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

Make Arrows An Item


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 709
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Finite. Everything revolves around resources, and that should include ammo. Obviously casters should have some other way to attack also, like melee attacks, but giving infinite ammo removes and entire

There's many pros and cons to both Infinite and Finite ammo systems.    We have an idea on which path we are going go down, but this is a topic we've been discussing since the early days of Crowfall

It's amusing how "hardcore" PVPers get squishy when it's suggested that ammo is finite. Everything in Crowfall is resource limited. Your sword is going to dull and break. Your armor is going to rend a

Ok I am going to try to take a step back from replying to specific comments. That way I can try to explain my reasoning , hopefully without trying to deflect arguments at the same time. I would however like to stay with the idea of high design.

 

High design is generally the idea of theorizing something before implementation , and it is very much part of the stage that Crowfall is currently in. In high design you would usually suggest an element before theorizing it's value when weighed against the other elements of the game. Value in this case would generally be considered anything that serves some purpose in the game. So f. ex something that changes the dynamic of interaction, something that creates fun or immersion or even something that creates time sinks. Time sinks can be important in a game, because it affects pacing.

 

High design generally happens before theme and art is set in stone. So the dynamics an element would theoretically introduce is more important than say f. ex what you call the element or how it looks.

 

F. ex in high design you could say. Let's introduce a ranged character or archetype to the game. How would this change the flow of combat? etc.

 

At this point a ranged character could basically be anything. It could be a character using bows or guns, it could be a character using magic or laser weapons, It could be a character using spears. It could be a character using his hands as pistols. At this point what that character uses has no value, because it would only be part of the theme of that character.

 

Now that doesn't mean theme isn't important. It very much is, theme is what creates appeal to players. F. ex some people prefer playing an archer and some people prefer playing mages. It just doesn't have any value in high design, where the experience is first and foremost designed with the idea of systems and how they could interact with each other.

 

I will get back to this a bit further down, but for now lets move on the the argument at hand.

 

So at both sides of the argument we have two major points

 

1. Realism, or as I like to call it thematic value

 

I can actually understand the realism, or thematic reasoning for wanting an ammo system. I understand the want to have a sense of realism in some aspects of any game as it has the potential to keep the player in his suspension of disbelief a bit longer. Immersion is a key value of any game and I personally want to stay in my own suspension of disbelief as long as I can. At the end of the day however a game is just a game, and at some point gameplay has to come before immersion. If not we would just end up with games that mirror reality, which would be no fun.

 

The thing with immersion however is that there are a million different variables, both tangible and not so tangible, that could help create it. Realistic graphics is a common thing to focus on f. ex. However it is pretty much set in stone that Crowfall will not be going down this route. Players ability to interact with the environment is another big one, and also one that Crowfall wants to focus on.

 

 

 

2. Balance

So the balance aspect of this argument has been going all over the place, I myself take some of the blame for that as I have used balance in a lot of different ways in my arguments. Both as a balance between time spent vs. gain, combat and the balance between those to balances. I understand that "balance" as an expression gets confusing after a while.

 

However. There need to exist some semblance of balance in all things. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything has to be equal or fair, but for every negative there has to be a positive, or a counter negative.

 

To take real life as an example. You work x amount of hours and you get paid x amount of money, something takes and something gives, balance. Some people in this world live less fortunate lives so other can have a "good" life, something gives and something takes, balance. Now these examples aren't really applicable to the idea of  game design. I just wanted to give some very generalizing examples so people get a better idea of what I am trying to talk about when I use "balance" as an expression. You give something and you take something away, until the valued weight of the thing you took something from is more more or less equal that which you give something to.

 

Balance doesn't usually become a big part of the discussion until much lower in the design hierarchy, but you could f. ex. decide in high design, where you would focus your balancing efforts.

 

Now to go further with this I would have to come up with theoretic examples of how one would or could solve issues of balance. In other words. Which is to say that it is not speculating, but only theorizing the ways of which it could be done to decide where the focus of the effort should be.

 

The most important balance to most players is usually that of combat, at least in a pvp centric game. This is because it's the part of a game where one players actions has the most potential to affect another player. Now the only way to create perfect balance is of course to have everyone have the exact same starting point and abilities. That however doesn't create a very dynamic game and removes a lot of the potential for strategy. In other words, it's not as much fun.

 

The most normal way to create a semblance of balance in games is therefore to give players roles or specializing them in certain areas. In most traditional MMOs this was solved by using the so called "trinity"-model. I believe you are all familiar with how that works so lets just move one step ahead.

 

Btw I am not saying that Crowfall will or should use the trinity model. ArtCraft have been pretty clear that they don't want to use the trinity model, but would like to move away from it without ending up with what we got in Guild Wars 2. Which basically gave all players the potential to do a little bit of everything. F. ex everyone could heal. Everyone had some CC, and everyone were DPS. Anyways. Lets move on.

 

So to create balance between f. ex a knight (or any typical tank) and an assassin (or any other melee dps) you would give the knight more health so he could withstand more damage and the assassin more damage so he could do more damage. In essence. You give something and you take something, balance.

 

Now to take this idea further I want to move back to the idea of "Potential Power", which I used in an earlier post. In this case power can be anything that affects the outcome of the battle. That is to say that strategic value has just as much potential power as f. ex damage or dps, or at least it should. Ok so lets apply the idea of potential power to the example above, while adding a ranged character into the mix. Keep in mind, these are still just theoretic examples. I am no trying to speculate how ArtCraft plans to balance their game.

 

I will do this in a step by step basis, so lets first look at damage and health.

 

Knight:

Damage potential = average

Health = greater than average

 

Assassin:
Damage potential = greater than average

Health = average

 

Archer:

Damage potential = greater than average
Health = average

 

Ok, so far we have a semblance of balance, but we haven't taken account of strategic value yet. As many people keep mentioning range offers a substantial strategic advantage. So lets take that into account. Keep in mind I am still just using generalized examples for the sake of theory. I will get to the point eventually.

 

Knight:

range = 0-3m

 

Assassin:
range = 0-3m

 

Archer:

range = 0-15m

 

Ok so we clearly have one character with a much higher potential power then the other two. How should we even that out? Well one logical way of doing it would be to give the other two characters some way to close that distance in a short amount of time. We could also further change up the dynamic by removing some of the damage potential of the archer. Maybe even take down his health potential further.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that those are the definite ways of balancing said characters, I am just coming up with very simple examples to show you ways one would even out the potential power of characters.

 

Lets get back to ammo. So assuming that the power potential of all three characters is about the same before the introduction of range, but then highly skewed towards the archer once range comes into the picture. So lets try to introduce a secondary item requirement to even out the power potential.

 

Knight

damage = average

health = above average

range = 0-3m

 

Assassin

damage = above average

health = average

range = 0-3m

 

Archer

damage = above average

health = average

range = 0-15m

needs ammo

 

Hmm. Would that affect the potential power of the archer? The way I see it, it would only affect the archers power when he or she ran out of arrows. In other words the archers potential power would still be higher than both the other character's. So the archers potential would stay the same, but his or her power would sometimes take a dip, at which point the archer would need to remove itself from the fight.

 

In other words as long as you could keep your archer fed with ammo he would always outpace the other two characters in potential power. It would therefore not create any semblance of balance within a pure combat encounter. Sure it would create some semblance of balance between the time spent vs. gain and the potential power, but only by creating an unbalanced system in one to make up for the unbalance in the other.

 

 

Ok. I need to finish this off. The point I am trying to make is that trying to balance one thing by unbalancing another usually doesn't work very well. Which is why I would really like it if the idea of introducing ammo to somehow create balance was removed from the discussion.

 

Now it is possible that some of you want the game to be unbalanced in both the aspect of time vs. gain and potential power, but if so I would really like to know why. The way I see it the only way that an ammo system could work was if balance was achieved in both time spent vs. gain and potential power. Which is why I have been making the claim that the discussion about including or not including an ammo system should be one of themes, realism or immersion.

 

At which point the value becomes thematic. And as I have tried to state many times. There are some value to that, but there are lots of ways thematic value or immersion could be introduced to the game with the added value of also affecting the systems in interesting ways.

 

So after balance is achieved I guess this whole discussion is really one about value to me. Immersion has value, but so does gameplay. And I would really like the developers to focus their efforts on something that has value in both.

 

Have at it. ;)

Edited by RabbitFly

mael4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is once again clear you didn;t bother to read anything I (or RabbitFly, for the infinite camp, and I'm not discounting others posts, but rather his are the ones that seem to contain the most logic and/or reason behind them) have posted, additionally, I have said that it is my opinion as well, so you fail reading comprehension as well.

 

Oh ya, your descriptions (and I'm tired of having to say this as wel) are non sequitur. (Maybe the problem is you don't know what that means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur ; though I'm certain you'll argue that premise too...)

Someone doesn't know the definition of their own red herring.  Drawing from examples and why they worked or didn't work absolutely has to do with the discussion at hand.  Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them non-sequitors and you haven't made a case that they are.  I'm not prepared to read all 13 pages, much of which will constitute a refinement of position for sake of clarity.  If you're not prepared to summarize the counter points you claim to have made and instead respond with automatic gainsaying (as what I've thus glanced over is your primary response it feels like) then it's not worth responding to you as you bring nothing more to the table than a restatement of personal preference and the automatic rejection of anything that doesn't adhere to it.  That isn't argument.  That's just statement.

 

Feel free to quote yourself if you feel that's easiest, but I already have a working understanding of the arguments against infinite ammo.  I'd like to remind you that I am in no way arguing for or against infinite or finite.  I am arguing that whatever the system it must fit with the game's context and be meaningful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what if arrows were finite BUT you could pick them up off the ground after shooting them. If you were to bow hunt for deer you could potentially find your arrows thus saving the purchase of new ones.

 

This would separate ammo users from arrow users, however.

etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what if arrows were finite BUT you could pick them up off the ground after shooting them. If you were to bow hunt for deer you could potentially find your arrows thus saving the purchase of new ones.

 

This would separate ammo users from arrow users, however.

 

That is how it was in UO

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what if arrows were finite BUT you could pick them up off the ground after shooting them. If you were to bow hunt for deer you could potentially find your arrows thus saving the purchase of new ones.

 

This would separate ammo users from arrow users, however.

While workable its not really conducive to siege warfare. If you're defending you're simply not going to leave your walls and go running around in the open for arrows, you'll be killed in about 5 secs or less after leaving your keep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While workable its not really conducive to siege warfare. If you're defending you're simply not going to leave your walls and go running around in the open for arrows, you'll be killed in about 5 secs or less after leaving your keep.

 

If arrows are going to be finite, you should be able to collect most of them from the ground (or bodies) as well. 

Obviously this would exclude one use magic type arrows, and they shouldn't lie around forever after the fight is over, but an important part of warfare is seeing what you can reuse. In general they can at least be used as supplies for crafting new arrows.

 

Regarding it being conducive to siege warfare, true, you won't leave your walls to collect arrows. On the flip side, people will be shooting them in for you!

 

In every castle siege I've been in the defenders had effectively infinite ammo. As long as they kept shooting it out, the attackers kept shooting it back in. We usually had two or three squires running through the castle collecting arrows from inside the walls and restocking the archers. (Real world, skill based, combat focused LARPs are FUN!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

While workable its not really conducive to siege warfare. If you're defending you're simply not going to leave your walls and go running around in the open for arrows, you'll be killed in about 5 secs or less after leaving your keep.

 

uh, when the walls crumble, where do you stand?  I'm sure you can't be on the walls for the whole duration of a siege.  Besides, you could (guild could) have certain people outside the walls picking up arrows and bringing them back in.  There is the possibility that you win the defense of the siege then have some time to loot arrows. If people are shooting arrows at you on the walls, then you could just reuse those.

etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaand here come the carebears.

Give em causal gameplay and they'll crap their pants with happiness.

LOL. Keep dreaming kiddo.

 

Not wanting convoluted and clunky gameplay mechanics doesn't make you a carebear.

 

There should be a reason behind design, not do it just because.

UkBSCr2.png


CF.GG


Your primary source of Crowfall news, guides, and information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more this thread grows the more I just want a Mount&Blade Warband MMO. In M&B arrows are finite and reusable. You need to be skilled with range and melee weather its a 100 yard head shot or first strike killing blow with your sword. Give me that combat with some improvements and some of the other ideas for this game and I will gladly pay the hundreds of dollars they want me to here.

Edited by OTR

                              large.png?1427076055

                 

                                                                               http://thetradecompany.shivtr.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes somethings remind you of something, and a post in another thread did me, this:

 

ammocraft.png

Just reiterating this.  No, it is not definitive, but I do think it's a clear indicator that it will be finite, you will have to craft it, and all that implies and entails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reiterating this.  No, it is not definitive, but I do think it's a clear indicator that it will be finite, you will have to craft it, and all that implies and entails.

 

I agree that it could be an indicator towards finite ammo. However that is more than likely placeholder art, and it could just as well be an icon for ranged weapons. And to me it doesn't really affect the discussion about the value of such a system.

mael4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a UO vet, I'm used to finite ammo, as well as casters using reagents if need be. So with that being said, I'm fine with either however prefer finite ammo. Archers cant go around spamming pewpewpewpewpew, they'll have to be more conscientious and aware of their ammo and therefore they'll be more careful about how they go about thing. I guess I'm thinking more in a tactical type of aspect. 

"So Doggetts f****** crazy i know that" - J Todd Coleman

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Keep dreaming kiddo.

Not wanting convoluted and clunky gameplay mechanics doesn't make you a carebear.

There should be a reason behind design, not do it just because.

You suggest to take resource planning and decision making out of the game, which will lead to it being simpler, less demanding and less fun to play. Edited by rajah
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...