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

The fun, yet gruesome, facts about vessels - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Humor me. Identify that context.

 

Humor me first. Show that you are trying to understand what I was saying. Show just a little good faith, and I'll be happy to explain myself further.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are digesting these systems in mostly concept form. So I hesitate to really give a ton of feedback when so much is to be determined. However, that being said, I really think many here have this band concept all wrong. It is not Dregs is high risk, Gods reach is low risk. It is Dregs is "free for all" and Gods Reach is 3 faction warfare. To say that there won't be a high risk, "winner take all" Campaigns  in God's Reach and all Dregs Campaigns will be high risk, high reward, Is missing the concept of the bands. 

 

The value of resources in the campaign world will be set by the risks of the ruleset. I am pretty sure the export rules, and the death penalties will be the primary factor, in resource generation, not the import ruleset or the band it exists in. These are for balance and gameplay style, not difficulty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been said frequently that CW's are the main focus of this game and they want players focused on those as much as possible.  To that extent, the relics/artifacts are not supposed to provide a great impact on CW's.  They would be going back on quite a bit in order to bring it all together.  Artifacts and Relics originate in the CWs, and what I said about temples and reliquaries is nothing new; the only new suggest is the source of the materials coming from distinctly different bands, in drastically different quantities.

 

Things seem to be tilting toward a gear driven, economy game that requires numbers to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.  I am not sure how any of that is contradictory to what I stated.  Care to elaborate?

The question put forth by TheDoctor was more or less (heavily paraphrased), "What is the role of Dregs players in the larger economy if the flow of resources is largely one way?" What could the rest of the player base offer Dregs players in return for the rare materials and vessels they manage to get out of the Campaign?" 

 

My first answer was V.I.P tickets, but he was right to point out that Dregs players have access to those already, so that got me thinking that the other campaigns need something unique they can bring to the bargaining table.  Just because materials in the Lower-Risk CWs aren't "rare" doesn't mean they cannot be unique to those bands, giving Non-Dregs players something they can barter with.   One rare material should still be worth absurd sums of common materials, but that doesn't mean those common materials shouldn't be needed by Dregs players.  To make them needed, they should be stripped in any real quantity from the higher-risk campaigns.  Dregs players will also need a use for those truckloads of common materials, and since Dregs are low-to-zero import, that utilization shouldn't be armor, weapons, or vessels. 

 

To prevent Uncle Bob, I was thinking along the lines of something in the EKs they could spend the resources on that wouldn't be overpowered, and I thought about Artifacts and Relics, but if you don't think they give enough incentive for everyone to want Temples in their EKs, then let me throw out another idea. 

 

We've already been told that the number of structures in the EK will determine the maximum number of concurrent players that can be in that EK.  So if you want, a large bustling metropolis of an EK, you'll need lots of buildings to allow for lots of thralls/players, right?  Well, what if that maximum concurrent players, was also the maximum size of your guild.  No hard guild caps, but if you want a large guild, you would need an equally large EK.  You wouldn't have to spend time there, you wouldn't have to set it to public, you wouldn't have to do anything more than build and maintain it, but that would require copious amounts of common materials from Lower-Risk CWs as well as a fair amount of rare materials from the inner-bands.


Luke I am your Uncle... Bob.  What, my sister Padmè never mentioned me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already been told that the number of structures in the EK will determine the maximum number of concurrent players that can be in that EK.  So if you want, a large bustling metropolis of an EK, you'll need lots of buildings to allow for lots of thralls/players, right?  Well, what if that maximum concurrent players, was also the maximum size of your guild.  No hard guild caps, but if you want a large guild, you would need an equally large EK.  You wouldn't have to spend time there, you wouldn't have to set it to public, you wouldn't have to do anything more than build and maintain it, but that would require copious amounts of common materials from Lower-Risk CWs as well as a fair amount of rare materials from the inner-bands.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Early on, at the very least, most crafters will likely be there. I'll be focusing on combat skills, and won't want to devote a spot to training a crafting skill. As a result, I'll be bringing resources out, and trade them for crafted goods from players in the Reach.


CF_Van.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Doctor,

This is a prescription for a dead game.

First, I think you overestimate the power 1 well-equipped vessel for each crow will give a guild, over a guild with just decently-equipped vessels.

We need multiple sets of rules for entry level campaigns with varied risk/reward levels.

Just because you or I am not interested in a particular ruleset doesn't mean it won't attract a big following.

Dregs and Shadow campaigns will feed the EK decorator players with mats and resources, and they'll feed the lower-risk ring campaigns too, or the only relevance they'll have is the buffs we get from sacrificing artifacts and relics.

Without significant EK's CF will be too much like MOBAs and likely bleed sheep. Wolves need plenty of sheep.

And the best-supplied crafters will be working the dregs, trying to win or kneel to the victors, and trading finished goods for protection.

There will be plenty of opportunities for mayhem and plunder in all campaigns with ACE's planned game.

Give it a chance, then tell them where it's broken.

Edited by chancellor

I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctor,

This is a prescription for a dead game.

We need multiple sets of rules for entry level campaigns with varied risk/reward levels.

Just because you or I am not interested in a particular ruleset doesn't mean it won't attract a big following.

Dregs and Shadow campaigns will feed the EK decorator players with mats and resources, and they'll feed the lower-risk ring campaigns too, or the only relevance they'll have is the buffs we get from sacrificing artifacts and relics.

Without significant EK's CF will be too much like MOBAs and likely bleed sheep. Wolves need plenty of sheep.

And the best-supplied crafters will be working the dregs, trying to win or kneel to the victors, and trading finished goods for protection.

There will be plenty of opportunities for mayhem and plunder in all campaigns with ACE's planned game.

Give it a chance, then tell them where it's broken.

 

EK's have been denounced as the salad bar at a steak house.  It's there, not bad to have, but not why you're there.  What hasn't been explained is how they are balancing these CW's and how they will tie together in a meaningful way.  The dregs players go into campaigns that have little import.... so how can you force them to rely or interact with the population at large?  Any interaction outside of the dregs campaigns is rendered useless.  You can however force interaction by bringing everyone else into those campaigns and providing meaning to them.

 

What we are bringing up though, is that with import rulesets, what is keeping this game from turning into a group of mega guilds or alliances from waging wars across campaigns as opposed to each campaign kicking off new and dynamic encounters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not Dregs is high risk, Gods reach is low risk.

 

That is absolutely, precisely what they have repeatedly, explicitly stated it to be. So... I guess you literally couldn't be more wrong.


I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do outer band players have to trade with inner band players for their rare goods? Common goods in bulk quantities. If I can export 10 units of Unobtainium from a Dregs campaign which I can trade in the EKs for the 1000 units of iron I need, then the economy is working and parties on both sides of the exchange are happy. Comparative advantage enables trade even if the Dregs have an absolute productive advantage for all goods, just as in the classic example of England's cloth for Portugal's wine.

 

The question then becomes what the heck do I want 1000 units of iron for. Presumably I want it for EK construction, so the assumption on which this economy is premised is that EK construction has value to at least some dregs players - either because they need to build large museum buildings in which to place top-tier artifacts, or because kingdom development level is somehow used to gate access to high status campaigns or leaderboards.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I am understanding the article correctly, and the discussion here, it appears that those who desire a single character option:

1. can do that (already confirmed earlier)

2. will have to maintain their archetype through resource gathering (already confirmed earlier).

3. will not be able to feasibly enter into high risk campaigns, because you're going to die and lose your vessel (also previously confirmed).

4. will not be able to enter restricted import campaigns (eventually). 

 

Conclusion:

Because high risk campaigns (where you can't go) have the greatest reward (what you need to progress) progression will be capped at a lower level for the archetype maintenance crowd.  Feasibly, the work around could be to pay real cash through VIP and purchase upgrades/maintenance from other players through EKs.  However, if there are import rules that won't allow you to bring in your vessel, then they will also be excluded from other campaigns, such as those many players think will be found mostly in The Dregs. 

 

Therefore, the single character option, talked about in the article, effectively restricts players from low import campaigns, high reward campaigns and necessitates VIP for progression.  It is reasonable to assume then that high import, low risk campaigns, low export/rewards campaigns will have to exist--or at least will be absolutely necessary if ACE does plan to actually support the single character option.

 

This appears to work because it would dissuade farming by mega guilds (low export/low reward), and therefor support smaller groups/guilds who will struggle to compete against huge, organized guilds! 

 

Sounds decent, but the reality is this: nothing is stopping totally geared out, huge, organized guilds from joining these campaigns and probably dominating them for the lolz, to pad "stats", gather quantities of resources of lesser significance (with little/no risk) to flood the market or for their own purposes, and/or to "carry" friends, allies and paying customers.  If you don't think this will happen, please see every MMO ever that has allowed similar things. 

 

We don't know enough yet--but I believe it is worthwhile pointing out potential flaws at this point in development. 

 

EDIT: Why is this the above a potential flaw?  Because it creates an Uncle Bob situation in the campaigns that certain players are restricted to (please note, according to the article and posts on these boards, it appears that ACE intends to support these players). 

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is absolutely, precisely what they have repeatedly, explicitly stated it to be. So... I guess you literally couldn't be more wrong.

 

haha, I could very well be. I am very aware that they have stated this. They have also stated that campaigns will contain the rulesets not the bands. To make sure there is not too many campaigns spreading the population they will have to start somewhere with rule sets. Also they will want to cover as different playstyles, So I understand why there is a difficulty element set within the bands.

 

That being said, I know that gaming resources tend to follow the population; if the large population is playing in the infected, and keep asking for a campaign with a winner take all ruleset. I have a pretty good bet it will get made, even if the "band" doesn't support it.

 

But why does all this matter? I think we get hung up on this "Dregs will have no import, so no economy", style of thinking. Stepping back, and looking at the large picture of the concept, and notice that its design is to be fluid. In Theory, we can actually Have a Dregs campaign with no import and a Dregs campaign with large import rules running side by side if the populations support it.

 

So While I do believe the concern: "How does a completely closed campaign fit in the economy?" is a valid one. I believe the consern: "That God's Reach players will have nothing to offer Dregs players" is already addressed in the fluidity of the design as we currently know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EK's have been denounced as the salad bar at a steak house.  It's there, not bad to have, but not why you're there.  What hasn't been explained is how they are balancing these CW's and how they will tie together in a meaningful way.  The dregs players go into campaigns that have little import.... so how can you force them to rely or interact with the population at large?  Any interaction outside of the dregs campaigns is rendered useless.  You can however force interaction by bringing everyone else into those campaigns and providing meaning to them.

 

What we are bringing up though, is that with import rulesets, what is keeping this game from turning into a group of mega guilds or alliances from waging wars across campaigns as opposed to each campaign kicking off new and dynamic encounters?

Q1) ACE won't force them. Players who win in the dregs and are uninterested in outer bands can be enticed to interact with OB players. As Gilgamer said, VIP tokens will be exchanged for pixels, so will cash. Dregs guilds will also be for hire in high prestige campaigns, like tournament campaigns; and the hiring guilds will pay well to keep them happy.

 

Q2) I have to agree with VN to a point. This is likely the metagame ACE will be willing to accept. However, if CF is healthy enough to support enough servers, there will be too many campaigns for the uncle Bobs to dominate them all. You have to devote a whole lot of man-hours to a campaign in order to win it, and as we say, "you can't win them all".

 

 

 

So, if I am understanding the article correctly, and the discussion here, it appears that those who desire a single character option:

1. can do that (already confirmed earlier)

2. will have to maintain their archetype through resource gathering (already confirmed earlier).

3. will not be able to feasibly enter into high risk campaigns, because you're going to die and lose your vessel (also previously confirmed).

4. will not be able to enter restricted import campaigns (eventually). 

 

Conclusion:

Because high risk campaigns (where you can't go) have the greatest reward (what you need to progress) progression will be capped at a lower level for the archetype maintenance crowd.  Feasibly, the work around could be to pay real cash through VIP and purchase upgrades/maintenance from other players through EKs.  However, if there are import rules that won't allow you to bring in your vessel, then they will also be excluded from other campaigns, such as those many players think will be found mostly in The Dregs. 

 

Therefore, the single character option, talked about in the article, effectively restricts players from low import campaigns, high reward campaigns and necessitates VIP for progression.  It is reasonable to assume then that high import, low risk campaigns, low export/rewards campaigns will have to exist--or at least will be absolutely necessary if ACE does plan to actually support the single character option.

 

This appears to work because it would dissuade farming by mega guilds (low export/low reward), and therefor support smaller groups/guilds who will struggle to compete against huge, organized guilds! 

 

Sounds decent, but the reality is this: nothing is stopping totally geared out, huge, organized guilds from joining these campaigns and probably dominating them for the lolz, to pad "stats", gather quantities of resources of lesser significance (with little/no risk) to flood the market or for their own purposes, and/or to "carry" friends, allies and paying customers.  If you don't think this will happen, please see every MMO ever that has allowed similar things. 

 

We don't know enough yet--but I believe it is worthwhile pointing out potential flaws at this point in development. 

 

EDIT: Why is this the above a potential flaw?  Because it creates an Uncle Bob situation in the campaigns that certain players are restricted to (please note, according to the article and posts on these boards, it appears that ACE intends to support these players). 

If you're just tied to the archetype (and presumably class & disciplines) and looks of your original vessel, you can duplicate that with backup vessels.

If you're tied to the original meat, yes you do seem to have a problem.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just tied to the archetype (and presumably class & disciplines) and looks of your original vessel, you can duplicate that with backup vessels.

If you're tied to the original meat, yes you do seem to have a problem.

 

So, IF ACE really does intend to support the single character option, as they have led us to believe (at this point), then my problem is their problem.  Regardless, you'll still have an "Uncle Bob" situation in those campaigns. 


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking to the guys who developed Shadowbane and UO. Give them some credit. 

 

Of course vessels will stay logged in for a period of time (30 seconds or so) upon logout or disconnection otherwise that would negate the risk factor of the higher risk campaigns. 

This is also subject to exploit. There are ways to force sb.exe type disconnects on low-ping players from the client side. Hopefully, ACE's software will be able to recognize involuntary disconnects and reduce that penalty some.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, IF ACE really does intend to support the single character option, as they have led us to believe (at this point), then my problem is their problem.  Regardless, you'll still have an "Uncle Bob" situation in those campaigns. 

Please tell me if you are flexible at all on this subject.

Would an Identical replacement vessel be acceptable to you? If not, why not?


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me if you are flexible at all on this subject.

Would an Identical replacement vessel be acceptable to you? If not, why not?

 

Good question!  I am thinking no, but until there is more information then it is a bit hard to tell--so a firm probably not.  Why? I can say that conceptually, the idea of clones that function like EVE ships is repellent to me and off putting to some backers and undoubtedly some future players.  Before this all came out, it was natural to think of your archetype as your character--your avatar and representation in a virtual world.  I would argue that it is still "natural."  There is the major rub, and there is more to it, but I don't want to drag in every argument spread out over these boards in this post (I hope you can understand that--it gets exhausting!).

 

My point is this--players, by and large, do not want significant non-options.  I am not talking about trying to use an axe when you're specialized in sword and acting astonished as to why it doesn't work as well.  I am talking about big playstyle options that define your presence and gameplay within CF.  ACE should never say "Sure you can do this.  We've even modified our system so that you can," and then make it a crap experience.  It makes absolutely no sense to do so, and is a type of shady placation meant to lead on current and potential customers.  Now, I am NOT saying that is what ACE is trying to do, I just question the validity of the option they have deliberately created (according to the article) based on the information currently at hand.  

 

This leaves three options: 1. ACE is engaging in insincere damage control, or 2. We've simply missed a component of what they've announced and there is no problem here, or 3. They have something to share that "fixes" all of this.  I'd like to think it is the second or third option.  However, while I can I will point out the flaws that occur to me because I still want this game to be great AND a have place for me and players like me. 

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im leaving this here: http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/6684-100-import-ruleset/

 

----------------------------------

 

Anyway, this is the argument that is destined to be brought up every once in a while until the end of Crowfall.

 

NO, there doesn't always need to be a ultimate reason to "win".

There is only one possible meaningful reason to win: getting advantages for the next round (the winning loop).

Is that what we want? NO. We want a game where, at least on the harder ruleset, everyone has the same chances. There's no way around this.

 

Most players will play on God's Reach / The Infected and The Shadow.

They will lose and then win and then (hopefully) try their chances in a harder ruleset.

When they reach The Dregs, yes there are a couple of incentives to win like:

1. Export resources to build their EK;

2. Export resources and trade them for VIPs, maybe gaining real money with those;

3. Partecipate in tournaments?

 

.. but in the end winning is for the sake of winning... fame**. Leaderboards are important for this reason.

I don't accept the never ending argument that says: "yeaaa, at some point we're going to be tired of winning". No, you're not going to be tired of winning the dregs, a ~6 month FFA campaign.. you're gonna be lucky to win it once before crowfall gets surpassed by another MMO of the same kind.

And winning it twice or 3 times would be unprecedented and probably the ultimate challenge for the best alliance.

 

High risk high reward is the mechanism ACE built to sustain hard rulesets populations, it's mostly a one-way road. The Dregs players don't have to interested in other rulesets stuff and traders, as long as there is a currency made of real money (VIPs) that will always be of interest... and for the other reasons I listed above.

 

**the proof of this is how many players from Shadowbane/Darkfall and similar MMOs are here just for the thrill.. that's most of the Dregs population.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

**the proof of this is how many players from Shadowbane/Darkfall and similar MMOs are here just for the thrill.. that's most of the Dregs population.

They are here because they were easy to scoop in because those games are dead...  They will not be most of the dregs population though.  They just think they will be.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

High risk high reward is the mechanism ACE built to sustain hard rulesets populations, it's mostly a one-way road. The Dregs players don't have to interested in other rulesets stuff and traders, as long as there is a currency made of real money (VIPs) that will always be of interest... and for the other reasons I listed above.

...

 

So I hear a lot of people saying that Dregs will be high risk, yet low import.  Yet, it doesn't really sound like high risk to me--it sounds like a low risk gamble.  What do you lose?  Time, maybe?

 

EDIT:

I don't see how you can have a high risk campaign that doesn't require you to risk anything of great value that you already have.  Of course, you could lose what you gathered during the campaign--potentially really good stuff--but how are you in a worse spot if you do?  To be high risk, it has to have some reasonably lenient import rules--something Dregs players usually say they don't want.  

 

EDIT II: 

And since we have established, through the power of reason, that high risk/reward campaigns cannot exist without high import (risk) and reasonably high export (reward), it follows that the haves will continue to dominate whilst the have nots will have little chance.  Those who win will simply continue to have better chances to win and therefor reap most of the rewards increasing their chances of winning, or fully recovering from a loss, in the future.  "Dying worlds" will not really fix this problem and Uncle Bob will reign supreme, smugly chewing on his stogie!   

 

EDIT III:

I think there is a time component that we can reasonably assume will remedy a lot of potential problems.  It will be very interesting to see how it pans out!   

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...