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

I have a feeling city building is static

Recommended Posts

Just now, Samulus said:

Other than what was hinted at on the Q&A though, do we know have any reason to believe that it wouldn't be like building in an EK? It would seem a logical thing to implement that into Dregs if they already have a system in place... 

Performance.

Share this post


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

Other than what was hinted at on the Q&A though, do we know have any reason to believe that it wouldn't be like building in an EK? It would seem a logical thing to implement that into Dregs if they already have a system in place... 

Yes. There have been some official references to city building and customization, which allows guilds to build unique buildings to customize the forts and keeps they capture.

Share this post


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

We will get a news update about how the city building feature in 5.110 will work soon enough. I don't see any reason to spin around in circles at this point in time. We don't know and can't change anything at all right now. We'll need to see what they come up with in a few weeks, and then we can give our feedback and start planning a revolution or announce world peace or whatever.

We don't always agree, but when we do... QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, starrshipcs said:

Ahh, I remember that.  I took that at the time to mean that some parcels in campaign could be built on but some could not.  In that regard you can't just build anywhere on the map (say, into the side of a mountain) but where you could build you could still customize it to a degree (guessing the number of placeable items would be gated with building tokens or some such).  Not dissimilar to what we already see in EKs.

Thats completely fine, but from what I got from the Q&A that wasn't the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gradishar said:

Yes. There have been some official references to city building and customization, which allows guilds to build unique buildings to customize the forts and keeps they capture.

 

12 minutes ago, pamintandrei said:

Performance.

Oof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gradishar said:

I suspect that the first iteration we’ll see will be generally similar Keep/Fort system that we are already familiar with. The building of the walls will require more effort (ie, boulders, ingots and timber will be too heavy or large to fit in our inventory and thus we’ll need the caravans to get those resources from the PoI to the Keeps/Forts). There will be options for what to place (Barracks, Church, Bank, etc) but not where inside. Then we’ll have a ranking system for improving the buildings and probably the walls as well. 

Now...is that the free form system we’ve enjoyed in the EKs? No...it isn’t. However, we have to remember that “winning” and “points” aren’t a part of EKs and have to be a part of the CWs. So, as a first iteration, that kind of a static and limited system may be necessary to provide an even playing field and an efficient means of calculating victory points as the seasons progress to the end of the Campaign. Obviously, the more customization in terms of wall and building placement...the better. I’m ok with a static system to start as they get the bugs worked out in building, ranking, claiming and destroying each other’s assets. 

The fun part of city building is customizing it. Especially placement of walls, buildings etc. Just like theory crafting classes/race. In SB building cities was a skill, there were some awesome cities that were a pain in the ass to siege which was also the reason why a lot were never able to be torn down due to positioning and build.

 

Having layers of walls to just break in, then another layer surrounding the ToL for example, plus having to cross water to get to the city which will never be the case in CF since water is jtodds enemy

Edited by yianni

Share this post


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

Thats completely fine, but from what I got from the Q&A that wasn't the case. 

Not going to lie, I was mentally checked out of most of that Q&A while waiting for it to "actually start" and it ended without ever beginning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without water...I'd love to see a parcel that looks like the imperial palace parcel with several narrow land bridges to the keep in the center. Instead of water just make them edge of the world drop offs and change it to death if you fall down :) Or a winding narrow pass up the side of a mountain to the keep at the top like the mountain citadel parcel. 

If they come up with many interesting/different fort/keep designs such as what I've described above then I'm okay with static building with choices on what upgrades/building types I want. Darkfall was static building but they had a TON of different city/hamlet designs that were all unique and interesting.

Free building in the EK's is pretty cool and I think it would be really neat to have in the Dregs. However, as we saw in Shadowbane it turns into how many layers of walls can you build in one city and that becomes the city building meta. They would have to find a very good balance on parcel tokens to limit how many layers of walls you could realistically build. 

Image result for imperial palace crowfall

Image result for imperial palace crowfall


Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, yianni said:

The fun part of city building is customizing it. Especially placement of walls, buildings etc. Just like theory crafting classes/race. In SB building cities was a skill, there were some awesome cities that were a pain in the ass to siege which was also the reason why a lot were never able to be torn down due to positioning and build.

 

Having layers of walls to just break in, then another layer surrounding the ToL for example, plus having to cross water to get to the city which will never be the case in CF since water is jtodds enemy

You’re 100% right. I built the cities for the Covenant of Swords in Shadowbane. I absolutely agree with you that the strategic elements of wall and building placement were a phenomenal element of Shadowbane and I truly hope that Crowfall eventually provides that kind of strategic city/keep/fort construction within CWs. If we don’t get that on day one...I’m ok with it (although I will certainly be disappointed). 

Share this post


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

You’re 100% right. I built the cities for the Covenant of Swords in Shadowbane. I absolutely agree with you that the strategic elements of wall and building placement were a phenomenal element of Shadowbane and I truly hope that Crowfall eventually provides that kind of strategic city/keep/fort construction within CWs. If we don’t get that on day one...I’m ok with it (although I will certainly be disappointed). 

there will still be the strategy of what you build 

Share this post


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

Even without water...I'd love to see a parcel that looks like the imperial palace parcel with several narrow land bridges to the keep in the center. Instead of water just make them edge of the world drop offs and change it to death if you fall down :) Or a winding narrow pass up the side of a mountain to the keep at the top like the mountain citadel parcel. 

I agree. Water isn’t necessary to make terrain difficult to traverse. Use of elevation, both positive and negative, can create choke points, bridges and areas to reinforce defenses (beyond just building 3 layers of walls). 

Edited by Gradishar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gradishar said:

You’re 100% right. I built the cities for the Covenant of Swords in Shadowbane. I absolutely agree with you that the strategic elements of wall and building placement were a phenomenal element of Shadowbane and I truly hope that Crowfall eventually provides that kind of strategic city/keep/fort construction within CWs. If we don’t get that on day one...I’m ok with it (although I will certainly be disappointed). 

I'm ok with it not being there on day one as well. As long as it comes eventually. I'll be disappointed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I  can't imagine it not being there on day one TBH. There's just no major tech barrier. It seems like a lot of the foundation for this system has been laid down quite deliberately to make it possible.

They built the EK token system specifically for non-EK usage, which is why it has different types of tokens for defensive and non-defensive structures. This is for both performance and gameplay balance reasons.

They built the entirety of the modular wall and socket systems in EKs with the expressed intent tha they were doing double duty for dregs systems. This was referenced multiple times on multiple streams by Todd. its why he said he felt good about dedicating developer time to the Ek revamp one.

CWs aren't technically all that different from EKs on the server side. They're already built a system that knows what parcel you're on, whether or not you're allowed to edit structures, and an entire structure placement menu. That system is already capable of discreet limitations of how many or few of various structures one may place. Those structures working as hippos was already prototyped extensively in faction campaigns.

It seems to me the only real tech missing (which they've had plenty of time ot build) is integrating those components with a "tree planting" analogy to determine who owns it from a "neutral" campaign start. Either literally planting a TOL, or participating in some kind of NPC capture window battle or something. What might be rough is a lack of a finalized permissions UI or a janky placement UI like we see in EKs right now, but functionally? I can't see a lot of huge tech barriers with the existing systems that would require anything more restrictive than "Capture the Keep Parcel" and being limited by the tokens stated on the parcel, and to inside that parcel.

Might those systems coexist with "Capture this fort?" or might those location already have bits pre-built you have the option of clearing out? I don't see why not. Seems to make a lot more sense for the dying world to have a ruined castle here and there as well as some empty fields in stead of nothing but empty fields.

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
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

I  can't imagine it not being there on day one TBH. There's just no major tech barrier. It seems like a lot of the foundation for this system has been laid down quite deliberately to make it possible.

They built the EK token system specifically for non-EK usage, which is why it has different types of tokens for defensive and non-defensive structures. This is for both performance and gameplay balance reasons.

They built the entirety of the modular wall and socket systems in EKs with the expressed intent tha they were doing double duty for dregs systems. This was referenced multiple times on multiple streams by Todd. its why he said he felt good about dedicating developer time to the Ek revamp one.

CWs aren't technically all that different from EKs on the server side. They're already built a system that knows what parcel you're on, whether or not you're allowed to edit structures, and an entire structure placement menu. That system is already capable of discreet limitations of how many or few of various structures one may place. Those structures working as hippos was already prototyped extensively in faction campaigns.

It seems to me the only real tech missing (which they've had plenty of time ot build) is integrating those components with a "tree planting" analogy to determine who owns it from a "neutral" campaign start. Either literally planting a TOL, or participating in some kind of NPC capture window battle or something. What might be rough is a lack of a finalized permissions UI or a janky placement UI like we see in EKs right now, but functionally? I can't see a lot of huge tech barriers with the existing systems that would require anything more restrictive than "Capture the Keep Parcel" and being limited by the tokens stated on the parcel, and to inside that parcel.

Might those systems coexist with "Capture this fort?" or might those location already have bits pre-built you have the option of clearing out? I don't see why not. Seems to make a lot more sense for the dying world to have a ruined castle here and there as well as some empty fields in stead of nothing but empty fields.

I do think that that was their intent...to build the EK system so that free building within the CW would be possible. However, I suspect that in building that system, they also discovered the inherent problems and challenges with free form walls and buildings. We saw various issues with buildings and walls not being placeable due to changes in elevation. EKs are notoriously laggy. When -W- built Aerynth Traders (still the best EK open market server built to date) we used a ton of legos and the stress on server performance (with only 12 people online at a time) was noticeable. The Token and vassal systems weren’t exactly streamlined or bug free. The polished interface for those systems was never added. I suspect that the lessons learned from the Open Build EK development has led them to where they are now. How much customization we get remains to be seen. To me, the first iteration needs to have “some” customization...but the mechanisms for claiming, choosing assets to build, ranking of assets and ultimately destroying or conquering those assets will be much more important than the shape of the walls or the number of turrets I can put down. At the end of the day, I want all the customization we saw in EKs. Waiting until after commercial release to get that will be acceptable if the the rest of the system is fun, challenging, competitive and compelling to play. 

Edited by Gradishar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gradishar said:

I do think that that was their intent...to build the EK system so that free building within the CW would be possible. However, I suspect that in building that system, they also discovered the inherent problems and challenges with free form walls and buildings. We saw various issues with buildings and walls not being placeable due to changes in elevation. EKs are notoriously laggy. When -W- built Aerynth Traders (still the best EK open market server built to date) we used a ton of legos and the stress on server performance (with only 12 people online at a time) was noticeable. The Token and vassal systems weren’t exactly streamlined or bug free. The polished interface for those systems was never added. I suspect that the lessons learned from the Open Build EK development has led them to where they are now. How much customization we get remains to be seen. To me, the first iteration needs to have “some” customization...but the mechanisms for claiming, choosing assets to build, ranking of assets and ultimately destroying or conquering those assets will be much more important than the shape of the walls or the number of turrets I can put down. At the end of the day, I want all the customization we saw in EKs. Waiting until after commercial release to get that will be acceptable if the the rest of the system is fun, challenging, competitive and compelling to play. 

I think shape of the walls are just as important, I want to design my own choke points I don't want some artificial ones pre built. Same as the location of the stronghold. Closer to resources/mobs will be huge especially with not being able to bank on the fly. And probably the location of where caravans will come from as well, the closer the better I'd assume

Edited by yianni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest concern if they start off with, or permanently have, no free placement of cities, is that many guilds will never have the chance to place/control/build a city. I was lucky enough to have a small guild/city on the War server in Shadowbane on Undead Isle-it was subbed to a larger guild. I loved the city building and management aspects of it. It was my favorite MMORPG experience.

If the current map sizes and number of forts and keeps are similar for what to expect  when the game launches, most guilds will be homeless wanderers. I am in a small guild currently, but would i be forced to join a larger, more successful guild(If they would have me) just to  try and experience a part of the game I am most excited about? I am really excited about the upcoming patch to see the first rendition of city-building, but I am waiting with bated breath. We need SO much more information on how this feature will work, so I will try to be cautiously optimistic. 

Share this post


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

I do think that that was their intent...to build the EK system so that free building within the CW would be possible. However, I suspect that in building that system, they also discovered the inherent problems and challenges with free form walls and buildings. We saw various issues with buildings and walls not being placeable due to changes in elevation. EKs are notoriously laggy. When -W- built Aerynth Traders (still the best EK open market server built to date) we used a ton of legos and the stress on server performance (with only 12 people online at a time) was noticeable. The Token and vassal systems weren’t exactly streamlined or bug free. The polished interface for those systems was never added. I suspect that the lessons learned from the Open Build EK development has led them to where they are now. How much customization we get remains to be seen. To me, the first iteration needs to have “some” customization...but the mechanisms for claiming, choosing assets to build, ranking of assets and ultimately destroying or conquering those assets will be much more important than the shape of the walls or the number of turrets I can put down. At the end of the day, I want all the customization we saw in EKs. Waiting until after commercial release to get that will be acceptable if the the rest of the system is fun, challenging, competitive and compelling to play. 

Its all theory at the moment but I have a few points here.

Elevation changes are a moot point if placement is elevation locked and the parcels designed around that mechanism (as we've seen these structure's parcels altered to prevent randomly generated wall elevations and utilize uniform Z coords for all structures, or literally just sit on flat terrain over the course of development)

As for performance I'd imagine that has far more to do with the fact that nobody has bothered to touch EKs in a long while than that those performance hurdles can't be climbed. Most of those parcels are extremely old, and I doubt there's any "stitch to static object" step for the terrain itself, which alone can be a real hog compared to the methods used in the campaign terrain generator (we saw a big performance jump that coincided with the auto-gen, and I can personally attest to the performance benefits of static versus dynamic meshes in unity projects) On top of that the amount of stuff in most EKs dwarfs what I'd expect to see with the limitations in a competitive setting.

Realistically, I could see this go either way, but there's been a whole dedicated team of people working on just this thing for a really long time with no public facing iteration. I'd understand if performance issues prevented it, but I also wouldn't be surprised if a system that's been in pretty much constant development essentially since kickstarter with only two public facing revisions has a lot of progress we simply haven't been exposed to. Unlike a lot of core features, this has actually been on someone's plate for almost as long as CF has existed in stead of being a two word pitch that didn't even start design until years later.

It just seems to me this kettle's been on the stove way longer than most of the other ones.

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
10 hours ago, Gradishar said:

You’re 100% right. I built the cities for the Covenant of Swords in Shadowbane. I absolutely agree with you that the strategic elements of wall and building placement were a phenomenal element of Shadowbane and I truly hope that Crowfall eventually provides that kind of strategic city/keep/fort construction within CWs. If we don’t get that on day one...I’m ok with it (although I will certainly be disappointed). 

I still have PTSD from sieging the main CoS city in Shadowbane during testing 


Hammers High !!  Master Brewer of the Dwarven Hold Mithril Warhammers

 

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...