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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I've worked on a game that had a similar issue. Game worlds tended to last between 4 months and a year, so new ones needed to be put out regularly. The difficulty with that was figuring out the correct frequency for releasing new worlds. 100% uptime of fresh worlds was not possible with the player population we were working with, a problem that may occur for Crowfall as well. The reason for this is that each world needs a minimum viable population at creation. In any game where players collect resources and build empires, time itself is a huge advantage. There are many reasons to think that a
  2. Shadowbane: The endless march of strange builds I always thought I could make work. Fist and shield, bro! Dagger barbarian! Warhammer: Disciple of Khaine. I like support classes that can still wreck face. DAoC: Warden. I really like support classes that can still wreck face. Special shout out to Reaver (debuffs and lifedrain, my favorite style of close combat) and Animist (killer shrooms).
  3. Just want to chime in that while I also think the reasoning provided is sound, I would love to try playing with momentum in place as a test. Maybe it would work... and that would be danged cool.
  4. I am now imagining the world's most deadly game of volleyball.
  5. Having a 'deck' of useful, interesting abilities and then paring it down to 10 before heading out into the world... I could live with that. In that case I can make smart decisions on what weaknesses to leave exposed, what attack style I will go with, and how I intend to synergize with my teammates for a given fight. That would be a fine compromise between strategic flexibility and tactical "tightness". The sense I get from the Knight article is that they weren't planning on having that deep of a toolbox to select abilities from, though. Here's hoping!
  6. I've played a few action-MMOs and MMOs with moderate to heavy PvP. Archeage was my last one as well, and I share the same fear. What happened, for those who haven't tried that game (or similar ones), is that there were plenty of ways to debuff, damage, hinder, or just plain lock down your opponents... but because of the way abilities were limited, only a handful of "classes" could deal with all that crap and remain viable in large battlefield situations. Also, there were a wide number of classes that had painfully broad hard counters. IE, if someone had any CC, you were dead... things
  7. Probably, we are closer in mind than we may have first appeared. My main thing here is to argue against a design philosophy that arbitrarily limits the base ability set to a number that appears too small to effectively deal with the sort of intricate combat dynamics I'm hoping Crowfall will have. I don't know if the answer is 13.5, 20 or whatever. Ten just seems... confined. And I hope the devs consider that to be a starting point, not a hard end goal for each archetype.
  8. That's cool. If the developers read this and have real answers to the concerns presented, awesome! Go them! If they read this and it jogs them into thinking about cases or consequences they hadn't considered, that's cool too. Really, as long as the best product possible is the result of all this, we all win. There is absolutely no reason not to share opinions and logical theorizing now, however, and many reasons to do so. The "no one can really know" argument is a conversation ender - but the devs want us to converse, so why would anyone accept that premise as a reason not to talk? Mo
  9. I hear what you're saying, but I tend to agree with the earlier poster when he said why not give feedback now, before ACE spends months of effort building out the combat model. It will be much more resource and time intensive to make major changes then, so feedback is potentially more valuable (and actionable) right now.
  10. You continue to ignore the word "available" in your responses. Having seven defenses and twenty one attacks (I'll assume you also have utility, movement, and 'weird stuff' in that total somewhere) would probably be on the high side, the very most I would want to see once disciplines are accounted for. The trouble is that you are still lumping them all into the very limiting ten-ability-button framework. Your solution does allow for a wide variety of reactionary abilities and accounts for my concerns there... but at the cost of hiding all the attack abilities within 3 ability-chains! Which
  11. I am quite aware of the number of possible permutations and skills. The total number is not the issue. The concern is that the number of available, meaningful options will be too limited. Combat is the very heart of Crowfall. It should be diverse and interesting, and deep enough to keep people coming back for years. It should also be bigger than some of the counter-examples I've seen thrown around, most of which are MOBAs. I love MOBAs, and I love playing them, but they are apples and bicycles to what Crowfall is trying to accomplish. We want characters with more than one killer combi
  12. I think that if we only ever have ten base abilities to work from, the game would feel a little dumbed down or restricted (for all the reasons others have elucidated on already). This remains the case even if we have multiple chains, no matter how deep they go. The reason for this is that what matters most in a deep, engaging combat model is what options I have to affect my opponents and counter their actions. Having chains of abilities is mostly fine when it comes to my attacks, because I am pushing the tempo there. I am deciding when I want to move from A -> B -> C, as will best help
  13. I don't see an inherent contradiction between strategic depth in crafting/resource production/kingdom building and the PvP heart of Crowfall. Quite the opposite, I see them as working hand in hand to create a rich and lasting experience for many different sorts of gamers. So I don't write off ideas like this just because they stem from a PvE focused game. That said, Harvest Moon shines because it connects lot of very detailed systems - including the social aspect with NPCs - into one cohesive experience. I don't think it's likely or reasonable to think that Crowfall could even approximate tha
  14. I would definitely support stretch goals that allow for full M/F support for each Archetype. And honestly, I'd go in for goals that gave each Archetype 2-3 race options. I understand the animation costs and reasons behind the way it's being done now, but if that's something additional money can make happen, it's moderately important to me to have those kinds of choices.
  15. I think the OP has at least a few decent points. There is no inherent reason NOT to make each stretch goal rewarding to existing backers - and plenty of reasons to do that very thing. Add-on packages do take time and effort to brainstorm, check for viability, and market, however. It is entirely reasonable for ACE to do things like that in waves, and take breaks in between. Right now they have enough funding to do all the core game stuff so I don't think there's a rush to grab more money from us. Still, there are also plenty of reasons to add something to the stretch rewards when they do have
  • Create New...