jshiu999

To be honest, I thought Crowfall would be BR-like

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A large Battle Royale that scales from minutes up to a week/month long, with campaigns which are party-modes (solo, duo, squad, guild, Order/Chaose/Balance, God-faction) to choose from. With Crafting and AI PVE on the side, dynamic weather/climate, and a pub-like area (EK). When I first tested Hunger Dome, my initial thought was that they were going to expand the Battle-Royale style by adding larger worlds, refined classes and abilities, larger party sizes etc... . Right now, (I think because there's so little action and engaging stuff) I'm so damn lost on what kind of game the devs are trying to make anymore.

Edited by jshiu999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how you got the impression that this would be a Battle Royale type game. Hunger Dome was just to test combat. If you read all the information they put out leading up to and during the Kickstarter, it was always meant to be MMO/Survival.

Weather effects are coming, as are day/night. There's still a lot of stuff that isn't in the game yet. There's more stuff coming for crafting, including projects (new and better UI), factories, disciplines, enchanting. We are also waiting on thralls, mounts, caravans, campaign win conditions, additional rule sets like dregs and shadow. Larger worlds, additional biomes, better performance. The game is still in pre-alpha, but they are making good progress. Most of the tech is built at this point and they are building content which, art assets aside, is faster to do, as shown by the speed at which they have pushed out 5.5 and 5.6 (and in the near future, 5.7).

The game is much more finished now than it was back in the Hunger Dome days, but it's still not finished. You still need to project ahead and look at what is coming to see what sort of game it will ultimately be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jshiu999 said:

A large Battle Royale that scales from minutes up to a week/month long, with campaigns which are party-modes (solo, duo, squad, guild, Order/Chaose/Balance, God-faction) to choose from. With Crafting and AI PVE on the side, dynamic weather/climate, and a pub-like area (EK). When I first tested Hunger Dome, my initial thought was that they were going to expand the Battle-Royale style by adding larger worlds, refined classes and abilities, larger party sizes etc... . Right now, (I think because there's so little action and engaging stuff) I'm so damn lost on what kind of game the devs are trying to make anymore.

I actually think describing a release-era Campaign as you have as a longer scaled up BR round is in some respects very accurate. Even if the map itself does not physically become constricted and smaller, resources will become more scarce as the season's progress and competition between the combatants gets more intense and concentrated. I do not think your initial impression was wrong.

As for their being so little action, that's entirely not true. There is a lack of hand-holding by the game to be sure, but there is more action now than there almost has ever been in Crowfall. Last night featured some of the most intense fighting I have ever seen, with an entire battle waged over tens of minutes, an hour in one case, hinging on one key moment or engagement - it was amazing. The action is out there, you just need to get in there and see it for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jshiu999 said:

A large Battle Royale that scales from minutes up to a week/month long, with campaigns which are party-modes (solo, duo, squad, guild, Order/Chaose/Balance, God-faction) to choose from. With Crafting and AI PVE on the side, dynamic weather/climate, and a pub-like area (EK). When I first tested Hunger Dome, my initial thought was that they were going to expand the Battle-Royale style by adding larger worlds, refined classes and abilities, larger party sizes etc... . Right now, (I think because there's so little action and engaging stuff) I'm so damn lost on what kind of game the devs are trying to make anymore.

I'd like to see ACE try another Hunger Dome and interesting modes within or outside the campaign system and if performance doesn't improve, that might be a good alternative. They have everything needed to make this happen.

Might want to check out Rend. Has several elements of Crowfall but in a more streamlined/refined design. Been in development 2 years by ex-Blizzard folks.

Looking at Fortnite that has incorporated gathering/building and now Realm Royal with a fantasy twist, it's nice that we are getting quality alternatives to the FPS pew pew get a weapon, attack others, repeat model that has existed forever in lobby games. Games like Rust and Conan or okay but are missing something. Rend kind of looks like a mix of multiple designs.

Good recent video going over things, in English but brief intro in German.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8_n5LPdfwc

Crowfall has a lot of potential but it doesn't seem to be enough MMO or lobby game. Not quite right in the middle as the perfect blend but a weird space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Hunger dome was a fun idea for those short arena combat.  Could be Crowfall's version of Ranked PVP Arenas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s an mmo with br-type/survival elements. Campaign worlds with seasonal life cycles and that are finite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The campaign system is so a guild won't take control of the map, and the game stagnates as a result. 

If you want a battle royal game there are plenty to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zatch said:

The campaign system is so a guild won't take control of the map, and the game stagnates as a result. 

If you want a battle royal game there are plenty to choose from.

What if a guild or alliance controls multiple maps over and over? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jshiu999 said:

A large Battle Royale that scales from minutes up to a week/month long, with campaigns which are party-modes (solo, duo, squad, guild, Order/Chaose/Balance, God-faction) to choose from. With Crafting and AI PVE on the side, dynamic weather/climate, and a pub-like area (EK). When I first tested Hunger Dome, my initial thought was that they were going to expand the Battle-Royale style by adding larger worlds, refined classes and abilities, larger party sizes etc... . Right now, (I think because there's so little action and engaging stuff) I'm so damn lost on what kind of game the devs are trying to make anymore.

You may get your wish sooner or later.  It's confusing because they are making a system of games, not just a single game. 

From the FAQ

Quote

HOW OPEN ARE YOU GUYS TO TRYING NEW IDEAS WITHIN CAMPAIGNS?

Our intention is to make this a community-driven process. We’ll take the best ideas we find, wherever they come from, and give them a shot.

If an idea gains enough traction and fits within the architecture, we’ll try it.

You want to try a world without magic? Cool.
You want to try a world where we introduce cannons as a siege weapon? Sounds interesting.
You want to try a world where each character only has one life – meaning that if you die once, you are permanently banned from the World? Sure, let’s do it.

That’s the cool thing about this approach: we’re turning our community into a massive, game-designing hivemind.

Your looking at a box of lego pieces, and wondering where the spaceship is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, APE said:

What if a guild or alliance controls multiple maps over and over? 

The campaign will have a reset so everyone will start at square one. While it'll still be possible for the above scenario to happen, wiping a guild back to zero allows vanquished foes to have a higher chance of success.

Share this post


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

What if a guild or alliance controls multiple maps over and over? 

Realistically though, they'll eventually burn out, get bored, or just disintegrate as a unit. I've seen it in games like EVE and Albion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Zatch said:

The campaign will have a reset so everyone will start at square one. While it'll still be possible for the above scenario to happen, wiping a guild back to zero allows vanquished foes to have a higher chance of success.

That's if we don't factor in character progression (training, resources, items, vessels, relics) and or campaigns have import rules that even the playing field.

Hopefully there are options where players are basically even beyond their knowledge and skill at the game, but my guess is we'll see more campaigns where it isn't too hard for an established group to start right back up a few steps if not miles a head of lower tier folks.

I backed because of the restart mechanic, but several factors seem to go against it actually being a true restart that one might see a traditional lobby game.

Which I guess is what many want. Their previous actions to carry over and have meaning. Just hope there is an option for those that actually want a relatively even playing field at the start of each match and not based on who won or farmed the most one or twenty campaigns earlier. For new players and those trying to compete based on current resources, makes it difficult.

 

Edited by APE

Share this post


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

That's if we don't factor in character progression (training, resources, items, vessels, relics) and or campaigns have import rules that even the playing field.

Hopefully there are options where players are basically even beyond their knowledge and skill at the game, but my guess is we'll see more campaigns where it isn't too hard for an established group to start right back up a few steps if not miles a head of lower tier folks.

I backed because of the restart mechanic, but several factors seem to go against it actually being a true restart that one might see a traditional lobby game.

Which I guess is what many want. Their previous actions to carry over and have meaning. Just hope there is an option for those that actually want a relatively even playing field at the start of each match and not based on who won or farmed the most one or twenty campaigns earlier. For new players and those trying to compete based on current resources, makes it difficult.

 

This is one of those good ideas, another dimension of the game. This could have its own branches of maps/worlds within it much like the other version of the core game that allows you to take stuff with you. You could choose which version at the start of each campaign along with you faction. Great idea man, it could even be tiered so if there was enough demand, people could be always on a level playing field, a sort of rankings for where you enter the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rykus00 said:

This is one of those good ideas, another dimension of the game. This could have its own branches of maps/worlds within it much like the other version of the core game that allows you to take stuff with you. You could choose which version at the start of each campaign along with you faction. Great idea man, it could even be tiered so if there was enough demand, people could be always on a level playing field, a sort of rankings for where you enter the game!

Personally,  playing with friends trumps playing on a level field. If my friends want to play with stuff they earned in previous worlds in a campaign that they are heavy underdogs, I still would rather get beat with my friends, then win alone, at least in a game that is so multiple player co-dependant.

That's sorta the whole point of a shallow power curve, so that no matter how much material/skills/ whatever, the field is not horribly imbalanced regardless.

But by all means, let's see some worlds that have no imports or ability to bring gains from previous campaigns forward, and let the best campaign models win.

So many of these chicken little sky is falling campaign parameter squabbles are just that, parameter squabbles, that will be able to be adjusted to suit different play styles.

I would even support ACE selling the ability crank out a campaign of your own design.  Pay X crowns and start your own public X month campaign with all the parameters dictated by you.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, APE said:

Personally,  playing with friends trumps playing on a level field. If my friends want to play with stuff they earned in previous worlds in a campaign that they are heavy underdogs, I still would rather get beat with my friends, then win alone, at least in a game that is so multiple player co-dependant.

That's sorta the whole point of a shallow power curve, so that no matter how much material/skills/ whatever, the field is not horribly imbalanced regardless.

But by all means, let's see some worlds that have no imports or ability to bring gains from previous campaigns forward, and let the best campaign models win.

So many of these chicken little sky is falling campaign parameter squabbles are just that, parameter squabbles, that will be able to be adjusted to suit different play styles.

Oh I agree, that would be available on the 'original  path'. Why not give the same option, for people to make friends with other like minded using another rule set? Why not have both? You could even hybrid one rule set into the other as a tiered progression so new guilds that transfer from another game can have an even playing field. They could even plan when to come, hell there could be rivaling guilds from different games have campaign thread worlds spun up for the specific objectives they want. Then they transfer to this game and with their collective sides might be the only players on the servers...

 

Imagine what is possible with what these folks are saying they can do. So much potential here and is why this company will keep my attention for a bit longer.

Edited by Rykus00
quoted wrong post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But to be even more honest, you thought wrong. Fixing numbers in an MMO battlefield waters down the challenge. If I want to play an even-numbers BR, I'll go do that. When I play a PvPMMO I want to be up against the wall with no hope, or alternatively squishing solos with a massive numbers advantage. On the battlefield, almost everything should flow from player decisions, and almost nothing from developer prescriptions.

I played Hunger Dome testing a ton two-three years ago. If anyone here thinks it could hold people's attention when PUBG and Fortnite are out, and Halo is on the way, I don't know what to tell you.

If a studio wants to make a Fantasy-character style BR, replacing guns with magic and machetes with axes, I'd probably give it a shot, but that would be a completely different game than what CF aims to be.

Edited by McTan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/12/2018 at 6:59 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

Your looking at a box of lego pieces, and wondering where the spaceship is.

I'm looking at a box of legos and wondering why some believe they can only build a spaceship when a helicopter, sword, robot, and pencil holder can be made just as easily, if not easier.

On 6/13/2018 at 8:27 AM, Rykus00 said:

This is one of those good ideas, another dimension of the game. This could have its own branches of maps/worlds within it much like the other version of the core game that allows you to take stuff with you. You could choose which version at the start of each campaign along with you faction. Great idea man, it could even be tiered so if there was enough demand, people could be always on a level playing field, a sort of rankings for where you enter the game!

IMO, if people are playing the game, putting in time/effort, winning/losing and enjoying themselves, any number of modes could be possible. I'd enjoy campaigns with fixed training points so we could only train maybe 1 race/class and tradeskill. Or all training is sped up to max in a 3 months period. Or everyone has X resources at the start of the campaign with very few in the world. So many possibilities with what they have so far, not counting what's to hopefully come. To not break the economy/game, they could allow imports (keeping the economy going), but only cosmetic exports (trophies, skins, titles, etc). So people couldn't exploit a mode and amass crazy amounts of resources in a short time.

On 6/13/2018 at 10:04 AM, KrakkenSmacken said:

That's sorta the whole point of a shallow power curve, so that no matter how much material/skills/ whatever, the field is not horribly imbalanced regardless.

But by all means, let's see some worlds that have no imports or ability to bring gains from previous campaigns forward, and let the best campaign models win.

So many of these chicken little sky is falling campaign parameter squabbles are just that, parameter squabbles, that will be able to be adjusted to suit different play styles.

Problem I have with the "shallow power curve" concept is there doesn't seem to be any actual % or definition of what separates someone from one end of the range to the other. Is a high power player 10-50-500% stronger/richer/skilled/more organized than a low power player? It's one thing to say it is a shallow power curve, but another to actually quantify and some how keep it from getting away from itself.

I would like the "best campaign models win" design, but if the devs don't initiate and vocal minorities have their ear, options will be limited. Can read the pretty standard responses to anyone suggesting anything that goes slightly outside the lines or even within the lines that long time fans don't like.

On 6/13/2018 at 10:10 AM, Rykus00 said:

Oh I agree, that would be available on the 'original  path'. Why not give the same option, for people to make friends with other like minded using another rule set? Why not have both? You could even hybrid one rule set into the other as a tiered progression so new guilds that transfer from another game can have an even playing field. They could even plan when to come, hell there could be rivaling guilds from different games have campaign thread worlds spun up for the specific objectives they want. Then they transfer to this game and with their collective sides might be the only players on the servers...

Imagine what is possible with what these folks are saying they can do. So much potential here and is why this company will keep my attention for a bit longer.

Kickstarter had "Tournaments" as a stretch goal. Something that would function with the campaign system while being its own thing. No clue if that will happen. I agree the concept and basic design has a lot of potential. However, might be a bit too ambitious to take full advantage of it anytime soon. If they are now licensing their tech, would be interesting to see a smaller overall game design take some of the features and make more simplified options.

On 6/13/2018 at 4:27 PM, McTan said:

I played Hunger Dome testing a ton two-three years ago. If anyone here thinks it could hold people's attention when PUBG and Fortnite are out, and Halo is on the way, I don't know what to tell you.

If a studio wants to make a Fantasy-character style BR, replacing guns with magic and machetes with axes, I'd probably give it a shot, but that would be a completely different game than what CF aims to be.

You mention that you played HD a ton yet it wouldn't hold people's attention? While I've played PUBG, Fortnite, Halo, they aren't what I'm looking for. Hence throwing money at these companies promising so much. Don't get the view that just because X exists, that Y can't share some similarities. If this was true, PUBG would be closed down. Realm Royale wouldn't have launched. The next 20 BR's wouldn't be in production. There are plenty of players with different (yet similar) tastes for companies to branch out from whatever might be the most popular option.

Rend looks to be a mini-CF with more focus on the shooter side of things but in a fantasy like setting.

Realm Royale is a nice attempt at bringing fantasy to the BR setting.

CF can be many things, that's why I backed at least. If they pitched it as "just another PVP MMO with some new paint," I would not have bothered.

CF doesn't aim to be a single game or at least one way to play. That's the point. It opens up possibilities. How far they take it is yet to be seen.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, APE said:

You mention that you played HD a ton yet it wouldn't hold people's attention? While I've played PUBG, Fortnite, Halo, they aren't what I'm looking for. Hence throwing money at these companies promising so much. Don't get the view that just because X exists, that Y can't share some similarities. If this was true, PUBG would be closed down. Realm Royale wouldn't have launched. The next 20 BR's wouldn't be in production. There are plenty of players with different (yet similar) tastes for companies to branch out from whatever might be the most popular option.

Yes, in hopes of improving the future MMO I wanted to play.

I'm happy to suspend my presumption of whether Hunger Dome could sustain success, but in my opinion other games do the style much better. If CF improved on the games you listed, sure, but it didn't, in my experience. I think they've spoken about letting people create HD-like things in their EKs, so we may get a partial answer about its popularity at a later time. I am open to the possibility, but would be extremely surprised if it had any notable  success.

Edited by McTan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, McTan said:

Yes, in hopes of improving the future MMO I wanted to play.

I'm happy to suspend my presumption of whether Hunger Dome could sustain success, but in my opinion other games do the style much better. If CF improved on the games you listed, sure, but it didn't, in my experience. I think they've spoken about letting people create HD-like things in their EKs, so we may get a partial answer about its popularity at a later time. I am open to the possibility, but would be extremely surprised if it had any notable  success.

With that, should Crowfall have faction based campaigns? Other games do it well if not better from what they've shown/said so far. 

With Camelot Unchained in the works, I find it hard to believe CF's faction model will out impress over a game 100% built with RvR in mind by the guy behind DAoC/WAR. Maybe CF should just be a GvG type game as it is the one area with little success or popularity now or ever in the market.

IMO, CF's system allows features from multiple games/genres to be combined in any number of ways and while some might fall flat, others might be worth playing full time or once in a while for variation.

While some might want to play X campaign mode forever, I'd like to at least have the option to experience the overall game concept in different forms.

That's the thing, if I hate X, I don't have to play it. As long as there are options, what I like can be a little or a lot different than someone else. The "I don't like it so it shouldn't be a thing" view that some have goes against what I believe ACE is going for. Obviously there is limits on what they can do, but the basics of the game and features should allow for quite a lot with minimal effort to provide.

tldr

If you don't want or like BR, don't play it if available.

If you do, great, enjoy.

Assuming it is within ACE's power to provide such an option without great cost or effort that negatively impacts the overall game and others experiences.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, APE said:

With that, should Crowfall have faction based campaigns? Other games do it well if not better from what they've shown/said so far. 

With Camelot Unchained in the works, I find it hard to believe CF's faction model will out impress over a game 100% built with RvR in mind by the guy behind DAoC/WAR. Maybe CF should just be a GvG type game as it is the one area with little success or popularity now or ever in the market.

IMO, CF's system allows features from multiple games/genres to be combined in any number of ways and while some might fall flat, others might be worth playing full time or once in a while for variation.

While some might want to play X campaign mode forever, I'd like to at least have the option to experience the overall game concept in different forms.

That's the thing, if I hate X, I don't have to play it. As long as there are options, what I like can be a little or a lot different than someone else. The "I don't like it so it shouldn't be a thing" view that some have goes against what I believe ACE is going for. Obviously there is limits on what they can do, but the basics of the game and features should allow for quite a lot with minimal effort to provide.

tldr

If you don't want or like BR, don't play it if available.

If you do, great, enjoy.

Assuming it is within ACE's power to provide such an option without great cost or effort that negatively impacts the overall game and others experiences.

I agree with most of your post. But I do not think that I mentioned factions, which are much closer in design and implementation to MMOs and have been planned since Kickstarter reveal. BR and Faction-based PvPMMOs are different enough that your attempt to push my posts down the slippery-slope of: "well, aren't you just saying everything you don't like should not be in the game," is not an accurate portrayal of my position.

I am sure ACE will do BR-style campaigns, and I think they should and hope they are a hit, but I'd simply be surprised if they are.

Edited by McTan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.