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

Intended Play Style of Warfare?


Jht
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are players going to be encouraged to make their own unique builds, or will they be encouraged to roll spec groups like in Shadowbane, and essentially just zerg cookie cutter builds which are most effective? 

Which is the intended system? 

A friend of mine highly enjoys the Shadowbane warfare system of spec groups, whereas I feel it is no fun. I think warfare is more fun when a guild or nation is comprised of people playing their actual characters and fighting with the character they've built for themselves and enjoy, opposed to switching to their alt spec groups for maximum meta. 

What are your opinions on the matter? 

Does anyone know which system will be favored? 

Edited by Jht
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( Is really no one concerned about this? I would have posted it in a more appropriate section for such a question, but I'm not allowed to.

If no one is concerned about it, it will just ensure that it becomes like the Shadowbane system of nothing but the same builds being used in every fight and a really boring meta that doesn't at all encourage unique builds. 

Which is fine if that's the intended system - I just want someone to say so ahead of time so I don't get my hopes up for a game about unique and dynamic builds which ends up really being about rolling specs and adhering to a very shallow meta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a group game, so building spec groups will be important. Cookie cutter builds with no diversity, however, would indicate a balance problem. So we don't know the answer right now because the current development phase is testing mechanics and foundation systems, focus on balancing will happen later.

tiPrpwh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually expected more from this game like idea is cool about survival , campaign and so on , but as I played this game more than a week I noticed that's its just another group to win game , nothing unique just groups running with 20 buffs and using best builds for parties , I don't even talk how BAAAD skills system is but well i still will give it a try , hopefully something will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, AsYouRunAway said:

I've actually expected more from this game like idea is cool about survival , campaign and so on , but as I played this game more than a week I noticed that's its just another group to win game , nothing unique just groups running with 20 buffs and using best builds for parties , I don't even talk how BAAAD skills system is but well i still will give it a try , hopefully something will change.

I agree. Hopefully, crowfall doesn't end up like darkfall or similar games where everyone just zergs until everyone sees how boring and stupid this is and quits.

 

Crowfall Wiki

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion (which I am completely okay with if others disagree) these things would help:

  • Make AoEs hit everyone so that AoE spam is less viable due to damaging allies in large fights. I don't know if this is currently even a problem, but its something that comes to mind in warfare esque combat. 
  • Make buffs weaker as they accumulate. So having every buff isn't necessarily best, just most well-rounded, whereas a having single stat buff increases that single stat my substantially more. Then buffs and managing buffs becomes more important and logic based opposed to just being a matter of spec groups to acquire every buff. 
  • Don't allow for a shallow basic meta. Reward diversity and creativity. The more freedom in build variations the better. Don't set redundant limits to the possibilities of builds, so that people are encouraged to try stuff that hasn't been done opposed to doing what currently works best over and over. 

The issue of meta cookie cutter builds is assured unless there are systems specifically put in place to prevent and discourage it. From the sounds of it people are already disliking the zerg/meta style of it.

There just needs to be many facets to the options of builds, and total freedom within them. Balance in chaos. The more limits you put the more easily a basic meta develops.

For Example:

If 1 Race only has access to 3 Classes and each of those Classes only has access to 5 Disciplines - that really isn't very much variation, and withing a month the "best" combination will be found.

If 1 Race has access to ALL classes and those classes have access to ALL disciplines - no one can know what is best, there are too many combinations and too much limitation by time-based progression. Then people are rewarded for pursuing their interests opposed to right out of the gate being funneled toward one of a set of predetermined possibilities. Consequences, not limitations; let people build what they want and let time determine what works. 

Just my opinion. These things worry me though.

Edited by Jht
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can see how some people may find spec groups to be restricting, I found it to be one of the best parts of Shadowbane. Spec groups were designed around builds, and yes, some guilds and eventually the server popuation would run pretty much the same thing, but there is more detail to this depiction than may be evident.

First, spec groups are the result of a good deal of testing, experimentation and theorycraft. This is a fantastic and enjoyable process, and while it is true that it eventually produces what is most effective in general, all-purpose use, it does more than that.

That brings me to the second point - the discovery of unusual, highly specialized off-spec builds, a natural consequence of the process of theorycrafting and designing spec groups. In some cases, you will come up with something that is the direct opposite in nature of the cookie-cutter builds and their effects on combat that the OP is concerned about. In this regard, sometimes a spec group will be highly vulnerable to these counter-meta builds, and I personally took advantage of this many times in SB.

Third, no matter what mechanics you put in place, efficiency and effectiveness will always be selected for when it comes to force composition, and if you are not doing this, then you are failing in your first and primary task as a battle commander. Spec groups may seem boring to some, but you don't throw down your gun and pick up an atlatl just so you can be different.

Now all of that said, while I do not feel that you can nor should code out spec groups, I do think that it is necessary to provide a system which has enough diversity and sufficiently rich mechanics to not only allow for but require diversity of builds. Shadowbane was a good example in this regard, as even though certain things at different eras of the game became established spec, game elements like resist jewelry, shrine boons and siege spires provided some tools that could be leveraged against a particular spec. In the context of Crowfall, my hope and expectation is that this will be the case to an even greater degree, because CF has a few tools and mechanics that SB did not - and the current state of the game during this test is not the final form of that.

As we get closer and closer to the final form the race and class combinations will take in release, as more and more fixes occur, we are already seeing an increase in the number of viable classes and builds, and this is already impacting what we are seeing on the field. I know our think-tank comes up with something new, and viable, every week - and there is one build in particular than hasn't been used in combat simply because it is so damn good and we don't want people copying it...

In short, while I agree the problem the OP describes CAN exist, I do not think it DOES exist in Crowfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheBloodyPoint said:

While I can see how some people may find spec groups to be restricting, I found it to be one of the best parts of Shadowbane. Spec groups were designed around builds, and yes, some guilds and eventually the server popuation would run pretty much the same thing, but there is more detail to this depiction than may be evident.

First, spec groups are the result of a good deal of testing, experimentation and theorycraft. This is a fantastic and enjoyable process, and while it is true that it eventually produces what is most effective in general, all-purpose use, it does more than that.

That brings me to the second point - the discovery of unusual, highly specialized off-spec builds, a natural consequence of the process of theorycrafting and designing spec groups. In some cases, you will come up with something that is the direct opposite in nature of the cookie-cutter builds and their effects on combat that the OP is concerned about. In this regard, sometimes a spec group will be highly vulnerable to these counter-meta builds, and I personally took advantage of this many times in SB.

Third, no matter what mechanics you put in place, efficiency and effectiveness will always be selected for when it comes to force composition, and if you are not doing this, then you are failing in your first and primary task as a battle commander. Spec groups may seem boring to some, but you don't throw down your gun and pick up an atlatl just so you can be different.

Now all of that said, while I do not feel that you can nor should code out spec groups, I do think that it is necessary to provide a system which has enough diversity and sufficiently rich mechanics to not only allow for but require diversity of builds. Shadowbane was a good example in this regard, as even though certain things at different eras of the game became established spec, game elements like resist jewelry, shrine boons and siege spires provided some tools that could be leveraged against a particular spec. In the context of Crowfall, my hope and expectation is that this will be the case to an even greater degree, because CF has a few tools and mechanics that SB did not - and the current state of the game during this test is not the final form of that.

As we get closer and closer to the final form the race and class combinations will take in release, as more and more fixes occur, we are already seeing an increase in the number of viable classes and builds, and this is already impacting what we are seeing on the field. I know our think-tank comes up with something new, and viable, every week - and there is one build in particular than hasn't been used in combat simply because it is so damn good and we don't want people copying it...

In short, while I agree the problem the OP describes CAN exist, I do not think it DOES exist in Crowfall.

I respect your opinions. I definitely agree the process behind creating specs, particularly the theory crafting, is very fun. I don't think spec groups should be coded out or anything of that nature, I just hope that there is truly enough variation and build freedom to prevent things like guilds having mandatory spec groups, and constantly fighting the same (or extremely similar) builds even in open world PvP.

I think you bring up an extremely good point in that the overuse of a spec leaves it vulnerable to other builds, but my fear with that is it just becoming a big game of spec rock/paper/scissors dependent on the patch. 

I wasn't trying to accuse CF of having these problems already, I'm just extremely hopeful they never arise. I appreciate your write up, you highlight the good aspects of specs and why they aren't they end of the world very well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jht said:

:( Is really no one concerned about this? I would have posted it in a more appropriate section for such a question, but I'm not allowed to.

If no one is concerned about it, it will just ensure that it becomes like the Shadowbane system of nothing but the same builds being used in every fight and a really boring meta that doesn't at all encourage unique builds. 

Which is fine if that's the intended system - I just want someone to say so ahead of time so I don't get my hopes up for a game about unique and dynamic builds which ends up really being about rolling specs and adhering to a very shallow meta. 

What should the game care about this? It is a concern completely in the realm of meta, so up to the players. You don't like it? Make a guild full of people who want to play whatever they want.

 

"If 1 Race only has access to 3 Classes and each of those Classes only has access to 5 Disciplines - that really isn't very much variation, and withing a month the "best" combination will be found."

No, the opposite will occur. The more variations there are the more impossible it is to balance the classes so that as many as possible of their variations are meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DocHollidaze said:

No, the opposite will occur. The more variations there are the more impossible it is to balance the classes so that as many as possible of their variations are meaningful.

That method has been used/tested for the better part of two decades and less builds simply DOES NOT equal more balance. Absolute fallacy. It isn't at all impossible to balance things with less limitations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

different campaigns may have different rules. Some may have buffs to magic or melee or to a race. Some may boost LMB skills while some may lower LMB damage. Some may have higher healing others with very little healing. CC time could be increased or decreased.  

Some builds will rely on certain Disciplines which might not even be available in certain campaigns or be very rare.

 

I doubt you'll find a perfect build for every campaign.

etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DocHollidaze said:

 

That method has been tested/used for the better part of two decades and more builds simply does not equal more balance. What you're asserting is an absolute fallacy.

No patients for your type, sorry. You're wrong and trying to troll about it. Ineffectively I might add. 

Everyone else comes in to add their input or opinions or hopes, you come in to essentially complain about statements. Remove yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jht said:

No patients for your type, sorry. You're wrong and trying to troll about it. Ineffectively I might add. 

Everyone else comes in to add their input or opinions or hopes, you come in to essentially complain about statements. Remove yourself. 

No, I simply pointed out quite simply how baseless your assertion was by parroting it back.

Feel free to keep making up bullsht though. lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy Doc, Jht is new here.  There's no need to be rude.

 

What we've seen so far is that one or two people need to fill specific roles, and then from there people have a *ton* of flexibility to do what they want; but the meta changes every patch.  For example, Standard Bearer used to be a must have for tanks, but not any more.  For some classes, there is a definite "best build," for others it's too situational to call.  Also, you may not be able to get your cookie cutter build depending on resources in campaign!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2018 at 8:16 PM, Kith said:

Easy Doc, Jht is new here.  There's no need to be rude.

 

What we've seen so far is that one or two people need to fill specific roles, and then from there people have a *ton* of flexibility to do what they want; but the meta changes every patch.  For example, Standard Bearer used to be a must have for tanks, but not any more.  For some classes, there is a definite "best build," for others it's too situational to call.  Also, you may not be able to get your cookie cutter build depending on resources in campaign!

On top of that they can also plain out limit what races and classes can be used, like they could do a elf vs stoneborns (CF's version of dwarves for instance), or something like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...