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

sebrent

Cormorant
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sebrent

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The only "issue" I'm seeing pop up is if Balance is the strongest of the three factions on a given server. What if the win condition was based on the disparity in power between Order and Chaos and not their overall power on the map. So, if we had Order / Balance / Chaos ... 20% / 75% / 5% ... Order wins ... they have at least 15% more than Chaos 5% / 75% / 20% ... Chaos wins ... they have at least 15% more than Order 50% / 0% / 50% ... Balance wins ... neither Order or Chaos have 15% more than the other. ... and so on. Even with Balance dominating the server, Order or Chaos can still win if they are still "doing better" than the other. If 15% is too small/large of a disparity, I'm sure the ruleset could be changed for the next campaign to have a larger/smaller disparity. Even if Balance horribly outnumbers both Order and Chaos, once you have your opponent backed into a small enough territory, they can become powerful because their power is now concentrated to that small area while yours is spread over a much larger area. In the cases where Order or Chaos are the most powerful faction on the server, I believe this 3 faction system then works as intended with Balance providing their namesake by allying with the weaker faction against the stronger faction.
  2. "Hacking" the client application running on your own system is not difficult. You have access to the files, full admin controls, etc.. You can even modify it in memory. It only takes one person with the know-how to do it and then sell that information. Please google the plethora of client-side hacks for MMOs in the past several years. My favorite was Defiance doing weapon stats client side ... that was a huge blunder (glad I didn't invest in that game). The difference between "full invisibility" and "transparency" is this: Full invisibility ... the server does not have to send to the client the location of the object that is invisible until it becomes visible. Transparency ... the server does have to send to the client the location of the object that is transparent so the client knows where to place the transparent object. The issue with the transparency is that the Client needs to know that "some object is at some location" in order to display the appropriate transparent object at the appropriate location. This leaves the proper handling of that object up to the client ... which you should not trust. Full invisibility gets around this issue because it doesn't have to send the Client any information about the object until the object becomes visible. This allows the server to not have to trust the client. You cannot enforce how a client shows information on their side. Ultimately, it is up to the client application. The best you could do is not send it data about what the object is; instead sending it "generic transparent object at location [x,y,z]" ... but that wouldn't work too well for stealth. You've told me that Dota 2 handles this server-side, but I see no evidence nor information on "how".
  3. A lack of tab targeting can be good for large battles in that it allows melee classes to not fall victim to the other side's players simply pressing the hotkey for "target closest enemy". Action-combat (no tab-targeting) can be good if it doesn't turn into ability spam. There are multiple ways to prevent this, but one I would like to see is a reduction in the size of the hitbox for the ability. In Wildstar, these were far too big for several classes. This resulted in even wide hallways/ramps being covered by a single spammable attack from a Medic, SpellSlinger, or Engineer ... which were also ranged classes ... I never understoodd why they needed telegraphs that were both long and wide. Additionally, action-combat can be done in several different ways. It has more possible ways to be different than tab-targeting does. As such, if you want to talk about it in-depth, I would recommend actually looking at the various games out there (particularly MMOs since they have their own unique challenges) to see what you do/don't like ... preferably actually playing them instead of just watching YouTube. There is a difference between watching someone do something and actually doing it yourself; helps to "get a feel for it". As a side-note ... Wildstar didn't fail because they used Action-Combat. It failed because of bad code. Graphics optimization was bad and caused even powerful gaming machines to chug along at times. Network optimization was bad ... barely missing an ability and it still hitting is one thing ... being 30m from it and it still hitting is another ... or, reversing that, having someone in the middle of your attack but it somehow not hitting them (multiple times, I might add). Bad class balance for both PvP and PvE. Bugs ... several of them ... slow to fix ... fixes to bug(s) in system A would somehow break something in system B which should have had nothing to do with system A (strong clue to the existence of bad codebase ... oddball coupling).
  4. If you want players to play a certain way ... you're better off giving them incentives for it than penalties for not. You'll get quite a bit more with a spoonful of honey than you will with a gallon of vinegar ... that sort of thing. Assuming there are any safe areas, here are some examples: I want to go from pointA to pointB. I have two choices: (1) Take the shortcut through PvP areas ... faster, higher risk (2) Take the long way through safe areas ... slower, lower risk I want to get a new weapon/armor: (1) Farm gold in a safe area for weeks/months to buy from another player ... long wait, low risk (2) Farm the crafting materials for it in a PvP area ... medium wait, medium risk (3) Play on a world with full loot and pull it off the cold, dead body of another player ... short wait, high risk
  5. What other games and how did they do it? The client ultimately dictates how it displays objects on screen. In order for the client to know it needs to display an X% transparent object at a location, the server has to send the object and its location to the client. Once the client has that information, if it doesn't adhere to the X% transparency, the stealth is useless. People have modded their games before to change how things look on screen, so this isn't a stretch. People have also created applications that parse their game's network traffic. While this is often done for creating parsers when a given game doesn't have APIs for modders, etc. to work with, it could just as well be used for this purpose.
  6. I think people need to wait and see how long the worlds and their seasons last before commenting on how close/far this is from what they loved in Shadowbane (i.e. War). Let's be honest about one thing in Shadowbane ... whenever there was a new world (or reset), there was much more excitement and activity. I noticed that as a player back then and, if you've read some of the dev articles, they noticed it as well (and had the numbers to prove it). I think as long as the worlds and their seasons last "long enough" for players to "get their war on" but come to a close before things start to "get stale", it will be quite successful. That is one of the things I've seen other sandbox MMOs not really tackle and so I'm excited to see this fully implemented. When all there is is PvP, not everyone is fully content with "PvP just to PvP". Many of us want something to fight over. When the fights start to become meaningless, it can detract from the fun ... such as when an alliance of powerful guilds takes over the island continents and simply hold them as the big dogs. We did this on two separate maps in Shadowbane and it eventually got old. Sure, it was great at first when we conquered but after a while we didn't have much left that was exciting. People got annoyed that they were cut off from two whole islands and left which made it even less exciting on the server as there went our competition. Additionally, we "won" ... in that we ended up controlling the server ... but we also "lost" in that we killed the rest of the server's population ... they stopped playing on that server (or Shadowbane completely). It would have been nicer to have this sort of Scenario: ----- ----- ----- World A starts: we whoop all of you and steal your cake (and likely ate it) World A end: we reap more rewards from said cake theft World B starts: we start at a slight advantage having received a higher % of our goods from "winning" ... but now many of you are not happy with us and we're all starting without our established fortifications ... getting a foothold is likely to become more difficult. ----- ----- ----- There's also potential for this Scenario: ----- ----- ----- World A gets dominated by LargeGuild World B gets dominated by UberGuild World A and B end World C starts and both LargeGuild and UberGuild join it. LargeGuild and UberGuild beat each other senseless and have a blast doing it ... maybe opens up opportunities for smaller guilds ... or smaller guilds are on World D which doesn't have LargeGuild and UberGuild . ----- ----- -----
  7. Flying combat has the same issues as underwater combat ... it makes it difficult to tell distances, orientation, etc.. Additionally, flying generally favors ranged vs melee classes. What if you can't fly and you're a melee class? Not happy. What if you can't fly and you're a ranged class? You're jealous, but better off than melee. What if you can fly and you're a melee class? Not that useful since you need to swoop into melee range to hit your opponent(s). Useful for escaping other melee classes. What if you can fly and you're a ranged class? Well, you're the terror of any non-flying melee class you run across.
  8. @BahamutKaiser: I see no reason why not. On a smaller scale, that happens randomly anyways in sandbox games ... two players fight over a spawnpoint ... 3rd player comes in and kills the weakened winner after having watched them beat each other up.
  9. If you don't give people something to strive for, they lose motivation. This applies to both PvP and PvE. This also applies to board games. I don't like to play Chess where we both move our pieces around with no real goal in mind. Same with co-op games. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose, but there is something we're striving for and whether we get/achieve it or not dictates in our minds whether we win/lose. It could be "did we finally beat that first boss" ... "did we complete the level in under 5 minutes" ... "did no one die" ... "did we clear the entire level" ... "did we get something shiny". What it is doesn't matter as long as it motivates the player(s) involved. Let's say my motivation is "get something shiny" ... because I'm a loot-sweet pea ... then if I get that "shiny" regardless of whether I slayed some monster or it slayed me ... then I'm going to run straight into its mouth and die so I can get that shiny faster ... because I'm also impatient and want it right now. Now, you can change this to have varying levels ... if I slay the monster, I get something "uber shiny" while if the monster slays me I get something "barely shiny" ... and if the monster and I fight to a standstill I get something "just shiny enough". I think the OP just wants to get "something" instead of "nothing" if they "lose" ... which the rulesets we've been shown seem to support ... you just get "more" if you win ... so you have something to strive more ... "more". Given that, I'm now motivated to drive you before, hear the lamentations of your women, and very happily get "more" for my win than you got for the loss I served you. :-)
  10. If you look at the different rulesets, if you don't want to risk having your gear looted off your cold dead body, then play in a ruleset that doesn't allow that. If you do ... then do play in a ruleset that allows. I think this is one of the beautiful things about the multiple combinations of [world, ruleset] that is being designed as a core part of Crowfall. Even nicer is that, from what we've been told, if you change your mind later your character isn't eternally locked to that [world, ruleset].
  11. The problem I see with the transparency is that I believe that would be something handled client-side as your client machine will have to be told by the server that there is a player at position (X,Y,Z) with transparency T. It is then up to your machine how it is rendered on your screen ... it could ignore that transparency. I do like the idea of not giving some big openers to stealth characters. I agree that the ability to pick your fights, run recon, etc. are the biggest strengths of having stealth ... being able to pick your fights being my personal favorite given how I hate getting zerged down. Given the stealth implementations of previous MMOs, I believe there should be more discussion on how/when a player can restealth once they are unstealthed and/or in combat.
  12. Wildstar vs Tera is a good example ... though we didn't touch on another big difference between the two. In Tera, you have to actually aim your abilities as they had shorter and/or narrower ranges. In Wildstar, you have to "aim" ... your telegraph is often so large that you have to simply be facing within 120-180 degrees of the right direction to hit your target ... medics were probably the worst with this given such wide AND long telegraphs. Esper's Telekinetic Strike was an example of a more "okay" telegraph given that despite it's range it was much thinner than most telegraphs thus requiring more skill than just about any ability on a Medic's bar. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of Tera's bigger ranges than I am of Wildstar's larger ones as it leverages why action-combat is fun ... it incorporates skill. When the required level of skill is "is your target on your screen", it doesn't feel as rewarding/engaging.
×
×
  • Create New...