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

Too much survival game not enough sandbox.

Recommended Posts

Yeah you got it wrong Coolwaters. Vectious was saying its a "Very Big Assumption" to say that the rest of the systems not online yet,(Disciplines, promotions etc) will offer deeper customization. To say it won't (like He did) is what the actual "Very Big Assumption" is. Crayon version good enough?

 

This was the post being responded to: https://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/15637-too-much-survival-game-not-enough-sandbox/?p=323299  Not the other poster you cherry picked that quote on top on your post from.

 

Look again I get it you don't like the skill system, that fine. But geez at least debate it honestly and accurately.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with some of the discussion about the skill system is other people want to bring in systems outside of the skill system and say that magically we now have character depth.

 

 

 

Systems outside the skill system get brought up because those "outside" systems are where the Devs have stated the customization comes from. Customization some want the skill trees to provide. ACE is clearly not going in that direction. Don't really think anyone is saying the current skill trees are great and couldn't be better but what is being said is that they will likely fulfill their intended purpose (to act is incremental stat gains to mimic the leveling up process) and that's it. For the deeper customization and choices will have to depend on those "outside" systems. Which actually its not at all an outside system, its all part of the same overall system of progression and customization.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

One of the largest issues for me, is that I have no control on the final outlay of my stats.  Once all training is complete in the node system, I would have the exact same stats as anyone else that trains their nodes to max.  That is NOT differentiation.  One of the greatest things about SB was the skill system and how you could directly manipulate your stats and build a strength based templar vs an intelligent based templar, and each templar was viable.  These builds were viable and different ever before disciplines entered the picture, and that is my expectation here in CF; allow us as players to control our customization not just use the flawed stats created by devs.

 

 

You simply don't want that level of character customization at the passive skill level given how long training takes.

 

Some campaigns I may want to be a strength based Templar, the next an intelligence one.  If you push passive training through forced, exclusive gates on the AT level, there is no room for player experimentation campaign to campaign.

 

That dramatically reduces the games re-play-ability if you can't switch roles/types from time to time.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply don't want that level of character customization at the passive skill level given how long training takes.

 

Some campaigns I may want to be a strength based Templar, the next an intelligence one.  If you push passive training through forced, exclusive gates on the AT level, there is no room for player experimentation campaign to campaign.

 

That dramatically reduces the games re-play-ability if you can't switch roles/types from time to time.

In the old days you would have created an alt.  But ACE decided to go with the crow/vessel system.  I'm fine with the crow system, and if we can have stat control over every vessel we create, then that could be true customization.  But then why is the node system even needed for Archetypes?  They could scrap the whole AT node system and it would not affect the customization that others think is coming in the discipline system.  Archetype training is a joke in it's current implementation.

 

So why not save time, focus on the discipline and vessel system and just give everyone the max stats that would have occurred through the AT node system, and scrap the AT training.  The only reason the AT node system exists, as far as I can tell, is to be a time gate.  We've already seen people buy more accounts because VIP isn't worth it financially, so the reason to have a time gate is what exactly?  If people would rather bypass the reason to have the time gate (which is to get more money through players buying VIP every month) then is it still really needed?


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old days you would have created an alt.  But ACE decided to go with the crow/vessel system.  I'm fine with the crow system, and if we can have stat control over every vessel we create, then that could be true customization.  But then why is the node system even needed for Archetypes?  They could scrap the whole AT node system and it would not affect the customization that others think is coming in the discipline system.  Archetype training is a joke in it's current implementation.

 

So why not save time, focus on the discipline and vessel system and just give everyone the max stats that would have occurred through the AT node system, and scrap the AT training.  The only reason the AT node system exists, as far as I can tell, is to be a time gate.  We've already seen people buy more accounts because VIP isn't worth it financially, so the reason to have a time gate is what exactly?  If people would rather bypass the reason to have the time gate (which is to get more money through players buying VIP every month) then is it still really needed?

 

I don't think they should scrap the whole AT node system. 

 

Customization != Progression.  They are two different things, both with value, and both needing an outlet for players.

 

The problem is that they have on one level put economic social interaction customization in the passive tree (universals), and on another level they have put stat progression for AT lines in the same mechanic.

 

So it's fundamentally confusing.  

 

If you want to be a great combat AT, you need to reach the end of your AT training, which has nothing to do with profession.

If you want to be a great custom sword crafter, you need to reach the end of your universal training line.

 

And BOTH are now fundamentally reliant on group economy purchase of items to enhance both types of passive training.

 

All of which does zero to address customization, which is based on disciplines, advantages, and disadvantages, 

 

Which are ALSO gated by crafting and social interaction.

 

Meaning "your" character is never really just yours, because for the next 5 or 6 years of passive training, you won't individually get to the point of being able to construct all the necessary parts for the ideal character.

 

Unless "you" get a few alt accounts to take care of all the necessary components.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell.  Whats the answer?  I don't know, I just do know I don't like the fact that base stats are gated behind a multiplayer dependent crafting line, the most multiplayer dependent one built to date.

 

As I have said many times now,  it's a screw that ACE seems determined to pound in with the one hammer they have, crafting.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The node system could work, and it could work beautifully with a few small changes.  Actually make the node system work where there are mutually exclusive lines; if you go down this line, then you are blocked out from ever going down the other line.  The simplest example of this is with promotions; only allow each crow to choose 1 promotion from each archetype they train in.

Alot of truth in this.

 

You could actually make a bad choice with this. Let me fail. I dont need my hand held, and if i did, i would go play a WoW clone.

 

There's potential, i never said there wasn't. Just as of yet, what we see and have heard theres going to be alot of missed opportunity. 


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you got it wrong Coolwaters. Vectious was saying its a "Very Big Assumption" to say that the rest of the systems not online yet,(Disciplines, promotions etc) will offer deeper customization. To say it won't (like He did) is what the actual "Very Big Assumption" is. Crayon version good enough?

 

This was the post being responded to: https://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/15637-too-much-survival-game-not-enough-sandbox/?p=323299  Not the other poster you cherry picked that quote on top on your post from.

 

Look again I get it you don't like the skill system, that fine. But geez at least debate it honestly and accurately.

Actually, i was saying that all he listed as having deep customization was a big assumption.

 

I actually said in the same post that the game would have all of he listed, i just disagreed that it would be deep.

 

Admittedly its an assumption that there wont be any deep customization. I never claimed otherwise. So basicly all you did was said a red fence was in fact red. Good job. But theres more evidence to support my assumption. 

 

Obviously the issue is what people consider "deep" customization. Shadowbane i would consider deep, although there are other games that have more. This one is closer to a ability drafting type game that allows you to pick your 'load out' the fact theres tons of options does not equate to depth.

 

Take a game like Dota2. Just because theres hundreds of options of items doesnt actually mean it has depth. Obviously some items are good for certain heros, some are not. Same thing if you can select the powers the hero has, theres more options but its not adding depth.

 

You are not 'building' a hero, you are selecting a load out.

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, i was saying that all he listed as having deep customization was a big assumption.

 

I actually said in the same post that the game would have all of he listed, i just disagreed that it would be deep.

 

Admittedly its an assumption that there wont be any deep customization. I never claimed otherwise. So basicly all you did was said a red fence was in fact red. Good job. But theres more evidence to support my assumption. 

 

Obviously the issue is what people consider "deep" customization. Shadowbane i would consider deep, although there are other games that have more. This one is closer to a ability drafting type game that allows you to pick your 'load out' the fact theres tons of options does not equate to depth.

 

Take a game like Dota2. Just because theres hundreds of options of items doesnt actually mean it has depth. Obviously some items are good for certain heros, some are not. Same thing if you can select the powers the hero has, theres more options but its not adding depth.

 

You are not 'building' a hero, you are selecting a load out.

Well to be fair most of my responses was about Coolwaters as usual twisting words and using strawman arguments. Assumptions are fine as long as we at least try to base them on facts and what we know rather than fear and bias.

 

To me like said in other threads it doesn't matter as much where the customization comes from as long as it exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair most of my responses was about Coolwaters as usual twisting words and using strawman arguments. Assumptions are fine as long as we at least try to base them on facts and what we know rather than fear and bias.

 

To me like said in other threads it doesn't matter as much where the customization comes from as long as it exists. 

Or perhaps he misunderstood you. Myself as well, in that case. I didn't find it to be a strawman, though. Might be me making an assumption. ;)


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Systems outside the skill system get brought up because those "outside" systems are where the Devs have stated the customization comes from... For the deeper customization and choices will have to depend on those "outside" systems. Which actually its not at all an outside system, its all part of the same overall system of progression and customization.

 

Those "outside" systems of progression and customization are gear.  I think that is really a key part of what people don't like even if they don't label it that way (could be wrong though).  Todd had stated something about doubling down on crafting until he was satisfied, and I am guessing that the ACE's desire to make sure crafting is huge has pushed them to make an exceptionally gear heavy game.   I think this stings some when it comes to the customization aspects, in particular, over progression.  


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with some of the discussion about the skill system is other people want to bring in systems outside of the skill system and say that magically we now have character depth.

 

Something is amiss here, and I believe that Vectious, Coolwaters, and to a lesser extent myself are trying to bring the faults of the node system to light.  So first we need to define what we are talking about, because it seems like you, and others, want to include the disciplines system in the discussion of character depth; that's fine, but then we need to re-name the "skills" system and call it the "node" system.  The node system then becomes part of the bigger character customization system, and skill system is no more.  Because if the "skill" system is not actually going to gain us any new skills, then what is that system even for?

 

For most players just coming to the game, they are going to look at the "node" system and think that their character customization will come from that system.  My guess is that most new players will look at the "node" system and expect 75% or more of customization to come from the nodes.  Right from the start most players expectations will not be met, and once you lose that, then it is a tough road to hold onto those players.

 

Yes, we will have disciplines, and yes that will give a greater degree of variability, but it should not be the place that a bulk of the customization comes from.

 

The node system could work, and it could work beautifully with a few small changes.  Actually make the node system work where there are mutually exclusive lines; if you go down this line, then you are blocked out from ever going down the other line.  The simplest example of this is with promotions; only allow each crow to choose 1 promotion from each archetype they train in.

 

One of the largest issues for me, is that I have no control on the final outlay of my stats.  Once all training is complete in the node system, I would have the exact same stats as anyone else that trains their nodes to max.  That is NOT differentiation.  One of the greatest things about SB was the skill system and how you could directly manipulate your stats and build a strength based templar vs an intelligent based templar, and each templar was viable.  These builds were viable and different ever before disciplines entered the picture, and that is my expectation here in CF; allow us as players to control our customization not just use the flawed stats created by devs.

 

Pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair most of my responses was about Coolwaters as usual twisting words and using strawman arguments. Assumptions are fine as long as we at least try to base them on facts and what we know rather than fear and bias.

 

To me like said in other threads it doesn't matter as much where the customization comes from as long as it exists. 

 

So what was my straw man? I'm not sure you know what that means.

 

 

 

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
 
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

 

 
FFS your "real argument" was literally this:
 

 

Responds by calling something a big assumption by making an actual big assumption. Classic.

 

Persuasive. I think your post is close to a straw man. It's not even on the merits of the discussion.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you got it wrong Coolwaters. Vectious was saying its a "Very Big Assumption" to say that the rest of the systems not online yet,(Disciplines, promotions etc) will offer deeper customization. To say it won't (like He did) is what the actual "Very Big Assumption" is. Crayon version good enough?

 

Actually the original claim was that those systems would provide for "very deep customization" - not deeper customization. I doubt Vectious would argue that upcoming systems do not offer something deeper than their exclusion would.

 

Of course, what constitutes very deep is essentially nonsense. The question lingers about exactly how these systems will operate. On one side there appears people willing to say, "it (AT customization) is coming," and on the other side people saying "new systems are coming, but they won't provide the customization we want."

 

I'm personally in the wait-and-see for how much customization new systems will provide, but that won't stop me from suggesting things that I see as offering meaningful customization.

 

Edit: it is likely that I caricatured the two sides and omitted others 

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 what was my straw man? I'm not sure you know what that means.

 

 
FFS your "real argument" was literally this:
 

 

Persuasive. I think your post is close to a straw man. It's not even on the merits of the discussion.

 

A Strawman is when you argue against a point that wasn't made by the person you're discussing with.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Strawman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: strawman
  1. 1.
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2. 2.
    a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
    "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

 

You claimed I was touting the skill system. I wasn't. In the past you claimed I think the skill system is great and has no flaws, i don't.

 

So in the future if you wish to discuss something honestly and constructively do so based on what I actually said not what you think I did or whatever is more convenient for your point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Strawman is when you argue against a point that wasn't made by the person you're discussing with.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Strawman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: strawman
  1. 1.
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2. 2.
    a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
    "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

 

You claimed I was touting the skill system. I wasn't. In the past you claimed I think the skill system is great and has no flaws, i don't.

 

So in the future if you wish to discuss something honestly and constructively do so based on what I actually said not what you think I did or whatever is more convenient for your point of view.

 

Okie dokie. I sure don't read your post the way you now, in hindsight, say you intended it.

 

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I agree the skill system is very far from flawless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which are ALSO gated by crafting and social interaction.

 

Meaning "your" character is never really just yours, because for the next 5 or 6 years of passive training, you won't individually get to the point of being able to construct all the necessary parts for the ideal character.

 

Unless "you" get a few alt accounts to take care of all the necessary components.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell.  Whats the answer?  I don't know, I just do know I don't like the fact that base stats are gated behind a multiplayer dependent crafting line, the most multiplayer dependent one built to date.

 

As I have said many times now,  it's a screw that ACE seems determined to pound in with the one hammer they have, crafting.

I am not voicing an opinion with a post, simply asking... Didn't they say that forced reliance on others was one of their main ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see further sneak peeks and reassurances into the Starting Runes and Vessel Customization.  We got some info way back and now briefly see a sheet when we enter a vessel.  The concept idea held somewhat to SB with rune slots for stats, run speed, etc and has potential for wide variance in builds at the vessel level combined with disciplines at the vessel level.  I am sure most knights would go +Con with child stat Stamina for example and that means the runes should have a wide variety of desirable either/or choices and a similar cost system that includes negative cost detrimental runes.  That was very key to what we called variety in SB...  

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Second, I find the whole hunger system to be a little bit too much: ark, h1z1, and conan exiles-like. The game in its current state plays much like the aforementioned survival games. I believe food should be somewhat of a necessity but more along the lines of it boosting a stat or improving regeneration of health and mana.

 

The hunger is a real mechanic that can be adjusted for different Campaign Worlds and even start with low food requirements and ramp up to effect real gameplay...  the whole farming and food system is in conceptual design but will probably be a necessity for winning...   a "stockpile early" strategy that helps a guild get through the later stages and sieges of the late game.  The goal is dynamic worlds that change or rather slowly starve and die making the last month of the CW not only a battleground of sieges and territorial control but a survival test as resources diminish and players consume more and collect less.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not voicing an opinion with a post, simply asking... Didn't they say that forced reliance on others was one of their main ideas?

Yea they did.

 

Yes you should be reliant on others for many if not most things, but you should also be able to be self reliant in a couple of areas as well.

 

I can fully understand and agree with forced alliance for equipment, group events, component crafting, etc.  I just don't think that should have as much, and in the case of vessels even more, forced social interaction in character definition. I would be fine if every crow was fully capable of crafting their own vessels, and have suggested a couple of times that each vessel archetype crafting be pulled into the AT training line instead of living in universal.

 

I just really don't like the idea of needing someone else to roll my characters/vessels basic attributes. 

 

It would be like letting your DM roll your stats for you, or only let you pick a few pre-built characters to play.  It's fine for a one off session, but not really a preferred way to run a campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just really don't like the idea of needing someone else to roll my characters/vessels basic attributes. 

 

It would be like letting your DM roll your stats for you, or only let you pick a few pre-built characters to play.  It's fine for a one off session, but not really a preferred way to run a campaign.

I can totally agree with that.

 

I'm hopeful that the disciplines and etc that aren't in yet will alleviate this somewhat, and I'm hoping there are a few more passes on the passive skill trees to provide real options for distinction between players. The way it is now, it's pretty much either "Offensive X" "Defensive X" or "Balanced X" and that's all well and good, but only if there is actually a balance between the efficacy of those build paths. (Edit: Personal note, requiring -every- node on a split path to continue along the path in a sequential talent tree seems really, really... silly?)

 

Assuming those things don't happen to an acceptable extent, then yeah, I think the vessel system needs to be a bit more personal.

Edited by Real Salt

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...