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

Meaningfull Monsters

Recommended Posts

A could imagine a system where it takes more skill to control minions than it does to swing swords or shoot bows.

 

Yea, I guess that it's what will happen with the combat pet system, and possibly with the Thralls too. Players could have to control their own character plus the pets and Thralls they own, which will require some tactical abilities.

Edited by courant101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swords and arrows usually demand players' skill to be harmful. In the discussion I think that we were talking about waves of monsters invading fights.

 

So if there's an element of player skill in directing a wave of monsters towards or away from an area of interest, you're good?


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if there's an element of player skill in directing a wave of monsters towards or away from an area of interest, you're good?

 

No, I've written a few times in this thread already, the less NPCs there are in battles, the more I'm happy.

 

No pet, no Thralls, no monsters, I'm happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't need any PvE or monsters TBH

 

Then the world is dead and boring without some creatures living in it. 

No, I've written a few times in this thread already, the less NPCs there are in battles, the more I'm happy.

 

No pet, no Thralls, no monsters, I'm happy.

 

But didn't they have something in kickstarter in terms of combat pets? 

 

In honestly, I wouldn't mind some NPC's, but they shouldn't be the main attraction to the game.

Edited by zero2none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I've written a few times in this thread already, the less NPCs there are in battles, the more I'm happy.

 

No pet, no Thralls, no monsters, I'm happy.

Well in an open world based PvP game I don't see how that's very realistic. If one wants sanitary Pure PvP then perhaps an arena or moba game might be better?

 

I just don't see anything wrong with having a bit of unpredictability and chaos in PvP battles with the environment being factors on strategy and emergent gameplay.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a MMORPG called Fury, it was 100% PVP, but not open-world, more like arena fights. It flopped and died within a few months. It had no PVE whatsoever, all you would do is que up for matches and fought other players. After each match you won a chest of loot, even if you lost.

 

Honestly, it got boring pretty fast, so I think a little sprinkle of PVE wouldn't hurt. 

Edited by zero2none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in an open world based PvP game I don't see how that's very realistic. If one wants sanitary Pure PvP then perhaps an arena or moba game might be better?

 

I just don't see anything wrong with having a bit of unpredictability and chaos in PvP battles with the environment being factors on strategy and emergent gameplay.

 

I agree with you on unpredictability and chaos in PvP battles, and the environment being factor for strategy and emergent gameplay.

 

What I don't want is a battlefield filled with Thralls, combat pets and monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should the mobs fight as first wave, since for example animals usually dont try to attack a wall :P

 

Well, that's why I said lure them to the fort.  Normally they would not attack a wall but let's say you attack them and then make them think you moved behind the wall thus getting them to attack the wall and possibly guards to get to you.


Tanom of the WhiteWalkers

 

iWQCpyx.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How often do you expect a battlefield to have all three?

 

It's very hard to make a prediction on this I guess, we don't have much details on the use of Thralls during campaign, nor on the pets used for combat and even less about what monsters do.

 

If Thralls are used as guard, and 1 out of 3 person has one enabled during large fights, with 1 out of 10 people using combat pet and 20 monsters, I guess for a 100 vs. 100 battle there could be maybe about 100 NPCs for 200 players... highly speculative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....

 

I'll likely get roasted for this, but since it has been confirmed Crowfall will at least feature some form of PvE, let's talk a bit about what that actually might look like. 

 

First and foremost, before I get buried: I'm not looking for a PvE experience in Crowfall, I very much got into this project looking for a PvP environment, the PvE Themepark MMO doesn't work for me anymore so that is not the goal here. 

 

With that out of the way: What -does- PvE in Crowfall mean beyond the stated prospect of having monster camps? 

 

 

The thing that stuck out for me whilst reading up on it, and mentioned in an earlier thread:

 

 

I cannot find the exact interview where he said it, been watching so many of them of late I can't remember which one it was for the life of me. :)

 

 

Anyway, I found that to be very, very interesting: A world where your main threat is always the enemy players, or human opposition: But also a world where you always have to watch your back or be in danger of being overrun by (the inhabitants of) the world itself.

 

To me, this has the potential to drive a narrative, a living, breathing world in which you strive with or against others, alongside the world itself trying to kill you. 

This as opposed a world that otherwise might feel empty and void as soon as the majority of players log out for the night. 

 

 

Now, again: This should not mean PvE should take center stage or even get near it: it absolutely should not.

But I do feel that monsters, or the world in general should be a credible danger to us, otherwise their presence is meaningless. 

 

I recall MMO worlds, where I would ride trough 90% of the world at max level and feel no connection to it in any way, save for the max level area's where monsters could pose any semblance of a threat to me, if even that.

Personally, I would love to see campaign-worlds where my main objective is to overcome the enemy player opposition, but be careful of how to go about it, as NPC monsters have the potential to absolutely wreck me if I'm not on my A-Game. 

 

 

I would even go further and say I'd like monsters to be dynamic, powerful and have the potential to seriously mess with your campaign if left unchecked or ignored. 

The way they are announced to transform and grow more powerful and dangerous as the campaign seasons pass, gives them awesome potential to become a factor we will have to take into account when fighting our actual enemies (i.e: other players).

 

 

TL;DR

While not the main focus, I wish for the monsters that -will- be there to be bad-bottom and able to slap me silly sideways, be dangerous

 

 

 

What do you all think?

> Should monsters be dangerous? A factor you need to take into account when on campaign?

> Should monsters be just loot-pinatas?  Merely a distraction between actual fights?

> Should there be monsters at all? 

 

Let me know, I'm curious :)

 

 

 

*hides*

 

In my opinion, in short? YES!

It`s a PvP game, but I think a PvP game can be made all the more fun with the contribution of PvE, and there are plenty of games where we can see that; 

 

In MOBAs you have the monsters that ADD to the threat level and can turn a situation where players who are out numbered have an edge cuz of the help of those monsters.

 

Another game that I'm reminded of in CIVILIZATION. (Crowfall is said to have elements "inspired" on Civ, so this seems very fitting) 

In Civ you have the barbarian mobs that pose little threat if correctly dealt with.. but that can RUIN your campaign if ignored.

I imagine monster development in crowfall would benefit from such design philosophy.

 

The monsters should be there not as the protagonist of the conflict, but as part of the interactive environment, adding to the feeling of chaos and danger during sieges and battles... aswell as before (imagine a band of bandits NPCs that keep on attacking your fortifications at night.. or stealing supplies.. and you need to deal with their leader in order to eliminate that annoyance. Imagine once the ring leader was defeated you then send him off to do the very same annoyance to YOUR FACTION ENEMIES! 

 

Monsters could become part of the strategy since you could "Hire" them to attack enemy fortifications.. 

 

Now, there are other uses for monster aswell..

 

IDEA:

 

What if you could literally have "monster camps", a building where the players would be able to practice their rotations much like how we do it today with the dummies, and what if there was a way, during a siege, for an infiltrator to "sabotage" the camp, releasing the monsters, causing chaos! (monsters would not pick sides, they would just attack whoever they saw)

 

What if you had gladiatorial arenas, where players can combat for sport, against each other, aswell as against monsters.but to feed that gladiatorial arena with monsters you need to have a monster camp.

 

Benefits of a gladiatorial arena: increase in morale, stronger guards (general NPC army leveling), sport.

Edited by PhatPingu

Lf6MJUL.png

http://www.legend-gaming.net

Pingu - Member

---------------------------"Winter is coming"---------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to make a prediction on this I guess, we don't have much details on the use of Thralls during campaign, nor on the pets used for combat and even less about what monsters do.

 

If Thralls are used as guard, and 1 out of 3 person has one enabled during large fights, with 1 out of 10 people using combat pet and 20 monsters, I guess for a 100 vs. 100 battle there could be maybe about 100 NPCs for 200 players... highly speculative.

 

Yes, hard to predict. I also doubt these types of battles would happen on a regular basis. I believe skirmishes between a few people, 10-20, will be the most common type of battle. Try to think of EvE Online, in most cases the gigantic space battles that involve a thousand or more players only happens once or twice a month. In most scenarios it's like 100-200 players in a normal battle, and more like 10-50 in a typical roam/raid.

 

In terms of Crowfall (since EvE online has over 500k players, and usually 30-40k online at one time) the numbers would be a lot smaller. 

Edited by zero2none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen what EQN is doing with there monsters? The gist of it is they are given a list of priorities, and instead of having a fixed spawn point, they move to where those priorities are met. This might be another way they can attempt to make sure smaller groups are viable as opposed to just giant groups with giant keeps. For instance a zombie priority set might be:

1. Brains

2. Brains

3. Moar Brains.

A giant keep will keep you safe but now you've attracted zombies because the amount of people behind your wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaningful monsters have to either drop good loot, which puts an emphasis on PVE, or they have to have an impact on the game world.  If they drop good loot they can encourage world PVP, but if the loot is too good it can be balance breaking without a non-pve equivalent.

 

If the PVE has an impact on the game world, say like invasions or such, then that can be fun.  However people may not take kindly to random PVE mobs damaging their property.  It takes a careful balancing act to make them fun.

 

Some potential uses.....

 

1. Disrupt supply routes

2. Take over resource areas

3. Random % chance to ambush players transporting and/or protecting a mobile resource

4. Some combination of mob kills triggers a regional event, and enough trigger a global event

 

You can't dice it up too much, or you lower the priority for PVP content. 


rSHxVEY.gif

Guildmaster, LotD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen what EQN is doing with there monsters? The gist of it is they are given a list of priorities, and instead of having a fixed spawn point, they move to where those priorities are met. This might be another way they can attempt to make sure smaller groups are viable as opposed to just giant groups with giant keeps. For instance a zombie priority set might be:

1. Brains

2. Brains

3. Moar Brains.

A giant keep will keep you safe but now you've attracted zombies because the amount of people behind your wall.

JToddColeman, on 13 Mar 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:snapback.png

No sarcasm.  I believe that dynamic PvE (like wandering armies of monsters) are a core part of the EQN vision.  EverQuest is one of THE greatest MMOs ever created.  I want that legacy to continue.

 

(just not in Crowfall)

 

Todd

ACE

That says alot right there :)


Maybe it not about the happy ending. Maybe it's about the story.

RIP Doc Gonzo "to anyone...speak your mind...defend your position...be prepared for an Argument and enjoy the process of the discussion...that's all part of any good Forum experience"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JToddColeman, on 13 Mar 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:snapback.png

That says alot right there :)

 

 

Suppose they will have to find brains elsewhere. Thanks for the link, you were on top of that business.

 

EDIT: I'm not sure PVE can be meaningful (interruptive) in a PVP setting then. Which may be for the better. As someone mentioned, if someone cuts my supply line, I'll want someone to hate. 

Edited by Cassian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a big PvE player, but it does give the opportunity of PvP hotspots.

There might be a need for mobs to drop certain items ( feathers for arrows for example) that you might have to farm, but in the end, epically in a game like Crowfall, it will just become a PvP hotspot.

 

Edited by Agravenn
Picture removed.

dulpoa76627.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

JToddColeman, on 13 Mar 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:snapback.png

That says alot right there  :)

 

 

Good find, thanks for digging that up. 

At the same time however, it has been confirmed there -will- be a PvE component to Crowfall: Just curious how people feel about what it should look like.

 

 

Even though there are some great examples about potential forms of PvE are given here (and thanks for those everybody, there are some gems in there!), they should be considered "side-dishes".

Personally I think Pang said it best here:

 

Not suggesting they should always be a part of a siege or conflict but it should always be a possibility that when sieging either side could be attacked by some mobs. Being able to control if they do or not should also be a thing ie training a group of mobs unto a group of players, emergent gameplay and all that. Mobs are part of the environment and we should be able to use that against our foes as well.

 

 

In this example, avoiding PvE mobs interfering with a Siege would be as simple as clearing the nearby monster camps/patrols in advance of starting your siege. To me, that's not a terrible thing to take into consideration when making your preparations for the actual siege. 

 

It's all about player choice:

> Do I want to take a risk an leave the monsters in place? Either to my own benefit or detriment?

> Do I want to avoid having monsters interfere and as such clear their camps before I start my operations? 

 

You hate monsters running around your PvP fights? No problem! Hire a mercenary (guild) to hunt monsters for you!

 

In my mind, player choice is always good: Leave it up to the players to choose the way they want to play the game. 

That said, give players the tools/sandbox to enable them to make that choice, players will take it from there. 

 

 

Not advocating an elaborate PvE system here: As mentioned in my opening post, I feel PvE should not ever come close to taking center stage in Crowfall.

I do believe however, that with relatively simple, yet clever mechanics, monsters can be used to enhance the world in general. 

 

And of course... Make them dangerous! 

 

5dd6b0505949ed8a6ea46767572ab64a.jpg


~Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I'm less concerned about the latter than the former: Space we can recover, lost time never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a MMORPG called Fury, it was 100% PVP, but not open-world, more like arena fights. It flopped and died within a few months. It had no PVE whatsoever, all you would do is que up for matches and fought other players. After each match you won a chest of loot, even if you lost.

 

Honestly, it got boring pretty fast, so I think a little sprinkle of PVE wouldn't hurt. 

We had someone on the development team there and it didn't flop because it had no PvE.  That game was a train-wreck of a development process but was actually a lot of fun from a competitive gaming standpoint as it would have been a great E-Sport style game.  The goal for the game was their ladders, not progression.  If you weren't part of one of the top competitive teams, you'd only have the individual ladders to climb.  It's very similar to FPS style MMO arena game. 

 

I do agree with the sentiment that mobs/mob camps can be strong enough to change a PvP encounter.  In Darkfall there was a dragon who could nuke large areas and had an unbelievable tether.  If you were chasing people across that part of the world and he locked on, it forced a certain response in order to continue tracking your target and not dying.  He did give a great reward but was such a PITA to kill through the majority of the game that few people really focused on it.  Later in the life of the game people would kill him regularly, but it was not the most efficient use of a group of people's time.

 

That is what I think is an acceptable form of "PvE".  It can interrupt your game play, but isn't a requirement for overall success.

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...