Bramble

Is this still testing sessions you are logging in to, or live game play?

I agree with APE. Also, "losing" doesn't have to be not-fun. For lack of a better way to put it, the cliff-notes version would be something like: "Balance Matters". Meaning, if I'm actually IN the fight, losing isn't necessarily un-fun because I was actually engaged in the competition. Alternately, if a game is riddled with weaknesses, severe balance issues, exploits, what have you, that keeps certain players OUT of the competitions due to gear/stat tiers, stand up players vs cheat/exploiters, then losing over and over again under those conditions isn't fun and is a death-knell for many player's willingness to continue playing. Because in that kind of losing it's the game itself that's eventually recognized as the enemy. I had a Hunter in WoW and I was always a regular at responding to attack announcements on world chat. For a while there was this Druid who regularly stalked into Lakeshire to ambush players. I'd show up on an off-vector, slip into spotting position and stealth up, my Tiger stealthed, until the Druid popped out of stealth on a target. Then it was on. This went on for a couple of months, sometimes I'd die, sometimes he would. We both would experience "losing" . . . while having fun at it. He logged his Alliance alt one time to introduce himself and compliment me on how I was able to figure out his retreat path so often. Good times, "honored foes" even though pains in the neck, but . . . the game provided the platform for competition and that's what it was about. Conversely, Runes of Magic started out as a good experience for myself and some friends. Right up to when we became educated on the fallacies and exploits being worked in that game. End game enchants and enhancements able to be mounted on lowbie gear giving low level characters (alts of capped old timers and/or exploiters - item and gold dupping) absolutely ridiculous amounts of HP and power. The dev house FINALLY dropped the hammer at one point, in a rather spectacular fashion, entire guilds hearing they were about to be nuked passing out tens of thousands of gold before it hit, etc. Losing in Runes of Magic simply became a common sense reason to leave the game. There was no reason to stay anymore because the game itself, and what it allowed the unscrupulous to get away with, was the enemy. Losing is part of PvP, and not that big a deal . . . depending on what kind of losing it is, and the reasons thereof.

Ah, the good ole days of Tauren's Mill in WoW, where Raids would run a bunch of non-aggressive ALTS woven through their raid so that when the bombs started to drop, and tab targetting was flying . . . opponents would get smacked hard, raid wide, with no-no points. This doesn't bring anything IMO to the spirit of Crowfall, and is a gimmick that can be twisted and gamed by all the "clever peepls".

Unnecessary, and potentially "game-able" given the multi-account stabling that will be going on. Presence of opponents (population) in the CW is the principle catalyst for PvP, not artifically buffed character abilities. Goods and booty is also at play. IMO the original vision for the INTERLINKED roles between EKs and CWs is still valid, and attempting to blur that line (too far) is likely to generate undesirable side-effects. That said, adjustments to core dynamics between CWs and EKs is likely best deferred to, for instance, 1 year out past release when a more solid and real cross section of the community and game state can be had.

I'm in agreement with Lightsig. Basically my feeling is: Anything that diverts players from a Campaign (context is PvP activity) is bad. Anything that supports participation in CWs is good. As long as a CW is POPULATED . . . PvP will take care of itself. Population = "Signs of Life". As far as different modes of play, etc., I sort of felt the idea of LARGE, open-world environments, in a CW, would set the stage for players having the room to work that out organically. As opposed to a BG or Arena-lobby game where the entire framework of game-play participation has been shaved down to a limited set of experience possibilities, by design. Popeurban's post just up a bit outlines how a "tournament" system might could work ok, tied to CWs very specifically, and acknowledged by Lightsig. I won't be particularly happy if we end up with free-forming Arenas, BGs, etc., establishing a drain away from CWs, no matter the good intent. Instead, I'd rather see creative thought FOCUSSED on those types of avenues (if any) embodied within the open world of a CW.

Agreed.

This is not a social problem if the code is prohibiting negotiation of the issue through "physical means". The OP pointed out the code is protecting the thieves, which means it's been taken out of the hands of the players to deal with as it is happening. Do I understand this correctly? It IS A CODING PROBLEM, if the code is, by virtue of a loophole, being used to perpetrate this kind of thing. E.g. leveraging flagging protections to get away with it. ACE: If you have ANY dynamics like this, tune that up. The concept here is: In the matrix of design regarding harvesting and loot drops, there can be NO wide open mouse-hole players can drop into to get away with asset theft under the protection of coding. In my experience this usually means exploiting prohibited flagging vs versus open looting capability. Dizzy down has it's roots in the desire to prohibit people from exploiting in/out of combat (do I remember the rational for it correctly?). In a sense, a similar objective. This issue ONLY becomes a design issue IMO . . . if it's protected by the code, which would mean same-faction toons can't be attacked. This is NOT an issue at all so long as the looter can be attacked and dealt with.

And I like this one too. Great game-play thinking IMO, from both of you.

I like this answer.

There is an argument for reasonable "Push back" from the virtual world in this regard. Depending on how you look at it, NOT having BALANCED guard complements at forts/keeps is more theme-parking, as opposed to less. I'm NOT arguing to make every place 100% safe. That would be just silly. However, based on what I consider balanced experiences in another game: In AC2 there were Faction Forts out on some islands. Portals to those forts were present in each Faction's HQ. The Forts were not of course staffed by players 24/7. Most often they were near empty. The Forts DID have NPC protection stations with "auto-guns" on them. Hmmm, I don't remember how many. One for sure at the end of the bridge, land-side, and I think one over the Gates. They hit hard enough they were dang dangerous. The design intent was to PROHIBIT EZ-MODING up to the fort. Exception: There were Jump Pads available that could be used to get inside the fort, but, again, there was the gate-gun that could still, in limited fashion, fire on them if they happened to have a jump pad entry. Result: Balanced, and did enhance PvP (a lot). Upon detecting attackers and initiating fire, a faction alert was sent by the fort. If players wanted to mix it up at the fort then they had to hoof-it to the HQ and take the portal, or use their personal recall to the fort if they bound there (lots of people didn't bind to the fort). The NPC guardians provided the right amount of push-back to: 1) Disable theme-parked ez-moding entry into a fort, 2) were not overpowered, could be destroyed within a "reasonable" amount of time, and 3) Most importantly: CONTRIBUTED to generating large scale, fun, PvP engagements. As opposed to giggling-ez-mode gank circles parked around the zone-in point. Yes, "It's a PvP game". That's sort of the point. If defending players were slacking on responding quickly, they'd zone in to a captured fort and a ganking by enemy players parked around the zone in point. If defending players were snappy, they'd get to the fort in time to mix it up, have a ton of fun, maybe be successful at defense or maybe still lose it (yes, that still happened plenty of times if attackers had their shizz-whizz together. A responsive, "living, breathing, world" (use of the environment) can absolutely contribute to that. It's all in the design. "Balance Matters" though, and I am in agreement that guards shouldn't be one-shotting detected enemy players. That they should frustrate detected players solo-ing in, and be a pain in the bow-tocks . . . you betcha. Part and parcel of infiltrating an established enemy stronghold, no matter it's size. As opposed to insisting the entire scenario be theme-parked for you.

Part of the problem at the concept level is what I've been perceiving as a growing fallacy in belief and understanding: That anything "PvE" is counter to "PvP", and "gaming history has proven it . . . (then insert repeating examples that "support" said fallacy)". Given the E)nvironment is simply a tool to be wielded in service of the "roots" of a game, and is not counter to PvP to begin with, there's a misqueue going on in regards to "PvE-stuff-zors can't ever-zors be relevant to PvP". That's just nonsense. "Sticking to it's roots" . . . might be exactly the point, not that you see it. The first step is to establish RELEVANT CONTEXT: The game's intended goal / structure / target audience. Then follow with open-minded thinking that's organized and rational, considering the E)nvironment as nothing more than a world-tool and an overall game-play experience tool. 1) PvE, in form and function, will NOT be the same between games who implement / use / structure said tool . . . to serve different goals. "PvE" is NOT a draconian definition in my mind, that means only one thing. 2) PvP, in form and function, will operate somewhat differently, with varying degrees of boundaries and limitations, depending on the game. Not every PvP-centric game has been particularly good, no matter it was PvP-centric. 2A) There are different flavors for what people want in PvP: Proscribed FPS / MOBA / Arena environments where the game-play spectrum is limited to bang-bang point and shoot, to MMORPGs where you have "regulated" open world (e.g. target enemy only, not friend/same faction), to Arenas, to Battlegrounds), to FFA environments. In all cases there is a common set of environmental designs placed to provide the target audience with a recognizable framework to operate in as humans The virtual world. PVE objects, AI's, and scenarios, are nothing more than TOOLS to be wielded by dev houses. That's all. Just a tool, but a foundational one. The simulation of a virtual world within which we play. And, in my mind the importance of creative E)nvironments (more responsive, less dead/them-parked) increases if you start talking about virtual worlds looking to be larger and Open World, and less shooting-lane restricted FPS/MOBA. It's not about FPS's or MOBAs being "lesser" in nature. It's about understanding the intended application of the environment, and the objects designed to support that: The Arena/MOBA/FPS environment contains less opportunity for variance, focused on a sub-set of human-interest and capabilities. While an MMORPG is, IMO, more open, variable, and diverse. As you would expect in an Open World environment to include an economy, crafting, persistent guilds, etc. I'm in agreement you don't want to see a game "become something other than what it was "supposed" to be". Fair enough, I think we are in agreement then with the idea: Balance Matters. The Fallacy: If you take examples of "how PvE works, see there, it doesn't fit with PvP" from games designed as PvE centric, you are basically attempting to drive a flat-head screw with a phillips head. Not much relevance to the insightful concept behind Crowfall (dying worlds, eternal kingdoms). If you take examples of "how PvE can't work with PvP" from games that . . . did it poorly . . . you are attempting a long range sniper shot through the lens of a wavy glass block set in a bathroom wall. You aren't seeing clearly for all your belief your experiences in other games is the standard for what that means everywhere. If you see "PvE" as an arbitrary set of conditions counter to the HUMAN EXPERIENCE of PvP . . . you've got a tired, worn out, calcified and inflexible mind set to start breaking free from. You are limiting yourself and what modes of creativity you may have. The E)nvironment is what the devs make it. So it goes without saying it needs to be made corretly for Crowfall. No differently than PvP needs to be made properly for any game that supports it. But to understand what "PvE" means for Crowfall, you first need to stop looking through a wavy glass block thinking you are seeing things clearly. Assuming Crowfall will not be an Arena-lobby queue'd game, we should all expect, without question, that "PvE" shall truly be a big part of the long-term health of the game. But you have to be wise enough to understand the CONTEXT of that, and what the philosophy and critical-thinking pathways are to Form and Function to serve a goal.

I don't care for the idea of "Open World Events" that are organized and world-announced. It (to me) detracts from the idea of CF and what the CWs are supposed to be, and makes it too easy for account-stablers working / playing all sides of events for farming purposes. I AM more in favor of the "living world" concept where artifacts / resources / and, potentially "events" might be found or triggered . . . by exploring players out on the map where PvP lives. In other words: less arena-esque theme-parking, more embedding into the world-artifacts for the players to randomly find as the world is explored. I gave a suggestion once that illustrates one potential aspect of this: Archaeology Digs, leveraging voxels for the excavation/uncovering process. The idea is to have something "hidden", or perhaps subtle queues something might be there (e.g. part of a statue / rubble sticking up out of the ground, and by virtue of some investigation "Ancient Ruins" are discovered). Which then has to be excavated and cleared to see what might be there. Functionally these would be stocked with some amount of resources/goods/finds that then have to be packed out and transported safely. Again, all of that activity occurring in the open-world pvp environment. Not scheduled or announced. Generated/found as a result of player exploration of the map, as opposed to fish-food dropped into the tank by a GM. it's at this point imagination could take that in all sorts of directions, from having different tiers of ruins, doors that might have to be broken down or lockpicked open, or spawned guardians to be defeated, etc. Taking the concept sideways, we might imagine (for instance) a tribe of natives on the dying worlds (npcs). Friendly? Hostile? willing to negotiate? scared/mad at you?, and based on some kind of player vs NPC cultural interaction . . . a particular "world event" might initiate: Say the tribe goes bonkers over discovering YOU, the invaders, who have "clearly" caused the end of the world . . . you beady-eyed, double-talking demons you . . . and what ensues is a World Event made up of the Tribe going on the attack across the maps. You defend your places, defeat the enemy (npc), along with whatever chaos ensues between all the real player guilds, etc. . . . and some form of goods/materials/items might be gleaned from the ruins of their villages. I would only envision active NPC encounters like this as being rare. What I've outlined is the flavor of how one might construct "PvE Events" in the spirit of the living-breathing-but-dying world more in line with what CF is in my mind. That more enhances the world environment itself for the sake of diversity and interest, while not acting as an open-door to diluting PvP focus. In all cases the idea here is these are aspects of the Conflict WORLD for players to discover (meaning there is an element of randomness to triggering/finding them) . . then work out . . . on the PvP map. My .02 anyway.

The point to the dynamic is to provide another, of several, OPPORTUNITIES for something to fight over. After that it's up to the human players, which is as it should be. I prefer the environment provides the opportunities for consumption (or not) by players, as opposed to yet another theme-parked environment structured to feed short-attention spanners. Necessity is the Mother of Invention: If guard duty is boring for you, then don't do it. If no one is attacking caravans, then individuals & guilds won't bother with guards. There will be no need with the only ones bored being the drivers. If caravans are being attacked and looted, guilds and individuals will either 1) take the losses and continue to not staff them with guards, or 2) Protect their caravans because of the need for the goods, with the secondary effect of keeping things lively as opposed to boring due to the action. In my experience in Archeage, screwing around with caravans was a passionate affair in-game. Unfortunately for Archeage the "passion" was exclusively centered around PvP oriented players coasting on sloppy coding by XLG to engage i n code protected blockades in Safe Zones. Apart from intercontinental sea runs, while that was happening mind you. My point here is: In Archeage the dynamic was perverted due to game structure (vehicles with collision detection ON, but not movable = an invulnerable blockade object that can't be attacked in safe zones, and no flagging possible by players). In CF that fallacy won't exist. In short: Trade route running proved to be a core activity in Archeage, along with "Pirates" mucking with them. I see no reason pack-running won't be an active and dynamic activity on both sides of the equation, periods of boredom notwithstanding.

Except the vision for the game never was for "levelling your skill or character" as a core game play goal. It was engaging with other players in a CW.

I forget the game. Hmmm, maybe Vanguard? Instead of a self-invoked recall/unstick, they had "Rope" I think it was. The trick was someone ELSE had to get to an LOS point to you I think it was and toss the rope to you. You'd pop to them. Limited distance of course. ?