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

Unpopular Opinion about the Discipline Changes

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, craftydrizzt said:

I won't be buying them right now because we have not hit final wipe and any training I do now is a moot point.  There is a strong possibility however that I will give crowfall my hard earned cash after final wipe to get the full experience. :)  I always get a kick out of people who claim to know the intentions of the developers.  :)  also fyi.  I know of a few people who currently have 8 to 10 accounts just for this purpose and some even have that many to help out their guilds so its not even close to being unheard of even in a pre-alpha model :)    

I don't "claim to know"

They've literally said this on many, many, many occasions. The crafting and harvesting systems are designed to require interdependence so people need to group up or trade.

I mean more power to you if you want to run 9 or 10 accounts and make all that stuff yourself. You're going to need to trade or make a couple friends for gems and minerals though. Those come from motherlodes which can't be mechanically harvested alone.


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)
1 hour ago, craftydrizzt said:

:)  I always get a kick out of people who claim to know the intentions of the developers.  :)  

I almost LoL'd at this comment. 

If there is one thing ACE has been doing since day one, is describing the "intent" of the systems. There are literally years worth of videos on their YouTube channel filled with statement of "intents". You can do a coles notes pass by just watching all the monthly Q&A's.

Just off the top of my head some of the key intents are.

  • Solving the "Uncle Bob" problem. 
  • This is a niche game not for everyone.
  • Classes/Races are not balanced for 1v1 but are more about fantasy fulfillment. 
  • Crafting will require interdependencies with other players.
  • ...

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Just off the top of my head some of the key intents are.

  • Solving the "Uncle Bob" problem. 
  • This is a niche game not for everyone.
  • Classes/Races are not balanced for 1v1 but are more about fantasy fulfillment. 
  • Crafting will require interdependencies with other players.
  • ...

 

Too bad they are doing such a bad job with their intent not having grinding for the sake of grinding, leveling and being able to jump right into pvp. For years it was static then a couple months back they totally changed direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a difference between creating incentives to work with other players and being against solo players.  I personally love the crafting system and think its one of the best I have seen in a game.  Its like a mini game all in its own.  I also remember them saying they want to have systems in place where one or two can log in and play for a bit and still contribute in a meaningful way to the big picture and also I remember at one time VIP was suppose to give you the ability to train more than just the two tracks we currently do.  That would definitely benefit a solo player and while they have kinda walked that one back, they have been pretty tight lipped on what VIP will actually look like.  Here is the thing.  They are a business and like a business they NEED to make a profit for the game to grow and become better and I am sure they recognize that to rule out the solo player, they would be ruling out a large monetary stream that they would use to help grow the game.  Like most businesses, there is the official story and then there are the things they don't tell you.  Lets not be naive.   

P.S.  I would also like to point out that NOT being in a guild (which I actually am atm.  a guild a friend created though I am the only one who plays crowfall at the moment and will be the only one until final wipe and I think I am the only member besides my friend) doesn't mean I would NOT have friends to run with me to harvest mother loads.. :)  :)  just saying :)  cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite part of the new disc dropping placeholder system is how reliably you're able to loot these mobs after you spend 4-8 mins

 

Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ble said:

Sure, you can do those things.... but you got to do it in crap gear, since you are a soloer.   Get maybe one kill or a momentary delay on a gatherer till you are mercd and camped by protectors.  Sounds fun.

What happened to the amazing player run economy flowing from EKs and Campaigns across the universe?

If camping players is a thing, I'm sure this game will do great. :rolleyes:

8 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

They've literally said this on many, many, many occasions. 

The crafting and harvesting systems are designed to require interdependence so people need to group up or trade.

They've literally said many things that have yet to be seen and things like more and more of the original concept that have changed. Who knows what it will look like in a year or more when it releases. Or post launch when they make changes to attempt to stop bleeding customers like most games do.

Trade doesn't require a guild, it requires an economy. Be it EK, Factions, GR, Dregs.

ACE has said they want to have solo/small scale content. Guilds are not required to play the game. Might be an uphill struggle to do what others do easily with a guild, but some like a challenge.

Share this post


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

I almost LoL'd at this comment. 

If there is one thing ACE has been doing since day one, is describing the "intent" of the systems. There are literally years worth of videos on their YouTube channel filled with statement of "intents". You can do a coles notes pass by just watching all the monthly Q&A's.

Just off the top of my head some of the key intents are.

  • Solving the "Uncle Bob" problem. 
  • This is a niche game not for everyone.
  • Classes/Races are not balanced for 1v1 but are more about fantasy fulfillment. 
  • Crafting will require interdependencies with other players.
  • ...

Describing and actually producing their intent seem to differ, greatly in some ways.

Uncle Bob problem is not solved.

The continued changes continue to make it a mystery who this "niche" game is aimed at.

Classes are far from balanced be it 1v1 or whatever and that's good, but hopefully every class at least is viable and works. Assassin's can't see behind damage? Now that is some LOL stuff right there.

Crafting will require interdependence, obtaining items doesn't require one to harvest/craft nor be part of a guild, only have access to items in whatever way. Trade would be the go to with the "intent" they've given.

Share this post


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

What happened to the amazing player run economy flowing from EKs and Campaigns across the universe?

If camping players is a thing, I'm sure this game will do great. :rolleyes:

They've literally said many things that have yet to be seen and things like more and more of the original concept that have changed. Who knows what it will look like in a year or more when it releases. Or post launch when they make changes to attempt to stop bleeding customers like most games do. 

Trade doesn't require a guild, it requires an economy. Be it EK, Factions, GR, Dregs.

ACE has said they want to have solo/small scale content. Guilds are not required to play the game. Might be an uphill struggle to do what others do easily with a guild, but some like a challenge.

I agree with you, a robust economy should make having less or no guild members a much more viable option. However, Drizzzzzzzzzzt's inquiry seems to be focused on the idea of self-providing rather than bartering. The point I was making is that he's gonna have a much tougher time trying to harvest and make it all himself rather than focusing on a specialty and trading.


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
48 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I agree with you, a robust economy should make having less or no guild members a much more viable option. However, Drizzzzzzzzzzt's inquiry seems to be focused on the idea of self-providing rather than bartering. The point I was making is that he's gonna have a much tougher time trying to harvest and make it all himself rather than focusing on a specialty and trading.

Between their two accounts (assuming same person), seems like they are more than open to trade and working with others. That's different then the view that you have to be part of some well oiled machine to have fun in this game or accomplish anything. Honestly can't see this game surviving if that is the case. I don't know of a MMO that works like that.

Share this post


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

Between their two accounts (assuming same person), seems like they are more than open to trade and working with others. That's different then the view that you have to be part of some well oiled machine to have fun in this game or accomplish anything. Honestly can't see this game surviving if that is the case. I don't know of a MMO that works like that.

I've never had that view.

While that machine may be more efficient, especially for special orders, by no means am I now or have I ever been of the opinion that it should be a necessity.

A big part of this loop is vendor buy orders, which we don't have yet but should open up the economy for everyone concerned by creating a much larger amount of passive trade to supply everyone with what they lack based on need rather than existing stock.

MMOs that work like that include EVE and pre-CU SWG, both widely regarded as being games with robust economies that enable both the producer and consumer to succeed, and both successful examples of the sandbox mmo 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)
21 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I've never had that view.

Sorry, didn't mean you specifically.

Quote

MMOs that work like that include EVE and pre-CU SWG, both widely regarded as being games with robust economies that enable both the producer and consumer to succeed, and both successful examples of the sandbox mmo subgenre.

I meant MMOs that discourage solo or small group play within the assumption that one isn't playing it as a single player game and realizes socializing is needed on some level to succeed.

You can/could be insert role in EVE/SWG without being part of a larger force, if any at all.

Again, not you directly, but some of those in the established CF guilds come across as their way is THE way to play which goes against the intent that ACE at least initially presented. If there is only one way to play come launch, this game will be DOA.

Doesn't need to be WoW style MMO where it's a single player game that happens to have others in it, but casual, solo/small group content will need to be a thing and accessible.

A good chunk of new blood at least starts this way. All games bleed players over time and if the ranks aren't filled, game suffers the changes come that work or don't.

EVE isn't exempt from this even though it is a unique snowflake in the MMO genre and the game once known as SWG definitely understands this.

The three head devs coming from UO, SB, SWG should build something that will last and grow where those previous games didn't (for numerous reason). Seems the strongest reasoning behind some CF design choices are EVE and Shadowbane. I shouldn't need to explain why neither of those are good examples for this game.

As someone that has been all in on original/launch game design and later uninstalled because of reactionary changes to losing customers, I'd rather the launch game be proactive then reactive.

End random tangent.

Edited by APE

Share this post


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

Seems the strongest reasoning behind some CF design choices are EVE and Shadowbane. I shouldn't need to explain why neither of those are good examples for this game.

Actually, could you?


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

So.  For the record I am first and foremost someone who strives to be self sustaining be it video games or real life or what ever but that is just part of the story.  There will be times in my life where I have plenty of time to harvest and craft and all the the things that will sustain me but there are also many times where time is limited due to work or relationships or what ever where I don't have the time for the self sustaining activities and that is where a strong player driven market is important.  Where I can just go down and buy what I need and get on with my gaming or other times where I am crafting something and realize I just need that one item but I don't feel like going and collecting it so I go and buy it from another player.  I guess in the end its all about options.  I don't want to be pigeoned holes into a certain way of playing.  The more options I have the happier I am the less options I have..... Well at that point its time to find a new game to play.  I am all on board with apes comments.  Ape totally gets where I am coming from.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Drizzzt said:

So.  For the record I am first and foremost someone who strives to be self sustaining be it video games or real life or what ever but that is just part of the story.  There will be times in my life where I have plenty of time to harvest and craft and all the the things that will sustain me but there are also many times where time is limited due to work or relationships or what ever where I don't have the time for the self sustaining activities and that is where a strong player driven market is important.  Where I can just go down and buy what I need and get on with my gaming or other times where I am crafting something and realize I just need that one item but I don't feel like going and collecting it so I go and buy it from another player.  I guess in the end its all about options.  I don't want to be pigeoned holes into a certain way of playing.  The more options I have the happier I am the less options I have..... Well at that point its time to find a new game to play.  I am all on board with apes comments.  Ape totally gets where I am coming from.  :) 

There is part of your problem with the current iteration AND all the frequent wipes.  The player economy keeps getting reset, along with vessels and equipment.  It takes a rather large amount of effort to not only set up an EK like Srathors lawn, but also for other players to generate what they need, and THEN generate a surplus to sell.

This campaign came after a wipe, AND a massive gold source income reduction. Gold that was previously used for the primary purpose of leveling vessels to get on with the rest of the game.  

Once the wipes stop happening (Beta), built up economies will survive longer, and become established.  Then running to your favorite EK filled with stores and purchase options will be a more viable alternative to doing everything yourself. 

The game is not currently "economic empire" friendly, due to the frequent wipes, but the day will come when that will be just as valid a strategy and contest between players competing for customers. 

Share this post


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

There is part of your problem with the current iteration AND all the frequent wipes.  The player economy keeps getting reset, along with vessels and equipment.  It takes a rather large amount of effort to not only set up an EK like Srathors lawn, but also for other players to generate what they need, and THEN generate a surplus to sell.

This campaign came after a wipe, AND a massive gold source income reduction. Gold that was previously used for the primary purpose of leveling vessels to get on with the rest of the game.  

Once the wipes stop happening (Beta), built up economies will survive longer, and become established.  Then running to your favorite EK filled with stores and purchase options will be a more viable alternative to doing everything yourself. 

The game is not currently "economic empire" friendly, due to the frequent wipes, but the day will come when that will be just as valid a strategy and contest between players competing for customers. 

I understand this.  In fact all my comments are in reference to what I hope the game becomes not what it currently is because its pre-alpha and everything is subject to change :)    My current play style is more about learning the game, what I need to do, the most efficient way, etc and adapting to each change as they happen. play around with builds, dabble with pvp etc.  it keeps me entertained but I won't get really serious about the game until after final wipe when I can expect NOT to have my progress deleted. :)  

Edited by Drizzzt

Share this post


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

Actually, could you?

Where should I start?

They are different products made by different teams, with different resources, different communities, different markets, different game features, etc. Games having superficial similarities or shared big picture concepts doesn't mean X feature is going to work in another product. Have to look at them as sum of the parts, not each piece in a vacuum.

I look at EVE's passive system, then at Crowfall's, then back at EVE....huh? These are similar? Be it the individual system or how they work with the rest of the pieces, I don't get it.

SWG had great crafting/harvesting systems but how popular would they have been if there was player and harvester looting (don't remember this being a thing). If all that time and fun could be wiped away, would as many have played for those aspects a lone as some did?

Seems former SB players want to relive that experience with it shoehorned into another product. No problem, except this isn't SB 2.0 carbon copy. ACE hyped up the campaign system with different rulesets. if they just went with Dregs all day everyday, no biggie, but they have to design around different types of players playing in numerous ways. It's interesting to see people that say they will be in the Dregs, bickering over Faction and GR design. This could lead to design choices for the wrong reasons or rather customers.

Majority of my issues/concerns don't even apply to me, but stepping back and wanting a product that will last. I know what I want and like and that realistically isn't going to be any game. I'd rather have a live game with things I compromise for then something running on fumes or better yet, only found as an emulator.

Edited by APE

Share this post


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

Where should I start?

They are different products made by different teams, with different resources, different communities, different markets, different game features, etc. Games having superficial similarities or shared big picture concepts doesn't mean X feature is going to work in another product. Have to look at them as sum of the parts, not each piece in a vacuum.

I look at EVE's passive system, then at Crowfall's, then back at EVE....huh? These are similar? Be it the individual system or how they work with the rest of the pieces, I don't get it.

SWG had great crafting/harvesting systems but how popular would they have been if there was player and harvester looting (don't remember this being a thing). If all that time and fun could be wiped away, would as many have played for those aspects a lone as some did?

Seems former SB players want to relive that experience with it shoehorned into another product. No problem, except this isn't SB 2.0 carbon copy. ACE hyped up the campaign system with different rulesets. if they just went with Dregs all day everyday, no biggie, but they have to design around different types of players playing in numerous ways. It's interesting to see people that say they will be in the Dregs, bickering over Faction and GR design. This could lead to design choices for the wrong reasons or rather customers.

Majority of my issues/concerns don't even apply to me, but stepping back and wanting a product that will last. I know what I want and like and that realistically isn't going to be any game. I'd rather have a live game with things I compromise for then something running on fumes or better yet, only found as an emulator.

In fairness, most of the time I see shadowbane brought up it is in regards to a feature's core metagame and why it is or is not a good fit for crowfall. Nobody wants CF to just be shadowbane again, but a lot of people want some of those core systems, and there is a lot to take from the core systems of many games that would be good fits for crowfall's design. We function on the basic mechanical foundation of SWG crafting, but we use the simpler and more streamlined material grading system from games like WoW. Its an excellent fusion of the core strengths of those two systems.

THere's a lot to love about how inventory, trade, and economic faucets and sinks work in EVE (and It has prossible the best inventory managment system in any MMO ever)

There's a lot to love about shadowbane's guild focused metagame.

There's a lot to love about DAOC's realm focused metagame.

That's the luxury you have when you're making a new game that few other mediums have. Unlike film or writing, games are often made of discreet and easily separated systems, and while no game has ever been perfect, a keen eye for what systems were fun, accomplished their goals, and where they should be tweaked or left alone to fit a new design and express the core ideals and intended play loops of your system.

In the end you're building a specific game and you're never going to serve all of humanity as your audience. Games that attempt too broad an appeal simply end up not doing some or often anything particularly well. How large you need that autdience to be depends largely on the scope of your development costs and the breadth of whatever vision you have for it.

Compromising too much in the name of accessibility often leads to a game that technically does a great number of things without doing any of them particularly well. More users alone is not a good reason to redefine your game's feature set, especially if you are already in the black.

Factions in crowfall are a compromise, and rightly so. They're there to answer the question "How do we create a version of our vision that is accessible to players with no friends and give them a place to make new friends?" or "How do we serve 45 year old gamer moms and dads that used to play pvp games 10 hours a day but can now only play 10 hours a week and doesn't have time to do organized events with some giant player run nation?"

Factions in Crowfall are very different than factions in many games because the stated objective of the game isn't "do the faction warfare if you want to" but rather "do the faction warfare because you must" due to the campaign systems. This alone leads to an entirely different set of mechanisms as far as how far you push specialization and interdependance. Crowfall is a game that does not give you the option of, but forces you to participate in a high stakes team based warfare metagame at all times. The goal of factions isn't to make sure you can solo and have a good time. There are no teams of one in a team based game.

The goal of factions is that you don't have to solo because you have a team already, and that if you are alone you have utility to that team. That might mean ganking enemy harvesters to deny the enemy resources, crafting equipment for other players, or providing crafters with resources or loot. One day soon the rewards for losers won't be mechanically identical to the rewards for winners, and at the back of even the solo player's head will always be "is my team going to win this" and "how can I use my preferred style of play to make that happens so I can reap the spoils of victory"

That's a good thing because that's what makes crowfall unique. That's what justifies its existence.

In the end, what drives every decision ACE makes while defining these systems is that players should never be able to simply not care if their team is doing well. It doesn't really matter if that team is a built in faction or bureaucratic dregs alliance. It's not a sandbox world where you can be and do whatever you want. That's never been the goal. It is a purposeful, constant war against time, players on the other team, and entropy and every system is designed around the idea of making you, no matter who you are or what campaign you're in care about a single question:

"How does my team win this campaign?"

That's EVE in a constant state of alliance warfare everywhere.

That's SWG where you can't just turn off your PvP flag.

That's Shadowbane where servers don't simply whimper to a halt under the weight of the boredom of the winners.

That's DAOC where the map isn't just an eternal series of things swapping ownership.

Crowfall's core unchanging design goals are right there in the marketing. This is a war for a metaphorical throne, to be top of the pile. This is a game you can win, and the game at its core expects you to want to win if you're playing it. Designing factions means creating a system in which all of the random players on a team are encouraged, nay, required to use their unique talents and playstyles to win the campaign.

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)
On 4/18/2019 at 1:16 AM, PopeUrban said:

In the end you're building a specific game and you're never going to serve all of humanity as your audience. Games that attempt too broad an appeal simply end up not doing some or often anything particularly well. How large you need that autdience to be depends largely on the scope of your development costs and the breadth of whatever vision you have for it.

Compromising too much in the name of accessibility often leads to a game that technically does a great number of things without doing any of them particularly well. More users alone is not a good reason to redefine your game's feature set, especially if you are already in the black.

I believe keeping the scope down is smart but the fewer pieces there are, the better they need to be individually and as a whole. Some parts ACE has down well and I'm sure they'll only improve. However, PVP or conflict in of itself seems lacking quite a lot across the board.

Classes/powers/build options and in turn combat aren't anything special (not that they are bad) and the campaign rulesets we've experienced so far are elementary. Don't sell this is as a "Throne War" if there is no war or throne beyond doing Zzzzz tasks to see points accumulate at the top of the screen.

I might have too high expectations for a game or this team, but I know so much more is possible as I've played other games that have done more. They don't need to water down the game and offer every feature possible, but the ones they go with need to be worth player time and money compared the countless other forms of entertainment out there. Unless the niche they are after is a desperate group willing to play anything remotely close to what they seek that might pale in comparison to games made 15+ years ago.

Quote

In the end, what drives every decision ACE makes while defining these systems is that players should never be able to simply not care if their team is doing well.

Crowfall's core unchanging design goals are right there in the marketing. This is a war for a metaphorical throne, to be top of the pile. This is a game you can win, and the game at its core expects you to want to win if you're playing it.

Will be interesting to see if they come up with rewards that coincide with some risk and get people to buy into this design long term.

Right now it is very repetitive with no real difference then a FPS/MOBA type game where a match ends and you start up another. With whatever power gap between groups carrying over to the next. At least those games have a ladder to climb.

If it's the same factions/guilds winning most times and little variation in format, can see people getting burnt out or just bored relatively quickly and moving on to something else. See this happening already in pre-alpha. I played in the Albion Online betas for a bit and the activity and participation was different.

Not enough carrots or engaging elements to keep people logging back in beyond those that like to simply play to play, win or lose. I'm one of those and I have a hard time seeing this last once the new shiny feeling is gone.

The design needs to make players feel like they control the outcomes and have a chance due to numerous actions and factors. The point model doesn't take it far enough in regards to PVP and group or solo involvement with others.

Edited by APE

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...