I'd be quite happy to see aim based targetting for enemies and tab targetting for allies. That way you eliminate easy mode fighting, but you can still find your healer or leader in a crowd
It seems like a lot of people, when considering the use of aimed shots, are thinking that it's going to be overly difficult to hit your target in a PvP situation becasue the enemy is going to be moving around a lot. I don't think the most effective way of using something like this would work that way very often.
The way I would use my uber-powerful aimed shot would be to work in conjunction with another player that has a strong root, stick a guy in a spot and unload whatever it is I have with a really simple aimed shot that anyone and their grandparents can pull off.
This leads to a question of balance. If you are going to give a class an uber-powerful aimed shot and well coordinated teams can use roots effectively, this idea becomes extremely difficult to balance.
I agree. On the surface it sounds like a good idea but that would not only relegate an archer to a secondary class char that NEEDs to have someone else in order to be effective, it also adds the fun root > die chain for good measure. Not only am i going to be rooted and unable to move, but now there is a uber-powerful aimed shot incoming i can't evade because i can't move.
Im sorry but for me that sounds suspiciously like combining all the annoying things of CC and one hit kill movies into one neat package. Im sure thats going to be fun to the archer and his buddy/team, but it doesn't sound all that fun to the one on the receiving end A totally gimped solo(a scoutclass requirering a group would be a little strange) where he can't hit targets while at the same time op in groups where people hold stuff down for him.
Its ... just not how i envision the game.
If you really need aim based anything, i'd guess it makes sense for siege engines. For an archer in a fastpaced RvR game, with again 100s of people on the screen fighting back and forth i just don't see it for weapons without major splashdamage. Even most shooters only make it work with either instant travel projectiles or rockets or stuff. Playing Battlefield with bows ... i don't think it would be fun even if you like shooters.
Hmm, how about a lock-on system, where you have to aim, but once you have your target you can lock on to it? That could be the compromise between aim and tab?
This may be overanalyzing things, but if you look at the age breakdown in the Age Poll thread (link below), you'll see nearly 40% of respondants are >35.
[mod edit]
We'll since apparently they are the ones paying for the development of the game ... i'd say they get it their way.
Only fair, if you want a twitch based shooter MMO go and back one on KS. But taking the money of DaoC players and then making a game from it they can't stand ... thats not exactly nice.
Originally posted by Ellya Hmm, how about a lock-on system, where you have to aim, but once you have your target you can lock on to it? That could be the compromise between aim and tab?
Just imho, but compromises hurt games. Whats next, should we add some PvE instances and raids as a compromise for those who don't want to pvp? Where do we stop with the compromises? When you are satisfied? When everyone is satisfied?
Personally i'd say we go all in, RvR like camelot, crafting like minecraft(light), fluidity of combat like WoW(many MMOs still fail at this) and controls like your standard MMO with tab based targeting(like warhammer, friend and foe at same) and lots of hotbars. Success will be determined through picking the right skill in the right situation, positionals and use of reactives as well as planning through your fight(i do this, then that, and then hopeflly he will ...).
Now don't get me wrong, im fully in favour of adding a aimbased class in an later expansion or something if there is a demand. But we should first get the basics down, which are imho the ones above. Once the basics are down and working well, sure why not we can add all kinds of exciting stuff. But lets not try to dance on two different balls at a time.
We'll since apparently they are the ones paying for the development of the game ... i'd say they get it their way.
Yeah because they are the only people who where allowed to back the Kickstarter. The fact is trying to please DAoC diehards is the worst thing for CU, as they say "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".
We'll since apparently they are the ones paying for the development of the game ... i'd say they get it their way.
Yeah because they are the only people who where allowed to back the Kickstarter. The fact is trying to please DAoC diehards is the worst thing for CU, as they say "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Its not about who was allowed to back it, but about those who actually did. Ofc not everyone of those was a DaoC fan, i for one was not. But i agreed with the principle ideas of a DoaC like game without PvE. I think many others who backed the game felt similar, furthermore there was no indication this would be completely different kind of a game compared to DaoC sans the no pve part.
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc. The rest, like 3 factions, non mirrored classes etc ... that kinda reminds me a bit of DaoC, atleast as far as i remember it.
If it's like tera, I would be semi ok with it. If it's like darkfall or darkfall unholy wars. I won't even play it even though I backed the bame. Frigging hate the combat in DF / DF:UW.
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc.
[mod edit]
Yeah they said its not DAoC 2, that doesn't mean any kind of stupid mechanic is fair game, might aswell have helicopters as mounts and make it turnbased? Cause its not DAoC 2 right?
Come on, its more than just the skeleton. How many RvR games with 3 sides and non mirrored classes that are based on arthurian legends are there? I mean sure, we could pretend it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made, like maybe by the same person. Sure we could tell us that, but who would we be kidding? Also DAoC is owned by EA, so obviously CU will not be DAoC 2 because thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
And yes, DAoC players that backed the game are more important than non DAoC that did not back the game. If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Originally posted by Ellya Hmm, how about a lock-on system, where you have to aim, but once you have your target you can lock on to it? That could be the compromise between aim and tab?
That sounds like an interesting take. Wouldnt really be much harder than tab targetting most of the time, and could even be substantially faster than tab-cycling through potential targets in larger battles. Then you would also have the option to "free shoot" in situations where doing so was useful, such as arcing a volley over something.
The only complaint I could see would be someone dying to a target they never were able to pick out, and you could prevent that by just having you auto-acquire any target that hits you whenever you have no current target.
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc.
[mod edit]
Yeah they said its not DAoC 2, that doesn't mean any kind of stupid mechanic is fair game, might aswell have helicopters as mounts and make it turnbased? Cause its not DAoC 2 right?
Come on, its more than just the skeleton. How many RvR games with 3 sides and non mirrored classes that are based on arthurian legends are there? I mean sure, we could pretend it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made, like maybe by the same person. Sure we could tell us that, but who would we be kidding? Also DAoC is owned by EA, so obviously CU will not be DAoC 2 because thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
And yes, DAoC players that backed the game are more important than non DAoC that did not back the game. If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Prefacing my reply with the fact that first, I'm a backer, and secondly, I am a former Daoc player.
The fact you would suggest this conversation only take place on the backers forum because of the notion that someone who didn't back the game couldn't offer a good idea as to potential systems or the direction of the game is elitist. Statements like this are one of the biggest reasons people are turned away from this game right now. Trolls are going to troll but just because someone didn't put money into this game you and I have doesn't in any way mean they don't have good input. It would be beneficial to the game and the entire community to alter your view.
I'll adjust and play this game no matter what combat system they end up using but I feel a game where the focus is PvP, is going to have to focus more on player skill and not who has better RNG numbers while tab targeting.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc.
[mod edit]
Yeah they said its not DAoC 2, that doesn't mean any kind of stupid mechanic is fair game, might aswell have helicopters as mounts and make it turnbased? Cause its not DAoC 2 right?
Come on, its more than just the skeleton. How many RvR games with 3 sides and non mirrored classes that are based on arthurian legends are there? I mean sure, we could pretend it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made, like maybe by the same person. Sure we could tell us that, but who would we be kidding? Also DAoC is owned by EA, so obviously CU will not be DAoC 2 because thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
And yes, DAoC players that backed the game are more important than non DAoC that did not back the game. If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Prefacing my reply with the fact that first, I'm a backer, and secondly, I am a former Daoc player.
The fact you would suggest this conversation only take place on the backers forum because of the notion that someone who didn't back the game couldn't offer a good idea as to potential systems or the direction of the game is elitist. Statements like this are one of the biggest reasons people are turned away from this game right now. Trolls are going to troll but just because someone didn't put money into this game you and I have doesn't in any way mean they don't have good input. It would be beneficial to the game and the entire community to alter your view.
I'll adjust and play this game no matter what combat system they end up using but I feel a game where the focus is PvP, is going to have to focus more on player skill and not who has better RNG numbers while tab targeting.
There is a time and place for things and this and now is neither. Also its not elitist to discuss procedures with those it affects instead of a wider public. There is a community around CU, at this point in time this community consists of founders and noone else. MJ has to take their opinions into consideration, not some kind of wider consensus among MMO gamers in general.
This might need some getting used to, but this is not your usual MMO discussion about a game thats basicly done. This is about making a game, that in most part only exists on a drawingboard. And that requires focus. Not consensus, not compromises, and not a bazillion different ideas and "lets just implement both" approaches.
Anyway im not saying not to discuss things, just pointing out that for that discussion to have an effect on development it needs to happen in a closed circle, like backers. Its pointless if there are 90% of people in favor of some idea, but none of them are backers. This forum is notorious for people discussing features of games they have no intention of ever playing.
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc.
[mod edit]
Yeah they said its not DAoC 2, that doesn't mean any kind of stupid mechanic is fair game, might aswell have helicopters as mounts and make it turnbased? Cause its not DAoC 2 right?
Come on, its more than just the skeleton. How many RvR games with 3 sides and non mirrored classes that are based on arthurian legends are there? I mean sure, we could pretend it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made, like maybe by the same person. Sure we could tell us that, but who would we be kidding? Also DAoC is owned by EA, so obviously CU will not be DAoC 2 because thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
And yes, DAoC players that backed the game are more important than non DAoC that did not back the game. If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Prefacing my reply with the fact that first, I'm a backer, and secondly, I am a former Daoc player.
The fact you would suggest this conversation only take place on the backers forum because of the notion that someone who didn't back the game couldn't offer a good idea as to potential systems or the direction of the game is elitist. Statements like this are one of the biggest reasons people are turned away from this game right now. Trolls are going to troll but just because someone didn't put money into this game you and I have doesn't in any way mean they don't have good input. It would be beneficial to the game and the entire community to alter your view.
I'll adjust and play this game no matter what combat system they end up using but I feel a game where the focus is PvP, is going to have to focus more on player skill and not who has better RNG numbers while tab targeting.
There is a time and place for things and this and now is neither. Also its not elitist to discuss procedures with those it affects instead of a wider public. There is a community around CU, at this point in time this community consists of founders and noone else. MJ has to take their opinions into consideration, not some kind of wider consensus among MMO gamers in general.
This might need some getting used to, but this is not your usual MMO discussion about a game thats basicly done. This is about making a game, that in most part only exists on a drawingboard. And that requires focus. Not consensus, not compromises, and not a bazillion different ideas and "lets just implement both" approaches.
Anyway im not saying not to discuss things, just pointing out that for that discussion to have an effect on development it needs to happen in a closed circle, like backers. Its pointless if there are 90% of people in favor of some idea, but none of them are backers. This forum is notorious for people discussing features of games they have no intention of ever playing.
The backers forums isn't up so this is the place (or the subreddit) to discuss this until they put them up. You are right it isn't elitist to discuss potential design choices with just your backers when you have offical forums up. It is however elitist to suggest, like you did, that people who didn't back this game can't possibly bring anything to this discussion at this point in time based solely on the fact they haven't backed the game. The CU community isn't just made up of backers. I know plenty of people interested in the game who didn't back and certaintly are currently part of this community. At least until the official forums go up.
There's no need to get used to it. People who backed this game did so with the understanding, just like you said, of the game just being in a "blackboard" form. I'd personally rather have a bazillion different ideas to present to potential backers in place of just it "must be full tab target" or "full aiming." Hence why MJ spoke of a hybrid system. Having more ideas to analyze and potentially flesh out does nothing but make this game better.
It's pretty arrogant of you to think that just because a discussion going on here, with people who haven't backed the game, couldn't be carried over into the backers forum and have ideas non backers suggested have an effect on the design process given it's a widely accepted idea. This is why I view your statements as elitist. More discussion means more ideas which in turn means more options and ultimately leads to a better game. People who are bringing constructive logical ideas to this discussion have every right, at least on this forum, to add to the pot of potential systems to be used if they have backed the game or not. It's our job as backers to take those ideas and transfer them to the official forum when they get put up and give CSE the most information possible so they can create something everyone can live with.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
The backers forums isn't up so this is the place (or the subreddit) to discuss this until they put them up. You are right it isn't elitist to discuss potential design choices with just your backers when you have offical forums up. It is however elitist to suggest, like you did, that people who didn't back this game can't possibly bring anything to this discussion at this point in time based solely on the fact they haven't backed the game. The CU community isn't just made up of backers. I know plenty of people interested in the game who didn't back and certaintly are currently part of this community. At least until the official forums go up.
Maybe i wasn't very clear. Its not that people who didn't back the game can't add anything to an discussion. What i don't want to see is that people, who didn't back the game because they didn't agree with MJ design choices now would try to chance the way to their liking through the backdoor so to speak, i.e. changing it away from the game i backed.
There's no need to get used to it. People who backed this game did so with the understanding, just like you said, of the game just being in a "blackboard" form. I'd personally rather have a bazillion different ideas to present to potential backers in place of just it "must be full tab target" or "full aiming." Hence why MJ spoke of a hybrid system. Having more ideas to analyze and potentially flesh out does nothing but make this game better.
Its not about having a bazillion ideas, its about making clear which ideas come from where so as not to give an false impression as to what people want. On these forums there is always a hungry crowd waiting for the next MMO like a bunch of locusts only to move on quickly, heh im prolly one of them.
It's pretty arrogant of you to think that just because a discussion going on here, with people who haven't backed the game, couldn't be carried over into the backers forum and have ideas non backers suggested have an effect on the design process given it's a widely accepted idea. This is why I view your statements as elitist. More discussion means more ideas which in turn means more options and ultimately leads to a better game. People who are bringing constructive logical ideas to this discussion have every right, at least on this forum, to add to the pot of potential systems to be used if they have backed the game or not. It's our job as backers to take those ideas and transfer them to the official forum when they get put up and give CSE the most information possible so they can create something everyone can live with.
Heh, your the one assuming to know what i think and yet you call me arrogant. Sure we can carry things over, infact thats what i said we should do. What i view as being pointless is polling people with possibly no connection to the game as to what they would like. Kinda reminds me about our media here in germany polling germans which US president they would like, epitome of stupidity. Even if we could have somehow influenced the outcome of the election it would have been extremely unethical. And even just suggesting that germans have a preference for one or the other was plain rude in my eyes.
Simply put there are groups of people, can be nations, religions, LGBT or gaming communities. And yes of course you can involve yourself in a group you are not part of and give them advice or polls, but trying to form them into something else that you personally would prefer? Seems like a good idea to get even sensible ideas shot down because "they" are "lobbying" for it.
So yeah, sure go ahead and prepare a list of threads and polls and votes about what the mmorpg.com community would like to see in CU. And then watch it getting torn apart because people will be afraid of outsiders taking charge of "their" thing. Thats human nature, unless of course every CU backer is a member of this forum anyway and thus won't see this as outside meddling, which imho is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe i wasn't very clear. Its not that people who didn't back the game can't add anything to an discussion. What i don't want to see is that people, who didn't back the game because they didn't agree with MJ design choices now would try to chance the way to their liking through the backdoor so to speak, i.e. changing it away from the game i backed.
Its not about having a bazillion ideas, its about making clear which ideas come from where so as not to give an false impression as to what people want. On these forums there is always a hungry crowd waiting for the next MMO like a bunch of locusts only to move on quickly, heh im prolly one of them.
Heh, your the one assuming to know what i think and yet you call me arrogant. Sure we can carry things over, infact thats what i said we should do. What i view as being pointless is polling people with possibly no connection to the game as to what they would like. Kinda reminds me about our media here in germany polling germans which US president they would like, epitome of stupidity. Even if we could have somehow influenced the outcome of the election it would have been extremely unethical. And even just suggesting that germans have a preference for one or the other was plain rude in my eyes.
Simply put there are groups of people, can be nations, religions, LGBT or gaming communities. And yes of course you can involve yourself in a group you are not part of and give them advice or polls, but trying to form them into something else that you personally would prefer? Seems like a good idea to get even sensible ideas shot down because "they" are "lobbying" for it.
So yeah, sure go ahead and prepare a list of threads and polls and votes about what the mmorpg.com community would like to see in CU. And then watch it getting torn apart because people will be afraid of outsiders taking charge of "their" thing. Thats human nature, unless of course every CU backer is a member of this forum anyway and thus won't see this as outside meddling, which imho is a bit of a stretch.
@OP It was not my aim (heh pun intended) to derail this thread OP for that I am sorry and will make this my last response.
@Rocketeer I agree your initial explanation was a bit vague but your clarification of it is what I think everyone agrees. When the backers forums come up and we start to interact with CSE and begin to help design this game hopefully it will only be choices the backers want and not some outside entity. As far as having a ton of ideas I still stand by my statement. Although I agree the purpose of this post was aimed (again pun haha) at polling posters what they thought about OP's idea we can see most posters gave an example along with their response to the OP's question. They are just ideas but when we get to the point as backers we are voicing our opinions on the official forums it isn't going to hurt to have a more educated population. Educated in having been exposed to the most amount of ideas possible so they may take everything into consideration and make a much more educated choice in preferred design choice.
As far as me assuming what you meant, your initial state of "If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game" is what I took issue with. It's an arrogant elitist statement. I can't read it any other way than "Let's start up (not carry over because we should end it here) the conversation when official forums come up, I don't see the point in discussing topics like this unless everyone involved is a backer." Now maybe that's not what you meant but that's how it reads. Perhaps you meant carry over in place of renew in which case it's a diction error. My original point was there's no logical reason not to have a discussion about this stuff on these boards until the official forums get brought up.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Hahaha, seriously. You make it sound like CUs some weird modern religion, pay your entrance fee and you are one of the important people. Anything less, your opinions and idea are worthless.
Fact is MJ himself has said from the very start, even made a point of it, that CU isn't DAoC 2. That doesnt mean "it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made", what it does mean is DAoC isnt some kind of leverage to dismiss ideas and people.
If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
Hahaha, seriously. You make it sound like CUs some weird modern religion, pay your entrance fee and you are one of the important people. Anything less, your opinions and idea are worthless.
Fact is MJ himself has said from the very start, even made a point of it, that CU isn't DAoC 2. That doesnt mean "it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made", what it does mean is DAoC isnt some kind of leverage to dismiss ideas and people.
Or maybe i meant that literally. I.e. lets bring this to the backer forum once it goes live and see how they think about our different standpoints.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics. Just like i don't care about the opinion a muslim in pakistan has about the pork eating here in germany. Sure they may have an opinion about it, and they may certainly express it. But i don't care. Because it has nothing to do with them and is none of their business(again, literally, not the keep your nose out of it meaning).
If your not a backer the development of the game has nothing to do with you. At the end of the day those who pay for the music decide what songs get played, if you can't deal with that you will be in for one tough life because thats how the world goes.
Edit: If CSE and MJ wanted input from non-backers at this point they wouldn't make the forums backer only.
I find this conversation somewhat amusing. I think the small group of hardliners who just want all of the mechanics to be lifted directly from DAOC without any changes are going to be in for a surprise when we get to the backers forums and start to figure out who all has pledged at what levels.
If we're going with the ridiculous "money is speech" route then theres probably just around a 100 people out of 15000 backers who were actually willing to pledge more than me.
Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from. Certainly we can decided for ourselves through intelligent debate whether an idea is actually good or not, but using ad-hominem attacks to fight potential ideas is a prime tactic of blind zealotry.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics.
Without resorting to any inflammatory language, I simply disagree with this. Good ideas are often scarce, and I would not discriminate based on their origin. Also, today's non-backer can still be tomorrow's backer. I feel we are still in the position of courting more backers and shunning folks you deem as not part of the community seems to work against this aim.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics.
Without resorting to any inflammatory language, I simply disagree with this. Good ideas are often scarce, and I would not discriminate based on their origin. Also, today's non-backer can still be tomorrow's backer. I feel we are still in the position of courting more backers and shunning folks you deem as not part of the community seems to work against this aim.
My two cents.
I wouldn't phrase it the same way as Rocketeer put it but I ahve to somewhat agree if only in function. Once the backer forums are up CSE will clearly pull the information and suggestions from those boards over any other forum. If you are not a backer ... you won't be on the backer forums.
People had the chance to donate yet many chose not to for varied and often strange reasons. The choice really was very simple: If you liked the concept and thought you may eventually try the game if it got made then you should have backed it. Any excuse not to back outside of that was trivial and expectations of having your weight behind your suggestions is now inconsequential.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics.
Without resorting to any inflammatory language, I simply disagree with this. Good ideas are often scarce, and I would not discriminate based on their origin. Also, today's non-backer can still be tomorrow's backer. I feel we are still in the position of courting more backers and shunning folks you deem as not part of the community seems to work against this aim.
My two cents.
I wouldn't phrase it the same way as Rocketeer put it but I ahve to somewhat agree if only in function. Once the backer forums are up CSE will clearly pull the information and suggestions from those boards over any other forum. If you are not a backer ... you won't be on the backer forums.
People had the chance to donate yet many chose not to for varied and often strange reasons. The choice really was very simple: If you liked the concept and thought you may eventually try the game if it got made then you should have backed it. Any excuse not to back outside of that was trivial and expectations of having your weight behind your suggestions is now inconsequential.
My point is the backing stage is still very much in process and we should embrace folks who want to discuss CU as they may still become backers. Once backing is complete and the Founder's Forum is activated, I am fine with containing certain conversations to that community... but, at some stage of development and player recruitment, there will be other non-locked forums for non-backers and the larger community. These communities and their input have value as well. The game is not being made just for backers. Believe me CSE needs more than 15,000 users. There is still time now and will be time later in development where new backers/players will be recruited and CSE will want their input as well.
I understand the real value of the Founder's Forum will be for CSE to take the "temperature" of the backers without dilution from non-backers. And, this value is unique and not to be replicated in "mixed" forums. However, the input from this closed community (however much it is weighed and valued) is not the only input that matters.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics.
Without resorting to any inflammatory language, I simply disagree with this. Good ideas are often scarce, and I would not discriminate based on their origin. Also, today's non-backer can still be tomorrow's backer. I feel we are still in the position of courting more backers and shunning folks you deem as not part of the community seems to work against this aim.
My two cents.
And how do you decide whats a good idea and what not? By posting it on the backers forum and see what people think about. Thats the entire point as far as i can see.
The way some people talk ideas are either good or bad which is imho wrong. They have to be seen in the context of the playerbase, something that sounds like a good idea to your average mmo gamer, like raids or pve leveling would be a bad idea given the crowd MJ actually appealed to with his KS. Not because including pve is a bad idea, infact it undoubtly would increase the games general appeal, but because its a bad idea in the context of this game.
This is about the kind of game CSE and MJ wants to make, and the people referred to as backers are people who agreed with them and share their vision atleast in some part. So with all due respect people seem to be missing from my posts, this is not the place to decide wether or not a idea is good or bad in the context of CU. Which is why i threw in the notion of "hey, lets talk about this specific idea afresh when backer forums open" instead of going "okay, this is where stopped, we already agreed to do xy and ...".
So yeah, collecting all kinds of ideas sure, good idea. But we will still have to talk about them in backers forum.
Comments
I agree. On the surface it sounds like a good idea but that would not only relegate an archer to a secondary class char that NEEDs to have someone else in order to be effective, it also adds the fun root > die chain for good measure. Not only am i going to be rooted and unable to move, but now there is a uber-powerful aimed shot incoming i can't evade because i can't move.
Im sorry but for me that sounds suspiciously like combining all the annoying things of CC and one hit kill movies into one neat package. Im sure thats going to be fun to the archer and his buddy/team, but it doesn't sound all that fun to the one on the receiving end A totally gimped solo(a scoutclass requirering a group would be a little strange) where he can't hit targets while at the same time op in groups where people hold stuff down for him.
Its ... just not how i envision the game.
If you really need aim based anything, i'd guess it makes sense for siege engines. For an archer in a fastpaced RvR game, with again 100s of people on the screen fighting back and forth i just don't see it for weapons without major splashdamage. Even most shooters only make it work with either instant travel projectiles or rockets or stuff. Playing Battlefield with bows ... i don't think it would be fun even if you like shooters.
We'll since apparently they are the ones paying for the development of the game ... i'd say they get it their way.
Only fair, if you want a twitch based shooter MMO go and back one on KS. But taking the money of DaoC players and then making a game from it they can't stand ... thats not exactly nice.
Just imho, but compromises hurt games. Whats next, should we add some PvE instances and raids as a compromise for those who don't want to pvp? Where do we stop with the compromises? When you are satisfied? When everyone is satisfied?
Personally i'd say we go all in, RvR like camelot, crafting like minecraft(light), fluidity of combat like WoW(many MMOs still fail at this) and controls like your standard MMO with tab based targeting(like warhammer, friend and foe at same) and lots of hotbars. Success will be determined through picking the right skill in the right situation, positionals and use of reactives as well as planning through your fight(i do this, then that, and then hopeflly he will ...).
Now don't get me wrong, im fully in favour of adding a aimbased class in an later expansion or something if there is a demand. But we should first get the basics down, which are imho the ones above. Once the basics are down and working well, sure why not we can add all kinds of exciting stuff. But lets not try to dance on two different balls at a time.
Yeah because they are the only people who where allowed to back the Kickstarter. The fact is trying to please DAoC diehards is the worst thing for CU, as they say "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Its not about who was allowed to back it, but about those who actually did. Ofc not everyone of those was a DaoC fan, i for one was not. But i agreed with the principle ideas of a DoaC like game without PvE. I think many others who backed the game felt similar, furthermore there was no indication this would be completely different kind of a game compared to DaoC sans the no pve part.
What im trying to say is, if you backed this game based on the available information(especially on the kickstarter itself) then you have no reason to complain if we get a DaoC clone with much better crafting, modern graphics and more sandbox features like player built towns and keeps etc. The rest, like 3 factions, non mirrored classes etc ... that kinda reminds me a bit of DaoC, atleast as far as i remember it.
Yeah they said its not DAoC 2, that doesn't mean any kind of stupid mechanic is fair game, might aswell have helicopters as mounts and make it turnbased? Cause its not DAoC 2 right?
Come on, its more than just the skeleton. How many RvR games with 3 sides and non mirrored classes that are based on arthurian legends are there? I mean sure, we could pretend it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made, like maybe by the same person. Sure we could tell us that, but who would we be kidding? Also DAoC is owned by EA, so obviously CU will not be DAoC 2 because thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
And yes, DAoC players that backed the game are more important than non DAoC that did not back the game. If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game.
That sounds like an interesting take. Wouldnt really be much harder than tab targetting most of the time, and could even be substantially faster than tab-cycling through potential targets in larger battles. Then you would also have the option to "free shoot" in situations where doing so was useful, such as arcing a volley over something.
The only complaint I could see would be someone dying to a target they never were able to pick out, and you could prevent that by just having you auto-acquire any target that hits you whenever you have no current target.
Sigh
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
The fact you would suggest this conversation only take place on the backers forum because of the notion that someone who didn't back the game couldn't offer a good idea as to potential systems or the direction of the game is elitist. Statements like this are one of the biggest reasons people are turned away from this game right now. Trolls are going to troll but just because someone didn't put money into this game you and I have doesn't in any way mean they don't have good input. It would be beneficial to the game and the entire community to alter your view.
I'll adjust and play this game no matter what combat system they end up using but I feel a game where the focus is PvP, is going to have to focus more on player skill and not who has better RNG numbers while tab targeting.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
There is a time and place for things and this and now is neither. Also its not elitist to discuss procedures with those it affects instead of a wider public. There is a community around CU, at this point in time this community consists of founders and noone else. MJ has to take their opinions into consideration, not some kind of wider consensus among MMO gamers in general.
This might need some getting used to, but this is not your usual MMO discussion about a game thats basicly done. This is about making a game, that in most part only exists on a drawingboard. And that requires focus. Not consensus, not compromises, and not a bazillion different ideas and "lets just implement both" approaches.
Anyway im not saying not to discuss things, just pointing out that for that discussion to have an effect on development it needs to happen in a closed circle, like backers. Its pointless if there are 90% of people in favor of some idea, but none of them are backers. This forum is notorious for people discussing features of games they have no intention of ever playing.
The backers forums isn't up so this is the place (or the subreddit) to discuss this until they put them up. You are right it isn't elitist to discuss potential design choices with just your backers when you have offical forums up. It is however elitist to suggest, like you did, that people who didn't back this game can't possibly bring anything to this discussion at this point in time based solely on the fact they haven't backed the game. The CU community isn't just made up of backers. I know plenty of people interested in the game who didn't back and certaintly are currently part of this community. At least until the official forums go up.
There's no need to get used to it. People who backed this game did so with the understanding, just like you said, of the game just being in a "blackboard" form. I'd personally rather have a bazillion different ideas to present to potential backers in place of just it "must be full tab target" or "full aiming." Hence why MJ spoke of a hybrid system. Having more ideas to analyze and potentially flesh out does nothing but make this game better.
It's pretty arrogant of you to think that just because a discussion going on here, with people who haven't backed the game, couldn't be carried over into the backers forum and have ideas non backers suggested have an effect on the design process given it's a widely accepted idea. This is why I view your statements as elitist. More discussion means more ideas which in turn means more options and ultimately leads to a better game. People who are bringing constructive logical ideas to this discussion have every right, at least on this forum, to add to the pot of potential systems to be used if they have backed the game or not. It's our job as backers to take those ideas and transfer them to the official forum when they get put up and give CSE the most information possible so they can create something everyone can live with.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
@Rocketeer I agree your initial explanation was a bit vague but your clarification of it is what I think everyone agrees. When the backers forums come up and we start to interact with CSE and begin to help design this game hopefully it will only be choices the backers want and not some outside entity. As far as having a ton of ideas I still stand by my statement. Although I agree the purpose of this post was aimed (again pun haha) at polling posters what they thought about OP's idea we can see most posters gave an example along with their response to the OP's question. They are just ideas but when we get to the point as backers we are voicing our opinions on the official forums it isn't going to hurt to have a more educated population. Educated in having been exposed to the most amount of ideas possible so they may take everything into consideration and make a much more educated choice in preferred design choice.
As far as me assuming what you meant, your initial state of "If your a backer we should renew this discussion on the founders forums once they open, but i don't see the point in discussing game mechanics or direction at this point in time with people who as likely as not didn't even back the game" is what I took issue with. It's an arrogant elitist statement. I can't read it any other way than "Let's start up (not carry over because we should end it here) the conversation when official forums come up, I don't see the point in discussing topics like this unless everyone involved is a backer." Now maybe that's not what you meant but that's how it reads. Perhaps you meant carry over in place of renew in which case it's a diction error. My original point was there's no logical reason not to have a discussion about this stuff on these boards until the official forums get brought up.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
Hahaha, seriously. You make it sound like CUs some weird modern religion, pay your entrance fee and you are one of the important people. Anything less, your opinions and idea are worthless.
Fact is MJ himself has said from the very start, even made a point of it, that CU isn't DAoC 2. That doesnt mean "it will be a completely novel game bearing no resemblance to any game ever made", what it does mean is DAoC isnt some kind of leverage to dismiss ideas and people.
Or maybe i meant that literally. I.e. lets bring this to the backer forum once it goes live and see how they think about our different standpoints.
And yes, if your not a backer i don't care about your opinion on gamemechanics. Just like i don't care about the opinion a muslim in pakistan has about the pork eating here in germany. Sure they may have an opinion about it, and they may certainly express it. But i don't care. Because it has nothing to do with them and is none of their business(again, literally, not the keep your nose out of it meaning).
If your not a backer the development of the game has nothing to do with you. At the end of the day those who pay for the music decide what songs get played, if you can't deal with that you will be in for one tough life because thats how the world goes.
Edit: If CSE and MJ wanted input from non-backers at this point they wouldn't make the forums backer only.
I find this conversation somewhat amusing. I think the small group of hardliners who just want all of the mechanics to be lifted directly from DAOC without any changes are going to be in for a surprise when we get to the backers forums and start to figure out who all has pledged at what levels.
If we're going with the ridiculous "money is speech" route then theres probably just around a 100 people out of 15000 backers who were actually willing to pledge more than me.
Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from. Certainly we can decided for ourselves through intelligent debate whether an idea is actually good or not, but using ad-hominem attacks to fight potential ideas is a prime tactic of blind zealotry.
Without resorting to any inflammatory language, I simply disagree with this. Good ideas are often scarce, and I would not discriminate based on their origin. Also, today's non-backer can still be tomorrow's backer. I feel we are still in the position of courting more backers and shunning folks you deem as not part of the community seems to work against this aim.
My two cents.
I wouldn't phrase it the same way as Rocketeer put it but I ahve to somewhat agree if only in function. Once the backer forums are up CSE will clearly pull the information and suggestions from those boards over any other forum. If you are not a backer ... you won't be on the backer forums.
People had the chance to donate yet many chose not to for varied and often strange reasons. The choice really was very simple: If you liked the concept and thought you may eventually try the game if it got made then you should have backed it. Any excuse not to back outside of that was trivial and expectations of having your weight behind your suggestions is now inconsequential.
You stay sassy!
My point is the backing stage is still very much in process and we should embrace folks who want to discuss CU as they may still become backers. Once backing is complete and the Founder's Forum is activated, I am fine with containing certain conversations to that community... but, at some stage of development and player recruitment, there will be other non-locked forums for non-backers and the larger community. These communities and their input have value as well. The game is not being made just for backers. Believe me CSE needs more than 15,000 users. There is still time now and will be time later in development where new backers/players will be recruited and CSE will want their input as well.
I understand the real value of the Founder's Forum will be for CSE to take the "temperature" of the backers without dilution from non-backers. And, this value is unique and not to be replicated in "mixed" forums. However, the input from this closed community (however much it is weighed and valued) is not the only input that matters.
And how do you decide whats a good idea and what not? By posting it on the backers forum and see what people think about. Thats the entire point as far as i can see.
The way some people talk ideas are either good or bad which is imho wrong. They have to be seen in the context of the playerbase, something that sounds like a good idea to your average mmo gamer, like raids or pve leveling would be a bad idea given the crowd MJ actually appealed to with his KS. Not because including pve is a bad idea, infact it undoubtly would increase the games general appeal, but because its a bad idea in the context of this game.
This is about the kind of game CSE and MJ wants to make, and the people referred to as backers are people who agreed with them and share their vision atleast in some part. So with all due respect people seem to be missing from my posts, this is not the place to decide wether or not a idea is good or bad in the context of CU. Which is why i threw in the notion of "hey, lets talk about this specific idea afresh when backer forums open" instead of going "okay, this is where stopped, we already agreed to do xy and ...".
So yeah, collecting all kinds of ideas sure, good idea. But we will still have to talk about them in backers forum.
It is assuredly so!
We'll talk about them here. We'll talk about them there. We'll talk about them everywhere!