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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Arcadi

  1. Personally I'd just assume not have players who don't read. But as long as all information available in videos and tutorials are also available in written format I'm happy.
  2. Thanks @Anthrage for summarizing the hour of talking heads. Is 5.7 expected Thursday then?
  3. That's legitimate. As you can see in my original post, I am very much aware that interesting and varied win conditions have the potential to create an interesting and varied game. I was merely speculating on the current "control forts and keeps" faction v. faction v. faction game that we have currently. That this is the first mode they introduced bears some significance I think, but perhaps not enough to warrant thinking about it yet. I wonder how many different rule sets will exist at one time. Certainly if the risk-reward is equal this would allow people to exercise some preference, though I worry that it won't be just another puzzle to decide which campaign offers the best risk-reward and everyone plays there ignoring the others. Many people claim they want to play for "fun" or want games to accommodate their unique personal snowflake of individuality, but they also feel entitled to the same rewards and complain quite vocally when people playing differently advance more efficiently. Will people really play the more "fun" campaign, or will they play the more rewarding campaign and advocate via forums and feedback for the game to change to accommodate them?
  4. I first took that test almost 20 years ago now, back in the fine days of EQ. I like it about as well as any other personality test that lets me spam Facebook with how I want other people to view me...which is not much at all. That's really not the direction I was going. It's like I want to talk about how the different soccer positions contribute to the team's victory and you are saying some people play soccer to exercise, or spend time with friends, or to travel to various cities for away games. When my friends and I play games together, outside a tournament setting, we allow virtually infinite takebacks--we've rolled back games hours before, and if that's impossible we just restart. As much as we are playing against each other, we are playing with each other, trying to push the game to the limits and discover what its capable of. Not what it looks like when you trounce and punish people for mistakes. This is the type of lens I was looking through, but maybe that interests only me. I have certainly learned a great deal from the responses in this thread. Thank you all.
  5. Hmm...yes, each sentence you write makes sense, but when I put them together, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it simply that you are saying I'm wrong, nothing more? I think my confusion is I am looking for an alternative model or suggestion or continuation of discussion, but your replies seem merely dismissive. I'm trying to consider how people will try to "win" the game. Specialization seems to provide better opportunity to win than suboptimal and inefficient spreading of playtime, resources, and/or skill points--even if you can. It is the part of the discovery portion of games that there are plenty of bad choices that can be made, but considering these while strategizing is rarely productive. If you are saying a portion of the player base will not really be contenders, then I agree, but how will the game be played in the hands of the best players? What does the idealized state look like? When you model a Chess exercise playing both sides, do you intentionally make mistakes because "people make mistakes", or do you try to find the best way it could play out? Do you think guilds should not emphasize specialization, but instead have a bunch of jack-of-all-trades members? Or are you commenting on the other case, the viability of a freemarket crafter? Are you saying that everyone will either be in a guild or content with the inferior versions they can obtain themselves and so there will be no economy, online self-sufficient guilds and content-with-inferior-versions casuals and anti-socials? That might be an interesting idea to explore. Maybe the concern about this game needed an economy is invalid and aside from the guild vs guild aspect (which exists outside a game economy) there is no demand at all?
  6. As far as interaction modeling goes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ignore the role(s) they are unfamiliar with (again, I don't know why any PvPer wouldn't also Harvest and vice-versa, but between the two roles of combat/harvester and crafter). However, I am interested in what conclusions your model leads you to. If the game does manage to encourage the playstyle you describe, how will players interact between roles and within the same? What systems encourage it, which systems present obstacles? Will players accept the mold the game dictates or rebel against it? Etc.
  7. and I wrote: Nor did I make an argument. Again I'm not trying to argue with anyone, but I'm glad we see this the same way.
  8. Hmm, my responses in those situations would be the opposite, but I am grateful for your perspective. Thank you.
  9. By the way, I hope it's clear in my original post and comments that I don't have anything against the design or implementation of the game, I am merely trying to understand it in more practical terms devoid of advertising and marketing language. I have no investment in concepts like "crafting" or "harvesting" or even "combat"--to me they are all just numbers and sliders and pools. Just because I like the PvP combat in one game doesn't mean I won't prefer the crafting and economy game in another. Ultimately, whichever system has the most interesting and meaningful interaction with other players is what interests me. I'm just trying to gauge how the roles relate and where the actual playstyles of players will fall. Time I spend anticipating and reacting to other players' actions is interesting and valuable to me. On the other hand, time I spend making obvious decisions with little variance between iterations without being subject to interruption or interference by other actors is...time I seek to avoid. These types of experiences, both positive and negative, are completely untied to spheres like "combat", "crafting", or "harvesting"--which is why I don't understand peoples' often specific attachment to one over the other. But perhaps that is the "role-playing" part, which I may never understand.
  10. What incentives do you see to splitting your play time among different vessels in different campaigns? Aside from the scenario I outlined where a campaign is totally dominated and just being farmed by one side and the other has no reason to enter it, why would you spend 1 hour in one neck-and-neck campaign and 1 hour in another neck-and-neck campaign over spending 2 hours in whichever one of them gave the best rewards? If you deplete all the resources in one world, the surely, like locusts, move onto the next, but wouldn't you always go to the "best" place over and over until it is exhausted?
  11. If they removed the VIP system, then they would definitely achieve this with Harvesting and Combat. But the Crafting system needs some sort of human interaction risk to be more than a multi-box afk afterthought.
  12. I did mention the implications of the different rules sets in my post and I completely agree. That capability has potential to be real game changer. However, some of the flexibility is one-way. If you commit to a 3-6 month no import no export campaign (which I personally think would be a lot of fun), you lose 3-6 months of resource and wealth accumulation against players who are using imports/exports. I think people might be willing to "try" that type of campaign, but at the opportunity cost of losing serious ground in the "eternal" campaign probably not? At least not in the first couple years. Maybe later once it's clear they are have dropped far behind in the accumulation curve. As far as multiple accounts go, as I said, I only see that viable for crafting. Definitely not a good strategy for combat / harvest players unless they are harvest-botting. I concur players will inevitably have some leaning one way or another, but players who can do both will be more useful, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to. Perhaps a greater concern is what happens when you crush the other factions so bad they quit and run to another campaign? Do you just have a free zone all to yourself to harvest and craft and export without any risk at all? "Farm status"? Maybe that's when you send out the ALL CLEAR for your non-VIP gatherers to come in and fleece the land? Or does a GM push a button somewhere and accelerate the Hunger or the campaign end? It's not like a guild needs to all be in the same campaign. Go gather in the one-sided ones to get gear for the actually close ones? And if the enemy doesn't do the same, they'll be at a huge disadvantage, because all the resources in the close campaign will actually be contested. How much world hopping will be viable will also dictate some of the meta playstyle.
  13. After purchasing this game on Thursday, I've now taken the time to read all the official articles, as well as most of the mechanics threads for the last year. I would like to check my understanding of the current gameflow and vision, and perhaps gain some clarification in areas that draw concern. Billed as one of the first "winnable" MMOs, Crowfall includes intentional goals in addition to the standard ones encountered in MMOs (reputation and accumulation). So far no "winnable" campaigns have been available for test, but generally these will involve controlling forts and keeps. Theoretically the system allows for more creativity -- e.g. perhaps there could be a campaign to be the first to craft an item above a certain stat threshold -- but generally we can assume "winning" will require combat on a medium to large scale. Winning will typically be at the faction level (again while the system affords guild or individual level, the faction approach seems most common in current discussion), so as usual, players will have split allegiances between personal goals, guild goals, and faction goals. In reality people's interests spawn multiple categories, but let us consider the three classic types this game is designed around: (1) Combat PvPer On the reputation and accumulation end of the scale you have gankers or griefers or tea-baggers or screenshotters or epeen high score chart types--same as every other game. Towards the goal-oriented end of the spectrum you simply have a player who wants to contribute via combat to the victory of a campaign. They like the real time -- not as twitchy as FPS, but more twitchy than Chess -- Paper-Rock-Scissors with accumulated character progression shifting the odds minigame that is MMO combat. They create demand for gear: weapons, armor, consumables, etc. But what do they supply? In other games which try to support multiple spheres, they typically supply money and create inflation. There is no need to make the role more attractive, because it is usually the most exciting. Certainly when campaigns are winnable by controlling forts and keeps, these are the strikers/forwards and everyone else supports them. So perhaps that is enough. (a) Counterpoint: They supply protection? I like this idea. I would love to see this realized. But it doesn't seem like crafters need protection. Crafters craft in their safe, instanced player-housing (aka EKs). Harvesters export goods out of the campaigns to them, and PvPers go to the EKs to buy the gear and import it into their campaigns. PvPers could only protect crafters if crafters could only create the best items from within a campaign at a contested location. But then how do you get people to visit other people's EKs--not to mention simultaneously creating value for the virtual goods which make up these displays? (b) Counterpoint: They can supply unique items? The problem here is there are two main ways to distribute campaign rewards, both flawed. Either equal rewards to everyone on the winning side (so people can join and idle for the reward) or based on contribution numbers (which are not only easily exploitable and rarely represent actual contribution, but also disadvantage crafters who might contribute a great deal to their guilds victory in a campaign without ever even entering it). But even if this problem were resolved, and a PvPer takes away something awesome from a campaign victory, what could this be? What item could a crafter want that a PvPer wouldn't? If it's a status item, surely the PvPer would want to display it in their EK, not simply sell it to the highest bidder. And if it is a crafting component, then a crafter doesn't really want it unless they get to keep the end product, which is precisely the same dilemma. (2) Harvester Ok, but what about Harvesters? Harvesters need to venture to risky, contested locations to get the best resources. True...but if we are honest, all the serious PvPers will be VIP and have harvester secondary. And vice-versa. Anyone who wants to be a dedicated harvester will buy VIP with combat secondary. It's a much better solution to send people who can defend themselves out to harvest, than to send harvesters out with an entourage who sit around do nothing 99% of the time. This isn't security guard simulator. The few who aren't going to pay for VIP will likely be PvPers who rely on their guild to keep them supplied, or perhaps they should play a Crafter instead, which doesn't require VIP. Harvesters supply crafting materials. Harvesters create demand for gear. Harvesters and PvPers are really the same thing. (3) Crafter The crafter role in this game is the most confusing to me. It's the perfect second (third, fourth, etc) account. You don't need VIP, you can just buy an account for each crafter (are there 9? $450 is still less than Sapphire was) and be completely self-sufficient. Sorry, I never played EVE so I don't get the whole offline skill training thing, but with no grind -- and I'm not saying there should be a grind -- and no danger -- I do, on the other hand, think perhaps there should be some danger -- setting an account ticking for each crafter type at launch seems like a no-brainer choice for serious players. They're also a perfect candidate for botting. You do a few clicks and watch a timer slide down, no thought or interaction. If it's not meant to be botted, then it should be either dangerous or interesting. If crafters can get ganked while crafting, you need to be at your computer. If every combine generates a Bejeweled mini-game the score of which determines your end result...(while I hate Bejeweled, many people don't)...you at least have some engagement. It's my strong preference not to do the minigame route because (1) I find any game which does have interaction with other human players tedious and uninteresting and (2) any solitaire minigame they can come up with can be botted with a little work; but if they find someway to make the engagement interact with other players, I would be all for that. Otherwise, moving crafting to contested areas inside PvP campaigns seems the best solution. Crafter's supply is obvious: everything. Combat gear. Harvesting gear. Crafting gear (tables). Cosmetic gear. Player housing gear. But what a Crafter want? I've got four computers on my desk which can all run multiple instances of this game. If I have multiple self-sufficient crafter accounts, having a PvPer / Harvester account to supply them isn't very taxing. And it's certainly something engaging to do while I'm waiting for combines to complete (although I wouldn't be able to do that if Crafting were actually dangerous). But...let's say this gets resolved and it becomes dangerous or engaging. Then crafters create demand for materials in excess. This is important. Crafters don't need materials in the way combat players need equipment. Crafters need mats + more (whether that more is extra mats or currency). This is because only bots play the game to just make stuff at cost for their guilds and friends. A real player wants to get the coolest looking houses and decorations and other status items before the other crafters (personal) or guilds (collective) do. Because that's the crafter PvP game. -- So, in summary, it seems to me the game has one full-time role -- Combat PvPer / Harvester -- and a second role -- Crafter -- that is well suited to second/third/etc accounts. Hardcore guilds will see this fairly obviously and simply make sure each crafter type is covered (shared guild accounts would work fine too) and everyone else has VIP. Since organized or hardcore guilds work outside the economy (I mean, they provide for all their own needs), the large guilds full of unorganized casuals (i.e. glorified chatroom) will have the most need of a working economy. A solo player willing to micro-manage multiple crafter accounts for personal status alone (i.e. EK parcels and buildings for people to gawk at when they come to use your vendors vs. being the crafter for a guild that wins a lot of campaigns and gets tons of views on their youtube videos) stands a good chance of being able to provide for these guilds which probably want to focus more on Combat PvPer-type activities. The question is really how many such solo-crafters the game needs and how many want to do that, which will establish how much they can get away with charging. I don't think this is a bad game flow, but it does seem like there is a lot of misunderstanding (miss-expectations?) throughout the forums. I do think that without forcing crafting to take place in contested PvP areas it will be overrun with bots (not to grind xp, but just to make components and experiment and combine until you get the perfect combination of 100% Successes). But again, that's not a failure, that just puts it in the same place as many other games. Perhaps the most confusing thing is the frequent negative posts against the metagame flow, when it actually seems to be very close to the design vision. I recognize there's very little opportunity to engage in (or test) PvP on the pre-alpha server, but certainly it is clear that with the systems in place that that would not remain the case even if the game were released today. There is much reason for PvP combat in the design and if everyone's skill and gear were reset and had to compete over the same resources in a map size that fit the population, there would be quite a bit. Add campaign victory conditions and rewards to that and all the more so. Anyway, already quite a long post. Thanks for reading and I appreciate any clarification or response you may have.
  14. My MMO history started with EQ, where I learned a sense of wonder and discovery and immersion in a massive online world inhabited by real people. I hate single player games and puzzles, so this really opened my eyes. I also learned the hard way after selling my book to the priest of discord that there were many who wouldn't even group with us "dirty PvPers". It was an attitude I may never understand -- I have nothing but great respect for my opponents/compatriots be it in Chess or 18xx or Football/Soccer -- but it does mean I can't assume any given MMO will cater to my notion of "social" gaming. Just as I find the growing popularity of cooperative boardgames startling (who wants to take turns playing a single player game? who wants to watch the alphas quarterback? who wants to get yelled at for questioning or not following the established conventions? or in the spirit of "cooperation" have your opinion belittled or your actions harshly criticized?) , the themepark explosion left a bad taste in my mouth. I had a great time with the SWG launch and the first year or so, and, Anarchy Online's Tower War PvP (which because of the lack of the now ubiquitous level-based gear restrictions, involved a great deal of gear hunting and twinking and multi-box buff-bots) kept me occupied for the greater part of 5 years (~400 days /played time on main); but once updates slowed, friends quit, and population dwindled...I've mostly written the MMORPG genre off as "no longer for me". The Camelot Unchained and Crowfall kickstarters excited me, but, having been burned by kickstarters in the past, I have a firm anti-kickstarter stance. I planned to buy them on release, but...it appears I couldn't quite stand the wait. I have a great deal of free time right now and nothing to spend it on. I moved away from my face-to-face boardgame group and I don't like movies/tv/fiction, so out of desperation and utter boredom I've decided to join in the testing phase. But seriously, I am excited about this game, it was always just a matter of "when". I am eager to get connected with the community. I would like to thank @Nudalus for crafting me a set of armor on my first day in pre-alpha. I would also like to thank @Kraahk for inviting me his staggeringly awesome player city and giving me some encouragement. I even had a chance to arrive right at the end of @MJayed solo-capping a fort and marvel in awe at a full-skill-treed uber. I am an older gamer (though we in the late 30s don't think ourselves old, we must recognize how the younger generation must view us). I know nothing of memes and twitter. I've never seen an episode of Game of Thrones--I don't even know if that's dated now. Heck, I've never seen an episode of Simpsons or Futurama (and that's definitely dated). I have trouble relating to people who aren't mathematicians or linguists or theologians, and know considerably more about how to dial the right settings in on a compressor than which Assassin's Creed was the best. That said, I am very interested in finding a guild I can fit in and contribute to. I am hardcore player who plays a lot and seeks to play efficiently and competitively. In any case, I'm happy to be sharing this experience with all of you. I look forward to seeing you all in game.
  15. Ah...you bring back the stressful memories at SWG launch to logging into to tell flood after tell flood. I went full-on bio-engineer and my friend tailor and since we played like 20 hours a day we were soon the only ones making what people wanted from our trades. Even raising prices and pushing back delivery dates, demand didn't let up. Finally there was nothing we even wanted to charge, so we took a two day vacation and went and shot noob mobs with our starter pistols lol.
  • Create New...