Where will the money come from?

Simple.

Coin Forges.

You take a lump of gold, put it into a coin forge, and presto a gold coin is born.

The interesting question is, where does the gold come from? Well, probably mines. At the borders of the three realms right in the middle of the map.

Players dropping gold is silly, especially if they don't have any gold. To the question of what crafters do with their wealth, thats also simple. They pay fighters to protect them while they mine even more gold, a contract system would be handy for that i guess. Pretty easy stuff, money into escrow, if players x doesn't die for the next y hours player group z1 get awarded the money in escrow.

I mean that seems sensible. Pretty much how stuff worked for thousands of years in rl. Never change a running system.

Originally posted by TigsKC

Originally posted by Rocketeer

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.

Originally posted by Teh_Axi

Originally posted by Rocketeer

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.

Originally posted by TigsKC

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Maybe we need to take a step back from the mechnical side of rezzes. Instead of talking about rezz time in seconds or range in meters, CDs etc, lets talk about the basics.

You are probably correct, but I have wasted way too much of my life writing spell books not to take crack at it.  So here goes.  Unbalanced?  Likely.  Flawed?  Certainly.

TL:DR - Three resurrection spells for consideration.

Resurrection

Target:  One PC of your Realm

Range:  Touch

Casting Time: 10 seconds (channeled, interruptible)

Cost:  30% of caster’s health and mana

Cooldown:  15 seconds

Description:  The healer lays hands on Realm mate while invoking the divine and supernatural powers bestowed on her by knowledge, grace and connection to the Emissaries to revive her fallen mate at the healer’s present location with 40% of the target’s maximum health and mana.  Skill cannot be used in combat or target a burned corpse.  Casting, cost and resulting target vigor can be modified by enchantments and healer progression.

Battle Resurrection

Target:  One PC of your Realm

Range:  40 meters

Casting Time: 20 seconds (channeled, interruptible)

Cost:  70% of caster’s health and mana

Cooldown:  10 minutes

Description:  The healer channels the grace of the Emissaries from a distance upon on a fallen Realm mate to revive the PC at the target’s present location with 40% of the target’s maximum health and mana.  Skill may be used in combat, but not upon a burned corpse.  Casting, cost and resulting target vigor can be modified by enchantments and healer progression.

Mass Battle Resurrection

Target:  Up to 10 PCs of your Realm

Range:  Circular area of effect defined by perimeter with radius extending 15 meters from the caster

Casting Time: 40 seconds (channeled, interruptible)

Cost:  100% of caster’s health and mana

Cooldown:  4 hours

Description:  The healer makes the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for the greater glory of the Realm, reviving PCs at the target’s present location with 40% of the target’s maximum health and mana.  Skill may be used in combat, but not upon a burned corpse.  Casting, cost and resulting target vigor can be modified by enchantments and healer progression.  Upon death, the healer is instantly transported to the Veil to fight its monstrosities at full vigor.  If still alive after ten minutes, the healer is transported back to the spot of invocation at full vigor.  If defeated in the Veil, the healer is sent to a bind point and suffers with resurrection sickness for ten minutes.

 

For what its worth, i like it. Obviously the devil lies in the detail of things like how the game determines when someone is in combat and how difficult it will be to burn a corpse and prevent a later rezzing.

Also the last one ... speaking as a healer im having trouble envisioning a situation where i would and could use that. Hard to pull off in a battle, and unnecessary after a battle.

Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk

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.

Originally posted by fantasyfreak112
Ya i never understood why linux programmers never cared about gaming. They are the nerdiest of us all, you would think they'd be all over that by default. Maybe because gaming doesn't involve typing commands in a terminal :)

You'd be surprised :D.

No, they care about gaming, its just that gaming requires artists. And while the linux communities are ripe with programmers, we do have a lack of artists and GUI specialists. Oh sure we have some really good guys working on X11 and Wayland, but they do it in the context of a productive, client server based GUI stack.

The situation is not helped by the fact that to get GFX performance you need proprietary drivers, and nerds don't like that. First it goes against their principles, second it irks them that these drivers are better than theirs and thirdly they are angry that nvidia/amd/intel keep their cards specifications secret from them, so they have to reverse engineer drivers.

Its a bad combo tbh, besides most serious linux coders do it in their free time, so their coding time would conflict with their gaming time. And if your not a gamer, and not getting paid for it, chances are your not interested in making games.

Maybe we need to take a step back from the mechnical side of rezzes. Instead of talking about rezz time in seconds or range in meters, CDs etc, lets talk about the basics. Do we want:

1. Incombat rezz, i.e. rezzes could only be restricted to uncontested areas.

2. Teleport rezz, i.e. rezzing a dead player from outside a fortification to the inside.

3. Rezzing as a healer skill or everyone.

4. Rezzing with or without penalty.

Anyway, how serious do we want death to be? Is it supposed to be a minor inconvinience? Maybe only minor if a healer is there? Or would it be more like EvE, not necessarily item loss or destruction, but a major inconvinience. I mean if a straggler gets caught or focus fired in EvE its very bad, and yet it works out there.

Im not in favor of copying EvEs big death penalty, i think it would be too harsh for a game like this, but neither would i feel ok with the way its handled in WoW or Warhammer. MJ said something about spacing rez points out so people can't rejoin battle too quickly and have defeat be meaningless, too easy rezzing would certainly conflict with that.

Edit: Backer forums will be different, cause we have CSE there to put an end to discussions. Not in the /close thread way, but by saying "folks all of this sounds good, but we decided to do it like this".

Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Teh_Axi

Originally posted by Rocketeer

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.

Originally posted by Teh_Axi

Originally posted by Rocketeer

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 Axxar
I like the idea of ressing them where they fell to make reinforcement harder. I think using "mana" is fine for the spell, however. I think it's needlessly complicated to have a separate resource for ressing. I think that surely cast time and mana cost can be adjusted to prevent ressing from being a no-brainer rather than casting other spells, such as heals and buffs.

The problem in warhammer was healer standing on the keepwalls outside LoS/range of the enemies ressing people. It WAS a nobrainer. The reason i didn't just say require LoS to dead player is because its usually pretty easy to LoS the enemies while having a LoS the dead player you want to rez, especially if there is a melee going on below the keep walls.

Don't get me wrong, i was a healer and that was loads of fun, but it turned the battles into a whack-a-mole like i said because with keeps and barricades and stuff you have no way to get to the healers. Its essentially like this:

H ### W:W ### H

With H being healer and W being the close combat classes(lets call em warriors), # would be impassible terrain or simply distance. The ### are about max healing range, theoretically archers could attack the healers but they would need to be ontop of the W brawl and the H could extremely easily LoS them behing some keep tower or stuff.

If in such a situation the healers only need mana to res ... the fights can become extremely drawn out, whack-a-mole essentially. The problem essentially is that once the close combat guys die you can't force the guys on the keep wall into combat, so if they rez the close combat guys as they die they can essentially regroup in the safety of the keep and then storm out again.

One solution would be rez where they die with penalty, another would be only allowing short range rez i guess. Still the whole one healer can bring back a whole field of corpses in a min or two sits sour with me, i got the feeling MJ wanted combat be more decisive. I.e. the looser looses, and the winner wins period. Not some "gee we lost our whole warband defending our keep, meet back at our keep in 5 min all buffed up folks" kind of play.

This is interesting. To find out how rezzing should work, we should first look at how it doesn't.

For example i remembered in Warhammer that you could rez people up onto walls of keeps that you where defending. I.e. if a keep was under siege the reinforcements could easily get to them by dieing somewhere near the walls.

Personally i thought that was an issue, its not a siege if you can't stop people going into the keep. So personally i think a rezz should at minimum:

1. Occur at place of death.

2. Involve a movement penalty(root) to prevent people slowly inching towards the walls on their gums so to speak.

3. Be a significiant investment for the healer, to help with 2. i.e. discourage pointless rezzing.

Personally i would like to see rezz take a different resource. Lets say you have a "healer", the "healer" uses "mana" for heals and buffs and stuff. But for certain powerful spells, like rezzes he needs a different resource, lets call it "light balls". Now how "light balls" are aquired ... lots of way, could be through casting spells on enemies, friendlies, or simply a time based thing like you aquire 1 "light ball" per minute and can store up to 4 "light balls"(should be different way for different healers, to get more factional diversity).

That way rezz would become more tactical and fights less of a whack-a-mole where people you just offed keep standing up like zombies with the regeneration perk. You also could have powerful spells compete for this secondary resource, i.e. reward people with more heals and stuff for forgoing the option to rezz.

Originally posted by Teh_Axi

Originally posted by Rocketeer

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.

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.

Originally posted by Teh_Axi

Originally posted by Tumblebutz

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 colddog04

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.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by Rocketeer
1. It will be directx based, which makes it harder but not impossible. WoW for example runs splendidly. 

---

 

People usually run wow under linux with its opengl renderer, Running wow in dx9 takes a huge performance hit.

dx11 is currently impossible.

edit; Rephrased

Pretty sure thats not the case(anymore?), i think it only ever applied to Ati cards anyway. Personally i have ran WoW in directx and there wasn't any huge performance hit. Also the opengl version had some issues with circles of GBAoE spells not appearing etc, which is why i remember using directx very vividly.

Anyway the game has a Platinum rating on wine, and no special install instructions.

Originally posted by DOGMA1138

Originally posted by Rocketeer

1. It will be directx based, which makes it harder but not impossible. WoW for example runs splendidly.

2. It will be a niche game based on a custom build engine. Which is bad unless:

2a. Andrew or one of the people in the know assists the Wine people, or considers them atleast in development(Blizzard does this, they actively patch their games to make them run better in wine i.e. unofficial support which makes sense for sub games).

2b. They use a very "clean" implementation, which runs "by the book", unlikely since shortcuts help with performance.

3. There has to be a motivation for both CSE and Wine to give a shit.

 

Personally the best option would be the Andrew Megs option. The man is a coder, especially the engine part apparently which would be the most likely part to make issues. He is also the Cofounder, which means once the game is out on windows and he feels like helping the wine people a bit(and maybe optimize the code a bit while at it) he can do it without having to convince some buisness type with a calculator that its financially viable.

 

That's kinda funny since Blizzard has intentionally "broke" Wine support several times with WoW because it didn't allow warden to run properly, and they actively banned Diablo 3 account's which were detected to be running in an emulation.

The current versions of warden check if the game runs in an emulation either an adhoc wrapper like Wine or a running in a full VM. And yes i know that they've "denied" it, the fact remains that Warden has specific checks for it, and at least 6 years ago or so when i was an active developer in the WoWSharp project they've used to give us hell.

This in general is no wonder since with VM's injecting anything you want into the memory or any other IO of the guest is no issue, and with Wine's DMM which hosts the entire memory of the application in it's own 32bit virtual memory space the user can do to it what ever he want's without anything running within noticing that.

I hope that they will actually go out of their way to prevent the game from running in an emulator/hypervisor since PVP games live and die based on how cheat proof they are, and sorry no cheat detection/prevention engine will be able to function in an emulated environment. Heck with Wine you can create a snapshot of the DMM and point all warden calls to it while doing what ever you want with the real memory space of the game.
 

P.S. if you wan't to use linux why use the Windows 7 of the Linux world? ;)

Also  Windows 8's Hyperv works great....

 

Major patches often break wine, minor patches later usually make it work again.

This is the official stance as far as im aware of regarding diablo. They make it clear that running it on linux is fine, cheating is not. They also run testsetups with wine to make sure it does not produce false positives.

Besides that wine is not a emulator or a VM and CU will do alot more things serverside than WoW, which is the only reliable way of preventing cheats.

Edit: I use linux because i prefer the GUIs and hardware support on it over Windows 7, not to mention windows 8. Im not some diehard fan or religious zealot, if i need windows for something i have no problem with that and i even bought a license of Vista aswell as Windows 8(have windows 7 preinstalled on lap).

Im more in the camp of those annoyed by multiboot, if it runs on wine like WoW im fine with that. With SSDs these days space is actually a problem again with dualboot, but i'll manage.

Originally posted by Leiloni

Originally posted by PerfArt
One thing to consider is that this will be a very stat-driven game, as MJ has said. Given that, stats that affect accuracy should ostensibly be lent as much affect as others.

Secondly, this is a RPG, not a FPS, and as such your character's abilities should factor in a bit more than in twitch games. Skill comes in through strategy and choice based upon those abilities. Relegating just one/a few option to twitch and all others to tab targetting seems inconsistent.

All IMO, of course. :)

Just because it's a stat driven game that doesn't mean they need to have an accuracy stat, nor do they need even a block or evasion stat. I've played games that were very gear and stat heavy but that were free targeting action combat games. They just don't have those few stats because they don't need them, but there are a ton of other stats in MMO's that you can have so that doesn't really affect the targeting system either way I think.

 

What makes free targeting games more skill based IMO is that not only do you have the same skill based choices a tab target game has like you mention, but on top of that you also have to aim properly, position properly, dodge/block properly. It adds an entirely different layer of challenge onto combat and makes it that much more fun. It's a more evolved way of doing combat from tab targeting.

 

Edit: Holy shit why in the hell does this forum not have a spell check....

So you want to take RvR battles with hundreds of players participating and make it even more complicated for ... why? Why do we need a entirely different layer of challenge on top?

Imho, if the gameplay is so boring that it needs some kind of "try hitting the guy in the 8vs10 brawl going back and forth" it failed. Besides isn't that what DF is about?

My issue is that if you have free targeting you need to make each shot much more powerful because you have to assume some shots will miss even for a good player. Also you would completely ruin the class for players that are just not very good at FPS games. I backed a MMO with a focus on RvR, not planetside: arthurian edition.

Look i understand some people like that kind of gameplay, but we are talking about niche here, and catering to a niche in a niche game doesn't sound like a good idea. If you get the urge to play some cooperative shooter there are enough out there that are pretty well done. If this becomes some kind of DF/planetside meets minecraft we should have been told during the kickstarter, everything MJ said gave the impression it will be target locked based skill activations like DaoC, warhammer or whatever.

Personally i will nail him to that if need be because there is a huge difference between a MMOFPS and a MMORPG, i wouldn't have backed the former cause its just not my kind of game.

I tried it aswell in PS2, and i didn't like it myself. I know skill should matter, but thats not skill thats motorcontrol which imho shouldn't matter as much in a MMO.

But i think it should matter wether you have line of sight or fire to your target. For example if you fire an arrow at player A, and another hostile target B moves between it and its intended target the arrow should hit B not fly through him to hit A. That way things like position, high ground etc will mater more, i.e. make the game more tactical instead of more twitchy.

Also i think the whole idea of going with realistic mechanics unless it hurts gameplay is a good idea. For example the arrow hitting an unintended hostile due to movement would be good, the same arrow hitting an unintended friendly target would only lead to griefing and hurt realmpride.

1. It will be directx based, which makes it harder but not impossible. WoW for example runs splendidly.

2. It will be a niche game based on a custom build engine. Which is bad unless:

2a. Andrew or one of the people in the know assists the Wine people, or considers them atleast in development(Blizzard does this, they actively patch their games to make them run better in wine i.e. unofficial support which makes sense for sub games).

2b. They use a very "clean" implementation, which runs "by the book", unlikely since shortcuts help with performance.

3. There has to be a motivation for both CSE and Wine to give a shit.

Personally the best option would be the Andrew Megs option. The man is a coder, especially the engine part apparently which would be the most likely part to make issues. He is also the Cofounder, which means once the game is out on windows and he feels like helping the wine people a bit(and maybe optimize the code a bit while at it) he can do it without having to convince some buisness type with a calculator that its financially viable.