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

Combat Chat 3: Powers Q&A - Official discussion thread


Pann
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/7994-crowfall-update-combat-chat-3-powers-qa-with-tully-ackland-and-thomas-blair-73015/  whew :P

 

 

Hitting projectiles with other projectiles sounds like the wave of the future :)

 

I challenge anyone to translate what Tully is saying at 1:55 :P

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZAL7KB1qL4&feature=youtu.be&t=113

Edited by oberon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the spectator CAM..."

 

Will there be player access to this CAM?  For those of us who like to make videos, having some additional camera view options would be fantastic.  Of course you would want to not make it overpowered for gameplay such as scouting.  Maybe an ingame power activated by a player to give temporary remote camera functionality - something along the lines of WOW Eye of Kilrogg which let Warlocks channel and send an eyeball zooming down a corridor to see what was around the corner (I used this quite often for unique camera effect!)  In CF, perhaps this could be a discipline that has a bird summon (think GoT wargs).

rSHxVEY.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good stuff :)

 

can you clarify on the rendering distance of players?

how flexible is the unity engine in general when it comes to that?

There's nothing more annoying than players rendering when they're already on your lap.

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not totally satisfied with the answer to the first question, "Why do we need groups in our game?"

 

Of course we want people to play together... but that can be achieved without groups.

Of course we want buffs... but that can also be achieved with location and tactics rather than groups.

 

Are groups really necessary?  I think they may not be.  In fact, groups may stifle creative gameplay more than add to it.  Everything about combat is centered around physics and physical proximity - why not eliminate groups in favor of a better alternative in that same vein?

 

-Nazdar

G.R.O.G. (Get Rid Of Groups)

Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not totally satisfied with the answer to the first question, "Why do we need groups in our game?"

 

Of course we want people to play together... but that can be achieved without groups.

Of course we want buffs... but that can also be achieved with location and tactics rather than groups.

 

Are groups really necessary?  I think they may not be.  In fact, groups may stifle creative gameplay more than add to it.  Everything about combat is centered around physics and physical proximity - why not eliminate groups in favor of a better alternative in that same vein?

 

-Nazdar

G.R.O.G. (Get Rid Of Groups)

 

It's an excellent point.  Right now, we added rudimentary grouping because we needed a mechanism for linking players in the matchmaking system (this will make more sense, once we reveal how the tests are being structured.)

 

We haven't settled yet on exactly where we will eventually fall on the "no grouping" / "soft grouping" / "hard grouping" spectrum.  In our internal debates, Blair is more pro-group and I'm usually the one arguing that they might not be necessary.  The best arguments in favor usually centered around information display and communication.

 

If we can get away with no (or light) grouping mechanics, I'd like to try that, first.  

 

Todd

ACE

J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have buffs without groups. You cannot have buffs which propagate to a specific small list of named players without groups. If you're saying that a mechanic where you can always and only buff the N closest allies or a random N allies is preferable in all cases to a system where you reliably buff a named list of allies, I'm just going to say that I disagree.

 

Especially in the outer campaign bands, I may not have the ability to control which allies are close(st) to me, and I may very well prefer to buff my guildmates or other known quantities rather than having a random noobzilla soak up a slot.

Edited by Jihan

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's an excellent point.  Right now, we added rudimentary grouping because we needed a mechanism for linking players in the matchmaking system (this will make more sense, once we reveal how the tests are being structured.)

 

We haven't settled yet on exactly where we will eventually fall on the "no grouping" / "soft grouping" / "hard grouping" spectrum.  In our internal debates, Blair is more pro-group and I'm usually the one arguing that they might not be necessary.  The best arguments in favor usually centered around information display and communication.

 

If we can get away with no (or light) grouping mechanics, I'd like to try that, first.  

 

Todd

ACE

 

Yeah I dunno. Team based game with no grouping mechanic... Would have to give the elevator pitch of a lifetime to sell that one IMO.

 

No matter what system you can come up with I just don't think you'll ever get past players simply wanting to group because they want to. Take out buffs/AoE and those things and you still have the need with strategy and tactics for objective and siege based PvP and wanting to organize and manage things. Make those mechanics work however you think is best or however works best for the game but to reduce or to outright remove the ability for players to form groups amongst themselves? I don't see it.

Edited by pang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have buffs without groups. You cannot have buffs which propagate to a specific small list of named players without groups. If you're saying that a mechanic where you can always and only buff the N closest allies or a random N allies is preferable in all cases to a system where you reliably buff a named list of allies, I'm just going to say that I disagree.

 

Especially in the outer campaign bands, I may not have the ability to control which allies are close(st) to me, and I may very well prefer to buff my guildmates or other known quantities rather than having a random noobzilla soak up a slot.

I think buffs are the primary things here for grouping, and how they want to handle buffs will dictate how groups work.  Another thing is maps and location.  Not everyone can be on voice chat, and even then it is still very difficult to always visually follow/find certain people.  We are not 100% 5-senses immersed into the virtual world so group indicators, chat channels, etc help fill in those sense gaps we lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a solo player, but I also don't want CF to be so group based that people will start favoring certain archetypes in a group situation more so than others. This is a problem I got with MOBAs. For me standard group compositions, get really boring and not very creative. I much rather groups be made on what's needed and not what's the flavor of the week group comp.

 

This may or may not be a valid concern, but it's a thought I had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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