Crowfall

Lithose · Jan 30, 2015

Generally, melee attacks happen in the area in front of the character. There is no hard "target". Attacks use various shapes such as: cones, rectangles, and spheres. You can optionally turn on or off a projected ground texture, if you want to visualize where your character is attacking.

I actually like this a lot more than simple FPS style targeting. If it's done like Dark Souls, where animations times, delays and all come into play--as well as range, "area" of swing and other considerations, it could make things very interesting. One of the biggest issues with games getting stale is that even in a "action" targeting game, what's best usually comes down to the numbers on the weapon vs a rock paper scissors number system vs armor or mobs (If there is even that). For example if you have a choice between a 300 damage 2.0 speed mace, and a 350 damage 2.0 speed sword; there is no question which is better, the sword is. (And rarely a game will say "Oh maces do X special effect so in this niche way they are better--and even then it often doesn't matter because you'll just take both and swap if you run into undead).

But in a game where things like length of the attack, animation "wind up" speed, "area of attack" all come into play; all the sudden the damage becomes asecondaryconsideration. This is especially true of equipment weight also affects things like dash cost and speed. Then, yes, the huge Halberd might do a ridiculous amount more "DPS" compared that rapier, but if it also makes you slow and vulnerable during a swing? It might only be useful conjoined with others who can support that kind of heavy hitter. If a long sword does more than a curved sword, but say the curved sword swings in a wider arc? It has a whole new dimension that might make it a superior weapon depending on a lot of variables.

Combined with an inventory system that presents real risk to taking "every weapon that might be useful" and it could be extremely interesting. Also, if they do have weight, combined with travel times, and maybe a supply system (Food/hunger ect, since they said they are adding survival aspects), then all those things can mix into making weapon selection an actual unique and interesting choice, rather than a "Moar DPS". Choosing a weapon that suits you and compliments a team is a lot more important when you can't just bring them all and swap between fights (Or during them). But on that note; I understand why MMO's have ditched weight, it can make things complex. But it's just one of those things that has the bad side effect of affecting other systems in a negative way.

Lithose · Jan 30, 2015

Harfle_sl said:
Whats up with this game. Something for me to look forward to or what?

They've said everything right so far for a good return of PvP hardcore sandbox, with great incentives combat. But you know how that goes. Pillow talk is cheap.

Sylas · Jan 30, 2015

fantasy version of eve?

its only been a dozen of years that people have been asking for a fantasy version of eve.

"I love eve as a concept but I don't wanna be a space ship I wanna be a person running around with a sword. also I don't like the UI and the control scheme. Just give me eve with a character in a fantasy universe and wasd"

We only have a dozen years of slow progressive growth showing us that the model works, and a dozen years of experience showing you what to do (and sometimes what not to do).

Every year a game comes along promising and hinting at eve-like gameplay but every time they feel like they gotta reinvent the goddamn wheel on some stupid shit that didn't need fixing.

I don't care if you game is so goddamn eve-like that you have to pay CCP a royalty. In fact i'd prefer it.

Just take the concept of Eve Online, put it in a fantasy world, an unintrusive UI and what should by now be the standard action rpg wasd control scheme.

Big Flex · Jan 30, 2015

People have been saying this shit since EVE launched, and I wholeheartedly agree. Kind of like how people have been saying they wantedthissince the Occulus Rift came out, and its finally coming to fruition, so, its about time we got fantasy EVE.

This is as close as anything I've ever heard of approaching that idea. Every update I fuckingcringeas I click the news links on their site, just waiting for them to fuck something up to say something that sounds horrible. So far, so good. So they'll probably fuck it all up with a cash shop update next week.

Denaut · Jan 30, 2015

Vitality_sl said:
Unity engine mmo games:

Battlestar Galactica Online

**I'm of the opinion that Unity engine is at the least a step up from Hero Engine for online games.

BGO uses an entirely proprietary backend for all the network/server stuff. Unity is only used as the client. In any MMORPG the network traffic/server is the most difficult and complex part of making the game.

Caliane · Jan 30, 2015

Big Flex_sl said:
People have been saying this shit since EVE launched, and I wholeheartedly agree. Kind of like how people have been saying they wantedthissince the Occulus Rift came out, and its finally coming to fruition, so, its about time we got fantasy EVE.

This is as close as anything I've ever heard of approaching that idea. Every update I fuckingcringeas I click the news links on their site, just waiting for them to fuck something up to say something that sounds horrible. So far, so good. So they'll probably fuck it all up with a cash shop update next week.

Fanstasy eve with action combat, instead of a spreadsheet even.

Draegan_sl · Jan 30, 2015

Lithose_sl said:
Generally, melee attacks happen in the area in front of the character. There is no hard "target". Attacks use various shapes such as: cones, rectangles, and spheres. You can optionally turn on or off a projected ground texture, if you want to visualize where your character is attacking.

I actually like this a lot more than simple FPS style targeting. If it's done like Dark Souls, where animations times, delays and all come into play--as well as range, "area" of swing and other considerations, it could make things very interesting. One of the biggest issues with games getting stale is that even in a "action" targeting game, what's best usually comes down to the numbers on the weapon vs a rock paper scissors number system vs armor or mobs (If there is even that). For example if you have a choice between a 300 damage 2.0 speed mace, and a 350 damage 2.0 speed sword; there is no question which is better, the sword is. (And rarely a game will say "Oh maces do X special effect so in this niche way they are better--and even then it often doesn't matter because you'll just take both and swap if you run into undead).

But in a game where things like length of the attack, animation "wind up" speed, "area of attack" all come into play; all the sudden the damage becomes asecondaryconsideration. This is especially true of equipment weight also affects things like dash cost and speed. Then, yes, the huge Halberd might do a ridiculous amount more "DPS" compared that rapier, but if it also makes you slow and vulnerable during a swing? It might only be useful conjoined with others who can support that kind of heavy hitter. If a long sword does more than a curved sword, but say the curved sword swings in a wider arc? It has a whole new dimension that might make it a superior weapon depending on a lot of variables.

Combined with an inventory system that presents real risk to taking "every weapon that might be useful" and it could be extremely interesting. Also, if they do have weight, combined with travel times, and maybe a supply system (Food/hunger ect, since they said they are adding survival aspects), then all those things can mix into making weapon selection an actual unique and interesting choice, rather than a "Moar DPS". Choosing a weapon that suits you and compliments a team is a lot more important when you can't just bring them all and swap between fights (Or during them). But on that note; I understand why MMO's have ditched weight, it can make things complex. But it's just one of those things that has the bad side effect of affecting other systems in a negative way.

I was against combat weight and animation lock, but then I played a bit of TERA. It's very easy to fuck up an "action" based combat system. TERA did it the best I think. GW2 was a very good hybrid of tab target and action. Wildstar was an abortion.

Agraza · Jan 30, 2015

Action combat is appealing in small group settings, but I hope in larger fights it's more about organization of space (collision) and a few specific abilities per archetype. I really enjoy EVE's combat in big fleet fights. There is enough complexity in staying with your fleet both in very local space and within a given constellation as you attack and evade enemies. Tossing in priority queues or rotations into that is going to discourage participation of bads, and I want fights to be scalable to very large numbers in relatively small spaces (few miles of field).

I would wet myself a little if the top priority of a commander in all big fights was always handling positioning of your squads/companies so that you can meet new threats with agility rather than being locked into a fatal formation. I want to be a single unit in a clusterfuck of bodies.

This x100 would be a success story for a Fantasy version of EVE.

Rogosh · Jan 30, 2015

Draegan_sl said:
I was against combat weight and animation lock, but then I played a bit of TERA. It's very easy to fuck up an "action" based combat system. TERA did it the best I think. GW2 was a very good hybrid of tab target and action. Wildstar was an abortion.

Disagree I would go Wildstar, GW2 then Tera. I could not stand the lock in Tera. After playing Wildstar for awhile at end game and then once you stop playing its easy to really miss the combat, especially active dodge and sprint. No other game got that right, all the telegraphs were annoying but the combat was still done right.

But in fairness to Tera I stopped playing before endgame so I really cant say that it got better at cap.

Vitality · Jan 30, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
BGO uses an entirely proprietary backend for all the network/server stuff. Unity is only used as the client. In any MMORPG the network traffic/server is the most difficult and complex part of making the game.

Well my comments were in response to someone asking about games with unity based systems so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this statement.

BGO wasn't particularly good at all, however it becomes relevant in this conversation as one of the very few mmo's to utilize some form of unity.

Caliane · Jan 30, 2015

Rogosh_sl said:
Disagree I would go Wildstar, GW2 then Tera. I could not stand the lock in Tera. After playing Wildstar for awhile at end game and then once you stop playing its easy to really miss the combat, especially active dodge and sprint. No other game got that right, all the telegraphs were annoying but the combat was still done right.

But in fairness to Tera I stopped playing before endgame so I really cant say that it got better at cap.

all 3 have their points. Same with DCUO, and neverwinter.

I do have a hard time playing mmos that do NOT have a dodge or block now honestly.

Collision is interesting. Something I am not sure has been perfected yet.
looking at mobas. I NOTICE it way more in HotS then in LoL. in LoL its usually obvious things like anivia's wall. or playing janna.
Theres alot of factors. pathing, and collision size. I think in HotS your box is much larger, and thus you run into the collision more. and have to run in larger circles around units. And in addition to that, the pathing goes completely retarded very often. doubling back far too often.

Its like watching that zelda horseback vid. its not just collision, but how you program the behaviors in response to it. when you run into a tree, do you full stop, rearback in a 5second animation... or does the horse simply path around it?

It ought to open up interesting gameplay elements. how character react to unit collision. (mariokart style). a large brute character maybe tramples, pushing units out of the way. a nimble character maybe dives past or leaps over units.
Maybe normal units have a center of mass which is impassible, but glancing movement slows as you "push past".

Collision in games is something I think is often done poorly. neither fun or interesting, as a core mechanic.

Draegan_sl · Jan 30, 2015

Rogosh_sl said:
Disagree I would go Wildstar, GW2 then Tera. I could not stand the lock in Tera. After playing Wildstar for awhile at end game and then once you stop playing its easy to really miss the combat, especially active dodge and sprint. No other game got that right, all the telegraphs were annoying but the combat was still done right.

But in fairness to Tera I stopped playing before endgame so I really cant say that it got better at cap.

Wildstar's combat was shit. Like really really shit and I'm befuddled as to why people thought it was good with all the spam rotations and useless movements you had to make. Animation lock is necessary for any decent combat system. Like Lithose mentioned, it adds weight and a second dimension to your combat system. Instead of firing off the most efficient rotation of abilities regardless of anything else, animation lock forces you to consider positions, speed, timing and aim. If the game is well made, then this is also balanced. Going into a game like that expecting to spam your highest damage ability all day long is silly.

Anyway, no one's opinion is wrong because it's what the have the most fun with, but you had fun with a shitty combat system.

Vitality · Jan 30, 2015

I'm fine with animation lock just as long as it doesn't pump-fake like Hero engine games or as long as it is cancelable at the cost of the failure of the ability.

I think TERA had a pretty good way of handling weighty combat when I played the lancer for a short time.

SWTOR did animation lock wrong (at first) as a comparison.

Really all it takes to get right is to offer an off GCD dash-cancel ability. Something like a side step or backflip etc.

Denaut · Jan 30, 2015

Vitality_sl said:
Well my comments were in response to someone asking about games with unity based systems so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this statement.

BGO wasn't particularly good at all, however it becomes relevant in this conversation as one of the very few mmo's to utilize some form of unity.

I was just trying to point out the the least important aspect of an MMO's success is the front end client. Compared to every other part of making an MMORPG choosing a front end has almost no impact on its success.

Draegan_sl · Jan 30, 2015

Vitality_sl said:
I'm fine with animation lock just as long as it doesn't pump-fake like Hero engine games or as long as it is cancelable at the cost of the failure of the ability.

I think TERA had a pretty good way of handling weighty combat when I played the lancer for a short time.

SWTOR did animation lock wrong (at first) as a comparison.

Really all it takes to get right is to offer an off GCD dash-cancel ability. Something like a side step or backflip etc.

Agreed.

etchazz · Jan 30, 2015

All of this sounds really great, but I've yet to see a AAA title pull it off, and this is going to be a low budget, crowd funded game.

Big Flex · Jan 30, 2015

Recent Dev quotes

Ref: Wildstar-like combat and combat telegraphs

Understandably you're using Wildstar as your point of reference. Our visual cues will not look like a sci-fi lazer show, but will match our thematic setting. I know this is going to be a point of contention but I hope you wait to see how they operate in our game before being concerned about the skill ceiling.

Ref: healers

The term "healer" carries many assumptions with it. Which we wanted to avoid.

The intent for support to have key buffs, debuffs, physics related powers at a cost of damage or defensive is exactly what we want to do. That isn't to say in the Discipline Runestones (or combination of Disciplines) there won't be healing, it's really hard to predict. There just won't be a primary Archtype devoted to it.

Ref: skill gain

That's not how we imagine it either. The usage based skill gains are the edge case in the system. The primary method of advancement is the passive skill training.

Everyone here thinks beating on a wall for hours at a time to gain skill is super lame!

Arcaus_sl · Jan 30, 2015

So like Eve being in on day 1 will be super important and joining the game 6 months late will make you want to kill yourself in the face? Seems bad unless they add some sort of cap.

Mr Creed · Jan 30, 2015

Arcaus_sl said:
So like Eve being in on day 1 will be super important and joining the game 6 months late will make you want to kill yourself in the face? Seems bad unless they add some sort of cap.

But that's not actually true for EVE, hopefully wont be true here. You say it's bad unless they have a cap? What would a skill point cap be good for in EVE (or here, assuming this game is similar in their skill design)?

Vitality · Jan 30, 2015

Skills are capped at rank 5 in eve, not sure what point you're trying to get across.

Crowfall

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Fitness Fascist

Trump's Staff

Avatar of War Slayer

2 Minutes Hate

Registered Hutt

Lord Nagafen Raider

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ

Avatar of War Slayer

2 Minutes Hate

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ

Trump's Staff

2 Minutes Hate

Trakanon Raider

Fitness Fascist

shitlord

Too old for this shit

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ