McTan

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.

Of course. I am saying that there is a way to implement rare item camps that do not require grinding, instead requiring preparation and timing.

Going to kill discipline rune droppers was not a grind.

Exactly. I think the fact that you change vessels eliminates vessel-based respec need.

Smaller and smaller improvements that take more and more time. The real key is that what you are asking/allowing players to do between improvements is very fun. Eyes on the prize, devs! Good combat, great politics, real victories (not just points, substance)

The combination of: Dregs (Player made alliances/non-factional) Free(r) building in CWs Non-random resource positioning Full guild interface and system with ranks corresponding to control over buildings, upkeep, thralls, etc. Full Embargo Loop Some are done, some are kind of done, some are not.

Two questions woven together here. (1) How much should better gear improve your character? (2) How hard should better gear be to get? People usually have problems with (2) precisely because of the answer to (1). Disciplines, and gear in general, being too big of power leaps leads to better gear being necessary, and so access comes under heavy scrutiny. Make white vessel, fully leveled with disciplines and gear be 90% of maximum possible statistical power. All Greens 94% All Blues 97.5% All Purples 99% All Oranges 100% Then make each of those improvements exponentially harder to achieve in time and RNG, and you've got yourself a sustainable game that supports a long-term economy.

Really? Why so? The larger guild part, that is.

This problem will be lessened significantly when disciplines are hard to get.

I'm intrigued, and I'll check it out!

So, you just agreed with me? I am not sure why you quoted my post. Another very important aspect of both Chess and Starcraft is the ability of a side to concede the match and end the game "early" - meaning without a Checkmate or without eliminating all opponent structures and units. There are two issues at stake, yes: the current campaign and the next campaign. Each has unique, but intertwined problems. The current campaign has to have win conditions that are understood & minimize any sort of counterproductive winner behavior, such as milking a winning campaign. Instead of setting a timer on the campaign and whoever has the most points wins, put a winning point count, and whoever gets there first wins. No reason to milk a winning Uncle Bob-like scenario, as there is no benefit. The next campaign has the bigger problem, from my perspective. In Chess and Starcraft, it is rare to see the losing side never play the game again. In CF, that will not be the case. Ultimately, I do not think they can avoid this fact: the side who wins a campaign will have an advantage in the next campaign, because their members are more likely to stay and the losing sides will more likely bleed members.

Yikes - "getting a head start" - what? You are just describing winning the game. And besides that, losing pieces does not always mean your chances of winning are diminished.

For me, neither Chess nor Starcraft have an Uncle Bob problem, because when one game ends, the winner cannot bring anything but knowledge into the next game. That is, at the beginning of the next game, there is no difference between the previous winner and the previous loser. The board and pieces are reset. Slippery slope is a bit of a dicey premise, in my opinion. Neither Chess nor Starcraft have a design flaw that I'd call "slippery slope" - this concept seems to be used to obscure a simple reality: winning an early battle often leads to winning the game. Break the pawn structure, wipe some SCVs, it's not a problem, it's precisely how the games are supposed to work. Crowfall needs to worry about these two things because the campaigns last significantly longer than Chess games and Starcraft matches. Notice that slippery slope and Uncle Bob were irrelevant in Hunger Dome scenarios three/four years ago. Ultimately, I think the only aspect they should really worry about is how quickly and easily a side that lost an early battle can regain the character-based power necessary to compete in the next battle. If it's lose one big battle and lose all hope, then we have a problem. If it's lose one big battle and have an uphill struggle that can be done, good.

For me, it's also the ring-around-the-rosey feel. Why do I want to hold the Outpost, besides points? If the answer is, "I don't," then it becomes a pretty mundane exercise of back-capping. I got fairly tired of it in one hour. Maybe when we can free build in the world, I'd feel differently. Perhaps it is also the sheer density of things to capture is a bit over the top and impossible to really defend in a way that isn't capture-capture back.