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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pystkeebler

  1. How does this not just produce an end of campaign game of "who can we ally with to increase our standing"? This seems super exploitable. Can guilds shed players at end of campaign, ally up to aggregate points, win, and then invite everyone back? I really feel that alliance score should be the score of the leading guild plus any points gained by allied guilds only while part of that alliance. If a guild leaves an alliance their points should be subtracted from the alliance score, but if they join an alliance their points should not be added to the alliance score. Example: Guild A, Guild B, and Guild C ally at start of campaign. A scores 100 points, B scores 200 points, C score 300 points. Guild A=100, Guild B=200, Guild C=300, Alliance ABC=600 points. Guild A leaves Alliance ABC and joins Guild D with 400 points in Alliance AD. Guild A=100, Guild B=200, Guild C=300, Guild D=400, Alliance BC=500, Alliance AD=400 Guild A gains 100 points while part of Alliance AD. Guild A=200, Guild D=400, Alliance AD=500
  2. This one really hurts. Some convenient and fast way to trade raw materials and intermediate crafted components would alleviate a lot of pain. Even an Auction House for just these items would improve the economy immensely for econ types that want to play the gathering/crafting game as a solo or small group. Trying to manage a vendor and interact with the EK system just to trade these items is prohibitively frustrating for the return.
  3. Ya I get that, but it feels like fixing one broken thing by layering another broken thing on top of it. Honestly, Holy damage should be affected by mitigation but still not have a resistance type. This is about the only way it will ever make sense. The only other way I guess is to drastically scale down holy damage and seriously cap holy damage bonus sources. EDIT: Alternatively, make holy damage not crit. This is a common way that several other games use to control this kind of damage type that isn't affected by mitigations.
  4. Not so much about dailies specifically, but you could say "Why do you need a quest to capture outposts, just go capture outposts." Part of the goal of adding PvP quests, or whatever you want to call them, is "just go capture outposts" doesn't focus players in any way that they are likely to interact. If, however, you give players a quest of "Go capture 10 outposts in Polynices" and you make it time sensitive in some way (daily, repeatable hourly, whatever), then it becomes a potential focus for activity and conflict.
  5. I am somewhat concerned that if you don't remove PDM stacking and the mitigation changes go live, then it might actually make matters worse. Just looking at leather wearers for a second, it's more likely that players will be sitting close to their mitigation caps with armor changes and buffs. If players are consistently getting 50% PDM on top of that, then they're hitting a total mitigation in leather of about 75% before debuffs. With debuffs this will be somewhere in the 40-50% range. That's just leather. Considering plate, block mitigations, etc. It seems like you can quickly get some pretty crazy mitigation values. EDIT: I switched numbers at the end there, what I meant was 60% total mitigation (about 20% final mitigation with 50% PDM gets to 60% total mitigation)
  6. Happy to see the armor and penetration changes. This is a step in the right direction. Hope to see PDM buff stacking go the way of the dodo soon as well. I would encourage you to consider making Protection Stake, Guardian's Rhythms, and Stalwart not stack, and set them to a 15% PDM buff (when twisted for guardian's). I would then suggest changing Fortified Protection Stake to add 1k physical resists instead of increasing PDM further. EDIT: To clarify what I mean, the 3 primary offenders that allow high uptime, high PDM are prot stake, guardian's rhythms, and stalwart. If all you did was make those three not stack, normalize them to provide 15% PDM, changed fortified prot stake bonus to a non-PDM buff, and did not touch any other PDM, then it would still be a major improvement. I think normalizing each of those to 15% is important so that they each are viable with a certain trade-off (guardian's requires 3 hotbar slots of songs to twist, stalwart requires active block, prot stake is stationary with cooldown).
  7. Have you considered using PvP quests to drive small group PvP? For instance, a quest to take 10 outposts, or kill 10 players in a given zone would drive a lot of small group PvP if it was on some kind of a rotating schedule that gave everyone a quest for the same zone at a given time of day. It would also help reward players for engaging in PvP directly, which is not currently done very well.
  8. Apt account name is apt... Check out the past and current design reviews. Wait a couple months for 7.300. Hope it improves.
  9. The Fort changes seem positive since they allow them to function more like a small home base given the additional services. I cannot express strongly enough, however, how uninteresting, boring, and useless outposts, caravans, and mines feel as PvP objectives. These activities are all predicated on other people showing up, or they are mind numbingly boring. I would strongly encourage you to pose all of these objectives in these terms: So one way to imagine this would be the following: Mines, outposts, and pack pig spawns all become similar conquest rewarding control point objectives of varying sizes: solo-boss scale, group-boss scale, etc. Objectives provide frequent guard spawns that provide some additional protection while in the area. Each objective has a specific active window that rotates frequently on the siege schedule, like high frequency hot zones. Each objective is associated with a specific resource reward (gold, dust, wood, hide, ore, stone). Each objective provides a specific loot/harvesting reward buff for the owner of the objective during the controlled window, and potentially spawn rate buffs similar to Daemons Objectives are co-located with a specific parcel/POI, somewhat like they are now: i.e. WT camp, Stoneborn Ruin, Forest Parcel, Mountain Parcel, Canyon Parcel No pack pigs, no objectives spawn building materials; all building materials are refined from basic resources. Why?: Objectives that passively generate building materials do not produce interesting gameplay. More often than not they lead to players sitting around, twiddling thumbs, and walking resources from point a to point b. There is nothing engaging or enjoyable about this. Doing ACTIVE gathering around objectives is far superior since it is way more interesting than sitting in a fort circle, but still rewards players for being active near an objective which is far more likely to produce fights (like hot zones). Doing active gathering rewards many different qualities of resources, some which can be used for refining, and some which can be used to replace gear. This gives multiple reasons to engage with the activity, ensuring that more groups are interested in the rewards. This also merges small scale conquest activities with the activities needed to regenerate your gear and resource stocks, again ensuring more groups are actively engaging. Example: Mine parcels Group-boss control objective co-located with a war-tribe camp like parcel that has mobs, mining nodes, and motherlodes Objective is an event on the schedule, and rotates frequently. Capturing the objective during the active window awards the owner a buff to mining while on the parcel. If this isn't possible, then a buff pedestal with a short 5-15 minute buff would work. Buff should only be active during the event window to encourage focused competition for the objective during a specific time. POI could have accelerated mob spawns, and/or higher frequency of elite and solo boss spawns. Even if other players don't show up, there is something active to do; you can farm the parcel, kill mobs to get XP and loot, and harvest at an accelerated pace. Harvested resources can also be turned into building materials. This makes it an appealing objective for many different groups that may have different goals, needs, and interests. This also rewards players for being active near the objective during it's active window (and not just capping and running away), which promotes conflict. Is more engaging than "sit in circle and move resources from a to b".
  10. Y'all had 5 pages of suggestions on Mid/Small scale PvP, and this was the take away? I don't think any post in there said: "I think the objectives you have and the siege schedule are working just fine." Update the Forts: All of this is an improvement. Still, there is nothing any more interesting about forts after this change than before. The gameplay is still the same. What is actually going to draw players to fight over forts? Why are they going to fight over them? What is going to be fun about a fort fight? If you can't answer these questions, then the objective does not work. "Because conquest" is not enough to keep people interested or engaged. The same holds true for every other objective; if you don't have a reason why people will find doing the activity fun, then the objective is worthless. Create Dedicated Mines: This is basically what forts do now. I would very much like to challenge the "this generates PvP" statement. What it has consistently generated is an hour of standing around shuttling building materials to banks via stealthers. Again, what is actually fun about engaging in this activity? "Because you need building materials" is not a good answer. I don't need more things to grind in Crowfall. What I want is more reason to fight people. What if I don't need/want building materials? What if no one shows up to contest? How many hour long bank run events do you think players want to sit through before they quit? Small and Large Keep Costs: Ok. So no real changes to Keeps? I would highly recommend redesigning Ward choke points at least. Those areas are way too cramped to see, let alone have an interesting fight in. Could something be done to make sieges more fun and dynamic? Maybe make them a multi-point circle capture fight? Whichever side generates the most capture points by holding a circle objective in the keeps takes control? If you own all capture points the tick rate accelerates. Rotate Hot Zones more frequently: Hot Zones are the one objective that is actually fun and do regularly produce enjoyable fights. I would encourage you to make way more of them, focus them on a specific rewards (skinning, mining, logging, quarrying, gold, dust, etc.), and keep 1-3 of them active all times of day (based on typical concurrent player numbers for the timezone they occupy). The primary reason Hot Zones work is that even if people don't show up, I at least get to grind extra XP, better loot, and good harvesting. This should be the lesson learned here and is so critical I'm going to repeat it with emphasis: Focused, time limited objectives that allow you to do something active in the area around the objective to further your personal/guild goals even when people don't show up to contest the objective produce the most PvP and the most enjoyable experiences in Crowfall. Quite literally, if you had no mines, no outposts, and no caravans and all you had were several different flavors of Hot Zones, you would have a better game. Breaking out outposts into 2 distinct categories of small and large Outposts don't work, and none of these changes make them more interesting. Having 100 different points active everywhere at the same time produces no real conflict and just exacerbates the back capping problem You know what circle control based game mode does work? King-of-the-hill. Do you know why it works? Because it's a time limited competition over a relatively small number of points focused into an area that is designed to fit the number of competitors. It also tends to be on a map that is more interesting than "we put a flag and a loot chest in a field." Only suggestions I can give you are this: Group outposts based on regions within a specific map. Put them on frequent, rotating siege schedule. Design parcels around outposts. Award conquest based on total controlled time, or have a threshold for total capture time to "win" the conquest points. Introduce Group Boss Parcels This is fine, but it is not likely to produce a measurable increase in PvP. It might, if these were like war tribe camps that you had to control some capture points for some period of time to spawn the group boss. So then you would be killing WT mobs while holding the capture points with a flaming map indicator telling people in the surrounding area "come here and fight these guys." Changes to Caravans are suspiciously absent... These are literally the worst activity in Crowfall. Walking simulators are not fun. I would blanket remove them and replace them with something else. Mines, hot zones, something, anything else. Sorry if this comes off as snarky. I've mostly lost faith in the development and feedback cycle at this point.
  11. In general, I see how the requested tech is very valuable in order to have more flexibility and control over many different aspects of the campaign. The described potential use cases, though, are really head scratchers to me. They fall a little flat, because I don't think they're targeting, in my humble estimation at least, what most people want when the topic of Campaign Settings/Types comes up. If Crowfall can be thought of as a strategy game parked on top of an MMO, then I would argue that what these campaign settings need to specifically target is changing the strategy game significantly. I think the focus needs to be modifying the fundamental rules of the campaigns, what the objectives are, and what the win conditions are to produce a different kind of competition. Some slipshod examples of what I mean: Siege World: No Forts, No Outpost, More (~3ish) Keeps per zone All keeps become vulnerable for the full 3hr prime time window (or 24/7 even); no bane trees, no handshake siege. Why: fundamentally changes the nature of the conquest game. More focus on siege gameplay, taking and destroying keeps. Relic Rush: No Outposts. Forts and Keeps have a relic pedestal. Relics spawn at random Forts at start of Campaign. Owning an objective with a Relic increases the conquest output significantly. Handshake sieges active Relics can be captured during siege windows of the objective it is held at. Relics can then be carried and placed at another objective Possibly spawn additional Relics with each season. Why: again, this changes the conquest game. It adds additional objectives to siege timers, and a new kind of objective that can move around the map. Changes the strategic value of objectives.
  12. Everything in this section is great and urgently needed. 👍 I have mixed feelings about other things in the doc. I get that they can inject some fun variation in campaigns, but there are a number of more practical campaign knobs that are really needed to help alleviate some of the problems with the current system. The most pressing one I can think of is something to create a more level playing field in certain campaigns or areas. Something like hard caps on stats to limit the power disparity (e.g. power tops out at lvl 30ish in blue WT gear). To see why this is needed, look no further than the current Shadows. A lot of new players stumble out of GR and dip their toe into Shadows and then get blind sided by some twinked out level 33+ that's camping the temple gate and two shots them from stealth. They turn around and ./delete the game immediately. Less specific, something is needed in Crowfall to help filter players, guilds, alliances, etc. by some metrics into more of a spectrum of campaigns that fit their progression levels, skill levels, time commitment limits, or something else. MOBAs, BRs, and other competitive PvP games do this with matchmaking. This means that regardless of where players are in that spectrum they can find gameplay that is enjoyable and relatively matched to them. It's difficult, and potentially unrealistic, to see how to map that to Crowfall, but right now, Crowfall throws everyone together in one world and asks casual players who just want to have a fun competition with what limited time investment they have, with sweaty try-hards who are no-life-ing the game for every advantage. I think the recent deleted thread that shall not be named, is a good example of how this ends up. Maybe campaign settings isn't the way to address this problem, but maybe it is. I don't have a great way to work this into the campaign settings, but some thoughts: Leveling the playing field, as described above, might help in Shadows campaigns, but it would need to be supported with other changes to improve competition and drive higher engagement in those campaigns. Campaign settings with some kind of built in handicaps might be an alternative to separating the playerbase: scaling underdog buffs for smaller guilds. landless guilds; and/or scaling debuffs applied alliances controlling more and more land. If you're still dominating with all the debuffs, well that's just a badge of honor for all you try-hards out there. (Probably not campaign settings specifically) Some kind of campaign buy-ins or something where you have to spend some kind of rank-based currency to enter could help provide, for lack of a better description, competitive-competitive and casual-competitive settings. Alternatively some kind of league system? Award guilds ranks based on previous performance in other campaigns, including shadows? I dunno.
  13. So... Hot Take, I'm sure 😉... but a general comment on the state of "content" in Crowfall. One of the most consistent, pieces of feedback since beta and before has been that it feels like there's nothing to do in Crowfall, that there's not enough content, and that the game is boring. The response has generally been: "There's plenty to do, you just don't want to do any of it." While that may be true, it doesn't change the perception of players and, largely, people still don't want to do the content that exists. So whatever changes get designed and implemented for small/mid scale PvP need to address the core issues with the current activities as well. Namely: many activities are currently a long, tedious, and insufferable PvE grinds for vessel xp, RNG discipline drops, or resources; others are effectively walking simulators with some circle standing sprinkled in (outposts and pigs); few activities outside of siege windows actually draw players to the same area at the same time to produce conflict (hot zones being the primary exception); most activities in Dregs are winner-take-all with the losers gaining nothing, losing durability, and generally feeling discouraged from participating; Large power disparities are also discouraging players from engaging with many objectives; siege window objectives are not available very often (1 hour every day or less), and primarily geared toward very large groups. I think the primary goals of any small/mid scale PvP content should be: Bring players to a specific area at a specific time, but must have an upper bound on group sizes as to not become an arms race. Be available much more frequently than current siege activities. Not be primarily focused on PvE grinding, or, at the very least, relieve some of the grind. Not be winner-take-all, but do actively reward/encourage fighting so that more players are drawn to engage with the objectives and not simply avoid them because they can't win. Some effort is probably needed to even the playing field some; a kind of underdog buff or something that keeps competition interesting and helps activities not devolve into a single dominant group farming everyone else. Competition is most fun when approximately evenly matched.
  14. Another possible alternative to removing AoE caps would be to make it easier to apply Blackmantle, PHM debuffs, and possibly damage debuffs to a larger number of players that are stacked up. Stacking players together helps spread AoE damage out which makes it far easier to tank and heal. This is only one of the many advantages of larger numbers, but it does make it particularly oppressive in Crowfall's combat system. Designing some stack busting debuffs that function similar to aura emitter might help offset this advantage while not increasing damage outputs. For example, an AoE that hits 5 targets and places a delayed burst Blackmantle debuff within a 5m radius around the infected targets. You still retain the ability to ball up to spread damage out when pushing a choke, but you pay for it through eating more debuffs. Blackmantle is able to be removed through cleanse effects, which rewards awareness and makes for better counter play. Adding cleanses to other debuffs might be beneficial as well.
  15. There's this thing called probability and statistics... If you uncap AoE you increase the variability in damage numbers in the upward direction, which increases average damage outputs. There are more outcomes with higher damage outputs. If you do not grasp this concept, then you fundamentally do not understand what effect these changes will have. Yes it can, because not all classes do damage. I already demonstrated this point , stop making me repeat myself. Sheeesh The only thing you've effectively demonstrated is that you don't understand math or programming. Beyond what's above, you can certainly model the different situations and look at the outcomes. You can vary the expected density of players on both sides and actually estimate the impact on damage outputs, typical TTK, etc. You can even check this against data from within the game. Suggesting that you can't do this means that you do not understand the "basic math" that you keep talking about. It can change how a lot of background calculations can be done on the server and how they can be optimized to run because you can treat everything as 2D and fake the third dimension. CF does similar things with raycast and "projectiles" like tornadoes, but it certainly effects how abilities are designed, how you are able to target those abilities, etc. These things are core to the combat system and how it functions in the game. All of these components come together to create the outcome you see in game. Changes like uncapping AoE has ripple effects through all of these systems. If you think this doesn't matter and that CF, or any game for that matter, can just rebuild its core systems whenever they decide to change a fundamental design decision then you are delusional. Albion made a design decision and built their entire combat system around it. Crowfall made a different design decision and built their entire combat system around it. They have different outcomes. If all you want to consider is uncapping AoE then the only part of the numbers advantage you are addressing is making possible damage outputs closer, in a limited number of possible scenarios. You have not addressed any of these issues: On top of this, you've now introduced a major scaling issue with damage output in fights that produces negative side effects, that you again have ignored. Also, computational issues that Dorizzdt described very well, and again ignored by you. Relaxing caps might be a tool, that is a very different statement than remove caps. Rolling out even small changes to AoE cap without addressing any of the problems is putting the cart before the horse. It is a terrible idea. Subtler changes would fit Crowfalls combat system better and would produce similar results. Dorizzdt's suggestions are good options. Also making it easier to apply blackmantle, PHM debuffs, and possible damage debuffs to stacked groups. This would offset the benefits of damage spreading and accomplish the same effect without inflating total damage numbers. Anyway, this discussion has clearly ran its course. It's gotten circular. I'm out 🤷‍♂️
  16. Total damage output cannot be ignored. Uncapping AoE does 2 things, it prevents damage being spread by random target assignment when more than the AoE cap are in the radius, and it increases the number of targets, obviously. Total damage will go up on average as more targets are hit, and in many situations damage per player will go up as they will be hit from more incoming sources. This is partly what that chart illustrates. You can't simply ignore this fact. You have to grapple with the problem that in the majority of engagements over 5v5 there will be a lower average TTK. Pause for a second to think about what this means for 30v30, 50v50, 100v100. What do you think the outcome in a fort fight will look like? What will a siege look like? Imagine pushing a ward room or other choke point with 100 players on the other side and uncapped AoE. What do you honestly think THIS game looks when one side is able to instantly delete a large sum of player from the other force before they even press a button. You have to choose some concrete examples and cases and actually inspect them to form any realistic sense of the consequences of this change. The 10 and the 20 don't matter it is a placeholder for an outnumbered side 2:1 ratio. You have to actually grapple with a side that is outnumbered X:Y, that has less total health pool, less total healing, spreads its damage over more targets, receives more peak damage per player, and loses more effective force when one player dies. You actually have to look at what the damage ratios are likely to be for different average density of players. Then you actually have to make the case that it helps a given situation. Finally, you actually have to look at the consequences of the change on other engagements and provide a convincing argument for why it would improve, or at the least not degrade, combat in those scenarios. You have not demonstrated any of your points, nor have you actually made an cogent argument for why it would be better on the whole, considering all combat scenarios. Citing Albion and other games is not a valuable point. Albion, for example, is an isometric game with a different combat system, different damage model, different abilities and balance of those abilities, and, IIRC, other things baked into the system under the hood to control damage scaling in large scale. You have to actually inspect the whole package and ask why it works or does not work in that case. Then, you have to actually demonstrate why it would work for THIS game, for Crowfall. Changes to large scale combat should be looked at to impact the effects of blobbing and to alleviate the snowball effect of numbers advantage. Relaxing AoE caps may be a piece of that, but it needs supporting changes that are tuned appropriately to not sledgehammer the combat balance at large scale. Just continuing to chant "UNCAP AOE" and cite Albion is not a meaningful contribution.
  17. Group 1 Size Group 1 Avg Targets Per AOE Group 2 Size Group 2 Avg Targets Per AOE DMG Multiplier 1 DMG Multiplier 2 10 20 20 10 200 200 10 20 20 5 200 100 10 10 20 10 100 200 10 10 20 5 100 100 10 5 20 5 50 100 Which of these cases are you confident your 10 DPS wins against 20 DPS? How much more healing does the 20 DPS group have behind them? They certainly have ~2x the total health pool. Are you only willing to consider the case where your 10 man group spreads out perfectly to maximize healing and minimize damage and the zerg balls up perfectly? How much faster is your group likely to die when the total damage output goes up? Is lower TTK in large scale fights better? Does uncapping AoE negate the benefit of balling up? Yes. Does it also lead to much larger damage output on both sides? On average, Yes. Is this necessarily beneficial to the smaller group? No. If you want to address blobbing, then do it in a way that actually addresses the problem and doesn't inflate total damage output and lower the already miserably low TTK in large scale fights. Slap blobs with a damage bonus debuff if they get more than 8 people in a 5 meter radius. Uncap wee-one, other debuffs, and status effects (burning, etc.). But whatever you do, don't just inflate total damage output, and cripple the servers at the same time.
  18. I'm already doing this out of laziness 🤣
  19. You're focusing only on one side of the equation, and assuming that, somehow, uncapping AoE won't lead to the smaller side taking more damage. The situation you are effectively assuming is that the small side spreads out perfectly, and the large side clumps on one pixel. The more realistic case is that players generally maintain a roughly equal density on both sides, so that the number of targets hit per player is approximately equivalent. The large side will significantly out damage the small side in that case, and most other cases, and the small side doesn't have the healing or health pool to sustain it. The larger side will also have a much easier time focus firing single targets down, if for no other reason than they have fewer targets and it's more likely that multiple people attack the same target. In general, raising the outgoing damage will not fix the problem. Blobbing to spread incoming damage is a problem, but the proposed solution of uncapping AoE will not produce the desired effect. It will make large scale fights shorter, though. The problem needs a solution that is technically feasible, and addresses the problem directly with a minimum of side effects. A better solution would be, for example, applying a "crowded" debuff to players reducing their damage bonus when more than 8 are in a 5 meter radius. If that was even remotely feasible to implement on the backend, then that would more directly accomplish what you want without ratcheting up total damage outputs. The alternative I spitballed above was changing the nature of AoE damage abilities to largely remove the reason to blob. Or perhaps significantly raising the cap on debuffs like wee-one. But just don't blanket increase total damage output and make fights even more likely to be determined in a handful of seconds or one fire tornadoes volley.
  20. If I have 10 people fighting 20 people with uncapped AOE, the smaller side has 1/2 the people but they hit 2x the targets. The larger side has 2x the people but they hit 1/2 the targets. The damage output is roughly equivalent. What ends up not being equivalent is that the larger side will, most likely, have more healers and has more total HP. The TTK for the small group will go down as total damage output has gone up. If both sides spread out significantly, the larger group still has a major advantage as it is now putting out up to 2x the damage the smaller side is. You will find that, on average, the larger side will quickly kill many members of the smaller side, and the numbers advantage will snowball. The only case that TTK is unchanged is when there is 5 people or less, but blobbing is not a problem at those scales. Any scale fight larger than 5 people, you will see damage numbers grow significantly, and players will get deleted in large scale fights even faster than they are now. Also consider for a second that most of the objectives in Crowfall prohibit teams from effectively spreading out. The other major consideration is that uncapping AoE targets makes server calculations scale like the number of players squared instead of linearly with the number of players, which means the server load is significantly higher.
  21. Zone cap partitions as a knob for engagement size: Create an array of zones targeted at different scales of engagement Small scale zones: smaller, side zones with several outposts, and a fort. Small, limited gathering and PvE camps. 1-2 groups limit per alliance. Medium scale zones: basically equivalent to current adventure zones with forts, 5-7 groups (30-48 players) limit per alliance. Siege zones: Keeps only, access to opposing alliances/factions is restricted to handshake siege periods. Zone caps during siege times set by keep size: 48-120 players per side. Multiple entry/exit gates. Function like a temple zone for the owning faction outside of siege windows Increase availability of objectives and focus conflict to specific areas at specific times: Make Forts active much more regularly; a given fort should be available once every few hours. Increase upper limit on fort defenses to include lowish health, siege-only walls (Perhaps still allow doors to be attacked down by players, though?) Small scale siege gameplay is missing currently. Increase in capture difficulty offsets increased availability Group several outposts with a fort into a siege schedule objective. Rotate groups within a given map so that one group is always available per map, and any one group is available at a relatively high frequency (few hours). Rework rewards for PvP objectives: Remove building materials from forts. Consider replacing with harvesting buffs, XP buffs, Gold/Dust drop buffs within a radius around the objective Alternatively or in addition to the first bullet, add additional services at forts: a respawn, a building plot, crafting tables, some small, limited version of what is available to a keep. Give outposts harvesting buffs, XP buffs, Gold/Dust drop buffs within a radius around the objective. Encourage players to stay near the objectives to reap benefits. Remove pack pigs, and replace pack pig spawns with a group-boss level outpost-like objective. Consider awarding conquest for these outposts Add faction-locked harvesting nodes that produce building materials Apply stealth blockers and mounted speed debuffs to players carrying building materials. Visual indicator, e.g. backpack, on player model would be a bonus. Indicate on map when nodes are available and change the indicator to show when nodes are actively being harvested
  22. I'm not sure exactly what the thrust of the OP is; new content targeted at smaller group sizes or changes to existing content to put smaller groups on more even footing. Towards the latter, a somewhat drastic suggestion targeted at improving TTK in large scale fights and reducing the need to blob up, thus giving smaller groups more opportunity to outplay larger groups, is to change the nature of direct damage GTAoE abilities and fields to be affected by LoS obstruction or to apply their damage differently. This is an alternative to raising AoE caps which has impacts on server performance and does not necessarily accomplish its stated goal of making smaller groups more effective. Gordon seems to recognize this issue in the recent interview:
  23. Dredging this up... This is a misunderstanding. Status effect means burning, poison, corruption, etc. not CC. The abilities remain damage abilities, but since status effects do not stack, you do not have the same TTK scaling problems. Raising the AOE cap on direct damage abilities significantly increases number of calculations which is infeasible in large scale without significantly impacting server performance. The primary thrust of the changes is to redesign AOE damage abilities that do not consider LoS obstruction, to be abilities that are affected by LoS obstruction. This makes the damage harder to apply exactly where you want it, and makes it harder to focus fire areas. The abilities don't need to be true projectiles, but can be raycast (e.g. Gaea's Wail) or the pseudo-projectiles like fire tornadoes, chaos orb, and Will-o-Wisp. The changes to targeting make it easier to land large AOEs on blobby groups, but harder to land large AOEs on spread out groups. LoS obstruction allows groups to position tanky characters to absorb incoming AoE, which rewards coordination and positioning more. The ubiquity of the current direct damage AoEs that can be placed wherever you want produces a scenario where the only way to reduce incoming damage to a reasonable level is to blob up to spread out the incoming damage. Secondarily, the goal is to reduce the impact of overlapping pulsing AOE auras, which around most objectives create inescapable death fields that, again, can only be reduced by blobbing up.
  24. For a simpler, though maybe more mundane, ask: consider re-using the tools the game has with tried-and-true gameplay modes. King-of-the-Hill Zones: Zone has caps on number of players per alliance (1-3 groups), and will inevitably need a total player cap that fits the map size. I wonder if it is possible to kick-off additional events in other zones based on how populated one of these (or a set of these) zones becomes? Zone consists of 1-3 forts and 3-5 outposts. Zones targeting more medium-scale engagements could have a mini-keep, or new objective that sits somewhere between a fort and a small keep. Neutral respawn outposts should be located on the edges of the map with a relatively large radius no-pvp zone around them so groups can respawn and reposition without being spawn camped. PvP Objectives become active once per ~30 minutes with a ~15 minute active window. Frequency should be high during high population times. Alliance that accrues the most capture time within the ~15 minutes is awarded a conquest bump, locks the objectives for ~15 minutes, and is given a Friendly Territory buff while in zone that increases harvesting: all, critical harvest: all, and critical harvest amount: all, in addition to increased XP gain, and gold and dust drop rates. Zone is still open to all alliances during locked period, so farming can be harassed Rewards should be comparable to but less than a demon run. This can be tuned by availability of resource nodes, motherlodes, and node ranks. Alternatively, objectives could remain active 24/7 while providing buffs in a radius around them when captured. The lockout period and a loot-box payout could also occur when one alliance manages to hold all objectives for a period of time. There need to be multiple zones per campaign map with staggered active windows. Number of active zones, and frequency of events should probably scale with time of day and/or concurrent player count. Critical to this is designing maps, and parcels to create interesting spaces for engagements to occur. It should be interesting to see what the parcel designers can come up with. Benefits: Provides a focus point for small/medium size groups that does not simply become an arms-race to see who can bring more friends. Provides a primarily PvP focused event with rewards that support the economy of the winning side, appealing to PvP, harvesting, and crafting minded individuals alike. Being an event on a schedule provides a clear indication of go here at this time to fight people in groups of this size. This is a tested mechanic from previous MMOs that drives consistent engagement. Leverages a tried-and-true game mode, using assets Crowfall has already invested in. Makes me nostalgic for Caledonia and the DAoC lowby battlegrounds. Comments: It is possible to imagine these events happening within a current campaign map, and I do think grouping forts and outposts into rotating siege schedule events as a kind of super-parcel would be an improvement. However, I don't think you can have small/medium-scale objectives that exist next to large-scale objectives within the same zones without everything effectively becoming a large-scale objective. Without a bound on the size of group that can be present, it creates an arms-race scenario. Doesn't this just obsolete hot-zones and open world objectives? Maybe a little, but it should be possible to scale rewards appropriately with the risk, and/or add other features to the open world objectives to be more in line with the large-scale conflict zones they are.
  • Create New...