Bramble

I thought we, the players, would figure out what our "old player experience" was supposed to be . . . in the sandbox . . . as opposed to the dev house themeparking that based on a (more, as opposed to less) scripted lane-feed. The CWs should be large enough to support/allow all playstyles, without being so large groups become superfluous and without being so small any "solo" activity of any kind is simply impossible. Conquest of the CW through it's lifespan was, generally, the scoreboard goal, if you will, with the ebb and flow, back and forth of competative activity within that CW organ

With what we know of how the game will play today, this is the most practical/reasonable expectation or plan I've seen. The ability for this to happen (to reasonable degree) will be, without fail, allowed or disallowed based on the SIZE and configurations of the CW worlds. It's not uncommon (in other MMOs) to have PvP centric players turn their backs on wide-open Open PvP Zones in favor of perching at entrances to cities or zones or outposts or rezz points. If you were to overfly the maps taking Infrared panoramic photos of the landscape, what you'd see is huge open spaces in the Op

2. OK. 4. Correct, it is about PvP. 6. There is a massive amount of "PvE" to Crowfall. The trick here is that far, far too much of the MMORPG community have been programmed into a box intellectually when they try to think about the E)nvironment . . . and invariably fall into a binary mental rut in regards to the idea of the E)nvironment. When we talk Crowfall 'PvE" no one should be blindly shovelling over into that domain the same, tired, boxlike paradigms . . . that don't apply. Because this is Crowfall, not WoW, not Archeage, Not LOTRO, etc. Not everyone believes "PvE" is

1) The point is to allow P)layer vs P)layer to exist in the first place, not P)layer vs L)evel or G)rind / T)raining. 2) To accomplish this, the entire scaling of power/dominance has to be a gentle gradient bounded by lowbs still capable of being dangerous to "Vets" at the other end, while also allowing Vets their advantages. e.g. "Advantage" does not have to be synonymous with untouchable Vets. Just as a Lowb should be very wary of a Vet 1v1, a Vet should be wary of taking on too many "lowbs" (whatever "many" is). Risk and Danger at both ends of the scale. 3) "The Grind", or

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 fo

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 cros

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

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

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

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 s