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

Another Assortment of Changes


Recommended Posts

Just now, Kendread said:

I think if we can keep it simple and open enough we could reduce the required engineering. For example lets say we had a random repeatable quest from a pool of similar quests that said bring 10 birch of common quality. There are a few ways you can go about it, buy ten birch from an npc vendor(based on the quest reward this might be a net negative) gather the wood yourself, trade with another player, kill a harvesting player and loot their body, etc. This can scale the more times you do it which can lead you to more dangerous zones, so what started as bring 10 common birch could eventually lead to bring 5 legenday oak heartwood. In the time in between you are venturing to higher ranked worlds, increasing your logging or getting better at killing to be a better brigand or gathering more gold to simply buy the heartwood, coming into conflict along the way with players that are out in the world.

You can't do it that way. 

Once people know there is a quest for "bring 10 birch", then they will just stockpile birch in the bank, and withdraw it when they hit that quest. WE have already seen that sort of behavior with the "sacrifice the most X race relics".  I as a habit will keep my bank full of any relic I find until after the final season cards are known, just in case one of those shows up. 

Unless the rewards are known and more than the risk/loss of the higher end materials like "legendary oak heartwood", that material is worth WAY more being used to craft quivers than whatever you might get from a simple quest like that. 

You also have to consider, that something related to harvesting a resource type, by it's very nature, is going to cut out a huge group of people from even trying.

Another possible answer would be tying cards to X/Y locations of known materials .  For example "Harvest 10 mushrooms from grid C22", or Harvest 10 mushrooms from "The haunted forest" (wild harvesting is available to all) as a mission, AND that mission is the ONLY mission being given out for say 2hrs, would certainly funnel a few players at least into that area. 

That would still take engineering, but maybe not as much as something else. 

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

You can't do it that way. 

Once people know there is a quest for "bring 10 birch", then they will just stockpile birch in the bank, and withdraw it when they hit that quest. WE have already seen that sort of behavior with the "sacrifice the most X race relics".  I as a habit will keep my bank full of any relic I find until after the final season cards are known, just in case one of those shows up. 

Unless the rewards are known and more than the risk/loss of the higher end materials like "legendary oak heartwood", that material is worth WAY more being used to craft quivers than whatever you might get from a simple quest like that. 

You also have to consider, that something related to harvesting a resource type, by it's very nature, is going to cut out a huge group of people from even trying.

Another possible answer would be tying cards to X/Y locations of known materials .  For example "Harvest 10 mushrooms from grid C22", or Harvest 10 mushrooms from "The haunted forest" (wild harvesting is available to all) as a mission, AND that mission is the ONLY mission being given out for say 2hrs, would certainly funnel a few players at least into that area. 

That would still take engineering, but maybe not as much as something else. 

I'm imagining that the quest-giving npcs would have a sort of reputation leveling attached, going from rank 1 to rank 10, while the reputation with the npc is rank 1 you would get bring 10 birch, bring 10 oak, etc and as you keep questing the quest get progressively harder as well as the rewards increasing so while a rank 1 quest gives you say 100 gold a common sacrfice item, a rank 10 quest may give 10,000 gold and a legendary sacrifice item or something valuable, maybe a hunger shard or favor with a wood based demigod. The player would know what to expect from each quest. This could give the player the option of either completing the quest for the reward or trading the heartwood with a player that wants it. This could also apply to more than just harvesting, you could have quests that say bring X common race relics or bring 5 common intermediate picks.

Having public quests that occur thorughout a season that could funnel players to a given area would also be welcome, but as an addtion to these simpler type quests. I could go the haunted forest and harvest mushrooms, kill people harvesting mushrooms, protect people harvesting mushrooms, loot the scraps off people who got killed harvesting mushrooms or I could take advantage of everyone trying to get that good public quest reward and head to an area that now has a much lower density because of the event.

Edited by Kendread
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 4:15 AM, mystafyi said:

Repeatable quests eh? Pray tell, how many times are you going to enjoy having the "run 5 pigs" daily quest?

Unfortunately, this is the crux of it (toxicity aside 😛). While it is true that there is a quest system, and it probably should be used for more than torturing new players. Repeatable quests aren't going to fix the underlying problems with the present gameplay. They might be a component that could be used to eventually drive additional engagement, but right now I think they would likely just be seen as a band-aid on an open wound.

The main problems I see with most of the current activities are: they don't regularly put players in direct competition over the same objectives at the same time, doing them does not feel meaningful and rewarding in anyway, and they're really boring if done uncontested. I mean, I cap an outpost, someone comes by and flips it 10 minutes later... we both won, or did we both lose? You can harvest almost anywhere on the map at any time of day. Farming wartribes is mostly the same way. Caravans, chiefs, and outpost loot boxes try to accomplish the same time, same place part, but they still fall flat. Primarily because the activities are still really basic, the events chat is pretty annoying to use, and the activities don't hold people in a location for any length of time. So I know these events are going on, but I still don't want to do them. I don't want to stand in circles listening to the birds. I don't want to have to keep the events tab open, wait for something to happen, open my map to play grid search, walk across the map... aaaand it's gone.

Maybe if chiefs were a horde-mode mixed with king-of-the-hill event?

Maybe if events spawned clusters of juicy R10 nodes and motherlodes covered by hunger shards?

Maybe if only localized clusters of outpost were active at any time, like rolling siege windows, and capping them all locked them out and yielded a nice haul of loot and conquest?

Maybe if Caravans... didn't exist? I don't know. It's an escort quest, I got nothing...

Edited by Pystkeebler
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kendread said:

The leveling may be treated as such, but a large reason that it was added was to give players something small to work towards that didn't require grouping or waiting for sieges. I played big world as well as on and off for years, I'm familiar with the game that was. Wartribes as well as animals(which used to get dangerous at night, hunger was tied to time of day) were added to increase the general threat of a world as well as again give people something to do while they waited for sieges. Wartribe camping and animal camping(back when animals could drop disciplines) may have hurt crafting but led to more PvP as groups fight over spots, That's PvE enhancing PvP.

I've also played my fairshare of PvP games and what matters in a PvP game, what gives it a staying power is managing to maintain a players interest beyond PvP. All those PvP games you played, how many didn't have mobs, or quests or some other activity that wasn't directly tied to killing another player but introduced you to an environment that would foster it. How many of these games boast some sort of guild vs guild combat which led to allainces controlling areas of play and how many of these games do you still play? I don't want a PvE-centric game and I am not calling for one, I believe that having the BR seperate from main game is a mistep that I hope they will reconcile. I recognize that a PvP game is built on more than PvP, it's built on an ecosystem of various interest and playstyles that come into conflict and the emergent gameplay that can result from it.

Wolves get bored and search for new hunting grounds when the food runs out, that was more or less the message behind this game's kickstarter.

Umm so, ok.

Planetside 2, no PvE, Pick a lobby shooter, no PvE (required for PvP) Pick any Battle royal, a helathy share of MOBAs, No PvE required...do I need to go on? I have a rotation of games I play, so that question is moot as well.

PS 2 recently added alliance Wars which is a GvG system that is outside the normal game play and therefore not required to participate in to enjoy the game for what it is. The point is, there are many many PvP games out there that have nothing to do with guild vs guild, PvE or any of that stuff. They are PvP games for the sake of PvP end of story. Again, need I continue? I mean, so many obvious answers out there.

Hungerdome is not what this game was supposed to be but if I were a betting man, this is what we will end up with. Not that I hope for that, I sincerely do not, what I wanted was GvG or FvF large siege fights with a side order of tactical small team actions. Not zero import campaigns so I can just re-grind the kit I had over and over. Then maaaaayyyybe twice a week participate in a siege that will be over in...like 15 minutes? if it even happens at all because there may be no opposition. Standing at a wall watching an open field is not exciting. But that is CF as it stands.

At the end of the day I won't say I think you are entirely wrong, but once the PvE door is opened just a bit, it stands a great chance of being flung wide open (ahem new world anyone) and then there we are down another rabbit hole that no one that has been supporting this game really wants.

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

once the PvE door is opened just a bit, it stands a great chance of being flung wide open (ahem new world anyone) and then there we are down another rabbit hole that no one that has been supporting this game really wants.

That door was open from as soon as Crowfall was revealed. It was always going to have PvE in it. If nobody wanted that, why did we all support it?

An MMORPG with no PvE would be strange. Does such a thing exist?

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ajokoira said:

Umm so, ok.

Planetside 2, no PvE, Pick a lobby shooter, no PvE (required for PvP) Pick any Battle royal, a helathy share of MOBAs, No PvE required...do I need to go on? I have a rotation of games I play, so that question is moot as well.

PS 2 recently added alliance Wars which is a GvG system that is outside the normal game play and therefore not required to participate in to enjoy the game for what it is. The point is, there are many many PvP games out there that have nothing to do with guild vs guild, PvE or any of that stuff. They are PvP games for the sake of PvP end of story. Again, need I continue? I mean, so many obvious answers out there.

Hungerdome is not what this game was supposed to be but if I were a betting man, this is what we will end up with. Not that I hope for that, I sincerely do not, what I wanted was GvG or FvF large siege fights with a side order of tactical small team actions. Not zero import campaigns so I can just re-grind the kit I had over and over. Then maaaaayyyybe twice a week participate in a siege that will be over in...like 15 minutes? if it even happens at all because there may be no opposition. Standing at a wall watching an open field is not exciting. But that is CF as it stands.

At the end of the day I won't say I think you are entirely wrong, but once the PvE door is opened just a bit, it stands a great chance of being flung wide open (ahem new world anyone) and then there we are down another rabbit hole that no one that has been supporting this game really wants.

My mistake, I thought we were discussing MMOs which with the exception of PlanetSide 2 none of what you listed approaches that. Sure Call of Duty doesn’t need PVE you consume it in 20 minute sessions, same with Mobas and BRs. Hell even PS2 has missions and a storyline.

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

Unfortunately, this is the crux of it (toxicity aside 😛). While it is true that there is a quest system, and it probably should be used for more than torturing new players. Repeatable quests aren't going to fix the underlying problems with the present gameplay. They might be a component that could be used to eventually drive additional engagement, but right now I think they would likely just be seen as a band-aid on an open wound.

The main problems I see with most of the current activities are: they don't regularly put players in direct competition over the same objectives at the same time, doing them does not feel meaningful and rewarding in anyway, and they're really boring if done uncontested. I mean, I cap an outpost, someone comes by and flips it 10 minutes later... we both won, or did we both lose? You can harvest almost anywhere on the map at any time of day. Farming wartribes is mostly the same way. Caravans, chiefs, and outpost loot boxes try to accomplish the same time, same place part, but they still fall flat. Primarily because the activities are still really basic, the events chat is pretty annoying to use, and the activities don't hold people in a location for any length of time. So I know these events are going on, but I still don't want to do them. I don't want to stand in circles listening to the birds. I don't want to have to keep the events tab open, wait for something to happen, open my map to play grid search, walk across the map... aaaand it's gone.

Maybe if chiefs were a horde-mode mixed with king-of-the-hill event?

Maybe if events spawned clusters of juicy R10 nodes and motherlodes covered by hunger shards?

Maybe if only localized clusters of outpost were active at any time, like rolling siege windows, and capping them all locked them out and yielded a nice haul of loot and conquest?

Maybe if Caravans... didn't exist? I don't know. It's an escort quest, I got nothing...

I see what you are saying, I don’t think one thing alone will fix the engagement issues that CF is developing.  Non-uniform distribution of resources would be a welcomed addition. I tend to gravitate to the areas with high level war tribes in close proximity to world banks. There were supposed to be sentinel pvp quests that drove us towards each other.

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

My mistake, I thought we were discussing MMOs which with the exception of PlanetSide 2 none of what you listed approaches that. Sure Call of Duty doesn’t need PVE you consume it in 20 minute sessions, same with Mobas and BRs. Hell even PS2 has missions and a storyline.

You said PvP games, you failed to specify, at any rate PS 2 went many years with no missions or story lines at all. So bad example for your point, great example for mine, once you let PvE in, it keeps on coming.

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

That door was open from as soon as Crowfall was revealed. It was always going to have PvE in it. If nobody wanted that, why did we all support it?

An MMORPG with no PvE would be strange. Does such a thing exist?

omg...do your own research, the topic was PvP games, you figure it out.

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

That door was open from as soon as Crowfall was revealed. It was always going to have PvE in it. If nobody wanted that, why did we all support it?

An MMORPG with no PvE would be strange. Does such a thing exist?

Right?

I'm trying to imagine this magical world. So there's trees and rocks. No animals, cause PvE. We've got some POIs you can capture; keeps, forts, maybe some mines. Guards? They sound pretty PvE, so no. Where does gear come from? There's probably not harvesting and crafting, cause that sounds pretty PvE. I guess we vendor everything. Where does currency come from? I guess our POIs yield resources and gold, or the gods just decide to bestow it upon us when we kill each other. So basically, running through an empty world, and killing people for POIs? But hey if I kill 100 people I can unlock a new scope for my axe.

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

You said PvP games, you failed to specify, at any rate PS 2 went many years with no missions or story lines at all. So bad example for your point, great example for mine, once you let PvE in, it keeps on coming.

Wasn’t the addition of missions what reinvigorated lapsed players and new players, giving players a sense of direction and short term goals that led to conflict and emergent gameplay. That seems like pve element enhancing pvp.

 

Also again having PvE elements in a PvP game isn’t an inherently bad thing you make it sound like your property values plummet once  pve elements start moving in.

Edited by Kendread
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 1:45 AM, Kendread said:

Add Merchant Discpline to control number of vendors a player can use: Vendors should be locked behind a merchant discpline that allows players to increase the number of vendors they can place based on the quality level of the discipline. 

Interesting idea, building a "merchant" character!

tiPrpwh.png

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

Interesting idea, building a "merchant" character!

I'm pretty sure the tech for that would be vastly different than what we currently have due to the hierarchy of control. 

This would be something at the account level, which is where the old passive training lived, not at the vessel level where the current rune/belt model handles the training. 

IF, and this would be big IF, there were enough vessel slots you could purchase per account ( > every race/class combo possible) and the requirement for a vendor was to actually apply a profession/exploration rune on one, and park that vessel in that role, then it would bridge the account/vessel layers.  

With vendors being items however there is the "what does this limit apply to" question.  Is the limit per world, or universe wide, and how is it tracked across campaigns. It seems like there is a huge gap on cross campaign referencing. 

Probably far easier to simply apply a 1 vendor/world/account limit and work with that.  I would however want to see vendors get the same type of product management as the vaults currently have, because playing shop layout Tetris is already pretty bad.  With that kind of a model, vendors could be charged/taxed or upgraded to have more selling slots, without the need to redesign the UI for each possible tier.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kendread said:

I've also played my fairshare of PvP games and what matters in a PvP game, what gives it a staying power is managing to maintain a players interest beyond PvP. All those PvP games you played, how many didn't have mobs, or quests or some other activity that wasn't directly tied to killing another player but introduced you to an environment that would foster it. How many of these games boast some sort of guild vs guild combat which led to allainces controlling areas of play and how many of these games do you still play? I don't want a PvE-centric game and I am not calling for one, I believe that having the BR seperate from main game is a mistep that I hope they will reconcile. I recognize that a PvP game is built on more than PvP, it's built on an ecosystem of various interest and playstyles that come into conflict and the emergent gameplay that can result from it.

Wolves get bored and search for new hunting grounds when the food runs out, that was more or less the message behind this game's kickstarter.

What matters to me in a "PVP game" is the PVP first and everything else second. I don't care how great the PVE is, how many skins I can unlock, how many dailies I can do, or anything else if the PVP is lackluster. I can deal with all the secondary and fluff being mediocre if the PVP is great. Which it is isn't IMO.

I don't believe this is a "PVP game" as PVE is the core content and drives any PVP if it even exists. Winning campaigns can technically be done with zero PVP. Never won a MOBA, FPS, MMO Arena match that way unless the other team instantly gives up for some reason.

Calling this a "PVP game" is as meaningless as "sandbox" and all the other buzz words that don't mean a whole lot. I can do just as much if not more PVP in heavy PVE themeparks.

Adding a bunch of PVE or improving what already exists won't make the PVP better for me nor make this a "PVP game."

Overall PVP needs to have more to it along with PVE. As their resources are limited, I don't see how either or both will get the attention they need in the time frame likely needed to make this a success.

 


 

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

I'm pretty sure the tech for that would be vastly different than what we currently have due to the hierarchy of control. 

This would be something at the account level, which is where the old passive training lived, not at the vessel level where the current rune/belt model handles the training. 

IF, and this would be big IF, there were enough vessel slots you could purchase per account ( > every race/class combo possible) and the requirement for a vendor was to actually apply a profession/exploration rune on one, and park that vessel in that role, then it would bridge the account/vessel layers.  

With vendors being items however there is the "what does this limit apply to" question.  Is the limit per world, or universe wide, and how is it tracked across campaigns. It seems like there is a huge gap on cross campaign referencing. 

Probably far easier to simply apply a 1 vendor/world/account limit and work with that.  I would however want to see vendors get the same type of product management as the vaults currently have, because playing shop layout Tetris is already pretty bad.  With that kind of a model, vendors could be charged/taxed or upgraded to have more selling slots, without the need to redesign the UI for each possible tier.

You could possibly tie vendor item use to a trait, like weapons armor and tools. You need the merchant trait to place a vendor and to interact to pay upkeep and add items to wares. Also, changing to a more list based layout would allow for more flexibility but you would probably have to make it appear larger than the vault style to make the items "pop". 

Edited by Kendread
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kendread said:

You could possibly tie vendor item use to a trait, like weapons armor and tools. You need the merchant trait to place a vendor and to interact to pay upkeep and add items to wares. Also, changing to a more list based layout would allow for more flexibility but uoi would probably have to to make it appear large than the vault style to make the items "pop". 

That sounds like a marketing problem for vendors, not a problem for ACE TBH. 

As long as the tools are the same for everyone, including the existing mouse over technology, no matter the state it's an even playing field for everyone. 

Not that I wouldn't love to see a bit more "pop", but that is hardly a necessary component.  Would much rather see a search that encompassed the statistics that show up in the mouse overs.  E.G. Being able to filter the list to only include items with "Critical Chance" would be much more useful than visual "pop".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 5:57 PM, Kendread said:

Wasn’t the addition of missions what reinvigorated lapsed players and new players, giving players a sense of direction and short term goals that led to conflict and emergent gameplay. That seems like pve element enhancing pvp.

 

Also again having PvE elements in a PvP game isn’t an inherently bad thing you make it sound like your property values plummet once  pve elements start moving in.

Except it didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 5:46 PM, Pystkeebler said:

Right?

I'm trying to imagine this magical world. So there's trees and rocks. No animals, cause PvE. We've got some POIs you can capture; keeps, forts, maybe some mines. Guards? They sound pretty PvE, so no. Where does gear come from? There's probably not harvesting and crafting, cause that sounds pretty PvE. I guess we vendor everything. Where does currency come from? I guess our POIs yield resources and gold, or the gods just decide to bestow it upon us when we kill each other. So basically, running through an empty world, and killing people for POIs? But hey if I kill 100 people I can unlock a new scope for my axe.

That was immature and even though you have obviously read it, I do apologize. 

Edited by Ajokoira
Mistakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are 12 Gods, let's have, every 2 hours and in all worlds at same time, a random monster that spawns randomly in the world and that would carry specific type of loots. The spawning location of the monster would be indicated 10 minutes before to all players and be shown on the map.

This would lead to epic battle between many guilds every 2 hours which would be fun. Killing the monster would bring loot, prestige, new cards and all members of the guild who kill the monster could get a bonus for the next 2 hours as a godly favor.

Quests like this would be fun!

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...