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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. If they want anyone to test the live campaign, then they'll need to get the wipe out of the way first...
  2. In order to meet your burden, you need to do two things: (1) show that there is a difference between players due to skill training; AND (2) show that this difference is sufficient to warrant changes to the game. The former is not in dispute by anyone as we all can look at the skill training nodes and determine that one player will be different than another due to choices (and time) in skill selection [you might even call discussing the issue a straw man]. However, you have done nothing to show how these differences actually affect gameplay. In other words, you have not met ANY standard of burden of proof, regardless of how low the bar may be. If you cannot state the degree to which the skill system actually benefits the players in the game, e.g. by showing how outcomes are dependent upon it, then how can you possibly know the degree to which it needs to be changed or if there is even a problem in the first place? The entirety of your posts can be boiled down to this: "I have a fear that the passive leveling system may create player differentiation that has a material affect on player outcomes." That's great and it's somewhat valuable feedback as best I can tell. It's something that's solely within your perception and no one can change that... However, this debate was already made many years ago. As far as how it specifically applies to Crowfall, passive training is something that has been promoted as a critical aspect of the game. Among other things, it helps balance the game for casual players (note: the people who cut our teeth on sandbox mmos when they first hit the market and who now cannot dedicate our lives to videogames) because active leveling requires a time sink (and more often than not, simply isn't any fun). This fundamental aspect of Crowfall was used to obtain significant starter monies from investors, backers, etc. In short, it's not something that is going to go away without a material loss to the game's player base. Due to complaints like yours, among other things, the developers have capitulated and attempted to balance active and passive leveling. There are a myriad of game mechanics that help ensure any gains from passive skill training are relevant, but not over burdensome. For example: (a) there are level caps that prohibit players from having too many points in any particular attribute [you're so caught up on the fact that one player might get more skill points than another that you fail to see that those skill points might be worthless due to hard caps]; (b) there are going to be catch-up mechanics implemented to decrease any difference; (c) the skill trees themselves tend to be front loaded in that the earlier trees provide more benefit or, alternatively, the earlier skill trees can be trained so quickly relative to the later, that the practical/real world difference in skill training is not going to be that great; (d) the benefits from the nodes themselves can be increased or reduced based upon balance; and (e) there will be campaigns with different rulesets and limitations. In other words, the present debate is not on whether core mechanics should exist, rather it is on the balance of those mechanics. Again, without more substantiation as to how those mechanics are out of balance, you're not really saying anything. What this thread is really about is: (1) how the developers have done a poor job providing information about the game to the public and how they're aware of the various debates and have acted accordingly in an attempt to ensure the fundamental vision of the game is intact while making it more congenial for a larger player base; and (2) how it's easier to make posts complaining about the game than it is to learn the game. Fortunately or unfortunately, all this really means is that they have to budget their resources and these types of things are not particularly important investments considering the state of flux of the game. The fact that they haven't spent time on this aspect is probably a good thing... [I would much rather have better performance and frost weavers for example, but I digress]. Again, ask around. The community is quite helpful and we were all new once.
  3. First, there is nothing in any of your posts articulating what specific imbalance you're arguing against. Your recent reply only includes bonuses from the nodes of skill training, however HOW MUCH DOES THIS ACTUALLY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO WIN? What is the present gear differential? What is the present skill differential? If catch-up mechanics are in the game, then can there even be much of a practical differential? What specifically do these things mean to PvP outcomes? You're proposing to cease basic functions of the game without any sort of data or other information. I think you're reading far too much into the concept of passive skill training and not its actual implementation in the game. Again, the issue is not whether or not passive skill training provides a benefit, let's agree that it does for the time being, the issue is how much this benefits a player in combat. My proposition is that advanced gear + level 30 + a mount will allow you to participate in all aspects of PvP in Crowfall at the moment. Advanced gear can be crafted by anyone with the new crafting disciplines. However, it is not my burden to prove, given I am fine with the current mechanics. Second, you're proposing equality of outcome and here's how: your proposal is to ensure that there aren't any different outcomes. If hierarchies are to be punished, player skill (whether that be technical in game ability or social cooperation) to not be rewarded, time spent to be ignored, then the outcomes of playing will be eliminated. If players don't carry anything into the next campaign, then there aren't any outcomes from playing... Have you ever heard the saying, "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work?" Third, citing your friends losing battles while harvesting likely has nothing to do with a gear differential. New players are incredibly quick to blame game mechanics, gear, passive training, and other aspects of the game for their failures before blaming themselves. This game has a really, really steep learning curve. And even when you learn enough to compete, you're still going to lose very frequently when you get nailed while harvesting. Go look at Zybak's videos, he's nailing nubs and vets alike. This is part of how combat inherently works in Crowfall. Just as in life, if another person dictates the fight and has the jump on you and has any idea what they're doing, you're at a disadvantage. There are people with builds specifically designed for ganking. Do you have a build specifically designed for defense while harvesting? Do you have people helping to protect you while you're exposed harvesting? Are you running combat disciples or harvesting disciplines? All of these things matter... You might even consider trying to gank people to help learn ways of evading. Again, this game has a very steep learning curve and it's precisely this complexity that the developers hope will keep people interested, but at the expense of new players complaining about basic game mechanics until they get the hang of things.
  4. Basically part and parcel to the decision to have leveling. The concept of adding more RPG elements to the game where you get buy-in with a particular toon. I presume they did so because they felt like people would be more interested if they were playing the same vessel, as its appearance can be customized and it can participate in unique adventures and the player develop some sort of bond with it over time, leading to buy-in. I think it's a mistake and a transgression on the easy come, easy go mechanics that would ultimately be necessary to differentiate this game. At this point, I'm blaming these design aspects on the forum whiners, but I suspect that's a bit too convenient.
  5. You realize that within the first 3-5 hours of the launch of a campaign that a solo player can get a mount, level to 30, and obtain advanced gear? All of which put that solo player in a sufficient position to play for every aspect of the game for an indefinite period of time? Possibly for the remainder of the entire game's existence? Further, you have no idea what "equal opportunity" means in the context of Crowfall. You're not advocating equality of opportunity, you're advocating for equality of outcome under the guise of opportunity because you know the former is a losing argument. If you're going to propose changes to the game, then YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CURE. It's not enough to complain that some people start with items from prior campaigns. You have to articulate HOW MUCH of an advantage this actually provides. Your failure to do so, or even attempt to do so, tells everyone all they need to know about your proposition, that it's simply an emotional response to fundamental mechanics of the game.
  6. Keep in mind that if you're going to propose fundamental changes to the game mechanics, YOU BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF. You state that you have a problem with veterans getting imports, I tell you that there are campaigns planned that have no imports, and then you change the subject. You state that you have a problem with passive training, but yet you can't articulate how a skill differential actually impacts gameplay, if at all. Other players ask you how you plan to incentivize them to play when there is no progression or reward for winning and you do not have any answers. I guess my problem with all of this is that you don't let your ignorance get in the way of proposing changes to the game. Fortunately or unfortunately, given the directions the developers have taken recently, I fear that they are listening to these types of posts and, as a result, I feel compelled to voice a little stronger opposition than has been present in the forums up to this point. If you want to learn how to play the game better or learn more about it, then there are many of us who would be happy to help you. We all had to do so at one point (the learning actually never stops) and the learning curve is very steep. PS, my questions were rhetorical...
  7. First, the people developing the game have thought through every issue that you can think of. There are decisions that have to be made along the way, for better or worse, regarding core design. In short, this isn't day one of design. Second, among other things, THERE WILL BE CAMPAIGNS WITH ZERO IMPORTS. Third, can you please articulate the advantage, specifically, that players who played in a prior campaign will have over others? Do you know the amount of exports everyone will get? How do you know that good gear and other items won't be available to newer players? What is the specific difference between white and green advanced gear and blue, purple, and orange gear? How will factories affect the availability of higher quality gear? How will inventory space limitations affect the storage of higher quality items? If you don't know these things, then maybe it's time to back up and be less concerned with the perceived inequality of outcome black hole and focus more on equality of opportunity, even if that means declaring a winner. I want people to actually play the game and if you don't give anything for winning, then I'm not going to play the game. I'm not going to win every time, although that would be great, but you have to put a carrot in front of my snout for me to walk up the mountain; maybe you steal it before I can eat it, but that's the bargain I make. I ask this of everyone promoting the same ideas as OP: is it the love of the downtrodden or jealousy of the wealthy that drives your "equality" thought processes?
  8. What does a wipe say about the fundamental campaign mechanic? If you're saying that a wipe is necessary for an "even" playing field, then aren't you also saying that the concept of limited duration campaigns will inherently fail to create an "even" playing field? I thought the entire purpose of campaigns was to wipe the scoreboard every now and again and that this, in and of itself, was sufficient? In other words, the game mechanics can attempt to provide equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. If the spirit bank and traditional RPG character progression (e.g. skills) are too much for a limited campaign duration to correct, then doesn't the entire framework of the game need to be rethought? Again, the people advocating for a wipe have done nothing to detail how a wipe would improve playing conditions for any player, let alone the poor and downtrodden of Crowfall. However, we can rest assured that anyone who invested time into the game on the LIVE server, with the expectation of not getting a wipe until 6.0, will be quite displeased.
  9. I guess my question for all in favor of a wipe is why you would want to ruin the accumulation of time for casual or solo players? I'm a casual player (~10 hours a week, 15 if I'm lucky). Before I got into a guild, the hardest part for me was always getting started. Pushing trees, crafting terrible basic harvesting tools, accumulating enough resources to craft crappy intermediate gear, etc. Once I got enough passive training to make some stuff myself (which has been all but eliminated with the new crafting discs - which is probably a good thing even though I don't really like it as a crafter) or, alternatively, killed enough mobs to pay for advanced gear, then grind was largely gone. I could then really venture more proper into the world and try to determine what I like doing. The pre-advanced gear period was not fun in the slightest and took many hours without much information, dealing with gankers, etc. There were many inherent setbacks and time sinks. Every time a wipe happened, I was stuck with the grind again. I never got to really advance because I kept having to spend time getting my feet off the ground. Instead of spending weeks playing to try to get advanced gear, it now takes me a couple hours of coordination in a guild. I'm busy harvesting, others are busy crafting; I feed them and they feed me. The process quick and painless. On the first day, I'll be in advanced gear, riding the fastest mount, at the level cap. When you force wipes, yes, you'll be wiping the inventory of the relatively wealthy, but you'll also be terrorizing the people without as many resources, who cannot sink as much time into the game and who may not know (or be good at figuring out) the most efficient way to do things. They won't be able to keep the fruit of their hours of labor, as meager as it may be. Wipes are a terribly regressive tax in Crowfall.
  10. I'm not really sure of your position. Are you discussing how you feel about the game or how you believe others might? I think people advocating for a wipe bear the burden of proof. If you're wanting a wipe, then I think you need to specifically articulate why a wipe must occur. I haven't really seen that in this thread. It's basically a bunch of people complaining that they think it's unfair without actually stating specifically why. Can you please articulate the advantage gained by the average player carrying his gear over to a new campaign? [aside from actually getting people to invest time in the game, since those items represent the fruit of one's gaming labor]. To help you get started, there was recently a thread regarding a blue vessel versus the starting vessel.
  11. This mechanic is the sole reason I became interested in Crowfall versus other similarly situated games.
  12. It would help to know what resolution, refresh rate, and settings (eye candy) you're wanting to run... Yes, your hardware will run the game, but that's a small part of the equation. The question is really whether the hardware will run the game in the way that you want. We don't know what you want.
  13. The primary argument in favor of a wipe seems to be the notion that a wipe puts all players in an equal starting position. The argument takes the form as something like this: X player has played longer/is better/etc.; X player has thereby accumulated more gear, passive skills, etc.; X player's accumulated wealth will create an unfair advantage when the next campaign starts. I believe this argument to be folly for a myriad of reasons. First, wealth is purely a relative measure and this applies to wealth inside a video game. Second, each player's inherent ability to build in-game wealth (regardless of the form it takes, e.g. gear, resources, etc.) is not equal. The respective skills of each player will persist from campaign to campaign (and Crowfall has a pretty darn high learning curve). Those players who know how to play will immediately have a significant advantage as soon as a freshly wiped campaign starts. Further, Crowfall is a GROUP game. Not only will individuals be better at the game than others, but the best players will cooperate with one another in guilds and other associations to increase the wealth gap. Practically speaking, this means that certain players are inherently going to level faster, harvest more and better resources, craft more and better gear, and all of this will happen immediately following a wipe. What this looks like day 1 is that, among other things, every single person in a 50 man guild will have advanced weapons, mounts, and level 30 vessels, at the very least (the top pvp players will be in advanced armor, have food and other buffs, etc). As an individual player, you are going to lose, day 1; as a crappy guild, you are going to lose, day 1; as a great guild, you are still going to lose to other guilds, day 1. Hierarchies are inherent... It's the speed at which certain players can build wealth relative to others that creates the largest portion of any wealth disparity in Crowfall, not the wealth they start with. In a word, you might call this skill or merit. Simply put, large guilds are better organized and will band together in a way that has an immediate (and as best as I can tell an insurmountable) impact on the scoreboard. By demanding wipes, all you're doing is giving the players who build wealth more quickly than you do the advantage. I don't believe the skill of building in-game wealth quickly should be something that Crowfall supremely rewards and, presently, I don't think it's something that Crowfall really does reward [I have gear I personally crafted without any passive training and I can hang in 60+ person sieges with a starter vessel]. As a general observation, if Crowfall isn't any fun with huge disparities of in-game wealth, then everyone need not begin playing. Large disparities of in-game wealth are certain to happen with Crowfall's present mechanics (and pretty much every other MMORPG - this is the whole point of an RPG, building wealth/advancement/creating disparities). Third, the game does not need to be balanced around the present campaign type. Given that there are many campaign types expected, e.g. campaigns with zero imports, it makes no sense to wipe this type of campaign, at this precise moment. The people who are demanding wipes might as well demand a different campaign type to test. Fourth, the more wealth that is built in the game, the more wealth will be passed down via hand-me-downs, discards, loot, or sales vendors. These items will still be not as good as what is available, but they will be sufficient to compete against "wealthier" opponents in the present game mechanics. Because the game economy is broken (due to among other things constant wipes), there is not a huge refuge for new/poor players, thus widening the wealth gap. Again, it's the speed of wealth generation, not the total amount of other player's wealth, that is keeping certain players inactive or disgruntled. Frequently wiping the game wipes the fruits of the labor of all players, but some are hurt by this more than others. Fifth, there are major guilds in every faction that are competing at the top of the food chain. If you're getting your lunch eaten, then join one. You might just find access to all of the things you complain you don't have or can't get. They're all recruiting. If everyone really wants to "even the playing field," then my suggestion is to get back to some of the kickstarter promises. The concepts to correct these problems were already identified and planned, but attempting to cater to whiners on the forums has created additional (what should have been easily foreseen) problems. Specifically, if you want losing to be fun, then make losing less burdensome. This means players being able to compete for the throne on "day 1," e.g. no leveling, no grind, no huge disparity of equipment (although this is presently pretty mitigated), etc. This would have the negative consequence of making winning less meaningful, but not everyone is certain to win... everyone is going to lose though, at some point or another. And I don't think there are huge changes that need to be made to any core mechanics to achieve this. I would like to write more, but I just don't have the time at the moment and need to fire this off... PS, I wouldn't have a sanctioned campaign until the performance is better during larger scale battles. It's really the #1, #2, and #3 most important issue.
  14. Not to sound like a broken record, but we don't know yet. As best I can tell, crowfall is ahead in development, so you're ultimately trying to compare the hopes and dreams of one title with the actual performance of another. Optimization is one of the latter things to develop, so how much optimization potential is left, we are not aware. There have been some material improvements in 5.8, the full extent of which are presently unknown. At the moment, a 50 player battle isn't completely out of the question.... however, I won't hold my breath for crowfall (or any other major, new mmorpg) hitting the 300 mark. I don't think the developers of crowfall have ever really specified these targets, but I would be shocked if the game can hit 300 players in a single locale @ 45 FPS minimum with current average hardware at 1080 or greater resolution. In fact, a substantial portion of the new content has been directed away from the large single battle scenario, e.g. outposts, camps, campaign islands, separation of beachhead from campaign proper, distributed resources/POI, etc. This suggests to me that they have a good idea of what potential yields are available from optimization. What the final numbers end up being is anyone's guess, but if I had to bet on the over/under of 300, I'll take the under. However, 300 users in a single battle is not something that this game needs to live up to in order for all aspects of the developers' (and I think the vast majority of the player base's) vision.
  15. First, the game is not released yet. I'm not sure when or if it will be released, but it could be a year or more away. As a result, my suggestion is to wait to make your purchase until release due to the general depreciation of computer hardware and other unknowns presently with the game. In short, you may be able to get a much better system for the same amount of money in a year. Alternatively, you may be able to save up some more money over the next year and get something that will be more future proof. Second, there is no benchmark and there is no general consensus regarding performance on any particular systems, e.g. there is no consensus as to whether the game runs better on AMD or Nvidia GPUs, AMD or Intel CPUs, what level of VRAM, how many cores/threads are optimal, etc. Further, game software optimization is not yet complete. As a result, you're buying in the dark if you try to jump in now. Third, you build your system around the resolution and performance you want. What resolution do you want? Based on those specs, 1440 is out of the question. Frankly, 1080 is almost certainly unlikely as well. At some point you have to throw your hands up and admit that it's cost prohibitive to get the performance you need. While I might have unreasonable standards, I'm not going to play any game at less than 1080... and it needs to push 40 fps most of the time for an MMO. Your money and time, thus your call, but it is something you need to really consider. In other words, it's not enough to ask "what are the bare minimum specs to get me in the game?" when you may not be able to participate in much group play at more than a slide show. Do you enjoy losing every battle? Fourth, have you thought about buying refurbished or used systems? These might be able to offer significantly better specs for the same or less money. You would probably have to get a base system and then add a videocard, but it could save you quite a bit on the core bundle. Fifth, you're probably going to need at least 4 cores and my best guess is that 6 or 8 will be optimal. My i7 4770k does somewhat tolerably paired with a GTX 780 to push 1080p for most things in crowfall (with many of the goodies turned down/off), however it is not likely to be sufficient for large group battles or much of anything other than solo or small group play. Although, to be fair, large group play is a slide show for many folks. When looking at benchmarks, they're almost virtually all for single player campaigns because benchmarking a multiplayer game, during multiplayer gameplay, has too many variables to be practical. The benchmarks that do use multiplayer scenarios tend to favor more powerful CPUs (e.g. the battlefield series, planetside, etc.). In short, who knows what you need, but my experience is that large multiplayer games often benefit substantially from a better CPU, not just a good GPU. Last, the dual core you've proposed is unlikely to be sufficient... You not only need to consider frame rates, but frame consistency and quality. It's one thing to say you're averaging 30 fps @ X resolution. However, it's another thing to say that performance feels smooth at 30 fps. Are you going to notice those dropped frames when your CPU can't keep up? All frames are not created equal. What is your upgrade path? How much will it cost you to upgrade in the not too distant future? Again, maybe my standards are unreasonable, but my suggestion is to wait until there is more information available before you purchase anything. I plan on upgrading my PC for crowfall, but I'm sure not about to do it until there is a better idea of what hardware performs the best with the game.
  • Create New...