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

The Root Problem with Crowfall’s Passive Training

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

We finally got to experience passive training in a way that reflects a launch scenario, unfortunately as predicted it does not feel good.
 

First, let’s get a basic premise out of the way: there is nothing inherently wrong with passive training systems. It’s a different sort of trade-off than an action grind system or a simpler character and level-based one. Some people don’t like them, that’s fine, I personally don’t like action grind systems at all and prefer a passive one. Alas some stuff is subjective, but for the foreseeable future Crowfall will have a passive training system and I'm working under that premise. The problem we face is that as far as passive training systems it feels slow and thus unrewarding, and is fairly inflexible with a lack of real choice, which makes the few possible bad choices feel particularly punishing. So what are the issues and how do we fix them with minimum coding impact/effort?

 

Issue 1: Passive training feels very slow and unrewarding.

 

tldr: The general audience will struggle with or refuse to embrace a system that tells them to wait weeks, much less months, before they can start having fun or at least be effective in their areas of interest.

 

Training progress and noticeable returns are very slow at the current TEST speed, while it was better on LIVE it was arguably still not quite right. This is particularly noticeable for Crafting and Exploration, but at later stages of the player base’s passive training timeline also becomes particularly noticeable for Combat when comparing veterans to new players.

 

When a player first starts there are only two things they can really do: limited useful gathering and engaging in combat. The longer the game is live and passive training is progressing, the worse these gaps become and feel, but the biggest offender is Crafting (as was recently pointed out in another thread). The time to effectiveness in any of these areas seems to at least be measured in a minimum of months, but it’s not even worth bothering to Craft until you can surpass dropped gear - despite spending weeks of passive training and acquiring many stats for that purpose. This is a deathblow for anyone who wants to primarily be a crafter, and those people most certainly exist. Given the amount of actual time we spent outfitting new people back when the population was booming, such players most definitely serve a purpose and keeping them in the game is valuable. The same is true of Exploration, though the impact is less severe as gathering has a better ramp-up of usefulness, however, the best stats are deeply hidden in the Specialization trees.

 

The issues with Crafting and Exploration feed into the power gap issues with Combat training, resulting in new players feeling under-powered - especially if they don’t have access to veterans to supply them with well-crafted gear. Feeling under-powered for a long period of time pushes them away from the game, despite the fact that having more people is almost always better regardless of power level, and fuels the desire for catch up mechanics or an alternate training system.

 

Issue 2: Lack of Choice

 

tldr: Players rarely get to make choices that differentiate their account from any other account, and the few choices they make result in less flexible character choices.

 

The passive training system is limited to only 2 major choices (and for most, it’s only really 1 choice) per account for every couple of months at best, and almost no smaller choices within those 2 choices. All of the real choices, small as they may be, lie in Exploration. While Crafting and Combat only have the option to make the right choice and several wrong choices.

 

When an account is created they must choose 2 out of 3 areas, though ultimately if a player is ever going to engage in combat somewhat regularly they only have to make a choice between Exploration and Crafting. A purely Combat focused player will need to make no choices, they will pick Combat and Exploration.

 

Each of these areas have few choices, and the further you progress, the fewer choices you get. For example, in the Combat Basics the choice comes down to which six nodes you may skip. At least three of them will be a choice between taking damage oriented nodes or healing oriented nodes while almost every other node will be shared by all builds going through combat. As you advance to the next Combat tree (Armor or Weapons) your choices quickly disappear, or are again limited, to choosing between Support or Attack nodes. Once you reach the specialization trees your choices lock you into specific builds to gain their benefits, reducing your game-play options. Changing these choices require significant time investments, which can be a huge opportunity cost if you happen to make “bad” choices by choosing poor meta options (or a future patch imbalances specific builds).

 

Crafting is even worse, the only choice is which crafting you want to pursue. Then you pursue it to100% completion or fairly close. There are a few places you might think you could shortcut, for example you don’t need more than 10 Alchemy Experimentation points for Philosopher’s Stones, but unfortunately you will still need to maximize Assembly and Experimentation which will results in you taking the vast majority of the Alchemy training nodes anyways.

 

Exploration has the best scenario, the middle tier Gathering trees have good general use for their areas, but some of the best stats for gathering such as crit harvest chance, crit harvest amount, and beneficial harvest requires taking the majority of the specialization trees to acquire. Resulting in any gatherer going that deep almost universally taking all the nodes, with only slight priority adjustments for more useful or desired resources.

 

How can this be fixed?

 

tldr: Use EVE’s progressive pip model to reduce training gaps and break up tree structures to create choices.

 

The most plausible solution is to take a page from EVE’s passive training system and adapt it to Crowfall. The first major component is that each Node’s pips should have a progressive cost. At the basic level it shouldn’t take more than a few mins to reach 1 pip, an hour or two for 2 pips, and less than a day for 3 pips. Succeeding nodes should unlock at 3 pips, not 4 pips. This will become important as the 4th and 5th pip for a node should be distinctly more expensive than the preceding 3 pips, using our basic example taking say 1 day for the 4th pip and then 2-3 days for the 5th pip. This creates a more rewarding scenario where players have reason to engage with their passive training regularly and receive their perks. It also makes it “quicker” for players to reach a base effectiveness that lets them compete with veterans. While a Veteran may have picked up those 4th and 5th pips as they dedicate more and more time to that specific training, the new player is reaching ⅗ of those stats fairly quickly, reducing the gap.

 

This also allows the ability to stretch the overall training times out longer, without restricting the feeling of getting a reward. For example, you could make maxing a specific craft take 6 months, but you could reach 40% effectiveness in a few weeks, 60% in a month, and 80% in 3 months. But that last 20%, which is primarily picking up the 5th pip in all the nodes, stretches out to 6 months while the gain for doing so is much smaller compared to the player that might have stopped at 80%, only resulting in 1% or so to each stat affected for spending the extra time to maximize.

 

The second component is to break up the trees into more linear options. Some tree structure can still work, but related nodes need to be more linear with multiple lines to pick from to create actual choices. Damage options should be related, but not pre-reqs, for support options and vice versa. While general options should be completely separate lines. This creates many more choices and differences between player accounts as the specific spread of nodes and pips used to reach a deeper tree could drastically vary between two accounts building to the same role. This also gives players more control over which stats to prioritize and should something change in the future due to patches, pivoting has a much lower time cost thanks to the progressive pip changes above. This may require breaking nodes into more incremental options, but as long as the overall times are not drastically elongated the net effect is still fairly positive.

 

The one weakness to this change is that there aren’t that many nodes to train overall. The current trees don’t currently have enough breadth of choices, or many interesting choices, and arguably too much depth. However, if they plan to add more sub systems and thus more training options to the game over time, the breadth problem could be solved and the outline above would make pivoting to new additions less dramatically time consuming to get a reasonable effectiveness level.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

the biggest offender is Crafting (as was recently pointed out in another thread). The time to effectiveness in any of these areas seems to at least be measured in a minimum of months, but it’s not even worth bothering to Craft until you can surpass dropped gear

Isnt a large part of this problem really from dropped loot being added to the game in effect nullifying the early crafter? While I don't disagree with many of your points, I just think the whole crafting and marketplace/economy loop isn't in game, which makes it hard to justify massive changes to passive training when, as you said, crafting is the biggest offender.

Share this post


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

Isnt a large part of this problem really from dropped loot being added to the game in effect nullifying the early crafter? While I don't disagree with many of your points, I just think the whole crafting and marketplace/economy loop isn't in game, which makes it hard to justify massive changes to passive training when, as you said, crafting is the biggest offender.

The problem is you’re assuming max level crafters. Right now on test dropped gear is the best, and will be until crafting trees start to get fleshed out.

 

The problem is after a wipe there won’t be max level crafters meaning even with the economy loop dropped gear will be the best up to the time passive training allows some one to surpass it. So knowing that the only incentive to be a crafter is knowing that after X amount of time your gear will be better. 
 

Dropped gear was put in the game so that people that wanted to pvp immediately could do so and not need the services of a crafter. It unfortunately worked so well that upon a complete reset, no one needs the services of armorers and weaponsmiths for quite some time. It’s good for the strictly pvp crowd but people that came here specifically for the crafting are going to be disappointed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m still not convinced about the passive system in general, because game play options is locked behind pips which you will eventually unlock in the future with passive training months after the soft launch. My point is in ESO,or World of Warcraft - a system is designed based on your character level to unlock new powers and crafting options which unlock with an active progression model. It was unlocked behind characer level in Shadowbane, but why change this in to this horrific EvE online system?

It is sad why ACE did not not create a market poll about this topic active vs passive progression before ACE started to invest a lot of time into this passive system many years ago. 

 D&D 5th edition talking roleplay have powers/feats unlocked behind level progression and that is the most common active progression system in any mmo today. 


MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


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

 

How can this be fixed?

 

tldr: Use EVE’s progressive pip model to reduce training gaps and break up tree structures to create choices.

 

The most plausible solution is to take a page from EVE’s passive training system and adapt it to Crowfall. The first major component is that each Node’s pips should have a progressive cost. At the basic level it shouldn’t take more than a few mins to reach 1 pip, an hour or two for 2 pips, and less than a day for 3 pips. Succeeding nodes should unlock at 3 pips, not 4 pips. This will become important as the 4th and 5th pip for a node should be distinctly more expensive than the preceding 3 pips, using our basic example taking say 1 day for the 4th pip and then 2-3 days for the 5th pip. This creates a more rewarding scenario where players have reason to engage with their passive training regularly and receive their perks. It also makes it “quicker” for players to reach a base effectiveness that lets them compete with veterans. While a Veteran may have picked up those 4th and 5th pips as they dedicate more and more time to that specific training, the new player is reaching ⅗ of those stats fairly quickly, reducing the gap.

 

 

 

yes, ACE definitely needs to use EVE Online's model.

Some folks complain that you need to passive train for a year in EVE to do anything but that just shows those people haven't ever actually played EVE.

Edited by DocHollidaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mythx said:

I`m still not convinced about the passive system in general, because game play options is locked behind pips which you will eventually unlock in the future with passive training months after the soft launch. My point is in ESO,or World of Warcraft - a system is designed based on your character level to unlock new powers and crafting options which unlock with an active progression model. It was unlocked behind characer level in Shadowbane, but why change this in to this horrific EvE online system?

It is sad why ACE did not not create a market poll about this topic active vs passive progression before ACE started to invest a lot of time into this passive system many years ago. 

 D&D 5th edition talking roleplay have powers/feats unlocked behind level progression and that is the most common active progression system in any mmo today. 

I much prefer passive training. It rewards longevity and while I understand there are people out there that will create an account and leave it until they fell they are trained enough to play, most will not. You cite Eve as "horrific" however, Eve is one of the, if not the longest running PvP oriented MMO's out there right now and is still played thousands. And has no sign of slowing down. So in a niche genre, where few games survive, it's best on a system that has longevity.

Anyway, as OP stated, it's a matter of opinion and right now this is the system we have. Its probably better to offer ideas for streamlining this system than asking for more Wow...which in my opinion is horrific from every angle.

Share this post


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

Isnt a large part of this problem really from dropped loot being added to the game in effect nullifying the early crafter? While I don't disagree with many of your points, I just think the whole crafting and marketplace/economy loop isn't in game, which makes it hard to justify massive changes to passive training when, as you said, crafting is the biggest offender.

Dropped loot is definitely one of things affecting new crafters and as much as it annoys me for how it affects crafters I must admit it does serve a purpose with getting new players equipped quickly, and takes some of the burden off the early logistic rush for fresh start campaigns. And yes it primarily effects the initial launch of the game, but eventually the problem for new players wanting to get into crafting will shift from dropped loot to veteran crafted loot. But the root problem is still there: there's no reason to craft until you "wait" for your training since better gear is either available as a drop or from players that started long before you. I say the latter case is worse since at that point you can't even shrug it off and use dropped gear to be competitive as the stats that really matter, damage and armor, so very subpar compared to crafted gear. This means as the game ages new players are heavily dependent on veterans for reaching parity with those same veterans. This discourages new groups of new players forming, pushing all new players towards existing groups, and puts additional burden on veteran logistics. How much will each of those factors truly matter in the long run? I don't know, depends how tight resource supply is, how time consuming crafting ends up, and what options are available for selling/moving items into other player's hands. Factories are supposed to ease a lot of that burden and guild banks will help with some of the logistics, but we really need a more viable market system than vendors. They have mentioned they know the vendors aren't good enough, but a replacement doesn't seem to be a high priority.

If they shifted to a progressive pip cost system and restricted dropped loot to say 100% crafted stats but common quality only, it might work out that drops aren't as important but a good enough baseline to hold you over til new crafters can make better gear in a few weeks to a month. One of the issues Crafting in crowfall has is that there's not many niche's where a minimally trained crafter can spend time producing something useful. Sticking with the EVE example, a new player can at least make the same ammo a veteran can, the veteran just does it faster and cheaper. Crowfall has no equivalent due to how experimentation works, which setups the base problem of having to wait for crafting.

 

8 hours ago, mythx said:

I`m still not convinced about the passive system in general, because game play options is locked behind pips which you will eventually unlock in the future with passive training months after the soft launch. My point is in ESO,or World of Warcraft - a system is designed based on your character level to unlock new powers and crafting options which unlock with an active progression model. It was unlocked behind characer level in Shadowbane, but why change this in to this horrific EvE online system?

It is sad why ACE did not not create a market poll about this topic active vs passive progression before ACE started to invest a lot of time into this passive system many years ago. 

 D&D 5th edition talking roleplay have powers/feats unlocked behind level progression and that is the most common active progression system in any mmo today. 

There's perks for different systems and which system a game will want to use depends on what type of player experience they want. In a passive training system they can enforce account specialization to a degree, something action base games or character level based games can't really do, and if they try is usually trivially defeated. Those latter types of systems also tend to pad their content with grinding actions and leveling, which means you spend a "lot" of time getting to the point where you can start playing the "actual" game. I like passive training because it gets rid of the time wasting when done right and lets me get straight to playing the game I care about. It also reduces the time stress for players to stay competitive as we all have different schedules and responsibilities. If you cater your MMO to only people that can play 6 hours a day, you're limiting your audience.

As for why ACE choose passive I can speculate two major reasons:
1. Originally there was no leveling at all. Leveling was added later to help ease new players into their classes, so it was either action base or passive from the start and they seemed to agree with me: don't waste time not playing the game to grind so you can play the game, just play the game. Adding leveling also resulted in the talent trees and promos, so bit of a double edged addition. Overall leveling in Crowfall is fairly trivial, you spend very little time leveling.

2. They really want people to specialize and fill niches versus creating more characters or buying more accounts. Two ways to do this are utilize game time for activities that in many other games are push a button and forget, and use passive training to differentiate what an account can do.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Elder Scrolls VI will never use this system in their next RPG, because of the risk involve, and very few knows about it and EvE online is tiny in the mmo market. Why start over and invent the car again with 4 wheels, because the car is well known in design, so creating something wierd like a car with 3 wheels is a risk like the passive progression system. It is a huge risk in the mmo genre and talking about economic point of view. 

1. The talent tree make more sense while playing and they had to adapt to the original model the car with 4 wheels so players don`t feel they are completely lost playing this game, and it added depth to our character path. 

2. Well that is part of the design, but still not convinced and I felt the whole system was rushed when they original started the game design.

Edited by mythx

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


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

The Elder Scrolls VI will never use this system in their next RPG, because of the risk involve, and very few know about it and EvE online is tiny in the mmo market. Why start over and invent the car again with 4 wheels, because the car is well known in design, so creating something wierd like a car with 3 wheels is a risk like the passive progression system. It is a huge risk in the mmo genre and talking about economic point of view. 

Comparing a single player PvE focused game to a MMO PvP game does not make much sense. While a lot of the system will cross over, that does not necessarily mean that they should. What works in single players games does not necessarily work in multi-player games.

Obviously, I like what Duffy is saying and at the end of the day we just need to be able to get crafters into the game and wanting to stick around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that @whisky I don`t really compare a single player vs. a massive multiplayer game. The debate and topic is how do we know progression from other games rpg or mmo? And how players are going to feel rewarded in the CF universe. EvE had so many limitation at least back in 98, because I cant deep core mine with my space ship kind of feeling after 8 months, but maybe it would be fun who knows.. I still cant equip the beam mining lasers so I quit playing EvE online in 99. 

I had still have similar feeling with the CF passive progression system related to crafting, but it has been improved recently. Why are we creating post what the custard are we going to do on day 1 for a crafter? Is the system flawless and without player issues? No I would avoid it and create an unique active progression system that reward players playing inside a campaign.   

 

 


MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


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

 

1. The talent tree make more sense while playing and they had to adapt to the original model the car with 4 wheels so players don`t feel they are completely lost playing this game, and it added depth to our character path. 

2. Well that is part of the design, but still not convinced and I felt the whole system was rushed when they original started the game design.

Two things that the passive tree are missing that we had before in previous patches were early nodes only needing 3 pips to advance giving more strategic complexity to pathing through the tree and better use of ALL and various percentages to move on...  This is dials way up at 95% instead of previous 50% or 75% gates that we had  tested but with 3X.  This is the first run of an actually dumbed down passive tree set.  We've always had the same splits just depicted laterally instead of radially.   Previous versions were better imho mostly the 3 pips to advance.  There used to be the strategy involved in how and when to backfill pips in what skills that lead to an efficient way to navigate the trees for a certain build or use during progression...  

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


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

The Elder Scrolls VI will never use this system in their next RPG, because of the risk involve, and very few knows about it and EvE online is tiny in the mmo market. Why start over and invent the car again with 4 wheels, because the car is well known in design, so creating something wierd like a car with 3 wheels is a risk like the passive progression system. It is a huge risk in the mmo genre and talking about economic point of view. 

1. The talent tree make more sense while playing and they had to adapt to the original model the car with 4 wheels so players don`t feel they are completely lost playing this game, and it added depth to our character path. 

2. Well that is part of the design, but still not convinced and I felt the whole system was rushed when they original started the game design.

 

1 hour ago, mythx said:

I understand that @whisky I don`t really compare a single player vs. a massive multiplayer game. The debate and topic is how do we know progression from other games rpg or mmo? And how players are going to feel rewarded in the CF universe. EvE had so many limitation at least back in 98, because I cant deep core mine with my space ship kind of feeling after 8 months, but maybe it would be fun who knows.. I still cant equip the beam mining lasers so I quit playing EvE online in 99. 

I had still have similar feeling with the CF passive progression system related to crafting, but it has been improved recently. Why are we creating post what the custard are we going to do on day 1 for a crafter? Is the system flawless and without player issues? No I would avoid it and create an unique active progression system that reward players playing inside a campaign.   

 

 

Because those grind and level designs result in players solving all logistics and specialization issues with more alts and figuring out ways to abuse or minimize "worthless" grinding time. The way to beat "alt solutions" in such systems is to make the task incredibly tedious to improve, which exacerbates the issue of "worthless" grinding being a significant portion of game time and granting those with more time a stronger advantage.

The reasons different systems get chosen is due to the baseline design goals. For Crowfall they wanted a system that enforces at least account level specialization, reduces or entirely removes wasteful grinding, allows players to immediately jump into the "end game", and that the economy/logistics of equipment was primarily player based over loot drops. Thus they decided on a passive training system.

As to EVE Online being tiny as an excuse to disregard passive training, yes it is definitely a niche game, but so is Crowfall. PvP sandboxes in general are niche games and will be much much smaller compared to traditional level based theme parks that dabble in PvP. Picking a system is a bit of a gamble for deciding an audience to go after, we often won't know whether it was a good idea or not until after it's too late to pivot.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took days to finish -3 Anti-Critical strike on combat basic passive which seems questionable at least for new CF players. What we usually get from passive training are improved account stats on that account which is not too exciting as you mentioned and slow. I talked with Doc. earlier this evening should I go tank or offensive training and it depends on your class and what I`m going to play, but since we have 6 character slots there are some really difficult decisions. Because hard to guess with the newest patch what is best of high resistance compare to heavy dps in passive combat skill tree consider all the options how to gimp your class and race and disc. runes to avoid. 

However  it is still an advantage to have sparetime in this game about resources and node harvesting compare to a player with 1-2 hours a day. They can keep up with passive, but they can`t compete with economy & structure resources when we can build in the campaign. It also depends if you are guilded or not. I agree that passive is better with limited play time to Crowfall and it is quick to hit max level in CF compare to other games to reach end game and PvP - city sieges. If things were not locked behind passive character progression players would benefit to try new things out without buying new accounts to Alchemy, one for Necromancy, Jewelry etc. 


MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DaFajah said:

Eve is one of the, if not the longest running PvP oriented MMO's out there right now and is still played thousands

Eve is a space-themed pvp game. Where would the players go if they were unhappy with Eve? There isnt any competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

Eve is a space-themed pvp game. Where would the players go if they were unhappy with Eve? There isnt any competition.

https://www.elitedangerous.com/

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

https://www.everspace.game/

https://www.nomanssky.com/

Just a few I have played or found in a 30 second google. ED/Star Citizen are both PvP space games and MMO's, everspace is a different take of the genre of space games, and No mans Sky is technically a space survival game, but as you can see there is a variety of space games for all tastes, these are but a few. There are choices beyond eve, which is actually more a spread sheet simulator than anything.

More to the point, it doesn't matter. This is the system we have, it just needs some tweeks and it will be fine. imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for this post. I like the concept behind passive training, but in every iteration of the passive training trees in this game so far it has just felt really... wrong, but I couldn't quite figure out why or how to make it better. I've never played another game with passive training so I didn't have any other reference for how it could be done right - or even just differently.

Having to basically max out every skill in the entire passive tree just doesn't feel engaging or like I'm actually making any choices, and I can see it being extremely frustrating when the passive training speed slows down to its 'intended' speed at launch. I haven't had enough time yet to experience the more de-treeified version of the passive trees to make a judgement on it. Again, I like it in concept (the tree version felt REALLY bad), but I'm not sure its enough to mitigate the other issues described in the OP.

I'd also like to bring up the idea of a partially passive, partially active system. Basically actions you do in game can add to the speed of your passive training, but only to a certain degree. I'm not sure how exactly this would be implemented, I know its an idea the devs have floated before, not sure if its still something they are considering. It would help new players get up to a base level of competency faster by helping them get through the early parts of the passive skill nodes, and also provide more of a sense of progression early which I feel is really lacking right now, while still allowing for longer term progression from passive training only. I logged into Test 2 days ago and still havent accumulated enough points to get past the very first node in the combat basics tree, a rather boring node for low level gameplay I might add (anti critical strike) - a useful skill for anyone, but one who's effect I won't actually feel as I put points into it while fighting mobs and other low level players. I get that the leveling and talent system is supposed to provide some early game progression as well, but frankly even with the accelerated speed of leveling right now, the leveling experience feels extremely bland and I don't find the talent trees to be very interesting either (perhaps even less interesting than the passive trees).

Final point I'd add is that many of the individual nodes just feel really underwhelming and sometimes even just confusing. -3% critical strike? 5% movement control defense? These don't seem like stats I'm particularly interested in as a brand new player, yet they are in the very first parts of the combat basics group. 100 resist all? 300 organic resistance? How am I supposed to gauge the relative value of these stats again each other, and more importantly to others like 5% hard control intensity. Some of this comes down to lack of experience with the game mechanics I know, but these are all stats in the combat basics group, the one almost every player is going to start in, and there is no reference for how useful any of this stuff is. How common is hard control vs movement control vs attack control? How badly do different debuffs affect my particular class or playstyle? How common is organic damage? Do I have more problems dealing with classes that do organic damage or cold damage? How useful is crit damage vs crit resistance vs physical resistance? It doesn't feel good to look at these skill trees as a new player and have no idea what to aim for. Perhaps the slow accumulation of passive training points will alleviate this, as you'll be a week or two in before you even have to start making any choices and somewhat more familiar with the game mechanics by then, but as a new player just looking through the passive trees trying to see whats there and plan out a build, none of it makes a lot of sense and my instant reaction is 'blegh I don't even want to think about this right now' rather than 'wow I can't wait until I start unlocking all these cool stats'. Right now I'm looking at this and thinking "Oh look in 2-3 weeks I can invest some points into a skill that can drop that 3 second root down to 2.85 seconds... yay", and that doesn't get me invested in the progression system at all.

Edited by syiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

I hope you were kidding. These games might as well not exist as they are so unknown.

the other 3 are unknown never heard of em but no mans sky at least was the most anticipated game of 2016 and is known as one of the biggest let downs in gaming history with a wonderful redemption arc


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


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

I hope you were kidding. These games might as well not exist as they are so unknown.

You said there was no competition, the people that play eve had no where else to go, and while these games may not compete with Eve, they are certainly viable options.

1 hour ago, Staff said:

the other 3 are unknown never heard of em but no mans sky at least was the most anticipated game of 2016 and is known as one of the biggest let downs in gaming history with a wonderful redemption arc

Star Citizen (https://www.businessinsider.com/star-citizen-has-raised-over-250-million-squadron-42-set-for-2020-2018-12) for an "unheard of game it had 2.2 million backers in 2018, that numbers has increased) If you have not heard of this game then you are really out of touch. No Mans Sky is very famous for it's recovery among other things. Everspace, while less popular than those three, still had a peak of 679 players in the last 30 days. 

Just because you don't know about them does not make them "unpopular" Star Citizen had over 300K players, Elite: in the last 30 days 4625 with a peak of 12,325, not record smashing however, certainly not "unknown" and No mans Sky had an average of 5695 with a peak of 10,852. What was CF's count? 150? 200? I am not sure, the point is these games are all pretty popular among people that enjoy space games.

@ToadwartI will also point out that this discussion is derailing this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with topic, other than me proving each of your statements to be wrong. I suggest you stop trying to setup straw man arguments and return to the discussion being had, or send me a private message, but this thread is not the place to discuss other games.

As I have said a few times now, we have a system, it needs some work and that is what we should be focused on in this thread, not other games and their popularity.

Edited by whisky
Grammar, Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, whisky said:

You said there was no competition, the people that play eve had no where else to go, and while these games may not compete with Eve, they are certainly viable options.

Star Citizen (https://www.businessinsider.com/star-citizen-has-raised-over-250-million-squadron-42-set-for-2020-2018-12) for an "unheard of game it had 2.2 million backers in 2018, that numbers has increased) If you have not heard of this game then you are really out of touch. No Mans Sky is very famous for it's recovery among other things. Everspace, while less popular than those three, still had a peak of 679 players in the last 30 days. 

Just because you don't know about them does not make them "unpopular" Star Citizen had over 300K players, Elite: in the last 30 days 4625 with a peak of 12,325, not record smashing however, certainly not "unknown" and No mans Sky had an average of 5695 with a peak of 10,852. What was CF's count? 150? 200? I am not sure, the point is these games are all pretty popular among people that enjoy space games.

@ToadwartI will also point out that this discussion is derailing this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with topic, other than me proving each of your statements to be wrong. I suggest you stop trying to setup straw man arguments and return to the discussion being had, or send me a private message, but this thread is not the place to discuss other games.

As I have said a few times now, we have a system, it needs some work and that is what we should be focused on in this thread, not other games and their popularity.

ive heard of star citizen of course, just never heard robert space industries attached to it before and you cant expect me to thoroughly research my argument on the internet


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...