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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I bring back this 'old' topic but with the new information released with the kickstarter and what not, do you feel like they are getting close to the concept I was mentioning of 'MMORTS'? The world having a winning condition and all... Seems fairly close to it. I just didn't have time to go through all the information released. Anyone did?
  2. 1- Maybe. 2- I don't know, destroy cities sounds like military conquests to me. 3- How is that PvP not true PvP? You call true PvP jumping a dude trying to kill a lizard to get his 5 lizard goo real PvP? Describe real PvP... What is more meaningful than to see a world being shaped as you take over other nation's cities and territories as you win or as you see your own nation being reduced to the level of vessel of your oppressor and / or completely annihilated in case of defeat? 4- Maybe, I try to keep my expectations low... I just hope it doesn't end like another of those hyped niche market wanna be game that actually call itself niche only because they fall short of producing something that actually is original and new.
  3. The thing is that we always though of an RTS as you being the mastermind... What those games lack is you being the peon in this RTS world. This is why my dream is more about an MMORPG played in an RTS way where every single unit within the battlefield is an actual person. What people design as an RTS is always with you being the overmind of your army / city and battling other armies controlled by other overminds or groups of overminds. This I have absolutely no interest in. What I want to see is the design of the world being RTS like... but in the end, every single unit actually being humans. What this does is that instead of the focus of the game being: 'Go kill big bad homosapien dragonesk giant worm' which would be a traditional RPG goal, I want to see the goal of the game being: Control resources XYZ, territories ABC and so on to ensure the wealth and eventually the victory of your kingdom (in which, you are but a simple military unit among many others). This is why I sort of call it an MMORTS... to my belief, this never really been done.
  4. Let me explain what I image being an mmoRTS instead of an mmoRPG... Classic RPG definition is to me the Final Fantasy / Dungeon & Dragon games and concepts. It involves killing monsters to get stronger and stronger until you can take on the epic battle to save the world (or a princess or what ever). On the other side, an RTS is a battle over territories to acquire resources and increase your military might to take over more territories / improve your base (or town) to ultimately take over your opponent. The classic definition usually involves 1 mastermind controlling an army of units... but this is where the MMO part kicks in. My dream / expectation is to see the game based on territorial domination to acquire resources to progress. This is what brings 'meaningful' PvP. This is why I believe I want an mmoRTS over an mmoRPG. I have very little interest in spending hours fighting monsters (and usually, the PvE kind of sucks in games where the PvP focus is pretty big). I want to log in and find meaningful PvP. I want to have an impact on the world where if my and my friends rally up to take over an enemy's base, this game actually start building up for us, hence, becomes part of our empire. More over, it isn't really realistic to think of an mmoRTS where resources are spent to build more units... This is where the impossibility occurs. You cannot with in game resources really buy more players to play the game. This is where the element of RPG becomes important. It makes much more sense to have your military units become stronger as you acquire resources than having more military units. This usually mean better equipment and so on... Someone, I slowly realize that this is what I actually am more looking for than an RPG. I am unsure if this is the right name for it or if we should call it something else and I am curious if this game will offer us exactly that, somewhat of that or if I will just be massively disappointed with the game. Your thoughts?!?
  5. I checked the 'archtypes' and what not and I am just curious as to where you guys are going with this. I did mention it before and I want to mention it again. PLEASE, make every class / race combination a unique game play experience. Nothing bores me more than playing WoW and realizing that no matter what mage class I play, the gaming experience is the exact same in the end. DPS is virtually the same, they all have a CC, some mobility and blablabla. More over, my race is virtually only an 'esthetic' choice over having any impact on my actual experience in the game. I am pretty sure that people would rather see a game with way less classes / complexity of big skill trees that in the end really leads to feeling the same no matter what path you take and more class diversity experience. I always think of WoW tanks when I think of this. No matter what tanking class you play, the dynamic in the end is the exact same. It becomes extremely disapointing... Why have 5 different tank classes (which can be about 20 different race / class combos in the end) which feel the exact same.
  6. Meh, in a game where all skills are aimed and collision exist... tanks have their reason to be... 1 of the very fun game where almost everything is aimed and so on is Smite... It just works... The fact that the tank is simply in your way to easier targets makes it work.
  7. You have to be careful with that full loot crap... To what I once again BELIEVE this game to be, it will be a mmoRPG. This means keeping some RPG elements into the game. Most RPG elements involve ways to get those epic gears and what not. Investing a couple of hours to obtain that FullMegaPwningAxe to lose it in 3 minutes isn't tempting to the RPG players. This would just lead to no one investing in getting uber gears anymore and actually turn the game in a pure PvP game with no RPG elements into it. Also, you have to be careful about even the 'bag loot' on death. 1 of the annoying thing of a game that allows it is the inequality of risk versus reward between the PvPer and the farmer. The person who just runs the area to kill people and loot them is usually not having anything in his bag. His risk suddenly is 0 of losing anything while the farmer has all his hardwork at risk. More over, the farmer, if feeling like he has an odd of dieing, has all the valid reasons to actually try to dodge that PvP instead of embrace it for the fun that it brings. Why would someone who has no possible reward but a big possible risk would take those odds.. Sounds much better to just run away, hence, once again reducing PvP instead of increasing it. The last point that I actually dislike about 'looting' others is that it encourage high level players to grief lower level players. The risk of going in low level zones and killing those low level players trying to gain levels and wealth is very minimal as they are low level and you know what, you actually have a reward of looting their corpse. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the game not being free and them banning credit cards used to create the bot account. The fact that it now cost them money to run bots reduces their effectiveness and the fact that they need a new credit card for every bot getting cought makes it extremely unconvenient in the end.
  8. I guess I should clarify a few things... A- Casual does not equal bad B- Hardcore does not equal skilled Casual versus hardcore is merely the amount of time invested in a game. 1 concept I did like and found fairly unique about Shadowbane was the relation between power gamers and casual gamers. Nations, to be successful, needed both. A nation with no powergamers to massively rune hunt, farm, build cities and so on would take for ever or would never devellop into anything. At the same time, a nation composed of only power gamers would usually have low numbers... hence putting them at very low bane capabilities despite having the best gears, the most money and so on. It was this coexistance of both the power gamer and the casual gamer and both being required that made the game interesting. Many features of the game failed, but this is 1 of the things I loved about this game.
  9. I feel completely opposite of Doc Gonzo... Especially in a game where PvP is the focus. Liking a game to be hardcore does not mean liking a game to be where you have to invest stupidly high amounts of time to actually have fun. I invest more time than the average gamer and usually progress extremely fast... and I have very little interest in being so much ahead of the casual gamers that I just run in the middle of 5 casual gamers and just slaughter them without even thinking just because I outgear them so badly. To me, it is much more rewarding that as an above average player, I have an impact on my nation's progress as a whole and not just a fast progress for myself. I like fair fights where I know I won because I outskilled the other player and not just because I have invested 100 hours more than the other dude. I do believe that if I invest more time, I should be rewarded, in equipment yes, but this should be marginal and the impact should be much more in the fact that I have way more impact on how the world of Crowfall will be shaped and how my nation as a whole will progress.
  10. Also, often time, giving a reward to power gamers for their contribution that does not impact the game balance (such as naming a forge after the highest gold contributor ('The Newface Forge of the Alliance', putting statues of the highest contributors of all crafting buildings combined (an actual statue of their character), giving a title such as lord all the way down to peasant based on your contribution to a city such as: number 1 contributor is lord, top 5% are generals, top 5 to 25% are lieutnants and the bottom 75% are peasants) without any benefit to it outside of a title often favors contribution of power gamers for the fame and the casual gamer usually cannot care less about never being named lord as he cares more about being competitive in PvP than a title.
  11. I am very curious how Crowfall plans on balancing the gap between power gamers and casual gamers. One interesting concept Shadowbane introduced was the concept of city building. Most cities were funded by powergamers with minor contributions by more casual players. This allowed for casual players to have access to end game gears with much less effort than powergamers (piggybacking on powergamers cities) to obtain end game items. Since to my understanding, the game will be mostly PvP focused, it becomes very important that casual gamers can compete with power gamers when it comes down to PvP. It is understandable that power gamers should have an edge but that edge of time versus reward must be a very fine line. If the game is such that investing LOTS of time in the game gives you a huge advantage (especially with items decay, this will be a very fine line) lots of casual players will feel like they are just going to the slauther house when they go PvPing. If there is virtually no benefit, it is power gamers that will get bored. This is why in once again my 'own perfect little world', I would like to see nation achievements being necessary to progress with your items. The easiest for me is via nation 'crafters / tool to craft if the crafters are human players'. Example: To obtain the next improved weapons, the nation needs access to a foundry level 10 which cost 20million gold and XYZ reagents. Every player can donate for the progress of the forge and once the forge hit the amount of gold required, it progresses. In such a concept, what usually happens is that people want the whole nation to progress and not just themselves. They can hoard their resources as power gamers and not upgrade the forges but they just let their whole nation fall behind including themselves. On the other hand, leveling the forges as power gamer gives a chance for casual gamers to not fall too much behind. They still need to acquire what ever is needed to craft their items but they need not to worry about the infrastructure required to get those items. I am just curious what you devs have in mind so that casual and power gamers have something to do within the game. Balancing a game that is focused on PvP cannot be done the same way balancing a game focused on PvE can be. In PvE, you progress at your own rythm, in PvP, there must be some more levels of parity, especially in open PvP as other wise, casual gamers quickly feel like they are just the punching bags of power gamers and end up quitting.
  12. hummm... my glass cannons were more in the form of 2700HP 200-1300 lightning double expose elf furies with archmage activated and a CC staff (low ATR)... 4K HP is actually a lot of HPs for most casters in SB... a 170 con / 140 int human druid with TAN was sitting at 3500HP with double boons...
  13. I do not disagree with you nor do I agree. It really depends on how it is done. The need for a radar is to reduce the need to communicate and to reduce the '360 degree spins'... It becomes extremely annoying when you have a constant need for 360 degree spins to actually understand what's happening around you. Also, I'd say for myself, I play MMORPGs over shooters as they usually require lower APM / less reflex plays and more of an understanding of what is happening and winning or losing is more based on decisions I make and strategy. There are pros and cons to having a radar... but to me, what really matters is that in the end, I can actually look at my screen without feeling dizzy and not being at a disadvantage. Also, depending on the level of strategy you want in the game and the size of battles, you must provide players with tools to coordinate themselves. I don't consider it 'fun' to have a general who actually sits his character on top of a hill to be able to coordinate his troops via a voice chat that quickly becomes chaotic due to the too big need to communicate to be competitive. So, I really don't say just: REMOVE IT ALL!!! it can really lead to bad moments. Games are meant to be fun in the end and we all look for something different, I know on my side that I play video games as a relaxing experience and the minimap helps with that.
  14. I want a glass cannon class to exist but there is a huge different between a glass cannon class and a 2 shots fight. Glass cannon simply means someone who favors ultra high damage over survivability. Let's pretend an average 1on1 fight last up to 5 minutes between 2 average defense / offense characters. A glass cannon against an average average character could go down to say 3 minutes and 2 glass cannons going at it down to 2 minutes. This is why my first question was more aimed toward 'what would you prefer in terms of length of battles' and not: Would you want a glass cannon class to exist... I think we all agree that the more variety there is in classes and play style, the more entertaining games usually are. What is your opinion? Based on your comment, feels like you would agree with a glass cannon existing but do you want to see it 2shot things and get 2 shotted?
  15. OK, let me explain what I think in this. I don't really care how you call a class and if a class (example warrior) has 20 different ways of 'speccing' itself. What I care about is that those different ways actually lead to different play style. 1 of the main MMORPG that failed this massively is WOW. In the end, that you play a Mage (all 3 specs), a Warlock (all 3 specs) or a hunter (all 3 specs) which was supposed to lead to 9 different 'styles', they in fact all feel the exact same. Learn in what sequence to smash the buttons for the optimized damage sequence, use in rare occasions that CC to stop an opponent from casting something and if targetted, smash that mitigation button. Creating classes so that in the end, they feel the exact same is just wrong. Less classes with more unique roles the better. Those same 3 classes, in a PvP game, could easily have been turned into: -Warlock: The ultimate damage dealer. Pick this class, you will top the DPS charter uncontested by anyone but other warlocks supposed you are able to actually lock and load. -Mage: A ranged damage dealer with good damage capabilities who rely on crowd controls to compensate for its lost in damage compared to the warlock. Its survival is better but still limited. This hero relies on preventing his enemy from moving to be able to deal damage to it. -The hunter: A ultra mobile damage dealer who can easily chase almost dead ennemies to ensure he finishes them off. This class lacks the damage of the other 2 but has much better survivability via its mobility and can easily top the DPS charter as his downtime in combat is very minimal. There, now, balancing classes around this should always lead to different play styles... Where a warlock will shine if he can capitalize on the CC of his teammates, he will fail if poorly positioned / alone. A mage will rely less on his damage and more on his CC, to both keep his allies alive with a clutch CC as well as allowing a teammate or himself to get the killshot on a running away enemy with a well timed root. The hunter on his side actually makes the difference in a battle by finishing off running away enemies and not by dealing the raw damage necessary to make the enemy run away. Failing to actually play your role will just lead to subpar outcome compared to picking a class more suited for that role.
  • Create New...