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

regicider8

Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About regicider8

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Vague things.
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oouh Ess Ahh
  1. I just assumed that due to the individual nature of the Dregs, that the rulesets would also be individual. I also just assumed that players wouldn't build castles and cities. I guess that assumption was wrong. This was helpful. ACE should really talk about Dregs rulesets to clarify this.
  2. That's what I assumed Shadow would be, but I guess I just haven't found any information that would point towards Dregs having GvG victory conditions. Thanks for the clarification. Gotcha. This is what I was thinking.
  3. Pardon me, but I'm still confused by this... Why would any guild ever play on the dregs if its ffa? I can understand if its something friends do for fun every once in a while, but why create a guild to specifically play on the dregs? It seems like the shadow would be the best place for guilds considering its tailored for them. Solo PvPers might as well just not join a guild at all, you know? Is there some kind of unspoken agreement that the dregs would become the home of PvPers so they can just ignore the EKs or something?
  4. EKs might just be that means to an end, while also being the endgame. (This is from the Characters&Advancements FAQ, by the way.) 5. How does character advancement work?Crowfall uses a skill-based system to resolve in-game actions. Characters do not have discrete “levels” like most traditional MMOs. This means that there are MANY potential ways to advance your character at any given time. There are two ways that a character can increase his or her skills: passive training (in a method similar to “Eve Online”) and active training (i.e. doing things in game). Active training can help you get a jumpstart on a new skill, but it can only get you basic competency. The primary method of increasing your skills is passive training. Whether or not passive training will be the primary method of advancement because it is technically more efficient(you might be offline more often than online) or not is still a little ambiguous. But, if EK buildings and such will be the way to further increase this passive training rate, then you could consider EKs as an important part of the game. If this assumption is correct, then campaigns would be for EK progression, while EKs are for player progression. Just a thought.
  5. Maybe your prediction is right, it's at least a good concern. Inflation is always a problem in an mmo, and I can't see why Thralls wouldn't also be affected by it. That is if, of course, ACE doesn't give them a limited amount of time until they disappear without use, like you stated. Still not completely sure they'd become the staple meta though, but I'm okay with seeing 700 Thralls fight another 700 Thralls. For the first time, at least.
  6. I can see them becoming a force multiplier of sorts, kind of like a summon in any FF game. I think that would add some interesting strategic options/make for some interesting scenarios. That would be my reason for adding in Combat Thralls (I think you were okay with Venders and Craftsmen though?). I don't think Thralls will become the "new meta", if that's what you're worried about. Player interactions seem to be the highlight of the CF experience, as they will be the driving force behind all gameplay.
  7. Interesting that you chose to attack my description of a Campaign being similar to a match in a MOBA, but not my description of it as a match in an RTS. I guess I just don't define a MOBA as a game where "you cannot choose between a bunch of premade characters customize your character (I think this is what you meant), Don't have persistent characters, where fights don't lasts 4000 times longer, where you can't build and destroy, where the "arena" isn't a thousand times bigger, where you do fight from the minute you log in til it's over, where you don't have to gather resouces and actually craft". When I was referring to a Campaign being similar to a match in a MOBA, I was thinking something along the lines of SMITE(if that helps clarify my thought), just with all of those aspects you described. To be fair, I shouldn't really say it is similar to a MOBA. I was more referring to the lack of continuation after said match, like my description in RTS, but thought the control of a specific unit in a very tactical game would better describe the idea behind a Campaign. And yes, everything is just a minecraft ripoff. You brought up a good point: Downtime. I think this could definitely lead to a lot of emergent gameplay from a design perspective. Because groups won't have to focus 100% of their time and attention completing the objective, they won't necessarily see all others as enemies. They would be able to create their own goals in terms of resource collection, city building, invading, etc, until they turn their attention towards objectives. Who knows, a group could even forfeit a few VPs(or the equivalent) to focus more on an advantage in the long run. I like this a lot. I mean, with the claim that it's, "like Game of Thrones meets EVE Online" and with the "Uncle Bob" scenario, I thought it would be suitable. Though I do understand your point. I probably won't be making any decisions in terms of long-term strategy, but it's always nice to dream/lie to yourself.
  8. I agree, I think MOBA is definitely where Crowfall can go, if it's not there already. I guess it would be better to compare a campaign to a long MOBA match than anything, so adding some sort of metagame would definitely push it more towards "Game of Thrones meets EVE Online". "Long-term sovereignty mechanic" would fit the bill nicely. Something like this, perhaps? This is a fair point, and the more I think about it and read other threads, maybe meaningful diplomacy will be a key part to each campaign. I guess it also depends on what "Kneeling" does and the consequences of it. It could mean an early surrender option, or a subjugation option, in my eyes. Of course, it could also change per campaign.
  9. I hope Crowfall implements macro well, though I think it relies more on player initiative than anything. Having strategic points/advantageous territory seems at least implied for some campaign rulesets, but we'll see how logistics and all that work out in Campaigns. I understand that the point of campaigns was to create new and interesting scenarios, but I don't see the point of including the current EKs if they do not contribute to the main gameplay of the game(as in campaigns). The fealty system they put into EKs is really interesting, but how is it practical/advantageous to use? If EKs are just glorified player housing/lobbies, I think there is a lot of unused potential. When you say politics, what do you mean exactly? I can't see politics mattering much in campaigns, but maybe in EKs? I'd like to hear your ideas on this. Also, why can't the journey and the destination be important? I agree, and I think this is where Crowfall is going. I do wonder how/if they will combine the "deep politics involved in a player run environment" and "being able to build your own fort knox". Stronghold is a good example of how certain fortification designs can greatly advantage the defender, and I hope to see this in Campaigns. I'm not sure about the point in EKs though, as they can't be attacked.
  10. Disclaimer: I will admit, I'm not the most avid player of MMOs. I've only ever played F2P MMOs, SWG, and RS(of all things), and even then I've only ever been a solo player, so I am by far not nearly as knowledgeable on the subject matter as some on here. However, I have played quite a few strategy games. From my time on the forums, I've noticed that people have very different expectations from this game. Even with the Dev videos and the FAQs, people still have differing opinions. Well, why is that? The selling point of the game is this "mix between strategy and MMORPG", stating, "it's like Game of Thrones meets EVE Online". Well, what comes to mind when you hear Game of Thrones and EVE online? For Game of Thrones, I imagine an ever more complicated conflict between multiple individuals and factions to rule the Seven Kingdoms, full of intrigue, plotting, diplomacy, and war. For EVE Online, I imagine the various Player-run MegaCorps vying for advantage over one another, through intrigue, plotting, diplomacy, and war. For the most part, I assume this is the same for everyone, as these aspects make each of those subjects interesting and stand out. ACE certainly seems to be heading in this direction, as there are Campaigns (which tests a group's/organization's ability to accomplish an objective to gain resources) and Eternal Kingdoms(a territory which a group/organization/individual has claimed to be theirs). These two systems at least imply that: 1). There is a limited distribution of resources that players must fight over. 2). Players have territory from which they gain advantage from having. These two aspects are very important in every strategy game(not necessarily tactics-oriented games, but I digress), and Crowfall seems to understand that. However, there are many kinds of strategy games, and I believe this is where expectations differ: What type of Strategy game is Crowfall? This is a good question, and it seems to be going in at least three directions: 1). RTS (Age of Empires, Starcraft, Command & Conquer, etc) RTS seems to be the strongest contender so far. The "Eternal Heroes, Dying Worlds" statement definitely implies that each campaign will be the equivalent to one match of X game. This is a perfectly fine formula for any Strategy game(look at the success of Starcraft as an e-sport), but I'm not sure it fits well with Crowfall. Although these types of matches are entertaining, they don't really hold any sort of connection or consequence. In Crowfall, completing campaigns allocates resources, which can then be used to upgrade the Eternal Kingdom. However, what happens when an EK is fully upgraded? Would resources become useless outside of a campaign? It seems pointless to even have an "Eternal Kingdoms minigame", as it only distracts players from the main part of the game, which would be the campaigns. 2). 4X (Civilization, Sins of a Solar Empire, Sword of the Stars, etc) 4X seems somewhat likely as well, as the campaigns seem to follow the four Xs(Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate). However, a 4X game has a very different feeling than an RTS game. In games like this, there is a greater emphasis on diplomacy and development, as it is usually disadvantageous to focus completely on warfare. As such, gameplay focuses more on the growth of player power, as well as long term consequences. This type of strategy seems more up the alley of those who want "emergent gameplay", as history and conflicts would be caused by player motives. However, campaigns do not allow for emergent gameplay, only emergent strategies/tactics. The conflict is already predetermined, so there is no room for meaningful diplomacy when every campaign ends with a clear victor. Eternal Kingdoms could fill this gap, but it does not meet the last X credential(Exterminate), unless it becomes possible to attack/subjugate other Eternal Kingdoms. 3). Grand Strategy (Total War series, Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, etc) Very similar to 4X, this type of strategy focus more on military strategy on a larger scale, usually in terms of states. This type of strategy seems highly unlikely, unless Eternal Kingdoms can be contested and fought over. These are the three types of strategies I can see Crowfall becoming, and I'm fairly certain this is where most of the expectations differ between people. What type of strategy game do you think Crowfall will become?
  11. I thought the combat was going to be similar to Wildstar's, so won't it already be similar to Skillshots(as in no tab-targetting)? If this is the case, wouldn't friendlyfire already stop the zerg ball? The collision physics would also contribute to this. Anyways, I like the formation idea and would be curious just to see how it worked out in actual pvp. Seems similar to another game's formation system, but I forgot the name... EDIT: Found the game, its Life is Feudal.
  12. This is particularly important to address. It also begs the question of how guilds/factions/kingdoms can even hold territory without constant, overlapping activity from its members. I'm assuming that's what the devs were trying to address with the: "for the next two hours, the city can be attacked", but there are still problems with times. What if a guild/individual cannot be active during those times? This is a problem with all MMOs (if you can call it a problem), but it seems especially problematic concerning the game's concept. I can't think of any solution that wouldn't restrict campaigns to specific time-zones, and even then it won't fix anything. I'm curious as to how the devs will address it.
×
×
  • Create New...