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

Heriot

Testers
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Heriot

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    the Netherlands
  1. This, this is good. Spying should be a high-risk, high-reward endeavor. People having "sacrificial" accounts or characters takes away the risk-factor. I really like the idea of having one shot, and one shot only at getting a career choice in any given campaign right. So you want to be a spy? Sure, but you better make sure you are doing a damn fine job at it, or risk getting blackballed by every player on the server if you get found out. Of course that does not mean player characters should be worthless once uncovered as spies: But good luck dealing with the consequences: It should be up to us as to how to deal with failure at the spy-game. For example: Do I try again with another faction, hoping they don't know me? Or do I get relegated to guard duty on my benefactors ramparts? Conversely, factions wanting to utilize spies, should be prepared to pay copious amounts of resources to the spy-players willing to put their campaign at risk by infiltrating the other side and possibly tarnishing their reputation and credibility while at it. In the end, having one character per campaign only makes the final outcome that much more meaningful: You entire campaign-gains hinge on getting it right. Also: Immersion, 'nuff said.
  2. I don't see how a guild where players hoard all the loot for themselves personally, will grow to be the biggest guild. In the end, these guilds usually ultimately go down due to internal strife or players not working together sufficiently (the "me" mentality). Even if I'm wrong and they was to be such a guild: It'll be just another faction you need to compete against. Lose a battle against them, you'll get nothing anyway. Win against them and they will have no force left standing on the field to screw you with. You make a fair point here and this is something I observed as well. In general terms I agree. Though I believe this goes beyond just loot rules and is a deeper issue with any such a community in general. When it comes to CF however, I have good faith we have a real opportunity to foster a unique kind of gaming community. Perhaps with it's own challenges, but time will have to tell how this will all work out. Not saying loot rules are not a viable solution; The way you propose might indeed be fair. What I personally am arguing for is my opinion that a FFA rule-set brings far more interesting consequences to the game for players to deal with. The way I see it, this forces players to think, strategise and interact more with their own group and be more mindful of others. Overall I envision FFA rules to promote the emergent gameplay that ACE seems to be going for. As always, Just my 2c.
  3. Just giving my thoughts here mate, I'm not claiming I have the definitive solutions for everything. I'll gladly humour you with a response though: Naturally, but your suggestion takes away control from the players. This was my point, I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. I was going on the assumption that when we loot (player) corpses, there is no way to assign loot (the corpse inventory) fairly trough an automated system. This might work if even players had loot-tables, but I'm almost 99% sure this won't be the case. Who decides who gets his chickens? His metal? His boots? Need or greed? Rolls? Random number generators? Or do you really suggest using duplicate loot? Where everybody gets his whole inventory? Inflation is a horrible idea in a player-driven economy. Also, as I mentioned in my post: If you have a decent group going, it's likely you will want your fellow players to be equipped as best as possible, if only because they help you to get where you need to go. It won't be fair always, but I feel that's best left up to the players to sort out, not a number generator. Sure, why not? Let him. And Bob get's away with it and gets filthy rich. Up until he get's caught and gets blacklisted from half the community and will need to scrape together a living on the fringes. That, or reroll. As for the loot-police: That might be where your mercenaries come in: Mercenaries have a wide range of roles they can fill. If they are not to be trusted: Do you trust them to hold the front line? What if they break and run when the going gets tough? Or what if the other side pays them more then you do? I imagine Mercs will want a good reputation in order to be hired again: I feel they would make wonderful guards as one example. Screwing their employers is a good way for mercenaries to never be hired again. We might decide to give them a bigger share of the loot then we agreed: Might breed loyalty y'know? Of course it leaves room for error, uncertainty and fraud, that's the whole point! Controlling everything, auditing or inspecting all the things removes all margin of error: Where is the fun in that I'd argue? I want to worry if that guild-mate screws us over loot! I want to investigate if that new hire isn't just a saboteur funneling the resources we won to our enemies! I want to be challenged to make plans for what happens after the battle! I want to discuss before and after what the needs of my fellow players are and reward them based on what WE feel is fair after seeing them perform. I want to have to either be amazing in battle, or have to suck up to my guild leader in order to get the best loot. I want to have such a vital role, that people will want to give me loot anyway! And so on. In the end, I want the system to leave room for players to come up with their own ways and solutions to the problem. I want to be able to screw up and be screwed and fix those issues myself. What I do not want, is systems where me receiving loot is based on percentages, rolls or automated assignment by some obscure algorithm. I'll say again, I'm not sure if this is the best way, but for now, it's what I feel would be the most interesting way to go about it. Just my 2c. EDIT Forgot to add: I imagine any sensible group will indeed have a cohesive after-party. Counting losses, making plans for a follow-up on your victory or defeat and of course, dividing their spoils. In the real world, we call this a "debriefing". I imagine it'll be useful for any serious faction out here. Not sure if it'll be altruistic, but it'll happen I'm sure.
  4. First and foremost, my apologies, I crashed into this topic without making clear I'm open to a variety of lootrules, I'm not dismissing any other options outright. The FFA ruleset just appeals to me most as it stands. The old eyeball 1.0 will do: It's a risk-v-reward situation: A person going over dead bodies in the middle of a fight is going to stick out like a sore thumb. They might get away with it, maybe even a decent amount of time. But he or she is almost guaranteed to get called out on it at one point in such a scenario. Other then that, I imagine there could be combat logs to show who did what, including looting. These reasons are exactly why I personally feel FFA is a more fair system. What about the support guy? The scout? The commander? What about the guys who do not actually fight, but act as commanders directing the battle? Rearguards looking out for enemy reinforcements, preventing them coming in? Or the reserves you left at your base of operations, coming in too late to do any real damage? What about the guy who was willing to run in first to lead the charge, only to get killed instantly and for whatever reason is unable to return to the fight and do his share of the damage? These are all people whose role may have been vital to securing your victory, but there is no way to measure or register this. No system in the world will be able to tell if they deserve any loot or not. While they may or may not have been very valuable to the group. "Participation" in an open world PvP environment is highly subjective and very hard to measure fairly. With a FFA system, you allow any player to take what they can and leaves the option open to pool your spoils after a battle and divide as needed. Since CF will be heavily reliant on players working together, I imagine you will want to give your groupmates the loot they need in order for them to help you reach a common objective. The entire thing hinges on players communicating and agreeing on what to expect to get out of it when fighting battles on behalf of one faction or the other. Aside from this, I picture this will lead to a perhaps interesting metagame: Do we trust everybody to pool their loot fairly? This leaves options open for saboteurs to mess with groups; rooting this people out could be a real mechanic and part of the game. In turn, this allows people to form real bonds: Over time there will be people you will trust with your most valuable items, others perhaps not so much. This might tie in to the political game. Battlefield scavengers might be an avenue for a profitable career-path: These players might be loathed and live on the periphery of the playerbase in any given campaignworld. While they might be cast out by the mainstream players, there is possibly much to be gained from purely waiting for battles to be over and picking up the pieces. At the same time, this opens up another factor to account for when planning battles: Do you plan for scavengers who try and pick clean your hard earned-poils? Do you have a plan in place to deal with them? I could see mercenary guilds dedicated to securing battlefields and keeping scavengers at bay. In my personal opinion, a FFA system is a organic way to let players sort out for themselves what is a fair deal when dividing loot. The player hoarding all loot for himself will likely find himself an outcast sooner rather then later: Players will get wise and create a system where loot is awarded or bartered for based on merit decided by the players themselves. To me, that brings a world of interesting opportunities. As always though, Just my 2c.
  5. Putting aside the carebear moniker for a moment: FFA rules are, perhaps surprisingly, a good thing to promote a healthy community. Perhaps paradoxically, as FFA rules leave the door open for ninjalooters and the likes, it also promotes player accountability. Why? Because it looks like we will be limited in how many characters (looks to be only a single one), we can take into a single campaign: Reputation matters. The best way to make sure you at least get -some- loot in a FFA environment, is -TALKING- to others: Get an organised group, discuss who needs what from whatever activity you plan to do and distribute the loot afterwards. Some players may decide to speed up their accumulation of goods trough ninjalooting, but this will also mean they will possibly be blackballed in no time if there where any agreements in place before the fight started in the case of organised groups. There are countless examples of this working in other established games, the result has consistently been that the ninjalooter in question was forced to reroll or change servers in the end, as nobody would bring that player anywhere anymore, rendering the game unplayable for him. Conversely, a regulated loot-system brings the danger of removing player accountability and promoting asshattery: All because the consequences of your actions are less risky. Of this we can see examples in established MMO's as well: Removing consequences leads to a real toxic community. On the other hand, if you plainly get robbed? Meh, that just means you probably had inadequate plans for security in place, rob that player blind yourself the next time you see him. Yup, grand isn't it? Being passionate about something that isn't even more then a vision yet. Personally, I've been waiting for this for a long time.
  6. You should have known that, judging by your avatar picture. Warhammer Online, Age of Reckoning. I'd say, it was rather Grimdark.... It went belly-up though, had too many problems and the playerbase got gobbled up by a multitude of other MMO's and expacs releasing at the time.
  7. If loot is FFA, the most likely scenario is that it will evolve naturally. I imagine players will get wise to the risks and agree with their group who will get what kind of loot when available: Kind of a pre-negotiated contract of spoils before heading out. Beyond that, if you run a guild, faction or whatever form of persistent group: You want your players to be effective as possible. So spoils will probably be divided among players who need specific items or resources. Most obvious example: Say you recruit a group of crafters for your guild. These guys are rubbish in combat, but amazing at building fortifications and providing your guild with really nice armour, items and whatnot. These guys need materials and resources, but chances are its unlikely they'll be able to earn it all themselves in a competitive environment. So what do you do? You send out your combat specialist to go earn materials for your builders, which they get for free. In turn, your builders provide your combat team with awesome gear. The only players running a risk of never getting the good stuff, are the players who go at it alone. But then chances are, they'll take refuge in groups or get chewed up by the time Winter comes around. In the end, I believe a system like this will emerge (what I did here, do you see it?) naturally.
  8. Good find, thanks for digging that up. At the same time however, it has been confirmed there -will- be a PvE component to Crowfall: Just curious how people feel about what it should look like. Even though there are some great examples about potential forms of PvE are given here (and thanks for those everybody, there are some gems in there!), they should be considered "side-dishes". Personally I think Pang said it best here: In this example, avoiding PvE mobs interfering with a Siege would be as simple as clearing the nearby monster camps/patrols in advance of starting your siege. To me, that's not a terrible thing to take into consideration when making your preparations for the actual siege. It's all about player choice: > Do I want to take a risk an leave the monsters in place? Either to my own benefit or detriment? > Do I want to avoid having monsters interfere and as such clear their camps before I start my operations? You hate monsters running around your PvP fights? No problem! Hire a mercenary (guild) to hunt monsters for you! In my mind, player choice is always good: Leave it up to the players to choose the way they want to play the game. That said, give players the tools/sandbox to enable them to make that choice, players will take it from there. Not advocating an elaborate PvE system here: As mentioned in my opening post, I feel PvE should not ever come close to taking center stage in Crowfall. I do believe however, that with relatively simple, yet clever mechanics, monsters can be used to enhance the world in general. And of course... Make them dangerous!
  9. ACE indeed mentioned monsters evolving to become more dangerous as seasons pass, that's one of the things that give them potential and makes them interesting. Exactly for the reason you stated, compared to the likes of DayZ etc, where in the end they are just a nuisance. I wouldn't say monsters need to be very complex or have advanced AI, they are not the main focus after all: but with some strategic placing/spawning or some clever scripting, you could make them show up at "inconvenient" times rather easily. The idea of giving monsters "goals" seems interesting, could make the world seem more natural, gives some purpose to monsters, yet keeping them somewhat predictable, giving players a chance to influence their behavior towards their own ends (Lure them into enemy players resource grounds for example). In terms of loot, they way that has been discussed already I agree with: Loot should be minor and make sense. I'd rather not see the epic-juggernaut-armor-of-doom drop off a random deer or some-such. EDIT: Whatever the case, I guess the point is that monsters should always complement, or add to interactions with other players. The way I see it, there is potential to use them as a potential "living" resource to be used with, or against fellow players/groups. To me, that way the PvE part can be meaningful as it adds something interesting and of value to the main PvP side of things. And in the end that seems to be the main goal: Have a unique and rich PvP experience
  10. Thank you, and exactly! I could imagine a multitude of scenarios where monsters roam random or on scripted paths, in packs, growing more numerous/powerful/dangerous when left alone. This gives you options, more examples: > Do you send out a party and cull their numbers, making them easier to deal with, less of as threat to your expedition/siege/operation? > Or do you leave them alone, hoping that they'll run into an opposing group of players, where the resulting horde wrecks house when they reach their camp? Imagine fighting a battle against another player faction or group, and in the middle of all that a horde of really dangerous monsters show up, what do you do? > Run? Hoping the monsters go after the enemy players, letting them do the dirty work and hopefully causing some casualties? > Keep fighting an epic three-way battle? > Stop fighting and work together to get rid of the monsters first? To me, that would add another dimension to Fight > Kill/Take objective > Attack/Defend >Win/Lose Just another factor to take into account. Seems something along these lines could be interesting to have to deal with whilst competing with other players.
  11. So.... I'll likely get roasted for this, but since it has been confirmed Crowfall will at least feature some form of PvE, let's talk a bit about what that actually might look like. First and foremost, before I get buried: I'm not looking for a PvE experience in Crowfall, I very much got into this project looking for a PvP environment, the PvE Themepark MMO doesn't work for me anymore so that is not the goal here. With that out of the way: What -does- PvE in Crowfall mean beyond the stated prospect of having monster camps? The thing that stuck out for me whilst reading up on it, and mentioned in an earlier thread: I cannot find the exact interview where he said it, been watching so many of them of late I can't remember which one it was for the life of me. Anyway, I found that to be very, very interesting: A world where your main threat is always the enemy players, or human opposition: But also a world where you always have to watch your back or be in danger of being overrun by (the inhabitants of) the world itself. To me, this has the potential to drive a narrative, a living, breathing world in which you strive with or against others, alongside the world itself trying to kill you. This as opposed a world that otherwise might feel empty and void as soon as the majority of players log out for the night. Now, again: This should not mean PvE should take center stage or even get near it: it absolutely should not. But I do feel that monsters, or the world in general should be a credible danger to us, otherwise their presence is meaningless. I recall MMO worlds, where I would ride trough 90% of the world at max level and feel no connection to it in any way, save for the max level area's where monsters could pose any semblance of a threat to me, if even that. Personally, I would love to see campaign-worlds where my main objective is to overcome the enemy player opposition, but be careful of how to go about it, as NPC monsters have the potential to absolutely wreck me if I'm not on my A-Game. I would even go further and say I'd like monsters to be dynamic, powerful and have the potential to seriously mess with your campaign if left unchecked or ignored. The way they are announced to transform and grow more powerful and dangerous as the campaign seasons pass, gives them awesome potential to become a factor we will have to take into account when fighting our actual enemies (i.e: other players). TL;DR While not the main focus, I wish for the monsters that -will- be there to be bad-ass and able to slap me silly sideways, be dangerous What do you all think? > Should monsters be dangerous? A factor you need to take into account when on campaign? > Should monsters be just loot-pinatas? Merely a distraction between actual fights? > Should there be monsters at all? Let me know, I'm curious *hides*
  12. Seems I am really missing the point of this thread. Just been reading the whole thing for a second time, still don't get it, must be me. What is this about? The right to act like the biggest internet tough-guy? The right to have your internet feelings protected from internet tough-guys? Is common courtesy or sportsmanship such a controversial subject nowadays? On the other hand, have we become so sensitive, that we cannot deal with some verbal jabs? Or is it about the difference between banter and abuse? Isn't it really as simple as drawing the line at abuse/threats/racism? You know, the sensible things usually found in many a ToS? If you do not like how people are treating you: Don't play with them. > Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to play with people you don't like: Go find some others who share your values. Conversely: If you act a certain way, do not be surprised if some people won't play with you. > To bad if you would have really liked to play with that really skilled Knight: Since you're an arsehole, he won't play with you, suck it up. Now, wait for the game to release, then go kill eachother by throwing particle effects on a digital internet battlefield. There, issue solved: Now love me. Or bring the torches and pitchforks. I don't know, just my 2c!
  13. The problem with PvE MMO's is the constant need for content. When your game is centered around scripted monsters, events, dungeons, raids or what have you: These will get stale after a period of time. When players run out of "new" monsters or bosses to kill, they will keep asking for more in an endless cycle. Thus developers will have to enter a race with their own playerbase to keep creating new content whilst keeping pace with the speed the players consume it at. Let's take WoW as the most obvious example: It's clear Blizzard is currently struggling to keep giving players new and interesting things to do. Besides Blizzard's flagship MMO, there are countless other examples of MMO's "falling flat" once players reach end game and clear content faster then developers can produce it. After some time, players will break the 4th wall themselves and see this "Themepark" for what it is: A cycle of new rides to que for. While there is nothing wrong with the themepark-model per se, sooner or later there will be a point where the magic fades and the only reason to keep playing is either the people/your friends, or the time already invested keeping you there. One of the benefits of a PvP focus, is as TJC said: Players -are- the content. Why spend time and money on writing storylines (that may of may not be well received), when players can create stories themselves just by playing naturally. The big kicker is: These stories actually have meaning, since we're not talking about King scripted NPC asking you to collect 10 beararses, but about actual players asking you to help them overthrow that other player who is turning out to be the big antagonist of the current campaign/server/realm. You cannot write for that: That stuff is what stays with you. The stories behind EVE-online are evidence of this, these are not fan-fiction, those massive battles, corporate thefts and rivalries are real and player-created. As another WoW example: As scripted as that game is, the battles between Southshore (Alliance faction town) and Tarren Mill (Nearby Horde faction town) are still being remembered by many as the most epic times in the game. Even though there was never any point to it: It was entirely made up of players who happened to run into eachother and started brawling, for no other reason other then because they -could-. That does not mean however, that some degree of PvE has no place in Crowfall. In one of the Dev interviews, I recall TJC mentioning he wanted monsters to be there as an overarching, always present threat: Much like the walkers in The Walking Dead TV-show (the show was noted as one of the sources of inspiration, next to GoT and EVE). He liked how the walkers where the first immediate apparent enemy, but how over the course of the show it turned out other humans could be just as dangerous to the group, if not more. Now, I like this idea very much: To have be aware, of not only enemy players, but also a credible danger out in the world. Good monster design could help bring a campaign-world to life, something I was worried about: How worlds would possibly feel empty en void. In order to pull this off however, PvE should be meaningfull. But that's a whole other subject altogether and I should create another thread about that. Anyway, TL;DR: PvE: Scripted, pre-arranged content, gets boring after a while. PvP: Player created content, potentially endless content as long as there are players. As always, just my 2c
  14. This, the previous goal was just a additional ruleset for 50k: That flew by. I'd say the current goal is getting there even faster, seeing as it's at 32% for it's 150k already. All regions/backers benefit from regional servers elsewhere. > More publicity worldwide. > Access to the potentially HUGE Asian market. =/= more funding for the game as a whole. It's a bit like the snowball effect: The more people get invested worldwide, the more momentum the project picks up. It won't benefit anyone outside the Asian region directly on an individual level, but it'll be worth our while if the game is able to pull in a sufficient number of new Asian backers. i.e: More funds for the game > Faster development > Possibly more features > Possibly more polish > etc. More people and more money are always good things, regardless where they come from. All positive in my book.
×
×
  • Create New...