Crowfall

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,358
80,733
Vitality, making it such that you can take keeps at any time means that the fights will be decided by who can alarm clock harder. Or which group has the stronger oceanic/EU force. Which sucks.
kaid_sl said:
My biggest problems with hard locked peace times is people would wind up having them expire around 4 in the morning in shadowbane so the bulk of the interesting pvp happened when just about everybody in the US should be asleep. I am to old to do the all nighter raid and then head to work in the morning thing any more.
Click to expand...
They can just make them occur during NA primetime. This sucks for oceanic groups who probably won't have a server though in their TZ though.
 
Harfle

Harfle

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,055
69
Well if they don't have a eu server can't they just have a campaign with the rule stating keep raids will be eu and go from there?!
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,666
4,196
Or just do it like eve online since this isn't a problem that needs them to reinvent the wheel and as much as they draw eve online comparisons for backer support they sure seem to be copying shit mechanics from other games instead of what works perfectly fine for the only comparable game out there.

Keep can be attacked at any time, and after a certain amount of damage it goes reinforced and is safe for x hours, from 0-36 hours depending on how much irondick stone you have set aside for being sieged. You decide when your keep is vulnerable to being destroyed by how much stone you've dedicated. the Stone set aside is consumed during the invuln time, meaning even if you defend you still must gather more stone or the next time you are attacked you won't have an invuln period.

There is a randomness to when you lose your invuln based on what time zone attacked you, but you have enough time to gather forces and plan a defense.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Tuco_sl said:
Interesting, I wasn't sure if they were going to allow freeform castle building in the campaigns. I actually don't like that because it allows players to create keeps that are cheesy to defend, rather than give players keeps that have utilitarian purpose outside of sieges.

It's also interesting that they will have these bloodstones spawn during the unprotected state and you have to choose how many players to use to move the bloodstone away. One thing I'll advise is to make it so that moving the bloodstone is slow and its location is very easy to find. Moving the football in GW2's campaigns was a ton of fun. The football in ESO was also kind of fun but you could move it to fast. The football in ArcheAge you can move way too fast and nobody knows where it is (even the faction that holds it often!!!) so you never really have an epic struggle to get a touchdown.

I feel like the paradigm of the bloodstone spawning during the unprotected state is a bit contrived. With these systems I worry that developers have a plan in their heads of how it should go and fuck with the ruleset until the players do what they want. They throw the word 'emergent' around, but they need to be careful with it. One big question I have is what the rewards for owning a keep are. In previous games owning a keep provides very rigid, artificial benefits. You get points in ESO/GW2, you get taxes in AA, I don't even know what we got in AoC or DAoC, lol.

I hope they create a more natural system that provides the owner of the castle with some force projection benefits over a certain area and economic benefits. Owning a keep/tower would provide some kind of radar features in the local area. Maybe you could have NPC guards that spawn and patrol the resource areas and help defend caravans. On the economic side, if we're doing a full loot system, npc merchants that sell player-made goods could only be protected in these areas, and the owner of the area gets a tax for it.
Click to expand...
You didn't get much in DAOC. what you got was some street cred, access to the rotating dungeon, and you got alerts when there was an assault on your keep. And the main reason you did it is that it bolstered / weakened the relic keeps.

But really you go claim whichever keep it was right in the middle of the Midgard frontier and you push that shit up to max level with max level doors... and you do it JUST TO BE A DICK. Keeps could have been a little bit better in daoc. The placement for most of them was "over there" instead of strategic. Shoulda been able to claim Mile Gates.
 
Pyksel

Pyksel

Rasterizing . . .
840
284
Owning keeps/towers in DAOC also opened up Darkness Falls (realm wide RvR dungeon) while capturing relics and storing them in owned keeps gave server wide bonuses to stats.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,358
80,733
Sylas_sl said:
Or just do it like eve online since this isn't a problem that needs them to reinvent the wheel and as much as they draw eve online comparisons for backer support they sure seem to be copying shit mechanics from other games instead of what works perfectly fine for the only comparable game out there.

Keep can be attacked at any time, and after a certain amount of damage it goes reinforced and is safe for x hours, from 0-36 hours depending on how much irondick stone you have set aside for being sieged. You decide when your keep is vulnerable to being destroyed by how much stone you've dedicated. the Stone set aside is consumed during the invuln time, meaning even if you defend you still must gather more stone or the next time you are attacked you won't have an invuln period.

There is a randomness to when you lose your invuln based on what time zone attacked you, but you have enough time to gather forces and plan a defense.
Click to expand...
I never played Eve so I'm speaking from ignorance here, but there's two basic problems with this:
1. The attackers have nothing to lose by attacking and no investment to trigger the vulnerability. This is a critical point because if the attackers don't have to pay anything to trigger a siege there's no consequence for losing. In Shadowbane I remember the bane stone being somewhat expensive (at the start anywya, maybe it got cheaper as time went on). In ArcheAge you have to bid for a scroll against other players.

2. Are you able to move your stone out of your bank to trigger the vulnerability period?
 
Vandyn

Vandyn

Blackwing Lair Raider
3,656
1,382
Tuco_sl said:
I never played Eve so I'm speaking from ignorance here, but there's two basic problems with this:
1. The attackers have nothing to lose by attacking and no investment to trigger the vulnerability. This is a critical point because if the attackers don't have to pay anything to trigger a siege there's no consequence for losing. In Shadowbane I remember the bane stone being somewhat expensive (at the start anywya, maybe it got cheaper as time went on). In ArcheAge you have to bid for a scroll against other players.

2. Are you able to move your stone out of your bank to trigger the vulnerability period?
Click to expand...
Yea I think the major difference with EvE is you can lose something tangible by attacking (at the very least ships, especially expensive capital ships).
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
Vandyn_sl said:
Yea I think the major difference with EvE is you can lose something tangible by attacking (at the very least ships, especially expensive capital ships).
Click to expand...
There's supposed to be some form of item loot in crowfall too. And you lose a major chunk of permanent armor durability.

Crowfall also hasn't said anything about gear insurance like EVE has for it's ships.
 
kaid

kaid

Blackwing Lair Raider
4,647
1,187
From the screen caps I have seen on campaigns there are varying amounts of loss on death of dropping some items on death or dropping many items on death. Also all your gear apparently takes durability hits so fighting and losing degrades your gear and die enough and you will lose your stuff and have to replace it regardless if people can loot it or not. We shall see how this plays out when its released though as at this point everything is subject to change.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,666
4,196
Tuco_sl said:
I never played Eve so I'm speaking from ignorance here, but there's two basic problems with this:
1. The attackers have nothing to lose by attacking and no investment to trigger the vulnerability. This is a critical point because if the attackers don't have to pay anything to trigger a siege there's no consequence for losing. In Shadowbane I remember the bane stone being somewhat expensive (at the start anywya, maybe it got cheaper as time went on). In ArcheAge you have to bid for a scroll against other players.

2. Are you able to move your stone out of your bank to trigger the vulnerability period?
Click to expand...
2nd question first: once your structure is reinforced and invulnerable, you can't move stone to change the timer. It becomes vulnerable to destruction once all the stone you had in their is consumed, which is 0-36 hours depending on how much stone you had in there. If you are online while you are being attacked but before it goes invulnerable, you can adjust the stone levels to change the time, but once you are invulnerable the timer starts and it can't be changed.

as stated in eve and allegedly in Crowfall too you lose shit dying so they do have something to lose by attacking. It really depends if they have siege weapons in crowfall or not on how much you have to lose. In Eve you can grab a dozen or so dudes and attack a unmanned tower in battleships (IE your warrior type), assuming the tower has no defenses or you can mitigate them (this would be like NPC archers on the walls shooting at attackers), but if you all you bring is a bunch of battleships it will take like 6-12 hours to do enough damage to bring it to reinforced (ie drop its shields down to 25% health) and make it go invulnerable. If 1 player actually shows up during that time frame they can man the guns (or in CF case they could direct the NPC archers to focus fire on individual players) and just pick off the attackers while safely atop their wall.

To actually legitimately attack something requires you to commit massive resources on the field and that is a huge risk. I know CF teaser videos shows dudes knocking down walls with a single axe throw and shit but they've stated that that was just a voxel test and that players wouldn't be able to do that, except for certain classes like the guinea pig engineer dudes or whatever they are, who only build and knockdown things.

They may not do Siege weapons (KS budget after all), so you may not have the risk of Eve but this game is Eve-Lite anyway, much more SB 2 than Eve meets Game of Thrones. But invincible keeps are bullshit. I should be able to attack you whenever I want. If keeps are only vulnerable for a small window (per day? per week? how long is your gay ass keep going to be invincible for?) then defenders have a massive advantage.

The purpose of any of these systems as described by Todd is that the two groups get together and decide upon a time when they can fight. The defender already has every advantage going in, even larger if the defenders are the ones who choose when they become vulnerable. Oh twice a week I have to allow the peasants an opportunity to attack my keep? Ok Friday and saturday night during my primetime is when my keep is attackable. all other times fuck off.

It's like they saw what happened in Shadowbane with their invulnerable keep system (oh but allow teams with massive resources the ability to break through with banestones), and built the game around that. It seems like they took their flawed system and made it worse to speed up on how long it takes for the winning guild to win, so they can reset the campaign world which is their major mechanic. Why bother with 1-6 month campaigns if you are just going to speed up the rate in which the snowball is rolling downhill? 1-6 week campaigns would work.
 
Ryanz

Ryanz

<Banned>
18,901
52,944
They really need to sack up and just make full loot the standard. I've never had more of a thrill in an MMO like I did in UO where I knew at any moment, someone could gank me and steal my shit. It puts you on edge, and made you experience and traverse the world differently then if you can just run around with no cares in the world about your shit being stolen. They talk big on risk vs. reward, prove it.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,666
4,196
yes I too am surprised that you don't lose everything on death. the Gradient should be how much of your stuff is lootable versus being destroyed upon death. in 3 faction you maybe only drop 1 item, in 12 faction you drop a couple but no weapons/chest, in gvg you drop more items including chest, and in FFA you can drop anything/everything.
 
Jozu

Jozu

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,984
6,295
Been a while, but this game seems interesting. Anyway, as far as losing all items on death, I feel like Asherons Call Darktide got that shit right. You lost items based on your current level and the inherit value of each item. For instance a lvl 20 dude only loses 4 - 7 items, but a lvl 50 dude loses 10- 14 or something like that. That would reduce the lower level players from crying too much and also give a nice reward if you managed to off a high lvl faggot.

The other part of it was the value. Items in that game were not only cherished because they had impressive, rare stat values, but because the monetary value of the item was low, which means its unlikely to drop on death. (As only your highest value items are vulnerable to drop on death) On the other hand, if that plus 30 magic defense iron helm you like so much has an inflated monetary value, its probably going to drop. But thats where death items come in. Some people hate this system but I think.its genius. A dedicated pvper is forced to always carry expensive "death items" in order to prevent any high value, quality/useful items from dropping on death. It forces players to be responsible in terms of always having enough death items on hand when out in the field as well as provide a coin sink for the games economic well being. Not only that but it even benefits the guy who killed you and looted your shit. Yea he might of not got that sexy iron helm you like so much, but he did rake in like 13 20k coin items he can either sell for profit or use as his own death items. It creates a good atmosphere for pvpers.

There is always the chance you come across a lazy who just wanted to get out there and get a kill but was too ignorant or stupid to have enough death items so he did actually lose a couple of his prized possesions. Happened all the time on Darktide. Its just a smart way to mitigate player turnover and foster a healthy pvp environment. Losing 12 expensive death items twice in a row sucks no matter what.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
26,510
41,246
I feel like the system worked well only on accident. The reality was it only made good items tons more rare because they had low pyreal cost. Crowfall is not a random loot mmo, so instead of rare iron chain coif with focus VI, a cantrip and good ele resists, imagine craftable GSA vs craftable hideous value Celdon plate... It's just going to come down to either recipes or resources either way.

I'm convinced the ultimate loot model is hidden here somewhere... Random recipes with resource PvP model with rare/difficult reverse engineering seems pretty good in theory. Instead of losing one item, risk is your guild drops too mqny Ulfbert swords and soon your worst enemy can craft them. It'd basically be like the Chinese capturing enough drones to start copying them.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,358
80,733
Backer 'rewards' email came in. Anyone else have problems logging into the crowfall site now and then?
 
Sutekh

Sutekh

Blackwing Lair Raider
7,489
106
The graphics look like shit, the animations look like shit, the ideas they have for the game are mediocre at best, one of the founders of the company was the creator of two of the largest micro-transaction "games" ever, and any MMO that attempts to build itself off PVP is destined to fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.