Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

City of Titans Streamcast/Article at MMORPG

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
City of Titans Streamcast/Article at MMORPG

I just figured I pop this on over here as it might interest some of you. Just a few... I would think, may be interested.
Here's the article which has just a few tidbits of info, https://www.mmorpg.com/city-of-titans/interviews/talking-titans-with-the-dev-team-1000012683

The actual streamcast not only is a treasure trove of information, the City of Titans team is extremely passionate about their game, and it really shows throughout the episode. I was also surprised how much they remember about CoH. I hope we see a lot more info from the City of Titans developers soon.

The streamcast itself is here if you'd like to watch it with all the videos, there's some you may not have seen before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HJFAz0Nmbo

It's over an hour long though, so here's the podcast link if you want to listen during a commute.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/gamespacegs/gamespace-game-show

Tiger
Tiger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 21:43
Thanks, for posting this. I

Thanks, for posting this. I love it when the guys share their love of this game.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Really good, thanks for the

Really good, thanks for the info. Lots of tidbits of info, some new to me.

Though when they said tentacles (and the ensuing innuendo) it made me think of this (it is SFW). Pretty sure even Adults Only won't be high enough rating if that gets into the game.

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Really good, thanks for the info. Lots of tidbits of info, some new to me.

Though when they said tentacles (and the ensuing innuendo) it made me think of this (it is SFW). Pretty sure even Adults Only won't be high enough rating if that gets into the game.

Haha, well when I heard it initially I thought

I think they even had a render of something similar XD

Terwyn
Terwyn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 10:56
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Really good, thanks for the info. Lots of tidbits of info, some new to me.

Though when they said tentacles (and the ensuing innuendo) it made me think of this (it is SFW). Pretty sure even Adults Only won't be high enough rating if that gets into the game.

*Maybe* if we eventually do a fantasy title. ;)

It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.

Business Director

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Still watching this on

Still watching this on youtube, but I just hit the section where Warcabbit is talking about "our Mastermind" and possibilities for how to set up the Pet controls ... and it made me wonder if it might be possible to rig the Pets to "fall in" to what amount to preset formations, so as to allow them to move and engage as unit groups (essentially), rather than just devolving into a Dogpile On Da Wabbit behavior. The sort of thing I'm thinking of would be a kind of deal where IF there is sufficient room for them to spread out into preset formations, the Pets would be "prone" to doing so in order to take up positions around their "boss" who is running the show.

So for instance, if you had a 5x5 grid of "where" the Pets could be, like so ...

. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .

You'd basically assign "spots" on that grid to being where your Pets would want to "form up" in relation to your PC. So if you had Minions 1, 2, 3 and had Lieutenants 4, 5 and Boss 6 and your character was P, you could do something like this as a preset formation ...

. 1 2 3 .
4 . . . 5
. . P . .
. . 6 . .
. . . . .

... and your Minions would tend to arrange themselves in that formation around your PC whenever there was room to do so as their preferred "resting state" of relative positioning to your PC. You wouldn't even need to necessarily put your PC in the center of the formation, you could do something more like a file column or even an arrow/wedge arrangement, like this ...

. . 6 . .
. 4 . 5 .
. 1 2 3 .
. . . . .
. . P . .

So basically as a Pet herder class, you'd be able to have some preset formations that you'd want your Pets to assume, should there be enough space for them to do so. Now I'm using a 5x5 grid to represent this kind of thinking due to the sheer simplicity of it, but I can also easily envision wanting to make use of a larger grid array so as to be able to spread your Minions out over a much wider area if you want. In that case, a 9x9 grid of relative positioning ought to be enough, although I can even imagine use of a 15x15 grid in order to provide all kinds of scouting/flanking formations and wanting to disperse your "troops" such that they aren't all caught in a single AoE strike. You'd also be able to use a much larger grid for doing things like guarding flanks and so on. Essentially anything you'd want to have going on where you want your Pets to assume a particular FORMATION relative to your Commander PC, you'd be able to set up as a preset formation ... and then all you'd need to have is a way to quickly order an "Assume Formation 1" directive to your Pets.

And at THAT point, the preferred Formations that you can issue to your Pets almost become something akin to Costume Slots for your PC. You can have more than one of them setup in advance as presets and switch to them at (almost) any time. The only real question(s) then becomes ... how many Formation Slots would you have to fill ... and can you get more (like Costume Slots)? I'd have no problem with letting Commanders start with 1 Formation Slot at Level 1 and then adding an extra Formation Slot at Levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, with each Formation Slot being completely open to customization, but with "default settings" available for people who aren't all that interested in customizing the deployment of their Pets. Furthermore, a Commander would be able to "edit" these Formation Slots at any time, but doing so would require switching away from the "current awareness" view of your surroundings, so as to put the controls onto a dedicated UI "window" that dominates the screen. Point being that edits to the Formations would be possible to do at any time, but the Player would be motivated to use the presets rather than trying to edit them on the fly DURING combat (although you could edit them during combat). That way, the Player can have their Commander PC "adapt" to changing conditions in the environment of wherever they're playing right then (open spaces, close quarters, narrow tunnels, etc.) but doing so is something best done when you're not in combat. Need to send a flanker around a corner to scout for you/pull aggro before falling back and leading any pursuers into an ambush? Modify a Formation Slot to tell one of your Minions to "go over there" relative to your PC's position and then move your PC around to "edge" the NPC into the spot you wanted them to be relative to yourself.

Anyway, just an idea that sprung upon me while listening to this interview.

. . . . 1
. . . . .
2 . . . .
4 6 . . .
P 5 3 . .


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Still watching this on youtube, but I just hit the section where Warcabbit is talking about "our Mastermind" and possibilities for how to set up the Pet controls ... and it made me wonder if it might be possible to rig the Pets to "fall in" to what amount to preset formations, all the words

An online game that does something somewhat like this is Conqueror's Blade. While I didn't get into it enough to really dig deep in how to position your troops, the premise is very similar. For example, if you find yourself being flanked, you can specify your first legion of sword and board to surround you protecting you from harm from all angles. Meanwhile you can have your second legion of archers stay back, firing into a crowd. Or if you so decide, you can choose specific formations to march on enemies.

While I wouldn't want the commander class to have "legions" of "troops" unless they were small troops like Ant-Man or Squirrel Girl, being able to pick a small set of thralls (or what have you) based on your preferred play style and placing them in the ranks and formations you want them in would be an ideal situation for a pet class.

The real issue I'd see is balancing it in comparison to other classes. The potential to be overpowered is real, if you really have enough pet control to decide the positions of your npcs, and even more so if those pets are variable into their own teams of DPS/Tank/Control (even without heals, it would still be pretty powerful). You could setup tanks in front with DPS, everything else behind the player and nearly never get touched.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Still watching this on youtube, but I just hit the section where Warcabbit is talking about "our Mastermind" and possibilities for how to set up the Pet controls ... and it made me wonder if it might be possible to rig the Pets to "fall in" to what amount to preset formations, all the words

An online game that does something somewhat like this is Conqueror's Blade. While I didn't get into it enough to really dig deep in how to position your troops, the premise is very similar. For example, if you find yourself being flanked, you can specify your first legion of sword and board to surround you protecting you from harm from all angles. Meanwhile you can have your second legion of archers stay back, firing into a crowd. Or if you so decide, you can choose specific formations to march on enemies.

While I wouldn't want the commander class to have "legions" of "troops" unless they were small troops like Ant-Man or Squirrel Girl, being able to pick a small set of thralls (or what have you) based on your preferred play style and placing them in the ranks and formations you want them in would be an ideal situation for a pet class.

The real issue I'd see is balancing it in comparison to other classes. The potential to be overpowered is real, if you really have enough pet control to decide the positions of your npcs, and even more so if those pets are variable into their own teams of DPS/Tank/Control (even without heals, it would still be pretty powerful). You could setup tanks in front with DPS, everything else behind the player and nearly never get touched.

I have no real desire to diminish all the thought and effort people like Redlynne have put into discussing how "controllable pets" might work in CoT. But to be honest I was one of those weird people who loved (and much preferred) Fire Imps in CoH almost because they were "uncontrollable" (at least in the sense of manually micromanaging their every movement). To each their own as they say. :)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
deksam wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Still watching this on youtube, but I just hit the section where Warcabbit is talking about "our Mastermind" and possibilities for how to set up the Pet controls ... and it made me wonder if it might be possible to rig the Pets to "fall in" to what amount to preset formations, all the words

An online game that does something somewhat like this is Conqueror's Blade. While I didn't get into it enough to really dig deep in how to position your troops, the premise is very similar. For example, if you find yourself being flanked, you can specify your first legion of sword and board to surround you protecting you from harm from all angles. Meanwhile you can have your second legion of archers stay back, firing into a crowd. Or if you so decide, you can choose specific formations to march on enemies.

While I wouldn't want the commander class to have "legions" of "troops" unless they were small troops like Ant-Man or Squirrel Girl, being able to pick a small set of thralls (or what have you) based on your preferred play style and placing them in the ranks and formations you want them in would be an ideal situation for a pet class.

The real issue I'd see is balancing it in comparison to other classes. The potential to be overpowered is real, if you really have enough pet control to decide the positions of your npcs, and even more so if those pets are variable into their own teams of DPS/Tank/Control (even without heals, it would still be pretty powerful). You could setup tanks in front with DPS, everything else behind the player and nearly never get touched.

I have no real desire to diminish all the thought and effort people like Redlynne have put into discussing how "controllable pets" might work in CoT. But to be honest I was one of those weird people who loved (and much preferred) Fire Imps in CoH almost because they were "uncontrollable" (at least in the sense of manually micromanaging their every movement). To each their own as they say. :)

I recall the fire imps, and you can't hate on a good fire imp setup. I also really like the necromancer pets in GW2, they do a good job with those, and the ranger pets in GW2 are pretty decent in most cases.

But if I had to choose, my favorite character to play (and he was waaay underpowered after the nerf) was Ant Man in Marvel Heroes Omega - PS4 Beta. The ants were always attacking, you could summon an antman clone to gain aggro, send out swarms that would follow enemies, he was a DoT MASTER. I loved him. He was my best friend... and then they nerfed him hard (and really he was pretty balanced).

I have love for the auto pets.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Cool interview! Really

Cool interview! Really enjoyed the new footage.

I hope Cabbit isn't putting too much effort into "the next game" because this one has to come out first! Haha

Is this the media coverage that Terwyn was saying they "can't believe they pulled off"?

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:

But if I had to choose, my favorite character to play (and he was waaay underpowered after the nerf) was Ant Man in Marvel Heroes Omega - PS4 Beta. The ants were always attacking, you could summon an antman clone to gain aggro, send out swarms that would follow enemies, he was a DoT MASTER. I loved him. He was my best friend... and then they nerfed him hard (and really he was pretty balanced).

Talk about nerfage: Fire Imps in CoH ended up being single-cast power that gave you exactly 3 Imps set at "level -1" (meaning if you were level 50 they'd be level 49). When CoH first launched the Fire Imp power was a timed power that randomly produced anywhere from 3 to 6 even level Imps. This meant if you managed to get some massive recharge on your powers (via Haste and/or Kinetics) it was feasible to overlap castings of the power to yield (on average) 6-8 even level Imps running around at the same time! It was glorious and incredibly, stupidly overpowered... fun while it lasted at least. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
deksam wrote:

But if I had to choose, my favorite character to play (and he was waaay underpowered after the nerf) was Ant Man in Marvel Heroes Omega - PS4 Beta. The ants were always attacking, you could summon an antman clone to gain aggro, send out swarms that would follow enemies, he was a DoT MASTER. I loved him. He was my best friend... and then they nerfed him hard (and really he was pretty balanced).

Talk about nerfage: Fire Imps in CoH ended up being single-cast power that gave you exactly 3 Imps set at "level -1" (meaning if you were level 50 they'd be level 49). When CoH first launched the Fire Imp power was a timed power that randomly produced anywhere from 3 to 6 even level Imps. This meant if you managed to get some massive recharge on your powers (via Haste and/or Kinetics) it was feasible to overlap castings of the power to yield (on average) 6-8 even level Imps running around at the same time! It was glorious and incredibly, stupidly overpowered... fun while it lasted at least. ;)

I actually remember the level - 1 change! I never used them, but I recall a lot of people were unhappy with the change.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Lothic wrote:
deksam wrote:

But if I had to choose, my favorite character to play (and he was waaay underpowered after the nerf) was Ant Man in Marvel Heroes Omega - PS4 Beta. The ants were always attacking, you could summon an antman clone to gain aggro, send out swarms that would follow enemies, he was a DoT MASTER. I loved him. He was my best friend... and then they nerfed him hard (and really he was pretty balanced).

Talk about nerfage: Fire Imps in CoH ended up being single-cast power that gave you exactly 3 Imps set at "level -1" (meaning if you were level 50 they'd be level 49). When CoH first launched the Fire Imp power was a timed power that randomly produced anywhere from 3 to 6 even level Imps. This meant if you managed to get some massive recharge on your powers (via Haste and/or Kinetics) it was feasible to overlap castings of the power to yield (on average) 6-8 even level Imps running around at the same time! It was glorious and incredibly, stupidly overpowered... fun while it lasted at least. ;)

I actually remember the level - 1 change! I never used them, but I recall a lot of people were unhappy with the change.

I was personally super-pissed about it for like six months because they kept working the Fire Imp nerfing bit-by-bit over the course of several updates forcing re-adjustments each time.

But ultimately I accepted that it was a much needed nerfing and still played with Fire Imps for years afterward. TBH, it was a pain-in-the-ass to keep an Imp army up and running and the nerfage basically removed the need for all of that completely.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Terwyn
Terwyn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 10:56
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Cool interview! Really enjoyed the new footage.

I hope Cabbit isn't putting too much effort into "the next game" because this one has to come out first! Haha

Is this the media coverage that Terwyn was saying they "can't believe they pulled off"?

I will likely be shot for saying this, but no, it's not.

This was simply an opportunity we were approached with that we decided to take, and I'm very pleased with how it turned out.

It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.

Business Director

meta brawler
meta brawler's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/27/2013 - 11:52
Yeah fire imps + fulcrum

Yeah fire imps + fulcrum shift was godly back in the day. I've always been a fan of pet classes and when CoH shut down I tried to find my MM fix in other games. The only one I found that was somewhat satisfying was Marvel Hereoes. Ultron was my favorite pet class. Sick damage and great survivability. Colossus and Cage were pretty good non controllable peta pet classes too. I miss that game too :(

These are my bases:

CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR

Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Terwyn wrote:
Terwyn wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Is this the media coverage that Terwyn was saying they "can't believe they pulled off"?

I will likely be shot for saying this, but no, it's not.

This was simply an opportunity we were approached with that we decided to take, and I'm very pleased with how it turned out.

So, The Next Big Thing is still The Next Big Thing. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I have no real desire to diminish all the thought and effort people like Redlynne have put into discussing how "controllable pets" might work in CoT. But to be honest I was one of those weird people who loved (and much preferred) Fire Imps in CoH almost because they were "uncontrollable" (at least in the sense of manually micromanaging their every movement). To each their own as they say. :)

To be fair, I'd imagine it being perfectly possible to set things up such that setting a Formation Slot to "don't bother" for the Fire Imps on Follow style of performance you're talking about. The thing is that situation is more of a hands off than a hands on, and all things considered it's easier to leave room available for that kind of performance in a Formations setup like I was describing. If you give people the option to be very Hands ON, it's not that much of a stretch to allow for a rather deliberate Hands OFF option in the mix.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I have no real desire to diminish all the thought and effort people like Redlynne have put into discussing how "controllable pets" might work in CoT. But to be honest I was one of those weird people who loved (and much preferred) Fire Imps in CoH almost because they were "uncontrollable" (at least in the sense of manually micromanaging their every movement). To each their own as they say. :)

To be fair, I'd imagine it being perfectly possible to set things up such that setting a Formation Slot to "don't bother" for the Fire Imps on Follow style of performance you're talking about. The thing is that situation is more of a hands off than a hands on, and all things considered it's easier to leave room available for that kind of performance in a Formations setup like I was describing. If you give people the option to be very Hands ON, it's not that much of a stretch to allow for a rather deliberate Hands OFF option in the mix.

I’m with Lothic on this too. However, it would be cool to have the option for formations if you want it. I can see a small horde of bot minions in formation looking pretty foreboding. :)

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 12 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Those formations could be

Those formations could be useful for traveling from point A to point B and looking slick outside of battle, but as soon as you make first contact with the enemy, those formations would be mostly useless. Opponents will move to engage you, your pets or others. So would you expect your melee pets to close to attack an enemy or stay in formation? Likewise would your ranged pets try to keep distance or stay in formation and take a beating. And if your character moves, would you expect your pets to break off engagement in order to stay in formation?

I suppose we could have a Pet AI setting that orders them to stay in formation at all costs, and that would answer that question. Otherwise their AI combat logic would take over where they move in battle.

I think the real benefit in having formations like that is it provides a means to instruct our pets to lead us in the direction we are facing rather than all of them following us wherever we go. So while it is almost always preferable for our ranged pets to follow behind us (so that they can advance to their optimal range without getting too close), sometimes we want our melee pets in front of us before we give them the order to attack. In CoX it was easy to interpose our melee pets between us and our enemies by giving the attack command, even if they started off behind us. (and hoping we ordered them to attack the correct enemy, which was often much harder than it sounds) But what if we don't wan't our melee pets to attack but just set up a defensive screen to attack a mob before it hit us?
A perfect example of this is when we want to pull a mob without our melee pets running in and gaining aggro on the whole room. To do this we had to set the melee pets to defensive or passive setting. But we don't want our character be the first thing the mob attacks when we have a couple of pets just standing there waiting until it hits us for them to act on their defensive orders. So we have had to time the attack command by guaging the advance speed of the mob, the advance speed of our melee pets, taking into account the distance of the mob and the position of our pets, etc., etc. It was occassionally effective, and that's only if you remembered to actually put your melee pets in passive before the pull.

And in passive or defensive mode, even if we never gave an attack order, we couldn't put our melee pets between us and the enemy CoX without running away from the opponent so that we got on the other side of our pets before our pets caught back up to us. It is difficult to advance on a mob when you have to take two steps back for every step forward. So a formation order that puts our melee pets in front of us as a default defensive setting would actually be quite useful.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Remember, I wasn't talking

Remember, I wasn't talking about Formations as being something "rigid" that locks your Pets down into a particular arrangement and they don't leave those relative positions. I was talking about them as being something where "at rest" your Pets would be prone to falling into a predefined Formation relative to your PC. So rather than just clustering around you in a loose pile, left to their own devices they'd tend to take up positions around your PC as defined by the Formation preset. You could then set things up to where they'd tend to arrange themselves in ways that are useful to you in various circumstances (form square! form line! etc.). It wouldn't be a "go THERE and STAY there no matter what" kind of deal.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Nos482
Nos482's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/25/2013 - 14:50
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Though when they said tentacles

Tentacles? Grrrreat, now I have to watch it. *shakes fist towards the ceiling* "Cuuuuurse youuuuu!!1"

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Remember, I wasn't talking about Formations as being something "rigid" that locks your Pets down into a particular arrangement and they don't leave those relative positions. I was talking about them as being something where "at rest" your Pets would be prone to falling into a predefined Formation relative to your PC. So rather than just clustering around you in a loose pile, left to their own devices they'd tend to take up positions around your PC as defined by the Formation preset. You could then set things up to where they'd tend to arrange themselves in ways that are useful to you in various circumstances (form square! form line! etc.). It wouldn't be a "go THERE and STAY there no matter what" kind of deal.

See, in conquerors blade, formations actually do matter though.

Like I mentioned before, when you have a formation of sword and board troops encircle you, they repel enemies that get near you, while also deflecting attacks for both melee and range.

Formations do matter, if collision detection is used. For example, setting up a line in front of you might stop enemies from running through you, or if you march them forward you could essentially "push back" enemies in your way.

While there would really only be a handful of formations that would matter, depending on what minions you have available to you, positioning could really play a bit part in a commanders gameplay.

Some that I can think of...

Hold positions, in a grid of 9. With the player in the middle, any direction of a hold position would stop enemies from getting through, to balance it though, these "walls" would only be temporary, but could be instrumental in crowd control.

Rotation position (if we only have 3 minions at a time). Instead of fully surrounding the commander as a hold position, 3 minions would rotate mitigating damage.

Advance position, three minions would create a wedge position in front of the commander, (I triangle shaped stack) would be great for pushing through mobs, taking the brunt of the damage and pushing mobs to the side for easy clean up.

Of course, again you'd need collision detection, but it would stop minions from being a bunch of ragtag unpredictable mindless zombies and instead they would be tools used to help and support you and your team.

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 weeks ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Thanks for the links. Some

Thanks for the links. Some interesting tidbits in there.

This may sound like an odd thing to highlight, but one of my favourite topics was the list of stuff that was deemed inappropriate for CoT. I think it's MWM's ability to focus on the core elements of what made the old game so enjoyable that will truly make the game a spiritual successor. Not to say I wouldn't possibly want to try the other game in the future, but I have to say that MWM has been brilliant from the start in their filtering ability, despite some quite vehement and long-winded arguments that have attempted to pull them off course.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
Nice interview.

Nice interview.

(insert pithy comment here)

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
There's a stunning amount of

There's a stunning amount of information in there that I wasn't aware of. The idea of different primary power sets having different control schemes is something I've dreamed of, but didn't think was actually possible with today's tech in any sort of reasonable fashion. At least, not while making them balanced with each other. Would this, in theory, mean that you could get away with, for instance, having a guy playing as if he was in a third person shooter like Mass Effect in the same party as a guy doing an RTS lite setup with a top-down perspective?

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Would this, in theory, mean that you could get away with, for instance, having a guy playing as if he was in a third person shooter like Mass Effect in the same party as a guy doing an RTS lite setup with a top-down perspective?

In theory this ought to be possible - you're effectively just talking about having different player GUIs being used to control unique player avatars sharing the same game environment. Of course it probably wouldn't be easy to implement and there would always be a question as to whether the players in question were sharing a "fair and equal" experience. It would likely be endlessly debatable whether one GUI provided a "better" way to play the game than another.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Sounds about right.But, then,

Sounds about right.But, then, players will always complain about that sort of thing. As long as the powers themselves are properly balanced against each other, I don't think GUI will end up being more than a matter of preference, though.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Sounds about right.But, then, players will always complain about that sort of thing. As long as the powers themselves are properly balanced against each other, I don't think GUI will end up being more than a matter of preference, though.

Well like any other MMO balancing something like this for PvE would likely be far easier than PvP. As far as PvP would be concerned you'd be adding an entirely new layer of uncertainty and doubt about everyone having a "level playing field" against each other.

Imagine if you had a flight combat game and you had players who were each operating an aircraft to fight each other with. Then you throw in this idea of having completely unique control schemes for each aircraft. In effect you'd have one guy in a "jet fighter" GUI face off against another guy in a "helicopter" GUI against a third in a "biplane" GUI. Almost instantly people would figure out that one type of GUI control scheme would likely be vastly superior to the others. Basically if you think typical PvP balancing in a MMO is a nightmare now it would become 100x worse by adding this new element to the mix.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Halae wrote:

Sounds about right.But, then, players will always complain about that sort of thing. As long as the powers themselves are properly balanced against each other, I don't think GUI will end up being more than a matter of preference, though.

Well like any other MMO balancing something like this for PvE would likely be far easier than PvP. As far as PvP would be concerned you'd be adding an entirely new layer of uncertainty and doubt about everyone having a "level playing field" against each other.

Imagine if you had a flight combat game and you had players who were each operating an aircraft to fight each other with. Then you throw in this idea of having completely unique control schemes for each aircraft. In effect you'd have one guy in a "jet fighter" GUI face off against another guy in a "helicopter" GUI against a third in a "biplane" GUI. Almost instantly people would figure out that one type of GUI control scheme would likely be vastly superior to the others. Basically if you think typical PvP balancing in a MMO is a nightmare now it would become 100x worse by adding this new element to the mix.

I don't think UI and control layout is going to be that out there. In the video they talk a lot about simplicity of the control scheme, so that you could potentially play it with one hand or a controller.

How that might translate to a commander, rts pad interface.. I dunno... I mean if Command and Conquer could be played on the N64, anythings possible.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Halae wrote:

Sounds about right.But, then, players will always complain about that sort of thing. As long as the powers themselves are properly balanced against each other, I don't think GUI will end up being more than a matter of preference, though.

Well like any other MMO balancing something like this for PvE would likely be far easier than PvP. As far as PvP would be concerned you'd be adding an entirely new layer of uncertainty and doubt about everyone having a "level playing field" against each other.

Imagine if you had a flight combat game and you had players who were each operating an aircraft to fight each other with. Then you throw in this idea of having completely unique control schemes for each aircraft. In effect you'd have one guy in a "jet fighter" GUI face off against another guy in a "helicopter" GUI against a third in a "biplane" GUI. Almost instantly people would figure out that one type of GUI control scheme would likely be vastly superior to the others. Basically if you think typical PvP balancing in a MMO is a nightmare now it would become 100x worse by adding this new element to the mix.

I don't think UI and control layout is going to be that out there. In the video they talk a lot about simplicity of the control scheme, so that you could potentially play it with one hand or a controller.

How that might translate to a commander, rts pad interface.. I dunno... I mean if Command and Conquer could be played on the N64, anythings possible.

If you've been following along with the last few posts of this thread you'd know this discussion about "multiple control GUIs" is/was completely hypothetical. No matter what the "point of view control scheme" for CoT is going to be it's likely going to be identical for all players. That would be the "easiest/fairest" way to handle PvE, PvP or anything in-between.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Actually, know what? Let's

Actually, know what? Let's grab a good example of another game with a variable control scheme. Guild Wars 2, about two years ago now, added something called "action camera". GW2 is normally a fairly typical tab-targeting game like Wow or CoH, but this changes the control scheme to allow for a player to play it as if it was a third person action game. you can even adjust the camera so that it sits over your character's shoulder, if that's what you really want to do, though that does limit some of your peripheral vision.

This is, while not a simple addition to a game, surprisingly doable when you're already modifying control schemes, even within the realm of it being a tab target standard. A game that's actually building from the ground up to have UI elements dedicated to shifting control schemes rather than relying on patching it in three and a half years after launch seems like it could do well. There's no changes to skill effects, or even camera placement; it's just a matter of camera control and targeting.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Actually, know what? Let's grab a good example of another game with a variable control scheme. Guild Wars 2, about two years ago now, added something called "action camera". GW2 is normally a fairly typical tab-targeting game like Wow or CoH, but this changes the control scheme to allow for a player to play it as if it was a third person action game. you can even adjust the camera so that it sits over your character's shoulder, if that's what you really want to do, though that does limit some of your peripheral vision.

This is, while not a simple addition to a game, surprisingly doable when you're already modifying control schemes, even within the realm of it being a tab target standard. A game that's actually building from the ground up to have UI elements dedicated to shifting control schemes rather than relying on patching it in three and a half years after launch seems like it could do well. There's no changes to skill effects, or even camera placement; it's just a matter of camera control and targeting.

I play GW2 quite a lot and I've never tried the action camera, but does it change ground targeting to on target? Because that's really tough to do in a game like GW2 seeing as how you don't really have defensive targeting. meaning, there's no real single target heals, and you can't really quick cast something like healing rain on an ally.

That's just an aside...

I don't think we'll ever see, or want to see a close action 3rd person camera a-la gears of war or first person view in a game like this. Especially if they are expecting 30+ enemies to be standard combat conditions, you'd want to be able to see your surroundings.

That's not to say that for some characters, a change of control scheme could be really cool. They mentioned a grid system to control pets, but what about being able to simply control them directly on a mini map? Plus they mentioned we might see a more combo fighter focused class system later on, I don't think we have to break out completely new systems for that to be accomplished, maybe just change the way some abilities work under certain circumstances.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Partial cross post, but,

Partial cross post, but, while I don't plan on using it, the "soft lock" targeting will be reticle-like, and should also allow more flexible useage for those with special needs or who simply like to use other interfaces. Especially if they allow first person or over-the-shoulder angles.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
deksam wrote:
deksam wrote:

I play GW2 quite a lot and I've never tried the action camera, but does it change ground targeting to on target? Because that's really tough to do in a game like GW2 seeing as how you don't really have defensive targeting. meaning, there's no real single target heals, and you can't really quick cast something like healing rain on an ally.

Last I checked you had three different options for that:

1) Centers on mouse, temporarily disables mouse-lock. (was very annoying before I found these options since it was the default)
2) Centers on cross hair.
3) Centers on target.

You also had the option to decide when it actually fires:

1) Twice click. Once to activate so you can properly aim it and a second to fire.
2) On press. Fire effectively instantly.
3) On release. Aim while you keep button pressed then fire it off when releasing it.

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
deksam wrote:

I play GW2 quite a lot and I've never tried the action camera, but does it change ground targeting to on target? Because that's really tough to do in a game like GW2 seeing as how you don't really have defensive targeting. meaning, there's no real single target heals, and you can't really quick cast something like healing rain on an ally.

Last I checked you had three different options for that:

1) Centers on mouse, temporarily disables mouse-lock. (was very annoying before I found these options since it was the default)
2) Centers on cross hair.
3) Centers on target.

You also had the option to decide when it actually fires:

1) Twice click. Once to activate so you can properly aim it and a second to fire.
2) On press. Fire effectively instantly.
3) On release. Aim while you keep button pressed then fire it off when releasing it.

I do recall all of these options, and maybe in that sense a reticle would be the only thing that would work in an "action based" class.

I use fast casting in GW2, but it's a little wonky, I've tried mapping a controller but it's hard to work with so many different AOEs that you have to position.

My greatest wish would be to be able to play this comfortably with a controller. That would make me happy.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

Actually, know what? Let's grab a good example of another game with a variable control scheme. Guild Wars 2, about two years ago now, added something called "action camera". GW2 is normally a fairly typical tab-targeting game like Wow or CoH, but this changes the control scheme to allow for a player to play it as if it was a third person action game. you can even adjust the camera so that it sits over your character's shoulder, if that's what you really want to do, though that does limit some of your peripheral vision.

Take a look at the contents of Tannim's posts at 66 and 68 over here.

Tannim222 wrote:

A hybrid system that uses tab targeting as its basis but you can choose to switch to a recticle targeting system as well.

Tannim222 wrote:

Yes, you can aim at the target and there is a soft lock until you activate a power that forces the lock.

To which my response is (literally) ,,, "happy camper" ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.