlled slow motion effect to stabilize performance when too many clients were engaged on a particular server cluster. When you reach that point you have two options: more hardware or less processing. They can only dynamically allocate resources up to the actual physical limitations of a particular machine (paralleling something like a game's main loop is pretty damn close to impossible), once you start to hit the limits of the box you start slowing down processing, which is gonna happen anyways due to a backed up queue, you mind as well control it so the better option is slow down the processing.
  12. Potential Botting Issues

    Generally not that relevant unless the engagement is spread out enough far enough that different hardware is handling the overhead. the primary performance issue is communicating all the information between the server and the connected clients. The specific mechanics in play strongly effect that overhead cost, that's typically why you don't see FPS games go past 64 players max.
  13. Potential Botting Issues

    Just a note: The high/low skill mechanics isn't always a choice of 'flavor' or 'preference', in MMOs they are often picked for primarily technical reasons, mainly how well they scale for target encounter sizes. In simpler terms it usually boils down to something like a choice between fluidly supporting 100 players fighting in an area or supporting 30 (made up numbers).
  14. Forum signature images

    Issue seems resolved for me, thanks!
  15. ALT prevention

    Well of course, that is literally the epitome of competition. Artificially limiting yourself is playing sub-optimally, which is choosing to play poorly. It's like someone complaining about the guy spamming throws in a fighting game as cheap because the 'not so good' player keeps running into them. It's not cheap, it's the way to beat your opponent. If throws are all around the superior and un-defeatable option mechanically and it simplifies the game's competitive state, then it's a problem with the game. MMOs are of course not nearly as simple an example, but the basic premise is the same: if something is good and improves your situation without breaking the 'rules', you should use it. Alts usually fall into that category. I would be fine with alts going away because I think it makes the game better all around, but if they stick around I'm not gonna avoid them out of some sort of 'moral pretense', that's just silly. Refusing to do so is playing the game by a set of arbitrary self-constraining rules, which is playing to lose if your opponents aren't also playing by those rules. Ergo, not playing the same game. Which is really the heart of the alt problem, due to the inability to spend more money some players may not be playing the same game by the same rules. The active ones are running through stockpiled time since it doesn't really hurt at all to do so, I wouldn't really call logging in once a month for a few minutes here and there 'playing' either.