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

Ranael

Testers
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. 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.
  2. I am now imagining the world's most deadly game of volleyball.
  3. 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!
  4. 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 like that, where an entire category of effects turned you into a paperweight. I'm sure the idea there was that you weren't supposed to go alone and teams should help shore up your weaknesses... ...but what actually happened is that smart players rolled the characters that didn't have those weaknesses in the first place, still used teamwork, and smacked the living heck out of everyone who did differently. FoTM classes were hideously effective because they took advantage of design gaps. So I'm very interested in not having similar design gaps in Crowfall.
  5. 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.
  6. 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? Moreover, it cuts both ways. You don't know that anything they've posted will work at all. None of us do. We are ALL theorycrafting how this thing will work, even the devs, who are only a few steps ahead of us at this point. So yeah, I'm going to keep thinking critically and offering ideas and opinions throughout the process.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 in turn cuts down dramatically on the available offensive combinations. In my mind, the ideal version of this system meets both groups halfway. Keep ability bloat down, sure. But don't arbitrarily stop at ten buttons and try to force every archetype to conform to that, or I believe the overall combat model will end up watered down and less fun.
  9. 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 combination. We want to have more than one effective way to approach any given battle. And we want enough tools to deal with the wide variety of situations, dangers, and battlefields we should find in a game that bills itself as a simulation for grand, sweeping wars. Every archetype should have weaknesses, but it would rather suck if most archetypes have multiple large, gaping holes. That would not be fun to play. Which means that if the UI and ability design greatly limits the number of available character options, then as a logical consequence the game play they are built around must be equally shallow or the experience will suck from brokenness (IE, the inability to deal with many things because one's character lacks the tools). Again, there is a vast difference in game play between having 15-25 abilities "on call" and having 10 abilities ready with another 5-15 nested within them. In the first case you have all of your options ready at any given time, and game play can be equivalently more complex because it is based on that expectation. In the second case the game play must necessarily account for the fact that roughly half of your total choices are locked behind ability trees, and some combinations of those abilities are now entirely impossible. TL;DR - having too few available abilities and too many hidden behind combo chains leads to a sparsity of strategic options at any given point in time. This in turn requires the combat model to be calibrated for simpler play styles and greatly reduces the depth of play and the skill ceiling for players.
  10. 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 me win the fight. The limitations of a narrow band of base abilities comes in when I need to react. When my enemy starts his AoE lightning attack, I need my elemental resist ability ready now, not buried three animations deep on a meditative power up chain. When I am rooted, or stunned, I need my CC breaks at my fingertips now. Those are just a very few, common examples of tactically useful (and often necessary) types of abilities that would be dangerously close to useless if they were inside of chains. There are many more - indeed, the more interesting and varied the combat engine is, and the more interesting and varied the Archetypes, the more utility and reactive abilities each character will want some kind of access to. Having a hard cap of ten ability buttons will prevent that from being possible. It will make fitting in interesting abilities more difficult because necessary ones will be slotted in to start chains as a matter of course, else they will be very difficult to use. Alternatively, the combat will be simplified from what many people here are expecting and there will be fewer ways to utilize skill and experience, because there will be fewer meaningful choices that determine the flow of combat. Neither of these seem like very positive outcomes. Even if someone things I overstate the potential issues, it's a simple matter of reason that having 20 abilities nested within 10 buttons still means you have less available options and combinations of options than if you could choose from those 20 abilities without any chains at all. Indeed, at most times you will only ever have at most 11 of your 20 options available, which is a rather massive decrease in tactical considerations. Not to be entirely negative, I will say that I like the general layout of the abilities and the ideas presented so far. I like the ability chains too! What we're being shown so far is pretty sweet. But I strongly, strongly encourage the design team not to settle for too few abilities - and to be very wary of trying to nest all combat options within 10-12 keys. We're here for a hardcore PvP Throne War Simulator... don't hold back on the shiny toys, give us plenty of ways to crush our opponents' heads.
  11. 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 that with their budget and team size. More importantly, the main reason to have all the extra HM style stuff seems to be to fill time... but the main thrust of this game is to spend that time raiding resource nodes with your buds, laying siege to enemy forts, or laying in wait to ambush some poor fools who aren't paying attention. I think that if more stuff is going to be added to EKs, it would need to connect with and support game play in CWs. So if food is needed, then farms make sense in the EKs... except, the game play probably still wouldn't revolve around milking your cows and fertilizing your fields. It would be making strategic decisions on allocating land, what resources to store for the next CW, etc... and then jump back into your character to wreck some faces.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 a chance, because it may very well accelerate funding and enable them to get more done by hiring more people.
×
×
  • Create New...