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

Pystkeebler

Members
  • Posts

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from abso in Daily Quests   
    Wartribe-level jewelry might be a reasonable reward?
  2. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Retchet in Daily Quests   
    Wartribe-level jewelry might be a reasonable reward?
  3. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Naani in Daily Quests   
    The quoted text is the WRONG way to think of daily quests, and you should not design daily quests with the idea in mind that they are only for new players and not rewarding, interesting, or even valid for older players. If you're going invest in developing a daily quest system, then it needs to be designed to serve ALL players. Daily quests should be viewed as a way to drive greater, more regular player engagement especially outside of siege hours. They should be viewed as a way to add more diversity to the experience of playing Crowfall; getting players to visit different areas of the map and take part in different activities, some potentially unique to the daily quest system. They should be a tool to drive more direct player competition. Please do not design these simply as "random boring crap to do each day". Specific daily quests should be associated with a specific world locations in order to drive player interaction and conflict. For example: "Capture 3 outposts" is bad. This is little more than a chore. "Capture 3 outposts in X zone" is better; it drives players to a specific area of the world to do objectives there during that day which promotes interactions and direct conflict. Consider weekly quest objectives as well. Daily and Weekly objectives work very well to drive consistent player engagement in many PvP oriented games, e.g. APEX, by giving specific things for players to work toward as well as encouraging players to engage with the game in a more diverse way than they otherwise might. In APEX, for example, there are daily/weekly objectives to get kills with specific weapons that a player might otherwise not use. or deal damage in specific areas of the map that they may not typically drop in. In Crowfall. this might look like a weekly objective to deal X amount of damage to players around a particular POI, parcel, or objective. If at all possible, daily quests should also occasionally provide NEW time-limited objectives. For example, collecting unique non-tradable sacrifice items from mobs at a particular parcel that must be sacrificed to a god statue in that zone. Again, you want daily quests to add diversity to the experience of logging in daily to play Crowfall. You want them to break up the monotony of siege logging, harvesting, and crafting over a month long campaign.  
  4. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from BarriaKarl in Daily Quests   
    The quoted text is the WRONG way to think of daily quests, and you should not design daily quests with the idea in mind that they are only for new players and not rewarding, interesting, or even valid for older players. If you're going invest in developing a daily quest system, then it needs to be designed to serve ALL players. Daily quests should be viewed as a way to drive greater, more regular player engagement especially outside of siege hours. They should be viewed as a way to add more diversity to the experience of playing Crowfall; getting players to visit different areas of the map and take part in different activities, some potentially unique to the daily quest system. They should be a tool to drive more direct player competition. Please do not design these simply as "random boring crap to do each day". Specific daily quests should be associated with a specific world locations in order to drive player interaction and conflict. For example: "Capture 3 outposts" is bad. This is little more than a chore. "Capture 3 outposts in X zone" is better; it drives players to a specific area of the world to do objectives there during that day which promotes interactions and direct conflict. Consider weekly quest objectives as well. Daily and Weekly objectives work very well to drive consistent player engagement in many PvP oriented games, e.g. APEX, by giving specific things for players to work toward as well as encouraging players to engage with the game in a more diverse way than they otherwise might. In APEX, for example, there are daily/weekly objectives to get kills with specific weapons that a player might otherwise not use. or deal damage in specific areas of the map that they may not typically drop in. In Crowfall. this might look like a weekly objective to deal X amount of damage to players around a particular POI, parcel, or objective. If at all possible, daily quests should also occasionally provide NEW time-limited objectives. For example, collecting unique non-tradable sacrifice items from mobs at a particular parcel that must be sacrificed to a god statue in that zone. Again, you want daily quests to add diversity to the experience of logging in daily to play Crowfall. You want them to break up the monotony of siege logging, harvesting, and crafting over a month long campaign.  
  5. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Mookzen in Daily Quests   
    The quoted text is the WRONG way to think of daily quests, and you should not design daily quests with the idea in mind that they are only for new players and not rewarding, interesting, or even valid for older players. If you're going invest in developing a daily quest system, then it needs to be designed to serve ALL players. Daily quests should be viewed as a way to drive greater, more regular player engagement especially outside of siege hours. They should be viewed as a way to add more diversity to the experience of playing Crowfall; getting players to visit different areas of the map and take part in different activities, some potentially unique to the daily quest system. They should be a tool to drive more direct player competition. Please do not design these simply as "random boring crap to do each day". Specific daily quests should be associated with a specific world locations in order to drive player interaction and conflict. For example: "Capture 3 outposts" is bad. This is little more than a chore. "Capture 3 outposts in X zone" is better; it drives players to a specific area of the world to do objectives there during that day which promotes interactions and direct conflict. Consider weekly quest objectives as well. Daily and Weekly objectives work very well to drive consistent player engagement in many PvP oriented games, e.g. APEX, by giving specific things for players to work toward as well as encouraging players to engage with the game in a more diverse way than they otherwise might. In APEX, for example, there are daily/weekly objectives to get kills with specific weapons that a player might otherwise not use. or deal damage in specific areas of the map that they may not typically drop in. In Crowfall. this might look like a weekly objective to deal X amount of damage to players around a particular POI, parcel, or objective. If at all possible, daily quests should also occasionally provide NEW time-limited objectives. For example, collecting unique non-tradable sacrifice items from mobs at a particular parcel that must be sacrificed to a god statue in that zone. Again, you want daily quests to add diversity to the experience of logging in daily to play Crowfall. You want them to break up the monotony of siege logging, harvesting, and crafting over a month long campaign.  
  6. Thanks
    Pystkeebler reacted to PopeUrban in Crowfall's better than NW, but I'm playing NW   
    @IceBolt you keep using the term "instant gratification" as if the original plan wasn't for campaigns that last three or more months. That's the core difference between crowfall and the games you keep comparing it to. There is a vast gulf between "instant gratification" and "A game where execution of long term planning and economics has a causal relationship with the end state of the game" The fact that you see "persistant world" and "instant gratification" as two binary options with no middle ground is what I mean when I tell you you're missing the forest for the trees here. The fact that you make a comparison for crowfall to a battleground, MOBA, Battle royale game, etc. denotes a lack of experience with the strategy MMO genre in general. This is unsurprising as most of these games have miniscule budgets and the moment to moment gameplay of idle clickers. However, there is, actually a genre to speak of here. A genre that suffers, largely, because of its miniscule budgets and generally terrible moment to moment gameplay. A  genre that suffers, more broadly, even when its good from the same mistake as crowfall: thinking that "MMO means we need to dump new players in the lap of veterans" or, often, deciding that "persistant world" is what defines the genre.
    Your idea of "what is an MMO" is entirely subjective. In truth the question "what is an MMORPG really" is as old as MMORPGs. Its a marketing buzzword, designed as a marketing buzzword. It has not "real" definition other than some developer deciding to call a game an MMO. Hell many developers have insisted their games weren't MMOs and people decided to call them mmos anyway.
    Would you call minecraft an MMO? How about Starborne? Or World of Warships?  Or Destiny? Or Tarkov? Or Cookie Clicker? Or CoD warzone? All of these games certainly have some shared elements, but which are "MMO" and which aren't is irrelevant. What's relevant is "are you having a good time"

    This idea that crowfall, with persistance scaled back is "just fortnite" or "just a BG" makes for good rhetoric, but honestly, you know how false that statement is. We've played no import campaigns. They don't play like fortnite. They don't play like a BG. They don't play like a MOBA. They play like a PvP MMO because the systems in question, harvesting, crafting, fighting, mob farming, structure ownership, etc. work exactly as one would expect them to in a PvP MMO.
    @BlackfeatherCo The entire idea of "why would you fight" was supposed to be the EK. The one that was supposed to have content, reasons you'd want to bring stuff to it other than "to make stuff I use in another campaign" reasons people would want to settle there and call you king. Multiple times we where whisked away on flights of imagination by jtodd that "maybe, eventually, some people won't even ever leave the EKs and maybe some new players will just live in EKs"
    That was, obviously, extremely wishful thinking, but it was the plan. Ownership of a valuable, engaging, persistent world was supposed to be the reward for playing the primary contest. The game was the contest. Not the other way around. Its a model I'd still like to see someone actually do because the one thing we can agree on is that crowfall simply hasn't even come close.
    Those EKs were supposed to the reward. The persistant environment. The PvE game earned by PvP. What we got was the exact opposite, a PvP endgame earned through PvE. Why do people play YEARS of starcraft 2? For a number. That's it. A Number. The carrot is irrelevant if what you're doing to get that carrot is a good time, however we were promised a much, much more appealing carrot than the one we got anyway.
    While I won't fault any of you for calling out the poor execution, I haven't really heard anything compelling in these arguments other than a lack of imagination and a longing for ideals that have already been tried, and games that have either already failed, or still exist and can still be played, and more importantly, games that don't resemble the thing that got me to pull out my bank card sight unseen and go "that sounds interesting" because what you're describing... just doesn't sound interesting.
    Best of luck to you both. As always a productive exchange of opinions.
  7. Thanks
    Pystkeebler reacted to PopeUrban in Crowfall's better than NW, but I'm playing NW   
    Again, you've entirely missed the forest for the trees.
    The point of campaigns was to kill the stagnation persistence and grind leads to in a pvp centered environment.
    The problem the game has is stagnation due to elevated levels of persistent wealth/achievement/social heirarchy and the requisite grind to pace them. This is why players feel like they don't want to play campaigns. Not because campaigns aren't fun as a design, but because the minimum viable level of competition is out of reach due to obscene levels of persistence combined with the only game mode that is even close to being a finished product being the one where every player that isn't in your guild must being either enemy or subordinate, with a dash of terrible ability and itemization balance.
    You do not fix that problem by adding more persistence, and in fact more persistance makes that problem worse. You move from "I can't play dregs because of how much I'd have to grind and how many people I'd have to recruit" to "I can't play the game at all because of how much I'd have to grind and how many people I'd need to recruit."
    You can't fix crowfall by trying to turn it in to EVE or Albion because EVE and Albion both already exist, and are designed at a fundamental level to be a game crowfall simply isn't. You're using the same logic everyone tried to use in 2010 when they thought if they just made WoW again, they'd be as popular as WoW. Where are all those "WoW killers" now?
    You can only fix crowfall by actually making it the game it said it wanted to be in kickstarter. A game in which "uncle bob" can't amass massive advantage and make every future round of the game not fun for anyone. "have a persistant world and focus there" is the exact opposite of this mechanism, and results in the same outcome, a stangant and "already won" game for any player entering it. This is already the case specifically because of the things you want to see more of in the game. When the "real" game is one where power is dictated by past achievement, power solidifies and becomes unconquerable at a certain point.
    Eternal Heroes, Dying worlds is far too focused on "eternal heroes" and not enough focused on "dying worlds" and that's why the game is barely limping along. People showed up to PvP, and can't actually do much of the PvP because the "new player" areas are functionally either pointless (god's reach) or systemically broken due to lack of team balance controls (factions) or already won as a result of persistant wealth and social progression (dregs)

    People showed up to have a throne war, and, simply put, the throne is won before the game starts because of all these persistant systems, and because of the game's obsession with "more fights" and "risk and reward" in stead of the quality and context of those fights.
    The context you're advocating for is one in which the people beating you over the head making you mad in dregs are not only stronger than you are, but they also already own everything, and have for months, and will continue to do so.
    While we agree that crowfall is currently a terrible interpretation of its stated goals as a game, what you're asking for is absolutely a worse, not a better version of crowfall that only serves to lean hard in to everything crowfall as a game was created to do away with.
    Crowfall is, and always was, intended to be a game about campaigns, not the minor connective tissue between them. That's its hook. That's the point of the whole thing. If it doesn't work, there is no game, and it isn't working for a very simple reason. The over-emphasis on that connective tissue in the form of persistant and necessary economies of experience points, economic disciplines, and resources is what's killing the game, and it has been what's killing the game for a long time. When these things stopped being means to an end and became the end in themselves that's where the game started turning for the worst because that's when it lost sight of its central guiding design philosophy.
    ACE set out to build a game that felt as complex and freeform as an MMO that lived and died in individual campaigns with winners and losers, where what you do in that campaign matters and is contextualized by its goals, and where players took their trophies home to build worlds of their own design. What they actually built was a game that lives and dies on a very narrow set of progression mechanics and activities with winners and losers where the worlds of their own design are cardboard houses that exist solely to stack the deck in future campaigns.
    Dump on fortnite all you like, but you can't argue with the player numbers, or lack of grind, or successful execution of a central design goal that allows people to log in to the game and actually play it regardless of how much time they've previously invested in doing so. The idea that "nobody wants to play a lobby game" is simply untrue. The most popular competitive video games in the world are "lobby games" and these games are responsible for turning competitive video games from a niche hobby in to a multimillion dollar industry.
    The reason no PvP MMO has ever hit those numbers is pretty simple. Most of them are impossible to "win" if you don't start at the beginning of the game, which often only happens once ever. They're sisyphean nightmares of constantly rolling the same boulder up a never ending mountain, only worse, because the guys higher up the mountain are constantly rolling their giant collection of boulders back down at you.

    Not a problem in PvE games, which is why they maintain their popularity. You still roll the boulder, but nobody else's boulder is interfering with yours. Your first 4 miles up the mountain don't become harder because someone else made that trip a year ago. It is, however, a repeating and constant problem in persistent PvP focused MMOs. PvP MMOs are always the best they'll ever be just a few months after launch, when the major power blocs aren't solidified, everyone is competing on a somewhat even keel, there are still things to claim and conquer, and the late game human nature of aggression followed by diplomacy to cement power has not yet taken place. Because that's how you win.

    Crowfall was conceived primarily to address that core problem. Sandbox PvP MMOs, as a genre, are unsustainable as designs due simply to human nature. That's why they fail. That's why the only ones to succeed succeed largely on the backing of a subordinate player class doing activities that aren't actually anywhere near the winner's circle. It and has failed miserably at doing so. That doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that it is impossible. It means they need to restructure the game to put the thing that's supposed to be at the center of the game actually at the center of the game.
    I don't actually want to play another PvP MMO that devolves in to a de facto caste system. I want to play a PvP MMO that remains fun for years rather than months because there's not a brick wall of "we already won the game" waiting for me. I want a game that actually feels like the first few months before someone wins, every few months. That's what I and many other players backed. It may not be what your EVE or Albion diehards want, and that's okay. They're both games that do exactly what you're asking for, and have business models and content release models that sustain them in doing so. I don't need another one. I really don't. I stopped playing those games for a reason, and currently it is the same reason I stopped playing Crowfall.
  8. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from ArtCraftQA in 7.200.0 Live Feedback for 10/7/2021   
    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
  9. Like
    Pystkeebler reacted to LashLash in 7.200.0 Live Feedback for 10/8/2021   
    The alliance scoring is a bit confusing. So do the sub-guilds get rewards for their points? The scoreboard implies that they don't and only the head guild will get the rewards, and the sub-guilds get zero points? Does it count against the percentiles as well?
  10. Like
    Pystkeebler reacted to LashLash in Clarity on alliance scoring   
    So with the new Dregs, the alliance scoring is a bit confusing. So do the sub-guilds get rewards for their points? The scoreboard implies that they don't and only the head guild will get the rewards, and the sub-guilds get zero points? How does it count against the percentiles as well?
    Just want clarity on how the sub-guilds are treated, and how the percentiles are calculated. So we can figure out how the rewards will work.
  11. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Drakano in 7.200.0 Live Feedback for 10/7/2021   
    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
  12. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from BarriaKarl in 7.200.0 Live Feedback for 10/7/2021   
    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
  13. Like
    Pystkeebler reacted to ShuaiGe in New Necromancy Additives = Bad Game Design   
    The new Necromancy additives are available only as campaign rewards and are straight up superior to their farmable counterparts. This is bad game design as it allows those who win a campaign to snowball their win into an advantage that cannot be matched through effort. You've created unique power creep rewards that only those who are in the top 20% will have access to.

    Make campaign rewards cosmetic, or EK rewards, or generic farmables as previously done. Don't make the rewards unique necromancy additives that can only be obtained in this way. This is bad design and I'm surprised to be the first to complain about it.
  14. Thanks
    Pystkeebler reacted to Stumpstuff in Adjusting Content For Better Small Scale PvP   
    Hey y'all!

    I've read through every single comment in this thread and I appreciate each one whether big or small. I took a lot of useful notes. I will spend some time this next week updating the document and incorporating the feedback that was presented. Then, I believe everyone will get to take a look at the updates and give additional feedback. 
    Thank you.
  15. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Stumpstuff in Adjusting Content For Better Small Scale PvP   
    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.
  16. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Stumpstuff in Adjusting Content For Better Small Scale PvP   
    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.
  17. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Stumpstuff in Adjusting Content For Better Small Scale PvP   
    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".  
  18. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Stumpstuff in Adjusting Content For Better Small Scale PvP   
    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.
  19. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from Tofyzer in 7.200 Public Test Server Feedback for 9/29/2021   
    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).
  20. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from BarriaKarl in 7.200 Public Test Server Feedback for 9/29/2021   
    From 9/29/2021 Test Notes:
  21. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from PaddyFitzpatrick in Campaign Rules and Modifications   
    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.
  22. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from ACE-Tiggs in Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas   
    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.
  23. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from ACE-Tiggs in Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas   
    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
  24. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from ACE-Tiggs in Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas   
    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:
  25. Like
    Pystkeebler got a reaction from ACE-Tiggs in Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas   
    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...