Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

theDoctor's Achievements

  1. You're missing an important metric, which is how much the "Price of the Ticket" increases the odds of winning. That's the point in high-import campaigns: you can come in with a huge advantage over people who couldn't bring anything in. That's what particularly makes Regulus's arguments mostly nonsensical.
  2. This is a relatively unique idea and pretty interesting, but ultimately I'd like to posit that it's more touching on an aspect of an overall abstract solution. If ACE wants to prevent the Uncle Bob and maintain the original idea that Campaigns are new worlds, where people hop on and duke it out with little other than what they can muster individually, within the campaign, why not turn off the feedback loop of campaign imports entirely? Wouldn't it be great if they just turned all import to 0%, keep campaigns as the soccer match analogy, everyone going in equal and coming out based on their efforts, and then let the rewards/exports go towards things that don't directly result in just bringing those rewards straight back into a campaign? Guild size is a decent example. Why not also, buy in tournaments, and have those export resources instead be consumed to give you spots in the tournaments? Or even have high-import tournaments be the only way to win relics/artifacts, but make those the only thing with imports, and have them be 0 export, so that those resources don't just keep feeding back into a consistent winner? You can see where this might be able to extend further, and simply always say that whatever is taken out of a campaign should never be what goes back in to a campaign. Leave the fruits of your victory to extend to things beyond just winning the next identical campaign, and you remove the feedback loop that creates Uncle Bob as well as the disconnect between various campaign bands.
  3. It means that people don't go in with a fair shot at victory. Which is the entire beginning premise of the entire game and kickstarter originally. That the Campaigns would be a equal-grounds battle. They compared it directly to a soccer game. I don't think it's "a bit far" at all to claim that ACE's original vision seemed to imply that Campaigns, on average, were intended to start everyone off on an equal footing. To deny that is to have missed their entire vision.
  4. Again, I think you're mostly hitting the nail in the head...I just kinda want us all to acknowledge that's not what ACE has generally described, and is certainly not a game in which Uncle Bob is in any way removed. And mostly, I want ACE to acknowledge that fact. If the whole core of the game becomes these guilds competing across a ton of campaigns and managing their economy, that's really not any different than Eve or Albion Online or w.e open-world high security/low security MMO. And their consistent promise that full time Dregs players would be a core audience is just a bit conflicted with that. Again, not really saying what is good or bad, or what I want. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency. Because that would entirely be the Uncle Bob gameplay they specifically addressed in the kickstarter.
  5. This is a fairly logical estimation, but also seems at odds with some of what ACE has said/promised, which is largely my concern. It's not that I can't think of ways the economy works, it's that I can't think of any that really fit with what ACE claims they want. What you describe essentially becomes less of a "Campaigns are a single entity where a winner emerges," and instead more of a "Campaigns must become small stepping stones, varying zones of utility, and the real game takes place between Guilds competing across the whole game." Which is functionally ok, but in the end is just going to be another Uncle Bob game, and really the same exact persistent world game as Eve, just with a concept where solar systems (read: Campaigns) pop into place and die out after X amount of time. It also brings up a question of how the guilds trying to compete in the Dregs to export resources will compete with the guilds that just stay in the dregs and don't need resources, but that's more a function of how prevalent those segments of the community are. Not sure where you get any kinds of assumptions of you're making about my playstyle, but all I'm asking for is some consistency from what ACE is saying. They want Dregs to be self-contained hardcore campaigns with guilds vying for power and playing the deep political game...but actually the Dregs is just going to be a place for the people in the other campaigns to come and temporarily farm resources? How will those two be married? How will the Dregs be anything more than an open-PvP resource farming ground? And what makes that any different than Eve? The safe stuff in all the 1.0 space, the dangerous stuff in all the 0 sec space, and massive guilds constantly vying for uncle bob position? That's really my question. How can all these things be married effectively? Sure, some of what of you all have responded with are valid ways to make an economy function. But at what costs? Edit to avoid a doublepost: ...and then there are weird responses like these that somehow seem to imagine that crafters never come into the dregs at all, which makes absolutely no sense, since how will a guild compete in a dregs campaign if they don't bring in any crafters...?
  6. This too would seem like a potential plausible conclusion, if it wasn't for the fact that they seem to imply the Dregs and high-risk campaigns will largely be characterized by low-import rules, therefore meaning that players won't actually be able to bring in many resources. Plus, each campaign has been described to have it's own internal economy, and once a campaign is started as far as we know you can't bring anything in. So a campaign world, even in the Dregs, has to have enough resources to sustain the players inside actually fighting.
  7. Except isn't ACE's entire point that the Dregs has the more valuable stuff? So how exactly are the other CWs contributing to the economies? That's literally waht I've been asking since the first point. What are the God's Reach campaigns contributing that the Dregs players would want? This entire example is the antithesis of everything that Crowfall has been described as so far. The Dregs is just a third world nation of people being exploited for their resources? The Dregs was supposed to be the heart and soul of their target market, where the toughest competition and politics occur. What you've just described is instead a game where the God's Reach is what really matters, and the Dregs is just a dangerous resource-farming zone. Which sure, sounds like it could work, but it's certainly not what Crowfall has been pitched as.
  8. Except even assuming import rules are loosened for a Dregs campaign, the Dregs players will already be the ones with the access to the good resources, so they still won't need the God's Reach players for anything...
  9. Goods for services is fairly standard, sure, but you have to actually explain wtf the goods or services there are that are being exchanged, which is literally what I've been asking. None of what you've said sounds very accurate so far. Why can't a crafter in the Dregs have a high enough crafting skill? What exactly makes a crafter from God's Reach have a higher skill in anything from someone in the Dregs? What about the non-crafting non-Dregs players? You have on one side of this economy, people with an absolute resource advantage. Dregs players find rarer resources. On the other side, you've suggested occasional one-off instances like "Maybe someone from God's Reach will occasionally be of a higher skill level," which sure could happen, just like someone from the Dregs might trade with someone from God's Reach in exchange for a poem. But that's not how you build an economy. The Dregs, on the whole, needs to need something from the God's Reach, since the GR players need something from the Dregs. Otherwise, the exchanges won't really make sense, and the economy will crumble. This is the closest thing I can imagine to an actual answer, but then also leaves the two big questions of "Will the VIP tickets be valuable enough to bank an entire game economy on that?" and "If a Dregs player has just as much access to VIP tickets as a God's Reach player, does that even solve the problem?"
  10. Well thanks for your non-answer then? I'll go back to waiting for the devs to hopefully actually answer my question. No, I'm just assuming that, like in what I originally quoted, they want a large thriving economy between all the bands, not just an economy where the Dregs convinces everyone to play in the Dregs in return for their goods, since that doesn't really make any sense. Edit: damn you editing your post and confusing everything
  11. So basically only crafters that want to come into the Dregs will have any value to the Dregs players. Meaning that my original question of what a God's Reach player has to offer to a Dregs player is still unanswered, since the only way for a God's Reach player to be relevant to a Dregs player is to come into the dregs, by your suggestion.
  12. You just named multiple things that the Dregs players can provide for the God's Reach players, but absolutely nothing from the other end. You entirely missed the actual problem. What do the God's Reach players have, that I as a Dregs player want? What would I provide them resources and or protection in return for?
  13. What will the players in the riskier bands possibly want from the players in God's Reach? Considering there isn't import in the high-risk bands, what do players within the dregs actually want from these other players to generate an economy, especially when the best stuff is already in the Dregs? An economy has to have bargaining power on both sides to function.
  14. Yes because animation locks have anything to do with how hardcore people are, or anything to do with politics...at all. /s This is pretty weak bait. Not remotely worth a discussion. Get used to it, or get out. Your choice.
  15. This thread has so many different arguments going on at the same time O.o Friendly fire should be the basis of the game. You can't balance for both friendly fire and friendly immunity, and the Dregs is all friendly fire (seeing as there are no game-determined "friends") so doing anything else is silly. Also, friendly fire is the easiest way for them to discourage a whole bunch of bad player behavior like zerging and actually promote skill in the game, so friendly fire should be in the game. So there's that argument. To the debate about whether friendly fire should be in the game now: hell no. No, ff shouldn't be tacked on at the end, or with a few months left. But until they have a few of the core mechanics in and functioning, FF would take what little sense there is to the tests right now and completely throw it out. You'd go from some the community shouting "unplayable" to all of the community. Which would be counterproductive, obviously. Blair said it perfectly that ff at the current state of the game wouldn't just unbalance things, it wouldn't just make things "not fun." It would completely fall apart. ACE needs to get friendly fire in ASAP. ACE needs to have friendly fire be a core mechanic of their game. But that does not mean that the Hunger Dome should have friendly fire right now.
  • Create New...