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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About swordroll

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. The forums have sure been busy. Onward to 200,000!
  2. On the subject of betrayal, one aspect that is really important to me is fluidity in guild structures. Sure, I want to be able to sign in to a Guild versus Guilds world with my friends, but if I decide that 100% of resources gathering is better than 10% of resources gathered, I want to be able to kill them, too. The other thing is free for all. I think this ought to be less of a guild versus guild where you can kill your guild mates, and more of an every-man-for-himself game. I think this sort of dumping ground will be essential for new players who don't really fit in. Otherwise, you end up getting these huge guilds going into 1v1 against a bunch of 1v1 players and inevitably winning almost every time. Not only that, but the emergent game play with small alliances and developing groups in an otherwise guild-free and free-for-all environment. On the subject of the player discipline versus support: I like the player tribunals for minor offences. They could be fun. But for serious harassment, I think it should be all back-end moderators. I've noticed the language policies on the forums are rather loosely enforced, so if some younger players invite themselves over to Crowfall, you'll want the game locked down tight. It's alright if someone leaves a game because they don't like it, but it'd be a real shame if they left because of other players, which seems to be a serious goal of many of the players here already. On Griefing... Depending on how you define this, if killing the same player repeatedly is interfering with good game play for both sides, one possible solution may be an alternate kill requirement. That is, once you kill the same player twice, you must then kill someone else before you kill that player again. Then, after the third time, you would have to kill two more players before killing that player again. Note that "killing" would be determined as the final blow. So someone can definitely still do damage. This just separates the "I'm just picking on this person" from the "we're all trying to keep this person who keeps coming back away." In the former, you have the alternate kill rule. In the latter, it would not apply, because enough people would be attacking that someone different deals the finishing blow every time. Just a thought.
  3. This is the best thing I've seen all day.
  4. What I don't think you understand is that the deadly nature of Crowfall worlds wasn't a Carebear idea at all. It was Todd's vision. No one gave him that idea. What I also think that you and ellie and others fail to understand is that I don't WANT a PvE game. You seem to be under the impression that it is my goal is to purely make this a PvE game, and that is where you have made your mistake. My argument is not that there should be MORE PvP by any stretch. But anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that to NOT have a crappy game, you have to make sure EVERY aspect of the game is great. That doesn't mean adding to PvE. That doesn't mean there has to be ANY PvE. But what there IS should be good. Like I said, you can't ignore melee and just make ranged and magic attacks great. I'm not sure how the logic that every part of the game should be great isn't translating over to you. As for things like dragons? Those weren't Carebear ideas either. One user suggests that we'd get Crowfall sooner if the Wizards and Pirates weren't around. Actually, we were the first ones in on Crowfall. I have a very early account on the forum, and that's already after it gained popularity. I signed up at Play2Crush in the first hour that the site was released. I was beta 1 before any Kickstarter project. As were most Wizards and Pirates. We've supported this idea from the start. If you had been around as long, you might also know that the first real dragon suggestions didn't belong to "Carebears" either. They came from the ArtCraft staff. So you've attributed ideas to Carebears that you don't like because you don't like them. Actually, they were ArtCraft's ideas. LOL. Secondly, you somehow assumed everyone suggested anything that you didn't agree with wanted a PvE game, which is flat out wrong. Finally, you've applied blanket statements that all of the players from a particular game want a particular thing, which is also incorrect. TL;DR: I don't want a PvE game. LOL. Read the posts. I just want every aspect of the game to be great (not equal in focus, great). You've turned an argument about a term into one of PvE versus PvP, ignorant of the fact that that was never what anyone was arguing for here. The real, on-topic discussion was the origin and use of "Carebear." My whole point was that I and other Wizards and Pirates are NOT interested in Crowfall being a PvE game, hence why the term should be used only in joking and not as a blanket statement or stereotype. You took what I said, flipped it backwards, and turned it into an argument for something that we both support.
  5. Well, I mean, what you CAN'T do if you have any interest in the success of the game is say "We'll focus on this aspect of the game. Say crafters. But anyone who enjoys melee? They're a Carebear, therefore let's ignore the melee aspect of the game, which already exists." No. LOL. I have no doubt that there are indeed people who try every day to convince ArtCraft to become a PvE game, but applying that as a blanket statement to those who comment on the PvE aspect of the game is like saying that the melee part of the game should be ignored. Stick with magic and ranged attacks. You can't single out any one part and call it irrelevant. Not if you want a good game. So sure, I have no problem with being a Carebear. But don't be ignorant of the part of the game that isn't your favorite (and frankly, isn't mine either).
  6. I have a couple thoughts on Gonzos. First and foremost, it's a little sad to me how ignorant some of these hardcore PvPers are to the ability of supposed Gonzos in-game. The term has been widely applied to a variety of people, and it isn't quite warranted. To me, though, it's more a matter of courtesy. If you're calling me a Gonzo because of what games I've played in the past, or because I recognize that even ArtCraft has placed on PvE in the game and seek to perfect that aspect, then so be it! I readily admit to being a Gonzo in that case, and it only means I get to laugh harder if I somehow manage to kill you in Crowfall. However, if you use the term (and many do) as a sort of holier-than-thou, I'm-better-than-you, You-don't-belong-here kind of thing, then I'm not sure I approve. See, there are plenty of terms I can think of for the people who so rudely welcome this other audience that doesn't share their exact interests, but I don't believe the forum allows those words. ["Care/bears" = Gonzos. Dangit, Tully. LOL.]
  7. Yeah, this is my big question. ArtCraft has wiped clean campaigns to avoid Uncle Bob, but I'm not sure if they've considered him with the Eternal Kingdoms. In fact, they seem to welcome him, and say that there will probably only be two or three kingdoms used for trading. That has two implications. Number one, you as a player will never really have an Eternal Kingdom or kingdom system unless a few of your friends hop on board your castle. Because if you're granting land and other people can't grant it to make money, then they don't want it. Second, it means a very profound pay-to-win tactic has slipped right from ArtCraft's grasp: The big kingdoms essentially "purchased" from Kickstarter will be larger and inevitably more attractive from the beginning. There are already ten $10,000 backers. So if you didn't pay $10,000, why would you expect that a player wouldn't use one of the top ten best kingdoms to start out with and inevitably the best down the road, too, as people will want land and join in those kingdoms with their resources. This is precisely what they meant by Uncle Bob. Basically, we're playing a new game of Risk every Thanksgiving, but Uncle Bob (A) starts with more pieces than everyone else at first, and ( still rules in the overarching game. I think that this is something ArtCraft is going to have to address immediately. It's being brought up by many users, and even more are going to figure it out once alpha and beta hit. If you're not in Alpha 1, you'll be months beyond and your kingdom won't be a viable marketplace. Then things go live. And by that time, if ArtCraft has not acknowledged the problem, the one, single persistent part of their game will have a major flaw that cannot be fixed because you simply cannot take away popularity and familiarity. Hopefully they'll tackle this issue now and save a lot of trouble.
  8. That is another role of the EKs is a guild structure. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that if you have a guild EK, your buildings degrade and go bad and get added to your inventory and it's no good unless you leave someone there to maintain it. lol The way EKs work is that you have one owner who is a guild leader, and he grants parcels or cells to guild officers, who grant lots to guild members. If a guild can't manage that existing organizational structure, they have some work to do as a guild and as a team before they tackle an EK.
  9. A lot of people are asking why we need the Eternal Kingdoms at all. I would first quote a great post on that subject. Here's the deal - people act like the Eternal Kingdoms are "Carebear Heaven," but they're actually whatever you make them. Remember, you decide the PvP rules in your own Eternal Kingdom, and individual land owners may be able to decide theirs. ArtCraft can't just make Pac Man an MMO. That is to say, if you essentially start the game over every round, it becomes one of those simply flash games on Miniclip or whatever else that no one really gets into, just plays to pass the time every now and then. Why? Because there's nothing to it. You play a game, you're done, you get nothing, you move on. That gets boring after awhile. You need some sort of "measuring stick." This is why they're also adding in artifacts, relics, and tournaments. If people hang out in the Eternal Kingdoms - even all the time - so what? People say this isn't risk versus reward? No, this is exactly the risk versus reward model ArtCraft discussed. Some people seem to think that just means risk and some reward. No, it's risk VS. reward, meaning there's a tradeoff and decisions to be made. You can't be successful if you just hang in the Eternal Kingdoms without playing some other role. You choose very little risk, but receive very little reward. That's part of the structure. That's why worlds get more deadly as you get closer to the Hunger. Because if it were just risk AND reward, all words would be free-for-all PvP with as deadly of environments as possible. And finally, the EK hangouts are essential to your PvP game. Using them allows for crafting, including new gear, new weapons, bonuses from artifacts and relics, and all sorts of things that directly affect PvP. That's what should be scary for smaller guilds and individual PvE players who aren't building a mercantile empire. While you are out attempting to win a campaign, a guild is building up their EK between matches and getting richer and richer. The problem is that a guild can't say, "let's all hop into this 6-month campaign and we'll check our EKs out after." You should be thankful that some people want to stay in the EKs, because it means that you don't have to. One less land manager means one more PvPer. That in mind, get as many "Carebears" in here as possible so that the rest of us can actually PvP while having a chance at being a King!
  10. Won't this essentially be the Uncle Bob situation you were trying to avoid? The largest guilds control the largest persistent trade networks. The rich become richer. And no one else really stands a chance in rising up to become a major kingdom because they either don't have enough players, or they weren't well-established early enough to compete.
  11. I've got a few questions on how the Eternal Kingdoms are intended to operate. 1) At one point, we were told that placing land parcels was permanent within a kingdom, though buildings could be moved. As of the Kickstarter update today, it would seem that this has changed, and you are able to move things as you please (which I would be very happy about). Which way is it? 2) Given that guilds must be registered in-game if Guild versus Guild PvP is to happen, and that many guilds may pool resources in their Eternal Kingdoms, can non-guild members also be granted land parcels? 3) When granting land, what is it that you actually grant? The terminology is confusing on the Kickstarter. Do we grant the area itself for our dukes and such to place their land parcels on, or are we giving them our already-established land parcels to build on the lots? And to the community, I ask for your opinions: 4) Do you think it will be more beneficial for guilds to put all of their resources into one kingdom, or for them each to extend their spheres of influence by granting their own land out to others, provided they have enough. 5) Do you think that guilds who have paid a lot of money for large Eternal Kingdoms will gain indirect "Uncle Bob advantages" by pooling resources and creating the most attractive Eternal Kingdoms to trade in?
  12. Right now, I don't see Crowfall hitting their VR goal at 15k backers. I don't know that there's an actual "VR community" that will flock to back Crowfall in its last week, but rather, a gaming community that may be interested in VR. The problem with only one of those labels and not both is that you have to actually like Crowfall to be interested in VR for Crowfall. So, even if they don't hit their goal, that doesn't mean Artcraft should rule out VR entirely. However, I'm hoping it's not a central focus of their time and attention, because even when it is released, it's only really going to cater to a particular audience, where game updates in other areas can cater to everyone.
  13. Perhaps someone can clarify - who receives the rewards from placed relics? Because unless guilds are strictly registered in-game, which I'm guessing they are not, then a relic can't just apply to a whole guild. How does that work?
  14. I think the cool thing is that we'll be able to pick to some extent. Do you want to 100% be part of a group? Or roam as a free agent? Will you be collecting materials and hoarding them yourself? Or waiting along roads to steal from others? Will you concentrate on building a mass store up for yourself? Or sabotage other groups in their efforts?
  • Create New...