ohh so each "world" is actually an instance and we will be initially in eternal kingdom which is actually a "lobby". Awesome!!! very innovative!! never done before in the history of gaming, good job!!!
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Originally posted by jesteralways ohh so each "world" is actually an instance and we will be initially in eternal kingdom which is actually a "lobby". Awesome!!! very innovative!! never done before in the history of gaming, good job!!!
Interesting spin on this that I've seen folks posting here and there. Generally if someone doesn't like it, they'll reduce it to the most negative terms possible, which I suppose would be lobby game.
For those that are still a bit neutral or still curious it's important to note a significant difference Crowfall has from lobby games. In a lobby game, players create their own instance for themselves, their team and their opponents. These matches are of short duration, typically 30-45 minutes. There are usually hundreds of individual instances going on at any one time. Crowfall's system, as the devs explained it, works differently. Each world (server) is persistent and seamless - not a unique or individual instance. Worlds will have a cycle in which they will eventually end in some cataclysm. Once that world is destroyed over a period of undetermined length (1 week, 1 month, 1 year - it's not determined yet) a new world is created. Meanwhile there are other worlds that remain permanent. Think Asgard - a home of the gods (players). These zones are where players show off their spoils, meet in their guild housing (yup, it's in there) and plan for their next invasion.
I doubt this game will be my cup of tea, as a player who liked a lot UO and DFO, huge persistent worlds.
The point is, i don't find interesting or rewarding play for a month in a session, then the session is resetted and you lose all the things you do, the town you conquered, the mines, the point of interest.
You lose all your conquest and back to the lobby like nothing happen, then you wait that the list of players if full again and start another session in a infinite loop.
Meh.
I find this concept awfull, because i want to keep what i conquer, and i think that only other players have the right to stole it from me, not someone that press an OFF button and everything back like at beginning.
It remind me a lot of GW2 WvW or games like Vindictus, lobby games with the instance resetted, you just play a bit and when you are bored leave, in the end you gain nothing or lose nothing, just character progression. Very boring and redundant.
Not to mention that these sessions will be likely limited on the numer of player that can be allowed, probably a 100 vs 100 multiple-instance or something like this.
Is so hard make a true massive and persistent sandbox game like UO? Devs don't believe anymore in old school mmorpgs? Nowadays the mmorpg are all instanced and fragmented, they lose this old feeling where the enviroment around you is live, and you can change it along with thousands of people in the same seamless world.
Smart to have eternal worlds for housing/farms/guild halls etc.
Kind of Eden worlds to hang out on, bring your spoils of war to your home to show off kind of thing.
I wonder if they'll allow crafters to hang out in the eternal worlds, safe from conflict, with their guildies providing the materials from their campaigns.
I only worry about what controls they are going to put on the economy.
EVE did this right before by having NPC created goods on the market to regulate prices a bit, but then they got rid of it and that only = inflation, but it makes the uber crafter/economists happy... and screws everyone else.
SWG had that problem big time - even basic goods were SO expensive from the crafters, massive price gouging - unless you played 24/7 or were in tight with a good crafter you simply couldn't afford high-end gear.
I still think if you are going to make an RTS, make an RTS. Why morph it into an MMO? How does adding more players improve the experience? At least if you control your own army you are responsible for your own destiny. Here you will rely on others I assume.
Why try anything different? Because people might like it I'm assuming.
I dislike RTS as it is all me micromanaging a bunch of AI and other crap I don't care about. 1 vs 1 or whatever the map/team setup is. Boring.
I want to be part of something larger than myself. Hello Crowfall.
No offense, but this type of thinking is what has really caused the genre to become less appealing, at least myself and apparently others that have been around for a while where it wasn't all about me me me. The whole "virtual world" or community aspect is really appealing to some. Regardless of what game model it is behind.
With that said, this doesn't sound like a RTS if comparing apples to apples. Some shared superficial concepts, but not the same at all.
I don't really have anything against trying something different. I just think it should be something different that relates to MMO's , not just tacking another game type onto an MMO.
But I could be wrong here, time will tell, as it usually does.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Sadly another game that has a great vision but simply wont retain the number of players needed to fulfill that vision.
Looks like something akin to Defiance with 'seasons'. I suspect each rebirth will take a full year to occur and the seasons they mention above will be in line with season in the Northern Hemisphere.
So basically a rebirth is a new expansion but without the old world. So all they need are a few maps and they have a long term amount of 'content'.
Cheap and easy approach but one that I doubt will keep peoples attention. I have said it for along time now PvP in MMOs is a dead concept, and this is more FPS mentality that MMO.
What they also fail to mention is what you get for 'winning', how they will balance factions (as it becomes more and more clear who is winning) or how they will keep interest on losing factions to keep playing. Or if you can play more than one faction per season, or any of those other extremely pertinent questions eveyrone seems to forget when they are blinded by the 'cool' stuff.
Crowfall reminds me a TON of the old MUD called Genocide. It placed players in random places on a MUD map and then all the monsters exploded. You had to collect the weapons and armors...
I really like the general direction they are going with this, although I wonder why it's necessary to have a "winner" for a given world. Seems to me it should just be "you keep what you got". If you managed to hide out and escape from the rampaging horde with an armful of stuff, that should be better than just quitting when it looks like your side is out of the running. The winners don't need an artificial bonus, they're going to get the bulk of the goodies through natural processes.
Also, they're going to need something like the ArcheAge labor system (yes I know, booooo) from preventing 24/7 shut-ins from dominating the game over players with RL responsibilities. Not a profit ceiling, but diminishing returns. (Perhaps "The Hunger" will provide this)
Originally posted by rounner So what happens if you start halfway through, are you gimped?
Depends on the ruleset, some have import rules that allow you to bring any equipped items with you, some rulesets start you naked. So it depends on the campaign, but joining FFA ruleset with no importing at all when the server is at winter phase propably isn't a good idea.
This could work if there were two matching systems.
1. For organized/coordinated guild or team groups.
2. Randoms who solo queue into a new world and are placed into a random faction.
The biggest problem with these games is the mega guild and how dominant these entities can be, esp nowadays where players will gladly jump ship from the weaker side so that they can win and have shinies. A matchmaking system would pit guilds against guilds and randoms against randoms.
If something like this isn't put in place, then we'll just see a burst of people super excited at the start, only to find themselves miserable that they can't really participate and aren't viable against the dominating guild/team/whatever it's called.
Originally posted by BillMurphy Also explains the Hunger Resistance stat. I was a little worried that we'd be eating blackberries all game long (h1z1?)
LOL Bill. I guess my question is how does destroying the world every campaign effect immersion in the game?
In my persective immersion has been lost in many mmo's in the last few years.
Comments
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Interesting spin on this that I've seen folks posting here and there. Generally if someone doesn't like it, they'll reduce it to the most negative terms possible, which I suppose would be lobby game.
For those that are still a bit neutral or still curious it's important to note a significant difference Crowfall has from lobby games. In a lobby game, players create their own instance for themselves, their team and their opponents. These matches are of short duration, typically 30-45 minutes. There are usually hundreds of individual instances going on at any one time. Crowfall's system, as the devs explained it, works differently. Each world (server) is persistent and seamless - not a unique or individual instance. Worlds will have a cycle in which they will eventually end in some cataclysm. Once that world is destroyed over a period of undetermined length (1 week, 1 month, 1 year - it's not determined yet) a new world is created. Meanwhile there are other worlds that remain permanent. Think Asgard - a home of the gods (players). These zones are where players show off their spoils, meet in their guild housing (yup, it's in there) and plan for their next invasion.
I doubt this game will be my cup of tea, as a player who liked a lot UO and DFO, huge persistent worlds.
The point is, i don't find interesting or rewarding play for a month in a session, then the session is resetted and you lose all the things you do, the town you conquered, the mines, the point of interest.
You lose all your conquest and back to the lobby like nothing happen, then you wait that the list of players if full again and start another session in a infinite loop.
Meh.
I find this concept awfull, because i want to keep what i conquer, and i think that only other players have the right to stole it from me, not someone that press an OFF button and everything back like at beginning.
It remind me a lot of GW2 WvW or games like Vindictus, lobby games with the instance resetted, you just play a bit and when you are bored leave, in the end you gain nothing or lose nothing, just character progression. Very boring and redundant.
Not to mention that these sessions will be likely limited on the numer of player that can be allowed, probably a 100 vs 100 multiple-instance or something like this.
Is so hard make a true massive and persistent sandbox game like UO? Devs don't believe anymore in old school mmorpgs? Nowadays the mmorpg are all instanced and fragmented, they lose this old feeling where the enviroment around you is live, and you can change it along with thousands of people in the same seamless world.
Smart to have eternal worlds for housing/farms/guild halls etc.
Kind of Eden worlds to hang out on, bring your spoils of war to your home to show off kind of thing.
I wonder if they'll allow crafters to hang out in the eternal worlds, safe from conflict, with their guildies providing the materials from their campaigns.
I only worry about what controls they are going to put on the economy.
EVE did this right before by having NPC created goods on the market to regulate prices a bit, but then they got rid of it and that only = inflation, but it makes the uber crafter/economists happy... and screws everyone else.
SWG had that problem big time - even basic goods were SO expensive from the crafters, massive price gouging - unless you played 24/7 or were in tight with a good crafter you simply couldn't afford high-end gear.
I don't really have anything against trying something different. I just think it should be something different that relates to MMO's , not just tacking another game type onto an MMO.
But I could be wrong here, time will tell, as it usually does.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Sadly another game that has a great vision but simply wont retain the number of players needed to fulfill that vision.
Looks like something akin to Defiance with 'seasons'. I suspect each rebirth will take a full year to occur and the seasons they mention above will be in line with season in the Northern Hemisphere.
So basically a rebirth is a new expansion but without the old world. So all they need are a few maps and they have a long term amount of 'content'.
Cheap and easy approach but one that I doubt will keep peoples attention. I have said it for along time now PvP in MMOs is a dead concept, and this is more FPS mentality that MMO.
What they also fail to mention is what you get for 'winning', how they will balance factions (as it becomes more and more clear who is winning) or how they will keep interest on losing factions to keep playing. Or if you can play more than one faction per season, or any of those other extremely pertinent questions eveyrone seems to forget when they are blinded by the 'cool' stuff.
I really like the general direction they are going with this, although I wonder why it's necessary to have a "winner" for a given world. Seems to me it should just be "you keep what you got". If you managed to hide out and escape from the rampaging horde with an armful of stuff, that should be better than just quitting when it looks like your side is out of the running. The winners don't need an artificial bonus, they're going to get the bulk of the goodies through natural processes.
Also, they're going to need something like the ArcheAge labor system (yes I know, booooo) from preventing 24/7 shut-ins from dominating the game over players with RL responsibilities. Not a profit ceiling, but diminishing returns. (Perhaps "The Hunger" will provide this)
Depends on the ruleset, some have import rules that allow you to bring any equipped items with you, some rulesets start you naked. So it depends on the campaign, but joining FFA ruleset with no importing at all when the server is at winter phase propably isn't a good idea.
This could work if there were two matching systems.
1. For organized/coordinated guild or team groups.
2. Randoms who solo queue into a new world and are placed into a random faction.
The biggest problem with these games is the mega guild and how dominant these entities can be, esp nowadays where players will gladly jump ship from the weaker side so that they can win and have shinies. A matchmaking system would pit guilds against guilds and randoms against randoms.
If something like this isn't put in place, then we'll just see a burst of people super excited at the start, only to find themselves miserable that they can't really participate and aren't viable against the dominating guild/team/whatever it's called.
LOL Bill. I guess my question is how does destroying the world every campaign effect immersion in the game?
In my persective immersion has been lost in many mmo's in the last few years.