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

tsp_maj

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tsp_maj

  1. 24 minutes ago, Marklarr said:

    I am all for dropped loot, even full loot drops and its not even the resource cost that hurts me as that just pushes for more harvesting which means more players in the world which is never a bad thing.

    So your ideal game loop this?

    Kill someone and take their equipment. (that you will probably have no real use for)
    Force them to have to farm more resources.
    Rejoice that you've forced them back into the world as you kill them again.

    This logic fails because it assumes that a game has a monopoly on a players time.  A player losing gear that they worked hard to get doesn't automatically translate to them sucking it up and trying again, especially not after a few attempts, it leads to them playing another game.  

    You could argue that the result of this natural selection process is a game filled with players that enjoy this sort of thing, but history has shown that there is no end to this death spiral.

  2. Not a fan of equipment drop.  The only way it can work is when equipment is easy to replace, and therefor has little value.  People have claimed that full loot makes for better, more meaningful PVP.  This is true in my experience, but only from a perspective of the side of dominance.  The argument that  "winning feels so much better when you have something to lose", fails completely when you're always losing.  In an open world with no restraint, dominant groups are always formed and ultimately all equipment will just flood to them.  The rest of us will be weeded out from the bottom up.

    The bigger problem in my opinion is that PVP is the content of a game like this.  A major challenge in an open world game based on PVP, is making sure people can actually find PVP when they want it.  Equipment drop is 100% counter productive in this effort.  People are far more likely to flee rather than fight unless they have overwhelming odds in their favor.  Players end up sitting in their town waiting for others to group up to a critical mass before venturing into the world.  

    In the end I think you could say that both things are true.  Equipment drop enhances PVP and also destroys PVP.

    I will argue that in a game like this, things will get personal quickly.  No extra mechanic is going to be needed to manipulate the emotional swing of me winning or losing a fight against a known enemy. 

    That said, there should be a high stakes area / mode whatever for those that enjoy that.  Typically players that partake in that kind of thing would be towards the upper end of the skill spectrum and therefor competition would be even enough to make it work.    



       

  3. 5 minutes ago, soulein said:

    So does everyone pretty much agree that something needs to happen with PoI's and harvesting? Not that it would override or exclude traditional harvesting, but that there needs to be a PoI system which complements the traditional harvesting system and ties in directly to harvesting skills.

    I'll agree with anything you say, just make it better. 

  4. 4 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    Point is that there isn't a perfect system. But what you can do is to make a system that is perceived fair by the people using it, even if it has his flaws.

    If you put a 200+ guild on the same server of  the 30+ guilds, these guilds will feel they stand no chance and probably will have a bad game experience. We are talking of game experience here and what they perceive as users. These 30+ guilds smashed by a "zerg" will probably come crying in the forums (if you scroll back there is already someone here fearing these so called zergs) and they will try to advocate anti-zerg measures.

    So, while technically 30x4 is equal to 120 and 1x120 is equal to 120 the two things are perceived differently and act differently. If "by design" you direct these to an environment suited for them they will feel the system is more fair.

    So, back on your question, you could allow the 120 guild in the first place. But I personally would expect people screaming that this game has become a zergfest. If you see some people here are already advocating "measures" to prevent zerg from joining. Separate the "zergers" from the "hardcore" and you will have less drama.

    For some reason this made me smile.  Sounds like you've got a lot of gaming experience but not really in this type of game.  Even without that experience you've realized one of the biggest challenges, and possibly downfalls of the sandbox PvP style MMO.  That alone should give you some extra respect for the challenges they are facing in attempting to make it work despite what seems like a crippling flaw in the design. 

    I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this idea, but I've spent a ton of time trying to come up with a system that would be a viable compromise.  I encourage the brainstorm though.  Maybe you'll solve it.

  5. 8 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    A 3rd party guild is completely fine. This is a game of throne, right? So alliances are more than welcome and you should expect backstabs. But a single guild, which on purpose abuses or exploiting the system is making a violation of the TOS. There is a huge difference from a third party joining a fight, to a guild who on the sole purpose of ruining other players experience splits in 2 sub guilds to dominate a campaign. You play by the rules and stick to the campaign suited to the one of your guild size. If then alliances happens inside a campaign... well, that's what a game of throne is!!!

    And, btw there is already a tribunal, and it is made by the devs. Try to start duping items and then see what happens... Or try to start flaming and insulting people here and see if they don't rush banning you from the forums...

    So an alliance of 120 is ok as long as it’s broken up into 4 guilds?  How is that any different then just allowing a 120 man guild in?  

    I could formulate that team right now.

  6. 3 minutes ago, McTan said:

    I should add, I hate the idea of locking people out. Albion Online did that and it was a horrendous mechanic that made me quit the game much sooner. People should not be locked out or otherwise debuffed or buffed based on numbers or any sort of game mechanic. Truly open PvP, please, it's been so long since a game did that. And it could be so successful with a generation of gamers who have never experienced it, but are willing to play hardcore games.

    Edit: It should be very apparent to Devs that not everyone who goes hard on this forum will be interested in the game they are creating. I hope they keep their sanity and manage not to give in to those players.

    That includes you right?  That part of my suggestion is more of a brainstorm.  I knew it was controversial when I suggested it, pretty sure I’ve been convinced that it’s better to not have it, though I still have concerns that don’t have any attempted solution.

  7. I don't want to keep on this path of 20 questions but don't you feel like you went from "Free world, do what you want" to a lot of very specific restrictions?  Is there going to be a tribunal that presides over cases of a 3rd party guild coming in mid fight and wiping one team from behind?  Whos to say that they werent working together?

  8. 11 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    This is done by the "type" of the campaign. I mean if i have a guild who is not very active I may want to play in the "faction" campaign cause I already know that the "dregs" would not be suitable for our guild. So this system is already in place. And if this guild still decide to pick dregs regardless... well that was that guild personal choice or his own death sentence.

    Point is we need to have "brackets" inside each category. So, for instance, 30 ppl guild playing a dregs are not destroyed by a 200 ppl guild playing the same dregs.
    And back on the very original topic, 30 ppl guild are most likely to be all located in the same "time zone" so a primetime approach to siege is more suitable. While a 200+ guild is probably to be an international one, where prime time approach may not be the best.

    And the good thing is Crowfall already have the tools for this, by setting custom campaigns rules.

    Seems like a lot more assumptions then I feel comfortable with.  How do you stop a 60 man guild from splitting into two groups and dominating by working together?

  9. 2 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    You limit server access based on guild actual members. So guilds below 30 play 0-30 servers, guild 30-60 plays 30-60 and so on. You make brackets. It's like Dota matchmaking but instead of being based on MMR it is based on guild member numbers.

    How do you account for the difference in activity between guilds with very active players and guilds with lesser levels of activity?

  10. 1 minute ago, Nyamo said:

    No need to apologizes!!!! It is perfectly fine you did nothing wrong.

    Do not get me wrong I love the community and I love being part of it. But I simply think (and I may be wrong) this is the "backers" community. And to me (again, I may be wrong) JTC strive to reach a way larger audience than this one. So, I may the only one to "think different" (let me lend this prom Apple), but with more people joining the more "different" mind you will have. Today we argued, but I am not your enemy (in the mean of someone who wants the game to be destroyed and fail). On this I am sure we are all allies and we are all strieving to achieve the best for the game.

    Truth, above all I've learned that population is everything in an MMO.  The best game mechanics in the world are worthless without players.  When it comes to PvP when there is only one P left, it doesnt really work.

  11. 29 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

    Would those windows bother you if they were 10 AM PST to 2 PM PST?  Your responses have been very considerate, but what you are saying is this game should implement a system that prevents me from being able to play it.  And that's better than thinking about any other possible solution because it doesn't "bother" you.  It's hard not to take that personally.

     

    I need to stop posting in this thread.  The more I think about it, the more emotional I become.  I did not consider even for a moment when buying into this MMO that, I, who have tons of free time, might not be able to play it.  If I can no longer play MMOs, I'm not sure what's left.  It's quite a depressing thought.  MMOs were the answer for what to do when all my friends are busy or when I couldn't sleep at night or when I had to travel for work and was hotel'd up all across the globe with none of my family or friends nearby.  To the extent that this is what I thought MMOs were for.  Their purpose.  A multiplayer persistent game you could any time and it was always there waiting for you.

    I'm not sure if anyone else has played any of the Chinese buy2win games with their 6pm PVP events.  Really that's all I can think of right now.  They say if people miss important events they can pay money to catch up with their friends, but in reality people just don't play if a game revolves events that they can't participate in.  I'm just shocked.  This is really the best solution people can come up with?  I reread the comments in this thread and it just seems like a personal attack on me.  It's inconvenient for me to let you play.  Letting people like you play would require too much work trying to figure out a fair system.  We don't need people like you.  You have nothing to contribute here.  I can't take it anymore.  They'll make whatever game they want.  I'll play it or I won't.  I hope they let the players they are excluding from their game get a refund.  It's like IP blocking Russia or China after their players already purchased copies of the game.

    I'm done in this thread.  I've said my peace.  I hope your job never asks you to switch to weekend shifts or sends you to a foreign country for a couple years or you have to work night shifts while traveling.  Because then all your investment in your game will be lost.  Enjoy it while you can.  I suppose I should be grateful to get to see that before investing more than the initial $150.

    I still think you're missing something here.  There have been no real decisions announced and the majority of playtime will be doing things that are not within a window.  I'm also going to be overseas for a year after CF launches.  No big deal man, if you need someone to run with hit me up and I'll make sure you get your fair share of the action.

  12. 17 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    The numbers may be arbitrary but the people inside them are real persons. What about the almost 150 I have already here? and if i bring this to 300?

    So, to recap this in a peaceful matter, campaigns should be tailored to guild size. Small guilds fight other small guilds (even better if it is hardcore vs hardcore). Large casuals guild fights against other large casuals guilds. As you hardcore players want to decide the way you prefer to fight (primetime) we large guilds should be allowed the same (to me 24/7). You cant avoid players who want to zerg to group up and zerg, cause as Thomas Blair said "if there is a will there is a way". What you can do is to create different spaces for them and campaigns are the tools for this.

    I mean the cap of 300 is likely an arbitrary number and its not really worth using as a point of reference as I doubt they put much thought into it at the time and its likely to change.

    I guess my question would be, if there is a  server that is made for 30 man guilds, how do you stop a 150 man guild from playing on it?  If you can solve that problem I think you may be onto something (though I think most of the people in our community would revolt against any attempt at restriction).

  13. 2 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    I said I don't want to waste time with people who I can't have a discussion with. I never said this was meaningless otherwise I wouldn't be here replying. Please do not alter the meaning of my words, thank you.

    It is because there is no definition of it the real reason why we scream. If there was a definition we would just read that. It is like scientists discussing the origin of the universe. As long as there is no official definition the forums are the place to try to find the true meaning of it.

    So me asking to have a different campaign in which I can play with like minded player is destructive? How can a different campaign WHERE YOU DO NOT TAKE PART alter your game experience at all? It is not my mentality that is destructive. I am just the first to bring out to the table a guild so numerous that is probably soon going to have different needs rather than the majority of the other guilds.

    Now, you can think this is destructive, but if it wasn't me sooner or later you would have meet another player trying to do the same. So think of this like a chance. A chance for the game and the devs to think of what they are going to do with huge zerg guilds. 

    Fill in 100 members then!!!! You are more than welcome!!! Can't wait to see larger guilds!!!! Do your best, I wish you good luck.

    Fair point, I take back what I said.  Sorry.

    Again, scream away.

    I know you dont see it the same way, but Crowfall is one big community.  The more people that play on your server the less will be playing on mine.  I'll grant you that you will also attract a few more players only interested in what you're talking about.  What it boils down to is that I only see epic failure coming out of the server you're suggesting,  you're trying to repeat so many mistakes that have lead to the downfall of previous play to crush style games.  There is some grandure and romance in the ideas you suggest which will be attractive for some players, but when the server fails you're going to take most of them with you. 

    That's basically my only point.  Do I think it'll make a major impact?  It depends really, worst case is the server is very popular at first and the implodes.  The large initial population will attract most PVPers as we tend to flock.  Most likely however, I think it'll just end up being a waste of time and the minimal impacts that it would have are not worth it.

    You're certainly not the first person that wants to zerg in our community.  In Darkfall people went in approaching 3000 strong.  It played out just like everyone expected, as I tried to describe above.  The rest of us had to plus up to compete, I think our Alliance topped out at around 800 and we were the 6th largest.

    I do think that bringing up the zerg discussion is a worthy topic of conversation, though I don't think there is really a solution.  If there is no restriction to zerging, which I doubt there will be, people will zerg to survive.  Its the cycle of life. 

     

  14. 8 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    Ok, so why guild cap is 300? Ask to make the guild cap about 30 or 50. As long as the guild cap is 300 you can't avoid 300 people jumping in and ruining your fun.

     

    I feel you. I also sometimes get out of discussions I think are futile and useless. Well I guess this is over then. Thanks for the insight. I appreciate.

     

    Do you know something I dont?  I've never seen them mention a guild cap, and I have a feeling that most people would not be in favor of it.  The main reason is that 50 hardcore players will never equal 50 casual players.  Typically hardcore players are few and like to stick together using tightly controlled tactics, this generally keeps their numbers low, say 30/50 members play each night as an example.  On the other hand a casual guild may have 150 players but only 50 on each night.  If they were to fight I'd put my money on the more cooredinated group of 30. 

    I'm sure you can see how this is a delicate balance, and like most things in this style of game there is no perfect answer.

  15. 1 hour ago, Nyamo said:

    Thank you Krakken! I wish you the same!

    I didn't said this. I said that you can't suppose all players are looking to the same thing.

    Krakken, fun is so vague that leaves thousands of choices. It should be you (since it was you to use it) to pick a more precise one and then we go further from there, not me.

    Yes I am!!! Isn't organizing a mega-corporation a thing in throne of war-games? EVE online has mega corporations. Sorry I was supposed this was a throne of war simulator.

    Krakken and Zatch, how many people is a zerg?  100? 200? 300? So what about asking o reduce the number of maximum player allowed in a guild if you all are so scared by zergs?

    Do you know that at the time writing the cap for guilds is 300? So do you think JTC and Blair set it up to 300 out of the blue?? I have no clue on what was in their mind when they set it up to 300 but to me if you set it up to 300 is because you "want" huge alliances, huge guilds, huge fights and a rich and developed political scenario... cause guess what??? This is a throne of war simulator!!!! And gathering a huge amount of people is one of the possible strategies (of course you have to pull it off, but that is another matter).

    To me you are scared by zergs because zergs will ruin your fun 15 vs 15 small group of small friends that is against welcoming newcomers and will do everything they can to preserve their small heaven of your small group of close friends. And guess what?? This is perfectly fine for me. I am not against you having your heaven of small guilds fighting other small guilds. And I am not against your small guilds having campaigns tailored for small guilds neither. And I, at the moment leading (on paper, and just by mere number) the largest zerg of kittens in the game, have NO INTEREST AT ALL in your small guilds fights or quarrels.

    I want an environment in which OTHER LARGE ZERG GUILDS will fight against each other. Just because at the moment there is only Kittens doesn't mean there won't be more later on.

    So my educated guess will be that you and you group of small guilds play the drags in your small guild only campaign (devs can limit access to a certain dreg campaign by size of the guild, easy to implement and this is what is likely to happen) but you have to serenely admit that there will be guilds and players looking for a way larger enviroment rather than a small group of small guilds and want to play a larger "political" game with guild/corporations involving more and more players.

    To get back on topic of your "anti-zerg" mania. I am all favorable to anti-zerg!!! There is no fun in destroying small guilds by using a larger group. But stop thinking and acting like that there won't be campaigns suited to bigger and larger guilds!! We will just be in a different campaign and in a different dregs, fighting against similarly larger guilds. Hopefully with 24/7 fights. And these kinds of guilds will come. Kittens may be the first and at the moment the only one, but when more players will join more and more players will probably love the "thrill" to be in a huge political scenario and fights against a numerous army rather than a small group of really specialized players.

    To each his own.

    And by the way, when Kittens will reach 300 I will found Kittens 2. And then 3. And so on.

     

    Could you please elaborate more? Thank you.

    You post a lot for a guy that claimed he didn't waste time in these meaningless arguments like 8 pages ago.  Screaming this is a Throne War Simulator is pointless.  There is no actual definition to what that means. 

    Your mentality is very destructive to the game, and that's why we're trying to guide you down a different path.  The only true counter to a zerg is another zerg, and that's the problem.  You start the game on a cycle where numbers are the thing that matters most.  How big will a zerg get you ask?  I can tell you fairly precicely.  A zerg will grow up until the point where the server cant handle it anymore, it doesn't matter what the actual number is.  At that point you'll have epicly large in scale zerg battles in which everyone is lagged out,  you frequently crash the server and nobody truely has any fun.  The only result from that is masses of people quitting the game.

    Alternately, if a zerg is allowed to grow without everyone else being forced to zerg as a counter, they will simply walk all over everyone else due to numbers alone.  The only outcome to that is that everyone will be wiped off the map except for the mega zerg, and then the mega zerg is left with nobody to fight.  Once again, leading to masses of people quitting the game. 

    Just so there isn't any confusion by the way.  The majority of guilds in this dicussion are going to be fielding 100 plus players once the game goes live. 

     

  16. 21 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

    The reason I referred to historical modelling and simulation is because of the game's tagline as “a throne war simulator”.

    Regarding the rest of your post, I very much appreciate what you write.  I am not certain why your allies don't defend you against these honorless guilds?  Or why people don't then punish these honorless guilds once they are actually all online?  Isn't this the idea of a FFA?  That people make their own rules?  Is truly the only solution to this problem -- which I recognize, especially in the case of coordinated vacation from work to siege someone -- to have a game design decision to not let people play the full game most hours of the day?

    If people cannot police their own server and make griefers lives miserable enough that they give up griefing and go to a game where it is easier to do so (which I understand to be a tenet of FFA), then surely there are other design decisions that could address this without forcing people who don't work standard hours to feel even further distanced from society?

    If we are ignoring all historical accuracy, why not get really creative.  When someone initiates a siege it saves the current state of the buildings -- before any destruction.  Then within 12 hours, there is the opportunity for the owning guild to "rechallenge".  A successful rechallenge results not only in capturing it back, but magically rewinding time to the state it was in before the attack.

    --

    Probably the most confusing part of your post to me was how it talked about all the time and effort of building the cities.  It's my understanding this won't even be in launch.  The only time and effort in building is in the instanced-housing-esque EK.  The campaigns are temporary and the destruction of everything is just a matter of time.  There are talks of allowing players to construct buildings WITHIN campaigns at some point in time long down the road, but that doesn't seem to be a design priority at all.  The territory being exchanged are all part of the map generation and all eventually going to be destroyed forever when the campaign ends.   So I'm not sure if it's really a 1-to-1 equivalence to the player cities you describe.  In the current campaign a single player can fully repair one of the forts or keeps in an hour or so, even at times 10 speed that investment is not terribly significant in MMO terms.

    I suppose we have different opinions what  A Throne War means.  I take it in a very arcade sense, and in no way historically.  Not a very important point either way.  

    In regards to "why didn't you", that's a very complicated question, but interesting I suppose.  I don't think I can truely give you a suitable answer but I'll try to express my observation.  The short answer is, we did, all of those things.  Frankly, being young at the time and not really caring about high school I look back very fondly at that era.  It was everything a "throne war" should be, enemies hated eachother, people were sneaking spies into eachothers guilds, politics were a major factor as people would gesture and plot, and alliances rose and fell on things like betrayal. 

    Honor in a game like this is very fickle, its existance balances on the misguided thought that all care about something greater then their own enjoyment in the game.  Why didn't someone do something about the guilds that were doing late night sieges?  Because the most powerful guilds were out to win, and players like us will do anything to win.  There were no guilds that could counter that tactic because everyone with any kind of power was doing it.

    It's been my experience that the most hardcore players are not the type of players that care about fake rules in a game.  They care only about staying at the top.  (This is less true as populations decline and they start to realize that their actions have real impact on the future of the game.)

    As far as getting the most out of a 24 hour day goes, I think we're talking about different things here.  Though city sieges will be a major part of the game (which by the way I was under the opposite impression, fairly sure that guild cities will be in at launch though I have no evidence to back that up), its not the whole game.  In the other games sieging was for the most part fairly rare, perhaps one or two nights a month.  The majority of the time you would just engage in PVP throughout the world at any time of the day as you worked towards advancing.  Where I do have a real concern, in line with your thought, is that in Shadowbane as populations dwindled it became harder and hard to find a fight.  When they introduced mines (with windows) everyone knew that they could find a fight at 6pm and that became the only time other then a siege that the game was worth playing.

    This was a product of a population that had decreased below a saturation level in my book though, and if Crowfall can maintain an ample playerbase it shouldn't be an issue.

    Though I do like that you're being more creative with your ideas, not a fan of the rechallenge concept.  Windows already solve the problem and they don't bother me.  If everyone had no real life obligations 24 hour sieging would be great.  Unfortunately I now work for a living and I already have to face the fact that early sieges on the east coast will be while I'm at work on the west coast.

     

  17. 3 hours ago, Arcadi said:

    Nor, then, would it take must effort to stop them.  Might encourage guilds to have a couple players in weird time schedules here and there.  Have the bonus of promoting a little diversity.  Was my favorite part of AO, we had players all over the world, playing the strangest schedules.  Met so many great people.

    I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hear your plight.  This is where I feel your logic breaks down however.

    From what I read, you're coming from an RvR perspective instead of a GvG perspective.  It's a little easier to understand why you don't seem to quite get it.  That may be a little rude but no insult intended.

    First I'd like to understand what you really want. 
    From reading most of your comments you basically seem to want the ability to do anything at anytime. 
    When you realized that, that might not be popular, you pitched the idea of multi-day sieging with windows changing to cover a 24 hour spawn.
    To be clear.  You'd like this to be the primary ruleset for GvG/Dregs or an extra CW type?

    I can only speak from my experience in Shadowbane and Darkfall Online, both of which at one point had 24 hour sieging.  24 hour sieging in this kind of game is a detriment to the experience.  How?  The attacker had far too great of an advantage.  It has nothing to do with balancing the makeup of your guild by timezone.  In GvG everything you own, especially something like a capital city, was made through great personal effort.  The level that things become personal when this is the case is extremely high.  Just look at this simple forum thread as an example, some of us have spent hours defending our argument and a lot of emotionally based words have been thrown.  That effect is off the chart when it comes to sieging in GvG. 

    So, what was sieging like with 24 hour vulnerability?  My guild would plan in secret a day that we were all willing to either get up early, stay up late, take off work, etc. and siege our enemy at the most opportune time for us.  No matter how many people they had to support playing during that hour, there was no way they would be able to match the force of my entire guild.  Often times before they could react, and wake enough people up (sacrificing their own real life) the city would be under our control and now we would have the advantage of defending from inside the walls.

    So what though right, once every so often you had to miss some work or sleep.  Not that big of a deal.  You have to understand though that when you use tactics like this to destroy something someone spent a month plus to create when you couldn't be there to defend it, personal is hardly sufficient to describe it.  You don't really care that much about anything except making the other peoples lives as miserable as possible.  The outcome of this was fake sieges.  People started to drop sieges at 3-4am, or during working hours forcing the enemy to muster a defense and simply not show up.  I saw that happen to some guilds dozens of times.  It didnt take many fake sieges for the enemies numbers to be much lower when you actually decided to attend one.

    Because of the personal nature, and the time investment of these kinds of games, not showing up to defend your city is not really a choice, its a requirement.  Work is a little different but I don't think anyone in this thread would not sacrifice sleep to defend their guilds assets.  Many of us will do that to such an extent that it would greatly affect our personal lives.  That is why a game like Crowfall has to make an ethical choice to protect players from themselves.  Something has to give, and most likely it's going to be the population.  Siege windows were not something that were forced on us, they were something we asked for. 

    Others in this thread were right, the tactics that I explained here were precisely done to avoid a good fight.  Windows ensure that the maximum number of people are able to participate.  Unfortunately that means that the minority now has a choice, to make the same kinds of sacrifices, or not play.  Either way, its a necessary evil.

    I also urge you to stop making any reference to what is "historically accurate".  It doesn't matter.  Historically, people couldn't move their entire army to an enemies wall within 20 minutes, and log off, wait 6 hours until people have gone to bed, and log back in and immediately take down the city.  Historically, a person wouldn't go to bed in their room in a keep, and wake up the next morning standing on a pile of rubble.

     

  18. 33 minutes ago, Zatch said:

    Overall I think what you have is a decent start, I'd add that the overall meta for Crowfall should be about the logistics of winning a campaign versus having a good fight. With that in mind I'd like to see POIs have enough of a gameplay loop to last multiple days versus a few hours.  Building a fort/respawn should take longer the farther it is from your capital city, and the entire capture/extraction process should occur multiple times throughout the day. This would drive pvp throughout the fort building process and resource acquisition over a multitude of playimes. 

    Further I like randomized spawn timers and locations for POIs. I think it greatly contributes to the scout play style, and adds a level of chaos to the political progression of a campaign. 

    Hmm, having the event last more then a few hours starts to complicate things in my book.  With that system, from the moment the event spawns in the world, until its over there is potentially constant action.  Why not just start a new PoI event the next day?  A multi-day event would have a lull period over night that would sap energy out of it.

    While I understand your logic, I only marginally agree that to an extent that the overall meta should be getting material to win the campaign.  The truth is, a lot of people are not going to have much of a chance at winning a campaign.  What's going to keep them coming back campaign after campaign is going to be the enjoyment of the day to day fighting.  That said, I dont think they are mutually exclusive.  The trigger for the engagement is the lure of profiting from the PoI, the mechanism for claiming the prize just happens to put players in a situation that has a high likelyhood of being a meaningful, challenging engagement.

    I can see that you're concerned with the windows lasting long enough to span time zones a bit more.  The way I see it, the PoI's would begin within a window of time, some earlier and some later.  While each day the event wouldn't be at the perfect time for everyone, there would be enough of a variation that you would get to participate in events 3 or 4 times a week.

    I suspect that these events would end up something along the lines of raids in PVE games, with powerhouse guilds doing them nightly, and more casual guilds doing them a few times a week.

     

  19. Other things aside, someone convince me that throwing down strongholds outside of a PoI inorder to capture it and or reap its rewards isn't the ideal way to handle these nightly events.  Here's why I think it's the best solution.

    **#1 you create a very high likelyhood that fighting will last for the duration of prime-time in that area. (This means that players that only have 30 minutes to play, can participate.)
    **We build stuff in the world that has meaning.
    **We just created a localized respawn point.
    **We've now put two+ teams in a localized area.
    **If we're pushed back we can regroup, in reletive safety, within the walls. (More fighting, over longer periods)
    **Your team works on building siege equipment within the walls.
    **The closer you fight from your stronghold the greater advantage you have. (Creates a yoyo effect that prolongs conflict)
    **Scouting for strongholds going up becomes important.
    **Final stage is you're sieging an asset that someone built, something pride alone will make worth defending.
    **Crafters come to the front line to build upgrades and siege at the forward asset.

    We can talk about supply lines and building blocks all you want.  Lets not forget the point of the PoI.  Its a carrot to bring large groups together, for the purpose of combat.  The value is the fight, not the pixels you get out of it.    Everything I tried to focus on goes towards that goal but sometimes I get caught up in the details and just throw out ideas. 

    Problems I see with this idea: (My suggestions)

    **Respawn Rush (Respawning should take a recovery period, instead of respawning with full health, food and armor)
    **Long fights, doesn't address people like Salamar that may log in an hour after fighting began.  (Players in a guild with a stronghold should be able to fast travel to the fight within reason)
    **May require extra programming. (Worth it)
    **Building on the cheap.  The cost of building a stronghold would have to be reasonable enough to make this viable. (Doesn't bother me to be honest, but it will some)

    To conclude:
    Taking a pre-fab Keep has no meaning.  PoI's, where you have to run who knows how far to get to, in the current concept will only provide one decent fight in a night.  We have all been on, and know what happens, when you get all dressed up for a fight, run 30 minutes to a region, and get rolled.  It's a lot harder to restart that engine once it has stalled.  There's always that awkward silence that peters off into an empty discord.  If you allow the same team to run to an area, put down roots, develop their frontline as people log on, if and when they die thoughts will be of protecting their walls and regrouping because the enemy is likely going to press.  Suddenly you've turned a single fight into a drawn out event.  

  20. 12 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    I haven't made any argument for you but if thinking of that makes you feel better feel free to think it I am happy to give you spiritual relief and feel free to message me if you need more I love helping people, even when helping them comes in such as an unexpected way like the one you just mentioned. If I am making an argument it is for the devs. I am quoting you and the others for them not to brainwash you nor to even have a conversation with you. I just pick part of what you write and use themfunctionally to explain my point of view on the matter to the devs. I have stopped playing the forum games years ago I have better ways to spend my time.

    Usually when people have a failing argument the resort to personal attacks.  It seems you've run out of counter points with any substance.  I respect that you want to get your point across to the Devs, as do we all, for your sake I hope you get what you want out of Crowfall. 

  21. 5 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    Dude, this is a nonsense. It is just to turn on or off one variable called "enable scheduled raid time". Do not act me like if I am un-savvy of how development work cause you are just looking like the one who isn't aware of how development works. Also if these kind of players bring money the development team will do their best to grab their money, so will surely allocate resources if they see profits in the long term. And this is true regardless of what we are discussing.

    Probably only me.

    How many people living abroad, people that prefer to spend 20-22PM with their wives rather than raiding, how many people who do night-shifts at work, how many people that have friends abroad, how many people that live in a area where there is no official server, and how many people that simply do not like scheduled raiding time. I see a player base here made of melting pot of users that have different backgrounds but have one common need.

    First, that control would have to be programmed.  It could be difficult or easy depending on several variables.  Then the server would have to be set up and monitored.  Not to mention balancing decisions would have to take this ruleset into consideration.  Of course your not wrong that if they see profit in it they would allocate resources, but once again you just made my argument for me.  Allocation of resources toward this project by its very nature means you're allocating them from something else. 

    Regardless, to make my point clear, I view this server has having an extremely low population as I think you're the only person I've seen in the community that has been pushing for it.  In my world there is no chance that they will see value in this and therefor I'm less arguing against having such a server, and more trying to explain to you why you shouldn't get your hopes up. 

    You argue that people with friends overseas will want to play on this server.  What server are they going to play on if this server doesnt exist?  Once again you counter your own arguments.  While some people may prefer to play on a server like that, to imply that they simply wont play the game if it doesn't exist is misguided at best. 

    To answer to your highlighted rhetorical question without a question mark, still the vast minority, and even then majority of them will want to play with their friends that dont fit into those sample cases. 

  22. 33 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

    To be honest the current ruleset already does this. Some players are advocating to change it and replace it completely. I am just asking to keep a campaign in which people from different time zones can play without worrying too much of a scheduled and arbitrarily decided siege time (which means leave a campaign with the rules as it is now).

    The current ruleset is only the way it is because there are huge pieces to the game missing still.  They basically made it just playable enough to test things.  I think what we're trying to say is that, although you think that having a special ruleset that I wont play on wont affect me, in reality it will.  One, in the loss of development time towards other projects that are more vital to the game, and another in the form of splitting a population even more.  

    I mean you made your own case against yourself in my eyes.  How many italian people, living in japan, that are interested in playing crowfall, that are interested in having no event windows on major activities in the game are there?  I get it, that is a bit ridiculous but the facts remain.  Ping is a major issue, and regional publishers is a major issue.  

  23. If they solved the latency problem in the world I could see your argument, and would definately love to play on a truely international server.  Unfortunately I'm not willing to play with a 150+ ping anymore and I wouldnt expect less from anyone else in the world.  I'm not against trying out a ruleset CW that does it but I think people are more likely to go where the population is, and this server would be a novalty at best. 

×
×
  • Create New...