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

PVP Etiquette: Rules sets, 1 vs 1, ganks, and camping.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Here's the problem though: Crowfall is too far along in development to completely change what type of game it is again.  Whatever each of us individually likes, and I assure you almost noone of us will be completely pleased, the current design of the game is what needs to be polished and made better so it can succeed.  We don't have time to turn this game into something different than what it is now.

How did they not have time? they have delayed launch from 2015 at least 3 times over the past 6 years. This past year they have gotten an extra 3 million in free money. Adding and changing systems willy nilly over the years has caused this. 6 years to go from a playable HD to a playable HD with a team of 60+ devs. 

You are right in that they are out of time since no reasonable person could expect the above team to suddenly change gears. nw, ashes and elyion are about to drop and corona-virus restrictions are almost over. Now would have been the best remaining time frame to launch, waiting till the end of the year wont have captive audience due to shutdowns, schools will be back online and most stimulus programs will have ended the free money give-aways. This past year was the best for gaming. the best. 

Unless crowfall goes mobile.... even toilet games make money on mobile. Literally, a game in which you move a static person around a toilet to get the poop to hit the bullseye in the toilet made 150k. 1 dev, 1 day coding, 150k. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dont go to Infected with lvled vessels and crafted gear. Thank you.

There can be no etiquette in pvp games because nothing is enforceable by other players (see jails or fines IRL). The developers must hard code unwanted behaviors from even being possible or the worst

Ok so while I will give my own opinion on this I'm not going to be saying I'm right here.  I want to hear what everyone else feels about how we want to behave as a community in our PVP game and where

6 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

It seems clear to me at this point that the original game alot of people want and were promised is no longer what this game is and yet folks are still trying to force the old ideals onto the new design. 

or maybe they just want what they paid for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Here's the problem though: Crowfall is too far along in development to completely change what type of game it is again.

 

It wont survive unless it does.

You can say thats just my opinion and it is, but its blatantly obvious at this point to anyone who can be at least somewhat impartial, that this game is dead on arrival in its current state.

14,000+ backers...next to none of them play

anyone can play for a mere 5 bucks if not a backer....yet next to no one does (when people play early access of other games at a price of 60 to 500 dollars)

Practically every forum beside this one is full of negative reviews or disinterest of the game or is just dead with barely any activity.

 

I dont believe for a minute the game will be redesigned at this point, nor do I believe it will succeed.

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

or maybe they just want what they paid for?

I hate to say this but that is completely unrealistic and completely against all game design.  I DO think a game company should try to deliver what they promised and I DO think people should have some sort of recourse if a project ends up different than expected.  IIRC Camelot Unchained freely offered refunds for example and I found that pretty legit.  They took awhile because a global disaster kinda REKT the world for a bit, but they got there.

But as to why it's against game design?  When you start designing things what sounds good on paper and what ends up good in practice are not the same thing.  Sometimes people don't end up liking it as much as they think, sometimes you run into unforeseen technical limitations, sometimes a project is completely rethought even because the original design isn't going well, etc.  Doom 2016 is a great example of that.  Alot of investors invested in one version off Doom, Doom 4, but halfway through the project they pivoted to a completely new design with Doom 2016 and it was great.  Imagine if that was a kickstarter and people refused to let them pivot.  We would have gotten a mediocre doom 4 instead of an amazing Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.


And yet....it's also super poorly made dergs to invest in something and then have it turn into something completely different from what you expected.  But honestly when you kickstart something or crowdfund something this really is the risk you take.  Doom 2016 still delivered on being a doomlike game even if it was very very different from the original incarnation.  Crowfall still delivers on the kickstarter promises (except full world destruction I think) for the even if it's a very different incarnation.  And during the whole No Man's Sky debacle courts ruled that the in person interviews did not count as official promises and so they could not be held to anything said outside of official marketing/press release/kickstarter.

I don't think there is a clean solution.  If we're too stubborn about getting exactly what we want and what we backed then we ruin the ability of game developers to do their jobs and be agile when things don't work well.  However if we don't try to hold them to some account for changes obviously this is against our interests too.

Edited by Ralathar44
Link to post
Share on other sites

People do have a recourse if they believe the game as it has become is not the game they backed... They don't have to play, and that's exactly what we see. Almost none of the backers are currently playing / testing.

I do expect many of them to give the game another look at launch, but I also expect that once again most will leave after a few hours or days.

macdeath_sig.png

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

It wont survive unless it does.

You can say that and I've said strong statements as well but reality is none of us know.  Personally I don't think the overall design is the major issue atm, I think the onboarding, tutorial process, and first 20 hours is.  The tutorial I'm going to assume with part 3 added will go alot smoother so I'll be generous and assumed that gets "solved" to some extent.  The entry into infected and crafted is a brick wall atm.  A good number of experienced players camping new players with no experience and no gear and no materials and the only way to get experience, gear, and materials is essentially to get farmed over and over again by those veteran players.  Hopefully the population surge will be enough to counter this, but if not that will DESTROY player retention.

I think both infected and Dregs have solid cores that could easily be refined though.  I'm not even sure if a separate shadow ruleset is needed.  Feels more like Infected just needs one more zone past skypoint that scales to dregs level content and has actual win conditions and rewards and stuff to make keep/fort/etc taking meaningful.

 

37 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

You can say thats just my opinion and it is, but its blatantly obvious at this point to anyone who can be at least somewhat impartial, that this game is dead on arrival in its current state.

Most games have significant issues when they are 6+ months from release.  Things rapidly iterate at the end of development unless their idea of "beta" is a marketing beta.  Balance issues and bugs and design issues tend to be rampant.  Alpha > Beta just means "feature complete" and even that distinction has gotten muddy in the modern world.

MMORPGs are especially rough here, I can't recall of any major successful MMORPG that did not release ROUGH.  And since basically nobody can release clean I have to assume it's a trait of the genre rather than a developer mistake.  I remember when ESO released and people called it DOA and they made alot of smart refinements and that game is super successful today still.

 

40 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

14,000+ backers...next to none of them play

This is kinda similar to the 90/9/1 rule for internet posting.  100 people read, 9 react, 1 posts.  And this old internet adage has been proven largely correct by science.  Also concurrency vs active players is a major distinction.  People play on different days in different amount at different hours. Monthly Active players are like 10 times that of the amount on at any given time.

During fort times I've seen 200-300 people on all the serves combined at a time.  That would mean we prolly have an active playerbase atm of about 2,000 - 3,000.  People get really tripped up in trying to assume concurrency is actual playerbase but we have copious information that this is not the case.  Monthly Active Users is a much more accurate indicator of current playerbase.
 

48 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

anyone can play for a mere 5 bucks if not a backer....yet next to no one does (when people play early access of other games at a price of 60 to 500 dollars)

I dunno, given the above monthly active users and concurrency discussion and lurkers vs actual active people I think a good % of its backers are playing.  Expecting a large % of your backers to be playing at all times up until release is incredibly unrealistic.  Very few non-AAA properties have their servers packed in long term 24/7 BETAs consistently and those few that do usually have insane marketing like No Man's Sky.

Heck even with AAA they usually confine their betas to a short time event to concentrate the playerbase.

 

51 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

Practically every forum beside this one is full of negative reviews or disinterest of the game or is just dead with barely any activity.

The onboarding and tutorial are bad and veterans gank new players mercilessly who have zero chance to fight back against them.  What other response would you expect?  Only a small % of people will fight past that beginning to see the potential the game has.  And perversely some % of that will be people who hang around being perpetually negative.  7 Days to Die for example has been slowly growing it's playerbase for 7 years and there are a fair number of forum and reddit and etc users always upset at that game about everything and saying it's going to die and etc. 

But I want to be clear with you, in it's current state I agree the game will fail.  I just think that A. it's not actually too uncommon for stuff to come together quickly before release to the point some places like Bioware called it "Bioware Magic"...it's not magic and not specific to that company, it's a common result of game design where the bug fixing, polishing, and balancing radically improves the feel of a game in the last stages of development.

And B. I think it's achievable with the current base game.  I don't think we're actually that far away from a good satisfying game with a decent intro.  Regardless of whether it's my exact vision or not.


Now whether they will get there?  Ha, that's always the question.  Early access and kickstarting will forever be a long odds crapshoot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

You can say that and I've said strong statements as well but reality is none of us know.

We absolutely DO know.

What other game had next to no interest in playing it when it is so easy and cheap (if not free) to play before its release? Much less one that has done well after releasing with such low interest?

Thats exactly what Im talking about when I reference looking at this game with any neutrality or bias. There are still people here that think there is some large group of people that will come play when the game is released but just arent here currently. Ok, why is that not the case for any other game?

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

What other game had next to no interest in playing it when it is so easy and cheap (if not free) to play before its release? Much less one that has done well after releasing with such low interest?

Ironically one of the biggest sensations in the country:  Among US.  Heck it was even released for a long time first before it blew up.  Just look at how it blew up out of nowhere. 

Minecraft also got very little traction year 1 before it blew up.  Other examples include Dwarf Fortress, Hatoful Boyfriend, Amnesia, Mount and Blade had a pretty slow start, and also the original Bioshock took a surprising amount of time to take off too  despite how iconic it is today.

It's alot more common in indie and AA than it is in AAA since AAA has insane marketing budgets, but it definitely does happen pretty regularly.

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

We absolutely DO know.

What other game had next to no interest in playing it when it is so easy and cheap (if not free) to play before its release? Much less one that has done well after releasing with such low interest?

Thats exactly what Im talking about when I reference looking at this game with any neutrality or bias. There are still people here that think there is some large group of people that will come play when the game is released but just arent here currently. Ok, why is that not the case for any other game?

I know LOTS of people that WON'T Beta test a game even if they have backed it. Most of those folks WILL log in for launch and THEN we'll see how many stick around.  Even folks that DO log in during a short beta, to learn the ropes are quite unlikely to stay focused during a very long pre Alpha, Alpha, & Beta.

So, we don't know how unhappy most of these backers are. All we know for sure is that not many play / test today.

I believe that if ACE were to announce a launch date, many folks would hop into Beta for a few weeks to relearn the ropes so as to be ready for a fast start at Launch.

macdeath_sig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

The onboarding and tutorial are bad and veterans gank new players mercilessly who have zero chance to fight back against them.  What other response would you expect?

um, its way more then that.

The class skill sets are as generic as you can possibly make. The combat is repeatedly cited as being floaty, lacking impact and being able to aim next to anywhere and still hitting your "action" target. The animations look good for the most part when you look at them individually, but try to watch a large scale battle sometime and it looks like everyone is just flailing their arms around over their heads. That in combination with the spell effects blocking everything makes most videos unwatchable.

The combat is literally the most important part of this game and Ive never seen anyone say it was good. At best it reported as passable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

Minecraft also got very little traction year 1 before it blew up.  Other examples include Dwarf Fortress, Hatoful Boyfriend, Amnesia, Mount and Blade had a pretty slow start, and also the original Bioshock took a surprising amount of time to take off too  despite how iconic it is today.

Ive never heard of Dwarf Fortress, Hatoful Boyfriend, Amnesia...ever. So Im not sure what your point is with that.

Mount and Blade had a larger, large grop of people streaming it during beta. So I dont know what your point with that is either.

Crowfall is not some unknown game. Its been covered on mmorpg, mmobyte, ect for years and years. It used to appear in the top 10 anticipated games lists. A lot of people know about Crowfall........and they either no longer play it or never had the desire to, even though they could for next to nothing. These same people play and pay a whole lot of cash to play other betas like Ashes of Creation.

Unlike Minecraft, which was not covered by gaming sites and had no promotion or awareness in its pre-development, a lot of people are very aware of Crowfall. So thats a very apples and oranges comparison.

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

The class skill sets are as generic as you can possibly make.

I mean so are most popular classes in MMORPGs.  People like the tried and true staples, which is why they are tried and true staples.  HOWEVER I'd say "most" class skill sets (not all) and I'd also say that ignoring disciplines like you're doing with this comment is terribly disingenuous.  The minor/major discipline system honestly makes some generic staples like the bard have quite alot of variation and flexibility because you can be the bard on various different classes and use different combinations of songs.  I'd go as far as to say that this is a real strength of the game that it excels at over almost all other MMORPGs.

How classes feel and play (balance aside) is honestly pretty satisfying overall and one of the better parts of the game.  Though there are still bits of polish needed like being able to cancel some channels on command (like Mirm Q).
 

6 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

The combat is repeatedly cited as being floaty, lacking impact

Guild Wars 2 is also pretty floaty and alot of it's animations lack impact.  This is one of the tradeoffs you make in PVP games because there is a limit to the impact you can create without affecting mobility and control.  City of Heroes for example is full of a great deal of powers with a hearty and chunky sense of impact and weight...but it does those via longer extravagant animations.  Longer animations in a mass PVP game is kinda dissatisfying because it comes at the expense of mobility and control.

That being said my Myrmadon and Champion both feel pretty punchy though, so I don't see an issue there, the sound effects and animations are doing their job of selling the heavier hits.  Is there a specific class you'd like to give feedback on?

 

11 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

That in combination with the spell effects blocking everything makes most videos unwatchable.

Spell effects can be turned down IIRC.  If someone makes an unwatchable video because they have the pretty effects on that's kinda their bad tbh.  They provided the option for both and more options is always better.

 

12 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

The combat is literally the most important part of this game and Ive never seen anyone say it was good. At best it reported as passable.

Honestly the combat is good.  Balance and power gaps are always a thing in PVP but the base combat is good.  If I had to harp on anything specifically it'd be that the CC loop needs more polishing as retaliation can often feel unsatisfying and at times CC both feels too ineffectual and to effective :).  But CC and it's balancing/feel is another constant thorn in the side of MMORPG PVP.

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

Ive never heard of Dwarf Fortress, Hatoful Boyfriend, Amnesia...ever. So Im not sure what your point is with that.

All are incredibly successful.  Welcome to modern gaming where games can be hits and you'll never know half of them.  EuroTruck Simulator is the 19th most popular game on steam and is above Valheim.  Prolly 10 times as many people will know about Valheim. 

If you're just going to blatantly disregard or make exceptions for every example then why did you ever ask for examples in the first place?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ralathar44 said:

I mean so are most popular classes in MMORPGs

Ok man, you are just blowing smoke at this point. Most mmorpgs just have bland skills for their classes?

The Crowfall skill sets are so badly generic Ive considered them placeholders and genuinely assumed some time would be spent on actual class design long before release. I never thought they would go live with what they currently have.

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

Ive never heard of Dwarf Fortress, Hatoful Boyfriend, Amnesia...ever.

I had to look them up. 2 are 2011 and 1 is 2001, all were free or public domain, one even used text based graphics. :) 

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

I had to look them up. 2 are 2011 and 1 is 2001, all were free or public domain, one even used text based graphics. :) 

I went off of memory, my life has been very busy these last 5 years moving cities and job industries and stuff so my game knowledge across the board is a bit weaker with the split focus but I'm sure the same things continued and ofc Among US is the prime recent example.  Also criticisms of time frame are quite weird when I was just being asked for examples of games that blew up later.  I provided legit examples.  That's a pretty clear moving of the goal posts, especially with a really strong recent example mixed in.  Similarly graphical criticisms are the same thing.  Games like Among Us and Minecraft and World of Warcraft and etc come along time and time ago and show that graphics are nice...but ultimately gameplay is king.

That being said, Dwarf Fortress is basically the inspiration for Rimworld and Amneisa and Soma (same devs) are largely responsible for the return of the Resident Evil series to survival horror.  It had gone all actiony before and execs were spouting alot of BS like nobody wanted survival horror or single player games anymore across the industries.  Smaller companies saved us from all that nonsense by moving in and filling the niches making the big boys interested in that $$ again.

I can understand yall not knowing Hatoful Boyfriend and Dwarf Fortress, but if you like survival horror at all Amnesia was a pretty big deal. 

Edited by Ralathar44
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jah said:

Between the passive training system and the harvesting and crafting systems, there really is no question that there was always going to be differences in power between different players.

Of course there would be a difference but the amount is the unknown. Believe at one point 33/33/33 was being thrown around for passive training, gear, skill. Passive training is gone, skill requirement is a low bar, leaving paper stats meaning a good amount. There isn't a giant disparity like WoW between lvl 1 and lvl 10000 but it isn't quite what they originally pitched.

Regardless, there needs to be more players so that more campaigns with differing types of players can split or come together. Instead of expecting a variety of players to enjoy the same 1 experience over and over and over. Campaign rulesets and types were a bit selling point IMO and so far ACE has shown very little creativity or willingness to try much.

I have no clue if even given a large population the game will provide enough variation to live up to the plan. I doubt 10 copy/pasted Dregs with near identical rules running side by side are going to cut it.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2021 at 1:01 AM, Ralathar44 said:

Crowfall still delivers on the kickstarter promises (except full world destruction I think) for the even if it's a very different incarnation. 

Guess this is up to interpretation how close they got to particular features that were only ever conceptual but some specific items are clearly missing, very different, or haven't lived up to minimal expectations.

  • Destruction
  • City building
  • Unique campaign rulesets
  • Number/type of world bands
  • Archetypes
  • Advantages & Disadvantages
  • Passive Training
  • Specialization (See no passive training)
  • EK usefulness
  • Player economy
  • Pets
  • No Leveling
  • Fealty System
  • Conquest
  • Skill based combat using physics and more meaningful action

Some of this has morphed into different things, but good chunk is just not there. Not to mention all the mid/long term post launch goals that are standard launch items for modern games.

15 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Most games have significant issues when they are 6+ months from release. 

I remember when ESO released and people called it DOA and they made alot of smart refinements and that game is super successful today still.

What "most" games are like was supposed to be something these crowdfunded "we are our own bosses" didn't have to be like.

ESO cost over 200 million to create, had a massive IP to work with, AAA companies behind it, and was a full fledged MMORPG. Still went F2P to survive. Crowfall won't have nearly the same wiggle room post launch to recover if it doesn't do well.

Quote

During fort times I've seen 200-300 people on all the serves combined at a time.  That would mean we prolly have an active playerbase atm of about 2,000 - 3,000.  People get really tripped up in trying to assume concurrency is actual playerbase but we have copious information that this is not the case.  Monthly Active Users is a much more accurate indicator of current playerbase.

Do you have monthly active numbers beyond guesstimates?

You can look at the scoreboard and see how many people are actually playing to the point they show up which requires pretty minimal effort. Unless there are a couple thousand logging in and screwing around 99% of the time for the last few years?

15 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Ironically one of the biggest sensations in the country:  Among US.  Heck it was even released for a long time first before it blew up.  Just look at how it blew up out of nowhere. 

Why did Among Us become a hit? If you know the answer then you should know why the comparison isn't doing much.

No doubt that games can struggle and slowly grow or explode out of nowhere do to very specific reasons that likely don't apply here, but there are many factors not just one game did it so why can't others do it to even though they have nothing in common.

15 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

I mean so are most popular classes in MMORPGs.  People like the tried and true staples, which is why they are tried and true staples.  HOWEVER I'd say "most" class skill sets (not all) and I'd also say that ignoring disciplines like you're doing with this comment is terribly disingenuous.  The minor/major discipline system honestly makes some generic staples like the bard have quite alot of variation and flexibility because you can be the bard on various different classes and use different combinations of songs.  I'd go as far as to say that this is a real strength of the game that it excels at over almost all other MMORPGs.

The concept is great, the execution not so much. I find character building in DAoC, WAR, WoW, GW2, ESO, Albion to be more interesting. I wasn't a fan of Shadowbane, but Crowfall seems to have missed what folks enjoyed about its character building while basically trying to copy it which is odd. Due to the limited power bar and emphasis on stats, having a million options means little when player choice results in "tried and true staples."

Quote

Honestly the combat is good.  

I disagree. Honestly it is the worst combat I've experienced in a MMO ever when looking at the game/tech/date as a whole. It's entirely subjectively though so doesn't matter what any of us say.

7 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Games like Among Us and Minecraft and World of Warcraft and etc come along time and time ago and show that graphics are nice...but ultimately gameplay is king.

Exactly. Crowfall lacks the simplicity or complexity, quality or quantity of such games. It's in a weird middle ground where it's too much for it's own good in some areas while lacking a deal good in others with nothing really standing out as outstanding be it individually or compared to other products.

If someone was playing XYZ game or has played XYZ games, how would you convince them that Crowfall is worth there time? You are even commenting it would likely fail as is but seems to be entirely focused on new players running into bullies or not being taught enough. IMO you could hand someone a lvl 35 legendary character, give them a strong tutorial and the appeal is still not going to be there once the new game phase wears off.

Edited by APE

 


 

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

I disagree. Honestly it is the worst combat I've experienced in a MMO ever when looking at the game/tech/date as a whole. It's entirely subjectively though so doesn't matter what any of us say.

This is my issue. The combat is as good as games 10 years old, the graphics are as good as games 10 years old. Simple game mechanics that were used 10 years ago are not included. If this game was released in 2016 like planned it would have been different, 6 years later with no real progress other then releasing the HD that people played after kickstarter.... yeah.

 

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...