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

The Role of Negativity in Crowfall

Recommended Posts

I would be curious what people feel the critical commercialization failings of Shadowbane were, and how does Crowfall address them? Were these the negativity features outlined by the OP?

Share this post


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

I would be curious what people feel the critical commercialization failings of Shadowbane were, and how does Crowfall address them? Were these the negativity features outlined by the OP?

2003 56k dialup and poorly made socks computers were a factor; how many people had dedicated gaming PC’s and high speed connections?Most MMO’s released only lasted a few years and SB was no different.  UBIsoft pushed the game out of dev early. There were so many exploits at release.  PvP mmos cannabilze their pops; you can only lose so many times before you go play a different game.  There’s more than a few reasons the game died.  

 2018 gaming is very different than 2003.  We have high speed internet, we have pcs that are magnitudes better, ease of information and voice coms are readily avialable.  

CF is going to try and slow down the trickle of leaving people with servers having life spans, dedicated crafters to create a lasting intricate economy, faction play for guildless losers, dregs so guilds can fight for dominance and EKs replicate Khar like safeholds for decorative or commercial prosperity.  Will it work?  Idk.  Do I want it to?  Yep. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

Everyone would agree that performance is extremely important to the success of Crowfall, and it isn't close to what it needs to be at. For someone who doesn't think the game has a modicum of a chance to achieve the performance it needs you sure are on the forums everyday talking about it. 

Yes I am talking about it. Hopefully the Dev's will recode their backend. Sure it will take manpower and time, probably delaying launch till 2020, but I feel its the most important issue that crowfall faces. Many of the other issues like balance, skills, rulesets, crafting/resource variables are small potatoes that can be addressed later in dev cycle. If few folks complain about their netcode the dev's might just keep pushing on to launch. I want the game to succeed but I don't see any value to keeping silent about major flaws. Perhaps if the dev's actually engaged the playerbase on the forums and spoke of these or heck, any issues I would not feel the need to speak up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

Yes I am talking about it. Hopefully the Dev's will recode their backend. Sure it will take manpower and time, probably delaying launch till 2020, but I feel its the most important issue that crowfall faces. Many of the other issues like balance, skills, rulesets, crafting/resource variables are small potatoes that can be addressed later in dev cycle. If few folks complain about their netcode the dev's might just keep pushing on to launch. I want the game to succeed but I don't see any value to keeping silent about major flaws. Perhaps if the dev's actually engaged the playerbase on the forums and spoke of these or heck, any issues I would not feel the need to speak up. 

Even I agree performance is the single largest hurdle to success.  They know about performance.  We gripe about itnon the whale forums constantly.  They know.  Optimization isn’t a priority till mechanics are in.  

Edited by mandalore

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I wanted a string of fair fights I'd play a moba. Open PvP mmos are an excercise in abstract metagaming to make every fight as unfair as possible to your own advantage. Like actual war.

 

That's why the people that play them enjoy playing them.

That's not a negative. That's a core element of the PvP sandbox subgenre.

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
Posted (edited)

 

I think Crowfall will end up just like Albion Online is right now because it will create a system where many players are punished with frustration while only a few will feel rewarded. Only a few hardcore gamers cannibalize themselves and the game desperately tries to entice unsuspecting players into the vicious cycle through free keys. For example in Albion players to avoid PVP full loot have organized big alliances that have created huge safezones and if you as a new player try to venture without joining the "protection" system you will be a victim of zerg throughout your playing time . All game features are targeted only at the PVP of a small number of GvG players while the rest of the alliance works only as craft bots.

Result: The game has become so boring and aimless structured in open world that no longer has any relevant PVP activity and players only try to form larger groups to cowardly attack solo players.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albion caps sieges at 5v5 right? 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

 

I think Crowfall will end up just like Albion Online is right now because it will create a system where many players are punished with frustration while only a few will feel rewarded. Only a few hardcore gamers cannibalize themselves and the game desperately tries to entice unsuspecting players into the vicious cycle through free keys. For example in Albion players to avoid PVP full loot have organized big alliances that have created huge safezones and if you as a new player try to venture without joining the "protection" system you will be a victim of zerg throughout your playing time . All game features are targeted only at the PVP of a small number of GvG players while the rest of the alliance works only as craft bots.

Result: The game has become so boring and aimless structured in open world that no longer has any relevant PVP activity and players only try to form larger groups to cowardly attack solo players.

The result of that is territory control. Guilds will fight each other over territory making for actual borders in the game world. 

Share this post


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

The result of that is territory control. Guilds will fight each other over territory making for actual borders in the game world. 

 

Albion's DEVs acknowledged that even if the guild alliance system is removed, guilds would make non-aggression pacts to circumvent the system and continue to control territories together and all would end up again creating stagnation in the game and making  novice and small guilds are crushed while great guilds will concentrate all the wealth of the game and would elitize the end game PVP to a very small number of players in GvG.

Source: https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/100377-Updated-Possible-Alliance-Change/?pageNo=1

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

Albion's DEVs acknowledged that even if the guild alliance system is removed, guilds would make non-aggression pacts to circumvent the system and continue to control territories together and all would end up again creating stagnation in the game and making  novice and small guilds are crushed while great guilds will concentrate all the wealth of the game and would elitize the end game PVP to a very small number of players in GvG.

Source: https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/100377-Updated-Possible-Alliance-Change/?pageNo=1

Yes but Crowfall circumvents this by having worlds end. This allows guilds to leave or join alliances at regular intervals, and should stop the political stagnation seen in games like EVE or Albion.

Share this post


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

Sim, mas Crowfall contorna isso ao terminar o mundo. Isso permite que as guildas saiam ou se juntem a alianças em intervalos regulares, e deve parar a estagnação política vista em jogos como EVE ou Albion.

 

Hardcore guild leaders will join in the server as friends and can do it at will.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

 

Hardcore guild leaders will join in the game as friends and can do it at will.

Yes but they will also fragment. The campaign system allows fragmentation to happen at more regular intervals hopefully eliminating diplomatic stagnation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

6 minutes ago, Zatch said:

Yes but they will also fragment. The campaign system allows fragmentation to happen at more regular intervals hopefully eliminating diplomatic stagnation. 

I think you're naive. There are seasons in Albion where the reset happens, but everything remains the same and mega alliances have made the game more stagnant than ever. I personally think a queue system to PVP events is necessary to avoid this problem. If a guild is very powerful it will only face powerful players and if there are no powerful players it will have to distribute its players in other new guilds creating a system of high balancing and avoiding powercreep as happened in Albion.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

Albion's DEVs acknowledged that even if the guild alliance system is removed, guilds would make non-aggression pacts to circumvent the system and continue to control territories together and all would end up again creating stagnation in the game and making both novice and small players guilds are crushed while many players will concentrate all the wealth of the game and would elitize the end game PVP to a very small number of players.

Source: https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/100377-Updated-Possible-Alliance-Change/?pageNo=1

From that post these are the problems the devs have. 

  • The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)  Campaigns don’t persist forever and only the winning guild (not the alliance) will get to reap the full benefits of that.  In faction play you can’t really mitigate that unless you add a reward based off contribution % which could really turn into a poorly made socks show since not every charcter contributes the same way.
  • Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide Albion gates those fights to give an illusion of fair; custard that nonsense.  In CF you have not only hear your army but you have to feed it and they gets harder the further into the seasons you progress. 
  • Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.  This def isn’t an issue in CF.  The current maps are basically as small as they make them and we have to manually run across them to attack or defend points.  This system won’t work on dregs; if I’ve built a city I better be able to log in and log out there every damn time.  Even with mounts fights will be more localized and as empires get bigger they will be a pain in the ass to get from one side to another. 
  • There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.Im not worried about this im CF.  The constantly decaying gear (you use it and it breaks, you die and it breaks) forces people out into the world.  Jewelry and vessels have mats that can only be gotten in campaigns and can only be done as a group (ore and stone mother loads) and people will be constantly seeking to upgrade their vessels and then level their new ones.  Leveling won’t always be as easy making a bunch of those damn building parts and saccing them to level.  We will have to go out into world to get the components for discsiplines too.  A lot of the devs parters are hoping for mines (from sb) and that we have to transport the resource instead of them spawning in the safety of your city. 
  • Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.Alliances persisting from CW to CW where you don’t get the same rewards can’t possibly persists.  Nations will form, there will be alliances and that’s part of the game.  If you can’t defeat your enemies militarily then you have other options.  I feel like the Albion devs dropped the ball with their alliances systems.

I’m 100% in favor of FF outside of guild.  I shouldn’t have to worry about aoe’ing my guildies but I see no problem in FF hitting my alliance.  Would require more coordination or somebody is bending the knee and all of that sounds fine to me.  Every character in this game has aoe, FF might be a poorly made socks show but we won’t know till we test it. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, mandalore said:

The post up post, these so os problems that so developers têm. 

  • A entrada Barreira é muito alta. Guildas novas e mais pequeninas são as menos aventuras para as grandes alianças. Porque é muito difícil se envolver em qualquer tipo de conteúdo do jogo final sem se juntar a eles. (ou seja, cena GVG / reino de cristal / lutas de castelo, etc.) Como as  campanhas não persistem para sempre e somente uma guilda vencedora (não é uma aliança). No jogo de facções, você não pode realmente mitigar isso, o que realmente é uma opção com a mesma ajuda, o que realmente pode ser feito em uma exibição mal feita, já que nem todos os personagens contribuem da mesma forma.
  • Apenas algumas equipes de topo de GvG lutam contra uma maioria de todas as lutas, sendo uma parte importante da vida. Uma vez que as equipes de ponta contornaram a maioria das mudanças de mecanismo e estratégia contra alianças em toda a Albion, essas lutas são uma ilusão de justiça; Pudim esse absurdo. Na CF, você não apenas sai do seu exército, mas também tem que se alimentar, e ele fica mais difícil nas temporárias que você progride. 
  • Os exércitos da Aliança são muito móveis. Uma Aliança pode divertir-se agora todos os membros online em qualquer parte do mundo. Eles não estão ligados regionalmente em nenhum sentido. Tornar-se mais fácil de se escovar, porque mais cresceu aumentado em números, devido a uma reforma que chegava lá muito rapidamente.   Isso não é um problema no CF. Os mapas atuais são tão completos quanto os pontos de vista e atacam os pontos de atacar ou defender. Este sistema não funciona em dregs; Se eu for construir uma cidade, é melhor eu fazer o login e sair do tempo todo.The best as well as the well as the impérios se tornam majoriores a ser uma dor na bunda para ir de um lado para o outro. 
  • Não há incentivos suficientes para combater os inimigos no mundo aberto; fora das lutas puxadas. Eu não estou preocupado com isso im CF. O equipamento em constante decadência (força de quebra-cabeças e quebra-cabeças) força como pessoas para o mundo. Jóias e vasos têm esteiras que podem ser colocadas em campanhas e só podem ser feitas como um grupo (cargas de minério e pedra) e como as pessoas que nos acompanham estão sendo suas novas e longas embarcações. Nivelar nem sempre será tão fácil fazer um monte daquelas malditas peças de construção e sacá-las ao nível. Teremos que sair do mundo para obter os componentes para as disciplinas também.Muitos dos devedores estão esperando por você e que nós temos que transportar o recurso em vez deles na segurança de sua cidade. 
  • As Mega Alianças não levam a comparações e vitórias automáticas em batalhas de cristal. Alianças que persistem de CW a CW, onde você não recebe as recompensas, não pode persistir. As nações se formarão, haverá alianças e isso faz parte do jogo. Você não pode derrotar seus inimigos militarmente, então você tem outras opções. Albion desenvolve uma bola com seus respectivos sistemas de alianças.

Eu sou 100% um favor do FF fora da guilda. Não me preocupei com as minhas companheiras, mas não vejo problema em FF. Exigiria mais coordinated the other men's knee and so much bem para mim. Cada jogo neste jogo, FF pode ser um show de meias feito, mas não saberemos até testá-lo. 

 

Another naive ... Do you know what the guilds would do if the FF system came into force? They would alternate the front line. One guild would go ahead and the other would wait to see the outcome of the fight. If the allied guild was defeated the second guild would advance to kill the already weakened enemies. It would be a system of battle ranks divided by guilds.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

 

 

Another naive ... Do you know what the guilds would do if the FF system came into force? They would alternate the front line. One guild would go ahead and the other would wait to see the outcome of the fight. If the allied guild was defeated the second guild would advance to kill the already weakened enemies. It would be a system of battle ranks divided by guilds.

That sounds like tactics and a metagame for a fight. Is it good, you be the judge. But if you're arguing for hard locks onto political relationships you're looking at the wrong game.

Some players will get to be kings, and some won't. If you want to be a king start your own guild or murder another. That's kinda the point of the political aspect of the game.

Edited by Zatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment the devs meddle with who can be in what guild is the moment they have lost.  Alliances won’t get the same rewards, the scoring system means even allies are t rewarded the same.  They might have nonaggression pacts or alliances but that doesn’t mean they win the CW together.  

It makes more sense though bromego.  The Albion Community allowed their game to be hijacked by part of the community and want the devs to fix it.  


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

That sounds like tactics and a metagame for a fight. Is it good, you be the judge. But if you're arguing for hard locks onto political relationships within the game you are looking at the wrong game.

Some players will get to be kings, and some won't. If you want to be a king start your own guild or murder another. That's kinda the point of the political aspect of the game.

 

What's the use of being a "king" in a game without competitive PVP? I'd rather be good at a game where you have a real challenge. The "kings" of Albion do not even do GvG and only enslave other players with mega alliances. They pay for others to make the actual PVP and only sport the title of the best in game. This to me is a bad joke.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

 

What's the use of being a "king" in a game without competitive PVP? I'd rather be good at a game where you have a real challenge. The "kings" of Albion do not even do GvG and only enslave other players with mega alliances. They pay for others to make the actual PVP and only sport the title of the best in game. This to me is a bad joke.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how the world works.

If you don't like your king commit regicide and become the king. The point of the game is to allow social interaction to determine the story of the world. Player combat is only a small portion of what Crowfall offers. 

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...