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

The Big Reveal: Crows and vessels - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

I think ACE does understand that, as they have commented in this thread that they knew many players wouldn't like this reveal. I'm all for offering suggestions on how to make this game better, but at the end of the day ACE is going to make the game that they want to make; we just need to decide if that's a game we want to play or not.

 

I think the simple answer for all of us lies in the quote above.

 

This is the path ACE chose for the gameplay. It offers some different mindset and it is up to us to decide if we can live with that decision.

 

At this point, ACE isn't going to go back on their decision.

Edited by Kell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the simple answer for all of us lies in the quote above.

 

This is the path ACE chose for the gameplay. It offers some different mindset and it is up to us to decide if we can live with that decision.

 

At this point, ACE isn't going to go back on their decision.

 

100% agree.  However, backers/supporters/testers can and, I would argue, should make suggestions and bring up potential issues.  There is no reason ACE can't use a more modified version of EVE's system if it works for the player base they are making the game for. 


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that coordination and synergy has a role in determining the strength of a group. What I'm proposing is that whatever your metric for character power is fails to have much utility in this discussion if we can't actually make reasonable comparisions with it. The things most people seem to care about is how many new players can a maxed out character fight (or something roughly equivalent), so I'm suggesting we relative strength in those terms. If you have a metric for character strength that is both calculatable and helpful in this discussion, please offer it as an alternative, but don't disregard an idea because it doesn't perfectly match whatever vague concept is in your head and assume that everyone else should agree with an idea you haven't even explained.

But it doesn't work like that... when evaluating a power curve you have to evaluate it on many fronts... you have to compare it 1v1 and 1v3 and 50v50 etc... there is no one specific ratio you compare it for... As I said before if you are looking at equipment alone handling 1v3... that means 1v1 it's probably closer to a 500-1000% overall power increase... Now translate that back into other scenarios with different numbers and you can see how things start to look....  Also I would never expect most people to agree... 

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the simple answer for all of us lies in the quote above.

 

This is the path ACE chose for the gameplay. It offers some different mindset and it is up to us to decide if we can live with that decision.

 

At this point, ACE isn't going to go back on their decision.

ACE may not "go back" on their decision but they are capable of and will most likely have to adjust it in some ways...  The severity of those adjustments could end up being large or small...

 

If we've learned anything from their combat revamp it should be that if things need to be fixed... they aren't afraid to pull the trigger and change things, even if it means big changes. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree.  However, backers/supporters/testers can and, I would argue, should make suggestions and bring up potential issues.  There is no reason ACE can't use a more modified version of EVE's system if it works for the player base they are making the game for. 

 

I agree with you. Our feedback will help fine tune, but my point is some iteration of this new mechanic is our new reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't work like that... when evaluating a power curve you have to evaluate it on many fronts... you have to compare it 1v1 and 1v3 and 50v50 etc... there is no one specific ratio you compare it for... As I said before if you are looking at equipment alone handling 1v3... that means 1v1 it's probably closer to a 500-1000% overall power increase... Now translate that back into other scenarios with different numbers and you can see how things start to look....  Also I would never expect most people to agree...

 

You say that but without any sense of what your metric is or how you are computing it, it's really hard to engage with you meaningfully. If you think your method for determining relative power values is more useful than mine for the purposes of this discussion, please lay out for me how yours works; just telling me to "translate that back into other scenarios with different numbers and you can see how things start to look" does little to elucidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that but without any sense of what your metric is or how you are computing it, it's really hard to engage with you meaningfully. If you think your method for determining relative power values is more useful than mine for the purposes of this discussion, please lay out for me how yours works; just telling me to "translate that back into other scenarios with different numbers and you can see how things start to look" does little to elucidate.

What metrics would there be for power curve?  You assume player skill is equal so everything that goes into power is pretty obvious... skill training, equipment. 

 

Do you understand that a power curve shifts depending what scenario you are applying it in?  It is different 1v1 with no group synergy involved vs 1v3 where group synergy is involved vs 50v50 where a ton of group synergy and coordination is involved? 

 

If progression alone allows you to 1v3... it's inevitable that your actual 1 person to 1 person power curve is much higher than 300%... Because not only are you having to statistically be greater or equal to the enemy by 3x to be able to 1v3... but you must also factor in the advantage in synergy they would have which means your power would actually have to be much higher than 3x. 

 

Now if you understand that you actually have to be much stronger than 3x on such a power curve... then you can use that understanding to look at how that plays out in scenarios with different numbers of players involved... 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ozziemozzie,

A simple fix for the gender identity issue is that whenever we get to access the customization screen for a vessel (eg. initial takeover or when crafting),

gender selection should be part of that customization package.

 

This is doubly reasonable when a necromancer crafts a vessel, since IRL surgeons can make outies into inies and vice versa.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ACE does understand that, as they have commented in this thread that they knew many players wouldn't like this reveal. I'm all for offering suggestions on how to make this game better, but at the end of the day ACE is going to make the game that they want to make; we just need to decide if that's a game we want to play or not.

I don't disagree with your statement at all, my statement was in direct response to an assertion earlier in the thread that players had no right, to have an emotional response to the reveal.  I find the concept off-putting, but my concerns aren't limited to how I feel about the concept, and anyone who has concerns should voice them whether it's rampant speculation at this point or not.   ACE can and should make whatever decision it feels is right for the direction of the game, but I believe they are still fallible, and though I am sure they've discussed this among themselves, ad nauseam it's still possible that there might be a position expressed that they haven't considered or concerns or misconceptions they might need to work harder to assuage.  I hope everyone knows the experience of having to parse new information for the first time and realizing it just doesn't feel right. It takes a lot of introspection and often courage to go against the grain, in expressing your doubts.  

 

I know the minds behind the game have a lot of game design success and knowledge and therefore a certain level of expertise that we should trust in, but the further you deviate from tested and known concepts towards riskier but perhaps revolutionary concepts, the less your can lean on your own expertise.  We were told that the Campaigns themselves would be 3 month long Petri-Dish experiments, to see what rules did and didn't work, one of the additional benefits of Dying Worlds beyond also being a reset mechanic. This is all laid out the Campaign and Campaign Module FAQs.  I understand that account-level progression isn't a simple rule set but many of the elements in the reveal could have been tested first as a rule set.  This makes we wonder if they are really backing off the amount of experimentation they are going to do at the campaign level; and if baking features like vessels into the game prior to launch, limits the flexibility for later rule-sets. 


Luke I am your Uncle... Bob.  What, my sister Padmè never mentioned me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see why, game-wise, this change does make sense. It's still quite different than we were told before; I'm not sure if I would have backed quite as much (or maybe I would have backed more separate accounts?) had I known this was the direction it was going in, but it's still an interesting concept. I think it'll still take me longer to wrap my head around it.

 

This probably plays out a bit better for me, an altoholic, because then I can play lots of different classes without having to actually roll new alts with new skills. RP-wise, it's less characters to balance. I'm still a little sad it makes it harder to change out what general skills you focus in, but I think that would be a case where you'd want a second account then, which isn't too bad, especially with the credits for extra character slots.

 

However, I also hope this system allows for easy cosmetic changes to vessels with ease. I can spend hours in character creation. I don't want to do that if I'm hastily grabbing a vessel I want to use in a match. I'd really like a system where you can save favorite appearances and slap them on a vessel at a crafting station or whatever without needing much skill to do so. Like, maybe you could gate some appearance things behind skill level (like super fancy hairstyles?) But I would be much happier with this system if appearance (including gender) could easily be changed when you first get a vessel.

 

(I haven't read this thread, so sorry if this already came up. I think changing appearance of vessels easily would be my number one concern of this system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things here,

 

1: This game is not billed as an RP heavy product its a full-loot-pvp-sandbox. That type of game isn't known for basing gameplay dynamics on RP reasons

2: if you only want to play female characters, then only train female Archtypes, this is totally a non-issue.

 

According to this interview with the founders, Crowfall would be a blend of sandbox and theme part elements : "... It's really a spectrum of how much freedom do you give the individual player to have control over their own game experience. On the one end, like WoW it's very locked down, you're pretty much on rails. At the other end, it's a sandbox, there's really no goal, you're just kind of put in this world, like Mad Max, you can run around do whatever you want, it's chaos. So we tried to find a blend between those two models. We wanted to have the freedom and the flexibility that comes from a sandbox, but we like the sense of accomplishment and the actual "I have a goal" kind of driven nature of the theme park. So what we did instead is come up with a strategy game version of this, where you were given freedom but you at the same time have those overriding goals to try and win the game. Very much like a game of Risk or game of Civilization. That's kind of the hybrid that we tried to do was blend a very different type of gameplay that is strategy game with this MMO idea."

 

The full loot may happen in the world bands closer to the Hunger, but I don't recall the developers guaranteeing a CW that features full loot. VIP tickets can't be looted anyway, which would make even the full loot not really full loot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VN you keep bringing up the extension of the advantage players can have in combat when multiplied out across 1v3 or 50v50. I don't think you are taking into account the following;

  • Logistics. If you can't supply your troops, you won't be on even ground with an opponent who can. That's not a flaw in design, that's a flaw in your guilds approach to playing the game. The best supplied army has a natural advantage because... well.. they are the best supplied.
  • Todd and co. have long stated they do not intend for their to be a balance between archetypes. They expect some overpowered builds, and they'll address them over time. They do not expect to have perfect balance amongst the various archetypes in their game, so why does it matter if gear and skill are equivalent? The idea that a ranger might always beat a druid, because druids are terrible is a very likely scenario based on what we know so far. 
  • The idea that if you are playing one of those poorly made socksty archetypes... that you are stuck playing it is no longer a reality. You can quite simply, drop that body and move onto something better.

A shallow power curve is guaranteed, they've stated it as such. Just because you are seeing demons when its multiplied out amongst 50 or 500 doesn't make it true. Speaking of, why are you worried about 50v50 situations? I'm skeptical 50 people can be found to be on the same playing level as you. Did you join a guild I don't know about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VN you keep bringing up the extension of the advantage players can have in combat when multiplied out across 1v3 or 50v50. I don't think you are taking into account the following;

  • Logistics. If you can't supply your troops, you won't be on even ground with an opponent who can. That's not a flaw in design, that's a flaw in your guilds approach to playing the game. The best supplied army has a natural advantage because... well.. they are the best supplied.

Do you think supplying your troops is going to matter once fighting actually starts? 

  • Todd and co. have long stated they do not intend for their to be a balance between archetypes. They expect some overpowered builds, and they'll address them over time. They do not expect to have perfect balance amongst the various archetypes in their game, so why does it matter if gear and skill are equivalent? The idea that a ranger might always beat a druid, because druids are terrible is a very likely scenario based on what we know so far. 

They've also stated that if things get too out of hand they must balance them between campaigns...  They do not have an attitude of not caring about balance whatsoever... they just don't plan to strive for perfect balance as it is an impractical goal. 

  • The idea that if you are playing one of those poorly made socksty archetypes... that you are stuck playing it is no longer a reality. You can quite simply, drop that body and move onto something better.

Yea... that's pretty convenient... it kinda eliminates the whole old school mmorpg mentality of making due with your choices... and instead gives you a more forgiving system...

 

A shallow power curve is guaranteed, they've stated it as such. Just because you are seeing demons when its multiplied out amongst 50 or 500 doesn't make it true. Speaking of, why are you worried about 50v50 situations? I'm skeptical 50 people can be found to be on the same playing level as you. Did you join a guild I don't know about?

 

What they've stated is that it will be shallow compared to other mmos... we know that could mean anything...

 

Don't worry about my guild...

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VN you keep bringing up the extension of the advantage players can have in combat when multiplied out across 1v3 or 50v50. I don't think you are taking into account the following;

  • Logistics. If you can't supply your troops, you won't be on even ground with an opponent who can. That's not a flaw in design, that's a flaw in your guilds approach to playing the game. The best supplied army has a natural advantage because... well.. they are the best supplied.

Do you think supplying your troops is going to matter once fighting actually starts? 

 

 

Yes? Feed your troops to keep them strong and tip-top shape before the battle, keep them armed to the teeth with good weapons and armor for best performance, and so forth. Of course, it won't be everything, but it will likely matter, especially if we have hunger and warmth to consider in our troops degrading over time due to neglecting their necessities. It's like having an army of, let's say, 50 men fighting an army of 100, but the second army is only at half health and low stamina, which skews their chances.

 

No idea what the argument is about, but throwing this out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes? Feed your troops to keep them strong and tip-top shape before the battle, keep them armed to the teeth with good weapons and armor for best performance, and so forth. Of course, it won't be everything, but it will likely matter, especially if we have hunger and warmth to consider in our troops degrading over time due to neglecting their necessities. It's like having an army of, let's say, 50 men fighting an army of 100, but the second army is only at half health and low stamina, which skews their chances.

 

No idea what the argument is about, but throwing this out there.

 

Your making the Game sound like a RTS not an MMO.  A good supply of gear will definitely be important in a full loot environment, organized guilds will have to cope with this by having an active crafting department to keep the stream of gear available for their guildmates.  This new idea of corpse crafting is just another level of crafting that guild will have to consider...... I like the (abit very morbid) idea of having a warehouse of usable corpses ready for our fallen warriors to inhabit.


Lf6MJUL.png


Wrathmane - Remnant of Ascendance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your making the Game sound like a RTS not an MMO.  A good supply of gear will definitely be important in a full loot environment, organized guilds will have to cope with this by having an active crafting department to keep the stream of gear available for their guildmates.  This new idea of corpse crafting is just another level of crafting that guild will have to consider...... I like the (abit very morbid) idea of having a warehouse of usable corpses ready for our fallen warriors to inhabit.

 

This game is meant to be fusing the RTS genre, to a degree, with MMO. At least, that's how I interpret it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Archetype in Todd's example had the same preconception that we the players had before the reveal about what "Eternal Life/Hero" meant, and Todd can see why the Archetype might feel cheated, but not likewise see how players might feel mislead.

 

The Archetype is a fictional character who has sworn it's eternal soul to a god.

The player is a human who signed up for a pre-alpha with the knowledge that much of the game was going to change before going live.

 

​Mislead? Only by yourself.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Archetype is a fictional character who has sworn it's eternal soul to a god.

The player is a human who signed up for a pre-alpha with the knowledge that much of the game was going to change before going live.

 

​Mislead? Only by yourself.

They've been talking about Eternal Heros for a year and all they've shown or talked about where archetypes where did I get the crazy idea that archetypes were the characters, I should have guess it was gonna be a blue crow.


Luke I am your Uncle... Bob.  What, my sister Padmè never mentioned me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point this thread is being propped up by 2-3 dedicated nay-sayers who will do anything to whine about the changes. It's comical at this point.

 

Just stop responding to them and let the thread die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been talking about Eternal Heros for a year and all they've shown or talked about where archetypes where did I get the crazy idea that archetypes were the characters, I should have guess it was gonna be a blue crow.

"We are Crows" has been around for just as long, just saying.

 

I remain baffled by the thought of some that this new feature set is somehow against the vision or foreign to the game concept. It fits right in with the whole Risk/Reward mindset they have been portraying pretty much from word one.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...