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

ACE Q&A for June - Official Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

On the issue of "Sheen added back to Necro Crafting"... I like the Int/Str/Dex/Con/Spt lines...but none of those experimentations directly effect the additive stats (from hands, femurs, eyes, etc) like Crafting Basics or Attack Power or Crit Damage. Adding a Sheen line to effect these non-attribute elements of the vessel would greatly increase the Necromancer's customization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of 6 man groups vs 5man buffs...my hope is that the size of groups can be a variable...ie a knob that can be adjusted from CW to CW. In Hunger Dome we had 4 man groups...8 man groups...10 man groups...so clearly the knob exists. By also making the cap on Heals and Buffs the same variable (ie "effects up to the max # of group members" rather than a hard 5) you've created flexibility and by turning one knob (group size) you have also adjusted the effect size of all of those buffs/heals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gradishar said:

On the issue of 6 man groups vs 5man buffs...my hope is that the size of groups can be a variable...ie a knob that can be adjusted from CW to CW. In Hunger Dome we had 4 man groups...8 man groups...10 man groups...so clearly the knob exists. By also making the cap on Heals and Buffs the same variable (ie "effects up to the max # of group members" rather than a hard 5) you've created flexibility and by turning one knob (group size) you have also adjusted the effect size of all of those buffs/heals.

also lets be honest the "group target" effects are too simple / low impact and would be far more interesting for supports etc if they were aimed effects with greater impact/skill

cough druid grace/barkskin, cleric illumination etc

e.g. if they were aimed short range cone/raycast/ground effects or whatever instead [oh and clerics getting "auto self target" too...compared to something like will-o-wisp or healing rain where you have to manually make that choice]

Edited by Tinnis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do support the review of the YOLO versus measured pips formula 

 

Don't forget, the one EK that no one will judge you for looting your guilds treasury is Anhrez's Doober Shack. Where you can take those long con gains and 'simplify' them to more easily fit in your inventory. While you are unloading your hard earned winnings, swing by the Bazaar and pick up something to celebrate your genius.

LR0tCJt.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

also lets be honest the "group target" effects are too simple / low impact and would be far more interesting for supports etc if they were aimed effects with greater impact/skill

cough druid grace/barkskin, cleric illumination etc

e.g. if they were aimed short range cone/raycast/ground effects or whatever instead [oh and clerics getting "auto self target" too...compared to something like will-o-wisp or healing rain where you have to manually make that choice]

This is where mouselook action combat really falls apart, imo. Targeting is a pain, so you just end up with a bunch of aoe crap that's a lot less interesting. Cones and stuff would help a little, but that's still just a form of aoe. It's damn near impossible to actually do single target stuff, which is what would allow a lot more interesting effects.

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while I definitely appreciate that these Q & A videos are done, I have to say this one is disappointing in a number of ways.

First the question of 5-man groups. 5 is a terribly small group size, and most games far exceed this, including the one CF gets much of it's DNA from, SB. That buffs are capped at 5 is in my opinion pretty much irrelevant given buffs are not the only benefit to being in a group. There are some technical issues there to be sure in terms of who gets the buffs, but I feel it is very much both a step backward in terms of the norm for MMOs to cap group size at 5, and an absurdity in terms of operational effectiveness - I've run sieges with a hundred or more people, and Crowfall is supposed to be a Throne War Simulator with large battles...capping group size at 5 is going to be as ridiculous as it will be nightmarish to manage.

It is even crazier when you consider there is a Leadership Skill Tree, which could be used to grant increased size to those who invest in it. It just seems obvious it should be a thing.

The other thing that really bothered me was @thomasblair's comments about mines and the POI. POI resources actually ARE valued and used, and the fortifications are regularly built up, with there being a reason to do so right now. Yes, in future no doubt there will be more reason to build them up, but every single one of them is built up right now and I am a bit surprised and disappointed this is not known, that what the players are doing, and how it informs design decisions, involves this much disconnection. I am sure they've got their hands full so hopefully this clarifies things - we use the POI resources very much.

As for the concept of POIs as relates to mines, the key element here is not their value as a source of resources in SB or of building materials in CF, but their nature as an 'on a schedule' focus for short-duration PvP. Having something, anything, that players are motivated to go to at a set time is of huge value in and of itself, and CF both absolutely can and absolutely should have this content. In fact, in my opinion, it is very important to have Window of Opportunity-type activity, as it encourages regular activity which during some stretches of the testing process we have not seen. Think of them as daily 'stress test/bug report generation sessions' and their value to the process becomes clear.

Crowfall already has everything needed to add them as well, I outlined one such possible method recently here:
 

I really hope ACE reconsiders the 5-man cap on groups, it should be bigger, not smaller, if Crowfall is going to shake off it's MOBA-vibe and been seen as a legitimate MMO.

Last thing I didn't like here was the bit about mounts for Centaurs. They were probably speaking frivolously when talking about things like carts and sidecars for centaurs, or the goal being for them to carry something...but that's not what a mount is for. A centaur dragging a cart would be slower, have less mobility, not more - it's the complete opposite of the practical benefit of a mount. I'm 99% sure they get that but it just seems really odd that this is where they went for this serious question...

The seemingly obvious way to do mounts for centaurs would be to re-purpose the already-planned Horseshoes - just like with mounts, which have different looks and will perhaps have varying aspects (some for speed, some increase carrying capacity, some cause you to make less noise etc), Horseshoes could do this very well, and with the same kind of art work we see for the mounts, provide the visual flair that a cosmetic store 'skin' item needs to have to sell:

Mount_Portrait_Nightmare2016.png?w=910&q

 

Just cut the flaming feet effect off that model, put it on some Horseshoes and start counting Crowns! :)


My griping aside - and please don't take my criticism too harshly - it's great to see these higher-level issues being wrestled with and the overall progress towards 5.7 and beyond. I can only imagine how full each of your plates must be and how difficult it is to keep everything straight and on your personal radars, with 1 build on Test, another on Live, and 2 or 3 others at various stages of your awareness - reminds me a bit of Inception, or Bernard in Westworld asking, "Is this now?" :D

5.7 is going to be awesome, can't wait to hear more about 5.8! Exciting times!

 

Edited by Anthrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anthrage said:

5.7 is going to be awesome, can't wait to hear more about 5.8! Exciting times!

7:30 "Crafting projects" confirmed for 5.8... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anthrage said:

So, while I definitely appreciate that these Q & A videos are done, I have to say this one is disappointing in a number of ways.

First the question of 5-man groups. 5 is a terribly small group size, and most games far exceed this, including the one CF gets much of it's DNA from, SB. That buffs are capped at 5 is in my opinion pretty much irrelevant given buffs are not the only benefit to being in a group. There are some technical issues there to be sure in terms of who gets the buffs, but I feel it is very much both a step backward in terms of the norm for MMOs to cap group size at 5, and an absurdity in terms of operational effectiveness - I've run sieges with a hundred or more people, and Crowfall is supposed to be a Throne War Simulator with large battles...capping group size at 5 is going to be as ridiculous as it will be nightmarish to manage.

5 is a pretty standard group size for most MMOs. It's usually 4-6. Some games allow you to open it up to a larger group for raids and stuff, or band together multiple groups. I think the idea of being able to put together a "siege" group or something that's just a bunch of 5 man groups together would be the best way to handle it (each 5 man group is it's own entity in terms of buffs/leadership/etc but with the benefits of things like sharing map markers and being able to see party info for the full siege group). You then can organize people in these individual groups into their own squads. That's actually much better for organization and much easier to balance than just massive single groups.

15 minutes ago, Anthrage said:

It is even crazier when you consider there is a Leadership Skill Tree, which could be used to grant increased size to those who invest in it. It just seems obvious it should be a thing.

That's a really cool idea for leadership, I like it. A skill for increasing group size so you can get more coverage from buffs/heals/whatever group specific stuff.

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Svenn said:

5 is a pretty standard group size for most MMOs. It's usually 4-6. Some games allow you to open it up to a larger group for raids and stuff, or band together multiple groups. I think the idea of being able to put together a "siege" group or something that's just a bunch of 5 man groups together would be the best way to handle it (each 5 man group is it's own entity in terms of buffs/leadership/etc but with the benefits of things like sharing map markers and being able to see party info for the full siege group). You then can organize people in these individual groups into their own squads. That's actually much better for organization and much easier to balance than just massive single groups.

That's a really cool idea for leadership, I like it. A skill for increasing group size so you can get more coverage from buffs/heals/whatever group specific stuff.

Most MMOs don't have the strategic and tactical element Crowfall will have - that a war has - those that do, SB, Planetside2 etc - have larger group sizes. And have had for 15 years. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what bigger groups sizes would bring to the table. Except for exploitable things like the disgustings party one-click powers, the leadership buffs, and the (probable) friendly-fire immunity. All of those could be easily exploited should party size be increased.

Five or six (why though?) maximum please. Managing large sieges have nothing to do with the party sizes, more of managing multiple parties kind of thing.

The idea someone brought up of creating another large grouping is solid. Like 5 people one party, 5 parties 1 battalion (random name), 5 batallions one whatmachcalit.

Each could have their own set of benefits. But please no friendly fire immunity, leadership, and party powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way they talked about crafted vessels and free vessels is exactly the logic I think they should apply to crafted equipment and tools and free equipment and tools.

What if instead of a free vessel we could introduce people to vessels by having the crow peck at the respawn statue they want until all the body parts come out, so they can assemble their first vessel?

If that sounds ridiculous hopefully it communicates how ridiculous punching trees feels to me. An annoying and laughable way to begin a game with something that will never happen again.

Besides that I fully support Anthrage from group size to centaur horseshoes (though I still wish CF was not going to have any mounts that move fast, lessens regional warfare, increases Zerg power, and cheapens the world for not much gain, IMO—hopefully mounts use insane amounts of food), but especially would emphasize the point about scheduled POIs.

Both scheduled and persistent POIs should exist. Persistent allows groups of any size to attempt something valuable for their group and really helps fill the idea of “sign on whenever!” And scheduled fills the idea of “sign on now!” involved in planning and coordinating bigger fights with lower stakes than sieges.

Edited by McTan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

I am not sure what bigger groups sizes would bring to the table. Except for exploitable things like the disgustings party one-click powers, the leadership buffs, and the (probable) friendly-fire immunity. All of those could be easily exploited should party size be increased.

Five or six (why though?) maximum please. Managing large sieges have nothing to do with the party sizes, more of managing multiple parties kind of thing.

The idea someone brought up of creating another large grouping is solid. Like 5 people one party, 5 parties 1 battalion (random name), 5 batallions one whatmachcalit.

Each could have their own set of benefits. But please no friendly fire immunity, leadership, and party powers.

Well, I disagree, coming from Shadowbane of course. Managing "5 groups of 10" is alot easier than "10 groups of 5". What happens when there are 100? 150? That is where this game is going to go., at least if optimization and latency gets fixed. I, along with many other SB Vets have seen as many as 4 to 500 people at a siege when it was NA/EU vs. CN/Pac-Rim. Five men groups make no sense in a "large-scale" game centered around siege warfare.... unless you plan on having 100 man servers of course. One has to remember, sure buffs scale, but so does damage delivered.

Believe it or not, larger groups actually help those guilds with smaller numbers. If you're outnumbereed 2 to 1, say 20 V 40, I'd much rather be able to have 10 man groups to adjust composition/configuration. At a max of 5, you severly limit configuration between support and DPS. 

Edited by Armegeddon

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

I am not sure what bigger groups sizes would bring to the table. Except for exploitable things like the disgustings party one-click powers, the leadership buffs, and the (probable) friendly-fire immunity. All of those could be easily exploited should party size be increased.

Five or six (why though?) maximum please. Managing large sieges have nothing to do with the party sizes, more of managing multiple parties kind of thing.

The idea someone brought up of creating another large grouping is solid. Like 5 people one party, 5 parties 1 battalion (random name), 5 batallions one whatmachcalit.

Each could have their own set of benefits. But please no friendly fire immunity, leadership, and party powers.

Bigger group sizes brings quite a bit to the table...many powers for example, such as some heals, only work on group members. There are probably a dozen important benefits to larger groups that are entirely legitimate and desirable, so I don't know how seriously to take this statement.

Managing large sieges does get easier with large party sizes as well, whether or not larger entities such as raid parties and so on exist. I've run hundreds, it makes a difference.

Leadership is already group-based, as is friendly fire immunity - why do you want to make these changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Anthrage said:

Bigger group sizes brings quite a bit to the table...many powers for example, such as some heals, only work on group members.

That's exactly why the group sizes need to be small. Since the game is mouselook action combat with no targeting (well, without being able to just pick a target out of a crowd) everything has to be AoE. The larger the group size the more powerful group buffs, heals, etc become.

They could put strict limits so that "This heal only hits 5 group members" but then the targeting becomes worse. Now there's one person in your group that needs healing, you can't pick them, and the AoE will randomly pick 5 people in that cluster of your 50 group members to heal... and it's probably not the one you want.

Like I said, for organization I'd absolutely like to see "siege groups" which are just multiple 5 man groups in one larger group... but individual group sizes have to stay small for the actual gameplay to work simply because it's not a tab targeting system.

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much what Svenn said.

I think making a bigger group that is not a party would be a win-win for everyone. My grip with with huge parties is that it gives too many easy benefits to a large group of people.

The easy group heals (which someone even said wanted to see on bigger groups) and the leadership passive are actually (in my book) already a tad too much as is. Double the party size and things will go awry.

Too big of a party size seems like favouring mindless grouping. 2 teams of 5 working together seems better than a group of 10 with each half doing their own thing while enjoying benefits they aren't due.

And if we are talking about hundreds then 5 or 10 doesn't make that much difference anymore.

Edited by BarriaKarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Svenn said:

That's exactly why the group sizes need to be small. Since the game is mouselook action combat with no targeting (well, without being able to just pick a target out of a crowd) everything has to be AoE. The larger the group size the more powerful group buffs, heals, etc become.

They could put strict limits so that "This heal only hits 5 group members" but then the targeting becomes worse. Now there's one person in your group that needs healing, you can't pick them, and the AoE will randomly pick 5 people in that cluster of your 50 group members to heal... and it's probably not the one you want.

Like I said, for organization I'd absolutely like to see "siege groups" which are just multiple 5 man groups in one larger group... but individual group sizes have to stay small for the actual gameplay to work simply because it's not a tab targeting system.

Yep. Also keeping the group sizes small actually opens up the potential for friendly fire to players outside your party. This could potentially be effective for zerg busting.

Full friendly fire obviously wouldn't work (even though some dummies who don't actually play the game might argue this). I think having to coordinate friendly fire between parties *MIGHT* work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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