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

oh god pls no

Recommended Posts

I dunno if they would be happy with 250k in this day and age, I know they threw around 100k before but they gotta be looking at a better ROI than that.  I think a game of this nature, the sky is the limit if they continue to make good decisions over time and post launch and don't give into cashgrab "features" and such. 

 

Also due to the nature of viral gaming, the demand for good and unique mmorpgs, and the popularity of the survival genre... I predict crowfall to sell  at least 1million copies in the first year.  If h1z1 can do it they definitely can.

 

Seems costs will be low since they won't have to constantly be making quests/raid dungeons/voice overs/what-have-you for expansions, so even at 100k as a small developer for what they consider a 'niche' game, it comes out pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to "ceiling is falling" especially when I don't have a set experience projected for me. I can gauge gameplay to a very real depth with a little information, but thats not exactly something that lends itself to positive thinking when you're thinking about how many ways a thing can go wrong, based on experience.

 

SO, I "ceiling is falling" and point out the obvious pitfalls of my own experience with a system, and project the emotional state I feel adequately addresses my sentiment if such things were to happen.

 

In all reality I could probably do well enough with an archer in a "chivalry" setting, and may very well be able to do well and become the top 20% of players, but I'm a 18year veteran of first person shooters. What chance do you scrubs have?

 

I'm a fan of hardcore gaming, but I understand, and respect casual elements because I'm hardcore. I know how fun casual can be and respect its space in design. "FUN" is a thing...and casual games, and hardcore games both reach it, and I want more and more complex blends of game elements that combine and optimize the player experience... often times people asking for "hardcore games" are just asking for a reskin of an old experience they had, but had to give up on because players left for new (NEW) things.

 

When I say I want a hardcore game to me that speaks of "I want a hardcore game, but in an environment where I won't have to cleanse my friends list every week because some people aren't as big an addict as I am."

 

Gaming is a passion, and its real for some people, but its not something that should be all consuming...so I'm going to fight for the me me-post-esports era...hardcoreLite gamer.

 

The gamer whose done it all seen it all, and wants it all, but wants to give it a little less then his all...because thats not fun.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make a statement here about the use of "Hardcore" as it's flung around all over the place.  Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but last I knew hardcore didn't mean that the game was difficult because of the manner of input.  Hardcore is a game with little to no real guidance, little to no real direction pointing, requires a deep understanding of the game's mechanics, is punishing to mistakes, requires the player to truly analyze what went wrong (or right) after some event, and forces the player to rethink strategies and approaches.  Hardcore does not automatically mean "true aim" like a FPS or Chivalry or Mount & Blade.  Hardcore means challenge without remorse.  While the game itself is certainly aiming to accommodate a more hardcore crowd compared to most games, let's not pretend that its style of combat and the system mechanics to make it work are somehow more or less hardcore just because their might be some aim assist.  You look me in the eye and say with a straight face a game like AD&D: The Dark Queen of Krynn or Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge aren't hardcore games, both games offering incredibly simplistic and hugely RNG based combat yet both deep and highly challenging because of the danger enemies posed and in the need to know what skills and tactics work against what creatures to claim victory with your party still living.

 

Crowfall could just take tab target to a whole new and deep level by making it a lot more engaging and skill based and have combat comparably challenging to vanilla WoW and still be a hardcore game.  They just know people want skill to matter more and the arguably easier, or at least more fulfilling means, would be an aim-based action combat system.  Just because we may see some aim assist won't suddenly mean the very bad will become very good or make everything too "easy" for the pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make a statement here about the use of "Hardcore" as it's flung around all over the place.  Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but last I knew hardcore didn't mean that the game was difficult because of the manner of input.  Hardcore is a game with little to no real guidance, little to no real direction pointing, requires a deep understanding of the game's mechanics, is punishing to mistakes, requires the player to truly analyze what went wrong (or right) after some event, and forces the player to rethink strategies and approaches.  Hardcore does not automatically mean "true aim" like a FPS or Chivalry or Mount & Blade.  Hardcore means challenge without remorse.  While the game itself is certainly aiming to accommodate a more hardcore crowd compared to most games, let's not pretend that its style of combat and the system mechanics to make it work are somehow more or less hardcore just because their might be some aim assist.  You look me in the eye and say with a straight face a game like AD&D: The Dark Queen of Krynn or Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge aren't hardcore games, both games offering incredibly simplistic and hugely RNG based combat yet both deep and highly challenging because of the danger enemies posed and in the need to know what skills and tactics work against what creatures to claim victory with your party still living.

 

Crowfall could just take tab target to a whole new and deep level by making it a lot more engaging and skill based and have combat comparably challenging to vanilla WoW and still be a hardcore game.  They just know people want skill to matter more and the arguably easier, or at least more fulfilling means, would be an aim-based action combat system.  Just because we may see some aim assist won't suddenly mean the very bad will become very good or make everything too "easy" for the pros.

It's really for the best players to determine what hardcore means, because they know what it takes to perform at a high level of proficiency...


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to add one little thing to the discussion. I see a lot of resistance to the idea of a so called "soft-lock", but at the same time I see some people using Tera as an example of a game not using it.

As a couple of people have mentioned Tera's ranged abilities had different aiming mechanics depending on the skill. Even the abilities that were close to so called hit scan had other mechanics that made them easier to aim. The example for Tera specifically is bigger hit boxes and bigger effective reticules. 

 

The thing is that bigger hit boxes and a bigger effective reticule is basically a soft lock system. The code and UI might differ, but the effect is exactly the same.

 

I also think that some people are very selective in their use of the "mechanical skill" expression. I would argue that the aiming system in itself is not what determines mechanical skill, but rather the speed of which it happens.

Edited by RabbitFly

mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effects may be similar or the same, but games are all about feel. If a system does the same thing as another but feels twice as good, then its obviously not the same, and engaging the player in an important way where as the other system isn't.

 

Games are hard, finding fun is hard. Stuffs hard like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effects may be similar or the same, but games are all about feel. If a system does the same thing as another but feels twice as good, then its obviously not the same, and engaging the player in an important way where as the other system isn't.

 

Games are hard, finding fun is hard. Stuffs hard like that.

 

Well how does that feel different though? because an UI element tells you about the difference?

 

Because we have no idea how ACE would even decide to make the UI mirror soft lock if they even decide to go that route.

 

The point I was trying to make was rather. Soft Lock can come in many shapes and sizes. If people are saying bigger hit boxes and a bigger effective aiming reticule is ok, they are basically saying soft lock is ok. It's just about how one would decide to wrap that within the UI. Which is where your "feeling" comes in.

 

In other words. There is no reason you wouldn't be able to make a soft lock system without it being apparent to the user. Most games that use soft lock rarely show that to the user now a days anyways.

 

Then again I don't actually think most of the people arguing in this thread are concerned with how it feels, but rather I would guess they have a preference when it comes to how the mechanics work, and to some how competitive it is, so my original point still stands.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft lock is more akin to Elder Scrolls.  So long as you're in range and aiming enough at an enemy the game targets them for you and you're golden and you can still tab-lock in ESO.  It's like "smart tab target" where it's much more automatic and less rigid.  Tera does not use soft lock.  It's an aim assist and only for barely two actual skills for sorc and like five for archer if you exclude standard LMB (your "auto" attack).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft lock is more akin to Elder Scrolls.  So long as you're in range and aiming enough at an enemy the game targets them for you and you're golden and you can still tab-lock in ESO.  It's like "smart tab target" where it's much more automatic and less rigid.  Tera does not use soft lock.  It's an aim assist and only for barely two actual skills for sorc and like five for archer if you exclude standard LMB (your "auto" attack).

 

I think you are creating your own personal definition of what soft lock is oposed to aim assist. Soft lock in itself is a form of aim assist and have been used in many fps games. This of course especially applies to console games. My point is just that soft lock is a rather broad term. So is aim assist. 

 

ESO and Tera differ wildly. I agree. However I think that the idea that the aim assist used in the games is what make them different kind of narrow minded. The games are quite fundamentally different where one is very close to traditional tab target with some illusionary mechanics the other is closer to the oposite end of the spectrum.

 

Lets get back to the idea of soft lock and how it is often used as a form of aim assist in console shooters. So imagine you are playing an FPS and then imagine a circle or a square around your reticule. The idea is that the size of said circle or square determines the range of your soft lock. Some games choose to make this appearant to you, by actually moving the reticule over the target. However most games chose to hide that mechanic and only let you hit your target. The idea behind a soft lock is actually pretty much a bigger reticule with auto aim.

 

Now to repeat. That would effectively be identical to having a bigger hit box and a bigger effective reticule. Yes the ratio between hit box and reticule differs, but the only thing both basically do is make your reticule bigger and more effective.

 

Now just to reiterate. Soft lock can come in many shapes and sizes. There is no catch all example for the use of soft lock or aim assistance. My point was merely that.

 

 

People are smart.

 

Gamers have an intuitive sense of game mechanics, and feel is far more subtle then you're making it sound.

 

You are making less and less sense. What you are claiming is that gamers have a supernatural sense that can tell the difference in code between two mechanically identical solutions to the same problem. Because what I was trying to say was that you can basically use UI to package a soft lock to look like bigger hit boxes and bigger effective reticule and vica versa. Because, and I keep repeating myself, they are basically the same thing. 


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making any hogwash claim. Anyone with as much experience as me has an inate sense of feel in games, and can easily understand when some form of feedback is an illusion...or feels 'wrong'. (although thats not to say that means the same thing)

 

You understand why people instantly understood that call of duty campaigns were garbage , and that you literally couldn't die in places?

 

That didn't happen to be discovered because of a sixth sense. You understand subtle flaws in pacing or narrative, if you've read enough.

 

What I'm saying is, you're disrespecting my, and other's experience, and the skill and depth of experience in gaming.

 

Sod off with that nonsense.

****

 

if system A lights a light bulb, and system B lights a light bulb, but you have to push a button that doesn't have a plastic slip over the switch, and the metal is sharp, you're not going to like it.

 

There are subtle variations to a system in games, that change how it feels. This is maybe not apparent to you, because you're a scrub/noob, but as an experienced player this is patently obvious to most folks.

 

Sometimes this shows itself as "Gun feel". You might like a gun in call of duty 4, and that same gun you hate in call of duty 5 (or w/e freaking system they have for sequels titles). They might both hold the same space in the design for a midrange weapon, but subtle things with how they've changed the gun, adjust the feel, and you might dislike the changes without knowing exactly why.

 

Sometimes this problem shows up, in balance tweaking. A certain overpowered thing might feel really good, but not JUST because its overpowered, and when its adjusted to be more inline with balance, certain aspects of the ability are removed, or reduced in how vividly they feel. That can make them feel samey, or homogenized if they clipped out an important 'feel' portion of their kit (like in a moba).

 

I can tell you, that I've very easily been put off on a recent big title release from a simple error in feel. Sometimes thats FOV problems, but in general those are fixable, and not a big deal, but still important feel problems for most people...no in this case the game was Titan Fall, and they had adjusted the pilot shooting to have slight differences in how the guns move horizontally vrs vertically, and they didn't have that same adjustment in the titans. I liked how the titans felt, and didn't feel like that I was being forced to play with an annoyingly adjusted gun system in the other.

 

One felt natural and intutive one felt like something done arbitraily, maybe to delinate skill depth between the two, but ultimately failed me as entertainment.

 

The problem wasn't nessecarly that they'd done it, but that I hated how it felt. Gamers have a progression of games and game-sense leading into new titles, and sometimes people ignore that progression, and how it informs 'feel' and other problems that learned behaviors create in game design...when feel comes into play.

 

 

.......

 

Call of duty campaigns and Half life 2 campaigns are both highly linear although ones probably more akin to rail shooter design, but to get a sense of being within the ball park of a comparison, they're both attempting to be linear in gameplay, that goes through set pieces to get to plot points and to get there the games have you participate somewhat with fps gameplay.

 

in call of duty, its less interesting because your progression is almost 100% assured (you have to push W I assume to go through the levels) so, the reward for getting to that set piece is less.

 

Half life 2, is insanely easy, and although the ability to fail is almost an illusion, it feels differently, then Call of Duty, because you CAN lose, even if that lose state is only passingly slapping you on the wrists, its a form of feedback missing in call of duty, and removes the depth for the reward of getting to through the plot.

 

In half life 2, losing is the illusion of punishment, in call of duty, there's an illusion that you can lose. The sense of what that reality is, is a feel sense, and its inate to the experience, you 'get it' because you feel it, even if you don't dig in and analyze what those feelings mean.

 

***

 

Don't go on trying to pretend like I'm not making sense, when you're the one not using your senses. EH! GET REKT SCRUB! 360 noscope #rekt #calltheamberlamps #theseaisrising #salt #fightthesetears #ahahahahah #huehuehuehue #ajajajajajajaja #Kukukukuku #kekekekee #gutbusterisacrimeagainsthumanity #okkindofgettingboredofthesehashtagsnow #tryingtoohard

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making any hogwash claim. Anyone with as much experience as me has an inate sense of feel in games, and can easily understand when some form of feedback is an illusion...or feels 'wrong'. (although thats not to say that means the same thing)

 

Sod off with that nonsense.

****

 

There are subtle variations to a system in games, that change how it feels. This is maybe not apparent to you, because you're a scrub/noob, but as an experienced player this is patently obvious to most folks.

 

Don't go on trying to pretend like I'm not making sense, when you're the one not using your senses. EH! GET REKT SCRUB! 360 noscope #rekt #calltheamberlamps #theseaisrising #salt #fightthesetears #ahahahahah #huehuehuehue #ajajajajajajaja #Kukukukuku #kekekekee #gutbusterisacrimeagainsthumanity #okkindofgettingboredofthesehashtagsnow #tryingtoohard

 

Don't you think that was a tad bit aggressive?

 

BTW your still not making much sense to me. Lets get through this.

 

I'm not making any hogwash claim. Anyone with as much experience as me has an inate sense of feel in games, and can easily understand when some form of feedback is an illusion...or feels 'wrong'. (although thats not to say that means the same thing)

 

Not to take a dig on the self inflation described in that comment, but your use of the word "feel" could just as easily be explained as lack of understanding of game mechanics. That however would be mean and I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you gave me no such curtsey.

 

So lets move on.

 

You understand why people instantly understood that call of duty campaigns were garbage , and that you literally couldn't die in places?

 

That didn't happen to be discovered because of a sixth sense. You understand subtle flaws in pacing or narrative, if you've read enough.

 

What I don't understand is how narrative and pacing came into a discussion about coding and game mechanics. Now sure, they are not mutually exclusive, but they are definitely not applicable to Crowfall.

 

 

if system A lights a light bulb, and system B lights a light bulb, but you have to push a button that doesn't have a plastic slip over the switch, and the metal is sharp, you're not going to like it.

 

Well. We are not comparing two systems where one does one thing and the other also does one thing, but requires you to do another thing and hurt yourself in the process. We are comparing two systems that in effect would do the same thing, but with different labels. Which has pretty much been my point from the get go.

 

 

Sometimes this shows itself as "Gun feel". You might like a gun in call of duty 4, and that same gun you hate in call of duty 5 (or w/e freaking system they have for sequels titles). They might both hold the same space in the design for a midrange weapon, but subtle things with how they've changed the gun, adjust the feel, and you might dislike the changes without knowing exactly why.

 

This paragraph especially stood out to me. It's because I would say it kind of argues for my point. At least when it comes to my reply to Deioth.

 

I do agree that the idea of "gun feel" is something that is very apparent when you play fps games. I would however claim that it is proof that the label of a game mechanics function does not dictate it's feeling. Just as you claim soft lock is detrimental to feeling vs. bigger hit boxes and a bigger effective reticule. I would say that depends wholly on the implementation. Who is to say that ACEs idea of implementing "soft lock" isn't by making the hit boxes bigger and creating a bigger effective reticule?

 

Which is what I have been trying to argue this whole time. Soft lock in itself is just an expression used for a form of aim assistance. It is a label, a very broad term, and can be implemented in any manner ways. One of which could be to make the hit boxes bigger and a larger effective reticule.

 

 

 

Call of duty campaigns and Half life 2 campaigns are both highly linear although ones probably more akin to rail shooter design, but to get a sense of being within the ball park of a comparison, they're both attempting to be linear in gameplay, that goes through set pieces to get to plot points and to get there the games have you participate somewhat with fps gameplay.

 

in call of duty, its less interesting because your progression is almost 100% assured (you have to push W I assume to go through the levels) so, the reward for getting to that set piece is less.

 

Half life 2, is insanely easy, and although the ability to fail is almost an illusion, it feels differently, then Call of Duty, because you CAN lose, even if that lose state is only passingly slapping you on the wrists, its a form of feedback missing in call of duty, and removes the depth for the reward of getting to through the plot.

 

In half life 2, losing is the illusion of punishment, in call of duty, there's an illusion that you can lose. The sense of what that reality is, is a feel sense, and its inate to the experience, you 'get it' because you feel it, even if you don't dig in and analyze what those feelings mean.

 

 

Now I am still not sure how the pacing comparison between Half-Life 2 and COD came into the discussion, but I feel you missed some very important points in your comparison.

 

First off. Where does this idea that loosing in Half-Life 2 is somehow harsher than COD? Because I don't see it. Both games feature very forgiving save mechanics.

 

I feel like the comparison you are actually making is more one of level design and theme.

 

Yes both games are linear experiences where you move from point a to point b. However Half-Life 2 has a much more open level design, and it's sci-fi theme lets it be much more creative in how you solve the problems you might encounter between said points. Which is a big part of why players feel their contribution in Half-Life 2 is much bigger than their contribution in COD. Sure that might not be the whole reason. However I just can't get behind the non descriptive idea that there is a difference between the illusion of punishment and the illusion of loosing. You have to be a bit more specific in how and why this relates to each other and this discussion as a whole.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry its hard to communicate with concepts I don't feel are fully represented by words in my vocabulary.

 

 

Aggressive? eh, I guess, I was having fun with it, take it as you may. Tone is always hard to convey. Generally if you're not in the gaming culture you might not find it a playful tone, but then again maybe you are, and you have a different perspective of the culture, either way. Eh.

 

I'll try to dig into more of what you said later, but I'm busy working on a model.

 

In general, though at the end of the day, I fully expressed my ideas, and if you still don't grasp what they mean in terms of concepts you might just have to settle with not comprehending, brains are difficult, and understanding is hard.

 

I suggest you re-read in case you're making simple mistakes.

 

For instance in call of duty/hl2 comparisons I didn't make an allusion to pacing being the thing being noted.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggressive? eh, I guess, I was having fun with it, take it as you may. Tone is always hard to convey. Generally if you're not in the gaming culture you might not find it a playful tone, but then again maybe you are, and you have a different perspective of the culture, either way. Eh.

 

 

Ehm. First off your post was riddled with expressions like sod off, noob, scrub, get rekt, not to mention many attempts to establish superiority.  I acknowledged that and moved on. So should you.

 

 

In general, though at the end of the day, I fully expressed my ideas, and if you still don't grasp what they mean in terms of concepts you might just have to settle with not comprehending, brains are difficult, and understanding is hard.

 

 

This is what I consider clever reflecting. Well not that clever. Instead of trying to explain your concept further you choose to insult the individual asking the question. 

 

 

I suggest you re-read in case you're making simple mistakes.

 

For instance in call of duty/hl2 comparisons I didn't make an allusion to pacing being the thing being noted.

 

Well now who should reread what they themselves wrote?

 

 

You understand why people instantly understood that call of duty campaigns were garbage , and that you literally couldn't die in places?

 

That didn't happen to be discovered because of a sixth sense. You understand subtle flaws in pacing or narrative, if you've read enough.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really for the best players to determine what hardcore means, because they know what it takes to perform at a high level of proficiency...

 

Of course the word is an adjective from the perspective of gamers, but pretty sure the guy was referring to it's Noun use by that of game designers.  Even though gamers use the word "hardcore" descriptively, in game design hardcore usually refers to what Deioth stipulated.  The most common association being that of gameplay where if your character dies, it is permadeath.

 

 

Overall can we stop having sooks and complaints and come up with some constructive ideas to what people would think is a good system for aiming and targeting in the game?  Instead of simply complaining about it, saying "No I don't want this waaah".  Seems completely troll bait and flame inducing to me to be honest.

 

As for my idea on how the system can work, there are two elements which has to be considered when addressing this issue, these two elements must be brought to the table for every idea presented.

 

That being Latency and 3rd Person Camera which is focus locked to your character.  (Like in other MMOs)

 

Rather than post my ideas which have likely already been suggested before, (I can't remember, but pretty sure I have and their not really good ideas) I will put up some links to discussions and blogs involving targeting systems in MMOs that I've found interesting on the web.

 

http://cityoftitans.com/forum/more-towards-action-combat

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/mmo-combatmanual-action-vs-tab-targeting-29390792/

http://www.mmorpg.com/mobile/forums.cfm/forum/1340/images/yoggs1.tripod.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/www.eljacek.com/discussion2.cfm/forum/forums.cfm?ismb=1&threadId=418214&page=3

http://tamrielfoundry.com/2012/12/targeting-in-eso/

 

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1322649-Tab-Targeting-popularity-skill-and-the-future-of-MMO-combat-systems

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/landmark/index.php?threads/fed-up-with-shooter-mode-combat.52161/

https://www.reddit.com/r/EQNext/comments/30iy92/combat_in_eqnext_why_not_monster_hunter/

 

A targeting system worth considering:

Monster Hunter. - If it's a system that works on a DS, it would be much more easier to use with a mouse. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5J8soWpmls&ab_channel=ArekkzGaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCDaBTzLDs&ab_channel=RisingFunGaming <- at around 3 minutes into the video you get a good view of how that game addresses targeting with a bow.

Edited by Psyctooth

My hubris is the size of a 2 by 4 nailed to the side of a YF-12 jet barrel rolling into a volcano piloted by a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

 

Telling someone you don't like their alternate options is constructive. We are recommending they stick with the original plan.

Edited by Adall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling someone you don't like their alternate options is constructive. We are recommending they stick with the original plan.

 

No, it is confrontational, if you can not provide a counter argument, it is plain and simple derision.

 

As for sticking to the original plan, regardless of the recommendation proposed, I was under the belief the developers wold make their decisions based on what they felt is the best approach regardless of recommendations.  So ultimately what one would suggest may although taken into consideration could go ignored, ultimately we would never know if a system will work or not till we play the game itself.

 

But player speak with their time spent and their wallets, if people quit the game over the issue of targeting, (much like what happened in ESO), the numbers who do would be small.  But it is a hard balance to suggest design decisions to reflect on "appealing all customers" in an attempt to keep people playing a game and giving a company money, because that would be steering down the dark path which others have trod before having the result being that of alienating loyal fans and resulting in them leaving in favor of appealing to those who wish the system different.

 

Simple conclusion, you can't please everyone.  Crying about it only makes things worse.

Edited by Psyctooth

My hubris is the size of a 2 by 4 nailed to the side of a YF-12 jet barrel rolling into a volcano piloted by a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

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...