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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ComradeAma said:

We need pvp parcel/arena for EK, if you die inside, you don’t lose durability. Then we can run structured duels/gvgs ourselves or even tournaments or something unusual, e.g. pvp jumping puzzle, when you need to get to the other side but also fight people on the way :) With entry fees and winners rewards, or sponsored by guilds.

Game driven structured pvp, no matter 1v1 or 5vs5, will require special balancing just for those modes, separately from campaigns. It is a huge overhead. Doing balancing everywhere will fail, it is a hard learned lesson from gw2/eso/name other game that failed it.

Oh, and it is easy to implement.

This sounds like a great idea. 👍

Share this post


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

I don't understand why people would consider CF a sandbox, not that it means much anyway. Pretty much every system is dev guided. Lacking quests and content doesn't make a game a sandbox. CF more in common with a themepark then a survival game.

What MMOs (PVP especially) did battlegrounds/arenas destroy? There were only a handful of PVP MMOs prior to WoW which basically made arenas/BGs a thing. DAoC had BGs for example and they were quite fun. Now instances as a whole did take people away from open world content, but at the same time allowed games to go from thousands to millions and content became a decent amount more interesting. To now play something like BDO with such a content rich open world, it is unfortunate more games can't do the same.

You may be right about the themepark. 

WoW was such a fun time before BGs. I haven’t played BoA, but before that once you were leveled wasn’t much reason to leave the city kind of removed the whole rpg aspect of it  

Tera also comes to mind but not in the same sense. When I started the PvP was focused on the alliance system, BGs were a side thing to do. The devs over time focused more on the BGs and Dungeons eventually removing a popular feature. Alliance regularly had few hundred players on each server active in it. Then they went full Korean and turned all the BGs into pve stupidity, thus killing the game in NA/EU. It’s a poorly made shell of what it was. 

I don’t know much about the beginning of GW2, but when I played outside of the BG “waiting zone” the game was mostly ghost town-ish. And talk about watered down homogenized  classes...ugh. 

Can’t say anything about BDO, started up a free trail logged in, played for a cpl hours and never had the desire to log in again. And DAoC I never got around to trying, tho reading about Camelot Unchained makes me wish I had. 

7 hours ago, PinkFluffyPanda said:

Thank you very much 😊

AoC was exactly what I was referencing. I think a lot of the people whining about gathering in another thread would enjoy it more too. Their flagging system is junk. 

Share this post


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

I don't understand why people would consider CF a sandbox, not that it means much anyway. Pretty much every system is dev guided. Lacking quests and content doesn't make a game a sandbox. CF more in common with a themepark then a survival game.

 

I don't agree, but then my understanding of Theme park came from DDO.

Walk up to a door, it tells you how many of what level characters you can/should have for the "ride", and then you start into a private instance of the adventure with your group, and nobody else can interfere with that instance, like your own roller coaster car on a set track. Take the ride again, and you get virtually the exact same experience. Play a solo "adventure" and you are basically playing a single player game. That's theme park.

Sand box is, "go where you like, do whatever you want in the one environment everyone else shares."

CF is way way more sandbox than theme park. There isn't a place in the campaigns where someone else can't influence you in some way.  Even in protected temples, some ass hat can follow you around and jump around like an idiot effectively kicking sand in your play experience face. 

First google result for "sandbox games definition".

Quote

A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks.

CF is sand box not theme park

 

Share this post


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

I wouldn't say ACE's initial hype train made this out to be a Gear Crafting Simulator. Sure it should matter, but should obtaining gear be first in line? I do remember them saying "super shallow power curve," as well. Guess the carrot model is easier.

Because the industry has reacted to these goals already and spawned offshoot genres that directly address players that don't want the carrot model.

The battle royale genre is literally "I heard you like open world PvP without all the grinding"

The Moba Genre is "I heard you like tight tactical group fights without all the grinding"

 

The reason these genres are so dissimilar from a traditional MMO has everything to do with the fact that the grind, loot, and picking up more better colored shinies is a defining characteristic of the genre so core to its definition that it HAD to be replaced with something radically different for all of the other systems to hold up without it.

That's where you got survival games (which replaced the grind with exploration) which morphed in to the battle royale (which created a definite endpoint to keep the games session based and more focused on pvp than hoarding)

That's where you got MOBAs, which spring from adding more MMO to Warcraft 3 by reducing each player to a single hero unit.

 

The concept that a game can effectively be all things to all people is daft. It simply can't. You can't have a harvesting and crafting economy that both matters and doesn't matter. You can't have PvP that is both accessible and rewards long term acquisition of goods. At a certain point in your design you really do have to pick a lane and stick to it. As more of Crowfall's systems come online it should be fairly clear that the lane that has been chosen is that loot is king. It should have been clear from as far back as kickstarter that loot is king, and the reward for winning campaigns has always been "keep more of your loot"

Insinuating CF's power curve isn't super shallow is just reaching. You're comparing it not against other MMOs but against things like MOBAs or gear stabilized dueling systems where the curve is literally nonexistent. CF's power curve, in the current resist and damage model, is in fact super shallow, and its grind is laughably fast in comparison to its contemporaries. There's a question there of access to the scale of that power curve that needs addressed due to a nonfunctional economy of surplus goods. We should really address that by seeding more loot more frequently, not making the existing loot break faster or be removed on death.

CF's leveling is ridiculously fast compared to its contemporaries. There's an argument there against the draconian clamps on the sacrifice and mob ranks that needs to be addressed but when you actually have access to appropriately leveled mobs or materials the time spent to get there, even on a legendary vessel, with a level max of 30 is easily achievable in a week of 4h play sessions. How much faster should it really be?

That's what these things always come down to though. "The power curve isn't shallow enough" or "leveling takes too long" are things espoused by people who want to skip it altogether. It'll NEVER be shallow enough for that viewpoint as the desired outcome is that vertical progress shouldn't exist at all.

 

The carrot model isn't just easier. The carrot model is a defining characteristic of the genre. Doing away with it can make great games, but it doesn't make sandbox MMOs. Even your beloved Albion is built directly on top of that same model. The context for every activity, in every mmo, revolves around "what's the carrot"

If simply fighting for leaderboard position and points were what the CF community cared about you wouldn't have leaderboards populated in the majority by people who obviously don't care about them. If winning alone were the core draw for the people that the game seeks to serve you wouldn't be complaining about boring circle standing because you'd be in a life or death battle for those circles every day.

I in no way deny people want what they want, but the actions of the player base are telling. The story they tell is that loot, vertical progression, and imposing the advantages gained from those systems are the primary interests of the people that actually play this game. A vocal forum minority in opposition pales in comparison to even a cursory glance at a campaign scoreboard. That scoreboard tells a tale of a very small number of players actually giving any value to fighting for scoreboard value and a very large number of players valuing vertical progression and wealth above the "prestige" of participating in a net loss of value for victory points.

 

Is there room for a hardcore fantasy RPG BR that eschews guns and grenades for swords and sorcery? Absolutely. I'd love to play that. The only one I've seen is about everyone being an anime wizard and flying all over the battlefield and its a bit too arcade for my tastes. A version of something like hungerdome with MMO styled combat balance and pacing and polish could be fun. Its also not what Crowfall is.

it there room for an arena based game built around deep customization and strategy? Well yeah, that game was called Guild Wars 1 and it was amazing because it was designed around that core ideal. Still the only arena MMO experience I actually enjoyed. Its also not what Crowfall is.

Is there room to slap a bunch of me-too features on to the core design of an MMO at the expense of the functionality of its core paradigm in the name of "play your way"? I don't think that's a good idea. That's how you end up with a dumpster truck full of failed MMOs, all of which touted their broad feature sets and inclusive multiple modes of play. I didn't back this project to play a MOBA or a BR. I backed it because I have very fond memories of very grindy pvp mmos where everything I fought over felt like it mattered and I want to see it done by some of the best qualified people in the industry to do a modern take on the concept.

Get me some seasoned multiplayer developers pitching a dungeon delve style BR, or some seasoned mmo developer pitching a highly tactical arena game focused around interrupts and cast timers and I'll probably back that too.


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
8 hours ago, oneply said:

You may be right about the themepark. 

WoW was such a fun time before BGs. I haven’t played BoA, but before that once you were leveled wasn’t much reason to leave the city kind of removed the whole rpg aspect of it  

Open world PVP in WoW was fine but wasn't exactly meaningful. Battlegrounds game some structured play with rewards or at least some metric to show who was performing better for whatever reasons. AV was some of the most PVP fun I've had in any MMO, themepark or not. WoW is a PVE game that has decent PVP options on the side. For those that reached whatever gear cap for the time or simply didn't want to grind dungeons for a bit or ever, BGs/Arenas provided another option to play the game. If open world PVP actually meant something more than a good time (usually for one side), I'd say instances messed it up more, but didn't bother me at all. Coming from DAoC, I missed the heavy focus on PVP, but different game for different community.

Also this isn't the fault of instances in of themselves but lack of content beyond them. I've heard recent changes have tried to encourage open PVP again, but no idea. I left when TBC came out so I'm sure things changed a bit over the years.

8 hours ago, oneply said:

I don’t know much about the beginning of GW2, but when I played outside of the BG “waiting zone” the game was mostly ghost town-ish. And talk about watered down homogenized  classes...ugh. 

GW2 isn't perfect but did a lot of things well. sPVP gave the structured play with WvWvW providing the larger scale action. I believe the zones were too big for the population but maybe they've changed since I played, cross-server systems usually help this. Classes were homogenized to a degree but I'd say any of them individually are more interesting then any in Crowfall and many other games. The changes they later made that I briefly checked out took specializing and sub-classes even further that ACE has yet to really do with Promos and Disciplines. 

8 hours ago, oneply said:

Can’t say anything about BDO, started up a free trail logged in, played for a cpl hours and never had the desire to log in again. And DAoC I never got around to trying, tho reading about Camelot Unchained makes me wish I had. 

DAoC has been my favorite and I backed CU to see if they can pull of something great again. Much of what I desire they plan to make, but still none of these things hit my exact check list. Will come down to who hits the most the best for me.

BDO is decent mix of open world PVP and PVE all within a seamless world. Not to mention all the systems they have that no other games have or at least not to the same quality/quantity. Along with some large scale and arena stuff.

8 hours ago, oneply said:

AoC was exactly what I was referencing. I think a lot of the people whining about gathering in another thread would enjoy it more too. Their flagging system is junk. 

Will have to see how it ends up. Backed it but looks like it will be more like BDO for better or worse. Being non-P2W from the start should hopefully help.

Share this post


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

I don't agree, but then my understanding of Theme park came from DDO.

Walk up to a door, it tells you how many of what level characters you can/should have for the "ride", and then you start into a private instance of the adventure with your group, and nobody else can interfere with that instance, like your own roller coaster car on a set track. Take the ride again, and you get virtually the exact same experience. Play a solo "adventure" and you are basically playing a single player game. That's theme park.

Actually never played DDO that I remember so can't comment on it but your very generalized description isn't too far off I guess. However, most themeparks or PVE based games have a lot more going on in the open world although having a lot of "rides" is a main feature. If you look at CF as one giant ride compared to tons of smaller rides, get different things from each.

Quote

Sand box is, "go where you like, do whatever you want in the one environment everyone else shares."

CF is way way more sandbox than theme park. There isn't a place in the campaigns where someone else can't influence you in some way.  Even in protected temples, some ass hat can follow you around and jump around like an idiot effectively kicking sand in your play experience face. 

Pretty sure you can annoy anyone in any game that has more than one person involved. That is not exclusive to any genre. Now more technically, CF does have several safe areas. EKs, Beachheads, Temples, and God's Reach isn't too far away. Not to mention the unfortunate situation with maps/zones. We aren't all in one space. Compared to Black Desert which for the most part is a huge seamless world with PVP. People might be able to "influence" each other but not to any real degree that likely doesn't fall into some sort of harassment TOS issue.

Quote

First google result for "sandbox games definition".

A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks.

CF is sand box not theme park

Hence why I don't like empty buzz words. If Minecraft is a Sandbox or insert survival game, not sure I would classify CF as one.

We have dev created rails all over the place.

You can "do what you want and roam" in plenty of games/genres. That means little.

So far we can't really change anything in CF beyond standing in a circle to get banner to change colors. Themepark games have had such things in various flavors for a long time.

Crowfall is a progression game. Vessel quality/stats, Gear quality/stats, Leveling, Talents, Passive Training, Predetermined Win Conditions/Rewards, X requires Y, etc. This is the basis for every Themepark game I've played. That is why this isn't a BR or MOBA. It falls within the MMORPG tag or better yet ACE's own Throne War Sim...

Sure you can choose to focus on one thing or another at a given time, but the overall goal is no different. Means to an end.

Going back to something like Minecraft, what is the end goal? ARK or Rust, what's the goal? Even EVE that also has various progression paths, doesn't have a real determined point.

Crowfall is a lobby game with matches called Campaigns. Players progress along provided paths to reach whatever outcome provided by devs. Is it the same thing as WoW? Of course not, but it still shares a lot of the foundation features of such games, just minus a lot of content.

Call it a Turtle Burdle, doesn't matter.

Edited by APE

Share this post


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

The concept that a game can effectively be all things to all people is daft. It simply can't. You can't have a harvesting and crafting economy that both matters and doesn't matter. You can't have PvP that is both accessible and rewards long term acquisition of goods. At a certain point in your design you really do have to pick a lane and stick to it.

Sure you can, just a matter of dev resources and vision for their product.

There are games that have dual or more systems running side by side. GW2 for example has sPVP with provided gear and "balanced" structured play along with WvWvW open PVP with obtained gear/level mattering.

Crowfall could EASILY have a Hunger Dome option. Be it no passive training factored in, set amount to train prior to match, gear provided BR style or choose from a vendor. Play for the sake of playing without any need to impact the greater core game. Might distract some players away from Campaigns but how good are they if that is happening? Also might bring in more players as well or keep players around longer with more options.

DAoC had accessible PVP as a whole, but specifically had Battlegrounds for different level tiers. I made alts just to play in them. While there was a long term (endless) campaign happening as well.

To say that it can't work or hasn't is just not true or based on facts.

Now do all games need to go in twenty directions? Not at all and while I wouldn't mind such things in CF, I don't believe the devs have the resources to do it any time soon if ever.

Quote

As more of Crowfall's systems come online it should be fairly clear that the lane that has been chosen is that loot is king. It should have been clear from as far back as kickstarter that loot is king, and the reward for winning campaigns has always been "keep more of your loot"

Unless you play no import campaigns, am I right? 😎

What should of been clear or is clear might not be so to everyone, especially with how vague many things have been and still are. Loot is obviously important, but I don't remember ACE saying "individual player ability in combat will be less important then what quality gear they have on."

Quote

Insinuating CF's power curve isn't super shallow is just reaching.

Depends on what that means. Compared to WoW where a level 50000 can look at a lvl 1 and kill them with a stare, ya it is super shallow. As time goes on, will be interesting to see what becomes the standard for competitive players overall and each campaign vs newer players trying to get into it.

Quote

How much faster should it really be?

How slow should it be? What do we actually gain from grinding on mobs once we done it once or a handful of times? Unlike insert generic themepark where you can grind out everything at our own speed with incremental grinds once a year or whatever, seems ACE expects us to do just as much if not more on a regular basis. Vessel stats are an extra layer of grind that gear based games lack.

Quote

It'll NEVER be shallow enough for that viewpoint as the desired outcome is that vertical progress shouldn't exist at all.

I much prefer horizontal play as it can allow for a lot more creativity and skill, but I accept vertical is the easier route for these games.

Quote

The carrot model isn't just easier. The carrot model is a defining characteristic of the genre. Doing away with it can make great games, but it doesn't make sandbox MMOs. Even your beloved Albion is built directly on top of that same model. The context for every activity, in every mmo, revolves around "what's the carrot"

Agreed and Albion is not beloved by me. It does do some thing well that other games could take notice of though, especially games like CF that fall within the same area. CF and AO share many of the same issues as well.

Quote

If simply fighting for leaderboard position and points were what the CF community cared about you wouldn't have leaderboards populated in the majority by people who obviously don't care about them.

The spread of players seems to suggest winning the leaderboard game does matter.

Quote

If winning alone were the core draw for the people that the game seeks to serve you wouldn't be complaining about boring circle standing because you'd be in a life or death battle for those circles every day.

Due to the state of combat, fighting over the chance to stand in a circle is a double whammy. I like to play to play, but with the match design, there is a bigger picture and I just wish there was more to it. I want a work of art, not paint by numbers.

Quote

I in no way deny people want what they want, but the actions of the player base are telling. The story they tell is that loot, vertical progression, and imposing the advantages gained from those systems are the primary interests of the people that actually play this game. A vocal forum minority in opposition pales in comparison to even a cursory glance at a campaign scoreboard. That scoreboard tells a tale of a very small number of players actually giving any value to fighting for scoreboard value and a very large number of players valuing vertical progression and wealth above the "prestige" of participating in a net loss of value for victory points.

Also dealing with a handful of people. They are playing (a test version) of what is available. Not sure if we can even see forum counts anymore, but things used to be a lot more active around here when things were still up in the air or simply different. Interest dies off for many reasons, but I find it telling that only a handful have stuck around or even bothered to show up over several years despite things actually coming together and improving over time. If more people are interested in talking about something then actually doing it, something might be screwy. Obviously those logging in and playing like what is there, that's why I don't log in to Live much. We have some dedicated folks with a lot of time on their hands and if that is all this game will be about, so be it. We all pick a grind we like and enjoy.

Quote

I backed it because I have very fond memories of very grindy pvp mmos where everything I fought over felt like it mattered and I want to see it done by some of the best qualified people in the industry to do a modern take on the concept.

 
I don’t want to kill more rats, fill another experience point bar or collect another meaningless badge. I want to play a GAME, against PLAYERS where my actions, my decisions and my SKILL will determine if I win or lose. Allies. Enemies. Alliances. Betrayal. Risk. Conquest. To compete with THOUSANDS of other players for a chance to claim the THRONE. Even if I lose, the experience won’t feel hollow. I don’t want another worthless trophy.
I WANT TO PLAY TO CRUSH."
 
They got me with that unfortunately. As with many things, reading between the lines sometimes doesn't end up so well. Seems time played = skill and not what I expected.
Edited by APE

Share this post


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

Open world PVP in WoW was fine but wasn't exactly meaningful. Battlegrounds game some structured play with rewards or at least some metric to show who was performing better for whatever reasons. AV was some of the most PVP fun I've had in any MMO, themepark or not. WoW is a PVE game that has decent PVP options on the side. For those that reached whatever gear cap for the time or simply didn't want to grind dungeons for a bit or ever, BGs/Arenas provided another option to play the game. If open world PVP actually meant something more than a good time (usually for one side), I'd say instances messed it up more, but didn't bother me at all. Coming from DAoC, I missed the heavy focus on PVP, but different game for different community..

“Meaningful” PvP is not something I personally care about. (Sadly I’m a minority in that regard). Don’t care about loot either or a reward for doing it. It’s just fun. And there was a lot of PvP, at least on my server, for the fun of it those first several months of wow. As soon as the rank system came out people stopped doing it for fun. It became “Will this hurt my score?” 

The “meaningful” should be, it was fun. I find myself lucky I fumbled into a guild that a good # of them just like to PvP for no other reason than to kill the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, oneply said:

“Meaningful” PvP is not something I personally care about. (Sadly I’m a minority in that regard). Don’t care about loot either or a reward for doing it. It’s just fun. And there was a lot of PvP, at least on my server, for the fun of it those first several months of wow. As soon as the rank system came out people stopped doing it for fun. It became “Will this hurt my score?” 

The “meaningful” should be, it was fun. I find myself lucky I fumbled into a guild that a good # of them just like to PvP for no other reason than to kill the other side. 

Different designs provide different experiences. However, doesn't mean a game can't have "just for fun" and "meaningful" PVP in the same system. I'd like to just PVP for the heck of it in this one but unfortunately I don't find combat nor character design very rewarding so it's just one thing after another. There are games that have "just for fun" PVP along with a lot more. I'm not holding my breath that CF won't be for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You consistently drop GW2 in these conversations, APE.

I have a LOT of experience with GW2. More than I'd like to admit.

GW2 is a game which has consistently thrown its PvP community under the bus and struggles to update either of its PvP modes because trying to maintain what is essentially three separate games at once is a massive strain on resources even for a team with the full backing of NCsoft.

The PvP is so bad in fact that after a single season it was literally removed from the esports world entirely because professional players from other games were using it to farm easy tournament money, despire ArenaNet investing poorly made socksloads of time and money in to promoting GW2 as "competitive" and chasing the esports crowd.

They also tried to add a MOBA mode, which went nowhere.

The WvW system hasn't fared any better. The population for WvW is so atrocious and its risk/reward so lax that its most common use is to... circle stand to farm for pvp skins to use on their pve characters or farms karma or xp for pve characters because its braindead easy.

Not to mention GW2 has been bleeding staff and tis player base at an alarming rate over the past two years because its design is ultimately unsustainable given that its ingame advancement model is based around cosmetics, which is then fails to add to its content updates in any significant amount, opting in stead to keep loading them in to the cash shop.

GW2 found out the hard way that attempting to make three separate games at the same time, even with ludicrous amounts of resources and an involved community that seems to want those things doesn't work out. That's why the lion's share of their updates now address the only portion of their community which could be considered "healthy" which is the PvE community. They regularly put out PvE content updates and even added raids and updated the challenge system for their high end small group content. Meanwhile PvP languishes because it was always a bad fit.

Its a perfect example of why one game can't be all things to all people. They literally tried it and failed miserably. You've said yourself you don't live WvW despite WvW being, at least theoretically, exactly the game you want to play.

 

As for the rest of your responses that state "Its a design problem" you're absolutely right. It IS a design problem, and the solution ot that problem is already in play in CF's case. That solution, to paraphase JTodd is "Make a specific kind of game for a specific kind of person that wants to play it. It might turn off some people but that's OK."

I agree with that sentiment, for anyone making a video game. Figure out what your game is, and do that thing really well. You don't need to do 40 other things because chances are someone else is making a video game that does every one of those 40 other things really well and your version will be halfassed at best. Could they add hungerdome back in? Yes. Would it be any good? No. not without a significant amount of work.

CF's thing, the thing, its trying to do really well, is create a dynamic system of campaign play which persists for three months in which loot and combat matter, and that has room for rules variants.

Does it still need some love? Yes.

Does its current deficiencies merit literally moving people working on nonfunctional systems to make new systems because some people don't actually want to play Crowfall when they log in to Crowfall? No.

Advocating for a bunch of halfassed features is a really good way to end up with a game full of nothing but halfassed features.

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
2 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Does its current deficiencies merit literally moving people working on nonfunctional systems to make new systems because some people don't actually want to play Crowfall when they log in to Crowfall? No.

 

That would depend on player data logs that we are not privy to. To be brutally honest here, we (current core active players) have already paid for the game release and cannot be relied upon to drive significant future sales of game copies upon launch. This will fall mostly upon new players. If current new players don't like the game then ACE will sweeping changes like they have in the past. 

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...