Crowfall

Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,587
73,711
"If we redefine the word instance so it doesn't include our worlds/campaigns, we can have a good answer for people who think that instances separate the community in a negative way!".

As long as they realize that their worlds/campaigns are instances that separate the community and come up with ways to avoid the negative aspects of that I'm not worried. Servers are just large instances, after all, and when you choose a server at release, it pains you to see the guilds you wanted to fight/group with choose other servers. One thing I'm really excited about with Crowfall and other MMOs that do away with servers is that we can play with the entire PvP community and not just the subset on your server.

That's one really frustrating thing about most MMOs and one really great thing about GW2. In GW2 we were able to compete with most of established PvP groups since we fought the top 1/3rd of the servers.

ESO sort of had that, but you had no idea who you were fighting most of the time so it was the worst community in the history of MMOs. In ArcheAge a lot of the pvp community was scattered around the different servers for a few reasons.
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
I think your version of Servers = Instances is a little skewed when comparing CF to other games.

In the past servers were a grouping of instances in a copy pasted world.

In the case of Crowfall they're pitching one completely uniquely landscaped seemless world per server. Aside from the static Eternal Kingdom Hub of course.

They have a leg up (if it's not smoke up our asses) by having the players not just do cyrodill for 3 years straight.

How much more nuts would ESO have been if cyrodiil's landscape and rule sets changed every couple weeks?

How much more fun would it have been if ESO had a ruleset where nameplates were enabled and the entire map was filled with water and you had to do naval combat for a couple weeks?

Water World in Crowfall? Wouldn't doubt it.

TL;DR: Archeage and other games like it have multiple copies of the same server with the same zones and same instances branching off of the zones. Crowfall says they won't have this. Each server is unique.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,587
73,711
We'll see how it works out. I'm still envisioning there being a number of static landscapes being copied into multiple instances with different rulesets. I think part of the reason I think of the word instance as being very generalized is because I'm a programmer. Just because two instances of a class are unique from eachother at instantiation doesn't mean they aren't instances of the same class. Whether we consider them instances or not is irrelevant. The same problems exist regardless of the semantics.

And I hope they don't go the route of having randomly generated landscapes to make everything 'unique'. It takes away all the contribution a level designer can hand craft and potentially adds a lot of imbalance to the world no matter how hard they try to avoid it.


I think the biggest problem I haven't seen them address is how they're going to avoid the game-theory problem of MMO gamers joining the worlds that give them the biggest, safest gains in their character. If you let people pile into worlds as they please, they'll just hop onto the coattails of the winning side, or worse, join instances with minimal chances for conflict. The truth is there is a small % of PvPers who enjoy losing difficult fights consistently, and an even smaller % of them who will play a single game for longer than a few months.
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
Tuco_sl said:
I'm still envisioning there being a number of static landscapes being copied into multiple instances with different rulesets.

And I hope they don't go the route of having randomly generated landscapes to make everything 'unique'. It takes away all the contribution a level designer can hand craft and potentially adds a lot of imbalance to the world no matter how hard they try to avoid it.
Click to expand...
Nope:

From FAQ:

Because each Campaign is marching towards an end condition, this means that the World doesn't have to be static anymore. We can break the Campaign into different "phases", and adjust the rules of the game change during each phase. We can also allow the players to fundamentally change the world, without fear of the long-term problems this usually creates.

And since the Campaigns are discrete, why not make each one unique? Why can't each one have a completely unique world map (mountains, forests, lakes, castles, villages, quarries, mines, mills - you name it)?

The "exploration" phase of the game can be different in each Campaign. The world will never be stale. We can take that initial rush of excitement you get when you enter an MMO for the first time, and bottle it. We can make it repeatable.

To that point: since each game is a stand-alone event, we can even change the rules (and win conditions) of each Campaign. We can experiment with different rules, to see which ones are more popular - and keep the game continually fresh.

----

Level designers still can put work into the worlds. Who says the maps can't be re-usable as templates for future maps? Who says these only last for a week? Some worlds might last for a year or something.

Also which designer wants to work on the same map for the rest of their career?
 
Teekey

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole
3,644
-6,335
I wouldn't consider Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms as 'instances' even though they might technically be considered that since they weren't 1 complete and seamless world.

I don't see their current design being that much different than having multiple continents with separate rule sets in that context.

Tuco_sl said:
I think the biggest problem I haven't seen them address is how they're going to avoid the game-theory problem of MMO gamers joining the worlds that give them the biggest, safest gains in their character. If you let people pile into worlds as they please, they'll just hop onto the coattails of the winning side, or worse, join instances with minimal chances for conflict. The truth is there is a small % of PvPers who enjoy losing difficult fights consistently, and an even smaller % of them who will play a single game for longer than a few months.
Click to expand...
Well, they're really trying to hype up the mantra of risk vs reward. Seems like they're okay with people taking less risks, as long as the rewards are also much lower. If you lose FFA campaigns nonstop, it may actually be more effective to do a less riskier campaign.

It's just going to depend on whether the rewards for winning FFA PvP make it worth trying, even if you'll likely lose.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,587
73,711
Vitality_sl said:
Nope:

From FAQ:

Because each Campaign is marching towards an end condition, this means that the World doesn't have to be static anymore. We can break the Campaign into different "phases", and adjust the rules of the game change during each phase. We can also allow the players to fundamentally change the world, without fear of the long-term problems this usually creates.

And since the Campaigns are discrete, why not make each one unique? Why can't each one have a completely unique world map (mountains, forests, lakes, castles, villages, quarries, mines, mills - you name it)?

The "exploration" phase of the game can be different in each Campaign. The world will never be stale. We can take that initial rush of excitement you get when you enter an MMO for the first time, and bottle it. We can make it repeatable.

To that point: since each game is a stand-alone event, we can even change the rules (and win conditions) of each Campaign. We can experiment with different rules, to see which ones are more popular - and keep the game continually fresh.

----

Level designers still can put work into the worlds. Who says the maps can't be re-usable as templates for future maps? Who says these only last for a week? Some worlds might last for a year or something.

Also which designer wants to work on the same map for the rest of their career?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that ArtCraft will be capable of producing a large number of quality, handcrafted and unique maps for a prolonged period of time?
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
As far as people feeling that EvE style new character burn of no skill points. It really depends on how effective they make skill-ups in the game.

As far as rich vs poor players:

There's some rulesets like Dregs and GvG that do not allow for importing of items.

Stuff like the Order vs Chaos vs Neutral server does allow for importing for instance.

---

Who's to say there won't be any FFA (New character only) servers with higher rates on exporting items?
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,587
73,711
Teekey_sl said:
Well, they're really trying to hype up the mantra of risk vs reward. Seems like they're okay with people taking less risks, as long as the rewards are also much lower. If you lose FFA campaigns nonstop, it may actually be more effective to do a less riskier campaign.

It's just going to depend on whether the rewards for winning FFA PvP make it worth trying, even if you'll likely lose.
Click to expand...
What have they said about risk vs reward? I think game developers have generally done a very poor job of balancing risk vs reward, possibly because they are often hesitant to ever let the player risk anything but his time.
 
Teekey

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole
3,644
-6,335
Tuco_sl said:
What have they said about risk vs reward? I think game developers have generally done a very poor job of balancing risk vs reward, possibly because they are often hesitant to ever let the player risk anything but his time.
Click to expand...
  • The various rules sets were designed to keep gameplay fresh, and to balance risk vs. reward. The more difficult the ruleset, the higher the potential reward.
  • Our hope is that you might step out of your comfort zone and try the more difficult worlds? but that?s your choice. Again, it?s all about balancing risk and reward.
  • Rewards scale up based on the difficulty of the Campaign and the duration. In effect, you can earn more rewards by making the longer-term commitment ? and, of course, by winning. Again, it?s all about risk and reward.
Click to expand...
Hell, I was talking to the UI developer about the inventory design and he talked about risk vs reward. Seems like they're trying to apply the mantra across all aspects of design.
 
Big Flex

Big Flex

Fitness Fascist
4,314
3,166
Contrasting just how much ACE does right with how much SOE/Daybreak is doing wrong (IMHO) is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
I don't really dig inventory being a meta-game. I'm reserving judgment on everything until I see it in action, but to date I've never enjoyed gaming my inventory. It really depends on how bloated their item system is. Diablo 3 is like the worst for item bloat. You kill one boss and he drops 50 pieces of gear, 49 of which you know before you kill it that you're going to dismantle for crafting parts. That's gay.
 
Big Flex

Big Flex

Fitness Fascist
4,314
3,166
Agraza_sl said:
I don't really dig inventory being a meta-game. I'm reserving judgment on everything until I see it in action, but to date I've never enjoyed gaming my inventory. It really depends on how bloated their item system is. Diablo 3 is like the worst for item bloat. You kill one boss and he drops 50 pieces of gear, 49 of which you know before you kill it that you're going to dismantle for crafting parts. That's gay.
Click to expand...
idk I really like this inventory design, and frankly the overall UI look and feel

rrr_img_90611.png
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
I'm ok with inventory games as long as it's not stupid. Darkfall was stupid. Playing tetris is not fun. I'm ok with a weight system where you can't carry everything around with you with zero downside. Maybe slower movement speeds, maybe you get tired. Maybe you think twice before looting everything from a kill.

That I'm ok with. I'm not ok with a game that makes me fight the UI or make it time consuming to actually loot shit.
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
Teekey_sl said:
You would not believe how many people on the official forums want this style inventory system...
Click to expand...
All of them are the players who never really played UO/DF or any other actual PVP game? The guys who would quit this game at the instantaneous moment they try and sift through 18 different types of ores to find the ones of real value and die in the process?

EQN is being developed by this player type. And we all know how that's going.

I hope the devs read the forums and can quickly pass these players posts by for reason of being fucking noobs. For my/our sake.

**Edit: I'm interested in seeing how ACE deals with full loot with a hyper-organized inventory. Perhaps they pick at random particular items and offer them up for loot? I might be fine with them just throwing up a list like in h1z1. Haven't given it much thought.
 
Big Flex

Big Flex

Fitness Fascist
4,314
3,166
UO-styled inventories are only good for games with snooping and stealing i.e. just for UO.

Early, early in Darkfall's development it was the same way. People clamored and begged for the UO-style inventory, and well, they got it. Then nobody wanted it, and anyone worth a fuck had auto looting, auto banking, and auto bagging macros. Like Drae said, if one has to circumnavigate the game in order to effectively manage their inventory or bank, the design is a failure, and it isn't fun. They even got rid of it in DF:UW, and that was largely considered the ONLY superior aspect between DFO and DF:UW.

Crowfall's grid system with varying item size to indicate encumbrance is win.

Vitality_sl said:
I hope the devs read the forums and can quickly pass these players posts by for reason of being fucking noobs. For my/our sake.
Click to expand...
I've seen people asking for no PvP, no PvE, and all manner of retarded shit on there. I don't think they (ACE) really listen to anybody, for the most part. They're not holding round tables, nor asking the so-called community for their input, holding polls, or handing out surveys, they're presenting their game. The furries, RPers, casuals, and Wizard101 refugees can take it or leave it. I for one couldn't be happier about that.

*edit* hot off the presses, heres a GW quote regarding instances, eternal kingdoms, etc

rrr_img_90616.png


JTodd on the countdown reveal

rrr_img_90617.png
 
Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
I think kingdom is a bit much for a personal whatever. Your family/personal/eternal --- palace/castle/holding/villa makes more sense. We can't all be petty kings lording about from a wooden shack. Kingdom gets overused in fantasy settings. Historically there were very few european kingdoms. In all but one case (Portugal) catholic monarchs got the blessing of the pope. Portugal was recognized de facto later on. At the height of its power Burgundy (a powerful offshoot and one-time vassal of France) still wasn't a kingdom. To this day the independent european monarchy of Luxembourg remains an Arch-Duchy. If everyone has a "kingdom" then you devalue the rank entirely.

If we're going to have tiered guilds ala EVE/SB then we can't all wear the crown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.