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

Things I [we] don't want in Crowfall

Recommended Posts

Help me with this list:

 

1. General

  • queue
  • server lag
  • 3 years in development  :ph34r:  [hate list]

 

2. Combat

  • downed state
  • revive
  • tab targeting
  • button spamming [#25 - Scribbles]
  • hard CC
  • broken stealth mechanic
  • limited movement options [#100 - Lastgirl~]
  • telegraph system [confirmed off]

 

3. Siege

  • PvD (player vs door)
  • 'boring' mechanics [#7 - Psyentific]

 

4. PVE

  • grinding/farming
  • PvE as a separate game experience [#24 - Kalsomir]
  • daily quest [#113 - Jetah]
  • mounts and pets [hate list]

 

5. Crafting

  • RNG nightmare
  • "labor points"
  • un-fun crafting [#7 - Psyentific]
  • gender restricted armor [#94 - sorceress]

 

6. EK

  • "requirement" [#25 - Scribbles]

 

7. Economy/Store

  • Inflation
Edited by baba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrational use of players time in game, intentionally or unintentionally created excessive waiting times, necessity to monotonously run around alot to even get a chance to accomplish anything.

 

Uncompensated Hitbox supremacy of the smaller framed races. Leading to those races being the defacto standard for PvP.

 

Duping.

 

Combat system not requiring resource management and planning (arrows, reagents, stamina, mana) leading to ability and spell spam.

 

Game eventually turning into pay to win for financial reasons. (we already see mounts and pack pigs in the cash shop) and those do offer advantage against an unmounted player, unless they are only skins.

Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General:
Compromising the core game concept. Less of a danger due to the absence of a publisher, but beware of your own ambition.

'Tacked on' features, especially ones added to appeal to non-core demographics; If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.
Limited character customization; If the Archetypes system allows for liner rather than exponential character costs, then I'd darn well better have a lot of options

PvE:
High-development-time 'raid' PvE (Worldbosses are very good, however)
 

PvP:
Low (FPS-tier) time to kills. Any given engagement should have room for multiple tactical decisions.
Powerful stealth classes, or even Stealth at all. Stealth allows me to initiate any engagement on my own terms; I should pay for this in some way.
Mobility-less Melee classes; Compared to a ranged class, a melee class must have a mobility advantage; otherwise I'll never be able to apply my damage
Vanilla target-lock ability-cycle combat; Tab-target is just a part of this, not the actual problem. If combat boils down to 'acquire target, push buttons', you've already custarded up hard.

Siege:
'Boring' mechanics. A siege is a large, high-stakes battle and should be treated as such from a design standpoint. Siege engines of various sorts make excellent setpieces, and may have various effects on various targets. For example, a cannon loaded with canister shot acts as a giant scattergun, while a ram may make quick work of a gate but must be escorted. A Hwacha-style device might be used to lay down deadly arrow barrages over wide areas, or a minefield may be placed to funnel enemy troops into specific killzones. Sieges are the PvP Endgame; They must be given appropriate attention.

Crafting:
Un-fun crafting; If crafting is a core game feature, then it ought to recieve comparable attention to Combat. Crafting must be enjoyable & rewarding, not a chore.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think you should have inflation up there. It's not something ACE has any control over.

That's more of a player level thing.

No, they should think of mechanisms to remove excessive value from the games economy. Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think you should have inflation up there. It's not something ACE has any control over.

That's more of a player level thing.

Not necessarily; Inflation is a measure of money in vs money out. That is, the ratio of gold to goods. If there's lot of money entering the system (ex. farming OP), but not a lot of money leaving the system (ex. negligable structure maintainence), that means that the purchasing power of one gold will decrease.

 

You can actually see it pretty clearly in Eve Online, where, as large amounts of ISK becomes easier to make (historically incursions, wormholes), the overall price of goods (ie spaceships) increases. A long time ago, before Eve was ~pretty~, a Drake battlecruiser cost 30m. Now that same battlecruiser can cost 50 or 60m. The overall amount of effort & raw materials needed to make a Drake hasn't changed, but the price people think they can get away with charging has increased, because the purchasing power of One ISK has decreased, because there is overall more ISK in the system now than there was five years ago.

 

That is inflation, and it is the bane of newbies and poor people.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily; Inflation is a measure of money in vs money out. That is, the ratio of gold to goods. If there's lot of money entering the system (ex. farming OP), but not a lot of money leaving the system (ex. negligable structure maintainence), that means that the purchasing power of one gold will decrease.

 

I see!

So apart from the obvious gold/resource sinks, what else do we think they could add to prevent it?

Low yield on gathering? High resource costs for crafting?


231e101d88.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily; Inflation is a measure of money in vs money out. That is, the ratio of gold to goods. If there's lot of money entering the system (ex. farming OP), but not a lot of money leaving the system (ex. negligable structure maintainence), that means that the purchasing power of one gold will decrease.

 

You can actually see it pretty clearly in Eve Online, where, as large amounts of ISK becomes easier to make (historically incursions, wormholes), the overall price of goods (ie spaceships) increases. A long time ago, before Eve was ~pretty~, a Drake battlecruiser cost 30m. Now that same battlecruiser can cost 50 or 60m. The overall amount of effort & raw materials needed to make a Drake hasn't changed, but the price people think they can get away with charging has increased, because the purchasing power of One ISK has decreased, because there is overall more ISK in the system now than there was five years ago.

 

That is inflation, and it is the bane of newbies and poor people.

How is this relevant outside of the EKs?

 

How will this effect anything at all in the EKs?


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this relevant outside of the EKs?

 

How will this effect anything at all in the EKs?

Uncontrolled inflation simply can not be good. Before they provide additional details on the economy, it will stay a valid concern. So the answer to your question is obvious. Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this relevant outside of the EKs?

 

How will this effect anything at all in the EKs?

Each campaign world will also have its own economy; Gold is looted, items are crafted, gold is transferred, repair bills are paid, maintainence bills are paid. There is a system, money enters it, money moves around in it, money leaves it. Thus, there is an economy, and thus there is the potential for that economy to be unbalanced. Inflation & Deflation are that unbalance.

 

In the scope of a campaign world, gold is created by mining or farming and removed from play by maintainence, repairs and any NPC vendors, anything that involves a player giving gold to the system rather than another player.

If the creation of gold far outstrips the destruction of gold, then eventually gold itself will become trivial through saturation of the Currency-To-Value ratio. That is, there may be infinite currency, but there is only finite Value. In layman's terms, I can throw gold at the wall and not give a sock, because I have infinite money.

 

Conversely, if the destruction of gold far outstrips the creation of gold, that means that Gold will become disproportionately valuable. That is, that if there isn't enough gold, people will horde & budget the gold as it becomes a precious & questionably-renewable resource.

 

Outside the campaign worlds, the game-level economy is much easier to manage due to import rules; These mean that there is a finite, adjustable hard cap on the amount of gold coming into the system. So long as the overall amount of gold leaving the system is roughly equal to that cap, inflation won't be an issue.

 

So while the campaign worlds work off approximations & variables, best-guesstimating money-in vs money-out, ACE has direct control over how much money enters the EKs.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is a weird way to look at things from a development standpoint. Why make a list of things that you don't want when you can make a list of things you do want and work from there? It's a smaller list when you think about it, like when I go to Subway and they ask me what I want on my sandwich I don't start telling them the ingredients I don't want to stuff my face with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is a weird way to look at things from a development standpoint. Why make a list of things that you don't want when you can make a list of things you do want and work from there? It's a smaller list when you think about it, like when I go to Subway and they ask me what I want on my sandwich I don't start telling them the ingredients I don't want to stuff my face with.

The problem is that everybody wants different things; By making a list of what we don't want, we can all agree on what is terrible.

 

Put it this way; We can bicker as much as we want about who were the best people in World War 2, but we all agree that Stalin was terrible and Hitler wasn't much better.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each campaign world will also have its own economy; Gold is looted, items are crafted, gold is transferred, repair bills are paid, maintainence bills are paid. There is a system, money enters it, money moves around in it, money leaves it. Thus, there is an economy, and thus there is the potential for that economy to be unbalanced. Inflation & Deflation are that unbalance.

 

In the scope of a campaign world, gold is created by mining or farming and removed from play by maintainence, repairs and any NPC vendors, anything that involves a player giving gold to the system rather than another player.

If the creation of gold far outstrips the destruction of gold, then eventually gold itself will become trivial through saturation of the Currency-To-Value ratio. That is, there may be infinite currency, but there is only finite Value. In layman's terms, I can throw gold at the wall and not give a sock, because I have infinite money.

 

Conversely, if the destruction of gold far outstrips the creation of gold, that means that Gold will become disproportionately valuable. That is, that if there isn't enough gold, people will horde & budget the gold as it becomes a precious & questionably-renewable resource.

 

Outside the campaign worlds, the game-level economy is much easier to manage due to import rules; These mean that there is a finite, adjustable hard cap on the amount of gold coming into the system. So long as the overall amount of gold leaving the system is roughly equal to that cap, inflation won't be an issue.

 

So while the campaign worlds work off approximations & variables, best-guesstimating money-in vs money-out, ACE has direct control over how much money enters the EKs.

There will be no NPC vendors or "gold sinks" in the campaign worlds.

On top of that, since the campaign worlds resets, inflation will be very temporary if it builds up.

You can actually argue, that as we near the end of a campaign, things will be worth less, because if it goes into things that are not being exported, it will have a shorter and shorter maximum lifetime.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is a weird way to look at things from a development standpoint. Why make a list of things that you don't want when you can make a list of things you do want and work from there? It's a smaller list when you think about it, like when I go to Subway and they ask me what I want on my sandwich I don't start telling them the ingredients I don't want to stuff my face with.

Both are equally important, if you were allergic to sesame seeds and it made you vomit uncontrollably, you'd probably make a note each time " PLEASE NO SESAME SEEDS ON THE BUN!" when ordering the sandwich, because from the point of view of the guy making that sandwich, the detail is absolutely minor and not worthy of attention, he probably wouldn't even ask you whether you want a bun with sesame seeds or not. And for you it would be a deal beaker. In the end finding both pain and pleasure points will help ACE make a better product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that everybody wants different things; By making a list of what we don't want, we can all agree on what is terrible.

Put it this way; We can bicker as much as we want about who were the best people in World War 2, but we all agree that Stalin was terrible and Hitler wasn't much better.

Bringing up WW2 to expain obvious things is a sure way to derail the thread

Share this post


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...