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

Infected Realm/Server - what to do?


Recommended Posts

After moving off the starter server, I got onto an infected realm and don't really know what to do.  I'm level 20 so I'm easy pickings for all the lvl 30 players around.  The initial quest was to walk through a waygate but I don't really know where to go on the other side.  As a result, I'm just grinding NPC MOBs that are about 5-7 levels lower than me and sacrificing loot to level up. 

It feels like I'm doing it wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will want to find mobs that are closer to your level by heading nearer to Sky Point. The closer you get, the more likely you are to have to fight a level 30+ player. 

The experience drops off considerably as you out-level mobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't worry too much about dying, you don't lose anything other than a bit of durability in Infected. You keep your inventory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Alot said:

Also, don't worry too much about dying, you don't lose anything other than a bit of durability in Infected. You keep your inventory. 

I had thought there was some loot for PVP kills, is that no longer the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Constantine24 said:

I had thought there was some loot for PVP kills, is that no longer the case?

Inventory looting is only enabled over on the Dregs server which is guild versus guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Constantine24 said:

I had thought there was some loot for PVP kills, is that no longer the case?

The FvF server (Infected) is no loot at least for now.

Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Altybear said:

Inventory looting is only enabled over on the Dregs server which is guild versus guild.

Got it understood. I can't help but think breaking up the player population across all these worlds is going to result in bunch of half empty zones. But I guess we'll see. PVP imo is utterly meaningless and boring without some inventory loot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Constantine24 said:

Got it understood. I can't help but think breaking up the player population across all these worlds is going to result in bunch of half empty zones. But I guess we'll see. PVP imo is utterly meaningless and boring without some inventory loot.

Infected is PvP with training wheels. It's not smart to make it inventory loot.

Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Constantine24 said:

PVP imo is utterly meaningless and boring without some inventory loot.

Yea, unfortunately Crowfall has been making a turn to cater to carebears, just as New World did. 

During Kickstarter the most hardcore world was advertised as including at least partial gear drop and full inventory drop. Dregs is currently partial inventory drop with no gear drop at all, which effectively means no risk for attackers. 

They also seem to have completely reversed course on Uncle Bob. And leveling. And grind. And passive skills. And open world building. And legitimate territory conquest. 

Pretty incredible how much the game has diverged from what was sold, but I think one of the major difficulties has just been around the lack of coherent communication about why these changes are being made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alot said:

Yea, unfortunately Crowfall has been making a turn to cater to carebears, just as New World did. 

During Kickstarter the most hardcore world was advertised as including at least partial gear drop and full inventory drop. Dregs is currently partial inventory drop with no gear drop at all, which effectively means no risk for attackers. 

They also seem to have completely reversed course on Uncle Bob. And leveling. And grind. And passive skills. And open world building. And legitimate territory conquest. 

Pretty incredible how much the game has diverged from what was sold, but I think one of the major difficulties has just been around the lack of coherent communication about why these changes are being made. 

Had they stuck to their original vision, myself and many more would not have come.  Their market was simply too small for the vision they originally had.

Partial inventory protection for harvesters came about because there was 100% no risk to an attacker with no inventory.  They had the opener, full stamina, and built for pvp ganking, where as a harvest was often stat gimped for efficient harvesting .  Hardly seems like hardcore pvp to me when its so one sided.  Originally it was 100% protection, but most of the community thought it was too much, so now they lose half of their stuff, and sometimes their tools in the inventory.  They also lose 100% dust and everything else in their inventory not protected by the harvest discipline.  It rewards an attacker quite well still, and isn't so demoralizing to a harvester that they pack up for the night and go to bed.  To me this was a decent solution when coupled with the less reliance on Int/Dex harvesting now takes due to the stat crunch.   They just need to somehow fix the stamina imbalance when engaged upon while harvesting.

They had an issue with people avoiding Dregs to farm, so they severely nerfed the acquisition of rarer materials in infected, this isn't a fix for carebears, its the opposite.  People are still funneled into Dregs if they want decent stuff, and not many established guilds hide in infected now.  They do however hide in the much less populated EU campaigns, ACE for some reason wont fix this due to the 100ms extra ping some players will get accessing the east coast NA server, despite half the EU population actually being from NA. 

If you meant the game is catering to carebears by infected existing, well that's just a lack of understanding on your part on new player behaviour.  We want people to play the game, not have to deal with gankers camping them in the beginner area and taking their stuff non stop until they quit the game for good before they even have a chance to learn the game and play.  Take away the reward for these sort of people doing this, they will be enticed to go elsewhere to carry on with their playstyle.   If you've been in infected lately, its mostly now serving its purpose, people levelling, making their way to skypoint, learning to PvP on their class, then going to dregs if they have a guild.

Gear drop was tried, no one wanted to PvP because no one could fight from having no weapons.  They had a choice to make, toss their crafting system or put gear drops on hold for now.  the latter was chosen, and i'm sure factories came in to deal with the possibility of a gear drop campaign in the future.

Passive skills sucked.  They reward players for buying in early and give them an unfair advantage over newer players.  The gated skills were too powerful,  Bandage boosts, Mount speed reduction, mount speed boosts, Account wide combat stat boosts, all this doesn't sound hardcore pvp, it sounds broken.  Not to mention you are forced to buy multiple accounts to craft and harvest effectively.

What communication was needed for the above?  To me it sounds like the original vision was broken, they changed as they needed to in order to make this game feasible for launch.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, neven said:

Had they stuck to their original vision, myself and many more would not have come.  Their market was simply too small for the vision they originally had.

All evidence points to the contrary. Albion and EVE have been some of the most successful games in the niche PvP MMO genre. 

There is also the question of whether it's better to be a big fish in a small pond versus a small, nondescript fish in a large pond. Making the game more like WoW is not appealing to most of the people who backed the game initially.  

Those people largely wanted consequences in PvP. Currently, attackers face almost no consequences or risk, and winning against someone who is gear crutching results in no transfer of wealth to the defender. Gear drop is one of the primary things that could keep Uncle Bob and griefing in check. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

Partial inventory protection for harvesters came about because there was 100% no risk to an attacker with no inventory. 

In my opinion, the ideal solution is for both sides to risk. Protecting more loot just makes the game more carebear and fundamentally changes the game design. It causes the impact of Uncle Bob to be significantly more harsh because veteran/wealthy players can gear crutch with no risk, exacerbating already steep disparities in power. If, on the other hand, veterans risked what they were wearing in PvP, they would be much less inclined to gear crutch, and when they did, the defender could profit.

24 minutes ago, neven said:

They had the opener, full stamina, and built for pvp ganking, where as a harvest was often stat gimped for efficient harvesting .  Hardly seems like hardcore pvp to me when its so one sided.

PvP being lopsided doesn't make it not hardcore. Hardcore PvP has consequences. Crowfall PvP has almost no consequences for the attacker.

34 minutes ago, neven said:

It rewards an attacker quite well still, and isn't so demoralizing to a harvester that they pack up for the night and go to bed. 

I'm more concerned about the risk than the rewards. The consequences of actions define a game system. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

If you meant the game is catering to carebears by infected existing, well that's just a lack of understanding on your part on new player behaviour. 

That isn't what I meant. I'm saying that removing gear drop as a design goal caters to carebears and fundamentally changes the game design. Uncle Bob has been unleashed.

24 minutes ago, neven said:

We want people to play the game, not have to deal with gankers camping them in the beginner area and taking their stuff non stop until they quit the game for good before they even have a chance to learn the game and play. 

There should absolutely be other, more forgiving rule sets, like Infected. That has always been a key design goal for Crowfall. Albion does the same thing and it's crucial to support a larger player base, not all of whom enjoy full loot. The problem at current is that the experience is not scaled in any way, so those players who don't enjoy full loot will get absolutely obliterated by experienced players in good gear. Albion has power scaling to help to reduce the impact. Crowfall has nothing. These are separate problems to the removal of gear drop. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

Take away the reward for these sort of people doing this, they will be enticed to go elsewhere to carry on with their playstyle.   If you've been in infected lately, its mostly now serving its purpose, people levelling, making their way to skypoint, learning to PvP on their class, then going to dregs if they have a guild.

Based on the number of posts and comments in the forum about Skypoint being camped by stacked veterans, I'm not entirely sure this is true. And it most certainly will not be true at launch. Griefers gonna grief. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

Gear drop was tried, no one wanted to PvP because no one could fight from having no weapons.  They had a choice to make, toss their crafting system or put gear drops on hold for now.  the latter was chosen, and i'm sure factories came in to deal with the possibility of a gear drop campaign in the future.

I think gear drop was tried for a few days on the test server without accommodating systems and with a horrible implementation, and the feedback was still mixed. Imagine testing it legitimately? This was a core Kickstarter design goal, it should at least be considered, in my opinion. Or at least explain how Uncle Bob is going to be handled in it's absence. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

Passive skills sucked.  They reward players for buying in early and give them an unfair advantage over newer players.  The gated skills were too powerful,  Bandage boosts, Mount speed reduction, mount speed boosts, Account wide combat stat boosts, all this doesn't sound hardcore pvp, it sounds broken.  Not to mention you are forced to buy multiple accounts to craft and harvest effectively.

Passive skills sucked because there was no catch up mechanic implemented yet. Otherwise, it primary "sucks" for players who have the time to actively grind many hours per day and would like a significant power disparity for their effort. On the other hand, it's great for older players who have lives and other responsibilities, and might not be able to grind as much. It's also great for hardcore PvPers who aren't fans of significant power gaps and prefer a challenge.

I don't see a problem with supporting ArtCraft by buying additional accounts. The passive skill system allowed players to buy flexibility, not necessarily power. Active grind skill systems allow all players to buy both flexibility and power, except that the money doesn't go to ArtCraft to improve the game, it goes to player RMTers. 

24 minutes ago, neven said:

What communication was needed for the above?  To me it sounds like the original vision was broken, they changed as they needed to in order to make this game feasible for launch.

I don't think changing the most hardcore rule set has ever been discussed by the ArtCraft team, at least not that I've caught. I don't remember any recent updates on how Uncle Bob was going to be handled in the absence of gear loot. In terms of passive training, the rationale they shared is here: https://crowfall.com/en-US/news/articles/december-live-stream

It seems to be pretty lacking considering that it doesn't address why a catch-up mechanic would not have worked, why such a fundamental change was necessary, what value active grinding brings to the game, and whether this is the implementation we'll see at launch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, neven said:

Had they stuck to their original vision, myself and many more would not have come.  Their market was simply too small for the vision they originally had.

Partial inventory protection for harvesters came about because there was 100% no risk to an attacker with no inventory.  They had the opener, full stamina, and built for pvp ganking, where as a harvest was often stat gimped for efficient harvesting .  Hardly seems like hardcore pvp to me when its so one sided.  Originally it was 100% protection, but most of the community thought it was too much, so now they lose half of their stuff, and sometimes their tools in the inventory.  They also lose 100% dust and everything else in their inventory not protected by the harvest discipline.  It rewards an attacker quite well still, and isn't so demoralizing to a harvester that they pack up for the night and go to bed.  To me this was a decent solution when coupled with the less reliance on Int/Dex harvesting now takes due to the stat crunch.   They just need to somehow fix the stamina imbalance when engaged upon while harvesting.

They had an issue with people avoiding Dregs to farm, so they severely nerfed the acquisition of rarer materials in infected, this isn't a fix for carebears, its the opposite.  People are still funneled into Dregs if they want decent stuff, and not many established guilds hide in infected now.  They do however hide in the much less populated EU campaigns, ACE for some reason wont fix this due to the 100ms extra ping some players will get accessing the east coast NA server, despite half the EU population actually being from NA. 

If you meant the game is catering to carebears by infected existing, well that's just a lack of understanding on your part on new player behaviour.  We want people to play the game, not have to deal with gankers camping them in the beginner area and taking their stuff non stop until they quit the game for good before they even have a chance to learn the game and play.  Take away the reward for these sort of people doing this, they will be enticed to go elsewhere to carry on with their playstyle.   If you've been in infected lately, its mostly now serving its purpose, people levelling, making their way to skypoint, learning to PvP on their class, then going to dregs if they have a guild.

Gear drop was tried, no one wanted to PvP because no one could fight from having no weapons.  They had a choice to make, toss their crafting system or put gear drops on hold for now.  the latter was chosen, and i'm sure factories came in to deal with the possibility of a gear drop campaign in the future.

Passive skills sucked.  They reward players for buying in early and give them an unfair advantage over newer players.  The gated skills were too powerful,  Bandage boosts, Mount speed reduction, mount speed boosts, Account wide combat stat boosts, all this doesn't sound hardcore pvp, it sounds broken.  Not to mention you are forced to buy multiple accounts to craft and harvest effectively.

What communication was needed for the above?  To me it sounds like the original vision was broken, they changed as they needed to in order to make this game feasible for launch.
 

I think there's a difference between tweaking something to make it balanced and scrapping features because a vocal minority complain. This is a classic dev mmo trap imo. Of all the mmo's out there. 99% of them cater to casual PVP fans and mainstream pve fans. What it looks like is happening instead of being one of the few hardcore mmo's on the market, they are pivoting to be more like the big guys. News Flash, this game will never have more users than WoW, ESO, Runescape, Final Fantasy, Black Dessert etc. All of them already have that casual mainstream genre covered.

What Crowfall should be doing is making a niche game that caters to a base that isn't being satisfied - hardcore pvp fans. If they want to listen to the casual fans who won't play if it's too hardcore then it'll end up as another mmo straddling a line and fading into nothingness less than 2 years after launch. "But you'll only have gankers if you do that" - fine, see what happens and don't play. You'll have no game if you do it the other way around and there are plenty of casual mmo's out there...

I think there's a reason there isn't any hype for this game (/rmmorpg on reddit is full of people who have given up and most consider it DOA). Listening to a vocal minority who aren't' interested in the game (they just want something new and shiny in a stale genre) and scrapping core features is the quickest way to sink your mmo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, neven said:

Had they stuck to their original vision, myself and many more would not have come. 

Then there would be alot more players. You kind of need better results then the persistently low player counts to make such claims. 

2 hours ago, neven said:

Partial inventory protection for harvesters came about because there was 100% no risk to an attacker with no inventory. 

There was 0% risk due to design change having no gear looting. Your right it doesnt work well with 0 risk and 100% on the other side. Which is part of the reason why folks gather in places with less or no risk of pvp.

2 hours ago, neven said:

Gear drop was tried, no one wanted to PvP because no one could fight from having no weapons.  They had a choice to make, toss their crafting system or put gear drops on hold for now.  the latter was chosen, and i'm sure factories came in to deal with the possibility of a gear drop campaign in the future.

Again, this was due to design changes away from putting in systems to support any type of economy. 

2 hours ago, neven said:

Passive skills sucked.  They reward players for buying in early and give them an unfair advantage over newer players.  The gated skills were too powerful,  Bandage boosts, Mount speed reduction, mount speed boosts, Account wide combat stat boosts, all this doesn't sound hardcore pvp, it sounds broken.  Not to mention you are forced to buy multiple accounts to craft and harvest effectively.

The last iteration of passive training was done over a long weekend by blair. I think most agreed it needed more iterations, indeed it was said on stream, but attention was needed elsewhere at the time. The design changed towards active progression before that happened and the whole passive system was thrown out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 1:37 PM, Alot said:

gear drop was tried for a few days on the test server without accommodating systems and with a horrible implementation, and the feedback was still mixed. Imagine testing it legitimately? This was a core Kickstarter design goal, it should at least be considered

The testing feedback on gear looting was that it was not very feasible without the factory production (that we now have!) and the RNG system we tested had some weird results (like not knowing if you would lose 1 item or 10). I think we will see gear looting rulesets in the future with some adjustments based on the feedback. 

 

On 5/14/2021 at 11:36 AM, Constantine24 said:

PVP imo is utterly meaningless and boring without some inventory loot.

Discussed in the last livestream was adding "gold drop" looting rule to new player Infected world, so apparently the devs agree with you :P

tiPrpwh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this Uncle Bob reference I keep hearing about.

I also find it funny how people demand a hardcore "anti-carebear" game not meant for casuals but on the other side of their mouth they demand the passive system back because it allows them to be casuals.

My job is an hour and a bit away from home and I have kids, yet I'm much more progressed than I'd have been on the passive system, despite having 3 accounts.  I don't spend hours grinding gold, I sell stuff or I take advantage of being in a guild with pooled resources.  So I don't see the argument over how the current iteration is worse than the passive system, especially when a guild can quickly recover a loss of a crafter now.

I also don't see anti-gear drop as a carebear attitude.  Even if someone risks dropping their gear attacking, they will still only pick the fights they know they likely can win or they can easy disengage and gtfo.   It just seems a mechanic to appease gankers and guilds who don't want to craft.   Anyways, not something people on either side will ever convince the other on.  Just two different visions on what people want this game to be.  In the end this game will still be a niche title either way it goes and I got my money out through time played.

MMOs tend to shift focus during development away from the original vision, some will be disappointed and leave, and others join because of those changes.  Just because it's a Kickstarter doesn't change that it's still an MMO in development.  All the Kickstarter means is they are legally obliged to refund (if requested) if they don't meet the original promises, and they need to communicate changes, which they have been.

Edited by neven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 2:37 PM, Alot said:

I think gear drop was tried for a few days on the test server without accommodating systems and with a horrible implementation, and the feedback was still mixed. Imagine testing it legitimately? This was a core Kickstarter design goal, it should at least be considered, in my opinion. Or at least explain how Uncle Bob is going to be handled in it's absence. 

The other thing to keep in mind, though, is we still only have one campaign setting. Having a "hardcore" campaign is all well and good. But if it's the ONLY place to be during beta, then it's likely to do even more harm to player retention and general impression of the game within the community than the current cliff that most new players are falling off of at 30.

On 5/14/2021 at 2:37 PM, Alot said:

That isn't what I meant. I'm saying that removing gear drop as a design goal caters to carebears and fundamentally changes the game design. Uncle Bob has been unleashed.

To my knowledge this was never removed as a design goal. The essential functionality needed to do campaigns with varying degrees of inventory and gear looting has basically been demonstrated, and, yes, the supporting systems and various other QoL elements weren't there to support it at the time it was tested. Just to reiterate, you can't have an ecosystem of campaigns with varying degrees of risk and reward if you only have 1 campaign.

8 minutes ago, neven said:

I also don't see anti-gear drop as a carebear attitude.  Even if someone risks dropping their gear attacking, they will still only pick the fights they know they likely can win or they can easy disengage and gtfo. 

This is part of the issue with inventory and gear loot driving up the risk to do any activity in the world; People just don't fight. IMHO, it's not clear that these 'hardcore' features will produce a better game. There's no incentive for a harvester to take a fight with or without gear/inventory drop. Same with someone farming WTs. It's not obviously any better for the economy because the gear doesn't leave circulation, it just transfers hands. It's quite possibly worse for crafting; Who cares about durability if you lose the gear on death? Why wouldn't I just run easy to get WT gear if everything is effectively disposable?

What gear/inventory drop does do is reinforce a lot of negative behaviors: banking frequently, running only stealth characters, avoiding fights, etc. Also, when I waste a minute or two hitting a bank after death to re-equip, it sucks. When I have to wait for a 40 man group to do it, it's a nightmare.

Something is definitely needed to incentivize conflict and engagement in activities out in the world. It's just not clear that gear/inventory drop is that thing. It's my opinion that 50% inventory loot provides a nice floor on reward for time invested that is also not so punitive that it discourages engagement. I also think something like significant durability hits on death with the lost durability being lootable in some form, like dust or a vendor item, would accomplish much of what gear loot does while avoiding many of the negative side effects. Additionally, if an item does break on death, it being lootable as a broken item that can be sold or maybe salvaged would be an interesting idea. Jewlery dropping on death, like in HD, is also a potentially interesting middle ground.

In the end, there is room for full gear/inventory loot campaigns, but only once there's more than one place to be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, neven said:

I also find it funny how people demand a hardcore "anti-carebear" game not meant for casuals but on the other side of their mouth they demand the passive system back because it allows them to be casuals.

Passive training allowed for folks to miss a fixed campaign due to whatever reason and not fall as far behind others that didnt. That has no bearing on hardcore/casual or carebear, it was simply one of the games method of progression. The changes stopping loot/gear drops is the carebear aspect, totally different thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, I found the quest NPC about 5 levels later than intended.  I went through the runegate to Sky Point never realizing the intent was for me to use the Moosename runegate instead.  

Tutorial type quests ought to more obvious.  They were up until that point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TragicFailure said:

Ultimately, I found the quest NPC about 5 levels later than intended.  I went through the runegate to Sky Point never realizing the intent was for me to use the Moosename runegate instead.  

Tutorial type quests ought to more obvious.  They were up until that point.  

Until very recently, there was no gate directly to SkyPoint from the temples, so if you took the port to Infected you would have ended up where you could have interfaced with the quest. ACE added the SkyPoint portal at the request of players who didn't want the long run thru 2 other islands to get to SkyPoint BUT didn't update the quest language to steer questers away from SkyPoint.

Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...