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

Undeadfred

Testers
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Undeadfred

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Moon Base Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

692 profile views
  1. Or hopefully name a successor should something like "GM doesn't login after x amount of days". It's unfortunate but sometimes people disappear, have life events come up that keep them longing in, or even die.
  2. Any place where we can see a list of all the emblems and patterns to choose from?
  3. I think many things remain to be seen such as the size of the map, and how how that correlates with the availability of resources, and how likely traffic of enemy players is to interrupt resource gathering in off peak times, but you certainly touched on some good points. "Doobers drop randomly around the node, so in addition to recognizing nodes, they will also have to be taught to pick up." This is a good point, I imagine it will hurt bot efficiency greatly Also bots aren't just used by sweat shops in china. They're used by unscrupulous guilds looking to gain an advantage. Guilds that might not win outright but certainly will contribute enough to a victory to take a large fraction of those resources home. Even if they don't that resources that can be used in that campaign. I will conceded though that this is perhaps the most unfriendly mmo to bot in, and that's a good thing. I hope the design as is, will make botting unprofitable, but should it prove not to be we have everything in place to turn a few knobs and render botting extinct.
  4. Bots do try to run, but the real reason bots can survive in Open World pvp games is the the world is so large, and there isn't always peak players. Also those who run the Bots often do protect them. I remember in Old school wow the wars that would happen between the farmers who ran the bots and those trying to kick them off the server that would happen in Western Plague lands. You will always have some levels of Gold Farmers, but if you can force out the bots you hurt their profitability (and impact) tremendously.
  5. In the first 10 minutes of the video you can get a pretty good idea of what Action Harvesting is. The greatest benefit I see to this system is that it is active. To get peak efficiency you need to aim at specific weak spots located on the node, in addition to you need to manage a resource that generates with hits. This complexity makes it harder for a bot to simulate (more so aiming at the weak spots). I would like like to see this emphasized even more, and consider keeping weak spot procs at or near 100% to maintain the active nature of gathering. If managing pips correctly and hitting the "Weak spots" gives you 100% efficacy in mining, then just left clicking should grant only a fraction of that. The hope would be that it forces out mindless bots that just gather resources, it keeps the Player driven economy controlled by players. So my question to the Devs Was this a consideration in making this system? Do you think this system could benefit in more complexity for the sake of keeping the bots at bay, and increasing player interaction in gathering? Here is the video I'm referring too.
  6. Yep they said in a stream they planned to allow mapping, and it was a coming feature. Can't remember what stream this was exactly but it was a semi recent one.
  7. I second this. The conveyance of this system is terrible. Maybe instead give a preview of the tree in the character creator, or perhaps on the rune card list display the passive stat bonus, and actives that can be gained in the tree. Not sure whats a good solution is here, but as is this is convoluted. Also are we worried that some races are front loaded with stats while others have to spec down the line? Isn't this going to make for some odd power discrepancies in the early game? "Oh yea class x is really good the first few weeks, but wait until month 8 that's when y class gets really strong."
  8. I quote tree because we're having a conversation, a conversation that covers multiple points, and I'd like it to be obvious as to what point I'm directly speaking too. I don't think your design is bad, I just don't think it represents the design Crowfall is trying to peruse. It wasn't me who put a hotbar in the game, or defensive, offensive cooldowns, I didn't put in stuns, not was it I who added a stamina bar. These are all choices the Devs made, the vision they have for their game. What you're describing isn't the game as is, nor do I think it's a design direction the game is likely to go in, especially this late into development. Ya you can certainly build a game that doesn't answer turtling with CC, but CC is in the game, and this is how it will be used. Again I'm describing a game that is, you're talking about a vision you have. I don't agree with your opinion therefore I'm not clever. lol have to love ad hominem attack. You act as if your conclusion is some undeniable truth, a subject that's not up to scrutiny. And you've provided no context. I assume the movement speed is the same as in game, that defending comes with a movement cost, be it % lower of base speed, or a root. You're right I'm having to assume a lot because 1) this is an unfinished game with a lot of gaps in it, and 2) you're not providing the situation and how these mechanics play out so I assume that role. None of my situations are wildly obtuse or outside of normal gameplay. Good lord man if you cant have a civil conversation over a game maybe you should give up forum warrioring. Your post is above for all to read, I've read your post, and I've quoted your post nearly in it's entity as I respond to your points. The quotes exist to give context to my response. I don't know if you've actually been in a debate but this is how it works. You say something I write down your points, I quote you, and I respond to it. But yes you often do address a point, move to another point, and then another point, only to then return and try to develop that first point again, and then another point. It's a terrible format. Develop an idea and then move to another, if one point is contingent on the development of another make that point first. I'm sorry but I can't help but to laugh when I think what if this happen to me on the university level when I debated. "At the 15 minute mark my opponent said "crime is related to xyz"" and watch my opponent throw his hands up in the air and exclaim "Stop Quoting me!" It's not that I don't think this is a bad design, it's just inconsistent with the current game philosophy. It's bad in the context of the existing game mechanics. I love chivalry, I love fighting games, and I hope that elements of this are incorporated into this game. However it's not I who put in a stamina bar, or an action bar, not I who added cc, not I who tied advanced movement to stamina and cool downs. These are things the Devs added, and things they are currently developing. You and me try as we might don't get to change the direction of this game. We can try to persuade people to one philosophy or the other, but this game isn't going to make a U turn. If you want to argue that this game would benefit from animation interrupts, rewarding better positioning, interesting timed parry/block response then I'll be right there with you man, but suggesting a design philosophy that is nearly counter to what is presently offered? Man good luck, because they're not going to go back on all that work they've invested into this game. Stamina loss only when hit is certainly an option, also you can halt stamina regeneration while the shield is up, or allow it to generate at a slower rate. These are all adjustments that can be made if the game rewards turtling too much, but the point is we can't have battles that don't move, that are too static. Stamina loss only when hit for the purposes of block is one of several ways to get closer to that goal. Is it the best way? I don't know it's not something that can be proclaimed with certainty it's something that needs to be experimented with. Why is that a shame? You've made other post in other threads. Certainly the expectation isn't that the denizens of this forum have a detailed understanding of what the great all knowing Bahamutkaiser had once pontificated. With every post you're afforded another opportunity to further detail, discuss, and reach more people. You're open to scrutiny and in a position to test, and incorporate your ideas for others. I hardly see this as a shame, or tiresome activity. It's laughable to suggest that I haven't taken the time to read and respond to your post. I've quote treed to show exactly what point I've responded too, and provide context for my statements. I've quoted you nearly in your entirety. If you feel you've been misrepresented then support that argument with, idk maybe one those terrible quotes to construct an argument about where such offense took place. You act as if you're infallible. Part of a conversation is making points, responding, clarifying those points, hell maybe even trying to incorporate your ideas with ones that others bring to the table. I know radical idea, right? We've had a lengthy conversation that covered many points, to talk ad nauseum without contextualizing exactly what point you're responding too would maddening.
  9. A lot going on in this so let me break it down and just give my thoughts. Would certainly force more cross healing but once a group passed a certain number of healers it would be essentially unnoticeable. Typically how most games handle it. Even in games that allow casting while moving, often make an exception for healing for this very reason. I'm a fan of this idea. I'm an even bigger fan of it when you make it a significant heal with a healthy cooldown, and give it to melee damage class. Now you're in the middle of battle hacking dudes, Suddenly your buddy cries out that he's about to die, so you run through two baddies, knockdown another and sprint across to touch him and land a heal that saves his ass. Totally on board. This is kind of how old school mana worked, and it wasn't a terrible mechanic. It essentially meant fights didn't end until mana pools went dry, but at least fights could end. Not a fan, but when done right it is still tolerable. This would be absolutely hilarious, and I personally would love to see it just so I can laugh at all the derpy heals that are dropped. That said, it will never happen. The reason is that guy you brought, that guy who's your gm's old buddy but sucks at games, but you all enjoy, so you bring him to play because hell why not. He's one more warm body to throw at the enemy. Well now he's a huge liability, and MMO's are social games first and foremost. You have players of all different skill levels playing together, you cant have one guy aid embed the enemy, potentially destroying your victory because he's terrible at the game, no matter how much I personally would love it. I've seen variations of this idea, It's usually described along the lines of Hard hp and Soft hp. One affects your total health, the other your actual health. It also reminds me a bit of the health system in Star Wars Galaxies. My issues with these systems is that they aren't immediately obvious, and they always struck me as convoluted. They make sense when you use them for a while, and understand how they all relate to each other, but in my opinion the best systems are immediately obvious. It's one of those things that's odd about video games. If we play a bard game we fully expect to have to read a manual. We don't go I don't know what this piece dose I quit! With video games players jump in and fully expect every mechanic, every ability to convey its meaning. Games are very iterative that way, we expect our previous knowledge of a different game to transfer onto a new game. If you make a mew or original mechanic in a game you better be sure you explain it well, and covey that use in game. Convoluted game design rarely survives.
  10. I'm all for budgeted defense. You raise a shield and it cost you something. It cost you movement speed, it cost you stamina. That is totally a proactive choice. The issue is when you're sitting in one spot just doing one thing. When you're only blocking. Having the role of being a meat shield isn't fun, it isn't interesting. I like what they're doing with block now. It blocks the vast majority of damage, it cost stamina, and it cost movement. It's there when you need it, and it takes a long time for you to use all that stamina. In addition with the current system you're encouraged to flank anyways, a good player will always block ranged attacks coming from straight on, you'll need to make him vulnerable or poke and prod. The only difference between always being able to block, and having to budget your blocks is, is the the latter is far more involved. What you're describing sounds like a shield wall I'd order to a unit in totalwar. And don't get me wrong, it's cool to see that happen, its fun to watch, and make those tactical decisions that win games. However I don't think I would actually want to play as legionnaire #37 in that unit I sent in to block/absorb range damage in testudo. It's a deep choice for a general to make, just not a for an individual player. It's knight #137, the every man who make up the majority of the player base, and the game needs to be involved and meaningful for him too. If you think I'm misrepresenting your argument let me know, give me a clear example of not the choices a General would have, but the choices a single rank and file player would be making. A Minotaur throw would be CC, just not hard CC, and my suggestion with mass changing abilities could add an interesting dynamic into that. If what you're oppose to is hard CC, then I'll tell you I share a similar reservation. Hard CC (stuns, fear, sleep) have a potential to more frustrating then fun, but hard CC is in the game already. I wrote my original OP to marry the existing game mechanics with a more pure illustration of a design philosophy that they are already exhibiting. It's evident this game dosnt need much CC. How much it needs remians to be seen, it's dependednt on how much mobility the game offers. More mobility more cc needed to counter said mobility. Not all CC needs be hard, it can also be snares, roots, throws, knockbacks, ect. I don't see any reason why not. Could be a cool ability. When you hit block you then can jab out with a sword only exposing yourself for only a moment, or with a spear not exposing yourself at all. Sounds very interesting, I would only take issue if they could stay in said position indefinably. Because it's fun. Fights need to be mobile, and they need to be climactic. A fight that never happens isn't a fun fight. How many times can you call upon your guild to get a 100 people to logon form up and not fight an enemy? Eventually people stop showing.
  11. The reason I dislike Healing is it allows player to be entirely reactive, and landing heals on a friendly target who wants to be healed is easier then landing damage on an enemy target who wants to keep on living (the cowards). So there is this huge disparity in effort. So what do you need to ensure kills can happen if healing can land more successfully then damage? Well you need cc, and lots of it, and you also need to budget out most of that cc on the healer (a choice essentially being made for you), and if you run out of cc, or in a situation where heals are being pumped into a player you're essentially completely ineffective, you'll make no progress to that kill, because healing just extinguishes your damage faster then it can be applied. Having never played skyforge I can't really speak to its PvP, but I can imagine how a game without healers can go horribly wrong very easily. Healing is a reactive form of survival. You take damage I heal you. If you remove, or decrease that type of survival you need to add other means of survival. Ways of avoiding damage or mitigating it. Active forms of survival, and that means adding effective and ( most Importantly) interesting abilities, and then balancing said abilities. Something easier said then done. There is certainly a lot more going on with this design philosophy, and a more going on means more to go wrong. It'll take a lot of effort to make sure damage is avoidable. We'll need large telegraphs that clearly let players know what ability is going off, and where this ability is going to land, you'll need enough time for players to retract, and this will all need to feel fluid so it is not stilted or disjointed (something that hasn't been accomplished yet). For all the failings of GW2 (and there are oh so much) I feel like it did a great job in providing interesting defensive mechanics in a game with no real healers. The ability to block, turn debuffs into buffs, and vice versa, classes like necro that effectively had two healthbars it danced between, classes like the guardian that had barriers it placed to stop projectiles. All very cool stuff, and I'm not saying that any of this is applicable to this game, two very different combat systems, movement, and class design, but it's a relatively good proof of concept for the idea of a healer-less game. A very easy pitfall to fall into. If you remove "Fire hose" healers, and don't give the tools to survive to everyone the game will end much faster. This is where most games with limited healing fail, and the reason I think GW2 is such an exception.
  12. I would say the inverse is more likely to be true. I can think of plenty of systems that are designed for large scale combat that become functionally useless in smaller scale, but few that are designed for smaller scale that become useless in large. I would point to casted AOE damage, long casted nukes, and generally immobile classes as some thing that is permissible, if not optimal for larger combat, but something that doesn't work with smaller numbers. The AOE damage generally being something not optimized for larger number of targets, the long cast being more vulnerable without your meat shields, mobility being more valued in skirmishes. None of these mechanics or philosophies are useful in this scale. Now take the inverse. Something like a stun immune. Are stun immune useful in Large pvp.? Well yes They're useful in every size battle. Having more control is typically a good thing. Are interrupts useful in large pvp, So long as you can identify damage before it happens, yes. That's all game design. All players behave in the confines of the game. I don't enter a round of CS:Go and say hey I think I'll fly around in a jet this round. Ok, When knights see damage they actively block. They use relatively small amounts of stamina to mitigate potentially large amounts of damage. This is a proactive ability, they don't passively (aside from armor) mitigate that damage. I think this is a great mechanic. Further more because of the nature of the resource it uses (stamina rather than mana or time (cool down)) it's up to the player to budget his blocks as needed. I'm with you here I love this as a design. ....Yep, and the point? Knights have an active block, but what about a champion, how will he survive? Oh a stone form ability that acts functionally like an ice block allowing him to immune damage and abilities from all angles for a given time. A leap ability to traverse the field, also doubling as a way to actively dodge or avoid damage. These are all good abilities in my mind. They ask the player to identify a threat and to make a decision. As opposed to say a healing ability. Something that is used after you failed to successfully react to an ability. I didn't see the giant fireball heading to my face, so I instead press my heal 5 seconds later. It's these abilities I find weak an uninteresting. Nearly all abilities have something to limit it's use. The block mechanic on a knight is limited by a resorce system, a typical hotbar ability limited by a cooldown. The strength of having a few abilties tied to a resorce pool (sprinting, and block tied to stamina for example) is it places the budget of when the ability is used into the hands of the player. As oppose to a set cooldown (something you cannot control) I like it, I'm in favor of giving more control to players. The more you allow players to control the more potential for skilled gameplay you have. Now onto infrequent actions. All hotbar games need infrequent action. We have over a dozen actions available to a character in this game. If they had the ability to preform every action at any time you would quickly see a priority develop. Spam ability 2 4 8, because they're the best. It's nonsense, you need to have infrequent action other wise 4 my best ability would be my only action. So what abilities get cooldowns, and what determines the cooldown? Typically the strength of that ability. It always befits me to be stun immune, but I don't always need to be stun immune. So when would I use a stun immune? Well typically when I need it the most, when I'm either most vulnerable, or when my opponent is most vulnerable. I'm using it to stay alive or secure a kill. Is any of that a bad thing? Who wants to play world of perpetual stale mate. I assume in this scenario we're talking about two armies of relative size. If an opponent forces moment with damage, well good on him. That's on of the tools at his disposal to shape the battlefield. If you're behind fortifications it's not like your active damage mitigation is your only tool. You have tanks who employ lots of blocks, you have fortification that shield much of the incoming damage, you can retaliate with damage of your own. Action should always trump inaction in a game. A defense should be an active defense. You're way to focused on the cool down nature of this premise. Cooldowns are just one method of restricting abilities, but all abilities are effectively restricted, be it by a resource system and/or a cooldown. I'll agree that resources are generally preferred because it puts more control back into the players hand, the responsibility is now on the player to budget his abilities, but in all hot bar based MMO's with a dozen or so abilities you need difference in power, and usefulness of abilities to ensure they get used, and cooldowns to ensure it's not all that's ever used. I fail to see how any the implementation of proactive mechanics already implemented here in alpha turn it into the caricature you described. And if you think every proactive mechanic needs to be mobility then you lack an imagination. Champion leaps are used proactively to get to opponents, and to get away from damage. Knight blocks are active mitigation. Champion Stone From active Immune. Confessor Dash active damage avoidance. Addition purposed changes I'd make is have an ability on one of the melee characters that reduce his movement speed but increased his mass exceptionally. Now he's immune to knock backs, and should a knight choose to chain grip him, the knight would now move towards the target. You might even have a scenario where a knight could use this to his advantage. See the enemy use this ability, and the knight choosing to exploit this, gripping on this opponent effectively using it to close the distance strike down his opponent and tackle the confessor next to him. There's your "Emergent gameplay". Choices come from restraints in the system, there is no choice without rules. That choice come from using a given kit to solve problems, if everything is a nail all you need is a hammer. The goal is to have far more obsticals then just nails, to encourage creative thinking, and a use of several tools. This isn't the military. We don't have the logistical, managerial, and problems with communicating across vast distances on a noisy field of battle that they have in reality. We're all hundreds to thousands of miles from each other sitting 2.5 feet from a screen talking to each other on teamspeak (or mumble if you've seen the light). What you usually have is a senior officer leading a "Raid Group" (or whatever terminology you want to give it) and if the need arises and they need to have multiple groups then a second officer will lead that one, and another group by an other officer until you have have the desired amount. But typically it isn't much more then that. I don't know what 5 front war you're fighting here, and if you are I suggest read Sun Tzu about consolidation of forces. All groups are then informed by the senior officer. May organizations have different variations on this, but the strength is flexibility. And hey if that System works for you guys more power to you. This game does have a lot of proactive game mechanics. It's ultimately the reason I settled on this over Camalot unchained. I like my games to be gamey, it's why I play them. I enjoy my chess matches, I enjoy my abstract thinking, and the demand to always be thinking. My OP was written more to get a feel on how other people saw game design, and perhaps find how far this design could go. When I here "Persistent Defense" I think fortifications. I cant imagine "Persistent Defense" by a 100 players is much fun out side of a fortification. "Hey boys we hold the highground, now we only need to stay here for the next hour and we'll have really showed them" Forget about the strategic, and historical uses of thoes ideas, and instead ask for knight #47 sitting in the second line of your shield wall, now effectively afk for 40 minutes, having not really engaged in anything. Is he having fun with the Persistent Defense? I suspect not. There is a reason real soldiers are paid, and that's because the job sucks.
  13. There is one element of friendly fire I really apreciate, and that's the impact it will have on AOE. For anyone who has done large scale PvP in most MMO's you know how fights usually develve into melee getting into the thick of it, and range aoe'ing on top for good raid wide dps, and then maybe hard swapping to nuke something down. That raid wide AOE damage is so effective and so easy of a stratagy to execute (put the aoe marker on the enemy) that you can rely on any virtually anyone who knows how to use a mouse to execute it. This just encourages groups to grab more and more players to throw into the zerg, and it often (not always) becomes the dominant strategy. Having friendly fire would limit this tremendously, especially as your melee engages, or the enemy group becomes entwined in yours. That said the nature of melee abilities having cones you cant really tailor to not over swing, you would need to disable it for the spammable melee swings. The other issue I see is just frustration. More organized groups will probably adapt to FF pretty quickly but if the majority of the player base finds this feature frustrating, I cant see it being healthy for the game. Perhaps the nature of Factions in this game will alleviate some of that. Being that you're essentially invited into your faction, and by extension you can be dis-invited. So perhaps we wont see many abuses of this.
  14. Well said, I agree with many points. I'm curious to see how collision will influence large scale battles. Having lead large PvP groups in everything from WoW, Guildwars, Warhammer Online, Planetside 2, Wildhammer, and DAoC I can only image how collision would influence how we formed. Many people focus on how they can use collision to stop an enemy. And I'm sure we'll see a lot of that, but I immediately think how collision will influence how collision will block enemies. I would think Formations will be much looser, and over a wide area to allow for more freedom of moment (imagine a melee stuck between a range and 2 support characters, trying to get to an enemy) and blocking los for range characters. Ultimately I think this is a good thing but It'll certainly have an extended teething period. I don't agree with this. My examples are reduced in scale for the purposes of explanation. I would point to guild wars 2 as a game with large battles in PvP, where the predominant way of stopping cc is proactive (stability). Now I'm not claiming GW2 is a perfect example, the WvW system in Gw2 has a lot to be desired. That said telegraphs, actively dodging, blocking, throwing up cc immunity are all factors in large PvP, granted they aren't as important on the smaller scale, but that is true of any individual skill. As you get larger that stuff becomes more and more diluted. I'll point to what I said at the start of my response. I theorize formations wont be nearly as closly pact as they are in most MMO's, and I think we'll see a lot of experimentation with this. I'm rather interested to see where this goes. Eventually yes. But you typically blow those defensive when you're most vulnerable. Part of the combat is realizing "If i get hit with a stun right now out in the open I'll be surrounded" vs "If I get now yes I'll open myself to damage but I think I can take it". This is a good thing we don't want the perpetual stalemate, at some point one group will have better made use of abilities, positioning, ect and put the opposing party in a vulnerable situation. In larger battles damage is a given, it's more about crisis mitigation then crisis prevention. We'll probably see a lot of that. The question is how much of that incoming damage is lethal vs just being a harassing action. I also think this may be the reason units will be encouraged to spread out a bit more rather than stacking on top of each other, and this imo is a good thing. It will encourage fights to be more then just one giant punch of the zerg, or the issue I have in EvE and Guild Wars 2 where the dominant strategy is to ball up as closely together as possible. Without a doubt, and I'm sure it'll be a lot of fun to people who get to lead, or influence their respective communities, but ultimately The role of general falls unto but 1 out of 40, 70, 100 of us? The game needs to be satisfying on an individual level. It's my ultimate problem with eve. I'm sure commanding around a fleet of battleships is fun, but to the individual player your input is pretty minimal in eve, bc the combat is just so basic. The majority of fights in Crowfall will be smaller groups. Groups that traffic into each other, perhaps scouts, raiders, ect. Yes these battles will often coalesce into something bigger, but they need to be satisfying and deep on every level. The individual isn't just a pawn of his commander, he is also a thinking agent of his own, and as such needs a kit that allows him to take advantage of situations that he identifies. That's what makes these games so much fun, they're not just the game of two people moving around agentless figures, it's a battlefield of dozens to hundreds of thinking people trying to get one up on the other guy.
×
×
  • Create New...