Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
binny45

What would it take to get you playing again?

Recommended Posts

I am just new this game , what I have noticed that developers focus on Team fight and Campaign which is not daily things to do in the game it is season activities. I would like developer to keep attention in improving the game in wide range. in brief, most players or all of them will start gathering or even crafting, so need to improve pve contents and add many activities like killing boss right now or farm camp for xp or gold🙄 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

McTan good points and always good to see someone with "common sense".

Anyhow, game needs a TON of work or yea..this wont work.

Wrain

 

Edited by Pann
See PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 11:00 PM, APE said:

Something more like Darkness Falls from DAoC. Totally lock out good PVE content until XYZ conditions are met.

They could do that - make an R9-R10 map zone that you can't access until you capture an Objective that opens the runegate. That's the kind of stuff I expect to see happen with Campaign variations later on.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


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

Jah on the other hand....well I just dont respond to people who fail at basic reasoning or reading comprehension.

You complained about the grind but suggested mobs with rare drops to attract pvp. I don't actually disagree with that wish, but you don't see the possible contradiction? Killing mobs for rare drops is exactly the sort of thing some people are railing against as a grind. I'm not, but people are.

I think you and McTan read more judgement into that observation than was there.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've been lurking for a while ever since quite a few versions ago and the realization that Crowfall would probably never be "the game". As each current crowd-funded MMORPG continues to stray further from their original promises/visions/goals, I don't imagine the MMORPG scene will be looking all that great in 5 years (the lion's share of upcoming MMORPGs that aren't instead curated smaller hybrids like looter shooters/mobas/royales are crowd-funded).

When they first added the leveling camp hogwash, I complained, and loudly, because I'm not interested in playing a PvP game for joy of instead getting incredibly uninspired PvE just to earn the "right" to PvP. Before that, I complained about how annoying it was to have to depend on crafters or crafting to pretty much do anything (though I understand it was a symptom of the testing environment, I noted this should never exist as a possibility, old craft or die games be damned), and was ridiculed for that (a dev even poked at me). They're ironically addressing that very issue now with randamo loot, which is a good sign, I guess, but I'm not sure about how they're going about it...

Anyway, what will it take to bring me back? We can start with a game that's actually fun to play... I want to PvP. I don't want to play ghetto Minecraft for 10 hours and then go suck a crafter's schlong for gear just to lose it after one hour of fun. The more steps between me logging in and PvPing, the less likely I am to play. Right now it's pretty bad. The grind may not be the worst I've encountered (I've played EQ and FFXI for years), but it's just as terrible in terms of quality. It's not fun. You have to "take it in rear" to be able to do what you want eventually, which is toxic MMORPG design we should be trying to fix and not encourage.

I get the problem of nuances and complexity, i.e. economy, meaningful crafting, ect, and know it's not going to be easy to fix, but eh it's simple enough for me. If I have to grind extensively/constantly or spend a lot of time before I actually get to PvP, then I just won't play the game and neither will tons of PvP fans probably. PvErs won't have much reason to fill in the gap because frankly the game's PvE is god awful in every way and pales against pretty much any other game.

So my friends and I are in the same boat as the OP's friends. We have a ton of terrific games coming out this year and next, and some new COOP games to try and a few upcoming PvP forays, so I've little reason to waste my time on a game that claims to be a PvP game but is dressing itself more and more like a PvE game with side PvP content, even if that PvP content, when it works and is actually present, is much better than most.

I've pretty much given up on MMORPGs though so my hopefulness here is pretty wistful, and doubt that either Crowfall or Camelot are going to be the ones to offer us a good alternative to symmetrical sports-like PvP games (team/hero shooters, MOBAs). Might just need battle royales to merge with a better take on Mordhau or something, I don't know.

Edited by Nightmarian
Typos, clarity.

Wearily do I sleep eternity away.

Without fear or haste, on bedding made of solitude and silence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/15/2019 at 3:49 AM, Nightmarian said:

I've been lurking for a while ever since quite a few versions ago and the realization that Crowfall would probably never be "the game". As each current crowd-funded MMORPG continues to stray further from their original promises/visions/goals, I don't imagine the MMORPG scene will be looking all that great in 5 years (the lion's share of upcoming MMORPGs that aren't instead curated smaller hybrids like looter shooters/mobas/royales are crowd-funded).

When they first added the leveling camp hogwash, I complained, and loudly, because I'm not interested in playing a PvP game for joy of instead getting incredibly uninspired PvE just to earn the "right" to PvP. Before that, I complained about how annoying it was to have to depend on crafters or crafting to pretty much do anything (though I understand it was a symptom of the testing environment, I noted this should never exist as a possibility, old craft or die games be damned), and was ridiculed for that (a dev even poked at me). They're ironically addressing that very issue now with randamo loot, which is a good sign, I guess, but I'm not sure about how they're going about it...

Anyway, what will it take to bring me back? We can start with a game that's actually fun to play... I want to PvP. I don't want to play ghetto Minecraft for 10 hours and then go suck a crafter's schlong for gear just to lose it after one hour of fun. The more steps between me logging in and PvPing, the less likely I am to play. Right now it's pretty bad. The grind may not be the worst I've encountered (I've played EQ and FFXI for years), but it's just as terrible in terms of quality. It's not fun. You have to "take it in rear" to be able to do what you want eventually, which is toxic MMORPG design we should be trying to fix and not encourage.

I get the problem of nuances and complexity, i.e. economy, meaningful crafting, ect, and know it's not going to be easy to fix, but eh it's simple enough for me. If I have to grind extensively/constantly or spend a lot of time before I actually get to PvP, then I just won't play the game and neither will tons of PvP fans probably. PvErs won't have much reason to fill in the gap because frankly the game's PvE is god awful in every way and pales against pretty much any other game.

So my friends and I are in the same boat as the OP's friends. We have a ton of terrific games coming out this year and next, and some new COOP games to try and a few upcoming PvP forays, so I've little reason to waste my time on a game that claims to be a PvP game but is dressing itself more and more like a PvE game with side PvP content, even if that PvP content, when it works and is actually present, is much better than most.

I've pretty much given up on MMORPGs though so my hopefulness here is pretty wistful, and doubt that either Crowfall or Camelot are going to be the ones to offer us a good alternative to symmetrical sports-like PvP games (team/hero shooters, MOBAs). Might just need battle royales to merge with a better take on Mordhau or something, I don't know.

i agree, the PvP and PvE aspects (excluding crafting) is way below avarage compared to the current gamingmarket. I mean organic world-PvP is never happening to me and i don't want to roam around the world for hours looking around for fights to get rofl-stomped by a group of 5+ players. About the boring openworld-design, i don't need to talk because it speaks for itself and the AI and moveset of NPC-monsters are just very bad and never challenging. If i want good PvP without waiting time i play Mordhau, if i want good PvE i play Monster Hunter World.

Edited by Kreigon

One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to Find them, One Ring to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 5:05 AM, Kreigon said:

i agree, the PvP and PvE aspects (excluding crafting) is way below avarage compared to the current gamingmarket. I mean organic world-PvP is never happening to me and i don't want to roam around the world for hours looking around for fights to get rofl-stomped by a group of 5+ players. About the boring openworld-design, i don't need to talk because it speaks for itself and the AI and moveset of NPC-monsters are just very bad and never challenging. If i want good PvP without waiting time i play Mordhau, if i want good PvE i play Monster Hunter World.

I suppose I am in the minority of people when I say that I don't mind the "familiar PvE elements" or theme park aspects they've added. I like the idea of customizing builds with talent points, discs, etc, and to a certain extent I like having to participate in a "grind" to achieve full viability. Most people are upset with the curves these things are locked behind at the moment, or the presence of a curve.

I only ask the following so that I may be enlightened, because I can't merge these two ideas in my head; how can you have an active economy with open-world PvP potential if everyone just got to jump in at max level and start PvPing? How would this idea not be beaten out by a game like Smite for example? Anything MOBA-like is going to have Crowfall beaten in the instant gratification department, hands down. 

I'm in the camp of people that think that a grind is way more endurable, or even ignorable, if your combat system and gameplay is engaging and fun. They're still working on this aspect (and refusing to work on other parts of it until they are closer to release), so I have hope. 

Share this post


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

I suppose I am in the minority of people when I say that I don't mind the "familiar PvE elements" or theme park aspects they've added. I like the idea of customizing builds with talent points, discs, etc, and to a certain extent I like having to participate in a "grind" to achieve full viability. Most people are upset with the curves these things are locked behind at the moment, or the presence of a curve.

I only ask the following so that I may be enlightened, because I can't merge these two ideas in my head; how can you have an active economy with open-world PvP potential if everyone just got to jump in at max level and start PvPing? How would this idea not be beaten out by a game like Smite for example? Anything MOBA-like is going to have Crowfall beaten in the instant gratification department, hands down. 

I'm in the camp of people that think that a grind is way more endurable, or even ignorable, if your combat system and gameplay is engaging and fun. They're still working on this aspect (and refusing to work on other parts of it until they are closer to release), so I have hope. 

Incoming long winded post about gaming theory:

Theres a couple of factors at play that are based on underlying assumptions and “what’s been done” before mentalities. I personally think Crowfall was close to bucking what I consider a “bad trend with a side of doomed to failure” and then did a u-turn right back into the danger zone of making themselves a knock off of what has either already failed or is already out there. So let’s get into a few specific points.

Major point one: levels and RNG grind are the antithesis of competition. Levels are often seen as a form of progression, because obviously at their core they are. But they originally come from a very specific design mentality: the content scales with your level, and when your done with the content (aka your story) your done with your character. You can see this in the early design intent of level based games like Tabletop games (original source of levels?), Single player RPGs, and later theme park MMOs (end game content suffers from the problem I’m about to get into). Those games are about your progression and overcoming the content (that is appropriately scaled to challenge you as you progress).

The issue is in a head to head competitive game levels are not fun (well for everyone, some people enjoy stomping newbies) because the content is other players. The content does not scale with you and your level progression is not really your story, it’s just getting you to the real part of the game. It’s a cost you have to pay to play the actual game and the larger the power differential and the longer it takes to reach parity from such systems the worse the foundation.

Major Point Two: Rampant and low chance RNG creates stress and negative gameplay loops. What do I mean by this? First, there is the tie back to power differential, the bigger it is the more stress there is to grind the RNG to try and reach parity, and every failure exacerbates that stress. Second, what I mean by negative gameplay loop is that it encourages players to not play the game as intended. For example, if a player only has a few hours of a day to play and that time overlaps with several potential major activities which one do they choose? Go to siege? But they don’t feel they have enough parity! Really should go grind RNG (or levels) instead! But wait they need gear too so they reluctantly gather resources instead, but only to the minimum so they can go back to grinding. (I am separating gathering from grinding here, I’ll get back to that later)

So, how do we fix these two problems and still maintain some version of progression?

First, if you really want or must have a progression system in your competitive game you should aim to make it shallow. If you want to add specialization you give the system breadth. So while it’s relatively easy to reach parity on an area, it’s hard (or impossible to do everything). The other important key to this is that the breadth areas cannot stack such that it creates more power and negates the shallow depth of the individual areas. We want to minimize power differential and create an activity differential, it should be more about what ways you can spend your time and less about getting better at everything you do. 

Second, the competition itself is progression. By embracing this idea you can turn what used to be grind style content into just another component of the competition. The goal here is to remove luck and make it more about reliable patterns, this will fuel competition over needed resources without all the stress and negative gameplay loops. You cut down on “this or that” choices and make it more about competing. It becomes a reliable and planning friendly farming pattern over an unknown RNG grind.

And if the power curve has been done right, lack of parity or completeness won’t feel that bad. Again refocusing on the actual content of head to head competition over trying to avoid competition until your “ready”.

You can note I never mentioned passive training directly, that’s cause it doesn’t matter which way you grant your skill progression, what matters is that’s its relatively shallow. Now I prefer passive skill training because it negates silly grind activities and standardizes everyone’s progression time to avoid certain advantages, thus lowering the bar for entry into the competitive side of things. But it still hinges on a shallow curve either way.

If they instituted more of what I was talking about and less of typical time consuming level grind what differentiates Crowfall from SMITE or other games? I think it’s two major factors, first there’s persistence, not just our characters and thus our stories, but of our actions and their outcomes affecting each other’s gameplay. That’s what draws us to a sandbox in the first place, the variety of interactions and results of them.

The second part is how varied activities fit into that persistence. Folks of different interests can come together to build that persistence by focusing on different but dependent areas, traditionally: combat, gathering, and crafting. And there can be more nuance in each area, and sometimes even more systems (like EVE’s scanning and exploration I would classify as an additional dependent system). You won’t find that sort dependence and variety in a round based competitive game.

So in conclusion I do recognize that some of the RNG grind we have now should disappear in the future, and that will help. But we need to be wary of it sneaking back in somehow.

And finally, I implore ACE: get rid of levels and get rid of copying what’s already been done and has failed. The goal of your game is competition and we’re seeing now how all the extra “busy” work to compete has caused folks to walk away. Because to many it’s not worth the effort to slam your head into that competition, it’s too much to swing around and adjust, no one wants to repeat the busy work ad nauseum. Ultimately the key to a good competitive game is being able to learn and change, the more roadblocks you put up to that the more your game will stagnate over time. Sure this isn’t live yet and a lot is yet to come, but its something to keep in mind and strive to avoid.

There’s lots of good ideas to crib out there or change, but do not chain yourself to the past because that’s how it was done or that’s what people think they want. You were so close to breaking those chains and doing something that at its core was new, but offered what we really needed. Do not rely on nostalgia of what’s already failed or doesn’t really fit the paradigm, build something new and different that embraces its core principles and players will come.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

Incoming long winded post about gaming theory:

Theres a couple of factors at play that are based on underlying assumptions and “what’s been done” before mentalities. I personally think Crowfall was close to bucking what I consider a “bad trend with a side of doomed to failure” and then did a u-turn right back into the danger zone of making themselves a knock off of what has either already failed or is already out there. So let’s get into a few specific points.

Major point one: levels and RNG grind are the antithesis of competition. Levels are often seen as a form of progression, because obviously at their core they are. But they originally come from a very specific design mentality: the content scales with your level, and when your done with the content (aka your story) your done with your character. You can see this in the early design intent of level based games like Tabletop games (original source of levels?), Single player RPGs, and later theme park MMOs (end game content suffers from the problem I’m about to get into). Those games are about your progression and overcoming the content (that is appropriately scaled to challenge you as you progress).

The issue is in a head to head competitive game levels are not fun (well for everyone, some people enjoy stomping newbies) because the content is other players. The content does not scale with you and your level progression is not really your story, it’s just getting you to the real part of the game. It’s a cost you have to pay to play the actual game and the larger the power differential and the longer it takes to reach parity from such systems the worse the foundation.

Major Point Two: Rampant and low chance RNG creates stress and negative gameplay loops. What do I mean by this? First, there is the tie back to power differential, the bigger it is the more stress there is to grind the RNG to try and reach parity, and every failure exacerbates that stress. Second, what I mean by negative gameplay loop is that it encourages players to not play the game as intended. For example, if a player only has a few hours of a day to play and that time overlaps with several potential major activities which one do they choose? Go to siege? But they don’t feel they have enough parity! Really should go grind RNG (or levels) instead! But wait they need gear too so they reluctantly gather resources instead, but only to the minimum so they can go back to grinding. (I am separating gathering from grinding here, I’ll get back to that later)

So, how do we fix these two problems and still maintain some version of progression?

First, if you really want or must have a progression system in your competitive game you should aim to make it shallow. If you want to add specialization you give the system breadth. So while it’s relatively easy to reach parity on an area, it’s hard (or impossible to do everything). The other important key to this is that the breadth areas cannot stack such that it creates more power and negates the shallow depth of the individual areas. We want to minimize power differential and create an activity differential, it should be more about what ways you can spend your time and less about getting better at everything you do. 

Second, the competition itself is progression. By embracing this idea you can turn what used to be grind style content into just another component of the competition. The goal here is to remove luck and make it more about reliable patterns, this will fuel competition over needed resources without all the stress and negative gameplay loops. You cut down on “this or that” choices and make it more about competing. It becomes a reliable and planning friendly farming pattern over an unknown RNG grind.

And if the power curve has been done right, lack of parity or completeness won’t feel that bad. Again refocusing on the actual content of head to head competition over trying to avoid competition until your “ready”.

You can note I never mentioned passive training directly, that’s cause it doesn’t matter which way you grant your skill progression, what matters is that’s its relatively shallow. Now I prefer passive skill training because it negates silly grind activities and standardizes everyone’s progression time to avoid certain advantages, thus lowering the bar for entry into the competitive side of things. But it still hinges on a shallow curve either way.

If they instituted more of what I was talking about and less of typical time consuming level grind what differentiates Crowfall from SMITE or other games? I think it’s two major factors, first there’s persistence, not just our characters and thus our stories, but of our actions and their outcomes affecting each other’s gameplay. That’s what draws us to a sandbox in the first place, the variety of interactions and results of them.

The second part is how varied activities fit into that persistence. Folks of different interests can come together to build that persistence by focusing on different but dependent areas, traditionally: combat, gathering, and crafting. And there can be more nuance in each area, and sometimes even more systems (like EVE’s scanning and exploration I would classify as an additional dependent system). You won’t find that sort dependence and variety in a round based competitive game.

So in conclusion I do recognize that some of the RNG grind we have now should disappear in the future, and that will help. But we need to be wary of it sneaking back in somehow.

And finally, I implore ACE: get rid of levels and get rid of copying what’s already been done and has failed. There’s lots of good ideas to crib out there or change, but do not chain yourself to the past because that’s how it was done or that’s what people think they want. You were so close to breaking those chains and doing something that at its core was new, but offered what we really needed. Do not rely on nostalgia of what’s already failed or doesn’t really fit the paradigm, build something new and different that embraces its core principles and players will come.

Wow... talk about thorough and detailed... I appreciate your response and elucidation on this point.

The way you put that actually sounds REALLY good. The things that drew me to this game originally were two things:
1: the sandbox aspect (spun early on as what everyone calls "Dregs" now. Dregs is vastly different than what we have at the moment)
2: the constant PvP aspect

Note that neither of those involve any MMO-traditionalism, I'll admit that the leveling grind and tedium is something that hits me at a "comfort" spot inside and I've swallowed just because. Case and point, how long have we all been playing games that require this of us? This is the norm.

Now that you put it all that way though, why should it be the norm? The only answer for that I can see is that it can maybe draw a larger crowd. But, as you said, is that worth the cost of being different?

Kudos to you and your well-thought out response. 

Edited by Samulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Samulus said:

The things that drew me to this game originally were two things:
1: the sandbox aspect (spun early on as what everyone calls "Dregs" now. Dregs is vastly different than what we have at the moment)
2: the constant PvP aspect

I'm curious where the expectation of constant PvP came from. In my mind, constant PvP and sandbox PvP are at odds with each other. To offer constant PvP, the game would probably have to have a matchmaking system for short battles. Anyone playing those battles would not be playing in the sandbox.

Did ACE ever claim the game would offer constant PvP?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think he means more that PvP is pervasive and all content is funneling one way or another into supporting that PvP and/or being a catalyst of it.

There really isn’t a single activity in this game that isn’t built around the idea of causing PvP or being a target for PvP. Well except maybe leveling as I said above, hell they had to add a newbie island just to make base leveling not part of the PvP activity, which imo is just another sign that leveling doesn’t really fit the paradigm they were going for.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

Did ACE ever claim the game would offer constant PvP?

Yes ACE has claimed to offer the constant threat of pvp.

 

As a matter of fact the adventure zones in God’s reach not being pvp enabled was a “constant” complaint of the tester base.

Share this post


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

Yes ACE has claimed to offer the constant threat of pvp.

As a matter of fact the adventure zones in God’s reach not being pvp enabled was a “constant” complaint of the tester base.

A constant "threat of PvP" is quite different than "constant PvP."

Outside God's Reach and the Temples, there is a constant threat of pvp in the campaign worlds. But that doesn't mean anything like constant PvP. For that you'd probably need something like Overwatch matches.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constant PVP would cause gear decay to be so overwhelming as to make durability and crafting obsolete.  Sounds like you’re chasing a moba or a game without gear destruction/decay.  


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)
On 6/19/2019 at 1:26 PM, Duffy said:

I think he means more that PvP is pervasive and all content is funneling one way or another into supporting that PvP and/or being a catalyst of it.

There really isn’t a single activity in this game that isn’t built around the idea of causing PvP or being a target for PvP. Well except maybe leveling as I said above, hell they had to add a newbie island just to make base leveling not part of the PvP activity, which imo is just another sign that leveling doesn’t really fit the paradigm they were going for.

Duffy got it. Not necessarily being fireball-spammed while mining an iron node, or being kited by the Huntard+pet while I am trying to use the banking service in the local village, but the idea that every aspect of your activity in the campaign is fueled by the competition amongst other establishments of players in that campaign.

 

Edited by Pann
See PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

26 minutes ago, Samulus said:

Uh oh, looks like this thread is going to reach 14 - 32 pages, Jah took something out of context again... I guess it's my turn to initiate;

"Jah, but I don't like Overwatch. I think Crowfall should restructure completely."

Not sure why you are so quick to fly into personal attacks. I suggested that a desire for the "sandbox aspect" and "constant pvp" may be at odds with each other. That isn't some sort of broadside against you. And it isn't "taking something out of context." It's just engaging in discussion.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

A constant "threat of PvP" is quite different than "constant PvP."

Outside God's Reach and the Temples, there is a constant threat of pvp in the campaign worlds. But that doesn't mean anything like constant PvP. For that you'd probably need something like Overwatch matches.

WoW PVP servers have a "constant threat of PVP" in the open world along with BG/Arenas with "constant PVP." To me it is silly that such a game out does a game that I imagine most of us are attracted to because of the focus on player conflict.

I don't really see an open world game such as this having 24/7 PVP across every step of the map, but the reasons and rewards to PVP and systems/mechanics in place to encourage it are missing from Crowfall's design.

Standing in circles, smacking a tree once a day, and fighting over who gets to fight monsters is not what I pictured when they hyped this thing up.

There is more that they could do that would make PVP or just conflict as a whole more frequent if not constant where what we do impacts others and outcomes more then who gets more points at the top of the screen. Even the get points and win model can be made more complex and interactive between players.

Obviously having more players would help any design, but I don't see the servers being packed long if they don't expand on what I believe is a rather basic model. AV in Vanilla WoW had more PVP/PVE moving parts then what we have in Crowfall (if my memory serves me right).

If the goal is just who can out grind the other and herd cats better then guess they'll get it done. Will fall very short of what it could be though.

6 hours ago, mandalore said:

Constant PVP would cause gear decay to be so overwhelming as to make durability and crafting obsolete.  Sounds like you’re chasing a moba or a game without gear destruction/decay.  

This completely depends on how decay and how obtaining gear is implemented. I could use a mace once and it could break or I could use it 500 times and be at 50% durability. There could be a way to repair items as well. If gear was relatively easy come/go which ACE seems to be going more towards, actually being able to use the gear more then once or twice a day will hopefully not break it to pieces.

Share this post


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

This completely depends on how decay and how obtaining gear is implemented. I could use a mace once and it could break or I could use it 500 times and be at 50% durability. There could be a way to repair items as well. If gear was relatively easy come/go which ACE seems to be going more towards, actually being able to use the gear more then once or twice a day will hopefully not break it to pieces.

The system as it is would severely punish the player if most of the time played was pvping.  Harvesting, crafting, exploring, getting around the map itself are part of their core concepts and won’t be removed so people can have “constant” PvP.  Do I think they need to be toned down? O custard yes I do but I openly hate the ridiculous amount of co-dependence forced with harvesting and crafting. Do I think they will 180 on a core concept that is basically what Blair/Koster were hired to do?  Nope.     

Tldr; I’m talking about how decaying gear would be impacted as the systems are now and you’re talking about what if’s (that I agree would be better) but unlikely to happen given how late into dev they are and who is making the game. 


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)
11 hours ago, Jah said:

I'm curious where the expectation of constant PvP came from. In my mind, constant PvP and sandbox PvP are at odds with each other. To offer constant PvP, the game would probably have to have a matchmaking system for short battles. Anyone playing those battles would not be playing in the sandbox.

Did ACE ever claim the game would offer constant PvP?

9 hours ago, Jah said:

A constant "threat of PvP" is quite different than "constant PvP."

Outside God's Reach and the Temples, there is a constant threat of pvp in the campaign worlds. But that doesn't mean anything like constant PvP. For that you'd probably need something like Overwatch matches.

The idea is to create fun and meaningful objectives that encourage PvP at all levels. For instance, holding a quarry mine with A.I. instead of just chomping at rocks like a convict. Like an RTS, as long as I hold that mine I generate stone (through slaves, vessels, golems, or whatever flavor you want to give the AI, that need to be protected. They'd be no different than the in-game monsters being used as resources/fodder). I want stone, I need the mine. There are big ones, there are small ones, a small group might claim a few small ones out in the edges, big groups take the super ones. My guild/group claims a shred of territory that is rich in stone but low in, I don't know, wood or good farming land.

We have tons of stone, but no food; we trade or raid for food, alliance with another guild. Another guild wants our quarries, they start fighting. Smaller groups know food is important to the stone desert group, go to sell to them for weapons/mats/stone and try to do it safely while opposing guilds steal or offer better deals to starve out competitor.

At no time should we need to sit around punching a tree for wood for three hours (I respect crafters and player-run economy, but I never will understand the draw...) just to be able to go stop other people from doing the same and win the minecraft race. Like an RTS, we should be looking to protect our economy, increase it, or harass/harm that of others. Not be a grunt and do the tedious work ourselves.

This is just a messy example and just how I personally feel, but I know that there are paths to fixing the lack of stronger PvP workflows and the absurd dependency on crafting and crafters to simply play. The randamo loot they are giving us is another example of an attempt. Making PvE actually, I don't know, not terrible would also at least go a long way to making it less boring/tedious, or changing up how we harvest from them, or making them limited spawns we have to fight over.

I'm not claiming to be a genius, but I do know that sitting there spamming "1" on zero threat spiders for a few hours in what is supposed to be a PvP game isn't fun at all. We don't need max level characters jumping in, but everything should be designed around forcing fights at some point - i.e. the only way to get xp should be through PvP-related stuff, not PvE mobs. There should be no useful safe camps. So on, so on.

11 hours ago, Duffy said:

I think he means more that PvP is pervasive and all content is funneling one way or another into supporting that PvP and/or being a catalyst of it.

There really isn’t a single activity in this game that isn’t built around the idea of causing PvP or being a target for PvP. Well except maybe leveling as I said above, hell they had to add a newbie island just to make base leveling not part of the PvP activity, which imo is just another sign that leveling doesn’t really fit the paradigm they were going for.

Agreed that leveling is definitely not, and agreed that it really doesn't fit. Everything else does but at widely different levels; i.e. spending hours collecting resources to "get ready" for PvP supports/catalysts PvP, BUT...

That's not the core problem. The core problem is that the "PvE" and a lot of the other stuff that supports the "PvP" isn't all that great and is either too much of the game loop, too terrible/boring/tedious, or too crazily important that it has to be done just to be able to pvp.

That is literally why they added random loot, so that people can spend more time fighting than being bottle-necked at a crafting line, especially when resources are tight because you can't effectively go farm trees or whatever. Of course, the way you get these things is still lackluster PvE so meh.

Edited by Nightmarian
Clarity, less rage (lol)

Wearily do I sleep eternity away.

Without fear or haste, on bedding made of solitude and silence.

 

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...