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

This is the ruleset that brings ACE the most $$$

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

You new here? There is this weird rivalry between VN and some (actually a lot) players. It is basically a trademark of CF forums.

Sometimes i think people are being unreasonable and VN is bringing up some reasonable points. At other times you really cant tell if VN is trolling or not since his points are really unreasonable.

I would say this topic is okay and VN is raising acceptable points (except proximity chat screw that). I mean, you might not agree with him but that is what discussion are about.

My responses are based on what I get really.  I can't take people seriously if they act too irrationally or let personal biases cloud their reading comprehension.  But I obviously show equal courtesy to people that can enter a discussion with sincerity and a levelheaded mind, whether they end up agreeing with me or not.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

You new here? There is this weird rivalry between VN and some (actually a lot) players. It is basically a trademark of CF forums.

Sometimes i think people are being unreasonable and VN is bringing up some reasonable points. At other times you really cant tell if VN is trolling or not since his points are really unreasonable.

I would say this topic is okay and VN is raising acceptable points (except proximity chat screw that). I mean, you might not agree with him but that is what discussion are about.

Not new I have been in conversations before where I do disagree with VN and it seems like he is trolling. But I guess he is just really stubborn, he also knows what he wants, and I dont really blame someone for trying to push their points. Eventually people will get sick and tired it seems, and they even ignore some of the good points that was made. A bit sad.. because there are some really good points here that some people fail to see. 

Take the : Crowfall is not all about combat, no its not but it is nothing without combat in my eyes. What would you do.. craft leather and sell it on the market i.e harvest simulator and crafting. It would be farmsville.

There is no throne war without a war, PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, deiphoboz said:

Not new I have been in conversations before where I do disagree with VN and it seems like he is trolling. But I guess he is just really stubborn, he also knows what he wants, and I dont really blame someone for trying to push their points. Eventually people will get sick and tired it seems, and they even ignore some of the good points that was made. A bit sad.. because there are some really good points here that some people fail to see. 

Take the : Crowfall is not all about combat, no its not but it is nothing without combat in my eyes. What would you do.. craft leather and sell it on the market i.e harvest simulator and crafting. It would be farmsville.

There is no throne war without a war, PvP.

I mean ACE themselves have said combat is the most important thing to get right.  I think they at least understood that and that's probably why they did do the combat overhaul.  Their ability to make such a giant change like that, knowing how long it delayed things, all for the betterment of the game long term, is why it's good to keep giving them feedback.  Devs are not perfect, you can respect them and still tell them you think they are doing something incorrectly, as long as you don't make it personal and do it sincerely with the hope of trying to make their game the best it can be that's what matters.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

Right I get it, I just dont see the reason why people hack on the idea, it seems VN really really wants FF to happen. And the game was also advertised as one; "if there is a ruleset out there you(meaning us players) would like to try, we can do it". Thats what I got from one of their first videos when they mentioned all the worlds they would have and different rulesets. I didnt mean to get sucked into VNs vortex :( But he did argument good both here and in the passive training thread

Yea I get that.  I actually agree with your sentiments on "if there is a ruleset out there you(meaning us players) would like to try, we can do it"., it's actually a club I use to beat people who complain about setting X or Y.

Call it inside knowledge, but I KNOW Todd answered VK directly on the issue, even if I got the reasoning given wrong. (I still think I got it right)

IF there ends up being enough population, and IF turning on FF isn't a huge change in the code base, because it very well could be buried deep into each power's targeting logic, rather than a easy to switch global, then ya in a year or so after release VK maybe should get his shot at sucky FF.  But as a early game experience, or taking Dev time now to custom build a mechanic not wanted or needed by a high percentage of the community, it's just not worth it.

Share this post


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

Yea I get that.  I actually agree with your sentiments on "if there is a ruleset out there you(meaning us players) would like to try, we can do it"., it's actually a club I use to beat people who complain about setting X or Y.

Call it inside knowledge, but I KNOW Todd answered VK directly on the issue, even if I got the reasoning given wrong. (I still think I got it right)

IF there ends up being enough population, and IF turning on FF isn't a huge change in the code base, because it very well could be buried deep into each power's targeting logic, rather than a easy to switch global, then ya in a year or so after release VK maybe should get his shot at sucky FF.  But as a early game experience, or taking Dev time now to custom build a mechanic not wanted or needed by a high percentage of the community, it's just not worth it.

You got it completely wrong.  

I also believe they've already said scaling FF is relatively easy since the campaigns are built for different FF scales anyway.  Whether it's 3 factions, 12 factions, guildmates, or FFA (though from what I've heard shadows and dregs may not end up being separate and there may no longer be a true FFA dregs type band)

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, deiphoboz said:

Right I get it, I just dont see the reason why people hack on the idea, it seems VN really really wants FF to happen. And the game was also advertised as one; "if there is a ruleset out there you(meaning us players) would like to try, we can do it". Thats what I got from one of their first videos when they mentioned all the worlds they would have and different rulesets. I didnt mean to get sucked into VNs vortex :( But he did argument good both here and in the passive training thread

Some of it is presentation. VN can be an insufferable font of buzzword-laden 'leet gamer as he talks down to the unskilled plebes of the forum - though I don't think anyone has convinced him to put his talk to the test in-game yet. :)

I'm another one who generally keeps him muted, but again he made some good posts recently, so it was time for the yearly sampling.

And yeah, I think ACE will try just about anything as a ruleset if people ask for it, but given that friendly fire has been shot down for a few reasons, (least of all the lack of melee mitigations that no one ever mentions) - this was, as Kraken mentioned, an argument vortex.

Edited by raeshlavik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if VN had ever played the game with an excess of 5 people, he'd realise their is already workable 'friendly fire' ruleset between multiple groups - which significantly changes the dynamics of multiple group combat between unofficial factions


caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

if VN had ever played the game with an excess of 5 people, he'd realise their is already workable 'friendly fire' ruleset between multiple groups - which significantly changes the dynamics of multiple group combat between unofficial factions

And if you were ever objective you'd realize I've already called out this softening of FF when people were begging for this to be the hardest FF the game offers and begging for group sizes to be larger so they could more easily navigate around it.  

It's low skill-ceiling and doesn't interest competitive PvPers.  

It actually ties into an issue where testers often want a game only to be as difficult as they themselves can handle, anything too hard for them gets met with heavy resistance, when really the devs should be considering that nature and understanding that pvp games die out fast if people are already at the skill-ceiling at launch.  

I've also already told JTC, if he turns on full FF when the game is close to launch he will see just how beneficial it can be to the game.  I would love for him to do just that and try to prove me wrong, I'd love for him to be openminded enough to even try that before launch but when the game has a larger population.  

Like literally, turn it on for a weekend on one campaign a few weeks before launch.  Either I'm right (I know I am) and he gets to open up another avenue to bring in many many more players) or I'm wrong and he can say he sincerely tried it.  Obviously he wouldn't just do this based on my word, but I'm just ahead of the curve per usual here, this will be a subject that many more will start talking about as the game gets closer to release.  

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

It was months ago, but that was what I got from it. I even remember thinking to myself "Man VK is going to hate that answer".  I'll go see if I can dig it up to make sure I remember it right. 

 

I didn't get it wrong.

https://community.crowfall.com/topic/17222-is-ace-willing-to-try-full-friendly-fire-when-the-game-is-more-polished/?do=findComment&comment=346019

Apologies to those that can't follow the link. There was an entire thread in developers in June on the FF issue, and in this post Todd gives 6 reasons why it won't work.  Two of them match the description I gave. 

I can say I was wrong about them being able to just turn it on, apparently that is easy.

BTW, once again disturbed to see coolwaters posts.  Sigh.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You did get it wrong, you are ignoring the most significant parts of the reasoning lol.  

But yes they did admit it would be fairly easy to enable, which is why it makes even less sense not to try it when they have a playerbase that will more closely resemble launch, and see how players react to it and whether they should scrap it or not.  

I myself already know this is going to be in high demand, I also already know it can work and the arguments against it actually don't shake out that well once you see the actual scenario play out.  It's going to be a huge waste if they don't even try it to see for themselves, and they are going to deprive themselves of a significant playerbase if their rulesets end up too soft.  

The way it ends up playing out with high-skilled players is that you have a lot of coordinated position weaving and timing.  Similar to what you would see in a fight scene in a martial arts movie when multiple people are fighting multiple people but the good guys are coordinating and working together to time their attacks and make cross-opponent attacks.  The more players you scale into this the higher the skill-ceiling becomes for coordinated groups and the less likely it becomes for lower-skilled groups to stand a chance.  This is a good thing, skill should always be heavily rewarded in combat, there should never be a low skill-ceiling where someone can play significantly worse and still have a relatively good chance to win a fight.  

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

You did get it wrong, you are ignoring the most significant parts of the reasoning lol.  

I'm not going to play this game with you. 

Someone else who has access to that post please point out which one of us is off base.  I say the major issue presented was that the powers will suck because they are not built around FF.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I'm not going to play this game with you. 

Someone else who has access to that post please point out which one of us is off base.  I say the major issue presented was that the powers will suck because they are not built around FF, and VK says it's some "social issue" that is the biggest problem.

 

It's not a game, you are literally ignoring the most significant part of the reasoning.  Which is more socially focused and has nothing to do with game mechanics at all.  I understand, human nature to focus on it in a light that makes you feel right, but the reasoning is really quite weak and will never hold up if FF is actually tested near release.  

And especially doesn't hold up in a game that advertised as play2crush.  If it's so play2crush and FF is easy to enable you honestly think the scenario listed is a reasonable excuse not to try it at all before launch?  

One of the reasons that your argument against it is especially weak is because games have had AOE in them for ages.  All of a sudden it's impossible to coordinate if you can take damage from a teammate's AOE but you've magically been dealing with it from enemies for decades.  It's not some new impossible task, it's just something that some struggle to coordinate around.  Full FF makes people think a lot more carefully about when and where to position their abilities, it makes combat a lot less spammy and faceroll.  

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

It is very easy to implement, there is this notion that you have to build for FF from the ground up but it is completely untrue.  You can simply flip the switch and the good players will adjust their coordination and positioning to determine what becomes ideal play under that environment. I'll give you an example.  Say melee abilities are designed to be cleavey and have a wide arc.  Bad players in full FF will be hitting friendlies with this arc due to poor coordination and timing.  Good players will be coordinating different weave patterns for when to go in and out, spacing properly based on their knowledge of the arc, etc.  It actually ends up fitting the game better because you get a more controlled and coordinated combat focused on tactics instead of the frenetic spammy combat you might see in something like gw2.  

The game needs FF to raise the skill-ceiling and attract the closest crossovers, those come form not mobas, but from people playing survival and battle royale games right now, games that are commonly utilizing third person action combat, harsh pvp environments, and of course FF.  

The people that can't handle full FF will think it sucks and tap out.  But they'll be opening up the game to people that want a higher skill-ceiling than what CF currently has to offer.

Anyway hopefully ACE will be openminded enough to try full FF near release when there is a larger population and more people are interested because the release is actually near.  Then they'll have their eyes opened.  But last we heard they have a reason they don't want to try it, and to be frank that reason was quite weak.  

Is it that simple though? I mean, yeah they could make the server reconigze everyone else as enemy but i think the result wouldnt be pretty. I believe in that case the basic strategy would be scatter and dont get in each other way.

That is not to say i couldnt play more carefully and avoid FF but that is only while ranged. Aiming more and hitting a AOE with just the border are possible but that would bring the dps to the floor. Couple this with the easy to land heals and we get nobody-diesFall.

Melee playing is another can of worms. People have problems landing hits properly with the game as it is. Too many cones and celf-centered AOEs too. Going 1x1 with ranged support would be the way to go.

With that said there would be a lot of repercussions like TTK going sky high, healing becoming OP and AOE losing their value since they wont hit many people and probably wont be used as often. All those would need their own balance changes to fix.

That is why i think FF but with immunity for party members is a good compromise. This would avoid most of the balance problems since this would affect only players with poor coordination while also bringing most benefits of FF. Mainly punish clustering (aka zerging) and giving us the freedom to kill whoever we desire.

It is not as hardcore as Full FF but is something i can get behind. I can see this being pretty popular and not being exclusive to the dregs either. Even the ocasional griefing shouldnt be a problem since that is to be expected in a PvP heavy game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

Is it that simple though? I mean, yeah they could make the server reconigze everyone else as enemy but i think the result wouldnt be pretty. I believe in that case the basic strategy would be scatter and dont get in each other way.

That is not to say i couldnt play more carefully and avoid FF but that is only while ranged. Aiming more and hitting a AOE with just the border are possible but that would bring the dps to the floor. Couple this with the easy to land heals and we get nobody-diesFall.

Melee playing is another can of worms. People have problems landing hits properly with the game as it is. Too many cones and celf-centered AOEs too. Going 1x1 with ranged support would be the way to go.

With that said there would be a lot of repercussions like TTK going sky high, healing becoming OP and AOE losing their value since they wont hit many people and probably wont be used as often. All those would need their own balance changes to fix.

That is why i think FF but with immunity for party members is a good compromise. This would avoid most of the balance problems since this would affect only players with poor coordination while also bringing most benefits of FF. Mainly punish clustering (aka zerging) and giving us the freedom to kill whoever we desire.

It is not as hardcore as Full FF but is something i can get behind. I can see this being pretty popular and not being exclusive to the dregs either. Even the ocasional griefing shouldnt be a problem since that is to be expected in a PvP heavy game.

Basic strategy would be for basic players.  More advanced players start timing things and weaving in and out in a coordinated manner with each other.  

I also disagree with regards to melee, if anything landing hits in this game is entirely too easy across the board.  The system gets wonky at times but once you figure out the behavior causing it it's generally easy to adjust.  

As far as balance issues are concerned it really doesn't matter, good players will always adapt and find a way.  You give the example of healing becoming OP, but if healing is OP a new balance is adjusted to where players start playing more aggressive to the edge of what healing can cover.  That may include at times taking intentional cleave damage from teammates just because the rate of damage vs enemies is worth it.

These are all things that good players just simply adapt to.  

Like I honestly believe, not in your case, but overall there is a mental block here where people simply believe full FF can't work just because.  It actually works really easily and people make it out to be some design hurdle that it really isn't at all.  

You can look to RTS games and their large scale battles with AOE abilities that hurt friendly units to see how they might coordinate different units or groupings of units to adjust to that.  Conceptually a lot of that carries over to any game with FF the only difference is that in an RTS you happen to have 1 player controlling each individual unit whereas in a team game you have multiple players coordinating with each other each representing an individual unit.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2018 at 12:02 PM, VIKINGNAIL said:

Full friendly-fire

Zero-import 

Zero pre-trained character progression.

Dregs

Proximity voice chat

Everything but the proximity voice chat (which would be a good post-launch add) sounds like a sick campaign honestly, I'd play it. make the matches last 60 minutes and make winter really extra super scary and close in on an ever-contracting circle in the middle of the map, also add the game to steam and instead of crafting items with dropped or gathered items you win matches to get funbucks and with the funbucks you buy crates and in them are shirts and hats and stuff

Edited by Hi.
edit: then sell extra special crates with extra special hats and shirts and stuff I forgot that part

 

 

Share this post


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

Everything but the proximity voice chat (which would be a good post-launch add) sounds like a sick campaign honestly, I'd play it. make the matches last 60 minutes and make winter really extra super scary and close in on an ever-contracting circle in the middle of the map, also add the game to steam and instead of crafting items with dropped or gathered items you win matches to get funbucks and with the funbucks you buy crates and in them are shirts and hats and stuff

Or you can make the matches last weeks or months and people can still enjoy it because it facilitates good pvp and does not contradict fighting over territory and world conquest at all.  


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

Or you can make the matches last weeks or months and people can still enjoy it because it facilitates good pvp and does not contradict fighting over territory and world conquest at all.  

then you need character progression that extends weeks or months or objectives that span weeks or months, then either you have twitch streamers who get ganked by some jerk in +20 SSS rank gear named VIKINGNAIL, then get mad and quit, or no reason for them to keep playing beyond really brief drop-in lol fun

 

gotta have those quick matches *and* deep complexity to get those millennial eyes on your product friendo, only the NEETS and old grognards like us with deep wallets to buy castles want that long of a loop

Edited by Hi.
I forgot the word 'then' at the very beginning of the post, made the beginning of it sound kinda off. Wasn't totally happy with the result, so I felt it needed the 'then' to really feel like an organic response to the previous post.

 

 

Share this post


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

you need character progression that extends weeks or months or objectives that span weeks or months, then either you have twitch streamers who get ganked by some jerk in +20 SSS rank gear named VIKINGNAIL, then get mad and quit, or no reason for them to keep playing beyond really brief drop-in lol fun

 

gotta have those quick matches *and* deep complexity to get those millennial eyes on your product friendo, only the NEETS and old grognards like us with deep wallets to buy castles want that long of a loop

I guess that's the benefit of having per-campaign passive training instead of overall passive training.  That way people don't have to fall behind and the game can become more friendly to those that weren't just around at the very beginning.  

I think you are a bit misguided about those people though, they are willing to grind out longer sessions in survival games and such.  Maybe what matters most is that the combat is fun eh?  The rest are generally minor details in comparison.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

I guess that's the benefit of having per-campaign passive training instead of overall passive training.  That way people don't have to fall behind and the game can become more friendly to those that weren't just around at the very beginning.  

I think you are a bit misguided about those people though, they are willing to grind out longer sessions in survival games and such.  Maybe what matters most is that the combat is fun eh?  The rest are generally minor details in comparison.

Per-campaign passive training would honestly be an interesting consideration. Maybe split some categories of passives into 'Account' and 'Campaign' or whatever, though then you'd just soften the blow. It would be worth talking about for sure, but I suspect that was both a conversation that would have have had to happen earlier in the development process, and probably actually did happen earlier in the development process, we just weren't there to hear it.

You're not wrong about combat.


 

 

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...