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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ardrea

  1. How about the game randomly present stoplight/bicycle/storefront/bus image captchas to ensure people are really there? (This is, of course, humor.) There's almost no way to avoid people doing odd things to defeat afk prevention systems.
  2. I have to say, I would be interested in seeing a campaign where this happened. Seriously. What do the handful of people who end up in the other factions do if just by unfortunate happenstance, all the big guilds are together? I would expect in the long run there will be some system to keep faction-war campaigns from going like this, but I could see it happening regardless. My thought is that eventually, there would be enough systems in place (i.e., enough complexity in the supporting environment, not necessarily direct control systems such as combat biases) so that it would be feasible to press a campaign through to a decent enough finish as a faction forced into playing an irregular warfare / guerilla strategy.
  3. I suppose they could do a selective wipe. Such as remove all purple and gold resources and items, but leave white, green, and blue in-place. Or even only whites. I don't really like wipes except as they need to see the early part of the gearing process again to evaluate it. Otherwise, despite our protestations of it not being fair in some sense, it does show them the later-game balance. I would rather see some work on campaign imports and exports. We may be resetting which countries Uncle Bob gets to have at the start of the new Risk game, but we're letting him bring in the pile of armies he had when he won the last one.
  4. The data my tool depends on is in this format: ... "Great Mace": { "properties": { "produces": 1, "experiment": true, "profession": "Blacksmithing"}, "components": { "Weapon Hilt: Great": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []}, "Weapon Head: Great Mace": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []}, "Weapon Shaft: Medium": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []}, "Hunger Shard": { "number": 1, "required": false, "alternates": []}, "Etherial Dust": { "number": 10, "required": true, "alternates": []} } }, "Weapon Hilt: Great": { "properties": { "produces": 1, "experiment": true, "profession": "Blacksmithing"}, "components": { "Weapon Grip": { "number": 2, "required": true, "alternates": []}, "Great Weapon Pommel": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []}, "Great Weapon Crossguard": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []} } }, "Weapon Grip": { "properties": { "produces": 1, "experiment": true, "profession": "Blacksmithing"}, "components": { "Stitched Leather": { "number": 1, "required": true, "alternates": []} } }, "Stitched Leather": { "properties": { "produces": 1, "experiment": true, "profession": "Leatherworking"}, "components": { "Hide": { "number": 3, "required": true, "alternates": []} } }, ... The tool recursively traverses the components tree from the specified starting item, looking for components by name, and keeping lists of what is produced by which professions, and the total numbers of leaf components required to summarize at the end. It's less than 150 lines of python. I only have data for a few weapons and a few metal armors to play with for myself and a few friends/guildies.
  5. I wrote a python tool for my own use that does some of this. Here's a snip of the output on the console. This is not web-enabled in any way, and depends on a hand-written json data file. And probably has some bugs, and doens't do everything I'd want it to do. I also haven't worked on it in a few weeks now.
  6. I'm in favor of the leveling system only to the extent it gives new players an on-ramp to learn the game, or for veteran players to learn a new class. In the context of making leveling spots important to fight over, there's better ways to make people fight over them, which are already in game. Those high rank mobs are already valuable for their gold, hide, and other resource drops. If there needs to be more motivation, find another way to make them valuable apart from level grinding. I would suggest that any vessel or new character for which the player has already played the class to level 30 just be instantly leveled to 30 on creation for that player.
  7. I don't think you can get rid of spying. Even if it was considered a bannable offense, people would find ways around it. They'd be more clever naming their accounts. They'd find better hiding spots for spies. They'd arrange for their spies to move around semi-realistically. They'd use a VPN for their spy to hide the IP from the devs. They'd get a friend to be a spy. And so on. Maybe it would be better to think about the spying as it is, as a mechanic which presently doesn't have good counters, and consider what might be done about that? At least make them work a bit more for the spy info?
  8. The whole rewards system is going to be hard to work out. The overall objective, I think, is to find a way to reward us with things we find valuable enough to motivate us to win, but not which can provide a big advantage in subsequent campaigns. Going back to the "Uncle Bob playing Risk" example; if you give him keep the armies he had when the last game finished into the next one, of course that's a serious problem. If you give him a handful, maybe that's not so serious, but other players would still complain. But if you give him a fancy hat prize to wear in the next game, maybe everyone's okay with that.
  9. I think they've talked about the Spirit Bank mechanism as a whole to be a testing system, which would be replaces later with something better. Can someone else who knows better correct me or expound a bit?
  10. I just had this vision of Crowfall in 2022, or whenever. You go to a runegate, and the first thing you see is dozens of characters with odd names, just loitering about, not moving, not saying anything. You go to the next zone in the campaign, and you see the same thing. The spies! They outnumber the actual players by two-, three-, no! Even four to one! Everyone has a spy account or two -- some people have many. You read the forums, and you see topic after topic about it, and there was this one event, back in the day, that people still speak about, but only in hushed whispers, something about ... "The Tarkening".
  11. People who choose to play unguilded can be successful, but they will be the ones who learn how to play the multiplayer game well despite not being in a guild. There's a few people I'm confident already plan to play this way.
  12. I agree, with "some" being the key word. And ensuring that only resources harvested inside the campaign could be sacrificed for points.
  13. I like this conceptually, but it could get out of hand too. We're supposed to get rich from winning, not put ourselves into desperate poverty in order to win.
  14. I think this would have a lot of bad side-effects. The game already has too thin of a battlespace. If there were a consolidation of the "front lines" sense of the game, then there would be a rear-area which was relatively safer, except for specialists at deep area interdiction - those who build and design to be able to go into unfriendly territory to seek out and kill unwary soloers and others who're trying to take advantage of the safety of rear areas. But at present, there aren't really any behind the lines safe areas, or even any especially dangerous front lines. A bigger world and accompanying lower density of players makes this worse, not better. I'm not sure if this can easily be solved; there's a daily time of play density issue here as well as spatial density of play. Soloers can of course still play, but they'll have to learn to deal with the intended group design of the game. I'm sure it can be done, but it won't look anything like soloing in a PvE game.
  15. I also agree these can be very dangerous places to hang out and gather. I would also recommend a new soloer to be patient, and get the swift pack pig, and not just the pack pig. Speed, like stealth, is your friend. Also, keep your almost completely worn out tools, and fill your inventory with them when you gather and think you might be ganked.
  16. I will add that the game is focused on group/guild play, not soloing. If you are trying to be a solo player, you can do it, but you will have very severe limits, and will need to trade/purchase many materials and goods, or even buy it all if you don't craft at all. A well-run guild is sure to have dedicated harvesters and crafters and have a system to ensure everyone is eventually appropriately geared for the roles they fill.
  17. I fit this description presently. Of the handful of guilds out there, I don't see any that I would be a instant great fit to, or even fit the base requirements for, and I'm not one to hop between a lot of guilds trying to find one. My assumption is that as the game progresses further towards soft-launch, that other guilds would take interest in this game, or other guilds might form from players that get more serious about it over time. So, I will most likely stay a solo-er for the near future. That can really put a damper on enthusiasm to play -- playing solo is playing into a brisk headwind. I think those who do play solo and do well, or even enjoy it, on an extended basis are a very uncommon type of players. I have to wonder if I would even try to play in am extended 'sanctioned' campaign. Sitting it out might be for the best; or at least only joining it late, when you know the faction you're going to be with can at least hold a fort overnight. What would change my mind? I don't know; but it could not hurt to have more elementary features to support contributing to your faction's communal play would help. Such as a server & faction only chat channel (although it would be lurked by spies constantly, it would be better than nothing), and any features, such as compass markers or map pins to point you to nearby faction activity (and again, spies), that would help solo-ers get to positions of mutual supportive play. I suppose a group finder could do, but my impression is that would take a lot more development. And I haven't touched on the crafting challenges solo players face, which will be worse once disciplines are harder to get. The real answer is don't solo - get a good guild. Maybe the best short-term option for a sanctioned campaign would be to pre-plan which guilds will play which factions so it's not immediately lop-sided, mix the solo-ers in so they're not all in one spot, and try to limit late joiners so it doesn't get into runaway faction state so early.
  18. I agree. I would (and have) put my "what's missing" money on higher level operational and strategic effects and interactions, mainly on a spatial basis.
  19. History is filled with examples of variously outnumbered forces winning battles and proceeding to win entire wars. Not all of them were clever one-time only tactics or unique circumstances; Alexander the Great is a very good example. However, the real world offers a sufficiently complex combat environment from which creativity can fully express its potential. If a game system has only provision for attrition-based play, that's all you're going to get, and victory goes to the side with the abstractly greater combat power. To give a Risk example; that game doesn't have the players pile all their armies into single giant piles and roll dice until one player is out. You have to choose where and when you roll those dice, the wheres and whens aren't always equal, and your opponents get to choose, too. Imo, Crowfall has some of that, but not enough yet.
  20. If there are enough of the right varieties of campaigns, this will help keep more people. One size doesn't fit all, after all. I'm sure some kinds will be a lot more popular, but since campaigns are finite duration and possibly variable size, the devs will also be tempted to experiment and look for campaign types that people like in enough numbers to run occasionally.
  21. This was for one campaign type specific to the Dregs, not all of them.
  22. After the campaign is underway, you make late joiners join some other campaign, and you do not allow people already in it to change sides. For a campaign in progress, you don't make people switch sides to rebalance it, you give the weaker side other options (many discussed above in this thread) to give them a fair chance.
  23. Not every campaign will be these three-way faction campaigns. They also have a lot of tools at their disposal to ensure campaigns are equitably started, and that campaigns are suited for the kinds and numbers of players they want in the game. The Devs could be very imaginative on how they gate players into a game, and what those players are allowed to start with or import from the beginning. They cold invite specific players, or invite specific guilds or groups of guilds together, they could ask for sign-ups and seat them in different starting locations based on size and prior victories, they could match them by active timezones, and even base it on how many passive skills they have trained. At one time one's guild might be involved in a bunch of campaigns. For example, a three-month long Guild vs Guild duo-war with another very large guild and only veteran players with 1 Million or more passive points trained, 500 imports, and epic vessels are required to join. Maybe these are by devs' invite only. Then, there could be several medium length three-way faction war campaigns going, each with only the first 20 sign-ups from any guild are allowed in, with no imports and any level 30 vessel. In these, each guild has to pick a faction their members will join, and each faction has a total limit of players. The campaign starts once everyone has signed up for it and the factions are balanced to the devs' satisfaction, and no joiners are allowed after that. There might also be a big months-long, solo, everyone for themselves individually campaign, where only initial legendary gear and vessel can get in. In that campaign, you're even fighting against your guildmates -- no alliances are supported by the campaign rules, only what you can agree to and keep faith with from player to player -- a backstabber's paradise. Finally, your guild's new members are all busy in the ongoing short four-day "Noobpaigns", where only level common vessels come in, with no imports and few exports, where players can only join on day one (no worries, a new one of these gets started every day), and player must have less than 100,000 total passive points to join, and these campaigns only have lower rank nodes. New players get to play a few of these, if you want to, to familiarize themselves with the basic game, do some fighting where you're not constantly outclassed, and get some modest rewards. I know we're all focused on the 3-way faction war, but we have to think outside the box for the almost unlimited campaign possibilities later on.
  24. I completely agree. I think the moment players realize their position is clearly lost should occur as late as possible. I don't think it would serve the game's interest well if that happens before Spring is over, and most of the losing sides lose heart and stop playing that campaign. If that does happen, then there should be a mechanism to call a campaign early and let everyone move on to the next. But all around, that's a bad result and the devs should try to ensure it doesn't happen often. This is another reason I don't like present system of accumulating arbitrary victory points, they build up an inertia of prior failure which can be seen as impossible to overcome. Good strategy and shifting alliances might collapse a sprawling empire with too many weak points for the over-extended current leaders to properly defend; but how does it make up their lead of 120,000 victory points? I wonder if it would be practical to not even call a victor of a campaign until the very last moment -- no explicit label of points or scores or leader-boards until it's over. It might even be possible to not do this at all. If the point of winning a campaign is to get the rewards, just skip the point tally in between end of game rewards and in-campaign operations and make the rewards flow directly from them. I suggested one way to do this back in my post on page 7 here, where keeps would be where each faction could craft their export points, and those points bound to keeps would be granted to them at the conclusion of the campaign if those keeps were controlled then. This may not be workable, or even good in itself, but I think it illustrates that a system where one's faction could claim to have won because they got the most rewards through strategic gameplay, instead of getting the most rewards because the system assigned them to be the winners from arbitrary points, is possible.
  • Create New...