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

Lord_Piper

Testers
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord_Piper

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Language
    English
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. The "not enough disk space error" seems to be a permission issue with windows. Running the patcher as administrator solved the issue for me. I can also move the folder out of the windows protected folders (i.e. program files) and the patcher no longer requires admin privileges. ~Lp
  2. I am also going to mirror the concern about having a who command in the campaign worlds. I feel this is simply provides information that we should be using player intelligence gathering techniques for. On the other hand I would love a command like this that tells me who is on my land in an EK(s). This would help me manage my shops while I am off in a campaign world.
  3. I am going to agree with Deloria here. Lore is what anchors us to the world. In a sandbox game it helps bind us together, creating causes and banners to fight for and against, allowing us to choose sides and meet friends we would not have ordinary have met. Creating the lore in such a way that we "forget" what we fought for does the game no favors. I would be fairly surprised to not see anyone carry the banners of their god or faction from the outer bands into the dregs or shadows where they mean nothing. A group of players banding together around a rallying cry, is simply fun gameplay, and one players can generally create for themselves. This does not mean that I am supporting some game mechanic that forces us to keep a god we chose at creation; as I feel that would be a bad fit for Crowfall. Simply that I believe there will be more than a handful of players that will want to carry their loyalty to a god or faction throughout their EK and all the campaigns, and this should be encouraged not discouraged. ~Lp
  4. I really enjoyed this video. Knowing what the devs are trying to accomplish in a game design helps us tailor our feedback; and is overlooked a great deal in many dev posts in other games. One thing I didn't hear mentioned is Risk Mitigation. To Pick on EVE because it was mentioned in the video, the only areas mining parties exist is where risks can be sufficiently mitigated to turn a profit mining. That could be the big blue donut of null or concord of high sec, but either way it is an important factor. One only has to look at how many mining groups are in low sec of EVE to see this reflected. No matter how many guards and players you place out in low, the attackers always have a large enough advantage that it becomes cost prohibitive to do so. With the information I have read to date, I see Crowfall's harvesting falling into the pattern of little Risk mitigation other than sheer numbers. This will just set the gameplay of to kill 10 bring 20. I feel this will encourage stealth gameplay for harvesting not group gameplay. Stealth gameplay does fit the exploration style of play, and is not necessarily a bad thing; however I think you would find gated group nodes to be a frustration these players, not a boon. Same with any minigame, as it would block your screen when you are trying to watch your six. If we truly want to foster group gameplay, I would recommend some sort of "workcamp" that could be placed on the node and would allow traps, or weak walls to be placed around it. I am not suggesting a passive spawner that you forget and it defends itself; but something that creates a defensible position that prevents raiders from just bum rushing and slaughtering the guys busy wacking a node, giving the defending players a chance to repel the attack.
  5. We are not in much disagreement here. I have a feeling we may be envisioning "large import and "small import" differently. I think of small import as (at the peak of small import) enough to outfit a person with a few top of the line gear sets; and Large import as enough to start building structures. Dregs rulesets don't thematically have a reason for a Large or full import, but an import that allows top gear is a balance changer, and should be avoided by people that don't want to use their top gear. Nothing in the Dev statements you posted countered what I am saying; or how I envision the game working. I do expect the balance to shift over time, even to a degree the devs don't expect yet. As that is the nature of MMOs. They will get a much clearer picture as campaign data comes in, and will adjust rules accordingly. I don't feel it is irrational to believe that the import rules could be heavily adjusted for a specific campaign. They don't want to make a ton of changes that would change the feel of the campaign to make it out of place within the band. I find Import rules a much less thematic module than death penalty and export rules, and I fully expect it to be adjusted more than those. Still, Moving any single slider to see if the players would enjoy it or solve a balance issue that comes up, I find very likely.
  6. Wait, Where did I say that Campaign A and Campaign B were in different bands? You can't have a choice of different rulesets within the same band? Remember it is the campaign not the band that makes the rules. That being said, Yes I would expect the dregs to have a more individual accomplishment focus, and have rulessets that promote that more; and Shadows to have more campaigns with more group friendly rulesets, as they are guild vrs guild. Not every Campaign mind you, just having more campaigns with those focuses overall.
  7. We don't know that you are forced to play archetypes vessels that are "available" or if you will always have at least the "basic" level Vessel, and high quality vessels are what you fight over. Losing our corpse does not really mean that you are forced to choose other archetypes, just that you won't guarantee always having that really strong vessel. That all being said, Forcing someone to play a Knight, even when they really hate playing the knight because that is the only vessel available would not be a fun game play mechanic. Making someone just step down to a lower level body of the same archetype, so they have to work to build it up again isn't all that bad. In fact, depending on how Promotion class vessels work, that could bring an interesting dynamic of risk to the campaigns.
  8. If we took EVE, and did a an asset and sovereignty wipe every 6 months. You would find a good deal of shifting of power blocks. This is one reason for the campaigns having an end. So while you can spend lots of resources making yourself very hard to take out in a campaign, that campaign will end and those investments are consumed. This won't solve everything obviously; and it will create issues that we can't even foresee yet. Still I don't think this game's design is close enough to EVE's to assume the pitfalls will be identical even if we are looking at many of the same systems.
  9. All Campaigns will be susceptible to strong powerblocks of players. People play together in an MMO. No import rules or shallow skill curves will remove this vulnerability completely. Campaign B in this example is a ruleset that mitigates imports more harshly than campaign A. So you don't have to worry about going up against someone that has an established resource pool to draw on. That being said, I would not want every single campaign to be balanced around the idea that there should be no carried over economy influencing it. Not only would that destroy much of the economy of exporting goods in the first place, It would not remove the risk. All things being equal, an experienced group of organized players will still have an advantage.
  10. Large powers that have invested in their economies play in Campaign A. The people that haven't the time or the will to do that can still Play on Campaign B. Getting this balance right won't be easy, as both A and B have be fun and rewarding, or the players in Campaign B will feel left out and can never try out the play style of Campaign A, if they so choose. To argue that there you can never build up a large power base, or economy and use it in a campaign, negates a large draw of the game. What is the point of an economy that has no practical use? There are a good deal of tools in the toolbox to keep a downward pressure on a dominate force from staying dominate in this current game concept. That does not mean that dominate forces won't exist. At the end of the day, Players that work together and stay organized will do better than a bunch of lone wolfs, no matter how many rules you put in place to even the odds.
  11. I agree that forcing you to be disembodied for an extended period of time would simply be non enjoyable mechanic. I find it interesting that you mentioned that you may have to settle for a different Archtype that you want. Do you find it reasonable, even if it was just on the most high risk rulesets, that you could be denied all the Archtype you have trained into? Would you prefer to at least have all the starter Archtypes available. Perhaps conquest of the graveyard could give you access to the promotion classes as a spawning interval as conquest bonus.
  12. That sounds like a reasonable possibility. How do you envision strategic conquest working? Just camp the PIO to kill anyone that comes close? I was thinking PIOs in general were more like a "capture the flag" mechanic, I.E I can take the mine, plant my flag and put some sort of defensive item that my team could use to assist in its defense, until it is burned out, and recaptured by team B. I didn't get the impression that conquest, of said mine created a invulnerability timer , and it is mine until the next vulnerable period, where team B could take it. Though I suppose that would also be a possibility.
  13. I agree that the export and death rules play a larger part in the risk/reward values than import rules. It could even be possible that many of the import buckets can be larger than the loser export bucket, so if You lose, you always risk something. Reading this debate It made me think of a risk I don't remember being covered in this thread. IF Graveyards are POIs, and therefore conquerable, How do I get a body without import if all the Graveyard POIs are controlled my by enemy?
  14. haha, I could very well be. I am very aware that they have stated this. They have also stated that campaigns will contain the rulesets not the bands. To make sure there is not too many campaigns spreading the population they will have to start somewhere with rule sets. Also they will want to cover as different playstyles, So I understand why there is a difficulty element set within the bands. That being said, I know that gaming resources tend to follow the population; if the large population is playing in the infected, and keep asking for a campaign with a winner take all ruleset. I have a pretty good bet it will get made, even if the "band" doesn't support it. But why does all this matter? I think we get hung up on this "Dregs will have no import, so no economy", style of thinking. Stepping back, and looking at the large picture of the concept, and notice that its design is to be fluid. In Theory, we can actually Have a Dregs campaign with no import and a Dregs campaign with large import rules running side by side if the populations support it. So While I do believe the concern: "How does a completely closed campaign fit in the economy?" is a valid one. I believe the consern: "That God's Reach players will have nothing to offer Dregs players" is already addressed in the fluidity of the design as we currently know it.
  15. We are digesting these systems in mostly concept form. So I hesitate to really give a ton of feedback when so much is to be determined. However, that being said, I really think many here have this band concept all wrong. It is not Dregs is high risk, Gods reach is low risk. It is Dregs is "free for all" and Gods Reach is 3 faction warfare. To say that there won't be a high risk, "winner take all" Campaigns in God's Reach and all Dregs Campaigns will be high risk, high reward, Is missing the concept of the bands. The value of resources in the campaign world will be set by the risks of the ruleset. I am pretty sure the export rules, and the death penalties will be the primary factor, in resource generation, not the import ruleset or the band it exists in. These are for balance and gameplay style, not difficulty.
×
×
  • Create New...