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

Class/Race identity in 5.8

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Omen said:

I don't understand why people think this way.... Not everyone cares about being on top of the meta-game... And regardless your character won't be anywhere close to useless.. As I've heard you and others say a thousand times on these forums, this game isn't meant to be played solo... If people don't like the game, they will give up and leave... If they do like the game they'll stay... pretty simple really. But the new system DOES take away from the identity aspect of the game that people are craving and can't be found anywhere else. The new changes may be for the better or for the worse but they definitely take away from the player's ability to form an identity separate from everyone else.... Simply because now everyone can do and be anything on the same level and at all times... It's frustrating to see them rushing to finish the game and cutting short the true foundations of their vision.

What does this even mean?  Identity game. Form an identity, etc.

YOU form an identity, not the game systems. If you want to be the best known assassin, then that falls on you to be the best known assassin.

Share this post


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

Maybe if all of the trees branched more to accomadate some higher end character definition akin to the old system it could be "similar", but there was more than just bonuses to weapons and armor in the old system.

Yeah they were bonuses to the same stats weapons, armor, and vessels give you, but that only worked if you were playing a certain race or class.

Or they were bonuses that give you the same stats that the crafting and gathering lines give you.

There wasn't "higher end character definition"

I'm hard pressed to think of a single stat in that system that wasn't literally a re-hash of stats obtainable elsewhere, only with more limitations.

The only thing that separated it meaningfully from the trees that remain was it pigeonholed you in to specific race/class combos.

Share this post


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

Yeah they were bonuses to the same stats weapons, armor, and vessels give you, but that only worked if you were playing a certain race or class.

Or they were bonuses that give you the same stats that the crafting and gathering lines give you.

There wasn't "higher end character definition"

I'm hard pressed to think of a single stat in that system that wasn't literally a re-hash of stats obtainable elsewhere, only with more limitations.

The only thing that separated it meaningfully from the trees that remain was it pigeonholed you in to specific race/class combos.

Yes, being able to reach caps in different ways does provide flexibility, but the passive training acted as your account's starting place for each campaign, so it was a little different on its contribution to versatility. The trait system overwrite makes sense from the perspective of vessel progression, but what the passive system did offer was a form of investment that was not tied directly to the ongoing game economy or import/export limitations and that gave players an incentive to stick with something, much like the remaining passive training still does. In the premise of the EK player estate, a crafted collection based system would similarly provide this in whichever way players wanted to invest in their "heritage" for class and race bonuses. I like the idea of the crows and think in their concept of past lives it is a missed opportunity to not provide players a system to inherit those experiences for their characters.

Edited by Lightsig

Share this post


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

The beginning....

I just don't take kindly to people calling something stupid when it's only preferential, but if you want to dredge that up again, by all means do what you feel is most important in this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with the premise that sub-optimal play should be discouraged because I think that is too short-sighted for a large group/guild game. Arguably CF would do better if it encouraged strong identity building in order to weather the losses that will be suffered (end of campaign asset loss as well as true CW loss).

CF is not an RPG, but it's also not a MOBA, where identity is shed for optimal composition. 

I didn't finish the whole thread, but it occurs to me that this issue is alleviated by rule-restricted campaign worlds. I know my Dwarf-only/Dwarf-main guild will seek out CWs that enforce deity-based or race-based guilds or win conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, McTan said:

I do not agree with the premise that sub-optimal play should be discouraged because I think that is too short-sighted for a large group/guild game. Arguably CF would do better if it encouraged strong identity building in order to weather the losses that will be suffered (end of campaign asset loss as well as true CW loss).

CF is not an RPG, but it's also not a MOBA, where identity is shed for optimal composition. 

I didn't finish the whole thread, but it occurs to me that this issue is alleviated by rule-restricted campaign worlds. I know my Dwarf-only/Dwarf-main guild will seek out CWs that enforce deity-based or race-based guilds or win conditions.

Very much this.

Almost all of OP's vessel flipping concerns could be addressed by two campaign specific rules.

  • One vessel per account in the world limit.
  • No unlocking or deleting of vessels associated with the campaign until it closes.

In fact, if you want to go all ham on a RP world, make the campaign take a very long time, force the race/class pick to be locked in at the start, and only allow that player to upgraded that race/class type through the whole campaign.

No need to make other players have to be obligated to what has now been admitted as a being preferencial by the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artcraft should make the two systems of talents and passive training interact in some way. If we could swap out talents we've unlocked from the passive training then it wouldn't be a flat increase of stats. A system of trade-offs, leveling to plug them in, etc.

Artcraft has basically stated they want passives to be just that, passively stacking stats. If these passives have to stay, then the amounts should be lower greatly. It would be a lot nicer if the vessel tree came back in some fashion, instead of combat training. Start off with a "basic vessel tree" then a race, a class. This would mean you would go through the Fae tree first then end with the Fae Assassin tree. Just make the basic tree much much bigger.

 

Share this post


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

Yes, being able to reach caps in different ways does provide flexibility, but the passive training acted as your account's starting place for each campaign, so it was a little different on its contribution to versatility. The trait system overwrite makes sense from the perspective of vessel progression, but what the passive system did offer was a form of investment that was not tied directly to the ongoing game economy or import/export limitations and that gave players an incentive to stick with something, much like the remaining passive training still does. In the premise of the EK player estate, a crafted collection based system would similarly provide this in whichever way players wanted to invest in their "heritage" for class and race bonuses. I like the idea of the crows and think in their concept of past lives it is a missed opportunity to not provide players a system to inherit those experiences for their characters.

Vessels were always intended your starting points for campaigns. Even no import campaigns.

Share this post


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

I do not agree with the premise that sub-optimal play should be discouraged because I think that is too short-sighted for a large group/guild game. Arguably CF would do better if it encouraged strong identity building in order to weather the losses that will be suffered (end of campaign asset loss as well as true CW loss).

CF is not an RPG, but it's also not a MOBA, where identity is shed for optimal composition. 

I didn't finish the whole thread, but it occurs to me that this issue is alleviated by rule-restricted campaign worlds. I know my Dwarf-only/Dwarf-main guild will seek out CWs that enforce deity-based or race-based guilds or win conditions.

This is EXACTLY the model shadowbane usedwith the lore server, and it worked well. I really enjoyed the lore server and have even discussed theoretical models for a similar system for crowfall campaigns because its cool.

At the end of the day, though, what separates stuff like campaigns from passive training is that passive training is a "must" and everything else is a "can"

Any system tied to passive training reverberates through the entire game, while any system tied to gear, vessels, xp, etc. can be variable on a per campaign basis.

When I say I'm against systems that enforce sub-optimal play what I mean is that I'm against systems that actively prevent players from playing optimally in a chosen environment. In the case of race limited or lore-style campaigns, that "sub optimal" template actually isn't. If the campaign is stoneborne versus elves, and you're playing stoneborne, the stoneborne is the optimal choice for that team.

My issue with the race/class passive training is that players that hadn't opted in to stoneborne and its associated class trains months prior to that campaign starting are essentially forced to play it at a disadvantage, which ultimately hurts the potential variance of campaign rulesets and amount of the playerbase incentivized to participate.

I literally never play minotaurs, but if a campaign started that was, say, monsters versus men... I might want to. The previous training model would either dictate my faction ahead of time (and that of my guild, who may have different preferences) or at the very worst put me in a position where my ONLY option for that campaign is to play suboptimally, in effect excluding me.

Edited by PopeUrban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting, and I now recall why I get the "RPG vibe", it's because, and they also reiterated this in the December Special Q&A Livestream, Crowfall is a throne war simulator and they want it to be like a season of Game of Thrones. They also say they have no intention to create a linear narrative, which is good because it is not very sustainable for smaller companies to make narrative driven MMOs. However, Game of Thrones has an extreme focus on character identities. You're not a Stark if you're an assassin hailing from Essos (Arya is not FROM Essos, btw). I'm not saying they should be an analog to GoT but to use this as a selling point while simultaneously having zero account level anchors for character identity is antithetical to the notion of "a season of Game of Thrones".

 

What part are you confused by @Jah?

Edited by Lightsig
Fishing for knee-jerkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lightsig said:

What part are you confused by @Jah?

"zero account level anchors for character identity is antithetical to the notion of "a season of Game of Thrones"."

It just doesn't make any sense to me. I've never considered "account-level anchors" to be a hallmark of either Game of Thrones or RPGs.

Also, Crowfall is an RPG. And most RPGs allow people to play multiple characters. It would be very rare for an RPG to force you at the "account level" into one path.

https://crowfall.com/en/faq/general/general/

Quote

Crowfall is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)

 

Share this post


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

"zero account level anchors for character identity is antithetical to the notion of "a season of Game of Thrones"."

It just doesn't make any sense to me. I've never considered "account-level anchors" to be a hallmark of either Game of Thrones or RPGs.

Also, Crowfall is an RPG. And most RPGs allow people to play multiple characters. It would be very rare for an RPG to force you at the "account level" into one path.

https://crowfall.com/en/faq/general/general/

 

Name any MMORPG where there isn't an anchor of player investment, mainly time, resulting in the definition of character's traits and abilities. Typically this is in the form of generic level grinds, but they operate around a range of expected time to complete which forms the basis of class or race identity as something "fixed" to the account and the time for investing in that character becomes the anchor. Since this is not a feature included in the factory driven sacrifice system, it is lacking. 

Share this post


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

Name any MMORPG where there isn't an anchor of player investment, mainly time, resulting in the definition of character's traits and abilities. Typically this is in the form of generic level grinds, but they operate around a range of expected time to complete which forms the basis of class or race identity as something "fixed" to the account and the time for investing in that character becomes the anchor. Since this is not a feature included in the factory driven sacrifice system, it is lacking. 

So the one thing they most certainly promised to take out or do dramatically differently than the rest of the genre, character level grinding, is the thing your now complaining they don't have?

Talk about misreading the intent of the messages ACE has been sending.  

For the record, I have NEVER seen a game where it was "fixed to the account".  It has always been a effort=progress sort of thing.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

Name any MMORPG where there isn't an anchor of player investment, mainly time, resulting in the definition of character's traits and abilities. Typically this is in the form of generic level grinds, but they operate around a range of expected time to complete which forms the basis of class or race identity as something "fixed" to the account and the time for investing in that character becomes the anchor. Since this is not a feature included in the factory driven sacrifice system, it is lacking. 

Shadowbane. Sure, you had to grind for a few hours to level. But that is just like Crowfall.

Either way, I am still not seeing how "account-level anchors" are important to being a "season of Game of Thrones."

Your identity will definitely be formed by your investment of effort in Crowfall in myriad ways. That is not missing.

Share this post


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

So the one thing they most certainly promised to take out or do dramatically differently than the rest of the genre, character level grinding, is the thing your now complaining they don't have?

Talk about misreading the intent of the messages ACE has been sending.  

This anchor existed as passive training. Didn't say we needed the time grind expressed through character levels. You're misinterpreting.

Edited by Lightsig

Share this post


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

This anchor existed as passive training. Didn't say we needed the time grind expressed through characyer level. You're misinterpreting.

You still missed the intent, which has not changed since day one.

That intent being that players coming in with only casual time available could compete with players with dedicated time. 

Now that has expanded for the better, so that casual new players can be on at least a partially competitive level with veterans.  

What your lamenting ACE has changed, is probably the best thing that could have happened for the majority of players.

Share this post


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

Shadowbane. Sure, you had to grind for a few hours to level. But that is just like Crowfall.

Either way, I am still not seeing how "account-level anchors" are important to being a "season of Game of Thrones."

Your identity will definitely be formed by your investment of effort in Crowfall in myriad ways. That is not missing.

Shadowbane didn't reset, did it? So, it stands to reason that you were accumulating some type of wealth and definition to your characters on your account.

SWG could also have a profession leveled in a day, but it didn't act as the anchor, it was your long term investments that accumulated gear and wealth that gave your characters definition. Having the opportunity to perform this in each campaign is not an equivalent to that system, because those benefits are ultimately lost and therefore so it is not an anchor in the sense that it has existed before in pretty much any MMORPG.

Share this post


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

Shadowbane didn't reset, did it? So, it stands to reason that you were accumulating some type of wealth and definition to your characters on your account.

Shadowbane did, in fact reset. It just wasn't heralded in the way it is for Crowfall. When servers got stale they would wipe them and make new ones.

They even had varying import restrictions based on different campaigns. There were no import servers, limited import servers, and servers with no import restrictions.

So yes, in Shadowbane you accumulated wealth and identity over time just like you will in Crowfall.

Share this post


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

You still missed the intent, which has not changed since day one.

That intent being that players coming in with only casual time available could compete with players with dedicated time. 

Now that has expanded for the better, so that casual new players can be on at least a partially competitive level with veterans.  

What your lamenting ACE has changed, is probably the best thing that could have happened for the majority of players.

Passive training was a benefit to the casual players more than the current system, it's just less volatile in the perspective of balance changes and campaign ruleset flexibility. It doesn't benefit casual players in the same way and it is equally dismissing the core component of account level identity that is in my opinion a staple of MMORPGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...