Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
How would you propose to handle issues like the rampant outgrowth of player-owned structures? Honestly, I see this as the biggest, single difficulty for the true sandbox: housing spam spoiling the pristine environment. We saw it in UO and, to a somewhat lesser degree, we saw it in SWG.
Physical is the biggest thing. Risk for growth is another, meaning pushing systems that demand greater collaboration. Like, a truly dangerous environment would push settling close to one another, thereby reducing the sprawl some. Greater destructibility would also be a factor. Picture a world with actual environmental disasters or rsisks -- floods, fires, etc -- and you can see how it could pretty naturally constrain spread.
Beyond that, of course, there's always just putting in artificial restrictions. It'd depend on the fictional setting, but there's plenty of plausible ways to do it.
'True' freedom might seem ideal, but it's actually not at all realistic, in that, in the real world, certain limiting factors (the distance a human could walk; the reasonable length of a horse-drawn cart ride; the presence of hostile peoples and/or animals) would essentially yoke human beings with restrictions as to how far out they could build civilizations prior to the advent of canals and railroads.
Yup. Many of these can be simulated in ways that are still fun, i think.
I like what you're doing with Crowfall -- really, I do. And I'm heavily considering dropping the $38 to fund this puppy. But I don't know if there are enough 'meta' activities to truly hold me. This is the same problem I have with EVE Online -- at the end of the day, a lot of EVE is just empty space. However, since EVE is persistent, I can at least wander into the neighbor's yard and suddenly be attacked by his angry dogs. Am I wrong in thinking that this 'unwelcome guest' scenario is impossible in CF?
I will leave CF questions to those on the team on a daily basis.
BTW, Raph, it's nice to see that, after a full decade, you're still willing to engage the community directly. +1.
I was actually unaware that Raph Koster was spearheading this particular project. Everyone involved in the original Ultima Online brought a very important piece to a puzzle that revoluntionized gaming... Koster was a *huge* part of that.
Crowfall has just made me sit up a little more straight.
I am happy to see your interest, but I am not "spearheading" Crowfall. it's unquestionably Todd Coleman's game, not mine. I just help out.
Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
Thanks!
Oh, I have spilled so much virtual ink on PVP... You might want to google my name plus "PvP" to find some stuff, if you are curious.
Crowfall is Todd's concept, and it's really in many ways an heir to Shadowbane. So it was PvP from the outset. I happen to think that various forms of player conflict are vital to MMOs -- but don't read that as only meaning player vs player combat. It includes things like competition for resources, economic competition, etc. It's one of the key things that keeps the world interesting, causing large enough changes in the environment to keep adding interest to the game.
in this case, Crowfall is very much aimed at people who want that competitive feeling. Those who engage in more peaceful pursuits are still doing it on behalf of factional warfare, as part of supply chains, etc. It's overall, not a pacifist game, though you can live a fairly pacifist existence within it. The large scale core loop is about PvP, in that stuff done in the Eternal Kingdoms basically serves to supply warfare in the Campaigns; then stuff flowing out from the Campaigns lets you improve your Kingdom. Make sense?
Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
Thanks!
Oh, I have spilled so much virtual ink on PVP... You might want to google my name plus "PvP" to find some stuff, if you are curious.
Crowfall is Todd's concept, and it's really in many ways an heir to Shadowbane. So it was PvP from the outset. I happen to think that various forms of player conflict are vital to MMOs -- but don't read that as only meaning player vs player combat. It includes things like competition for resources, economic competition, etc. It's one of the key things that keeps the world interesting, causing large enough changes in the environment to keep adding interest to the game.
in this case, Crowfall is very much aimed at people who want that competitive feeling. Those who engage in more peaceful pursuits are still doing it on behalf of factional warfare, as part of supply chains, etc. It's overall, not a pacifist game, though you can live a fairly pacifist existence within it. The large scale core loop is about PvP, in that stuff done in the Eternal Kingdoms basically serves to supply warfare in the Campaigns; then stuff flowing out from the Campaigns lets you improve your Kingdom. Make sense?
I think so - what you're essentially saying is that you're designing Crowfall to appeal to a wide majority of players but that, at its core, PvP will be paramount. Combat won't be the only way to engage in PvP - so crafters/merchant/explorer type personalities can still find a home here, so long as a small part of them appreciates player conflict.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea - UO 2nd Age was my first true love in gaming... and very much was about what you're talking about. That being said, I feel that kinda model ultimately proved a bit hard to sustain in the long run. Granted, UO was so long ago and the technology wasn't there to really accommodate other playstyles... but Darkfall did try to follow in the spirit of UO but ultimately did not seize a competitive following despite having a lot of really cool things going for it.
What seems to happen in PvP-based MMOs - especially ones that require a lot of skill to be good in - is that below average players get punished a lot more then they are rewarded. They'll quest for 2 hours, make some poor decisions like carry too much gear around - stuff they can't afford to lose - and, after a sound butt-kicking, they get crushed. That happens a few more times, they ultimately leave the game in despair... something you clearly don't want and, in the long run, anyone who loves your game doesn't want. Because in the end, when enough of these players despair and leave... so will the predators, as he has no one left to hunt. And a lot of these "prey" players, given enough time, could have become predators... but they gave up too quickly or couldn't see any light at the end of their tunnel.
I guess a better way to ask my question is, how do you keep the prey (read: not as skilled players) hooked on the game long enough for them to grow to be predators - or not and just keep playing so that the predators will always have someone to hunt? If that makes sense?
Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
Thanks!
Oh, I have spilled so much virtual ink on PVP... You might want to google my name plus "PvP" to find some stuff, if you are curious.
Crowfall is Todd's concept, and it's really in many ways an heir to Shadowbane. So it was PvP from the outset. I happen to think that various forms of player conflict are vital to MMOs -- but don't read that as only meaning player vs player combat. It includes things like competition for resources, economic competition, etc. It's one of the key things that keeps the world interesting, causing large enough changes in the environment to keep adding interest to the game.
in this case, Crowfall is very much aimed at people who want that competitive feeling. Those who engage in more peaceful pursuits are still doing it on behalf of factional warfare, as part of supply chains, etc. It's overall, not a pacifist game, though you can live a fairly pacifist existence within it. The large scale core loop is about PvP, in that stuff done in the Eternal Kingdoms basically serves to supply warfare in the Campaigns; then stuff flowing out from the Campaigns lets you improve your Kingdom. Make sense?
I think so - what you're essentially saying is that you're designing Crowfall to appeal to a wide majority of players but that, at its core, PvP will be paramount. Combat won't be the only way to engage in PvP - so crafters/merchant/explorer type personalities can still find a home here, so long as a small part of them appreciates player conflict.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea - UO 2nd Age was my first true love in gaming... and very much was about what you're talking about. That being said, I feel that kinda model ultimately proved a bit hard to sustain in the long run. Granted, UO was so long ago and the technology wasn't there to really accommodate other playstyles... but Darkfall did try to follow in the spirit of UO but ultimately did not seize a competitive following despite having a lot of really cool things going for it.
What seems to happen in PvP-based MMOs - especially ones that require a lot of skill to be good in - is that it's overtly bad players get punished a lot. They'll quest for 2 hours, make some poor decisions like carry too much gear around - stuff they can't afford to lose - and, after a sound butt-kicking, they get crushed. That happens a few more times, they ultimately leave the game in despair... something you clearly don't want and, in the long run, anyone who loves your game doesn't want. Because in the end, when enough of these players despair and leave... so will the predator, as he has no one left to hunt.
I guess a better way to ask my question is, how do you keep the prey (read: not as skilled players) hooked on the game - so that the predators will always have someone to hunt? If that makes sense?
I think EVE kind of answered this question through its very existence: the strong survive; the weak cope or leave. You can take a more rigid stance like this in smaller market games, because you develop a very devoted following in doing so -- 'loyalists' who keep the title going through thick and thin.
Also, I'm fairly sure that CF is going to offer so-called 'blue' servers where FFA won't be a mechanic? I'm honestly not sure how to feel about that, if it's true, since it only serves to divide the community, even if it cracks the doors open a bit wider to admit more folks inside. Overall, I think if they commit to a hardcore model, provided its done well, people will get over it. Item loss is a thing, but experience loss was a big deal in SWG, and I barely remember it at all, let alone as a negative.
I'm not going to presume to speak for Raph or the development team, but for my part, I'm ready for a little more pain and punishment in my gaming these days. True investment in a PvP experience can only come through laying something on the line -- a risk-reward dynamic (which is the same thing that keeps casinos is business, I might add). Without the potential of loss, victory is meaningless -- nothing was ever in jeopardy. Thus, new players must overcome these hurdles (or not), and since this isn't some $100 million megabucks project, I think the design team can draw a line in the sand without risking failure.
I think you have to understand the whole campaign model of CF to understand why the scenario you're describing doesn't quite work that way. Each campaign is a time-limited thing, and they each can have differing rules. So basically, you're heading into a time-limited battle when you go int a campaign, and they aren't all necessarily FFA, etc. The players are taking sides in factions and trying to get their side to a victory.
This also means that losses are capped and curbed; not only by the fact that the campaign battles are time-limited, but also by the fact that you have to bring into the campaign the stuff that you will use... It's not the same as a single persistent FFA environment at all.
I am probably explaining it poorly, but you should go read the FAQs on the Crowfall site.
Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
Thanks!
Oh, I have spilled so much virtual ink on PVP... You might want to google my name plus "PvP" to find some stuff, if you are curious.
Crowfall is Todd's concept, and it's really in many ways an heir to Shadowbane. So it was PvP from the outset. I happen to think that various forms of player conflict are vital to MMOs -- but don't read that as only meaning player vs player combat. It includes things like competition for resources, economic competition, etc. It's one of the key things that keeps the world interesting, causing large enough changes in the environment to keep adding interest to the game.
in this case, Crowfall is very much aimed at people who want that competitive feeling. Those who engage in more peaceful pursuits are still doing it on behalf of factional warfare, as part of supply chains, etc. It's overall, not a pacifist game, though you can live a fairly pacifist existence within it. The large scale core loop is about PvP, in that stuff done in the Eternal Kingdoms basically serves to supply warfare in the Campaigns; then stuff flowing out from the Campaigns lets you improve your Kingdom. Make sense?
I think so - what you're essentially saying is that you're designing Crowfall to appeal to a wide majority of players but that, at its core, PvP will be paramount. Combat won't be the only way to engage in PvP - so crafters/merchant/explorer type personalities can still find a home here, so long as a small part of them appreciates player conflict.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea - UO 2nd Age was my first true love in gaming... and very much was about what you're talking about. That being said, I feel that kinda model ultimately proved a bit hard to sustain in the long run. Granted, UO was so long ago and the technology wasn't there to really accommodate other playstyles... but Darkfall did try to follow in the spirit of UO but ultimately did not seize a competitive following despite having a lot of really cool things going for it.
What seems to happen in PvP-based MMOs - especially ones that require a lot of skill to be good in - is that it's overtly bad players get punished a lot. They'll quest for 2 hours, make some poor decisions like carry too much gear around - stuff they can't afford to lose - and, after a sound butt-kicking, they get crushed. That happens a few more times, they ultimately leave the game in despair... something you clearly don't want and, in the long run, anyone who loves your game doesn't want. Because in the end, when enough of these players despair and leave... so will the predator, as he has no one left to hunt.
I guess a better way to ask my question is, how do you keep the prey (read: not as skilled players) hooked on the game - so that the predators will always have someone to hunt? If that makes sense?
I think EVE kind of answered this question through its very existence: the strong survive; the weak cope or leave. You can take a more rigid stance like this in smaller market games, because you develop a very devoted following in doing so -- 'loyalists' who keep the title going through thick and thin.
Also, I'm fairly sure that CF is going to offer so-called 'blue' servers where FFA won't be a mechanic? I'm honestly not sure how to feel about that, if it's true, since it only serves to divide the community, even if it cracks the doors open a bit wider to admit more folks inside. Overall, I think if they commit to a hardcore model, provided its done well, people will get over it. Item loss is a thing, but experience loss was a big deal in SWG, and I barely remember it at all, let alone as a negative.
I'm not going to presume to speak for Raph or the development team, but for my part, I'm ready for a little more pain and punishment in my gaming these days. True investment in a PvP experience can only come through laying something on the line -- a risk-reward dynamic (which is the same thing that keeps casinos is business, I might add). Without the potential of loss, victory is meaningless -- nothing was ever in jeopardy. Thus, new players must overcome these hurdles (or not), and since this isn't some $100 million megabucks project, I think the design team can draw a line in the sand without risking failure.
I hear you about EvE Online, and I love the way it came to be - a devout loyal following blossoming into more. EvE is not for me, namely because I'm more into traditional RPGs - controlling a character rather than a ship.
And yes, I don't envy the challenge it must be to balance risk/reward. Make the game not-punishing enough, victory loses it's flavor. But make the game too punishing, and suddenly, we're looking at plummeting subscriptions and a community that gradually cannabalizes its bottom 10% every month until the world is nearly empty, filled with a bunch of seasoned vets spending hours trying to find each other - or anyone - to have a good fight.
Regardless, I'm totally thrilled to see such seasoned designers revisiting this idea - essentially making the Warhammer: Age of Reckoning that never happened but really should have: the 95% PvP one.
I think you have to understand the whole campaign model of CF to understand why the scenario you're describing doesn't quite work that way. Each campaign is a time-limited thing, and they each can have differing rules. So basically, you're heading into a time-limited battle when you go int a campaign, and they aren't all necessarily FFA, etc. The players are taking sides in factions and trying to get their side to a victory.
This also means that losses are capped and curbed; not only by the fact that the campaign battles are time-limited, but also by the fact that you have to bring into the campaign the stuff that you will use... It's not the same as a single persistent FFA environment at all.
I am probably explaining it poorly, but you should go read the FAQs on the Crowfall site.
No, I get it. I've actually spent the bulk of this afternoon watcvhing the various interviews on Youtube.
I guess my one, big question about the campaigns is: is there a randomness factor to them? I hate to keep going back to the EVE Online trough, but as you are probably well aware, space combat in EVE is unpredictable business. One minute you might have the upper hand and be steamrolling your foe; the next minute, in warps a fleet allied to your enemies, and, whoops! You're getting your tail kicked!
So that takes us back to the randomness issue: is it present in CF? I noticed the tiering system for campaigns in those videos, but does at least one of them make allowances for the unexpected? Suddenly another nation allies with you (or your enemies), decisively turning the tide? Or perhaps a band of guild-less (or a small guild of) vagabonds wanders into your game, and decides to assist you or your foes?
I know that you understand how white-knuckle this kind of unpredictability can make things... but in a game like CF, which is SO based on these diplomatic concepts, I would think that you'd welcome the kind of last second "join us! We can offer you X!" "No, no! Join us! We'll give you Y!" "Forget THEM! We'll pay you Z if you'll just leave our war!" bartering that would definitely occur in these events.
If anyone's interested, I interviewed Raph in depth—five times the length of this Q&A—about UO, SWG, and Metaplace in my book, Online Game Pioneers at Work, which was recently published. There's also a 61-page interview with Richard Garriott about his entire career, from Ultima's inception to going into space to the present day.
I like everything I've heard about this game, I just hope they can deliver on it. I like that they are trying to do something a bit different. I gave up on kickstarters and pre-orders but I'll be looking to see how this does come release. This is one of the few crowd funded games I'm cautiously optimistic will be something worth playing.
I always like reading interviews with Raph Koster. There's always lots of "real" in them. That is rare and refreshing.
The last question and answer was really enjoyable to me. I can very much understand not wanting to stagnate into the same creative routine over the course of 20 years. I'm not the same gamer I was 10, 20, or 30 years ago either. I also appreciate the quip that says a fan will follow an artist even when that particular piece doesn't click.
My interest in pvp has really died over the last decade. Generally it's just very unsatisfying. I enjoyed Lineage for what it was, at the time, but nothing similar since then has clicked. While I appreciate the thought going into a lot of the design for Crowfall, the competitive "crush those around you" mentality is just lost on me now. Still I'm glad to see Mr. Koster has input in the game. I think think they will be better for it.
I look forward to hearing about the next project(s) and interview.
I too like Raph's interviews, he seems pretty genuine with his answers. The last answer he gave about being asked to help make design decisions from a semi-outsider perspective really gave me pause to think. He's basically going in there like a savvy fan would, one that really understands the ins and outs of what makes games work. Since Raph doesn't necessarily see every single iteration he isn't bogged down with information overload. That gives me a pretty positive feel about the game itself.
The other thing is, the Crowfall project really does seem to be a game that the developers want to play themselves. Basically making a game they want to play and not really looking at a particular audience. Considering the different rule sets that could exist in the difference "levels" (for lack of a better word) of the campaign worlds, ffa/guild based/faction base, shows that they at least want to offer some options for a larger audience. They may end up snagging more people than perhaps they are even intending.
I still enjoy some types of pvp in mmos, but I find it's not nearly as enjoyable as pvp in games designed around it, like FPS and MOBAs. Since PvP is an absolute focus on the game, I may find this becoming my mmo pvp outlet.
No, I get it. I've actually spent the bulk of this afternoon watcvhing the various interviews on Youtube.
I guess my one, big question about the campaigns is: is there a randomness factor to them? I hate to keep going back to the EVE Online trough, but as you are probably well aware, space combat in EVE is unpredictable business. One minute you might have the upper hand and be steamrolling your foe; the next minute, in warps a fleet allied to your enemies, and, whoops! You're getting your tail kicked!
So that takes us back to the randomness issue: is it present in CF? I noticed the tiering system for campaigns in those videos, but does at least one of them make allowances for the unexpected? Suddenly another nation allies with you (or your enemies), decisively turning the tide? Or perhaps a band of guild-less (or a small guild of) vagabonds wanders into your game, and decides to assist you or your foes?
I know that you understand how white-knuckle this kind of unpredictability can make things... but in a game like CF, which is SO based on these diplomatic concepts, I would think that you'd welcome the kind of last second "join us! We can offer you X!" "No, no! Join us! We'll give you Y!" "Forget THEM! We'll pay you Z if you'll just leave our war!" bartering that would definitely occur in these events.
Simple answer: Yes
Not so simple, the game doesn't exist yet. However, based on everything the devs have said and what fans expect/want, Crowfall should be a very political/drama filled game.
Campaigns can be total FFA, last guild standing or more RvR with X number of factions at war. With who knows how many variations.
While they've straight out said references EVE and Game of Thrones is simply marketing and a way to get outsider some idea of what is planned, they both do fit.
Campaigns will be typical mmorpg sized worlds, not 10 vs 10 instanced battlegrounds. Guilds/players will be stabbing each other in the back and walking on each other's bodies to rise to the top.
I guess a better way to ask my question is, how do you keep the prey (read: not as skilled players) hooked on the game long enough for them to grow to be predators - or not and just keep playing so that the predators will always have someone to hunt? If that makes sense?
Provide multiple rulesets for campaigns that have win/loss conditions that don't lead to some always being losers and some always being winners.
If you take a look at the campaign types, the have them presented as rings. As you move towards the center, the rules get "harder" and assumed that players will get more "skilled."
If someone can't hack it on a 100% FFA, full loot, winner takes all campaign, there should be plenty of options still.
I'm most likely going to work my way from the outside in to get a handle on things and build up my character/skills. Even though the center is my goal and where I hope a lot of fun will take place.
To me this system is designed to do exactly as you say and turn prey into predators. It gives people a chance to "practice" so to speak.
As a FPS fan, I think this is a pretty smart idea and sort of simulates ladders/rankings without hard locking folks into one group or another. Players will most likely play with others that have similar interests/skills, but have the option to move up a "rank" to have more challenge.
By design though, some folks will simply not be able to handle any of it and won't find it enjoyable, which is fine. Game doesn't have to appeal to everyone. But as presented, I think it has a pretty decent chance of attractive a respectable number of fans.
I enjoyed this interview as well. In fact while I never gave this game much thought due to its PvP focus, after reading his thoughts about the game I am actually very intrigued.
Those clamoring for a sandbox game need to adjust their perspective. First they don't have the money and it would take much longer to make. (Star Citizen anyone?) Secondly I like that the game is focused on two things: PvP and also the Hub socialization. I know this goes against what many consider to be a "true" MMO, but in the context of this game I think it makes sense.
One of the many things I tend to harp about pertaining to PvP is that there are winners and losers, or sheep and wolves if you prefer. That fact generally means that sheep will leave the game because they see no hope of improving their lot in the game. Here however the sheep will always have a new beginning to fall back on. There will be less frustration, since while the sheep may lose, they can always come back to try again. Hence many are more likely to stay and learn the game. For PvP this has always been the challenge. Giving people the hope that they can learn to be competitive, or at least have fun, without fearing for their life every minute and wondering if they will lose everything.
Most likely this game will get a pass from the true hardcores but if it becomes popular and more people play then it might even draw the hardcores into it as well. Either way it seems like a win for both sheep and wolves IMO.
And the social hub just lets you show off your accomplishments and boast about your exploits, at least until the battle begins again.
I like the whole idea and I wish them success with it. I still think Rhoklaw is making a big mistake passing on this game, because I think it may have one of the least toxic communities for a PvP game especially if it is well moderated in the social department. My hats off to Koster et al!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by DMKano I think people need to reat the last question and answer - many game devs are like this, they don't want to be working on the same design over and over again. Most want to do something new that they havent done before. However the public wants them to keep working on the same design for 20 years - which few devs have any desire to do.
That is a problem I have with pieces like this. It is kind of riding the coattails of the past for the present and many people will just eat that up. Will he make great systems? Maybe!
The other question is how have players changed not just as players but as the market has changed. Games seem to be aimed at a least effort (perhaps less effort) than in the past. If the players like that they can't really use their past love of more effort games as a basis for this new game.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
If Crowfall takes any advice from Koster other than "Feedback" I'm done. SWG was a trainwreck! That game should have been completely crafted content. I PAY for content, not a sandbox. That is what Minecraft, Trove and all the other "B" level creative games are for (i,e, Roblox). Any MMO that requires the player's to create their content is a cop out and a way for the Dev's to save money to reach market as fast as possible. Which "usually" is a VERY BAD thing and a huge warning sign.
If Crowfall takes any advice from Koster other than "Feedback" I'm done. SWG was a trainwreck! That game should have been completely crafted content. I PAY for content, not a sandbox. That is what Minecraft, Trove and all the other "B" level creative games are for (i,e, Roblox). Any MMO that requires the player's to create their content is a cop out and a way for the Dev's to save money to reach market as fast as possible. Which "usually" is a VERY BAD thing and a huge warning sign.
Then don't play. Seriously: nobody is going to miss an attitude like that.
I understand those who say designers don't want to be doing the same thing forever, but Koster has not even seen through Crowfall to launch. He is already in an occasional consultant position.
I understand those who say designers don't want to be doing the same thing forever, but Koster has not even seen through Crowfall to launch. He is already in an occasional consultant position.
An exceptional resume-surfer is Mr. Koster.
That legion of fanboys who follow his every move looks pretty impressive from a social media standpoint.
The last question and answer was really enjoyable to me. I can very much understand not wanting to stagnate into the same creative routine over the course of 20 years. I'm not the same gamer I was 10, 20, or 30 years ago either. I also appreciate the quip that says a fan will follow an artist even when that particular piece doesn't click.
My interest in pvp has really died over the last decade. Generally it's just very unsatisfying. I enjoyed Lineage for what it was, at the time, but nothing similar since then has clicked. While I appreciate the thought going into a lot of the design for Crowfall, the competitive "crush those around you" mentality is just lost on me now. Still I'm glad to see Mr. Koster has input in the game. I think think they will be better for it.
While I dont agree with Torval much on this site, this I do agree with. I am not the same person I was when I was younger. I use to love FFA PVP Open looting, today I dont care for it and will not play a game like that. So making a game like this will not have a large market if a market at all for it. I am too more a PVEr today than I was Pre-WOW however that does not mean I dont mind doing a little PVP today. I do find that I dont like MMORPG PVP anymore because if playing with bad players I will hate it vs MOBAs I can do a 10 to 15 minute run and if its a bad group ok on to the next. Why would I do a 2 hour event that if my faction sucks I am stuck trying to win with bad players? This is why WOW went to timed events because a 2 hour battle is not fun and battles with players who just suck.
If Crowfall takes any advice from Koster other than "Feedback" I'm done. SWG was a trainwreck! That game should have been completely crafted content. I PAY for content, not a sandbox. That is what Minecraft, Trove and all the other "B" level creative games are for (i,e, Roblox). Any MMO that requires the player's to create their content is a cop out and a way for the Dev's to save money to reach market as fast as possible. Which "usually" is a VERY BAD thing and a huge warning sign.
Then don't play. Seriously: nobody is going to miss an attitude like that.
I was a co-worker at SOE on EQ2... I can tell you "personally" that I will love "Crowfall".. I have complete confidence in Gordon and Team. I don't agree with Raph's design choices firsthand.
I'm not just a player with an attitude, I've seen how destructive his decisions can be.
If Crowfall takes any advice from Koster other than "Feedback" I'm done. SWG was a trainwreck! That game should have been completely crafted content. I PAY for content, not a sandbox. That is what Minecraft, Trove and all the other "B" level creative games are for (i,e, Roblox). Any MMO that requires the player's to create their content is a cop out and a way for the Dev's to save money to reach market as fast as possible. Which "usually" is a VERY BAD thing and a huge warning sign.
You're not going to like Crowfall. Not because of player created content but because player interactions are the content. The goal is a game to be acted upon not experienced passively. What you call content will just be the setting.
That's simply not true.. I love everything about Crowfall and was one of it's first backers. My problem is with Koster and how destructive his decisions have been in the past.
Comments
Actually, while I see Raph posting in this thread - I'd love to hear your thoughts on something.
One of Ultima Online's most controversal decisions was to essentially seperate PvP (Trammel/Felucia) and PvE. I honestly think that decision basically set the model for how PvP would be handled in the vast majority of MMOs for the next 15 years. Even WoW is like: "PVEers, on these servers... PvPers on these."
To me, doing this shattered the all encompassing immersion that Ultima Online had over my 15 year old heart at the time... and I get the feeling that it was a decision that the UO staff considered a last resort, but felt the need to impliment due to people praying on young, inexperienced players - slaughtering them, taking everything... essentially insuring they had a bad time and left the game.
So it's a little surprising for me to see you going all in on a clearly PvP-sentric project. What motivated you to revisit this concept and what do you hope to do differently this time around to insure a fun game for both the prediator and prey... one that will not require Trammel/Felucia.
Thanks!
Yup. Many of these can be simulated in ways that are still fun, i think.
I will leave CF questions to those on the team on a daily basis.
More like two decades, at this point!
I am happy to see your interest, but I am not "spearheading" Crowfall. it's unquestionably Todd Coleman's game, not mine. I just help out.
Oh, I have spilled so much virtual ink on PVP...
You might want to google my name plus "PvP" to find some stuff, if you are curious.
Crowfall is Todd's concept, and it's really in many ways an heir to Shadowbane. So it was PvP from the outset. I happen to think that various forms of player conflict are vital to MMOs -- but don't read that as only meaning player vs player combat. It includes things like competition for resources, economic competition, etc. It's one of the key things that keeps the world interesting, causing large enough changes in the environment to keep adding interest to the game.
in this case, Crowfall is very much aimed at people who want that competitive feeling. Those who engage in more peaceful pursuits are still doing it on behalf of factional warfare, as part of supply chains, etc. It's overall, not a pacifist game, though you can live a fairly pacifist existence within it. The large scale core loop is about PvP, in that stuff done in the Eternal Kingdoms basically serves to supply warfare in the Campaigns; then stuff flowing out from the Campaigns lets you improve your Kingdom. Make sense?
I think so - what you're essentially saying is that you're designing Crowfall to appeal to a wide majority of players but that, at its core, PvP will be paramount. Combat won't be the only way to engage in PvP - so crafters/merchant/explorer type personalities can still find a home here, so long as a small part of them appreciates player conflict.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea - UO 2nd Age was my first true love in gaming... and very much was about what you're talking about. That being said, I feel that kinda model ultimately proved a bit hard to sustain in the long run. Granted, UO was so long ago and the technology wasn't there to really accommodate other playstyles... but Darkfall did try to follow in the spirit of UO but ultimately did not seize a competitive following despite having a lot of really cool things going for it.
What seems to happen in PvP-based MMOs - especially ones that require a lot of skill to be good in - is that below average players get punished a lot more then they are rewarded. They'll quest for 2 hours, make some poor decisions like carry too much gear around - stuff they can't afford to lose - and, after a sound butt-kicking, they get crushed. That happens a few more times, they ultimately leave the game in despair... something you clearly don't want and, in the long run, anyone who loves your game doesn't want. Because in the end, when enough of these players despair and leave... so will the predators, as he has no one left to hunt. And a lot of these "prey" players, given enough time, could have become predators... but they gave up too quickly or couldn't see any light at the end of their tunnel.
I guess a better way to ask my question is, how do you keep the prey (read: not as skilled players) hooked on the game long enough for them to grow to be predators - or not and just keep playing so that the predators will always have someone to hunt? If that makes sense?
I think EVE kind of answered this question through its very existence: the strong survive; the weak cope or leave. You can take a more rigid stance like this in smaller market games, because you develop a very devoted following in doing so -- 'loyalists' who keep the title going through thick and thin.
Also, I'm fairly sure that CF is going to offer so-called 'blue' servers where FFA won't be a mechanic? I'm honestly not sure how to feel about that, if it's true, since it only serves to divide the community, even if it cracks the doors open a bit wider to admit more folks inside. Overall, I think if they commit to a hardcore model, provided its done well, people will get over it. Item loss is a thing, but experience loss was a big deal in SWG, and I barely remember it at all, let alone as a negative.
I'm not going to presume to speak for Raph or the development team, but for my part, I'm ready for a little more pain and punishment in my gaming these days. True investment in a PvP experience can only come through laying something on the line -- a risk-reward dynamic (which is the same thing that keeps casinos is business, I might add). Without the potential of loss, victory is meaningless -- nothing was ever in jeopardy. Thus, new players must overcome these hurdles (or not), and since this isn't some $100 million megabucks project, I think the design team can draw a line in the sand without risking failure.
I think you have to understand the whole campaign model of CF to understand why the scenario you're describing doesn't quite work that way. Each campaign is a time-limited thing, and they each can have differing rules. So basically, you're heading into a time-limited battle when you go int a campaign, and they aren't all necessarily FFA, etc. The players are taking sides in factions and trying to get their side to a victory.
This also means that losses are capped and curbed; not only by the fact that the campaign battles are time-limited, but also by the fact that you have to bring into the campaign the stuff that you will use... It's not the same as a single persistent FFA environment at all.
I am probably explaining it poorly, but you should go read the FAQs on the Crowfall site.
I hear you about EvE Online, and I love the way it came to be - a devout loyal following blossoming into more. EvE is not for me, namely because I'm more into traditional RPGs - controlling a character rather than a ship.
And yes, I don't envy the challenge it must be to balance risk/reward. Make the game not-punishing enough, victory loses it's flavor. But make the game too punishing, and suddenly, we're looking at plummeting subscriptions and a community that gradually cannabalizes its bottom 10% every month until the world is nearly empty, filled with a bunch of seasoned vets spending hours trying to find each other - or anyone - to have a good fight.
Regardless, I'm totally thrilled to see such seasoned designers revisiting this idea - essentially making the Warhammer: Age of Reckoning that never happened but really should have: the 95% PvP one.
No, I get it. I've actually spent the bulk of this afternoon watcvhing the various interviews on Youtube.
I guess my one, big question about the campaigns is: is there a randomness factor to them? I hate to keep going back to the EVE Online trough, but as you are probably well aware, space combat in EVE is unpredictable business. One minute you might have the upper hand and be steamrolling your foe; the next minute, in warps a fleet allied to your enemies, and, whoops! You're getting your tail kicked!
So that takes us back to the randomness issue: is it present in CF? I noticed the tiering system for campaigns in those videos, but does at least one of them make allowances for the unexpected? Suddenly another nation allies with you (or your enemies), decisively turning the tide? Or perhaps a band of guild-less (or a small guild of) vagabonds wanders into your game, and decides to assist you or your foes?
I know that you understand how white-knuckle this kind of unpredictability can make things... but in a game like CF, which is SO based on these diplomatic concepts, I would think that you'd welcome the kind of last second "join us! We can offer you X!" "No, no! Join us! We'll give you Y!" "Forget THEM! We'll pay you Z if you'll just leave our war!" bartering that would definitely occur in these events.
I too like Raph's interviews, he seems pretty genuine with his answers. The last answer he gave about being asked to help make design decisions from a semi-outsider perspective really gave me pause to think. He's basically going in there like a savvy fan would, one that really understands the ins and outs of what makes games work. Since Raph doesn't necessarily see every single iteration he isn't bogged down with information overload. That gives me a pretty positive feel about the game itself.
The other thing is, the Crowfall project really does seem to be a game that the developers want to play themselves. Basically making a game they want to play and not really looking at a particular audience. Considering the different rule sets that could exist in the difference "levels" (for lack of a better word) of the campaign worlds, ffa/guild based/faction base, shows that they at least want to offer some options for a larger audience. They may end up snagging more people than perhaps they are even intending.
I still enjoy some types of pvp in mmos, but I find it's not nearly as enjoyable as pvp in games designed around it, like FPS and MOBAs. Since PvP is an absolute focus on the game, I may find this becoming my mmo pvp outlet.
Simple answer: Yes
Not so simple, the game doesn't exist yet. However, based on everything the devs have said and what fans expect/want, Crowfall should be a very political/drama filled game.
Campaigns can be total FFA, last guild standing or more RvR with X number of factions at war. With who knows how many variations.
While they've straight out said references EVE and Game of Thrones is simply marketing and a way to get outsider some idea of what is planned, they both do fit.
Campaigns will be typical mmorpg sized worlds, not 10 vs 10 instanced battlegrounds. Guilds/players will be stabbing each other in the back and walking on each other's bodies to rise to the top.
Provide multiple rulesets for campaigns that have win/loss conditions that don't lead to some always being losers and some always being winners.
If you take a look at the campaign types, the have them presented as rings. As you move towards the center, the rules get "harder" and assumed that players will get more "skilled."
If someone can't hack it on a 100% FFA, full loot, winner takes all campaign, there should be plenty of options still.
I'm most likely going to work my way from the outside in to get a handle on things and build up my character/skills. Even though the center is my goal and where I hope a lot of fun will take place.
To me this system is designed to do exactly as you say and turn prey into predators. It gives people a chance to "practice" so to speak.
As a FPS fan, I think this is a pretty smart idea and sort of simulates ladders/rankings without hard locking folks into one group or another. Players will most likely play with others that have similar interests/skills, but have the option to move up a "rank" to have more challenge.
By design though, some folks will simply not be able to handle any of it and won't find it enjoyable, which is fine. Game doesn't have to appeal to everyone. But as presented, I think it has a pretty decent chance of attractive a respectable number of fans.
I enjoyed this interview as well. In fact while I never gave this game much thought due to its PvP focus, after reading his thoughts about the game I am actually very intrigued.
Those clamoring for a sandbox game need to adjust their perspective. First they don't have the money and it would take much longer to make. (Star Citizen anyone?) Secondly I like that the game is focused on two things: PvP and also the Hub socialization. I know this goes against what many consider to be a "true" MMO, but in the context of this game I think it makes sense.
One of the many things I tend to harp about pertaining to PvP is that there are winners and losers, or sheep and wolves if you prefer. That fact generally means that sheep will leave the game because they see no hope of improving their lot in the game. Here however the sheep will always have a new beginning to fall back on. There will be less frustration, since while the sheep may lose, they can always come back to try again. Hence many are more likely to stay and learn the game. For PvP this has always been the challenge. Giving people the hope that they can learn to be competitive, or at least have fun, without fearing for their life every minute and wondering if they will lose everything.
Most likely this game will get a pass from the true hardcores but if it becomes popular and more people play then it might even draw the hardcores into it as well. Either way it seems like a win for both sheep and wolves IMO.
And the social hub just lets you show off your accomplishments and boast about your exploits, at least until the battle begins again.
I like the whole idea and I wish them success with it. I still think Rhoklaw is making a big mistake passing on this game, because I think it may have one of the least toxic communities for a PvP game especially if it is well moderated in the social department. My hats off to Koster et al!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
That is a problem I have with pieces like this. It is kind of riding the coattails of the past for the present and many people will just eat that up. Will he make great systems? Maybe!
The other question is how have players changed not just as players but as the market has changed. Games seem to be aimed at a least effort (perhaps less effort) than in the past. If the players like that they can't really use their past love of more effort games as a basis for this new game.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
If Crowfall takes any advice from Koster other than "Feedback" I'm done. SWG was a trainwreck! That game should have been completely crafted content. I PAY for content, not a sandbox. That is what Minecraft, Trove and all the other "B" level creative games are for (i,e, Roblox). Any MMO that requires the player's to create their content is a cop out and a way for the Dev's to save money to reach market as fast as possible. Which "usually" is a VERY BAD thing and a huge warning sign.
Then don't play. Seriously: nobody is going to miss an attitude like that.
I understand those who say designers don't want to be doing the same thing forever, but Koster has not even seen through Crowfall to launch. He is already in an occasional consultant position.
An exceptional resume-surfer is Mr. Koster.
That legion of fanboys who follow his every move looks pretty impressive from a social media standpoint.
While I dont agree with Torval much on this site, this I do agree with. I am not the same person I was when I was younger. I use to love FFA PVP Open looting, today I dont care for it and will not play a game like that. So making a game like this will not have a large market if a market at all for it. I am too more a PVEr today than I was Pre-WOW however that does not mean I dont mind doing a little PVP today. I do find that I dont like MMORPG PVP anymore because if playing with bad players I will hate it vs MOBAs I can do a 10 to 15 minute run and if its a bad group ok on to the next. Why would I do a 2 hour event that if my faction sucks I am stuck trying to win with bad players? This is why WOW went to timed events because a 2 hour battle is not fun and battles with players who just suck.
I was a co-worker at SOE on EQ2... I can tell you "personally" that I will love "Crowfall".. I have complete confidence in Gordon and Team. I don't agree with Raph's design choices firsthand.
I'm not just a player with an attitude, I've seen how destructive his decisions can be.
That's simply not true.. I love everything about Crowfall and was one of it's first backers. My problem is with Koster and how destructive his decisions have been in the past.