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

Is crowfall fundamentally boring?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jah said:

We definitely need the ability to buy/sell with vendors in campaigns. I would be stunned if that feature is not planned. It has to be.

I've been told by others, without citations or quotes mind you, that ACE does not plan on adding vendors or a marketplace to campaigns.

To be honest, if they do not add them, and they also do not make the EK user interface robust enough to allow people to advertise their EK as being a place to trade and buy goods and easy to search for, I'll probably just write off my $1000 backing of this game and say custard it.

I'm not even exaggerating, I love the idea of player-driven economies, I love EVE Online, but EVE Online has marketplaces. You can still play and achieve stuff even if all your friends are offline, heck even if you are the only person online you can still peruse sell orders and buy stuff.

I'm not interested in wasting hours of my life spamming Global chat trying to find somebody to trade with and then meet them in game somewhere at a precise time and location and hooligan around with the command line interface for trading.

Share this post


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

We definitely need the ability to buy/sell with vendors in campaigns. I would be stunned if that feature is not planned. It has to be.

The campaigns that I think may be tricky are the faction campaigns. 

  • Who of the faction gets the valuable shop spaces?
  • Do they all have to be NPC shops in those worlds?
  • What do NPC's pay for upkeep?
  • Is that a viable gold sink in those worlds if NPC's can't go broke?

So many questions about a player driven economy in a world that is faction locked.

Share this post


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

The campaigns that I think may be tricky are the faction campaigns. 

  • Who of the faction gets the valuable shop spaces?
  • Do they all have to be NPC shops in those worlds?
  • What do NPC's pay for upkeep?
  • Is that a viable gold sink in those worlds if NPC's can't go broke?

So many questions about a player driven economy in a world that is faction locked.

For faction campaigns, problem solved very simply by having a central marketplace vendor usable by all faction members at an owned keep.

Add a hefty tax of gold to each order and now you also have a gold sink.

Edited by DocHollidaze
typo

Share this post


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

For faction campaigns, problem solved very simply by having a central marketplace vendor usable by all faction members at an owned keep.

Had a hefty tax of gold to each order and now you also have a gold sink.

  • How much inventory will they carry?
  • How long will they hold onto junk sold to them?
  • If it's a consignment model that all in faction can access, how much logic/work will need to go into it?
  • With a consignment model, what items end up being ignored in the market due to price/cost and does that affect the smooth working of the economy?

Still lots of questions about the NPC trading rules would need to be answered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DocHollidaze said:

I've been told by others, without citations or quotes mind you, that ACE does not plan on adding vendors or a marketplace to campaigns.

They don't have to add them-- they have to let us add them.

I think there is some room for confusion about what they intend with vendor NPCs. They have said they won't have them, but I think that means a vendor NPC that is placed by the game designers, that sells stuff that players did not craft, or buys stuff automatically without a player creating a buy order. That sort of "vendor NPC" is not planned. However, the vendor thralls that we create could also be called a "vendor NPC" and those are much more likely to be allowed in campaigns.

In short, I think they are against central auction houses or vendors that are provided by the game. They are for player-mediated trade, which includes player-owned NPC vendors.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jah said:

They don't have to add them-- they have to let us add them.

I think there is some room for confusion about what they intend with vendor NPCs. They have said they won't have them, but I think that means a vendor NPC that is placed by the game designers, that sells stuff that players did not craft, or buys stuff automatically without a player creating a buy order. That sort of "vendor NPC" is not planned. However, the vendor thralls that we create could also be called a "vendor NPC" and those are much more likely to be allowed in campaigns.

In short, I think they are against central auction houses or vendors that are provided by the game. They are for player-mediated trade, which includes player-owned NPC vendors.

I'm not talking about NPC vendors that sell stuff not crafted by players, or buys junk collected by players - examples that match what you have in WoW.

I'm talking about a marketplace, could be an NPC that you talk to to access it, but it does nothing but provide a space where players can sell things they crafted or harvested, and other players can buy those same things. Buy orders, sell orders.

That is still player-mediated to some degree.

I could see not allowing a central NPC controlled marketplace/auction house in lower than Faction tier campaigns, but a Faction campaign needs to have some way that same-faction players can collaborate on trade that isn't controlled by one small group of players in said Faction. I mean, it is not like the Factions are made organically or you can choose who is in your Faction, so there is no rationale that fits that platform that makes sense to disallow NPC marketplace/auction houses - since the Faction itself is basically made by NPC's or non-player story-based archetypes (the gods).

Share this post


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

I'm not talking about NPC vendors that sell stuff not crafted by players, or buys junk collected by players - examples that match what you have in WoW.

Yea, I didn't think you were. I was saying that if ACE said there won't be NPC vendors in campaigns they were probably talking about traditional vendors like in WoW, not player-controlled vendor thralls.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cloudfly said:

actually no it doesnt make a huge difference, they've already said they don't want people who have been playing for 2-3 years to be able to crap on someone who just logged into the game.

 

and crafting is a corner stone of this game, but also remember being told i wouldn't have to do that in the game if i didn't want to. while sure, i don't have to. just like if i login to wow, i don't have to level. i can sit at level 1 for eternity. but that isn't what they meant by i wouldnt have to craft to play the game. and while maybe later on that may be true, if there are crafters who will be handing out freebies to new players who are guildies. that isn't the case now. i did not buy this game to play albion online. if i want to craft every 5 seconds i can go play that.

training does make a pretty big difference, with a trained/geared druid i can easily tank/kill 3-4 people that are not trained/geared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of response from anyone at ACE to many of these design issues (even to disagree) is troubling, and doing little to assuage my fears that they aren't listening to our feedback outside of bugs and combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samiotis said:

training does make a pretty big difference, with a trained/geared druid i can easily tank/kill 3-4 people that are not trained/geared

The devs said it is shallow power curve and not like WoW so nothing to worry about. If you could tank 20 people, that would be a concern /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Inferni said:

The lack of response from anyone at ACE to many of these design issues (even to disagree) is troubling, and doing little to assuage my fears that they aren't listening to our feedback outside of bugs and combat.

They talk about it in the big money forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samiotis said:

training does make a pretty big difference, with a trained/geared druid i can easily tank/kill 3-4 people that are not trained/geared

This is like complaining that you can't kill a Dominix with a noob ship in EVE.

Anyone suggesting that you should be competent in combat in a 1v1 scenario when you haven't even graduated out of starter gear is really missing the entire point of having a player crafting economy in the first place.

You're not fighting players that are equipped for anything but killing mobs. Allowing a player with literally nothing to lose to be "good enough" to kill a player wearing the equivalent of four players training for six months means that every part of the economy, and thus the entire reward for  winning campaigns and fighting other players (loot) is broken.

Go attempt that scenario with maxed druid training in starter gear and a basic vesseld against four newbies with no training, poorly rolled green vessels, and poor quality advanced gear any crafter can make with a single point in the required trees.

If you're wearing basics or intermediates you are not equipped to fight other players wearing crafted gear. This is necessary if harvesting and crafting is to have any value at all.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Anyone suggesting that you should be competent in combat in a 1v1 scenario when you haven't even graduated out of starter gear is really missing the entire point of having a player crafting economy in the first place.

You're not fighting players that are equipped for anything but killing mobs. Allowing a player with literally nothing to lose to be "good enough" to kill a player wearing the equivalent of four players training for six months means that every part of the economy, and thus the entire reward for  winning campaigns and fighting other players (loot) is broken.

Go attempt that scenario with maxed druid training in starter gear and a basic vesseld against four newbies with no training, poorly rolled green vessels, and poor quality advanced gear any crafter can make with a single point in the required trees.

If you're wearing basics or intermediates you are not equipped to fight other players wearing crafted gear. This is necessary if harvesting and crafting is to have any value at all.

For me, the point of having a player crafted economy is for players to craft things... Has nothing to do with someone's ability to fight other players (lets gate that even further in a PVP game).

Supply and Demand.

Harvesting and crafting have value if the services are needed. Pretty simple.

If gear is lost relatively often through death, looting, and decay, replacements must be obtained.

This has little to do with quality or power of the items and player wearing them.

CF currently seems to have a gear system that requires a lot of effort/time to make something, which results in people wanting to keep those items. So we'll probably end up with softer decay and loot rules being popular.

For a game they've said will have a shallow power curve and easy to get into, being at a disadvantage or just not able to participate effectively until time has passed and or someone has managed to get decent gear seems off.

There are more horizontal ways to do crafting/gear that require more brain power than time/grind power. Same goes for "training" or character building.

A handful of brand new players likely should be at a disadvantage vs a seasoned player, but the extreme doesn't have to be that much. The walls and gates to better things don't have to be that high.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, APE said:

For me, the point of having a player crafted economy is for players to craft things... Has nothing to do with someone's ability to fight other players (lets gate that even further in a PVP game).

Supply and Demand.

Harvesting and crafting have value if the services are needed. Pretty simple.

If gear is lost relatively often through death, looting, and decay, replacements must be obtained.

This has little to do with quality or power of the items and player wearing them.

CF currently seems to have a gear system that requires a lot of effort/time to make something, which results in people wanting to keep those items. So we'll probably end up with softer decay and loot rules being popular.

For a game they've said will have a shallow power curve and easy to get into, being at a disadvantage or just not able to participate effectively until time has passed and or someone has managed to get decent gear seems off.

There are more horizontal ways to do crafting/gear that require more brain power than time/grind power. Same goes for "training" or character building.

A handful of brand new players likely should be at a disadvantage vs a seasoned player, but the extreme doesn't have to be that much. The walls and gates to better things don't have to be that high.

If players don't need crafted gear to actually win fights, there is no demand.

If gear is too cheap to craft, there's no long term world presence for harvesters. You farm for one day at the beginning of a campaign and that's it. Nobody to gank. No reason to fight over the vast majority of the world. No reason to kill mobs.

If gear is lost too often, you end up mired in inventory tetris. When bank space is an intended part of the incentive to take objectives, this is an untenable situation. When your gear breaks too often you have no desire to acquire top quality equipment.

Characters have a shallow power curve. Training has a shallow power curve. This is possible because gear does not, and is equippable by a day one, level one newbie. That's the giant difference between the Crowfall skills/economy paradigm and the EVE one. Skills specialize to require trade, but don't prevent an unskilled player from performing competantly and in every combat role.

Gear is character progression. Gear is the reward for winning and the penalty for losing. Therefore gear has to be a drastic upgrade compared to no gear.

Downplaying the importance of equipment crafted by a player who has invested significant time in specializing in that, and requiring that player to source raw materials from a player that has invested significant time in specializing in that gathering literally breaks the entire design of this game. If I just wanted to fight, I could play games designed to just funnel me directly in to fighting. I want to fight over things that matter.

I'm interested in how you would address these problems and achieve your goal of a more accessible gear paradigm. Every system I've seen try it fails.

You end up in a game where nobody wants the highest tier gear, fighting other players has no meaningful reward, and crafters and gatherers are eliminated from the economy because everyone can easily provide for themselves with no significant opportunity cost in play time. The walls and gates are high specifically to enforce a core design that doesn't allow players to be self sufficient, and a design that GREATLY advantages players with strong supply logistics.

I really don't want to play a game where war is meaningless, equipment is largely ignorable, and ganking a guy with full pockets always resultsin banks full of stuff that is largely useless. If I wanted that, I could play the vast majority of MMOs that aren't crowfall that are designed around accessibility and instant action rather than a game designed around player to player interdependance.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

I'm interested in how you would address these problems and achieve your goal of a more accessible gear paradigm. Every system I've seen try it fails.

For me, winning is the reward so we differ there. I don't need a rank, trophy, pile of rocks, shiny sword, etc to fill accomplished for outplaying others. Those don't hurt, but aren't necessary for a good time. Why I'm looking forward to Dregs rulesets with little to no import and little to no export unless victorious. Considering the nature of these games, some of the joy is simply from destroying what others have built/obtained, I don't even need to have it when the smoke settles. I win, they lose, lets do it again.

Some of the things you mention aren't mutually exclusive. However if you set the line so far one way or another based on your personal wants, this becomes true, for you at least.

Players should need gear to compete. The speed at which they obtain it shouldn't be slow nor require a great deal of non-fun chores. This is a PVP focused game or no? Is it a gather/craft game, where if you are strong willed and determined, one day you to can PVP with enough tree chopping and boar slaying...

Losing gear and needing it replaced on a regular basis shouldn't be scary and should keep gathering and crafting going 24/7. Creating significant gaps in gear power so much that the high end is great and all powerful vs the low end is not "super shallow power curve," to me. Being afraid to lose gear is fine, bring what you are willing to lose, but the cost to obtain it in the first place shouldn't be silly difficult, just more than "not afraid to lose" gear.

Ideally, I'd take a little from DAoC's crafting, GW2's sPVP gear, and CF for a more horizontal gear system. Reward players for skillfully putting together a set and character based on knowledge and performance rather than orange > green, RNG, time account created, etc.

Games have as much meaning as we give them. For someone, winning a campaign might not be the goal but winning a bunch of smaller battles with a couple of friends. Equipment should matter, but it like training shouldn't be what matters the most. Managing strongholds/POIs, banks, inventory seems like something separating those that know how to play and those that don't. If people have too much gear and are upset about it, that's unfortunate.

Plenty of gear/resource sinks. Death - some gear goes poof, other take durability hit - gives some reward while decreasing total item pool - keeps gathering/crafting a live. General use - Durability decay - again, crafters/gathers better get working.

Overall, gear should matter, no doubt. Don't need a bunch of nudists dominating the campaign. However, the initial gear gate and long term ceiling don't need to be overly high. If the game doesn't provide satisfaction and entertainment from playing/winning along with whatever rewards sprinkled in, will be a let down. There are plenty of games that do the endless carrot (gear) treadmill well that have more content and accessible PVP even. I backed CF to compete in campaigns, outplay enemies, work as a team, yadda yadda. Getting sweet legendary gear is not even on the list.

ACE will have to figure out the new player experience in all aspects to keep people logging in past the first experience. Hopefully they have a plan that works. I'd be all for first time players doing some sort of tutorial that ends up with "PVP grade" gear instead of basic "why am I even making and equipping this" stuff. Maybe even get a few pairs of it. However, after a point, be it X deaths, X campaigns joined, X time played, etc they have to actually figure out how to get gear one way or another or be back in "is this tissue paper" gear.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly what you want out of the game is at odds with the game's stated design goals IMO. The survival elements have always been touted as a major feature, and that includes scarcity being debilitating in a combat capacity. "Stuff" isn't supposed to be easy or trivial. "Training" is supposed to be trivial. For the most part, it is.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

"Training" is supposed to be trivial. For the most part, it is.

Then why did Blair and JTodd sit down a year+ ago talking about how you could either make really powerful character or even break your character? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, APE said:

For me, winning is the reward so we differ there. I don't need a rank, trophy, pile of rocks, shiny sword, etc to fill accomplished for outplaying others. Those don't hurt, but aren't necessary for a good time. Why I'm looking forward to Dregs rulesets with little to no import and little to no export unless victorious. Considering the nature of these games, some of the joy is simply from destroying what others have built/obtained, I don't even need to have it when the smoke settles. I win, they lose, lets do it again.

Aside from the mention of destroying what other have built/obtained it sounds like you'd prefer a battleground with short matches and nothing but pvp. How much do you want your opponents to care about what they built/obtained before you destroy it? Do you want them to have worked hard to get it, or would it be fine if they got it free at the start of a match?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 10:36 AM, Jah said:

Aside from the mention of destroying what other have built/obtained it sounds like you'd prefer a battleground with short matches and nothing but pvp. How much do you want your opponents to care about what they built/obtained before you destroy it? Do you want them to have worked hard to get it, or would it be fine if they got it free at the start of a match?

I guess the question is how "hard" should people have to work for it? There's group loss, and individual loss. If an individual has to grind for an hour +,and then spend 20 minutes crafting to acquire one set of armor and maybe a weapon, only to have that set of gear break after a few deaths and have to do it again. I'd consider that a questionable loop.

If a group pools 10s of hours time and effort into a city/stronghold/whatever and that base gets wrecked in only an hour of play, some might consider outright quitting depending on the fun they've been having up to that point. I've seen it happen.

I don't want gear given away freely, but I also don't think harvesting should be the grueling grind it is now for the lower tiers. Right now it's a barrier to entry and a barrier to fun for many people. What would the down side be if white / green gear was significantly easier to craft, BUT broke fast and/or was susceptible to being looted on death, while the higher tier gear took longer and wasn't lootable?

Edited by Helix

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...