While CU will most likely have the typical issues of the top few percent dominating the majority of others and that's it. Without gamey mechanics to balance it out, it will lead to frustration. Unless the pop gets dwindled down to the best of the best and the average gamer leaves it behind.
I still don't know what really makes CU "unique" or worth my time. Some interesting features, but nothing really too outside what I'd expect from him or faction PVP games.
Red is, to put it mildly, biased and I could write a book on why I think green is wrong, but that`s neither on topic nor my point. You are good, and have 100% my support, when explaining and defending CF, but when bashing CU (be it here or on CU forums, there is no difference) you are getting closer to that which you, formally, despise
I come here for the banter/discussion, don't despise anyone or anything. But if someone calls out a game and I find it incorrect or non constructive, going to point it out. Everyone is free to do what they want, but basically coming into a specific game's forum and going "I don't like this, it sucks" doesn't really add anything. Constructive criticism is great, straight negativity not so much. I give Will credit though as he said above that he simply dislikes pretty much the overall concept of the game. No harm in that, but I fail to see the need to keep pointing it out. To me it is either to start drama, which I guess is pretty much the majority of comments on this site, so makes sense, or to make the game look bad.
DAoC is my favorite PVP mmo and probably tied with Vanilla WoW with the most enjoyment over a period of time that I've had with these games. WAR was also a lot of fun, but not quite fully realized which is a shame as the IP is great.
Not meaning to bash CU, but as he clearly prefers it and between here and the CF forums has made comments to put them head to head, to me CU is fair game and relevant to some degree.
CU is surely aimed at those that enjoyed DAoC and faction based PVP. Which I've loved, but grown tired of. The skill crafting, individual body part damage/protection, and out of game connections are great to see, beyond that I'm having a hard time not seeing a lot of DAoC plus a bit of "sandbox" tossed in. Which again isn't an issue, but DAoC had issues which I see CU running into as well. A pretty cool character design and being able to chat with others on a phone while at work aren't going to solve those potential issues.
Hence the part in red. If you could explain or direct me to how they plan to avoid the typical open world PVP power issues, would love to know. To me this is maybe CF's strongest selling point. Start/finish, win/loss.
Nitpicking, find the "hardcore oldschool" use a bit silly as well when CU won't have player looting or FFA, from what I understand. Subjective, but still funny when compared to CF which has a bit more in this area. MJ seems like a great guy though and I wouldn't want to be trapped in his mind, the walls of text are killer.
Anyway, as the CU forum here is dead and this one isn't much better, wouldn't mind a bit of discussion as to what makes CU stand out and have a long term future.
Allright, thanks for detailed answer. When I said "... a book" I was serious. I don`t believe I would be able to stop after only a couple of paragraphs on good sides of various points of CU design, or even to put everything in one post, so I will try to limit myself to just a couple of short remarks (5:30 in the morning here is another reason, unfortunately only one of few). Last time I tried to elaborate a bit (CU reddit) it, without my initial intention, exploded into more than hundred pages of text, and I spent approx a week of cutting (with a hidden tear in my eye) off ends until "only" maybe 20 pages remained.
I want to point out that I am by no means defending Will (I am rather defending CU and yourself from your inner Will, summoned by slight overreactions - it doesnt fit well with all the good work you did so far). BTW, note that I don`t have even a shade of negative attitude towards CF (CU is a couple millimeters ahead in my book, nothing more than that) while you are, no matter what you are trying to project formally, not "exactly there" with CU. It is very easy to criticize, predict problems and ask questions, CF is also very easy target in that regard, but I am supporting both games and I won`t let anyone provoke me out of that attitude.
Also, talking in detail about CF/CU (say, of "standing out" and having "long term future", that would be waay-too-heavy speculation) at this point is kinda pointless, especially claiming that this one will have such and such issues while that one is designed to solve them. Both still have long ways ahead, and long lists of problems, mutual and especially unique. Maybe names in your red/green words will be reversed in reality? Far from impossible, but let`s hope not. I wish them both well.
I saw Mark stating at least twice that CU will not be DAoC 2 (needless to say, fans ignored it), and if some forum leaks are true (I have no access to CU forums) player looting (+FFA?) server will be considered if there is enough interested players!? Anyway, I don`t see why FFA/FL would have patent rights on "old school" and why would it matter that much (not to me, at least, and prolly to 99% of population), also I never played DAoC (came to CU from WoW, AoC then WAR) and I`d like to try RvRvR first. But enough of that.
If you really want to see how CU might solve it`s potential problems (much more than just the "red" one) there is lots of written material and vids on their site, and with some effort and imagination you can do it (keyword is "might", we lack lots of info at this moment - probably not even MJ knows how exactly it will look at launch). That is, if you want to - otherwise I can`t help you much (but there is no need for that anyway), play CF or whatever you prefer and enjoy.
Originally posted by JamesGoblin Another KS update (#19) - Eternal Kingdoms.
Nice info. If it works Eternal Kingdoms could be awesome places to create with your guild.
However I'm a little doubtful: If a single campaign lasts more than a month, won't the Eternal Kingdoms feel too disconnected from campaign gameplay?
I think I'd like it more if they allowed you to gather basic resources inside the campaign and send them directly to your Eternal Kingdom and have the Embargo Vault only for rarer items, or some other connection between the campaign and the Eternal Kingdom that would work all the time not just when a campaign ends.
Originally posted by JamesGoblin Another KS update (#19) - Eternal Kingdoms.
Nice info. If it works Eternal Kingdoms could be awesome places to create with your guild.
However I'm a little doubtful: If a single campaign lasts more than a month, won't the Eternal Kingdoms feel too disconnected from campaign gameplay?
I think I'd like it more if they allowed you to gather basic resources inside the campaign and send them directly to your Eternal Kingdom and have the Embargo Vault only for rarer items, or some other connection between the campaign and the Eternal Kingdom that would work all the time not just when a campaign ends.
I guess I`ve read somewhere that players might be able to visit EKs at some point(s?) during campaign (sorry, I couldnt find anything concrete about it during brief CF forum search). Other connections, off the top of my head, are relics and artefacts and the fact that EKs, being almost deprived of resources, will have to "feed" on campaigns in order to build and grow.
But the main point is that EKs are not the main thing, campaigns are. EK is a lobby, a link and everything will (and should, IMO) evolve around campaigns. There will be lots of space and time to build economical and social structures in these, direct PvP will consume maybe 10% of the time. Don`t think of campaign as of a huge (say, WoW) battleground, they should be much more than that, little worlds for themselves.
I expect sending resources to EK (during the campaign that is, if they make that possible) to be a rare luxury. Namely, if ACE sets their economical parameters right, war efforts should consume way too much resources, making these lacking instead of plenty unless your guild is, say, already victorious and campaign is very close to it`s end.
"41. How do I manage my Kingdom when I am in a Campaign?
This design is still somewhat in flux, because we haven’t nailed down exactly how much we want to “lock” characters to Campaigns.
Our current thinking is to allow players to travel between their Campaigns and their Kingdoms freely, even during Campaigns – but to not allow ANY equipment to transfer between them, other than at the beginning and end of the Campaign (in accordance with that Campaign’s Import and Export rules)."
While CU will most likely have the typical issues of the top few percent dominating the majority of others and that's it. Without gamey mechanics to balance it out, it will lead to frustration. Unless the pop gets dwindled down to the best of the best and the average gamer leaves it behind.
I still don't know what really makes CU "unique" or worth my time. Some interesting features, but nothing really too outside what I'd expect from him or faction PVP games.
I saw Mark stating at least twice that CU will not be DAoC 2 (needless to say, fans ignored it), and if some forum leaks are true (I have no access to CU forums) player looting (+FFA?) server will be considered if there is enough interested players!? Anyway, I don`t see why FFA/FL would have patent rights on "old school" and why would it matter that much (not to me, at least, and prolly to 99% of population), also I never played DAoC (came to CU from WoW, AoC then WAR) and I`d like to try RvRvR first. But enough of that.
Mark can say what he wants and sure it isn't literally the sequel to DAoC, but the similarities are pretty hard to ignore. If you didn't play DAoC I could see you not getting it, but the foundation of CU is very DAoC, which is great because it is one of my favorite games of all time. Despite that, I don't wear rose colored nostalgia classes that ignore the issues it had, some of which lead to myself and most others leaving.
They've added some very interesting features (at least on paper) and removed some of the issues (PVE grinding), but the overall winner/loser problem still look to exist.
Buzzwords are overly used to real us in and "old school" and "hardcore" mean many things to different people, but I think he's milking just a bit, ACE isn't too far behind though
If you really want to see how CU might solve it`s potential problems (much more than just the "red" one) there is lots of written material and vids on their site, and with some effort and imagination you can do it (keyword is "might", we lack lots of info at this moment - probably not even MJ knows how exactly it will look at launch). That is, if you want to - otherwise I can`t help you much (but there is no need for that anyway), play CF or whatever you prefer and enjoy.
I've tried my best to read and watch all the stuff they released and I still don't know how they plan to "solve" the issue that plagues most open world PVP games. As in, a particular alliance, guild, faction or whatever gaining so much power that they become basically unstoppable. I guess it was more of an issue on the two FFA DAoC servers, but still carried into the regular servers as well. Not unlike other RvR games that have come after.
Winning or losing for long stretches of time typically drives players away. Unchallenged or overpowered isn't very exciting.
Locking accounts to factions and what not could help, but not sure how well that is sell to fans beyond those backing currently. Limits the ability to try to leave a powerful faction to join a losing one, same server or not. So basically stuck winning or losing until by some miracle things change.
For me the issue DAoC had seems like it would get worse with the open world "sandbox" aspect. At least in DAoC, each realm had an entire safe Realm to return to. Not just a city or small area. Seems like one or two sides can be driven all the way back into their small area and not much they can do about it.
I'll admit I didn't memorize every single piece of info released all that BSC is pretty overloaded, so could have missed it.
We do lack info and if MJ doesn't even know, then that is an issue to me. Why I like CF a lot, they seem to have a pretty clear picture of what they have in mind and just a matter of working it out and building it. CU still seems in the "let think of everything we have ever wanted" stage and hasn't nailed it all down yet. Concepts sound great on paper, but at some point they have to put them into action. Although I'm not in alpha so who knows.
I do plan to play CF and if CU looks decent, I'll probably give it a try as well, but at this point have very little interest. Would simply prefer if those that prefer something else or just don't like CF not remind everyone on a constant basis within CF content. This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope
While CU will most likely have the typical issues of the top few percent dominating the majority of others and that's it. Without gamey mechanics to balance it out, it will lead to frustration. Unless the pop gets dwindled down to the best of the best and the average gamer leaves it behind.
I still don't know what really makes CU "unique" or worth my time. Some interesting features, but nothing really too outside what I'd expect from him or faction PVP games.
I saw Mark stating at least twice that CU will not be DAoC 2 (needless to say, fans ignored it), and if some forum leaks are true (I have no access to CU forums) player looting (+FFA?) server will be considered if there is enough interested players!? Anyway, I don`t see why FFA/FL would have patent rights on "old school" and why would it matter that much (not to me, at least, and prolly to 99% of population), also I never played DAoC (came to CU from WoW, AoC then WAR) and I`d like to try RvRvR first. But enough of that.
Mark can say what he wants and sure it isn't literally the sequel to DAoC, but the similarities are pretty hard to ignore. If you didn't play DAoC I could see you not getting it, but the foundation of CU is very DAoC, which is great because it is one of my favorite games of all time. Despite that, I don't wear rose colored nostalgia classes that ignore the issues it had, some of which lead to myself and most others leaving.
They've added some very interesting features (at least on paper) and removed some of the issues (PVE grinding), but the overall winner/loser problem still look to exist.
Buzzwords are overly used to real us in and "old school" and "hardcore" mean many things to different people, but I think he's milking just a bit, ACE isn't too far behind though
If you really want to see how CU might solve it`s potential problems (much more than just the "red" one) there is lots of written material and vids on their site, and with some effort and imagination you can do it (keyword is "might", we lack lots of info at this moment - probably not even MJ knows how exactly it will look at launch). That is, if you want to - otherwise I can`t help you much (but there is no need for that anyway), play CF or whatever you prefer and enjoy.
I've tried my best to read and watch all the stuff they released and I still don't know how they plan to "solve" the issue that plagues most open world PVP games. As in, a particular alliance, guild, faction or whatever gaining so much power that they become basically unstoppable. I guess it was more of an issue on the two FFA DAoC servers, but still carried into the regular servers as well. Not unlike other RvR games that have come after.
Winning or losing for long stretches of time typically drives players away. Unchallenged or overpowered isn't very exciting.
Locking accounts to factions and what not could help, but not sure how well that is sell to fans beyond those backing currently. Limits the ability to try to leave a powerful faction to join a losing one, same server or not. So basically stuck winning or losing until by some miracle things change.
For me the issue DAoC had seems like it would get worse with the open world "sandbox" aspect. At least in DAoC, each realm had an entire safe Realm to return to. Not just a city or small area. Seems like one or two sides can be driven all the way back into their small area and not much they can do about it.
I'll admit I didn't memorize every single piece of info released all that BSC is pretty overloaded, so could have missed it.
We do lack info and if MJ doesn't even know, then that is an issue to me. Why I like CF a lot, they seem to have a pretty clear picture of what they have in mind and just a matter of working it out and building it. CU still seems in the "let think of everything we have ever wanted" stage and hasn't nailed it all down yet. Concepts sound great on paper, but at some point they have to put them into action. Although I'm not in alpha so who knows.
I do plan to play CF and if CU looks decent, I'll probably give it a try as well, but at this point have very little interest. Would simply prefer if those that prefer something else or just don't like CF not remind everyone on a constant basis within CF content. This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope
Your CU-bashitis seems to be incurable but, as the wise man said: "This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope ". Meantime, let`s try to be constructive. So, how can one approach the domination problem? Faction locks are handy to begin with, but we will have to add something to it.
Let`s try not to prevent domination, since experience tells us it will happen anyway. The idea is to make it less likely and, once it happens, of shorter duration. Based on what I`ve read so far, MJ is trying to do something like that by using, amongst other tools, the very map of CU, lack of mounts and quick movement or teleports, bottlenecking/collision detection, the Veilstorms and especially The Depths. One of many possible ideas could be something like this (to skip the silliness, go straight to "The Gathering" section) but possibilities are endless.
The way I see it, the biggest problem ATM is picking just a couple of the ideas for further testing and fine tuning.
Your CU-bashitis seems to be incurable but, as the wise man said: "This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope ". Meantime, let`s try to be constructive. So, how can one approach the domination problem? Faction locks are handy to begin with, but we will have to add something to it.
Let`s try not to prevent domination, since experience tells us it will happen anyway. The idea is to make it less likely and, once it happens, of shorter duration. Based on what I`ve read so far, MJ is trying to do something like that by using, amongst other tools, the very map of CU, lack of mounts and quick movement or teleports, bottlenecking/collision detection, the Veilstorms and especially The Depths. One of many possible ideas could be something like this (to skip the silliness, go straight to "The Gathering" section) but possibilities are endless.
The way I see it, the biggest problem ATM is picking just a couple of the ideas for further testing and fine tuning.
I'm really not trying to bash CU, simply stating what I see as an outsider looking in that has many years of experience with two of MJs games. Just as CF has a lot of influence from Shadowbane, UO, and even SWG, despite them going "This isn't SB 2.0" it is pretty clear a lot of it will be part of CF.
Saying I don't see how they will avoid a domination problem isn't the same as saying the current character model/engine looks like poo poo. That to me is more in the bashing territory. I don't go on about the visuals because I'm sure they'll improve over time.
You have a lot of great ideas (way too much to actually read, but nice to see the effort), but unless you are on the dev team, doesn't have any influence on MJ or CSE.
My issue with CU is sort of the same one I have with what you wrote on reddit. Tons and tons of big picture, wouldn't this be cool stuff, but not a lot of bullet point, this is how it is going to be. The stuff that seems to be nailed down somewhat leaves me with the above stated issues.
While I'm not going to read every single piece of info CSE has released, doing a search with "balance" on the wikia has a few results and they are basically "we'll try to figure it out, but it's up to the players." Which doesn't sound great to me. Also mentioned giving bonuses to underpopulated and assumed losing realms which could help but isn't a solution. Not sure I've seen collision confirmed but would be great. Depths sound fun as well, especially since Darkness Falls in DAoC was so good and sad that other faction games haven't copied it.
Not to say that CF has the magic solution either, but the design allows for a different approach that makes it less of an ongoing issue. Winning/losing in a lobby game isn't a huge deal to me and apparently millions of others as they are the most popular forms of PVP (moba, rts, ccg, fps, arena/battlegrounds, etc). Knowing at some point the current experience will end seems to make losing less painful. With how the resource system works, losing might be the strategy a guild uses in CF to just build up resources quickly. There are options.
In CU it seems the options are somewhat slim. If your realm sucks, enjoy the ride? Hope new players join the losers? Surely there will be cross realm alliances to stop the largest realm and other politics in place, but for me, guess I'd rather play a FFA or GVG or whatever that doesn't put artificial limits in place too much. Then again CF will also have 3,6,12 faction campaigns so it is still an option.
To be constructive, I honestly don't see how they can balance it or avoid the domination problem. Nor do I think there should be artificial means to do this. I have no problem with a guild/alliance dominating in a CF campaign. So be it, but with collision, friendly fire, warmth/hunger (whatever they are), limited resources, limited rewards, I'm assuming zerging and dominating will be a bit tougher and less productive.
The basic foundation of CU is what I see leading to the cause of the problem and obviously they aren't going to change that. Anything added to maintain balance or whatever is only going to restrict what players can do.
Again, this is what I like about CF. I don't want a fair/balanced game, but at the same time, I don't want to lose/win forever. Which unless the devs step in or are really creative, will happen to some degree.
Looking at the rise and fall of several PVP/RVR games over the years and the immense success of Lobby or victory condition PVP games, gamers seem to be in the same line of thinking as myself.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe there are enough hardcore CU fans that it will work itself out and be great fun for many years. I'd like to be one of them, but at this point I'm left scratching my head as I don't want to play fill in the gaps with my own imagination.
I'm also interested in Everquest Next and it has that problem. They revealed a lot of big picture stuff that makes it sound like it could be one the best PVE games ever, but when it comes down to the details, there are a ton of gaps. XYZ sound great, but you need ABC to get there and they are missing currently.
Your CU-bashitis seems to be incurable but, as the wise man said: "This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope ". Meantime, let`s try to be constructive. So, how can one approach the domination problem? Faction locks are handy to begin with, but we will have to add something to it.
Let`s try not to prevent domination, since experience tells us it will happen anyway. The idea is to make it less likely and, once it happens, of shorter duration. Based on what I`ve read so far, MJ is trying to do something like that by using, amongst other tools, the very map of CU, lack of mounts and quick movement or teleports, bottlenecking/collision detection, the Veilstorms and especially The Depths. One of many possible ideas could be something like this (to skip the silliness, go straight to "The Gathering" section) but possibilities are endless.
The way I see it, the biggest problem ATM is picking just a couple of the ideas for further testing and fine tuning.
I'm really not trying to bash CU, simply stating what I see as an outsider looking in that has many years of experience with two of MJs games. Just as CF has a lot of influence from Shadowbane, UO, and even SWG, despite them going "This isn't SB 2.0" it is pretty clear a lot of it will be part of CF.
Saying I don't see how they will avoid a domination problem isn't the same as saying the current character model/engine looks like poo poo. That to me is more in the bashing territory. I don't go on about the visuals because I'm sure they'll improve over time.
You have a lot of great ideas (way too much to actually read, but nice to see the effort), but unless you are on the dev team, doesn't have any influence on MJ or CSE.
My issue with CU is sort of the same one I have with what you wrote on reddit. Tons and tons of big picture, wouldn't this be cool stuff, but not a lot of bullet point, this is how it is going to be. The stuff that seems to be nailed down somewhat leaves me with the above stated issues.
While I'm not going to read every single piece of info CSE has released, doing a search with "balance" on the wikia has a few results and they are basically "we'll try to figure it out, but it's up to the players." Which doesn't sound great to me. Also mentioned giving bonuses to underpopulated and assumed losing realms which could help but isn't a solution. Not sure I've seen collision confirmed but would be great. Depths sound fun as well, especially since Darkness Falls in DAoC was so good and sad that other faction games haven't copied it.
Not to say that CF has the magic solution either, but the design allows for a different approach that makes it less of an ongoing issue. Winning/losing in a lobby game isn't a huge deal to me and apparently millions of others as they are the most popular forms of PVP (moba, rts, ccg, fps, arena/battlegrounds, etc). Knowing at some point the current experience will end seems to make losing less painful. With how the resource system works, losing might be the strategy a guild uses in CF to just build up resources quickly. There are options.
In CU it seems the options are somewhat slim. If your realm sucks, enjoy the ride? Hope new players join the losers? Surely there will be cross realm alliances to stop the largest realm and other politics in place, but for me, guess I'd rather play a FFA or GVG or whatever that doesn't put artificial limits in place too much. Then again CF will also have 3,6,12 faction campaigns so it is still an option.
To be constructive, I honestly don't see how they can balance it or avoid the domination problem. Nor do I think there should be artificial means to do this. I have no problem with a guild/alliance dominating in a CF campaign. So be it, but with collision, friendly fire, warmth/hunger (whatever they are), limited resources, limited rewards, I'm assuming zerging and dominating will be a bit tougher and less productive.
The basic foundation of CU is what I see leading to the cause of the problem and obviously they aren't going to change that. Anything added to maintain balance or whatever is only going to restrict what players can do.
Again, this is what I like about CF. I don't want a fair/balanced game, but at the same time, I don't want to lose/win forever. Which unless the devs step in or are really creative, will happen to some degree.
Looking at the rise and fall of several PVP/RVR games over the years and the immense success of Lobby or victory condition PVP games, gamers seem to be in the same line of thinking as myself.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe there are enough hardcore CU fans that it will work itself out and be great fun for many years. I'd like to be one of them, but at this point I'm left scratching my head as I don't want to play fill in the gaps with my own imagination.
I'm also interested in Everquest Next and it has that problem. They revealed a lot of big picture stuff that makes it sound like it could be one the best PVE games ever, but when it comes down to the details, there are a ton of gaps. XYZ sound great, but you need ABC to get there and they are missing currently.
Actually, Mark is reading my threads, but what I have in mind is not this or that specific idea, but the numerous possibilities and, actually, the problem of choice. You see problems, I see possibilities. Your glass is half-empty...you get it
Actually, Mark is reading my threads, but what I have in mind is not this or that specific idea, but the numerous possibilities and, actually, the problem of choice. You see problems, I see possibilities. Your glass is half-empty...you get it
Reading and using are two different things.
Until I see something from CSE shedding light on how they plan to fill the glass up, I'm going to assume it will remain half-empty.
10 years ago, CU would of sounded awesome, but I've seen and experienced too much since and before to just accept it will work some how. I would even have blind faith if they said they had something in the works, but that doesn't even seem to be the case. Seems they are more focused on the cool features like skill crafting and structure building and the larger issue of how the game will function for a long period of time is not yet ironed out.
Much like EQN. I hope the next-gen AI and what not will work, but no proof of it yet. Still focusing on making the world and foundation stuff. Sounds too good to be true, but if the AI or day to day game play is blah, it won't amount to much.
I look to WAR as an example of how it can go wrong. Great IP, art design, classes, combat, and overall a fun game, but the "end" and overall point weren't really complete in my eyes, at launch or afterwards.
I'm not a backer so my opinion doesn't matter and that's why I don't actively follow CU. Guess I'm just looking for that sliver of hope for myself as to how CU will be sustainable and not have the same pitfalls of previous PVP games. Calling it a "sandbox" and saying the players will figure it out is not a real solution.
DAoC FFA servers had rules like "If you have a problem, solve it yourself" which was a lot of fun for a bit, but eventually the system fell apart and everyone left. One server closed down and the other eventually became a ghost town. Those that moved to regular servers eventually moved on to WoW and other games leaving what was one of the best PVP concepts to become a fraction of what it was.
Actually, Mark is reading my threads, but what I have in mind is not this or that specific idea, but the numerous possibilities and, actually, the problem of choice. You see problems, I see possibilities. Your glass is half-empty...you get it
Reading and using are two different things.
Until I see something from CSE shedding light on how they plan to fill the glass up, I'm going to assume it will remain half-empty.
10 years ago, CU would of sounded awesome, but I've seen and experienced too much since and before to just accept it will work some how. I would even have blind faith if they said they had something in the works, but that doesn't even seem to be the case. Seems they are more focused on the cool features like skill crafting and structure building and the larger issue of how the game will function for a long period of time is not yet ironed out.
Much like EQN. I hope the next-gen AI and what not will work, but no proof of it yet. Still focusing on making the world and foundation stuff. Sounds too good to be true, but if the AI or day to day game play is blah, it won't amount to much.
I look to WAR as an example of how it can go wrong. Great IP, art design, classes, combat, and overall a fun game, but the "end" and overall point weren't really complete in my eyes, at launch or afterwards.
I'm not a backer so my opinion doesn't matter and that's why I don't actively follow CU. Guess I'm just looking for that sliver of hope for myself as to how CU will be sustainable and not have the same pitfalls of previous PVP games. Calling it a "sandbox" and saying the players will figure it out is not a real solution.
DAoC FFA servers had rules like "If you have a problem, solve it yourself" which was a lot of fun for a bit, but eventually the system fell apart and everyone left. One server closed down and the other eventually became a ghost town. Those that moved to regular servers eventually moved on to WoW and other games leaving what was one of the best PVP concepts to become a fraction of what it was.
You don't think that happens in almost every FFA pvp game? Can you name a FFA PVP game or server who actively has at least 50% of it's server capacity used daily? (besides EVE, you cannot compare EVE to a fantasy MMORPG.)
GW2 once one side was winning when i played and they knew there was little chance to comeback, everyone quit " wVw'n " '? Why? Because they knew it would reset and they'd get to start over, you don't think that'll happen in crowfall? I really don't think any of the FFA pvp'ers who backed CF are really into the game for their SIMS EK's. They want to dominate/own control the land. How many campaigns do you think it'll take before they realize there is nothing more to do and how bored they are? This isn't a FPS. MMorpg and FPS players "IMO" are completely different types of players. So you guys built up your city and won the campaign. GG? Where is the Guild city you built up in Camelot unchained is persistent, and hopefully in a very strategic area to allow you to mine and craft to the highest possible extents? Doncha think the other 2 realms are going to watch to destroy your or your guild's city/keep you built up? You aren't going to win forever, eventually you'll lose it... Because after all, someone else really wants that strategic lot for their own guilds/realms minerals/crafters etc... Not to mentioned stabelizers which is a whole different strategic point on connecting the islands.
Actually, Mark is reading my threads, but what I have in mind is not this or that specific idea, but the numerous possibilities and, actually, the problem of choice. You see problems, I see possibilities. Your glass is half-empty...you get it
Reading and using are two different things.
Until I see something from CSE shedding light on how they plan to fill the glass up, I'm going to assume it will remain half-empty.
10 years ago, CU would of sounded awesome, but I've seen and experienced too much since and before to just accept it will work some how. I would even have blind faith if they said they had something in the works, but that doesn't even seem to be the case. Seems they are more focused on the cool features like skill crafting and structure building and the larger issue of how the game will function for a long period of time is not yet ironed out.
Much like EQN. I hope the next-gen AI and what not will work, but no proof of it yet. Still focusing on making the world and foundation stuff. Sounds too good to be true, but if the AI or day to day game play is blah, it won't amount to much.
I look to WAR as an example of how it can go wrong. Great IP, art design, classes, combat, and overall a fun game, but the "end" and overall point weren't really complete in my eyes, at launch or afterwards.
I'm not a backer so my opinion doesn't matter and that's why I don't actively follow CU. Guess I'm just looking for that sliver of hope for myself as to how CU will be sustainable and not have the same pitfalls of previous PVP games. Calling it a "sandbox" and saying the players will figure it out is not a real solution.
DAoC FFA servers had rules like "If you have a problem, solve it yourself" which was a lot of fun for a bit, but eventually the system fell apart and everyone left. One server closed down and the other eventually became a ghost town. Those that moved to regular servers eventually moved on to WoW and other games leaving what was one of the best PVP concepts to become a fraction of what it was.
You don't think that happens in almost every FFA pvp game? Can you name a FFA PVP game or server who actively has at least 50% of it's server capacity used daily? (besides EVE, you cannot compare EVE to a fantasy MMORPG.)
GW2 once one side was winning when i played and they knew there was little chance to comeback, everyone quit " wVw'n " '? Why? Because they knew it would reset and they'd get to start over, you don't think that'll happen in crowfall? I really don't think any of the FFA pvp'ers who backed CF are really into the game for their SIMS EK's. They want to dominate/own control the land. How many campaigns do you think it'll take before they realize there is nothing more to do and how bored they are? This isn't a FPS. MMorpg and FPS players "IMO" are completely different types of players. So you guys built up your city and won the campaign. GG? Where is the Guild city you built up in Camelot unchained is persistent, and hopefully in a very strategic area to allow you to mine and craft to the highest possible extents? Doncha think the other 2 realms are going to watch to destroy your or your guild's city/keep you built up? You aren't going to win forever, eventually you'll lose it... Because after all, someone else really wants that strategic lot for their own guilds/realms minerals/crafters etc... Not to mentioned stabelizers which is a whole different strategic point on connecting the islands.
Lineage 1/2
Most successful MMOs after WoW.
And i dont know what you did in GW2, but on my server nobody gave a rats ass about ticks. We fought and on thursday we would comment on my servers community forums (maybe do a push on wednesday if we were intereseted or if we faced oe if our "archnemesis" servers)
i think you have problem with community, or to be specific, joining and being part of one.
DAoC FFA servers had rules like "If you have a problem, solve it yourself" which was a lot of fun for a bit, but eventually the system fell apart and everyone left. One server closed down and the other eventually became a ghost town. Those that moved to regular servers eventually moved on to WoW and other games leaving what was one of the best PVP concepts to become a fraction of what it was.
You don't think that happens in almost every FFA pvp game? Can you name a FFA PVP game or server who actively has at least 50% of it's server capacity used daily? (besides EVE, you cannot compare EVE to a fantasy MMORPG.)
From my experience, this is the typical trend. Although this is usually due to the lack of "purpose" and larger issue with the design. As was with Andred/Mordred. The game was designed with 3 faction PVP so FFA while fun didn't have any lasting power. Once the novelty wears off, it isn't very thrilling.
Not that Faction is the "best" solution either. Unless there are gamey mechanics in place, one side can potentially "win" for long stretches of time. Didn't happen so much on Guin, but I know there were servers where Mid or whatever pretty much dominated the Frontiers. Even if Hib/Alb could work together it is like pushing a boulder up a hill.
Which in itself can be fun and challenging, but still leaves issues and drives people away due to frustration and boredom. I've yet to see what CU has planned to help avoid or decrease this issue that has happened in all the RvR/Faction games I've played.
GW2 once one side was winning when i played and they knew there was little chance to comeback, everyone quit " wVw'n " '? Why? Because they knew it would reset and they'd get to start over, you don't think that'll happen in crowfall?
You seem to be missing a pretty glaring design flaw. What happened when they "quit." Where did they go, what did they do? Some hopped servers without penalty (believe this was changed but not sure). Some went to PVE. Some (like myself) spent time in sPVP. When a game allows players to work over the system, it is bound to have issues.
Simple solutions. Make Campaigns the point and focus of everything. Can't run an EK without Campaigns. They've basically said quitting won't be possible or will come with consequences. No PVE or 10 min Arenas to fill the void.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...Much the same with FFA, Faction or any system. Problem is many games don't look for a solution and instead provide bandaids.
I really don't think any of the FFA pvp'ers who backed CF are really into the game for their SIMS EK's. They want to dominate/own control the land. How many campaigns do you think it'll take before they realize there is nothing more to do and how bored they are? This isn't a FPS. MMorpg and FPS players "IMO" are completely different types of players. So you guys built up your city and won the campaign. GG?
Some say they aren't into the EKs, but then again, we've never had a game like this so talk is talk. You can only speak for yourself. I'm a gamer. I enjoy games of all types. Which is why games like CF appeal to me because they cross the genre lines. Obviously a die hard X gamer won't like something that does this. Doesn't mean the millions of people that do consider themselves gamers and not X won't.
CF isn't being made for only the FFA hardcore of the hardcore. Misconception. They can play it, no problem, but if someone approaches what is a very clear design with unrealistic expectations, that's on them. There will be multiple types of servers (what the KS had them as stretch goals?) and everyone will get to pick what suits them best or not play at all.
If I jump into a FPS and get upset because there are no levels or whatever, that's on me.
The EKs are nice "prize" and way to show off, who knows what they'll lead to down the line (pre-alpha).
These are video games, you can only expect so much. If someone gets bored, oh well. Leave, come back when it has worn off. I do it all the time in the FPS/MOBA/RTS games I've played. Unlike something like CU where leaving could screw you over and put you behind.
Where is the Guild city you built up in Camelot unchained is persistent, and hopefully in a very strategic area to allow you to mine and craft to the highest possible extents? Doncha think the other 2 realms are going to watch to destroy your or your guild's city/keep you built up? You aren't going to win forever, eventually you'll lose it... Because after all, someone else really wants that strategic lot for their own guilds/realms minerals/crafters etc... Not to mentioned stabelizers which is a whole different strategic point on connecting the islands.
CF will have this as well. Minus the whole persistent part. If a campaign is 3, 6, 12 months long, that is a pretty decent chunk of time to invest in something, regardless if it gets wiped eventually. By that time, who knows how the game will have changed and what an individual or group will want to do next.
CU will be the same from day 1 on unless I'm mistaken. A year after release, the landscape might look a bit different, structures might have been built, destroyed and built again, but it will be the same basic design. How long will people hold on to that and not get bored? I can't speak for others but I know that won't sustain me forever.
Think a problem you might have is you play at a higher level than the average gamer, even within this sub-genre. You are used to be a winner. Maybe you didn't get bored of stomping others, but I do and I know I've got burnt out on getting destroyed by guilds that have way too much time to dedicate to video games.
Other problem I think is you seem to be doing a Apples to Apples comparison. Yes CF and CU have a lot in common and yes share a common player base. To me, both are geared at totally different styles of gaming. Just because someone enjoys MOBAs doesn't mean they like FPS, RTS, MMORPG Arenas, etc. Sure they are all "lobby" PVP games, but they offer different experiences.
It isn't a matter of one being "better" than the other. This is 100% subjective to the individual. We can compare and list pros/cons, what ifs and whatever we want, but it comes down to what do you find more enjoyable.
If you are having some internal debate, I can understand, but you aren't going to prove CF is a bad game or flawed or CU is better in anyway. They are what they are and you play what makes you happy.
Having VR as a stretch goal seemed totally out of nowhere and shows again that CF is not trying to do the same old thing. No offense to MJ and CU, but it is DAOC "Sandbox Edition." Sounds fun for those that want it, but it isn't the be all end all of PVP MMO experiences.
Looking at the last 20 years of online gaming, those with chunks or the focus of the game having start, finish, and victory conditions are more popular than those without.
FPS, RTS, CCG, MOBA, WoW... Be it PVP arenas/battlegrounds, Raid/instances, Lobby matches, whatever.
People seem to prefer games that make winning/losing very clear and with a set time frame.
Sure there are games without this that still attract folks, but big picture, what CF is doing fall in line with what the masses appear to prefer. Clearly it is geared to a sub-set of the masses, but like I said, crossing the genre lines and making what is typically a "hell no" experience for some might actually make FFA, looting, and a more "hardcore" (hate to use it) design more accessible and enjoyable for a larger crowd.
Comments
Allright, thanks for detailed answer. When I said "... a book" I was serious. I don`t believe I would be able to stop after only a couple of paragraphs on good sides of various points of CU design, or even to put everything in one post, so I will try to limit myself to just a couple of short remarks (5:30 in the morning here is another reason, unfortunately only one of few). Last time I tried to elaborate a bit (CU reddit) it, without my initial intention, exploded into more than hundred pages of text, and I spent approx a week of cutting (with a hidden tear in my eye) off ends until "only" maybe 20 pages remained.
I want to point out that I am by no means defending Will (I am rather defending CU and yourself from your inner Will, summoned by slight overreactions - it doesnt fit well with all the good work you did so far). BTW, note that I don`t have even a shade of negative attitude towards CF (CU is a couple millimeters ahead in my book, nothing more than that) while you are, no matter what you are trying to project formally, not "exactly there" with CU. It is very easy to criticize, predict problems and ask questions, CF is also very easy target in that regard, but I am supporting both games and I won`t let anyone provoke me out of that attitude.
Also, talking in detail about CF/CU (say, of "standing out" and having "long term future", that would be waay-too-heavy speculation) at this point is kinda pointless, especially claiming that this one will have such and such issues while that one is designed to solve them. Both still have long ways ahead, and long lists of problems, mutual and especially unique. Maybe names in your red/green words will be reversed in reality? Far from impossible, but let`s hope not. I wish them both well.
I saw Mark stating at least twice that CU will not be DAoC 2 (needless to say, fans ignored it), and if some forum leaks are true (I have no access to CU forums) player looting (+FFA?) server will be considered if there is enough interested players!? Anyway, I don`t see why FFA/FL would have patent rights on "old school" and why would it matter that much (not to me, at least, and prolly to 99% of population), also I never played DAoC (came to CU from WoW, AoC then WAR) and I`d like to try RvRvR first. But enough of that.
If you really want to see how CU might solve it`s potential problems (much more than just the "red" one) there is lots of written material and vids on their site, and with some effort and imagination you can do it (keyword is "might", we lack lots of info at this moment - probably not even MJ knows how exactly it will look at launch). That is, if you want to - otherwise I can`t help you much (but there is no need for that anyway), play CF or whatever you prefer and enjoy.
Nice info. If it works Eternal Kingdoms could be awesome places to create with your guild.
However I'm a little doubtful: If a single campaign lasts more than a month, won't the Eternal Kingdoms feel too disconnected from campaign gameplay?
I think I'd like it more if they allowed you to gather basic resources inside the campaign and send them directly to your Eternal Kingdom and have the Embargo Vault only for rarer items, or some other connection between the campaign and the Eternal Kingdom that would work all the time not just when a campaign ends.
I guess I`ve read somewhere that players might be able to visit EKs at some point(s?) during campaign (sorry, I couldnt find anything concrete about it during brief CF forum search). Other connections, off the top of my head, are relics and artefacts and the fact that EKs, being almost deprived of resources, will have to "feed" on campaigns in order to build and grow.
But the main point is that EKs are not the main thing, campaigns are. EK is a lobby, a link and everything will (and should, IMO) evolve around campaigns. There will be lots of space and time to build economical and social structures in these, direct PvP will consume maybe 10% of the time. Don`t think of campaign as of a huge (say, WoW) battleground, they should be much more than that, little worlds for themselves.
I expect sending resources to EK (during the campaign that is, if they make that possible) to be a rare luxury. Namely, if ACE sets their economical parameters right, war efforts should consume way too much resources, making these lacking instead of plenty unless your guild is, say, already victorious and campaign is very close to it`s end.
Edit: Found it, in Crowfall FAQ:
Campaign & Kingdom FAQ
"41. How do I manage my Kingdom when I am in a Campaign?This design is still somewhat in flux, because we haven’t nailed down exactly how much we want to “lock” characters to Campaigns.
Our current thinking is to allow players to travel between their Campaigns and their Kingdoms freely, even during Campaigns – but to not allow ANY equipment to transfer between them, other than at the beginning and end of the Campaign (in accordance with that Campaign’s Import and Export rules)."
I do plan to play CF and if CU looks decent, I'll probably give it a try as well, but at this point have very little interest. Would simply prefer if those that prefer something else or just don't like CF not remind everyone on a constant basis within CF content. This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope
Your CU-bashitis seems to be incurable but, as the wise man said: "This is mmorpg.com so not likely to happen, but I can hope
". Meantime, let`s try to be constructive. So, how can one approach the domination problem? Faction locks are handy to begin with, but we will have to add something to it.
Let`s try not to prevent domination, since experience tells us it will happen anyway. The idea is to make it less likely and, once it happens, of shorter duration. Based on what I`ve read so far, MJ is trying to do something like that by using, amongst other tools, the very map of CU, lack of mounts and quick movement or teleports, bottlenecking/collision detection, the Veilstorms and especially The Depths. One of many possible ideas could be something like this (to skip the silliness, go straight to "The Gathering" section) but possibilities are endless.
The way I see it, the biggest problem ATM is picking just a couple of the ideas for further testing and fine tuning.
I'm really not trying to bash CU, simply stating what I see as an outsider looking in that has many years of experience with two of MJs games. Just as CF has a lot of influence from Shadowbane, UO, and even SWG, despite them going "This isn't SB 2.0" it is pretty clear a lot of it will be part of CF.
Saying I don't see how they will avoid a domination problem isn't the same as saying the current character model/engine looks like poo poo. That to me is more in the bashing territory. I don't go on about the visuals because I'm sure they'll improve over time.
You have a lot of great ideas (way too much to actually read, but nice to see the effort), but unless you are on the dev team, doesn't have any influence on MJ or CSE.
My issue with CU is sort of the same one I have with what you wrote on reddit. Tons and tons of big picture, wouldn't this be cool stuff, but not a lot of bullet point, this is how it is going to be. The stuff that seems to be nailed down somewhat leaves me with the above stated issues.
While I'm not going to read every single piece of info CSE has released, doing a search with "balance" on the wikia has a few results and they are basically "we'll try to figure it out, but it's up to the players." Which doesn't sound great to me. Also mentioned giving bonuses to underpopulated and assumed losing realms which could help but isn't a solution. Not sure I've seen collision confirmed but would be great. Depths sound fun as well, especially since Darkness Falls in DAoC was so good and sad that other faction games haven't copied it.
Not to say that CF has the magic solution either, but the design allows for a different approach that makes it less of an ongoing issue. Winning/losing in a lobby game isn't a huge deal to me and apparently millions of others as they are the most popular forms of PVP (moba, rts, ccg, fps, arena/battlegrounds, etc). Knowing at some point the current experience will end seems to make losing less painful. With how the resource system works, losing might be the strategy a guild uses in CF to just build up resources quickly. There are options.
In CU it seems the options are somewhat slim. If your realm sucks, enjoy the ride? Hope new players join the losers? Surely there will be cross realm alliances to stop the largest realm and other politics in place, but for me, guess I'd rather play a FFA or GVG or whatever that doesn't put artificial limits in place too much. Then again CF will also have 3,6,12 faction campaigns so it is still an option.
To be constructive, I honestly don't see how they can balance it or avoid the domination problem. Nor do I think there should be artificial means to do this. I have no problem with a guild/alliance dominating in a CF campaign. So be it, but with collision, friendly fire, warmth/hunger (whatever they are), limited resources, limited rewards, I'm assuming zerging and dominating will be a bit tougher and less productive.
The basic foundation of CU is what I see leading to the cause of the problem and obviously they aren't going to change that. Anything added to maintain balance or whatever is only going to restrict what players can do.
Again, this is what I like about CF. I don't want a fair/balanced game, but at the same time, I don't want to lose/win forever. Which unless the devs step in or are really creative, will happen to some degree.
Looking at the rise and fall of several PVP/RVR games over the years and the immense success of Lobby or victory condition PVP games, gamers seem to be in the same line of thinking as myself.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe there are enough hardcore CU fans that it will work itself out and be great fun for many years. I'd like to be one of them, but at this point I'm left scratching my head as I don't want to play fill in the gaps with my own imagination.
I'm also interested in Everquest Next and it has that problem. They revealed a lot of big picture stuff that makes it sound like it could be one the best PVE games ever, but when it comes down to the details, there are a ton of gaps. XYZ sound great, but you need ABC to get there and they are missing currently.
Actually, Mark is reading my threads, but what I have in mind is not this or that specific idea, but the numerous possibilities and, actually, the problem of choice. You see problems, I see possibilities. Your glass is half-empty...you get it
Edit: Just stumbled over this, offtopic but it tells a little story about Todd`s past experience as a game developer. Maybe some Shadowbane players might be interested. Also, Gordon and Thomas just had an CF interview on Battle Vortex .
Reading and using are two different things.
Until I see something from CSE shedding light on how they plan to fill the glass up, I'm going to assume it will remain half-empty.
10 years ago, CU would of sounded awesome, but I've seen and experienced too much since and before to just accept it will work some how. I would even have blind faith if they said they had something in the works, but that doesn't even seem to be the case. Seems they are more focused on the cool features like skill crafting and structure building and the larger issue of how the game will function for a long period of time is not yet ironed out.
Much like EQN. I hope the next-gen AI and what not will work, but no proof of it yet. Still focusing on making the world and foundation stuff. Sounds too good to be true, but if the AI or day to day game play is blah, it won't amount to much.
I look to WAR as an example of how it can go wrong. Great IP, art design, classes, combat, and overall a fun game, but the "end" and overall point weren't really complete in my eyes, at launch or afterwards.
I'm not a backer so my opinion doesn't matter and that's why I don't actively follow CU. Guess I'm just looking for that sliver of hope for myself as to how CU will be sustainable and not have the same pitfalls of previous PVP games. Calling it a "sandbox" and saying the players will figure it out is not a real solution.
DAoC FFA servers had rules like "If you have a problem, solve it yourself" which was a lot of fun for a bit, but eventually the system fell apart and everyone left. One server closed down and the other eventually became a ghost town. Those that moved to regular servers eventually moved on to WoW and other games leaving what was one of the best PVP concepts to become a fraction of what it was.
You don't think that happens in almost every FFA pvp game? Can you name a FFA PVP game or server who actively has at least 50% of it's server capacity used daily? (besides EVE, you cannot compare EVE to a fantasy MMORPG.)
GW2 once one side was winning when i played and they knew there was little chance to comeback, everyone quit " wVw'n " '? Why? Because they knew it would reset and they'd get to start over, you don't think that'll happen in crowfall? I really don't think any of the FFA pvp'ers who backed CF are really into the game for their SIMS EK's. They want to dominate/own control the land. How many campaigns do you think it'll take before they realize there is nothing more to do and how bored they are? This isn't a FPS. MMorpg and FPS players "IMO" are completely different types of players. So you guys built up your city and won the campaign. GG? Where is the Guild city you built up in Camelot unchained is persistent, and hopefully in a very strategic area to allow you to mine and craft to the highest possible extents? Doncha think the other 2 realms are going to watch to destroy your or your guild's city/keep you built up? You aren't going to win forever, eventually you'll lose it... Because after all, someone else really wants that strategic lot for their own guilds/realms minerals/crafters etc... Not to mentioned stabelizers which is a whole different strategic point on connecting the islands.
Lineage 1/2
Most successful MMOs after WoW.
And i dont know what you did in GW2, but on my server nobody gave a rats ass about ticks. We fought and on thursday we would comment on my servers community forums (maybe do a push on wednesday if we were intereseted or if we faced oe if our "archnemesis" servers)
i think you have problem with community, or to be specific, joining and being part of one.
Other problem I think is you seem to be doing a Apples to Apples comparison. Yes CF and CU have a lot in common and yes share a common player base. To me, both are geared at totally different styles of gaming. Just because someone enjoys MOBAs doesn't mean they like FPS, RTS, MMORPG Arenas, etc. Sure they are all "lobby" PVP games, but they offer different experiences.
It isn't a matter of one being "better" than the other. This is 100% subjective to the individual. We can compare and list pros/cons, what ifs and whatever we want, but it comes down to what do you find more enjoyable.
If you are having some internal debate, I can understand, but you aren't going to prove CF is a bad game or flawed or CU is better in anyway. They are what they are and you play what makes you happy.
Having VR as a stretch goal seemed totally out of nowhere and shows again that CF is not trying to do the same old thing. No offense to MJ and CU, but it is DAOC "Sandbox Edition." Sounds fun for those that want it, but it isn't the be all end all of PVP MMO experiences.
Looking at the last 20 years of online gaming, those with chunks or the focus of the game having start, finish, and victory conditions are more popular than those without.
FPS, RTS, CCG, MOBA, WoW... Be it PVP arenas/battlegrounds, Raid/instances, Lobby matches, whatever.
People seem to prefer games that make winning/losing very clear and with a set time frame.
Sure there are games without this that still attract folks, but big picture, what CF is doing fall in line with what the masses appear to prefer. Clearly it is geared to a sub-set of the masses, but like I said, crossing the genre lines and making what is typically a "hell no" experience for some might actually make FFA, looting, and a more "hardcore" (hate to use it) design more accessible and enjoyable for a larger crowd.