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

What Was Bad In Shadowbane That Ought To Not Be Preserved/changed


kishijo
 Share

Recommended Posts

free to play, bots....

 

and sb.exe

 

rubberbanding too...amusing as that could be, i can live with never experiencing that particular joy again...

FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new player experience in Shadowbane, and the lack of content outside of "hey you can go kill people or something" and a bane for your nation maybe once a week (some nations didn't even get that much, some nations more).

 

The new player experience was probably one of the biggest issues really. It usually is a pretty big issue in open sandbox pvp MMOs, I made a thread about that here: http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/976-the-new-player-experience-learning-from-shadowbane/#entry22846.

 

 

Character customisation and the feeling of a large, open world that your actions truly "changed" were some of the big draws to the game. The element of consequence to your actions and the player versus player aspect having real weight was something that defined the game.

Crazy Talk co-co-co-gl

Guardians of Moonforest fangirl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it humorous how many folks complained about "roguebane" when, in fact, the solo hunting style of gameplay is exactly what rogues are built to do.

 

Example of bad balance changes..Aracoix thief!

 

1) Aracoix Hoods, should have remained as Neph, no headgear, a price to pay for the advantage of natural flight.

 

2) Skydancer - Aracoix only damage buff

 

3) Dagger power changes include passive def debuff and healing resistance debuff at PR 40 for thieves

 

4) Add crippling Blow, Coughing Gas, Running, Def and Dodge...then there is the availability of Back Stab

 

I do not believe Aracoix Thieves were intended  at launch to be the most powerful toon in the game, but thats what they were at close, and Aracoix scouts would be a 1)b to this statement.

 

Edit: Oh and then you add glass, but that was kind of universal I guess.

Edited by armegeddon

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most importantly, I think one of Shadowbane's biggest issues was the fact that you, as a guild, could invest months of hard work into a city only to have it completely demolished (or taken from you) in an hour or two with nothing to show for it. While I recognize that this is part of building a world with consequence, and I do very much want a world with consequence, you have to ask yourself what that guild is going to do at that failure point. Are they going to rebuild from scratch and repeat all of their prior effort after having been thoroughly humiliated, or are they going to quit and go to another game? (Eve Online has a similar problem, as I recall the mantra of "slopes for the slope throne", or demoralizing an enemy alliance into collapsing and its members into quitting.) I don't know what the answer to this is, but I think it's evident that many guilds chose simply to leave the game after losing their investments, and that this ultimately lead to Shadowbane's demise. I hope Crowfall has a solution to this problem.

 

Tangenting off of this, I think I would rather the bane mechanic take multiple days, not necessarily consecutive, to take a city away. In SB, a larger city with 3 sets of walls and R7 ToL meant that the siege, more often than not, was going to take hours upon hours. Now I don't mind investing a couple hours into the banes but anything over 3 hours is too long imo. 

 

What if the siege was broken into "sub-sieges" which all had a 2 hour cap and depending on the rank of the city, a certain goal would have to be met to progress as attackers. If that goal was met, then the next part of the siege would occur 1-3 days later, and so on and so forth. If the defenders win, the siege is broken and they are left with whatever destruction occurred during the siege. Perhaps, they would be unable to build/upgrade certain structures while the siege is occurring.

 

Those numbers, of course, are all made up by me and for example only so don't base thoughts off of those but I'm interested in how others feel about the concept of the siege lasting over a period of days (or weeks maybe) instead of 30 minutes to 6 hours consecutively. It doesn't really help the issue I quoted but that's why it's a tangent :P. I'm not sure this would even work or if it would just promote zergs but I would like some mechanic that prevents sieges taking an insane amount of hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of tears about rogues. Seriously, lots of counters out there. But that's not what this thread is about.

 

I think random rolling was BS. If they could've went with resource rolls earlier in the game and had NPC's in SDR (also needed early in the game) to resource roll the gear for you it would've been better. People would still want cities, so not like that would deter people from wanting their own crest on the map.

 

Spending a lot of time on something that could get destroyed faster than a pizza can be delivered -- no bueno.

 

While I don't see buffbots as that big of a deal, I am on a server where people 10 box bots, so I guess it's bad. I have plenty of buff bots but I usually don't bother to log them on. It seems to only be a big issue for solo players or those with the same PC they beta tested SB on and are still trying to play the game on....F2P brings bots. Happens.

 

I hate running. And I play a scout half the time. While insta-PvP shouldn't happen, they should at least make whatever the leveling system is not dependent on running. I want to go run to the ends of the earth because I'm an explorer? Fine. Punish me.

 

And if there is a noob land, get me out of there. Noob land had a purpose, but for noob land to be the hardest part of the game (no pots, no buffs, no gear, no gold, etc) is ridiculous. No map had an efficient noobland and I think players should be able to learn and not be punished for it. Which goes back to running.

 

Idk what else. I feel like we could go on for days equally with what we loved and what we hated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

loved both of these :)

 

gave huge depth to builds where weapons could make/break a character

Given the recent news on crafting, I would rather be able to pick my prefix/suffix/rune slots/etc. with a little extra effort than invest a bunch of resources and have it turn out to be a useless junk item because of RNG (or even more frustrating, an item that's "almost" the one you wanted, but that you still need to replace with another attempt). Firefall just made this switch with their crafting system and its been overwhelmingly positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. I almost exclusively played rogues. I just felt it got a bit out of hand at times. There was no fear in playing a bird scout solo. 0. None.

 

And sure, it was funny some times to take on a mino warrior and completely demolish him, but it still felt wrong.

Most of that is due to the weapons and armor patch combined with instant sneak. Prior to those, they were a non-issue.

CF_Van.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tangenting off of this, I think I would rather the bane mechanic take multiple days, not necessarily consecutive, to take a city away. In SB, a larger city with 3 sets of walls and R7 ToL meant that the siege, more often than not, was going to take hours upon hours. Now I don't mind investing a couple hours into the banes but anything over 3 hours is too long imo. 

 

What if the siege was broken into "sub-sieges" which all had a 2 hour cap and depending on the rank of the city, a certain goal would have to be met to progress as attackers. If that goal was met, then the next part of the siege would occur 1-3 days later, and so on and so forth. If the defenders win, the siege is broken and they are left with whatever destruction occurred during the siege. Perhaps, they would be unable to build/upgrade certain structures while the siege is occurring.

 

Those numbers, of course, are all made up by me and for example only so don't base thoughts off of those but I'm interested in how others feel about the concept of the siege lasting over a period of days (or weeks maybe) instead of 30 minutes to 6 hours consecutively. It doesn't really help the issue I quoted but that's why it's a tangent :P. I'm not sure this would even work or if it would just promote zergs but I would like some mechanic that prevents sieges taking an insane amount of hours.

I think that is a pretty solid idea. If someone baned you on Christmas, for example, you could skip a day and beat them the next.

CF_Van.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the shadowbane go-live in 2003 was terrible...performance,registratration issues, login server taking 5m, lag, over population, crashes.

 

Pretty much avoid that all together.

Edited by Vindi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of player collision. Annoyingly led to people stacking under a Minotaur.

The whole PvE aspect was awful. Either do it well, or don't do it at all. Being forced to grind up characters was painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of player collision. Annoyingly led to people stacking under a Minotaur.

The whole PvE aspect was awful. Either do it well, or don't do it at all. Being forced to grind up characters was painful.

 

Grinding up characters in Shadowbane was probably the easiest in any game i've ever played, you could hit max in like two days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grinding up characters in Shadowbane was probably the easiest in any game i've ever played, you could hit max in like two days. 

 

Yeah, and that was without PL's or macros. WoW grind is a real grind. And once you had pl toons you could box along with guild support, 75 in 8 hours isn't that surprising.

 

 

Lack of player collision. Annoyingly led to people stacking under a Minotaur.

 

At first there was /target and after they removed it, you could just comma through targets. But player collision would've been nice. If they don't do tab targeting here, I could see a lack of player collision being a big deal. I think shadowbane intended on player collision at least with the hold fast on warrior, but it just never came to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Player collision would've been very cool - especially when you breach a wall. You could have sent out a line of tanks to literally hold the line and plug the gap in the wall while your forces regrouped.

CF_Van.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grinding up characters in Shadowbane was probably the easiest in any game i've ever played, you could hit max in like two days. 

Two days?  Bro, I've done it in one before. 

Edited by GIHunter6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be too negative here, but the rampant cheating and duping from day 1 in SB should probably not be preserved. The world would have looked a lot different without fields of duped bulwarks as far as the eye could see on a bane, full r7 cities without ever farming a mob, and spec groups with duped fc gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the dupe bugs were probably not a good idea. Maybe leaving those out of Crowfall might be smart?

 

They should make one campaign with near-infite resources though, just to bring back the old days.

Edited by drakkus

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...