Camelot Unchained discusses development of destructible deathmatch castle, new art assets

    
21

Development on Camelot Unchained seems to be coming along nicely, and the folks at City State Entertainment have posted a new weekly update detailing the week’s progress. On top of “important-but-unsexy things” such as security updates and other behind-the-scenes tech improvements, this week’s Top Tenish list includes information about the progress on developing a destructible deathmatch castle, the first-pass design of mage skills, and a whole lot more.

A good deal of the list is dedicated to art updates, as the visual design team seems to have been hard at work creating new armor concepts — some of which you can see for yourself on the official post — as well as making adjustments to the game’s character models and animations. If this week’s Top Tenish update doesn’t have enough fresh Camelot Unchained info to satisfy you, you’ll be happy to know that Mark Jacobs was back yesterday for the weekly update livestream as well, which you can find in full after the cut.

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Dean Greenhoe

… first pass… mage skills. Nuff said. I’m ready to go.

Reader
Vorender

DAoC without the PvE. This is a really long development cycle for a game no one is going to play.

Alomar
Reader
Alomar

Except I plan to play it, dozens of my friends plan to play it, my guild plans to play it, my previous/allied pvp guilds plans to play it, and all of their members plan to play it. That’s thousands just in my bubble, get a grip hater.

Reader
Mark Jacobs

And all the people who have backed our game, knowing that there is no PvE leveling. There is plenty of PvE, but other than crafting, you can’t level your character that way.

And again, look at the amount that our Backers have donated for us to make the game. The amount on our website is *only* money donated by players, it does not include the funding from investors. That’s a pretty good number for a game that “no one is going to play” especially when we said our studio would be fine at 50K subs per month.

Reader
yoh_sl

Idk about some people, but I’m interested in CU specifically because it’s PvP based.
I’ve found that as I’ve gotten older, PvE games just don’t interest me as they once did. I long for more social experiences, and PvE games, even MMOs, just don’t offer that.
Which is why I have taken to D&D for my social fix.

But I’ve also found it in PvP titles like Dark Souls. But thous games always wear down eventually as the game gets predictable, or updates stop coming. So what I really need is something more of a slow burn, with loads of depth, and plenty of people to ‘play’ with. Something that isn’t all about reflexes, but leans more towards planning and desc ion making.
I want a PvP RPG in other words. And unfortunately, there just aren’t that many on the market right now, at least not ones that are actually fun or well balanced, esp not of the massive variety. CU could very well scratch that itch, and if not, then at the very least it was worth the attempt.

Reader
Mr.McSleaz

This is the only PvP game that I have any interest in playing, lol.

gelfred
Reader
gelfred

I don’t feel we need games covering a large spread of game play types any more. People are much less tied to just 1 subscription game, its easy for them to play a PvE game that focuses and is better at that than CU will be, and still play CU. A large amount of half arsed PvE would not do the game any favours.
We will see the willingness of people paying subscriptions for specific game play types when the game launches.

Hamblepants
Reader
Hamblepants

Why do you pretend everyone else likes ehat you like and dislike what you dislike? Youre clearly bright enough to know thats not true.

Reader
Roger Melly

Funny isn’t it how some gamers assume because they don’t want to play something themselves they assume no one else will .

Reader
Buddy Barlow

ETA for release.. 2020 at the earliest, if that.

I have a strong feeling this is gonna be a extremely long long dev process

Reader
Slaasher

Yup that’s kinda what they have indicated

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Armsbend

Way too long. I’ve moved on.

Reader
Mark Jacobs

Moving on is fine but here’s the thing, in the last 3 years has anybody released a game that can handle 500 people in a single battle in a small space with high FPS? And we can already do more than that.

Delays suck but if you release something great at the end of the cycle, people will play. Maybe not some of the folks who would have played 2 years ago, but maybe different people. It all depends on the quality/uniqueness/fun of the game at launch. We’ve seen this time and again in the industry, even in MMORPGs.

As always though, time will tell.

gelfred
Reader
gelfred

Not sure there is currently much to move on to. Changing interests to more current PvP types will happen, but RvR die hards have not got much to go to.

Some experiments in small scale ‘realm’ pvp like Rend do not seem to have had much success, scale does seem important and nothing but a full mmo will provide.

Hamblepants
Reader
Hamblepants

Thats what i dont get, that people think a really good example of a kind of gameplay wont be successful because that kind of gameplay is generally less popular.

Sure, 4x strategy games are less popular than they once were. But the great ones that come out do well.

Reader
Siphaed

Guild Wars 2 has a significant amount of players per fight in the Eternal Battlegrounds. In fact, I’m pretty sure that WvW has close to, if not more than, 500 players per map. It was in the original FAQ before launch and may be still true today (although I though more like 200 per side, 600 total cap).

And honestly I’ve been in some pretty big battles for Planetside 2. Which incidentally Daybreak (formerly SOE) is doubling down content on it finally to kind of bring back. Why? Most likely they see all the Kickstarters for PvP MMORPGs of large scale, yet no full delivery as of this time: Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Ashes of Creation, and now The New World. People are clamoring for that kind of gameplay and want it…just there is not much available to them right now outside the Battlefield series (which V looks to be more CoD than BF, a cementing spike in the coffin of that great series).

Sometimes framerate issues are server side, but many other times it falls out the user’s outdated systems and own hardware too. I mean, I personally tried running GW2 on high on a GTX 560. Pathetic, I know.

But still….most people are anxious with this because it seems that the progress on this game has slowed to a snail’s pace. The Beta itself seems nothing like what was envisioned when originally announced for a slated date of July 4th. Classes, features, solidity within the servers, etc. And touting technological marvels while avoiding these issues is starting to go into territory similarly affecting Star Citizen.

Reader
Buddy Barlow

This^ Ive been backing this game ever since it’s announcement, after being let down year upon year and thinking the scope is just too big for such a small team. Let alone you don’t even have any PvE and it’s still taking this long? Damn..

You gotta have the players and that many people who wanna play your game before i’d be praising what the engine can do. There’s just no substance and it’s a game FAR, VERY FAR from what people had i
n mind even for a “oldschool” beta.This is far beyond barebones as you can get…

Were stuck with glorified battlegrounds…joy. I swear week-in..week out, all i ever see in the newsletter is new art assets and not much on game play or news on a actual progression system. I would hope by now some systems would be entering the game for testing because chain killing each other over and over gets old, it gets old real quick. Hard to keep supporting a game where it seems like this development cycle is the slowest thing i have ever been apart of.

Reader
Adil Ejaz

Never played Planet Side 2. But what you said about GW2 is horribly wrong. Guild Wars 2 never gave real numbers on the cap of each server. Players speculated them to be 100 on each side at max. that makes 300 for each side. I can guarantee you they were never higher from at least 2012 to 2015 and played it on and off till 2017. You must have just played it a couple of times and had been awed by the numbers you saw on screen to come up with 200 (dont forget the model disappearing Anet lazy ass solution to stabilise large fights and also skill effects off option). Btw Anet also reduced the cap after HoT expansion to around 70-80 per server. yeah ask the people who waited in que just to play WvW and you will know how wrong your assumptions are. also GW2 experiences with a GTX 780 were mostly rubber banding / skill lags / skill fails and game crashes every time a full pop showed up on just our server (not even while fighting). Fights were mostly press 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 if nothing else worked in prime times.

Players actually wanted to stay in that game but devs on WvW format but they gave up since Anet did not budge on promoting / balancing 5 man pvp.

If you were satisfied with that I say have fun with it. I will wait for this one and see how it does. Do not even get MJ started on comparison with SC. I wonder why MJ has not yet bashed you for that :p

Reader
yoh_sl

Donno if you want to answer this question MJ, but how come servers are so expensive to run?
What’s the math brakedown of how an mmo server becomes as expensive as it evidently is?
And how expensive is it? (ball park figure if you could, because the term ‘expensive’ is relative.)

Reader
Mark Jacobs

Well, you’ve have to ask Amazon or Google on their pricing but what it boils down to is that when we run the “Big Bot Battles” we need to spin up a lot of servers to handle 1K Bots from both the server side and the headless client side. If we were using NPCs, they would be cheaper, but when we want as close to LIVE conditions as possible, ARCs/Bots are the way to do it.

We’re doing things over the next few months to lower the cost and now that we’re in Beta 1, we can start to use what are called “reserved instances” to save money. It really does boil down to the fact that when you use cloud services you’re paying for the convenience of spinning up servers whenever you need them and that costs more. That’s one reason companies tend to use cloud servers during development and then move to a combination of co-located servers and cloud servers during peak usage. That’s our current plan but that could also change depending on the deal we could strike with AWS/Google/whoever.

I believe there was an article in the last few weeks from Epic talking about the amount of servers they use for Fortnite and that it is quite expensive to do that. Spinning up servers so you can host a less “demanding” game is relatively cheap but when you need the bigger instances and/or lots of them, it adds up really quickly.

Reader
yoh_sl

Ah, 3rd party expenses, yeah that would make a lot of sense.
And they evidently charge based on volume of information sent. I can see how that can get expensive doing what your doing.
Thanks for the in depth explanation.

Hopefully once you get your own servers online the cost will become much more manageable.