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

Things develop before launch!


Recommended Posts

I’m not gonna lie.  I took a gut punch at the last QA.

Todd promising a change to fix territory control had me very excited.  But to find out he’s just tweaking the current points system... which I hate...

The actual game needs to be worked on.

The economy needs to be bigger and more balanced.

There needs to be the ability for small guilds and big guilds to compete.

There needs to be a reason for the 3 biggest NA guilds to stop nut cupping.

There needs to be incentive to have a skilled 20 man guild and not a 100 man Zerg.

I don’t even remember what the original vision for this game was, but there was no way you would have convinced a bunch of Darkfallers and Shadowbaners to come play a game for points!

We came here to kill for loot, pride and glory.

We came here to build awesome cities and castles.

We came here to crumble what others have built and trash talk them in the forums, and make hilarious videos of their tears!!

We came to raid cities when we are drunk at 3 in the morning, and piss someone off so hard, they show up on our doorstep the next day!

Not to wait and wait and wait for someone to login at primetime!  And not be able to fight them because they have 40 and you have 6 to fight over something to build a city that no one even.

Why can’t we have these things?

Why can’t MMO’ers have a game that doesn’t die after 6 months?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sloppy said:

I’m not gonna lie.  I took a gut punch at the last QA.

Todd promising a change to fix territory control had me very excited.  But to find out he’s just tweaking the current points system... which I hate...

The actual game needs to be worked on.

The economy needs to be bigger and more balanced.

There needs to be the ability for small guilds and big guilds to compete.

There needs to be a reason for the 3 biggest NA guilds to stop nut cupping.

There needs to be incentive to have a skilled 20 man guild and not a 100 man Zerg.

I don’t even remember what the original vision for this game was, but there was no way you would have convinced a bunch of Darkfallers and Shadowbaners to come play a game for points!

We came here to kill for loot, pride and glory.

We came here to build awesome cities and castles.

We came here to crumble what others have built and trash talk them in the forums, and make hilarious videos of their tears!!

We came to raid cities when we are drunk at 3 in the morning, and piss someone off so hard, they show up on our doorstep the next day!

Not to wait and wait and wait for someone to login at primetime!  And not be able to fight them because they have 40 and you have 6 to fight over something to build a city that no one even.

Why can’t we have these things?

Why can’t MMO’ers have a game that doesn’t die after 6 months?

 

12 minutes ago, Sloppy said:

I’m not gonna lie.  I took a gut punch at the last QA.

Todd promising a change to fix territory control had me very excited.  But to find out he’s just tweaking the current points system... which I hate...

The actual game needs to be worked on.

The economy needs to be bigger and more balanced.

There needs to be the ability for small guilds and big guilds to compete.

There needs to be a reason for the 3 biggest NA guilds to stop nut cupping.

There needs to be incentive to have a skilled 20 man guild and not a 100 man Zerg.

I don’t even remember what the original vision for this game was, but there was no way you would have convinced a bunch of Darkfallers and Shadowbaners to come play a game for points!

We came here to kill for loot, pride and glory.

We came here to build awesome cities and castles.

We came here to crumble what others have built and trash talk them in the forums, and make hilarious videos of their tears!!

We came to raid cities when we are drunk at 3 in the morning, and piss someone off so hard, they show up on our doorstep the next day!

Not to wait and wait and wait for someone to login at primetime!  And not be able to fight them because they have 40 and you have 6 to fight over something to build a city that no one even.

Why can’t we have these things?

Why can’t MMO’ers have a game that doesn’t die after 6 months?

Coming from other siege style games like DAOC, GW2, SWG, and ESO, I think the premise is solid. I do think they need trash the timer on forts, but keep the one on keeps. Keeps take time to build defense, but for smaller guilds to be competitive they need forts to make up points for not holding a keep. This also keeps larger guilds on their toes, because smaller guilds can coordinate their time more efficiently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they integrate the concepts together, the game will remain tedious and boring, except for a minority of bigger alliances during siege time. Lots of good concepts are in this game but still badly integrated. Good news is that beta is still the time to fix the pieces. For example:

The node system, diversity of ressources and tools are all great on paper. But the lack of scarcity and scaling is making gathering boring. Gathering also remains tedious for some professions (skinning). Finally, if you can get iron everywhere, why bother to go out in the world? Here, we need specialized areas and scarcity. A guild that owns the only ore fort of the zone will sure try to hold it and make trades for protection.

Crafting is very deep with many layers of quality and stats that can be added. But with mobs dropping weapons and the badly optimized crafting the profession became unfun. I wanted to be a blacksmith in this game but what is the point... After 30 minutes of mass clicking, I get a failed assembly despite 98% of success, that transformes my purple into a worst blue than what war tribes are dropping. Made me dropped crafting. Not because of the fail. Because of the fail after 30 minutes of clicking. Get the blueprints and the factories in. It is a must... Also give a clear advantage to player made weapons, even the white ones. Attributes for example, could be reserved for player made weapons, along with more durability.

Caravans and refinery. Well, good concepts again but not integrated with the rest of the zone control game. The post suggesting trade routes that could be cut or protected by players is a very great idea that should be in game. Like mentioned, stealing or protecting caravans can make a place for smaller guilds in the land. And for landlords, no more automatic loot chest to sleep on. They would need to protect their trade routes to gain something.

Sieges and territory control. While that part is a bit underpar on what was promised, the concepts are still in for a fun game. But keeps and forts need specialization. If all forts look the same, there are no incentives to grab or defend a location, other than getting a few points. This is not fun, points should be a bonus to some greater strategic purpose. Like, I need this specific town since it produces silver and I need silver based ores to equip my guild. 

The whole siege system should be revamped to integrate zone control element. Timers are bad. Here there is so much work to be done for it to be fun. Small guilds need to play a role for sieges. Sieging a keep should involve specific conditions that are zone related. Like holding key locations to be able to damage the tree. Or triggering fort sieges (not keeps) by gathering a unique item from a rare mob drop instead of a dumb timer. This would transform a blob into many agile groups fighting all over these zone objectives to prevent or conclude the siege.

Recent posts proposed ways to improve PvE and put it in the loop of daily activities. Progressive difficulty of camps as they are cleaned up is another good idea that should be in the game and proposed recently by some. PvE is the week part of the game: lore is minimal, mob diversity is bah and mobs are way too easy. Most of all, they don't generate much PvP since they play no role in the game loop and their drops are basic, except for bosses. If killing an Herald would trigger the siege windows for a given fort of that zone, I am sure guilds would compete for these PvE spot. 

Finally, I think the characters in cf remain the greatest strength of the game. The revamp of the skills, of the attributes and of the progression is bringing more diversity to a concept that already offered lots. Yes it needs to be adjusted there and there but it remains the area nearest to completion. I still hope they will add ww and vampires in the mix but oh well if they don't upon release (could be future expansions). 

We'll soon know if these concepts will integrate to form a great PvP centered game loop or simply fall short. I truly wish for the first since it would be sad to waste many good concepts because of poor integration. Good luck to the developers for the next updates of the game, these updates are crucial for the future of this game.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 8:03 PM, Galahorn said:

Until they integrate the concepts together, the game will remain tedious and boring, except for a minority of bigger alliances during siege time. Lots of good concepts are in this game but still badly integrated. Good news is that beta is still the time to fix the pieces. 

Ummmm, beta is finish, polish, balance and loose ends. Your examples involve major coding changes that can and will effect other systems. These things need to be roughed into the game before beta. Its possible that crowfall stays in 'beta' for years and launches in 2022 or 2023 though.,.

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

Ummmm, beta is finish, polish, balance and loose ends. Your examples involve major coding changes that can and will effect other systems. These things need to be roughed into the game before beta. Its possible that crowfall stays in 'beta' for years and launches in 2022 or 2023 though.,.

All studios / games don't have the same meaning for the term 'beta'. Fo many studios, it means the game is complete and were entering beta as a marketing thing. For ACE it  seems to mean. advanced alpha. CF saw major changes in alpha and that has continued during beta.

Edited by MacDeath

macdeath_sig.png

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

All studios / games don't have the same meaning for the term 'beta'. Fo many studios, it means the game is complete and were entering beta as a marketing thing. For ACE it  seems to mean. advanced alpha. CF saw major changes in alpha and that has continued during beta.

They can call it whatever they want, but by using an industry standard name, folks expect a beta. As you said above, crowfall means alpha when they say beta, but since they had been in alpha stage for so long(5+ years) they had to make some progress even if it was in name only.

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

They can call it whatever they want, but by using an industry standard name, folks expect a beta. As you said above, crowfall means alpha when they say beta, but since they had been in alpha stage for so long(5+ years) they had to make some progress even if it was in name only.

They weren't in Alpha stage for 5 years! But again, the labels are confusing. Pre-Alpha is NOT yet Alpha. And Tyrant told me ACE has no plans for an Open Beta, so their 'beta' includes what most studios would have divided into a closed beta phase AND an open beta phase. Internally, it seems that ACE considers there to be MANY beta phases. They invited people into tests by groups. There were 11 play-test-groups prior to Beta. Play-test-group 11 was for build 5.8. We're now up to Beta-group 12. So, in ACE's view we have had over 20 phases of testing so far.

I've seen studios have multiple stages of Open beta, so again each studio does it differently.

macdeath_sig.png

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

They weren't in Alpha stage for 5 years! But again, the labels are confusing. Pre-Alpha is NOT yet Alpha.

Fair enough, it was called pre-alpha/alpha/post-alpha for 4-5 years and beta version xxx for 1+ year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do 6 man guilds think they have their own sovereignty?  Why does a smaller guild think they should be able to beat a larger force.  This is a game after game problem.  Regular forces make up the bulk of what you can accomplish.  You’re not all going to be devgru or SFOD-D.  This idea that a smaller group of irregulars should always be competitive isn’t the gaming industry’s fault, it’s the 6 man guilds fault for not wanting to be realistically competitive.  Small guilds need to be a part of larger alliances.  It’s the same way in real life.  

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 4:17 PM, mandalore said:

Why do 6 man guilds think they have their own sovereignty?  Why does a smaller guild think they should be able to beat a larger force.  This is a game after game problem.  Regular forces make up the bulk of what you can accomplish.  You’re not all going to be devgru or SFOD-D.  This idea that a smaller group of irregulars should always be competitive isn’t the gaming industry’s fault, it’s the 6 man guilds fault for not wanting to be realistically competitive.  Small guilds need to be a part of larger alliances.  It’s the same way in real life.  

I agree with you, but I still hope ACE finds ways to pull big groups into different directions. We need the current roaming 20 to be broken into 4 roaming 5s via the 20 wanting to be in 4 places at the same time. Some of that is WoO, a lot of that is economy and demand for camps, some of it is that this game has mounts that allow camp to camp movement faster than standard 5v5 TTK.

The combat is still very fun, and that's a good thing. Now comes functional game loops. Always looming is performance.

In other words, the 5 might not win the war, but it would be nice if they did encounter more even battles from time-to-time.

Edited by McTan
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, McTan said:

We need the current roaming 20 to be broken into 4 roaming 5s via the 20

How pray tell, would you advise breaking up groups of 20 into smaller groups? The only way I know of is by friendly fire outside of group and that comes with its own problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, McTan said:

I agree with you, but I still hope ACE finds ways to pull big groups into different directions. We need the current roaming 20 to be broken into 4 roaming 5s via the 20 wanting to be in 4 places at the same time. Some of that is WoO, a lot of that is economy and demand for camps, some of it is that this game has mounts that allow camp to camp movement faster than standard 5v5 TTK.

The combat is still very fun, and that's a good thing. Now comes functional game loops. Always looming is performance.

In other words, the 5 might not win the war, but it would be nice if they did encounter more even battles from time-to-time.

Indeed. Today our 5 man group faced a 10 man and obviously we got around to getting more bodies. Soon we had a huge group and the enemies that caused us to group ran from the map like the cowards they were.

Pvp on the map died soon after.

Same with people farming camps with 4 people. Wtf?  That should be a waste of manpower. I hate going to skypoint even off hours because of that.

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

How pray tell, would you advise breaking up groups of 20 into smaller groups? The only way I know of is by friendly fire outside of group and that comes with its own problems.

Require them to be at multiple places at once. Make zerging ineficient.

Wanna roam with 10 guys and cumberstomp 5 man groups? Well the other 5 man group you could be fighting should be getting it easy and scoring more than you.

Make zerging a guaranteed (sadly cant fight numbers) but meh win. A guaranteed 5 when you could win a 10.

Wanna farm wt camps in groups of 4? Alright. If you were any good you could be farming 2 camps at once tho...

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

Require them to be at multiple places at once. Make zerging ineficient.

Wouldnt that just end up with multiple zergs?

Lower rewards for large grouping or increase penalties for large groups. If the loot pie isnt large enough, it will discourage larger groups, friendly fire has been mentioned to death but its effective. 

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

Wouldnt that just end up with multiple zergs?

Lower rewards for large grouping or increase penalties for large groups. If the loot pie isnt large enough, it will discourage larger groups, friendly fire has been mentioned to death but its effective. 

It’s what I would do. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mandalore said:

It’s what I would do. 

 

22 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

Wouldnt that just end up with multiple zergs?

Lower rewards for large grouping or increase penalties for large groups. If the loot pie isnt large enough, it will discourage larger groups, friendly fire has been mentioned to death but its effective. 

A % loot tax for every x guild member.  

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/4/2021 at 8:35 AM, Sloppy said:

I’m not gonna lie.  I took a gut punch at the last QA.

Todd promising a change to fix territory control had me very excited.  But to find out he’s just tweaking the current points system... which I hate...

The actual game needs to be worked on.

The economy needs to be bigger and more balanced.

There needs to be the ability for small guilds and big guilds to compete.

There needs to be a reason for the 3 biggest NA guilds to stop nut cupping.

There needs to be incentive to have a skilled 20 man guild and not a 100 man Zerg.

I don’t even remember what the original vision for this game was, but there was no way you would have convinced a bunch of Darkfallers and Shadowbaners to come play a game for points!

We came here to kill for loot, pride and glory.

We came here to build awesome cities and castles.

We came here to crumble what others have built and trash talk them in the forums, and make hilarious videos of their tears!!

We came to raid cities when we are drunk at 3 in the morning, and piss someone off so hard, they show up on our doorstep the next day!

Not to wait and wait and wait for someone to login at primetime!  And not be able to fight them because they have 40 and you have 6 to fight over something to build a city that no one even.

Why can’t we have these things?

Why can’t MMO’ers have a game that doesn’t die after 6 months?

They promised a "throne war simulator" and cited Game of Thrones as thematic example/influence. Well, now I believe them. We're coming up to GoT's final season reaaaaal quick.

 

  

On 2/14/2021 at 4:17 PM, mandalore said:

Why do 6 man guilds think they have their own sovereignty?  Why does a smaller guild think they should be able to beat a larger force.  This is a game after game problem.  Regular forces make up the bulk of what you can accomplish.  You’re not all going to be devgru or SFOD-D.  This idea that a smaller group of irregulars should always be competitive isn’t the gaming industry’s fault, it’s the 6 man guilds fault for not wanting to be realistically competitive.  Small guilds need to be a part of larger alliances.  It’s the same way in real life.  

 

I get it, but few people play games "because they're like real life" and do so because they're not. A game needs to be fun. Being a minuscule portion of a force's potential effectiveness by being soldier 66 in a 100 man group zerging mindlessly around isn't fun for a lot a people unless you get the same satisfaction a baby gets from jingling keys by effortlessly curb stomping smaller groups.

This is also an issue even in PvE games. A 5 man encounter can be fine-tuned to engage just 5 people, and even losing one of them is a huge blow because that's 20% of your team not including the importance of the role (like the healer dying.) Dying in a group of 100 means you're out a far smaller percentage of your total strength and that loss means fing nothing, so that player just sits there sadly because no one gives a damn and they're removal from the game they want to enjoy is a scratch in the grand scheme of things.

Ace just needs to up and decide whether big groups or small groups matter and stop pretending both do, because that will never be the case.  As things are now, smaller groups are going to be useless for anything other than mindlessly gathering materials and running away, or, if they're kinky, providing amusement for zerg groups.

Edited by Nightmarian

Wearily do I sleep eternity away.

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 6:51 PM, mystafyi said:

friendly fire has been mentioned to death but its effective. 

Friendly fire is not that effective for curbing zerg activity in practice because players adjust their tactics. Example is Last Oasis with 100% friendly fire + 100% loot still had a huge problem with zergs dominating end game at launch. A couple of things they added in Season 2 did help: 1. Zones with different guild caps (2, 12, 25, 50) 2. Respawn changes to make it more time consuming to move a large force around the world.

tiPrpwh.png

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

Friendly fire is not that effective for curbing zerg activity in practice because players adjust their tactics. Example is Last Oasis with 100% friendly fire + 100% loot still had a huge problem with zergs dominating end game at launch. A couple of things they added in Season 2 did help: 1. Zones with different guild caps (2, 12, 25, 50) 2. Respawn changes to make it more time consuming to move a large force around the world.

Oh I agree that FF by itself isnt the cure, but we already have, in effect a respawn timer. While we dont have guild caps, could still happen though, we do have zone caps that havent been finalized yet. 

All in all, I doubt anyone will fully stop the zerg, humans are naturally wired to herd up to mitigate risk. That being said, if we dont attempt to control it, then we might as well design the game around zerging and become wildly successful like starcraft 🤑

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...