McTan

I'm kind of surprised, I checked out New World when it was first available and thought it was awful and did not hold too much promise.

@APE There is no doubt that a group that wins one campaign is more likely to find success in future campaigns. As it is in sports, a team with better players is more likely to win, by definition. But, that scenario is not Uncle Bob. Uncle Bob would be: you won the Super Bowl last year, so you start every game this year already winning 7-0. That is what the OP is suggesting (though I think they could give winning guilds a unique Castle Design for their guild-EK or something - significant, but cosmetic).

Really hoping that the Stoneborn racial is better than immune to poison. It sounded to me like what @thomasblair described for Half-elves (CC causes small HoT) should be Stoneborn, or something equally as good.

I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't think people would be able to stomach getting the debuff applied to themselves. I think it will be viewed as a punishment and not a deterrent. As in the other thread, I just think it's a vastly superior idea to have a mechanic on the victory condition. So, in campaign, leaders and guilds need to make serious decisions about who they should ally with and if they should leave their alliance and join another, and so on. Not temporary, not combat related, but strategic. Can you imagine the politics of needing to argue between nation leaders and subguilds as to whether it makes more sense for a powerful, small subguild to leave and take a lower position but better proportions, as opposed to staying with a large nation that does not pull their weight equally? I can. And I think it could totally work. In my experience, political intrigue and frustration is going to have more longevity than direct game mechanic intervention. Let us have to be smart about how we play, who we score points for, and who we keep in our guilds and nations.

Any sense of punishing zergs should be done on the backend, when campaigns end. Not during. Crowfall, as an MMO trying to do a true victory mechanic has a wonderfully unique opportunity to punish mindless zerging, if they can brainstorm a solution wherein having massive numbers dilutes the reward. So, you can guarantee winning with a massive zerg, but there is incentive for people to leave the zerg and win smaller, or for zergs themselves to cull their numbers and create and inspire more enemies, in order to maximize their reward. These decisions are political, and therefore, worthy of the game. They can be driven by interesting counterbalancing mechanics based on numbers. A simple idea might be something like: Every unique player that contributes to your side's victory during a campaign dilutes the reward slightly. So, it might wind up that if you can finish third in points, but do so with half the numbers of first and second, you are actually winning numerically, when all is said and done.

You are describing discipline droppers, and hopefully CF copies SB with this mechanic. They seem to be resistant, but I don't see why they can't make a good subset of the disciplines dropped from specific mobs. I would freaking love to see battles over the Foreman disc.

Yeah, I'd never want to comment on a specific dollar amount, but if they have marketing money set aside, then make it a big percentage!

Yeah, but people still are going to feel like they are paying extra (even if they are not) to catch up with those already playing. It's a massive headache that should be avoided, IMO. Final full wipe should be advertised as launch, nothing else should even harbor any words or concepts resembling launch.

I'm not sure either. I definitely don't think they are obligated to market launch, but if they do market something, there better not be a "no more wipes" moment before it. I do think they are essentially obligated from a financial standpoint, since launch will be such a massive percent of their remaining revenue for the game, but that's just my perception, not based on any inside knowledge.

Honestly, a wipe seems like it would not attract new players. I know nobody new from MWH will play until the patch, so it seems like people who have been invested since the last wipe should be able to play out their time and energy until then.

I agree, we'll only know in hindsight if there is a secondary launch after it. I kind of expect there only to be a single launch, at this point, since development has been so much more open than typical games. For me, I can't see a strong argument for not having just one launch with a massive percent of the marketing budget spent. I can, however, see a strong argument against doing a soft launch where they say "no more wipes" but do not spend the marketing budget then. -- Headline: CROWFALL RELEASE JULY 2021! Play to Crush! "I'm excited the game is finally coming out!" "Yeah, but a bunch of people will already have passive training ahead of you, since they started in January 2021 with soft-launch. It wasn't highly advertised." Cut to crying on the forums that people starting now are behind, even though it is marketed as launch or release. -- It'll be a very, very fine needle to thread (if it's even possible), and does not seem worth the risk, IMO. Even if it is a negligible advantage, or is otherwise handled by game mechanics to mitigate advantage, it won't matter since the perception of an advantage is the actual problem.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the concept of having a soft launch is being revisited

The problem with arena PvP is that so many other games do it. If CF wants to grab its niche, it should keep from being a casual-friendly PvP game, in my opinion.

It's a good idea. Like fighting the Hunger on the land, and that scores you points. Active, exploratory; places that haven't been efficiently worked are worth more (so people go farther away for better value). There is much more to it, but it's a good premise, I think.

You mean like the elite equipment droppers in SB? What about the highest level camps with increased drop rates for stat runes? Guards? All improved the daily struggle, as even with RNG, specific camps and places had improved rates (sometimes even 100%, as you note). You could have simply said, "yes I agree, discipline droppers would be a good idea, and possibly some other types of organizations that limit grinding and instead provide PoIs that help with 'war and engaging players,'" as the initial post in question stated. Instead you did not say anything like that, doubled-down on your hard-line that his comment only implied grind-based RNG drops (even though he said runes and has a SB icon next to his name). You portrayed him as an advocate for grinds because he suggested building camps that encourage dispute, "so people go there and fight over it" - if that is considered grind, then they should put in a grind. That was what was obtuse. Good luck, I understand -W- is really finding some great fights in CF, on the regular! I'll show myself back off these boards for another few months.