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

PhiLLiPS

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I disagree. Crowfall will be 90% about combat and 70% of the playerbase will spend 90% of their time in combat. Even harvesting and crafting gonna be combat dependent. If devs dont focus in combat design then crowfall will fail. To tell you the truth, i think actual state of combat system is way too simple and too old. We are seeing archetypes with a mix of healing, tankiness and CC. Some with more, some with less in a fast paced combat. The only thing that maybe can shine is targeting but it isnt something UH OH! that nobody already tried before. Why not make the combat a little more innovative? With more depth? Because they dont have the numbers? Then dont do it... Imagine a combat where all archetypes have just the basic. They can all DPS and have different quantity of resources (spent to cast spells, move, dodge etc). You can balance it easily. Now you could put healing and CC (two things that bring potential balance problems but are necessary) behind something called combos. E.G: To heal someone, besides aiming (individual hability), you would need to know which of your teamate's skill combines with one of your skills resulting in a heal (previous knowledge), and cast it syncronized with your teammate (teamplay). So without knowledge and teamplay, you dont have heal and CC on your side. Still, you can DPS. This could encourage people to play together at the same time it could deeply disencourage too large and disorganized groups. It also brings a lot of depth to the combat without making it boring, slow or complicated. It is also something new, fresh, challenging. Just my 2 cents about this subject. I dont think they have time to change it anymore.
  2. Yeah, it is really a niche.... First thank you all for the time spent reading (for those that really read) and good luck. I just hope Crowfall can succeed where no other game before (and there were so many), that tried this out, did. The fact is that, right now, in Crowfall, there is nothing different in this matter pointing otherwise.
  3. I'm not saying instance all the map. Only the castle battle GvG.
  4. Almost everyone here already got that sad feeling being in a zerg, where you feel like just another one in a mass of people you barely know.When zergs fight zergs it is even worse: you see your screen blurred in every direction as you become taking hits from nowhere. Additionally, if servers (and the path to your computer) aren't strong enough, calculations can't be delivered on time and you have a lot of lag. Specially when the servers additionally have to calculate colision detection and Friendly fire. This isn't the situation pvp players do like specially nowadays where e-sports games like dota, league, overwatch and a like are making success. The idea of incorporating strategy games, making campaigns with a winner at the end followed by a reset was really nice and fixed so many things that appeared in recent MMO genre games. But i feel Crowfall must go beyond so i have an idea of a campaign type that could fix it (hopefully). There are so many games that tried variations of this large scale combats and consistenly failed, that i am inclined to give up and rethink it, just like u did when u had the idea of campaigns. Why not make the fight for cities and castles an instanced and balanced mini-game with different formats (e.g: 20x20, 10x10, 5x5)? With it, you could also make some specific rules on challenging a captured castle or on maintaining the captured castle, like: - When neutral, your guild needs to pay a tax to capture it; - When captured by another guild, your guild must challenge them for a mini-game to capture it. The enemy guild must accept the challenge whithin a given time (e.g. 2h). - If the enemy guild loses the game, it loses the castle and your guild claims it. - If the enemy guild doesn't accept the challenge whithin the given time, it receives permanent and cumulative penalties in "whatever a guild wins while holding a castle". - If the enemy guild wins the game, it receives permanent buff in "whatever a guild wins while holding a castle" and your guild wins a consolation prize. - After the "mini-game" ends, whatever are the results, battles of your guild against this guild will have to obey a cooldown. You could even balance the game separately, giving different abilities to the archetypes that only work inside the "mini-game"; This allied with the campaign idea could: - Solve the zerg problem as numbers will only matter to gather resourcers in the open world which i presume will be non zerg efficiently since resources will be scattered through a big open world; - Bring more balanced PvP fights and more fair encounters to the game (in terms of numbers and maps/objectives); - Make it easier for the servers since they will do less calculations at the same time (also brings cost reduction on hardware); - Make the game easier to balance; - Make the game more appealing to a lot more players around the world (more income); Just an idea...
  5. A lot of people worrying about how hardcore they are and how hardcore the game must be... The reality is completely different. First, things like FF and collision detection must prove to be reliable in terms of server and network capability of handling this amount of calculations. Second....hey you who think this game should be hardcore as hell...this game does not need hardcore people and rulesets to succeed. ​It needs MONEY. And the vast majority of players out there, with money to spend, are hardcore in real life with work, wives, kids etc...and just want a game to spend time in. I'm not saying u shouldn't be hardcore but even hardcore players need non hardcore ones. Different rulesets in parallel worlds is a hell of an idea and if right implemented could make this game appealing to a lot of different playstyles and hardcore levels of a lot of different types of players, at the same time (i.e. a lot of MONEY).
  6. In my opinion, you need to adjust combat to the game itself. I could be wrong but PvP encounters will happen in campaings with fog AND a mix of PvP and PvE (PVPVE). So, you will have a lot of unbalanced situations, in terms of numbers (i.e. you will find yourself outnumbered or the enemy will) and in terms of team composition (i.e. you could end being in a team with 3 of the same archetype). Thus, balance and archetypes need to fit in there. You can't have pure support classes or any other role. Also, you can't make support a gamebreaking feature and inside support, direct healing and preventive damage (buffs and CCs) need to be balanced as well. I'm 100% in favor of every archetype have its own support and attack skills. It's easier to balance in messy situations like the ones will appear in this game.
  7. Who is being punished when someone that you don't know betray your group for his own fun? As for the second question i have another one. Why would you not cleave? Just because you can cleave your friend doesn't mean you cant cleave to kill the enemy. A zerg facing a small group can just cleave, killing some friends and all enemies along the way. They still win.
  8. To balance zerging, you definitely need skill. BUT to use it you need the game to SUPPORT it. There is a difference between what game can do to prevent zerging and what the game can do to support anti zerg skills. e.g., Friendly fire x Smart map design FF is a failed attempt to balance zerging. It is the game trying to punish players for...playing. This feature also brings a lot of problems like intentional pking. Now, SMD is a good feature. It brings a lot of combat and positioning strategies. It supports smart play. Maps with choking points and high grounds. Also, maps with different objectives intentionally spread, forcing people to think where to attack or when to divide forces. e.g., Collision detection x Smart combat design CD is another failed attempt to balance zerging. It again, punish players. Imagine you playing alone and suddenly a zerg appears. You will not be capable to move at all. Now, imagine only one objective to do but a zerg is between you and it. What you gonna do? Logout? Another thing nobody thought about was server capability. No server in the gaming industry was ever capable of calculate so much CD. So, expect a low population cap and the huge amount of problems that comes with it. On the other hand, SCD is a nice feature specially if you smartly put a code that increases the damage players take based on the number of players inside the area of effect. This way, you can improve AOE to outnumbered people without directly punishing nobody. And there are a lot of other things to improve on that matter.
  9. To balance zerging, you definitely need skill. BUT to use it you need the game to SUPPORT it. There is a difference between what game can do to prevent zerging and what the game can do to support anti zerg skills. e.g., Friendly fire x Smart map design FF is a failed attempt to balance zerging. It is the game trying to punish players for...playing. This feature also brings a lot of problems like intentional pking. Now, SMD is a good feature. It brings a lot of combat and positioning strategies. It supports smart play. Maps with choking points and high grounds. Also, maps with different objectives intentionally spread, forcing people to think where to attack or when to divide forces. e.g., Collision detection x Smart combat design CD is another failed attempt to balance zerging. It again, punish players. Imagine you playing alone and suddenly a zerg appears. You will not be capable to move at all. Now, imagine only one objective to do but a zerg is between you and it. What you gonna do? Logout? Another thing nobody thought about was server capability. No server in the gaming industry was ever capable of calculate so much CD. So, expect a low population cap and the huge amount of problems that comes with it. On the other hand, SCD is a nice feature specially if you smartly put a code that increases the damage players take based on the number of players inside the area of effect. This way, you can improve AOE to outnumbered people without directly punishing nobody. And there are a lot of other things to improve on that matter.
  10. I used health, mana and cds as balance tools considering each role (i never said these attributes needed to be exactly the same between archetypes with same role). I think its a common move when you balance things. Not the only one though... As control archetypes damaging mainly with dots topic...i know its strange but let me elaborate: With high health pool, they cant do too much damage (balance reasons) and in a PvP group fight (with a trinity) pressure is essential. If you move pressure role to a DPS you have problems because first, you will not find many DPS players to play pressure role (they are inclined to fast kill) and control role becomes less relevant and too circunstancial during the fight. Want an example? Take a look at Magus in Warhammer online. Also, as i said in the end, you could have hybrid roles archetypes as long as you dont lose the "chains of balance". So every DPS will only have burst damage? Hell no... And you are right to fear lack of requirement of archetypes. In GW2 we see this clearly and like you, i didnt like it. I prefer a thousand times to wait for a specific role to group up than have no specific roles at all. This wait time was frustating in some games mainly because was a pain to level up one. Not because people didnt want to support or play other role. Maybe devs in CF will get it right, maybe not. I lost my confidence in systems without trinity a long time ago. PS: I thought the game was still in pre-alpha and because of that, roles were still under discussion. If they aren't, i am sorry and then consider my idea a personal desire of change for this game. And please, Classic trinity (tank, heal, dps) in PVE had taunt (thats why it has a tank role). This is not what my idea of roles is...
  11. I would like to give an idea about how i see roles could work. Being CF a PVP group based system, roles need to be something different from other games with tanks and healers. Roles systems like holy trinity are basic for PVE games and MOBAS have their own competitive particularities. This system is how i imagine CF could be. 1) BASICS I still believe in trinities. So, it could be something with 3 basic roles: - Support - Control - Damage 2) DESCRIPTIONS 2.1) SUPPORT Support role must be capable of: - Healing allies - Mitigate incoming damage on allies - Buffing allies Note that with these abilities, support can do his job offensively (ex: buffing attack speed) and defensively (ex: buffing health); Support archetypes must have basicly: - Medium health pool - Medium mana pool - Medium cooldowns - Low overall damage (they can survive a lot so they cant do much damage) 2.2) CONTROL Control role must be capable of: - Control groups of enemies (crowd control like stuns, roots, pulls etc) - Pressure the enemy with DOT (damage over time) abilities - Initiate the fight With these capabilities, control archetypes must have basicly: - High health pool (control archetypes need to be a long-term menace) - High mana pool (to be able to give pressure at the right time) - High cooldowns (to prevent cc spam making them use it only at the right time) - Medium overall damage (long-term, over-time) While dots need to be spammable, crowd-control abilites must not. 2.3) DAMAGE As the name says, it must be capable of: - Blow away red bars from the screen With this in mind, damage archetypes must have basicly: - Low health pool (his killing power is too high so it needs to be balanced) - Low mana pool (It is a long-term resource so they must think a little about the future) - Medium cooldowns (To engage only at the right time) - High overall damage (short-term, spike or just burst type) 3) CONCLUSIONS This is a well balanced basic system to build all archetypes. To make different and unique archetypes maybe you could mix some of the roles (create some hybrid-roles archetypes) so you dont have to stick only with attack ranges and looks.
  12. Clearly, FF brings a lot of potential problems to the game that need to be solved by the devs. One problem could be classes that rely too much on AOE. If its strength is in AOE, they will not shine in combat like the other classes. Another problem comes if the game will have both options, with or without FF. With FF, people could take too long to be killed since AOE will not be commonly used and stacked (large scale combat). So devs will maybe need to adjust health, defense etc...accordingly. We also, cant forget how much a server will have to handle in large scale fights with FF on. It will double the effort required and i doubt servers can handle this much. These are just some problems. There are more. Much more.
×
×
  • Create New...