Crowfall
- Thread starter Kharza-kzad_sl
- Start date
I think any PvP game nowadays trying to institute a blanket equipment loss on death (elod) is a recipe for disaster and sheer folly. Modern PvP players don't really want that as a whole and you only see that in niche games where the audience is dedicated towards that kind of thing. Players today don't even want equipmentrepair costson death let alone losing their stuff.
The only way imo that ELOD works as a system is in a system where it's not the weapon itself that gives the great advantage vs another one; it's the player and the player's skills that determine power. A weapon a player finds at Level 1 should be no different than a weapon a player finds at Level 50 because if they die and lose it, then can just equip another one from 1-50 without losing battle effectiveness. In this way, a player won't be hesitant to engage in battles where they might die and lose their gear simply because they know they can run back to their guild's armory, pick out a basic (albeit plain looking) sword from stock that crafters made in bulk through writs, some helm/armor/greaves and run right back out into the fight to help their guild. The ones with the glowy effects possibly might be more leery, but that's the reality of battles; the ones with the best armor/horses/etc were always the targets because their gear identified them as leaders of skilled combat and/or accomplishment and they should relish the challenge Game of Thrones style.
The only reward for weapons/gear at the top level should be weapon design and possibly animation effects (fiery, lightning, transparent, etc) that only those at the top end can receive. This also fits very well into a cash shop theme where the company can sell certain skins for revenue since it doesn't make it P2W.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
One of the quickest growing genres literally relies on this. So I don't think I'd agree with this. The key is setting up your loot and equipment system to facilitate it. Item loss in a game like Archeage, would suck ass. In a game designed conducive to it? It could be as exciting as any of the plethora of survival games out there now. But given the success of these genres, I think it's very arguable that players are looking for it.
Also, I think it's pretty reasonable players don't want some gold costs on death--gold costs are just a pain in the ass. They don't actually change the dynamic of a fight. Like if I kill someone, and they get slapped with a gold tax---all that means is they have to farm a bit more later. It's a deep abstraction that doesn't force them to consider anything in the current moment. It's only after things have died down that they so "oh...that's kind of annoying." But equipment loss actually adds to the fight in play. It forces strategic choices on the map, it ends combat, makes things more tactile and evolving in the moment. Gold loss offers none of that, it's just an abstracted cost of doing business.
Gold loss is taxes. Item loss is losing your stake in poker(When I say this--it should be understood a good game makes these losses tolerable. Again, losing equipment in Arche Age? Would BLOW. In a game set up to lose equipment? It would just be like blowing spending money on something exciting.). Bad analogy but it makes the difference clear. One is abstracted, annoying payments that don't affect the moment. One is a very real, visceral loss that has a direct impact on the here and now. One is boring, one raises the stakes and makes things more exciting.
Now, can item loss just be a pain in the balls and not work well?Yup. There are millions of ways for it to suck, and probably very few ways to make it fun. That's why companies don't do it, because it's difficult to get right. But that doesn't mean, I don't think, players wouldn't love it if it was done right.
Well, yeah. Weapons should be the deciding factor only when skill is even. That's the golden rule--it's very hard to accomplish but it should be the case. The difference between a +1 (Normal) weapon and a +5 (GM crafted with dorf steel) should be a useful advantage in an even match, but useless when outclassed or outnumbered. Someone should be pretty effective with a plain +1 sword.
That's actually a pretty big key, I think, to making systems like this work. Understanding that risk of loss will ALWAYS be there and thus players can't feel too attached to their equipment and equipment needs to be easily replaceable. And so the concept of good equipment isn't supposed to be like WoW, where a player makes or breaks his character with the equipment. Rather, equipment should be fine tuning. It's about balancing the risk in a game like this, with the reward. Since the risk is so high, the sting of loss has to be low, it needs to mostly be about small advantages and the time it takes to re-equip and organize.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
This was one of my favorite parts of being a raid leader
I guess it's just a difference in preferences. I'm the nerd that likes to build a deck more than play it. So, I used to love organizing equipment and building goals to make us more effective. In UO, this always appealed to me, keeping our chests full of GM Halbers and Katanas and Bows--and different GM armors. So if we wiped we could equip quickly and get back out there. But I know it's not for everyone.However, I think it's a key element in many survival games. People like building resources...and that sense of gathering resources is far more intense in games with item loss....then when you get a huge mess of resources? It actually feels like a direct translation to power within your character.
But I can see how people would fucking hate it too...my personal preference here biases me on this one.
Eidal
Molten Core Raider
- 2,001
- 213
Maybe the added logistical burden could serve as a check on the power a large force like PRX usually wields in MMOs. I agree it may lead to unfun... but guilds like PRX crush the fun out of smaller guilds who do not want to roll 100+ deep. I dunno. I think the last ten years of MMOs have really struggled to deal with the "bring more people" problem -- it's been almost unilaterally the best way to win. I mean, if you can't trust your company-grade officers to have their members to show up in the right equipment, maybe they have no place on a battlefield!
I know people like this kind of PvP but I never really did. I don't think there should ever be "+1" or "+5" in any form of PvP gear and always thought it was stupid. Why?
Because in many cases it instantly gives an advantage to Player A over Player B, especially if all things are equal, which is the ideal always strove for by devs. Now If Player A is already more skilled and better geared, then that "+5" is a mark practically invulnerable in many cases. There isn't even any attempt at a fair confrontation. Now transfer that same philosophy over to a power guild like MondoGuild. They all (or most) will easily attain more and more powerful weapons exponentally while feeding on smaller or less skilled guilds trying to give them a go. 1/50 matches they might actually have a fight, but that was only because half of them showed up drunk and the other half were watching the NFL playoffs at the same time. At a certain point, skill becomes immaterial and numbers/gear take over as in every PvP game to date with any +weapons/gear. (because we know eventually everyone will apply to MondoGuild and/or leave the shitty alliance for MondoGuild's) You know, the 'rich get richer while the poor get poorer' syndrome.
Take that statted gear out of the equation and say there's level capping of skills. Eventually MondoGuild reaches a saturation point where skillwise they can never keep the widening the gap. Alsoran Guild now has a ceiling to catch them if they continue to level up since all weapons have NO stats. Eventually they both finally reach that point of 'fairness' oft eluded to but never reached and from here on out, it's skill, strategy (and numbers) but gear is gone out of the equation. One less wildcard messing up the variables.
Crafters can still sit in town all they like making thevisualequivalent of "+5" weapons (Level 1= base looking weapons/rags for gear, Level 100= glowy effect weapons/godly gear). All of these still take the rarest mats found in the PvP areas so there's something to fight for along with territory/keeps, etc, but now MondoGuild has to worry about losing their looks/swagger instead of stronger weapons if they die.
uniqueuser
Vyemm Raider
- 1,738
- 4,892
That's comparable to the power scale of magical items in pre-publish 16 UO, a game in which the scenario you've described never happened, for several reasons: no gear advantage was insurmountable; items decayed or were otherwise consumed; and last but not least, all items dropped on death.
Also, you're overestimating the appeal of cosmetic shit to pvpers. They prefer things that give a functional advantage. If those things aren't available, they tend to get bored quickly.
Emotiv
Silver Squire
- 162
- 3
$5 to join the forums now? They must be in the apprentice development phase of the game.
Crowfall Restricts Forums to be Backer Only | MMO Central
Crowfall Restricts Forums to be Backer Only | MMO Central
- 3,138
- 2,805
Not sure why all the theoretical here? The most successful pvp game already has full loot loss/drop, it has npc weapon/item drops, crafted drops, rare resource gathering, etc. Better weapons armor etc cost exponentially more for slight advantages. The risk of losing it balances the advantages of using it. There isn't a need to reinvent the wheel here. super rare weapons aren't just going to be +sparkles, nobody cares about that shit.
Here's the actual announcement:Crowfall: MMO - Throne War Simulator
Who cares honestly? And a Pantheon joke? C'mon, their KS actually raised a shit load of money.
Which is probably why something like that has to actually happen on a larger scale because... Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Almost every PvP game ever made does just that, every time out. Taking one game that was stillborn as an example as you do of why it's going to fail because of an idea(s) implemented wrongly or more importantly, at the wrongtimein history and then summarily dismissing any further attempts ever seems rather draconian.
It could be that cosmetic skins that you could lose as the ultimate reward for battles instead of the +100 Weapon of Doom could be a miscalculation on my part, but the ample supply of them in cash shops in just about every PvP game, from shooters to MMOs to MOBA tells me I'm not overestimating the appeal of cometics to PvPers. It's just that cosmetics have always been looked as a social option as default from the whiteboard in games and never as the epitome of gameplay because devs are stuck in the same mode of thinking (must add moar stats).
The closest game I can think of that does it is TSW (skins for completion of content) but even they have customization weapons from dungeons and a typical PvP system as it's base.
PVP players buy skins for sure, but at the end of the day if the game is good they're going to play it anyway. I think that's his point. I don't think he ever meant to say they never bought skins.
It took playersyearsto come around to that kind of play which had no avatars, no recognizable PvP they had been used to and the need to be versed in Microsoft Excel. So a spreadsheet/non-typical PvP game that wasn't even a 'smash hit' when it launched is what everyone should remember?
Seriously by citing EVE as an example of successful PvP play, you're only making more of a case to use lateral thinking and try shinies (or something else as radical) as the ultimate prize in a PvP game. I think the reason most 'elvers' don't register it as recognizable PvP in their minds at all given it's all ships and uniqueness of play vs 99.9% of other PvP games which again, is against the grain of typical thinking and what made it evolve so well.
I do get anyone will playanywell-made game. By any chance, do you happen to know if water is wet, too?
I'm just trying to address the issue thatalwayskills PvP games and why most are shit because I think most are flawed from the start in how they build them; imbalance that's built in from the core with over-reliance on weapon/gear statting.
I think that at the endgame of PvP (keeps/territory/objectives) if all players skill is equal (being maxed) and all weapons are the same (no stats) and it's all about numbers/strategy/skill, then people would have a better sense of pride if they showed up in battles (or after them) looking like this:
Attachment 98148
rather than this:
Attachment 98150
Insert classic strong looking awesome barbarian with sooper-doper weapons vs weak basic Level 1 looking barbarian in goatskins with basic sword.Those pictures do not work.
