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

Cejo

Testers
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Cejo reacted to coolwaters in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    This was a bad batch overall. The players have universally been screaming about the durability for weeks. I don't see how anything in this patch was an eye-opener when we've been telling you this for a long time.

    Forcing people to wear armor to use basic abilities is irrational and isn't fun. If you want to encourage people to wear armor why don't you start by removing the silly penalties from the armor? Then make the armor last through ten deaths. Then give the players limited player storage. Then people will wear the armor.
     
    edit: I do think this entire system would feel different (better) if banks and crafting stations were in the game. The fact that you can't store anything at all creates this grind and I think a lot of players recognize this either consciously or unconsciously and are waiting until there's a point to crafting beyond what you're wearing at the moment to invest more time in the testing of the system.
  2. Like
    Cejo reacted to Vectious in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    So the tons and tons of feedback explicitly telling you that the durability was way out of whack was not a eye opener? And like Angelmar said, "the weird to require weapons on some powers" thats not a problem that needs to be 'solved'. 
     
    The problem that needs to be solved is "this is not fun". Taking default weapons away from people was garbage. You setup a entire system of circle-jerk frustration.
     
    And dont dismiss it as "we are trying to test harvesting/crafting" as the reason you took this path. That is a complete cop-out.  You could of made it more of a BENEFIT to make armor and items. What should of been the eye opener is the massive amount of negative lash back of this design choice.
     
    You got negative feedback with taking away default weapons, then you got MORE negative feedback with requiring armor for powers. When will you actually listen?
     
    Look, the people giving feedback on this game right now are people who have invested money, and time in this game and want it to succeed. And if the people who are die hard fans are telling you this is bad, how do you think people will react that are not emotionally or financially invested? They wont play it.
     
    How far down the rabbit hole will you travel until you listen? If this going to be another combat mechanics nightmare? 
  3. Like
    Cejo reacted to dreaden in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    Resource cost is also insane for non basic weapons, especially considering take bug and extreme low durability.
  4. Like
    Cejo reacted to Jah in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    I agree with the general idea that you don't want people running around naked.
     
    But making people completely useless when they first start playing, and after every couple deaths, seems like too much of a strong-arm technique to get people to want gear.
     
    Make the gear better and more durable instead. Yes, increased durability cuts into the need to farm more, but there are other solutions.
     
    The reason we weren't wearing armor was because it didn't seem worth it. It hurts your damage and mobility while providing modest mitigation benefits. It takes a long time to make and gets lost very quickly. Fix those issues instead of making us powerless without it.
  5. Like
    Cejo reacted to Angelmar in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    Blair, 
    Not all questions are created equal. We could ponder why a confessor can materialize fire at a whim.... or we can all suspend belief and accept some basic rules of this fantasy world.
     
    We don't need a logical answer to what equipment a knight would need to throw a metal spike and magically defy physics to haul his target back to him.
     
    What we do need are solid basic mechanics that provide the player with reasons to do things.... Why is no one crafting armor? It breaks too fast and the time required vs benefit isn't there.
     
    Why do those that do craft armor use leather? Because movement is 98% of all mitigation in this game and the mail/plate nerfs movement. The cost vs benefit doesn't justify the use.
     
    Players will be disgruntled if you force arbitrary and useless answers to cost benefit decisions upon them. That's not why we seek an open world fantasy game where player choice determines outcomes.
  6. Like
    Cejo reacted to thomasblair in Patch Notes: December 02, 2016   
    The primary purpose was to solve the "its weird to require weapons for all powers that have nothing to do with weapons". Least it was super weird to us. The naked part was more of a side benefit. We will continue to tweak such that the first thing a player wants to do is get a basic weapon and set of armor however, as it just make sense in an MMO. The fact that players don't assume this as a baseline means we have work to do.
     
     
     
    With BG1 we set out to make a test not a game. It is a foundational piece (BW1) that leads to another foundational piece(BW2), that leads to an early game(CW). We still don't have the skeleton of the game loop in place. There are going to be many more updates where we implement a foundation system that doesn't really work well without the others, I guarantee it. That is just part of building the game with us.
     
     
     
    Actually this was a great eye opener to how much durability we are taking per death, it is clearly too much. There are skills in the trees that reduce this amount but we clearly need to make the base amount lower to help out the initial experience.
     
    I in fact do want you spending entire play sessions crafting and harvesting. Those systems have been online for testing by you for about a month. The Crafting and Harvesting systems are the backbone of the economy and the more bugs / improvements / feedback we can make the better they will be. If you have no interest in those systems you can have others craft them for you. (With the chests in the world that is at least possible to trade now) It is vital that these systems get tested.
    It is definitely a top priority to get a safe place for the folks who just want to test those systems a safe place to do so, we just haven't finished the EK yet. There are a couple hundred different outcomes to the crafting recipes and I am pretty sure they have not been tested as folks are worrying more about survival at this point.
  7. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Dual Daggers are Silly - Let's get the ranger a more respectable melee weapon   
    If anything, I'm more against forcing rangers to use bows than worrying about the melee weapon types.
     
    Rangers are those who range.  They get around, roam, patrol, whatever...they have mobility.  It doesn't mean they attack from range.  And I mean, just based on how bad the bow is right now, I'd be totally cool with a situation where the ranger had something like axe/dagger, and switched between stances without actually changing weapons.  I personally don't go into the woods without an axe and a knife, but I can't recall the last time I brought my bow and arrows.
     
    I mean, I do think rangers should be completely versatile, so they need some range.  But that doesn't necessarily mean bow and arrow, imo.  Such a lame trope.  Bow also means we have to build more weapons (melee set plus bow), as well as ammo, which is pretty different from the confessor, for example.
     
    Why not a stance where axe is melee and dagger is thrown, and another stance where axe is thrown and dagger is melee?
     
    Would be a pretty major overhaul, but I mean, ranger right now is pretty bad.  Just some thoughts that I'm relatively certain no one will agree with.
  8. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from krevra in That sad zerg feeling   
    Overall, it has some fun parts: is it's highly active, and relies very heavily on movement and timing.  But it's completely imbalanced, and rewards certain really boring play-styles, which is not fun.
     
    There is a massive availability of very potent AOE in the game, but there is a limit to the number of people any given AOE attack can hit (it's usually 5, or at least it was).  So that means if you stack 10 people in the same space that your enemy stacks 5 people, only half of your team takes the damage.  It's a ridiculous system (intended to counter server load/lag from what I understand), and aside from encouraging zegs, it directly leads to "balling up," or stacking.  The game design not only actively favors zergs, it also encourages this "balling" tactic.
     
    This "balling" tactic further reinforced two things: emphasis on ranged skills, and further emphasis on aoe.  Ranged because you can stay on your stack and still dish out damage, and especially ranged AoE because those skills require less aiming, so you concentrate on sticking with the stack while still more than likely hitting the same target as someone else on your team.  This is one really huge failure of the game, and one reason I like the idea of less AoE.  ArenaNet's solution to the technical problems caused by massive AoE in huge battles (huge as in 60v60v60) was half-assed, and it would be better if there was just less AoE in the game. 
     
    But on top of that, the skills themselves were "balanced" to work in 5v5 PvP modes, PvE modes, and then open world PvP as an afterthought.  Same skills in all three modes, and generally speaking, the devs seemed to favor 5v5 and PvE balance, so that skills were often simply not balanced for large-scale battles.  This is one reason I'm in favor of having only one game mode.  Addressing the OP, this is my main aversion towards instanced GvG or the like.  ANet tried something similar, and balancing was apparently beyond their capabilities.
     
    Class-wise, anyone can do anything to one degree or another, and sustain is pretty high across the board on most reasonably good builds.  Actually, every character has at least one heal skill, by design.  Time to kill is fairly short under ideal circumstances; if you catch someone out, alone without support, no stun-breaks (there are a lot of these too), and no immunities active, you can spike them down on a scale of seconds.  Damage levels are usually pretty high proportional to health bars.  But active defense like evades, stun-breaks, temporary CC immunity skills, sustain, blocks, and active mitigation is so prevalent that in reality, even a marginally good fight lasts a good deal longer, and really good matches can last much longer.  I've had some duels last over 10 minutes, though that was kind of rare for me.
     
    Active defense is a big part of the game, and GW2 fights often include relatively high levels of evades, mobility, interrupts, blinds, blocks, and probably some I'm forgetting.  The equivalent of "stamina" is a very important resource, as it allows for more dodges.  There is no mana (though there are a couple of other class-specific resources in some cases), but skills are all limited by cooldowns.  Most are fairly short (the equivalent of CF's ranger 1 melee would not be anywhere near 45s), but the highest-impact skills (like elites) have CDs sometimes in excess of 1m.  Landing a big skill-shot (they do exist in the game) can be a fight-changer, and likewise timing a dodge/block/interrupt or whatever against a big skill can do the same.  Fights rely heavily on good movement/mobility, and managing cooldowns on your active defense and escapes.  I guess this is particularly true when you're outnumbered.  I guess zergs don't worry as much about this stuff.
     
    I'm not arguing that this design is good; it has some terrible parts that spoil it overall, and overpower the truly enjoyable aspects (highly active and fluid, tight, movement-oriented combat - it "feels" good).  I agree that GW2 provides a lot of examples of what not to do.  I'm just saying that despite having almost everything stacked in favor of zergs, they were beatable even in GW2.  In other words you don't NEED friendly fire to beat a zerg.  This is a true statement. 
     
    FF would shift odds more in favor of the outnumbered squad.  I'm not disputing that.  What I'm saying is that I think that might not be a good thing.  The thrill for me is when it is quite hard to do.  In an open-world pvp game, there has to be some kind of end-game for the person who doesn't really care about the scoreboard, or the in-game rewards like better loot, and who might in fact care less about how many fights they win, but rather more about HOW they win them.  When a team gets pretty good, they can fight against other good players (which is awesome fun), but sometimes it's also fun to try your hand at a little 5v30+.  They should lose most of the time, so if they do win it should be pretty epic.
     
    I'm not as passionate about it as the pro-FF side seems to be, for sure.  I think I'd really enjoy FF "on" in a good 5v5 or 10v10, for example.  I think there would still be challenges out there for a good team to find, and even with FF, zergs won't be completely gimped (and they certainly won't disappear).  If anything it might just change their nature. 
     
    Anyway, that's more than enough from me; just sharing the perspective of a recovering zerg-busting addict.
     
    If you really want an idea of GW2 game-play, here's a couple videos.  Please excuse the video quality, and the player.  (This was done without comms).
     
    https://youtu.be/gpnShbi9aME?list=PLzWKhydiiL05UDzwRhsIGAB_elXU0B-21
     
    https://youtu.be/e6Mf5_e30PI?list=PLzWKhydiiL07Eu_hviwlAZQg9KMKNn5XL
  9. Like
    Cejo reacted to VIKINGNAIL in My issue with the new combat in Big World   
    GW2 style combat with tight hitboxes and abilities would be pretty awesome.
  10. Like
    Cejo reacted to Ziz in My issue with the new combat in Big World   
    What?
     
    You dislike circles, then dont. Play a confessor, learn to R click. backpedal, get in front of them etc.
     
    ps. lots of people LOVE blade and soul combat as well as GW2. And while WoW is old and unimaginative more people like it than hate the combat, not to mention it is an entirely different type of system... so again
     
    what?
  11. Like
    Cejo reacted to VIKINGNAIL in My issue with the new combat in Big World   
    Action combat generally involves lots of mobility and positioning. 
  12. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from krevra in That sad zerg feeling   
    Friendly fire is not necessary in order for a smaller team to stand against zergs.

    GW2 has some very zerg-friendly rules, but despite that there are and always have been people who play in small groups and consistently win against larger numbers.  Would FF have helped?  Probably in the long run, yeah.  But adding FF wouldn't end zergs, it would just make it easier to bust them up.  I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    I've always found zerg-busting to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of open-world pvp, but it's largely because of the challenge it presents.  Basically, if zerg-busting were easy, then it probably wouldn't feel as rewarding.  It should be earned through superior kiting, baiting, mutual support, management of team cooldowns (chaining cc, timing big spikes, not over-healing etc) and accurate "reading" of the fight.  It should push the limits of the players' skills as individuals and as a team.

    There shouldn't be efforts taken to "statistically" re-balance in favor of the out-numbered players.  Let's not cheapen the experience of a good zerg bust.

    As for IFF, I'm not convinced this innately helps a zerg in the first place.  Readily identifying whether that large group coming over that hill is hostile or not will allow the smaller group to position/react appropriately.  Often, it's a split second difference between a successful kite or a cc-chain death, and the small group usually has the finer margin of error.
     
    Also mentioned in this thread were siege engines w/ massive AoE.  From my experience, all this really accomplishes is an arms race (siege leads to counter-siege), which means that it in fact favors zergs.  They're likely to have resources to be able to withstand the siege engines; a small group can be stopped cold by a single person with a siege engine in a good position, while a zerg can absorb the damage and/or simply overwhelm the position.  It's also not interesting game-play at all.
  13. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from JamesGoblin in That sad zerg feeling   
    Friendly fire is not necessary in order for a smaller team to stand against zergs.

    GW2 has some very zerg-friendly rules, but despite that there are and always have been people who play in small groups and consistently win against larger numbers.  Would FF have helped?  Probably in the long run, yeah.  But adding FF wouldn't end zergs, it would just make it easier to bust them up.  I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    I've always found zerg-busting to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of open-world pvp, but it's largely because of the challenge it presents.  Basically, if zerg-busting were easy, then it probably wouldn't feel as rewarding.  It should be earned through superior kiting, baiting, mutual support, management of team cooldowns (chaining cc, timing big spikes, not over-healing etc) and accurate "reading" of the fight.  It should push the limits of the players' skills as individuals and as a team.

    There shouldn't be efforts taken to "statistically" re-balance in favor of the out-numbered players.  Let's not cheapen the experience of a good zerg bust.

    As for IFF, I'm not convinced this innately helps a zerg in the first place.  Readily identifying whether that large group coming over that hill is hostile or not will allow the smaller group to position/react appropriately.  Often, it's a split second difference between a successful kite or a cc-chain death, and the small group usually has the finer margin of error.
     
    Also mentioned in this thread were siege engines w/ massive AoE.  From my experience, all this really accomplishes is an arms race (siege leads to counter-siege), which means that it in fact favors zergs.  They're likely to have resources to be able to withstand the siege engines; a small group can be stopped cold by a single person with a siege engine in a good position, while a zerg can absorb the damage and/or simply overwhelm the position.  It's also not interesting game-play at all.
  14. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Akineko in EKs/Stronghold Types and the Social Structure   
    I wanted to get some thoughts.  Basically, how do you plan to use your EKs and strongholds to facilitate your guild and/or social aims?  How would you if you had more resources than you currently have?
     
    Will your EK be inhabited solely by guildies?  Will you open it up for "settlement?"  Will you focus on one really large stronghold in your own EK, or will you try to maintain numerous smaller holdings in various EKs?  Would you rather keep a bare-bones EK for yourself and place your largest stronghold on a bigger EK, gaining some kind of connection?  Or will you have a couch to crash on in every EK possible and leave your own place in ruins?  Something else I haven't thought of?
     
    How does that mesh with your playstyle and your approach to guilds and/or friends on an MMO?

    My thoughts:
     
    As context, I have always gravitated towards smaller guilds of like-minded players with similar play-styles, and we tend to develop sort of "organically" through game-play.  We tend to be interested in fighting, so we eventually glom up based on whoever we know fights well and isn't a complete d-bag.  Due to the sort of loose and casual way we tend to come together (and the base individualism of the members), we tend to each maintain wide and often overlapping networks. 
     
    So...

    Castle + Small forts:  Having forts all over would be nice.  They're smaller, and should be easier for even very large EK's to "fit" into their plans.  Plus, I could have more of them and spread them wider.  They'd be like embassies.  Lower standing (titles), but spread through more circles might be helpful.  Besides: most of the people I tend to play with would more likely value a person by their contributions in a fight, not the size of their holdings, so who cares about titles?  I'd still have a really solid HQ (castle), which I think alongside the large keep is one of the best strongholds for a small- to mid-sized (by my standards) guild.

    Castle + Keep:  On the other hand, a single person with both a small castle and a large keep will eventually become statistically rare; we must remember that the real estate market is currently skewed...eventually, most players won't be backers.  Having "population capacity" available on offer to allies/friends from other groups/guilds might prove to be vital early on; plenty of futons for those who don't want to maintain an EK, and just want to fight or craft or whatever without having to build a keep (ideal allies, IMO).  Thus, a Castle + Keep in home EK is pretty nice.  Alternatively, I could offer to place my keep in another EK, which could create a pretty strong tie because that's a pretty significant investment, and I'd still have a solid base in my own EK (the castle). 

    Larger than a Large Castle:  This is where I struggle to find advantages, as it doesn't fit my social style I guess.  What do you guys think?  Efficient for trading I suppose.  Perhaps a focal point or recruitment banner if that's what you're after?  There's certainly the awe factor.  Perhaps ideal for large "anyone welcome" types of guilds?  Or communities-but-not-guilds?  I can see that.  Anything else I'm not seeing?
     
    I think I'm happiest with my setup (small castle + large keep).  It might be because that's what I have, and I'm stuck with it, so I've been intent on finding ways to (intellectually) make it work.  But I kind of think that's what this thread is ultimately about.  IMO, many of us are sitting here with honestly insane "real estate holdings."  I think at this point, we OUGHT to be thinking of how we intend to put them to use, and I think viewing it from how they contribute to the social scene of the game might be constructive.
     
    Anyway, curious to see what your strategies are, and how (or if) you expect they relate to your overall approach to social/guild aspects in the game.
  15. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from JamesGoblin in EKs/Stronghold Types and the Social Structure   
    I wanted to get some thoughts.  Basically, how do you plan to use your EKs and strongholds to facilitate your guild and/or social aims?  How would you if you had more resources than you currently have?
     
    Will your EK be inhabited solely by guildies?  Will you open it up for "settlement?"  Will you focus on one really large stronghold in your own EK, or will you try to maintain numerous smaller holdings in various EKs?  Would you rather keep a bare-bones EK for yourself and place your largest stronghold on a bigger EK, gaining some kind of connection?  Or will you have a couch to crash on in every EK possible and leave your own place in ruins?  Something else I haven't thought of?
     
    How does that mesh with your playstyle and your approach to guilds and/or friends on an MMO?

    My thoughts:
     
    As context, I have always gravitated towards smaller guilds of like-minded players with similar play-styles, and we tend to develop sort of "organically" through game-play.  We tend to be interested in fighting, so we eventually glom up based on whoever we know fights well and isn't a complete d-bag.  Due to the sort of loose and casual way we tend to come together (and the base individualism of the members), we tend to each maintain wide and often overlapping networks. 
     
    So...

    Castle + Small forts:  Having forts all over would be nice.  They're smaller, and should be easier for even very large EK's to "fit" into their plans.  Plus, I could have more of them and spread them wider.  They'd be like embassies.  Lower standing (titles), but spread through more circles might be helpful.  Besides: most of the people I tend to play with would more likely value a person by their contributions in a fight, not the size of their holdings, so who cares about titles?  I'd still have a really solid HQ (castle), which I think alongside the large keep is one of the best strongholds for a small- to mid-sized (by my standards) guild.

    Castle + Keep:  On the other hand, a single person with both a small castle and a large keep will eventually become statistically rare; we must remember that the real estate market is currently skewed...eventually, most players won't be backers.  Having "population capacity" available on offer to allies/friends from other groups/guilds might prove to be vital early on; plenty of futons for those who don't want to maintain an EK, and just want to fight or craft or whatever without having to build a keep (ideal allies, IMO).  Thus, a Castle + Keep in home EK is pretty nice.  Alternatively, I could offer to place my keep in another EK, which could create a pretty strong tie because that's a pretty significant investment, and I'd still have a solid base in my own EK (the castle). 

    Larger than a Large Castle:  This is where I struggle to find advantages, as it doesn't fit my social style I guess.  What do you guys think?  Efficient for trading I suppose.  Perhaps a focal point or recruitment banner if that's what you're after?  There's certainly the awe factor.  Perhaps ideal for large "anyone welcome" types of guilds?  Or communities-but-not-guilds?  I can see that.  Anything else I'm not seeing?
     
    I think I'm happiest with my setup (small castle + large keep).  It might be because that's what I have, and I'm stuck with it, so I've been intent on finding ways to (intellectually) make it work.  But I kind of think that's what this thread is ultimately about.  IMO, many of us are sitting here with honestly insane "real estate holdings."  I think at this point, we OUGHT to be thinking of how we intend to put them to use, and I think viewing it from how they contribute to the social scene of the game might be constructive.
     
    Anyway, curious to see what your strategies are, and how (or if) you expect they relate to your overall approach to social/guild aspects in the game.
  16. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Mytherceria in EKs/Stronghold Types and the Social Structure   
    I wanted to get some thoughts.  Basically, how do you plan to use your EKs and strongholds to facilitate your guild and/or social aims?  How would you if you had more resources than you currently have?
     
    Will your EK be inhabited solely by guildies?  Will you open it up for "settlement?"  Will you focus on one really large stronghold in your own EK, or will you try to maintain numerous smaller holdings in various EKs?  Would you rather keep a bare-bones EK for yourself and place your largest stronghold on a bigger EK, gaining some kind of connection?  Or will you have a couch to crash on in every EK possible and leave your own place in ruins?  Something else I haven't thought of?
     
    How does that mesh with your playstyle and your approach to guilds and/or friends on an MMO?

    My thoughts:
     
    As context, I have always gravitated towards smaller guilds of like-minded players with similar play-styles, and we tend to develop sort of "organically" through game-play.  We tend to be interested in fighting, so we eventually glom up based on whoever we know fights well and isn't a complete d-bag.  Due to the sort of loose and casual way we tend to come together (and the base individualism of the members), we tend to each maintain wide and often overlapping networks. 
     
    So...

    Castle + Small forts:  Having forts all over would be nice.  They're smaller, and should be easier for even very large EK's to "fit" into their plans.  Plus, I could have more of them and spread them wider.  They'd be like embassies.  Lower standing (titles), but spread through more circles might be helpful.  Besides: most of the people I tend to play with would more likely value a person by their contributions in a fight, not the size of their holdings, so who cares about titles?  I'd still have a really solid HQ (castle), which I think alongside the large keep is one of the best strongholds for a small- to mid-sized (by my standards) guild.

    Castle + Keep:  On the other hand, a single person with both a small castle and a large keep will eventually become statistically rare; we must remember that the real estate market is currently skewed...eventually, most players won't be backers.  Having "population capacity" available on offer to allies/friends from other groups/guilds might prove to be vital early on; plenty of futons for those who don't want to maintain an EK, and just want to fight or craft or whatever without having to build a keep (ideal allies, IMO).  Thus, a Castle + Keep in home EK is pretty nice.  Alternatively, I could offer to place my keep in another EK, which could create a pretty strong tie because that's a pretty significant investment, and I'd still have a solid base in my own EK (the castle). 

    Larger than a Large Castle:  This is where I struggle to find advantages, as it doesn't fit my social style I guess.  What do you guys think?  Efficient for trading I suppose.  Perhaps a focal point or recruitment banner if that's what you're after?  There's certainly the awe factor.  Perhaps ideal for large "anyone welcome" types of guilds?  Or communities-but-not-guilds?  I can see that.  Anything else I'm not seeing?
     
    I think I'm happiest with my setup (small castle + large keep).  It might be because that's what I have, and I'm stuck with it, so I've been intent on finding ways to (intellectually) make it work.  But I kind of think that's what this thread is ultimately about.  IMO, many of us are sitting here with honestly insane "real estate holdings."  I think at this point, we OUGHT to be thinking of how we intend to put them to use, and I think viewing it from how they contribute to the social scene of the game might be constructive.
     
    Anyway, curious to see what your strategies are, and how (or if) you expect they relate to your overall approach to social/guild aspects in the game.
  17. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Kraahk in EKs/Stronghold Types and the Social Structure   
    I wanted to get some thoughts.  Basically, how do you plan to use your EKs and strongholds to facilitate your guild and/or social aims?  How would you if you had more resources than you currently have?
     
    Will your EK be inhabited solely by guildies?  Will you open it up for "settlement?"  Will you focus on one really large stronghold in your own EK, or will you try to maintain numerous smaller holdings in various EKs?  Would you rather keep a bare-bones EK for yourself and place your largest stronghold on a bigger EK, gaining some kind of connection?  Or will you have a couch to crash on in every EK possible and leave your own place in ruins?  Something else I haven't thought of?
     
    How does that mesh with your playstyle and your approach to guilds and/or friends on an MMO?

    My thoughts:
     
    As context, I have always gravitated towards smaller guilds of like-minded players with similar play-styles, and we tend to develop sort of "organically" through game-play.  We tend to be interested in fighting, so we eventually glom up based on whoever we know fights well and isn't a complete d-bag.  Due to the sort of loose and casual way we tend to come together (and the base individualism of the members), we tend to each maintain wide and often overlapping networks. 
     
    So...

    Castle + Small forts:  Having forts all over would be nice.  They're smaller, and should be easier for even very large EK's to "fit" into their plans.  Plus, I could have more of them and spread them wider.  They'd be like embassies.  Lower standing (titles), but spread through more circles might be helpful.  Besides: most of the people I tend to play with would more likely value a person by their contributions in a fight, not the size of their holdings, so who cares about titles?  I'd still have a really solid HQ (castle), which I think alongside the large keep is one of the best strongholds for a small- to mid-sized (by my standards) guild.

    Castle + Keep:  On the other hand, a single person with both a small castle and a large keep will eventually become statistically rare; we must remember that the real estate market is currently skewed...eventually, most players won't be backers.  Having "population capacity" available on offer to allies/friends from other groups/guilds might prove to be vital early on; plenty of futons for those who don't want to maintain an EK, and just want to fight or craft or whatever without having to build a keep (ideal allies, IMO).  Thus, a Castle + Keep in home EK is pretty nice.  Alternatively, I could offer to place my keep in another EK, which could create a pretty strong tie because that's a pretty significant investment, and I'd still have a solid base in my own EK (the castle). 

    Larger than a Large Castle:  This is where I struggle to find advantages, as it doesn't fit my social style I guess.  What do you guys think?  Efficient for trading I suppose.  Perhaps a focal point or recruitment banner if that's what you're after?  There's certainly the awe factor.  Perhaps ideal for large "anyone welcome" types of guilds?  Or communities-but-not-guilds?  I can see that.  Anything else I'm not seeing?
     
    I think I'm happiest with my setup (small castle + large keep).  It might be because that's what I have, and I'm stuck with it, so I've been intent on finding ways to (intellectually) make it work.  But I kind of think that's what this thread is ultimately about.  IMO, many of us are sitting here with honestly insane "real estate holdings."  I think at this point, we OUGHT to be thinking of how we intend to put them to use, and I think viewing it from how they contribute to the social scene of the game might be constructive.
     
    Anyway, curious to see what your strategies are, and how (or if) you expect they relate to your overall approach to social/guild aspects in the game.
  18. Like
    Cejo reacted to Kraahk in Worlds Parcels - Comparison and Overview   
    First: Thanks for all your kind feedback, i appreciate that.
     
    But it's no great thing. I am selfish and impatient and (depends) sometimes more or less a perfectionist. So primarily i gathered and compiled these informations (and results) for myself (and maybe friends). I just decided to share some of the informations at some point. That's all. Really no big deal.
    But nevertheless it is a good thing if you find it helpful. In the end we are one community, trying to help each other to help the game, aren't we?
     
    With this in mind i present the next chapter of this topic, hoping you may find it useful:
     

     
    The actual parcels of BigWorld (up to 3.5)
     
    On the left side you will see the Kraahk-Constructs (please remember, they are rough rebuilds and not perfect!) like they have been used in the spoilered map in the OP.
    On the right side you will see ingame pictures or released parcel concepts.
    First ones with indicators that show the point of view of the last ones.
    Finally i will describe some facts of these parcels.
     
    Knowing these details should help people to understand which parcels exist and enable people to create their own maps a lot faster. Hopefully. Nuff said. Here it is. Click the picture to enlarge it.
     

     
     
    Mountain (7-cell)

    This serpentine 7-cell parcel is made of three major mountain ranges (up to 210 meters high) which meet in joint high valleys where they meet each other.
    These parcels are perfect place to hide. For example the end of the world, high tier resources or helpless crafters.
    If you meet a very very high mountain range, this is it. The 3-cell long straight border on one side helps a lot to identify the right parcel direction for mapping, without having to run around the whole damn 3.6 kilometers of it's borders.

    City parcel (6-cell)

    This big 6-cell parcel is dominated by two large tablelands that reach a height up to nearly 30m. One of them based on a top circle with a diameter of about 60m plus adjacent slightly lower grounds that makes the whole structure oval. And the other one more or öess rectangular with an inner cross of  nearly 250m and 400m.  Two smaller mounds (opposite to the circle) build some kind of passageway between them. A perfect place for strongholds and houses.
    So if you find a village or a stronghold and really spacious plateaus, you likely will have found the city parcel. At the time of this posting (BW 3.1 to 3.5) this parcel also includes a keep on top of the rectangular tableland.

    Swamp parcel (2-6 cells)

    This parcel(s) is either a set of 2 different 1-cell parcels, two equal 3-cell parcels or one 6-cell parcel. I haven't checked it in detail, but i guess it is one big parcel.
    The swamp is very easy to identify. It's ground altitude is about 7-15 m higher than most other parcels and really break the landscape. And the swamps grounds are reddish brown and very uneven with a lot of sinks. Half of it's single cells contain water in it's sinks. The other half doesn't. If you find water, then you are in the center.
    Just like the mountains, the swamps are good hiding places. Be it for high tier resources or small archetypes that hide in the basins.

    The lake

    This 4-cell square parcel has a medium lake in it's center, surrounded by two hills with a height up to 25 meter.  Two main streams leave (or lead into) the lake and end (or start) in two smaller lakes, one of them with a small isle.
    If you see a stream or a lake, you found this parcel.

    The hills

    This 3-cell parcel contains several different kinds of small hills. In a clockwise order the first cell contains a wide but not so high conical rise. The highest hill in this trio (about 20m) is the very uneven one in the second cell. Depending on your point of view, one of it's sides looks very v-shaped. And the third parcel has three very small hillocks - obviously man-made spots to place small watch towers.

    The hamlet

    This 2-cell parcel is the third smallest stronghold parcel available in the shop. And besides the city parcel the only one that contained roads in BW 3.1-3.5. Just like the city it has two main tablelands to place strongholds on it, but they are a lot smaller. If you find roads but no large plateaus, you've likely found the hamlet.   

    The hillock

    The momentarily smallest parcel in the row is the 1-cell hillock. It only contains one very uneven and not very high rise with a little sink in it's middle. A place that animals seem to like, because sometimes you can find their lairs there. If you run on very uneven grounds and maybe even find a little sink in the middle, then you are at the right place. Often used to fill gaps between larger parcels. So you'll find it quite often.
     
  19. Like
    Cejo reacted to Kraahk in Worlds Parcels - Comparison and Overview   
    3.4 was...
     
     
     
     
     
     
    It has been said that the individual parcels might have some kind of weight limitation to control what and how much you can build on it.
     
    The "hills" are set in a way to enable us to build individually. Or to say: Their parcel creation approach tries to avoid a situation where a stronghold only makes sense in one place and one structural design. Jon spoke about it in his stream. They are not there to tell us something, but to give us additional design opportunities.
     
    As far as we know up to now, there will be no buildings space attachements. We know that we very likely won't be able to build structures beyond parcel borders (i think this was in the last AMA). Maybe there will be parcels that extend the weight maximum for adjacent stronghold cells, just like farmland parcels reduce the maintenance cost. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't know. Maybe someone will make such a suggestions, once we get more informations about the building system.
  20. Like
    Cejo reacted to Kraahk in Worlds Parcels - Comparison and Overview   
    Content:
    Posting 1 (this one): Content, Foreword, Basic Informations for new players, list of numbers of supported players per stronghold parcel type, picture of full BigWorld 3.3-3.5 Map (spoilered), most important stronghold parcels Posting 2: Picture of BigWorld 3.3 to 3.5, compared to maximum basic map/EK size (spoilered) Posting 3: All existing parcels with pictures and descriptions, as of BigWorld testing build 3.3-3.5. Posting 4: The new canyon parcel in BigWorld 3.7, as of 2016.12.12 Thread: Mountain Parcel - New details as of May 2017 Also visit my Stronghold Comparison if you like to, now including the number of wall parts you will get for your stronghold packages during the 3.8 tests.
     
    Foreword
    A while ago i made a Stronghold Comparison to show and discuss how big Strongholds will be in Crowfall. Though mostly based on rough estimations and a lot of calculations, the numbers turned out to be pretty good.
    Now, with the opportunity to take measures within the BigWorld test environment, the possibilities of calculations rose as much as the curiosity how the dimensions of parcels will feel and how the world will look like finally.
    In this thread i will try to juxtapose parcels that we have seen seperated and from a bird's-eye perspective (like concept arts) or mixed up and from a worm's-eye view (like in the BigWorld test).
    Please note that those are NOT the real things. Based on given informations, these 3D parcel pictures are roughly self-made emulations, so they won't be perfect. But they should be good enough to give a general idea.
    After some basic informations for newcomers, i will start with the most important stronghold parcels and show you how they look like, compared with each other and the actual BW 3.4 test environment, and will add new informations and pictures from time to time.
    Have fun, good luck
    Kraahk
     
    Basic informations
    For those who are not into geomancy, some basic informations.
    Parcels are the modules our worlds are made of. Each parcel contains one or more quadratic cells with a side-legth of 256 meter each. Crowfall uses basic maps with a scope of 20x20 cells. In the case of Campaigns, several procedurally compiled basic maps will be stitched together to build the whole world. In case of Eternal Kingdoms, players will have the opportunity to build their very own kingdom (they way they want to) within the frame of one basic map. Parcels and Strongholds can be bought in the shop. They can also be build out of ingame materials (if the necessary skills are trained - like stone masonry or geomancy) or shared or traded with other players in game. Parcels can be placed in other players kingdoms. Placing a parcel somewhere else doesn't change the ownerships. The same is true for building components like walls. So people can work together, without fear to loose something. Parcels and Strongholds support different number of players/shops, mostly depending on the parcel type and rank. The numbers show the estimated support provided by the basic version of this kind of parcel.

     
    From Shire to Province - an overview
    We have seen a lot of pictures and we ran more or less frenetically through the BigWorld. But we haven't seen the parcels side by side yet. In this picture you can see the most important parcel types, including their names and supported player base. Where known, i also added the related strongholds, roughly true to scale.

     
     
     
    Parcels compared to the world
    It is nice to know how big parcels are if compared to others. But how big is this in game? To say: How will it feel? To answer this questions, we need something to compare an ingame feeling of scope with those dry pictures above. Since we have BigWorld testing, we can do that.
    The following picture shows the big stronghold parcels side by side with the explorable BigWorld environment of the 3.4 Test. The Palace parcel (province 3) would swallow the whole swamp area + 2 Shire parcels + 2 Estate parcels. To see more ingame maps of the 3.x tests, you can visit my Crowfall Maps thread.

    edit 161119: content summary added (including later postings)
    edit 170425: Time goes by. Adjusted some things, added some links.
  21. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from JamesGoblin in If you are new to Crowfall, introduce yourself here!   
    Hi.  I'm a long-time gamer, started out with NWN on AOL ("Gold Box").  I've had a lot of fun with a lot of games since. 
     
    Most recently LoL and GW2, though mostly GW2, as LoL gets repetitive to me and it lacks the social bonds I prefer to enjoy when playing with and against other people.  In GW2, I play WvW almost exclusively on a server and a guild that I like (as a "roamer" who likes to fight against way too many people).  Unfortunately, I feel that WvW consistently fails to live up to its potential.  I'm excited about a game where the entire premise is basically open-world PvP, and I like the underlying structure of finite matches, and the flexibility of multiple rule sets.
     
    It seems like the game will also naturally provide extra substance/purpose for guilds and the other social aspects of the game, which is important.  Additionally, the potential for "organized" duels and PvP matches in EK's is also particularly intriguing to me, especially if the combat system turns out like I think it might, and if rivalries and a solid culture of fights emerge. 
     
    I am excited to see this develop, and I'm glad to contribute what I can to help.
  22. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Isarii in thedregs.net - Public Market and Hardcore/Political Discussion   
    You are basically just disgruntled that your IRC isn't the go-to anymore, is how I'm reading this.
  23. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from bahamutkaiser in Legionnaire Powers And Animation - Official Discussion Thread   
    I think the problem might just be the gait pattern.  It looks like two guys in a horse costume or something.
  24. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Rasabox in Legionnaire Powers And Animation - Official Discussion Thread   
    I think the problem might just be the gait pattern.  It looks like two guys in a horse costume or something.
  25. Like
    Cejo got a reaction from Steven Yannic in Legionnaire Powers And Animation - Official Discussion Thread   
    I think the problem might just be the gait pattern.  It looks like two guys in a horse costume or something.
×
×
  • Create New...