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

Get rid of the passive skill system.

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, thomasblair said:

As with all things there are ups and downs. Passive is great from a sense that you can progress and keep up with your social group no matter what is going on in real life, even if you can only login every few days. (It sucks being the friend who wasn't able to log in and all of a sudden your friends shot ahead 20 levels and now you have to PuG it)

Downside is you are gated by time, I know we have many, many people who would like to grind to the end, even if it means killing 1212762376 boars. Unfortunately that style of play as we have seen over and over is people race to the end, look around, ask where is the end game? proceed to complain about being bored and quit. Without fail. Every single game.

Do people want to make top end stuff day 1? Sure they do, and in games that let you grind it out, guilds can funnel everything to a player to those ends. Which sucks for longevity. You claim that the early game is going to be unpleasant (which might be true) but it would be even more unpleasant long term for the game if we let people zip to the the proverbial "end" in that first week too. 

The way we have it now there will be epochs of gear, where over time the gear that appears on the vendors will get better and better, and every couple of weeks the crafters will make a giant leap forward as they earn more experimentation points. (least that is the theory)

Where you can go get your grind on is with leveling vessels and finding Disciplines. +90 attributes from a basic white quality vessel at max is pretty significant, even more so if we up the amount of attributes gained per level on the higher quality vessels.

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply. It sounds to me like you aren't wanting to do a 80/20 passive/active or a 90/10 is because of people grinding hard for 1 day. Make it where the 10% is very small, so they can't. You also mentioned about lack of end game, but shouldn't that be where diplomacy and new campaigns come into place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blazzen said:

I've actually thought about this and they could have "noob" campaigns which are restricted for accounts with less than X amount of training. 

That is the beauty of the campaign system where you can tailor rules however you want on a campaign basis.

also the previous design had "stat caps" gated by vessel quality

e.g. so in the dregs say where every one starts in common vessels - the multi year trained players would be capped at only a portion of their training strength until they managed to craft and equip better quality vessels

however that fell by the wayside in lieu of better quality vessels increasing attributes as carrot rather than stick


caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ArcJurado said:

This misses the point of the current system though, it doesn't replace it with something that achieves the same goal.  The goal here would be giving players some persistent progression outside of the campaigns so it doesn't feel like progression is ultimately meaningless because it will be reset every time a campaign ends.  This will already happen to some degree with the different import/export rules, you won't have every last thing from a previous campaign in a new one.  This game isn't framed or sold like a moba where you know each match you're going to be reset.  

The goal is fun, progression never seems meaningless if it was used to have fun.  

The question is does a slower ticking persistent progression and the uncle bob that it ultimately helps facilitate create more fun than a faster progression system that resets on per-campaign basis.  Sure there are always players that will like things that others do not.

The game is framed and advertised as resetting worlds and offering scenarios that understand the issue with uncle bob dynamics.  It may never have been advertised as a moba, but it sure as heck advertised the resetting of worlds and the battle against uncle bob.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blazzen said:

I've actually thought about this and they could have "noob" campaigns which are restricted for accounts with less than X amount of training. 

That is the beauty of the campaign system where you can tailor rules however you want on a campaign basis.

Well the noob campaigns are kind of different from what I am referring to since those seem exclusive to noob accounts. 

I just want the option to avoid uncle bob completely and I know there are a lot of gamers that really embrace reset buttons and doing it all over again.  

To me the persistence in crowfall was never about the passive skill training, it was about the campaigns being significantly longer than a moba match, and that giving off the persistence but also the ability to reset and let people start fresh again once a victor was determined.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VIKINGNAIL said:

The goal is fun, progression never seems meaningless if it was used to have fun.  

The question is does a slower ticking persistent progression and the uncle bob that it ultimately helps facilitate create more fun than a faster progression system that resets on per-campaign basis.  Sure there are always players that will like things that others do not.

The game is framed and advertised as resetting worlds and offering scenarios that understand the issue with uncle bob dynamics.

Yes and it's also sold with the promise of some degree of persistent long term progression.  If the game didn't have that honestly I'd never have bought into it because that's not something I find enjoyable or fun.  It seems like you find resetting back to 0 more fun and interesting which is fine but that's not what this game is.  Yes there's already a large degree of resetting with the campaigns which I actually do think is a good thing but if there was literally 0 persistent progression it would feel like whether you win or lose or any progression made within a campaign would be meaningless.  

Also you mention people coming into the game late.  What you're not considering here though is that these new players aren't just going to be soloing everything, that's an incredibly unwise choice even for people who have every skill trained.  This game has a heavy group/guild focus and new players will be joining/recruited by guilds.  Because of this they won't have to completely fend for themselves, they'll have others to help them survive and progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ArcJurado said:

Yes and it's also sold with the promise of some degree of persistent long term progression.  If the game didn't have that honestly I'd never have bought into it because that's not something I find enjoyable or fun.  It seems like you find resetting back to 0 more fun and interesting which is fine but that's not what this game is.  Yes there's already a large degree of resetting with the campaigns which I actually do think is a good thing but if there was literally 0 persistent progression it would feel like whether you win or lose or any progression made within a campaign would be meaningless.  

Also you mention people coming into the game late.  What you're not considering here though is that these new players aren't just going to be soloing everything, that's an incredibly unwise choice even for people who have every skill trained.  This game has a heavy group/guild focus and new players will be joining/recruited by guilds.  Because of this they won't have to completely fend for themselves, they'll have others to help them survive and progress.

Is it not what the game is though?  The meat of the game is based on different levels of resets, so why can't one be a truly complete reset?  


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ArcJurado said:

Yes and it's also sold with the promise of some degree of persistent long term progression.  If the game didn't have that honestly I'd never have bought into it because that's not something I find enjoyable or fun.

It's why I bought into the game to. I get so bored going from meaningless quest to another to gain a level I don't care about just so I can do content at max level. Cause I feel like I am not even playing the game really until I hit level cap. It's what attracted me to Albion Online and its what attracts me about Crowfall.

I am assuming a lot of people bought into the game with that being one of their reasons.


OS_Sig3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

Well the noob campaigns are kind of different from what I am referring to since those seem exclusive to noob accounts. 

I just want the option to avoid uncle bob completely and I know there are a lot of gamers that really embrace reset buttons and doing it all over again.  

To me the persistence in crowfall was never about the passive skill training, it was about the campaigns being significantly longer than a moba match, and that giving off the persistence but also the ability to reset and let people start fresh again once a victor was determined.

Noob campaigns would work though.

Just as I don't like the idea of imports, I will play no import campaigns.

If you don't like the idea of people trained more than you, then play noob (training locked) campaigns. 

That would give you the option to completely avoid and others the option to play how they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, entityofsin said:

It's why I bought into the game to. I get so bored going from meaningless quest to another to gain a level I don't care about just so I can do content at max level. Cause I feel like I am not even playing the game really until I hit level cap. It's what attracted me to Albion Online and its what attracts me about Crowfall.

I am assuming a lot of people bought into the game with that being one of their reasons.

And what exactly would you lose in regards to this if training were on a per-campaign basis?  The training would still be passive.  How exactly has passive training alleviated this?  There are plenty of nodes people feel like they have to train that they don't truly care about either, just to get to what they do care about.  


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Noob campaigns would work though.

Just as I don't like the idea of imports, I will play no import campaigns.

If you don't like the idea of people trained more than you, then play noob (training locked) campaigns. 

That would give you the option to completely avoid and others the option to play how they want. 

But why would the game not offer true resets for the most competitive pvpers that want level playing fields and no element of uncle bob in their campaigns?

If you don't like the advantage that imports give why would you be so eager to embrace the advantage that being more trained than someone and progressing through campaign obstacles quicker because of it would give?

The game has great flexibility in what it can offer ruleset wise.  I understand that they have priorities on what features to add first, but I would think one of the most important features would be rulesets that completely avoid uncle bob, as well as offering some that allow uncle bob.  They should try to cover the spectrum if they have the means right?  They obviously see some benefit to eliminating uncle bob.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VIKINGNAIL said:

But why would the game not offer true resets for the most competitive pvpers that want level playing fields and no element of uncle bob in their campaigns?

If you don't like the advantage that imports give why would you be so eager to embrace the advantage that being more trained than someone and progressing through campaign obstacles quicker because of it would give?

It wouldn't be impossible for them to have a campaign rule that ignores any bonus from the passive training system.  It would take some time to develop and it could be a bit tricky yes but it's not impossible.  If you're suggesting having specific campaigns that make you start from square 1 that's fine but to tell the devs to entirely remove it is a bit selfish.  You're asking them to remove something they implemented which others find enjoyable simply because you don't.  Having campaigns that ignore the passive skill tree is a far better solution than just removing it outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ArcJurado said:

It wouldn't be impossible for them to have a campaign rule that ignores any bonus from the passive training system.  It would take some time to develop and it could be a bit tricky yes but it's not impossible.  If you're suggesting having specific campaigns that make you start from square 1 that's fine but to tell the devs to entirely remove it is a bit selfish.  You're asking them to remove something they implemented which others find enjoyable simply because you don't.  Having campaigns that ignore the passive skill tree is a far better solution than just removing it outright.

I don't even think it would take time to develop, they already have the means to wipe skill-training, it shouldn't be that hard to have fresh campaigns where the server registers a completely fresh untrained character.

I'm asking them to remove it because many do not find it enjoyable, but I'm not even truly asking them to scrap it completely, I'm just asking them to implement it in a way that is more fun and engaging and avoids uncle bob for those that do not want uncle bob.

I'd bet money that passive skill training is not why the majority of people are going to want to play CF.  I'd even bet money that in its current intended implementation it contradicts the nature of the resetting worlds and fresh servers and that most will end up disliking this implementation.  

But I don't really care I've always been of the opinion that more options just draws more players to their game.  I just think that this training system has a very obvious uncle bob element to it that is being ignored, as well as the fact that it isn't very exciting with how it is currently paced.

I have a lot of more hardcore preferences, but I don't even think completely fresh starts in campaigns is a very hardcore preference, a lot of pvpers just enjoy starting level as newbs and then seeing who can make the most of it from there, and then doing it all over again on new servers.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy with the current system. I f I could make one change, I would change how some of it was gated, or at minimum train one pip to move forward. I can sympathize with those that argue the 90/10 or 80/20 active/passive split. But what I absolutely did not sign up for is reset training for all campaigns, like some kind of extended MOBA platform.

In Shadowbane, sorry to reference it for those that did not play it, the rush of activity at server up was fun, but the worlds eventually died as everyone leveled up (72 hours if you knew what you were doing). There was no end game, except burning your enemies off the map.. over, and over and over. The worlds did not reset. It led to entrenchment and stagnation.

They have solved that problem here. Most do not want to re level toons every three months. I for one, like the permanence of ACE's current model.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, armegeddon said:

I'm happy with the current system. I f I could make one change, I would change how some of it was gated, or at minimum train one pip to move forward. I can sympathize with those that argue the 90/10 or 80/20 active/passive split. But what I absolutely did not sign up for is reset training for all campaigns, like some kind of extended MOBA platform.

In Shadowbane, sorry to reference it for those that did not play it, the rush of activity at server up was fun, but the worlds eventually died as everyone leveled up (72 hours if you knew what you were doing). There was no end game, except burning your enemies off the map.. over, and over and over. The worlds did not reset. It led to entrenchment and stagnation.

They have solved that problem here. Most do not want to re level toons every three months. I for one, like the permanence of ACE's current model.

So will you be playing on zero import campaigns?  How do you feel about uncle bob?  Zero import campaigns will make you reprogress in active progression with each new campaign.  Do you prefer playing in fresh campaigns where some players may be significantly more trained than others at the start?  Is this much different than import campaigns where those with the resources can bring more to the table at the start?

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I plan on playing Zero import. 

I don't care about "Uncle Bob", as the design set forth allows for people to advance/progress over time through multiple campaigns. There will be "resets", which as I explained, was a major flaw in SB's design. People will get to start over.

Farming/Crafting/Gearing will have to be done at each campaign reset, I see nothing wrong with that. There will have to be strategic use/allocation of assets or commodities as the seasons progress. Which is a good thing in my opinion. What I do not want is to simplify the system to a point that all depth of character is eliminated. Again, I don't want an extended MOBA. If one wishes to go that route, why not dumb down progression and go back to standard race/class archetype.

The last point I think people still need to remember FIRST is that this is a community driven, symbiotic game. It is not, and never was designed to be a 5v5, 3v3 or 1v1. Anyone new coming into a campaign will suffer greatly regardless of training if they decide to go solo. Conversely, someone with no training can join a great community/guild/nation/alliance, get geared up and have a chance at winning a campaign.

My opinion of course.

Edited by armegeddon

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

And what exactly would you lose in regards to this if training were on a per-campaign basis?  The training would still be passive.  How exactly has passive training alleviated this?  There are plenty of nodes people feel like they have to train that they don't truly care about either, just to get to what they do care about.

What do I lose? The work and progress I made with the skill training. Another thing, my comment was to @ArcJurado and what he said.

Grinding out levels so you can get more class abilities and higher level gear to go through more pve content you don't care about to possibly be able to raid once you're level capped is terrible. Even in traditional MMOs getting your pvp specific gear is a grindfest. In Rift you had to just suck it up and grind out Warfronts so you could get enough Prestige points to purchase pvp designed gear. That's uncreative and not interesting at all. Same for WoW during the times I've played and I doubt it's really changed much today. Wildstar had this issue too where you had to grind for some kind of currency or repeat dungeon and raid runs to get more gear that gave you marginal increases in strength.

Just because Crowfall's skill training is passive, doesn't mean it's a worse alternative to grinding out levels, gear currency, raids, and dungeons to make your character stronger. If I am going to get marginal increases in power, I want it to be passively done so I can focus my attention, effort, and time on things that are actually fun, such as grouping up with my guild to go on resource runs, hunt down some other players from an enemy faction or guild, take over POIs, do guild events, etc. Things that are actually fun and worth someone's attention in a pvp game. That's what passive skill training does for me.

The game is being designed around the idea eternal heroes and dying worlds. Getting rid of passive skill training for a per campaign basis training doesn't align with this at all. Even if you can export and import items into these sort of campaigns, it doesn't work with the intended vision of the game's design.

Edited by entityofsin

OS_Sig3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

The game has great flexibility in what it can offer ruleset wise.  I understand that they have priorities on what features to add first, but I would think one of the most important features would be rulesets that completely avoid uncle bob, as well as offering some that allow uncle bob.  They should try to cover the spectrum if they have the means right?  They obviously see some benefit to eliminating uncle bob.

I was agreeing with you. 

The training issue doesn't become an uncle bob issue until a bit after launch so they have some time to figure it out. 

I think campaigns that prevent imports and have a cap on skill trains could be interesting for the most ultra competitive environments.  

Nearly endless possibility for campaign rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, armegeddon said:

Yes, I plan on playing Zero import. 

What about zero import is appealing to you that is different from carrying over training and bringing that advantage into a fresh campaign?

I don't care about "Uncle Bob", as the design set forth allows for people to advance/progress over time through multiple campaigns. There will be "resets", which as I explained, was a major flaw in SB's design. People will get to start over.

Are you opposed to there being servers where people get to truly start over completely fresh?

Farming/Crafting/Gearing will have to be done at each campaign reset, I see nothing wrong with that. There will have to be strategic use/allocation of assets or commodities as the seasons progress. Which is a good thing in my opinion. What I do not want is to simplify the system to a point that all depth of character is eliminated. Again, I don't want an extended MOBA. If one wishes to go that route, why not dumb down progression and go back to standard race/class archetype.

But the rate at which different groups will farm craft and gear can be very dependent on how progressed their characters are, which really isn't much different than importing goods right?  It's all just an uneven playing field at that point and seeing who can make the most progress to get the biggest advantage through it right?  

How is progression dumbed down if it occurs during a campaign as opposed to over the lifespan of a game?  Doesn't it kind of get more complex if people get to explore and try out builds more frequently and then use what they learn from that to try and build and counterbuild each other?  

The last point I think people still need to remember FIRST is that this is a community driven, symbiotic game. It is not, and never was designed to be a 5v5, 3v3 or 1v1. Anyone new coming into a campaign will suffer greatly regardless of training if they decide to go solo. Conversely, someone with no training can join a great community/guild/nation/alliance, get geared up and have a chance at winning a campaign.

My opinion of course.

So if you embrace this mentality wouldn't importing not be a big deal to you either?  

 

1 minute ago, entityofsin said:

 

The game is being designed around the idea eternal heroes and dying worlds. Getting rid of passive skill training for a per campaign basis training doesn't align with this at all. Even if you can export and import items into these sort of campaigns, it doesn't work with the intended vision of the game's design.

Are you sure about that?  The game was marketed on KS with the remarkable revelation of reset buttons and avoiding uncle bob stagnation.  Passive training on an account level gives uncle bob elements.  


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

Are you sure about that?  The game was marketed on KS with the remarkable revelation of reset buttons and avoiding uncle bob stagnation.  Passive training on an account level gives uncle bob elements.

The uncle bob thing is referenced to a world that's in persistence that doesn't get reset. It basically means, "this guild owns 4 castles and nobody can challenge them enough to take any of them away because they're the largest and most powerful guild in the entire game". This was a huge issue in Albion Online and still is. In one of the betas there was an actual guild that captured all 4 of the castles (this was before the entire redesign of the map). There was a lot of uproar about how castle sieges strongly favored the defenders. To the point where the defenders could be outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 and still win. Albion doesn't have map resets like Crowfall is going to have. Albion Online is a pretty good uncle bob example and a lot of it is a testimony of how they don't reset maps at all. It's an example of what ACE should avoid emulating because it's still an active problem in Albion today.

At least with passive skill training being persistent and campaigns resetting after 3 or 4 or 6 months or however long one would last, your guild can make the choice to actively try and capture a fort or castle or some other POI or back out of it and give it to someone else of the same faction or make an agreement with another guild to take it over cause it will save your guild resources overall. After all crafting stations are going to be in things like Forts so they're going to be worth fighting over.

Edited by entityofsin

OS_Sig3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, entityofsin said:

The uncle bob thing is referenced to a world that's in persistence that doesn't get reset. It basically means, "this guild owns 4 castles and nobody can challenge them enough to take any of them away because they're the largest and most powerful guild in the entire game". This was a huge issue in Albion Online and still is. In one of the betas there was an actual guild that captured all 4 of the castles (this was before the entire redesign of the map). There was a lot of uproar about how castle sieges strongly favored the defenders. To the point where the defenders could be outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 and still win. Albion doesn't have map resets like Crowfall is going to have. Albion Online is a pretty good uncle bob example and a lot of it is a testimony of their active progression system. It's an example of what ACE should avoid emulating because it's still an active problem in Albion today.

At least with passive skill training being persistent and campaigns resetting after 3 or 4 or 6 months or however long one would last, your guild can make the choice to actively try and capture a fort or castle or some other POI or back out of it and give it to someone else of the same faction or make an agreement with another guild to take it over cause it will save your guild resources overall. After all crafting stations are going to be in things like Forts so they're going to be worth fighting over.

The essence of uncle bob is having such a huge advantage that other people can not be competitive.  The way they combat this is by having resetting worlds where you have a variety of options of how much you want uncle bob elements to play a factor.  Whether it be high import campaigns with whales and mega guilds slamming into each other with tons of resources from the getgo, or low to no import campaigns where they are trying to create a level playing field for players to start anew on.  

The resetting nature of the campaigns is a much bigger selling point than the passive skill training ever was, and you can be assured that many people want even playing fields on their fresh servers.  


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

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...