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

So... how's that Friendly Fire going?

Recommended Posts

I think they'll probably do it.  I do think some things need to be tweaked, because the combat is too slow to have a FF that does not devolve into stand-offs, IMO.  I'm certainly willing to be wrong, and looking forward to trying it out.  I think non-group FF should be the case on all CWs at least, with the exception of the 3 faction.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they'll probably do it.  I do think some things need to be tweaked, because the combat is too slow to have a FF that does not devolve into stand-offs, IMO.  I'm certainly willing to be wrong, and looking forward to trying it out.  I think non-group FF should be the case on all CWs at least, with the exception of the 3 faction.

 

Speculation inc.

 

The way i see it playing out is FF immunity for all the faction style campaigns, guild immunity in the shadow, and group immunity in the dregs.  The campaigns where you don't get to pick who is on your team are ripe for people to abuse those mechanics.  Where as if you get to pick your team there is far less chance some random person who is supposed to be an ally will just try to ruin someones day.

 

It also really depends if they implement some sort of punishment/debuff if you do kill someone in your faction/guild.  Either way, some people won't care and do it any ways.


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how this is coming along, or were we just supposed to forget?

 

I mean, we were getting friendly fire right? Strategic combat? Collision and physics?

 

I'm relying on the community now to keep me current, because I'm not entertained by hour long live streams of redundant information, was this addressed?

 

 

I condensed it for you:

 

devdev.gif

Edited by Deloria

www.CrowfallRP.com


Disclaimer: My RP with you might become a public story: https://soundcloud.com/shiv-mahon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculation inc.

 

The way i see it playing out is FF immunity for all the faction style campaigns, guild immunity in the shadow, and group immunity in the dregs.  The campaigns where you don't get to pick who is on your team are ripe for people to abuse those mechanics.  Where as if you get to pick your team there is far less chance some random person who is supposed to be an ally will just try to ruin someones day.

 

It also really depends if they implement some sort of punishment/debuff if you do kill someone in your faction/guild.  Either way, some people won't care and do it any ways.

I suspect it won't be a one-thing-only/ruleband, but I'd like to see as a general pattern:

Dregs - FFA

Shadow - Non-group FFA

Infected - Non-guild FFA

God's Reach - Non-alliance FFA

 

I'd really like to see Shadow have more viable anti-zerg, as with Dregs.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not your fault. Thanks for sharing that piece of information actually, but you can't expect us not to react to it.

ACE shouldn't fear confrontation on the forum.

 

 

I feel like I am the only one with a bit of memory here, and since my memory usually sucks you guys must be bots or something.

ACE has promised FF numerous times. If you're looking for a "WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE FRIENDLY FIRE" quote you won't find one, 'cause ACE and its developers have been ultra-cautious about any feature (duelist digging, full loot in the dregs, the whole "the shadow" ruleset ordeal... and the list goes on), they're the masters of promising things and not promising things at the same time. Todd's school.

 

Anyhow it's always been obvious to us who have followed the game since the start. At first it was the promise of not having "groups" in The Dregs, not in terms of guilds but rather "targeting groups" so that anyone could attack / backstab anyone at anytime without the hassle of going through "friendly fire toggling" bullcrap. Then it was the promise of going full in with physics, which clearly implied the fact that projectile had to be stopped by bodies (of all kinds, friends included) and of course damaging them otherwise physics goes to the toilet. But now the only thing based on physics are those horrendous pushes that make team fights super chaotic (not even a form of bullet drop included).

 

Even then, things were kinda uncertain... so we asked them. They included the answer in a FAQ which might or might not be there anymore.

I made a thread about it. The FAQ clearly stated that FF would be enabled "wherever possible", which again can be interpreted in many ways but was clearly a sign that the Dregs would at least have it. I made Tully so mad that he had to answer, and oh boy he did it hard:

 

"I'm not entirely sure how you can read an FAQ that mentions the possibility of turning off friendly fire on 1 or 2 of the announced rulesets, and to you that translates to "only FFA has friendly fire". 

 

Make no mistake, we'll be working and testing this area heavily and we'll find what works best for each campaign ruleset. We might find a way to execute it well on all of them, we may not. 

 

It's best not to jump to hyperbolic conclusion's when we're being very forward and open with our thinking with you on this."

 

 

Wow, such an old FF thread and I`m on page 3 - & @Todd is on page 4.  :)
This is like searching for old Shadowbane /random screen shots on the old Ubisoft forum.. When I sometimes found one my pvp focused archived characters who was in a beserk pvp mode all buffed up - and that was like 10 years ago! ))
And in the old Shadowbane system - you had a world message when someone were killed in-game so all could read it, lol.  -_-      

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it won't be a one-thing-only/ruleband, but I'd like to see as a general pattern:

Dregs - FFA

Shadow - Non-group FFA

Infected - Non-guild FFA

God's Reach - Non-alliance FFA

 

I'd really like to see Shadow have more viable anti-zerg, as with Dregs.

 

I get where you are coming from.  Though, I do not see full on FFA friendly fire working. 

 

 Maybe that is where ACE was coming from when they said there are not entirely sure if they will have the Shadow and the Dregs (was this in the AMA? I forget) and it may just be the dregs. If FFA FF doesn't work well with CF combat, and the shadow and the dregs end up being Non-Group FF then what is the difference?  I am guessing some of these things will come to light pretty soon.


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was both fun & great to speculate when `we` started with the KS campaign, @Destrin. I personally wish we had full FFA in the Dregs and a combat system that supported such a world design like in the Dregs. I admit that was one of my main reason why I support the game with the `play to crush` advertisement by ACE.  

And when I first tested the game in the earliest patch/version of Hunger Dome - I figure out some of the design powers with the early archetypes, and I`ve been worried since related to the FFA and friendly fire topic.

 

Perhaps not this early, but if someone argue, no, it`s obvious the powers are not designed to support FFA, and most who are experience with combat

is aware of that as well if they like it or not.. And that is my point as well why didn`t ACE think about that in a much earlier stage of development?

Anyway that`s how arguements make sense, and logic reasoning based on our current Crowfall combat system with powers.

I`m done with this topic now - and I like to say that I hope ACE will be successful, because I enjoy so many aspect of the game including fantastic art designs & in-game animations, UI design, world game design decisions - so cross fingers and it will be a blast when the game is better optimized. 

Edited by mythx

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 'ard, I must have FF or else.

 

You guys need to get over your self.

 

FF won't increase the skill ceiling it will just be a total mess and not much fun with this combat system.

 

It's not about wanting a carebear game but wanting a fun pvp MMO that needs tactical as well as strategic skills to be successful.

 

Generally speaking I'm in line with the Count here.  And I'm not even rabidly against FF.  I just get the feeling there's some squirreling around with terms and such by some, which ends up leading some people by the nose.  

 

As a test of myself, let me try a few thoughts to see what bounces back from ya'll:

 

"Friendly Fire increases the Skill Ceiling, and that's good!":  Friendly Fire isn't a Skill Ceiling artifact I believe.  My understanding is "Skill Ceiling" relates to observable, measurable mechanics, all part of a combat system.

 

In other words (as example):  Game A only has four buttons classes punch to achieve 1000 DPS.  Low Skill Floor, Low Skill Ceiling.  Bad - no longevity due to low skill ceiling.  Game B has four buttons, but is contained within a Combo System + Additional Effects.  To achieve 1000 DPS players now must manage cooldown rotations, hit the combos, and know when bonuses are available (e.g. +30% damage on Snared or Poisoned Targets).  Low Skill floor hopefully, Higher Skill Ceiling.

 

At some point players will hit the Ceiling, literally, because only so many attacks can be thrown within a given time period and cooldowns.  Lesser skilled players won't hit that ceiling, higher skilled twitch and awareness players will approach or hit it.  Again note, the Skill Ceiling is actually quantifiable and measurable.

 

"But . . . but . . . but . . . Friendly Fire requires more skill as a player!":  This isn't a given.  As I don't see FF as part of a "Skill Ceiling" dynamic, then the domain in which it resides is the player in addition to Subjective City, compounded by Situation, a great deal of that not measurable, not quantifiable.

 

A)  It might represent a means to see who's "more skilled as a player" if the situation allows it.  Small scale engagements at best.

B.)  In medium to large engagements the sheer number of bodies shuffling together like a deck of cards completely alters the situation.  FF primary effect on the battlefield will then manifest as taking some classes offline for all intents and purposes if they are Ranged or AoE dependent, not to mention melee cleaves,etc.  In my mind this ridiculously complicates trying to envision / balance / design a game around Group Combat in a point and shoot game (no tab target), which Crowfall is for sure, not 1v1 or 5v5.

 

C)  However, an interesting thought here is about "Player Skill", and whether we want more challenge (demonstration of skill) versus less in Crowfall.  Consider:

 

Betrayal,Lying, and Backstabbing are going to be PREEMINENT GAME PLAY SKILLS to be seen in Crowfall, if I listen to some of you seriously.  Ok, lets take that argument for the moment coupled with the idea FF "adds to demonstrating more player skillzors!":

 

Dishonesty, lying, and backstabbing are destructive dynamics for humans.  Moral statement there, but also a silver lining of practicality in considering game design issues:  You should have to work for that more, instead of being handed an ez-mode road.  Lying and Betrayal takes little skill on the Interz-nets.  It's ridiculously easy to get away with it in an MMO, particularly if you are even 1/2 serious about it..

 

If we consider that thought, and we agree the game should be calibrated to encourage MORE display of player skill, the argument would be NO Friendly Fire.

 

In the spirit of theory craft and all, the idea here is that on the one hand people keep chanting FF is a PvP game-requirement because it raises the "skill celing" of a game (when it's not a skill-ceiling artifact in my mind), when in reality having FF in the game will drastically lower the player-skill (not game mechanic skill-ceiling calibrations) required to effect betrayal.  :It just makes it clicky-click 1980's Galaga easy.   :D

 

You guys need to get your story straight on what FF is actually going to bring to PvP in Crowfall (tongue-in-cheek theorycrafting face on).

 

I'm getting the sense, perhaps I'm wrong here, that what's DRIVING the passion for FF in certain cases doesn't have anything to do with a sincere regard for "skillful PvP", or (properly articulated) "Skill Ceilings", or even just fun PvP.  What's driving those arguments is the slavering, drooling desire for ez-mode back shotting of your fellows, all wrapped up in the camoflage of "hard core PvP" by a certain camp of players..

 

I mean, seriously, as someone else said in this thread, large scale engagements will be turned into a mess with FF IMO, the squash of bodies is going to overcome any modes of "player skill to avoid smacking a buddy", while handing over EZ-MODE betrayal, no skill required, to players coasting on the ez-mode of the Interz-nets.

 

Just my .02 anyway.

 

Ref: http://zandagamedesign.blogspot.com/2010/02/skill-ceilings-and-floors.html

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about FF it's only 1 feature,game can work without it. Oh and btw and combat is not good and fun ? Just pre-alpha thing, dont worry. Oh it won't launch in 2016 end ? It will have 'soft launch'' in 2017 and mb later ''true launch''. It's all for sake of better gameplay.  They have mentioned they are starting to focus on ''dregs'' dev, since it's not like all those rulesets where they to give diversity and choice for game. They will develop it futher the line. 

 

So you know, no big deal we won't have half of features at launch. It's pre-alpha after all.

IT"S PRE-ALPHA remember that you poorly made socks guy.

 

 

 

/pre-alpha off

 

 

Fun thread :) and remember : If they cut action combat from game it's all ok. Because it's pre-alpha.

Edited by Naur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm getting the sense, perhaps I'm wrong here, that what's DRIVING the passion for FF in certain cases doesn't have anything to do with a sincere regard for "skillful PvP", or (properly articulated) "Skill Ceilings", or even just fun PvP.  What's driving those arguments is the slavering, drooling desire for ez-mode back shotting of your fellows, all wrapped up in the camoflage of "hard core PvP" by a certain camp of players..

 

I mean, seriously, as someone else said in this thread, large scale engagements will be turned into a mess with FF IMO, the squash of bodies is going to overcome any modes of "player skill to avoid smacking a buddy", while handing over EZ-MODE betrayal, no skill required, to players coasting on the ez-mode of the Interz-nets.

 

I thought you were actually trying to say something, until i got to the bolded. Now i'm convinced you're just a troll.

 

Friendly fire forces large groups to do something other than "mass blob" tactics, or they get destroyed. The classic raid strategy of low-skill tab target mmos is "everyone focus fire my target". In Darkfall Online, when trash zergs tried this, they very quickly realized they were doing ten times the damage to their own people as they were doing to the target.

 

Small groups actually relied on large zergs being bad enough to try and mass-melee one of their members, because it was a worthy sacrifice to lose 1 of your 5 team mates if they took 8 people down to 20% in the process and routed the larger force.

 

If you watch any video of late DFO team combat, it mostly looks like a series of 1v1s, or 2v1s, with the actors in play switching rapidly from one target to the other in a constantly alternating coupling or tripling of different people at any moment. Much like a real life basketball or football (soccer) game, that's because a good team knows not to trip over each others d*cks and all go for the obvious target all at once. 

 

To non-DF players, or the bad DFO players, it looks chaotic and spazztastic. 

 

But to the trained eye of anyone who stuck around in DFO, good and bad elements of teamwork are obvious in any of these videos.

 

-Heal at the wrong time, and you'll heal an enemy.

-Melee at the wrong time, you kill a friend.

-Blind without calling it out, and you blind friend and foe alike.

 

By necessity, teamwork is more nuanced and complex in games with friendly fire because they require more sophisticated tactics than dog piling. Simply by virtue of requiring more thought before acting, it increases the skill ceiling of a game.

Edited by vucar

aka honeybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch any video of late DFO team combat, it mostly looks like a series of 1v1s, or 2v1s, with the actors in play switching rapidly from one target to the other in a constantly alternating coupling or tripling of different people at any moment. Much like a real life basketball or football (soccer) game, that's because a good team knows not to trip over each others d*cks and all go for the obvious target all at once. 

 

By necessity, teamwork is more nuanced and complex in games with friendly fire because they require more sophisticated tactics than dog piling. Simply by virtue of requiring more thought before acting, it increases the skill ceiling of a game.

 

I believe this is the issue.

 

FF basically requires very small scale team work to be effective.

 

No clue how "late" DFO worked, but I doubt it was 200 people running around doing 1v1. Or maybe it was, either way CF =/= Darkfall, Shadowbane, Age of Conan (only ones I know of). What works or doesn't in one has no impact on another.

 

CF is/was being presented as a "massive scale" PVP game, not a 1v1, 5v5, 10v10 match. Not that both won't happen, but one seems to be the focus.

 

I don't want "massive scale" PVP to result in massive dueling.

 

Considering the basic concept of CF is to have different rules for CWs, FF in a variety of forms seems entirely plausible and not very hard to pull off.

 

All abilities, just range, just AOE, heals or not, % of dmg, whatever. If enough show up, profit for ACE and good times for all.

 

For those that will only play with some form of FF on, hopefully that will be enough, regardless if combat was built with FF in mind. At this point I highly doubt they are going to overhaul what seems to be their vision.

 

One of the main draws for me is they aren't trying to make a one size fits all game. Hence these discussions. Unfortunately, something has to give when building the foundation to allow variety down the line. As they are still a for profit company, I assume going after at least enough players to keep the lights on is the wise choice and FF mmos haven't seemed to be the most profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were actually trying to say something, until i got to the bolded. Now i'm convinced you're just a troll.

 

Friendly fire forces large groups to do something other than "mass blob" tactics, or they get destroyed. The classic raid strategy of low-skill tab target mmos is "everyone focus fire my target". In Darkfall Online, when trash zergs tried this, they very quickly realized they were doing ten times the damage to their own people as they were doing to the target.

 

Small groups actually relied on large zergs being bad enough to try and mass-melee one of their members, because it was a worthy sacrifice to lose 1 of your 5 team mates if they took 8 people down to 20% in the process and routed the larger force.

 

If you watch any video of late DFO team combat, it mostly looks like a series of 1v1s, or 2v1s, with the actors in play switching rapidly from one target to the other in a constantly alternating coupling or tripling of different people at any moment. Much like a real life basketball or football (soccer) game, that's because a good team knows not to trip over each others d*cks and all go for the obvious target all at once. 

 

To non-DF players, or the bad DFO players, it looks chaotic and spazztastic. 

 

But to the trained eye of anyone who stuck around in DFO, good and bad elements of teamwork are obvious in any of these videos.

 

-Heal at the wrong time, and you'll heal an enemy.

-Melee at the wrong time, you kill a friend.

-Blind without calling it out, and you blind friend and foe alike.

 

By necessity, teamwork is more nuanced and complex in games with friendly fire because they require more sophisticated tactics than dog piling. Simply by virtue of requiring more thought before acting, it increases the skill ceiling of a game.

 

So you did notice my take on smaller groups then.  Good deal. We seem to be on the same page on that score and that tells you there was no trolling, just a difference of opinion (in certain respects)  This means I was aware of the strategic/tactical implication of group size vs FF to begin with.

 

A)  It might represent a means to see who's "more skilled as a player" if the situation allows it.  Small scale engagements at best. . . . around Group Combat in a point and shoot game (no tab target), which Crowfall is for sure, not 1v1 or 5v5.

 

"Teamwork" and general human skills don't relate to Skill Ceilings it would seem.  

 

"Skill Ceilings and Floors

Skill ceilings and floors are terms given to the skill levels at which a player controlled unit is capped by the game mechanics. They are often mistakenly used to describe the effectiveness of a unit at various skill levels."
 
"Skill Ceilings
Skill Ceiling - This is the term for the maximum amount of skill that can be applied to a player controlled unit with regards to its technical limitations.  Similarly, you can say that it is the point at which an additional application of skill will yield no additional effectiveness due to the limitations imposed on the unit through the game mechanics."
 
Does the above make sense to you?
 
So, in general some people are in agreement the implication for FF is that it forces larger groups to break into smaller groups, etc., etc.  Has there been a discussion with ACE at THAT specific level, or has it been caught-on-the-rocks if you will, with the term Friendly Fire (just makes it all betterz)?
 
In the end I don't think there's an issue here in that ACE has the functionality to turn it on or off.  No matter who likes or dislikes it all options are open.  Right?  So, if their stance is to eval things as development is ongoing . . . . why would I argue with that no matter my personal position?
 
What I'll go back to however is:  Some people seem to be throwing around the words "Skill Ceiling" in a misleading fashion.  I also get the feeling there's a strong desire for FF for different reasons beyond the obvious discussion of how it might "enhance" group PvP.  Instead, the strong desire to have a clicky-button ez-mode street to (giggly) betrayal.  Hey, it's an Econo-War, lots of intrigue and betrayal opportunities there that require some effort and intellect skills for theft beyond clicky.
 
Really, in the end, it seems a fit for the rule sets for each band.

 

And I'm not even rabidly against FF.
Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get the feeling there's a strong desire for FF for different reasons beyond the obvious discussion of how it might "enhance" group PvP.  Instead, the strong desire to have a clicky-button ez-mode street to (giggly) betrayal.  Hey, it's an Econo-War, lots of intrigue and betrayal opportunities there that require some effort and intellect skills for theft beyond clicky.

No. Including FF is amazing for social and political PvP. You need to know your friends well, to trust them, and prepare for anyone to be an enemy. In the end, what you are complaining about will be easily navigable in essentially any system that does not fully predetermine and fix teams. If FF is guild- or group- immunity, people will just drop group to betray. But, betrayal is not inconsequential in these games.

As an aside, if you are worried about being betrayed and are unwilling to properly vet and weed out your guildmates, then I suspect God's Reach will be perfect for you to mitigate those issues.

 

What you seem to be missing in your "beyond clicky" statement, is that any worthwhile (consequential) mid-combat betrayal will take weeks of preparation and really good execution, and it will be exceedingly rare.

FF does hurt zergs, though, as others pointed out, and it honestly needs to be implemented in CF, IMO, at least at the non-group level.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you did notice my take on smaller groups then.  Good deal. We seem to be on the same page on that score and that tells you there was no trolling, just a difference of opinion (in certain respects)  This means I was aware of the strategic/tactical implication of group size vs FF to begin with.

 

 

"Teamwork" and general human skills don't relate to Skill Ceilings it would seem.  

 

"Skill Ceilings and Floors

Skill ceilings and floors are terms given to the skill levels at which a player controlled unit is capped by the game mechanics. They are often mistakenly used to describe the effectiveness of a unit at various skill levels."
 
"Skill Ceilings
Skill Ceiling - This is the term for the maximum amount of skill that can be applied to a player controlled unit with regards to its technical limitations.  Similarly, you can say that it is the point at which an additional application of skill will yield no additional effectiveness due to the limitations imposed on the unit through the game mechanics."
 
Does the above make sense to you?
 
So, in general some people are in agreement the implication for FF is that it forces larger groups to break into smaller groups, etc., etc.  Has there been a discussion with ACE at THAT specific level, or has it been caught-on-the-rocks if you will, with the term Friendly Fire (just makes it all betterz)?
 
In the end I don't think there's an issue here in that ACE has the functionality to turn it on or off.  No matter who likes or dislikes it all options are open.  Right?  So, if their stance is to eval things as development is ongoing . . . . why would I argue with that no matter my personal position?
 
What I'll go back to however is:  Some people seem to be throwing around the words "Skill Ceiling" in a misleading fashion.  I also get the feeling there's a strong desire for FF for different reasons beyond the obvious discussion of how it might "enhance" group PvP.  Instead, the strong desire to have a clicky-button ez-mode street to (giggly) betrayal.  Hey, it's an Econo-War, lots of intrigue and betrayal opportunities there that require some effort and intellect skills for theft beyond clicky.
 
Really, in the end, it seems a fit for the rule sets for each band.

 

 

Yes if a game doesn't have FF on the game has a technical limitation on skill, because you are not able to attack friendlies...  Not really hard to understand.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get it that you sucked on Darkfall, no need to say it everytime.

The impression was never that Crowfall would have had pure FF active on all the rulesets.

If you cared to read what I linked (the super old thread), it was clear to everyone even then that the best case scenario was pure FF in the dregs and decreasing FF penalties in easier rulesets. You don't like friendly fire, it's alright. It doesn't mean that you have to pretend that the DEVs have been honest and clear on the matter. If they end up not using FF anywhere, they will have broken a promise they made before and after the KS, period. Not to mention they would have been dishonest times and times again when we complained about combat not being built for FF and they told us to chill and wait.

 

Love the comment from the guy with the eggs. Well done missing the whole custard1ng point.

Look, you guys came in here all blustery and misrepresented the facts. You were not promised your version or understanding of FF, ever.

 

You simply made it up. When called on it you get angry. I get it.

 

It's OK that you actually think FF would be great if the devs designed the game the way you want them to, but that isn't happening. Fortunately for you, Darkfall is still around.

 

"Impressions" and "best case scenarios" simply aren't promises and no backer has cause to be pissy based on those non-promises allegedly being "broken." Honesty. It's what's for dinner.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to say that people weren't promised Friendly Fire, then we might as well not expect any thing else to work in this game either.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2357-friendly-fire-explained/

 

That quote was taken directly from the FAQ which they've redone, time and time again.

 

 

15. Does that mean that I can be hit by friendly fire?

Wherever possible, yes -- but we have to make sure that this is balanced. Some rules sets (like the infected worlds, which are Faction based) divide players automatically into teams. We have to make sure that players can't join teams specifically to take advantage of friendly fire to grief their own "teammates."

Our plan is to try and apply debuffs to players for doing damage to or killing their teammates (the gods curse you for your incompetence). If this proves not to be a good enough deterrent, however, we may have to turn friendly fire off for particular Campaign worlds.

 

Sure, this is pre-Genesis pre-Big Bang and things change. But alot of people on this thread act like friendly fire was never a thing.

 

I'm not entirely sure how you can read an FAQ that mentions the possibility of turning off friendly fire on 1 or 2 of the announced rulesets, and to you that translates to "only FFA has friendly fire". 

 

Make no mistake, we'll be working and testing this area heavily and we'll find what works best for each campaign ruleset. We might find a way to execute it well on all of them, we may not. 

 

It's best not to jump to hyperbolic conclusion's when we're being very forward and open with our thinking with you on this. 

 

TullyAuckland, up above, same thread. No use jumping the gun and dumping on people who watched this game evolve from day one. They're just disillusioned with this crazy notion of "hope". We've watched combat stay the same thing from a year ago. Ya know, when it was pre-alpha.

 

Or this is pre-alpha? Or alpha? Wait. soft launch is in 3 months, so we're in beta? Or Early Access? But we're not on Steam yet. So we're alpha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to say that people weren't promised Friendly Fire, then we might as well not expect any thing else to work in this game either.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2357-friendly-fire-explained/

 

That quote was taken directly from the FAQ which they've redone, time and time again.

 

 

Sure, this is pre-Genesis pre-Big Bang and things change. But alot of people on this thread act like friendly fire was never a thing.

 

 

TullyAuckland, up above, same thread. No use jumping the gun and dumping on people who watched this game evolve from day one. They're just disillusioned with this crazy notion of "hope". We've watched combat stay the same thing from a year ago. Ya know, when it was pre-alpha.

 

Or this is pre-alpha? Or alpha? Wait. soft launch is in 3 months, so we're in beta? Or Early Access? But we're not on Steam yet. So we're alpha?

 

 

 

When your profile says this: "Not even mad. Not even sad. I've sold all of my crowfall assets. My faith in this game is gone. The combat is terrible, the netcode is terrible, and the design is terrible." Why are you still here?

 

We get it: Your dreams are crushed by the evil developers.

 

dreams.gif

 

 

 I get that your dreams have been crushed so completely you have to vent. But you're raging on something not evcen sent to test yet - and something you already let go a while ago.

 

At this point why not take a break and come back in 6 months to see if *everything* is still as dire as you think it is?

Maybe it won't be.

 

What have you got to lose?

 

PS: Take me out of your sig please.


www.CrowfallRP.com


Disclaimer: My RP with you might become a public story: https://soundcloud.com/shiv-mahon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to say that people weren't promised Friendly Fire, then we might as well not expect any thing else to work in this game either.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2357-friendly-fire-explained/

 

That quote was taken directly from the FAQ which they've redone, time and time again.

 

 

Sure, this is pre-Genesis pre-Big Bang and things change. But alot of people on this thread act like friendly fire was never a thing.

 

 

TullyAuckland, up above, same thread. No use jumping the gun and dumping on people who watched this game evolve from day one. They're just disillusioned with this crazy notion of "hope". We've watched combat stay the same thing from a year ago. Ya know, when it was pre-alpha.

 

Or this is pre-alpha? Or alpha? Wait. soft launch is in 3 months, so we're in beta? Or Early Access? But we're not on Steam yet. So we're alpha?

You know, you don't post often, but when you do, it's a post.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When your profile says this: "Not even mad. Not even sad. I've sold all of my crowfall assets. My faith in this game is gone. The combat is terrible, the netcode is terrible, and the design is terrible." Why are you still here?

 

So what you're saying is people who were heavily invested in this game but are now dissatisfied with the direction its taking should leave the forum.

 

Which would only leave "yes-men" to echo-chamber their own brown-nosing back to each other.

 

Got it, thanks.


aka honeybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...