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

I thought of a lottery analogy:  All numbers are for illustrative purposes only, even the export percentages are likely to change.

 

  • Ticket Price = Import - As soon as a campaign allows even a slight quantity of import the value of that import could be anything, because quality (rarity) will be a much greater determinant of value. And in the risk vs. reward paradigm, on both ends of the equation value is what's import.  If a player chooses to import even a single ultra-rare item, they are risking a lot. 
  • Odds-of-Winning = Number of Potential Winners vs. Export Rules. Whether it's by guild, deity, or faction.  Odds-of-Winning the campaign are not the same as odds of leaving with a prize vs. the odds of leaving empty handed.  Because some rule sets have payouts for all losers/second-place finishers (or in the case of The Shadow third place), your odds of seeing some return on your time investment are pretty high for all bands except the Dregs.
  • Size of Jackpot = Resource Rarity
  • Frequency of Drawing = For the purpose of the Hypothetical, 3 months.  This does not mean time will be equally valued by all individuals.  In fact some players will have a lot more time spent, actually playing in and becoming invested in, the campaign.  I would also imagine that in the inner-band worlds it will be necessitated that players be very active, in order to have a sustained chance of winning, but that's not to say that those will hectic RL schedules, who can only play a few hours a week, won't highly value their time.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect most PoIs not to be static conquest, but rather strategic conquest.  You don't "claim" the graveyard, or at least not for a guaranteed amount of time, etc.

That sounds like a reasonable possibility. How do you envision strategic conquest working? Just camp the PIO to kill anyone that comes close?

 

I was thinking PIOs in general were more like a "capture the flag" mechanic, I.E I can take the mine, plant my flag and put some sort of defensive item that my team could use to assist in its defense, until it is burned out, and recaptured by team B. I didn't get the impression that conquest, of said mine created a invulnerability timer , and it is mine until the next vulnerable period, where team B could take it. Though I suppose that would also be a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that you might end up as a disembodied blue-crow-skill set for a while.  While that is hardcore tm, I don't think it will be very fun.  Also, you may have to take whichever archetype you can find.  So, while you may have skills closer to a ranger/stalker/assassin, you could be forced to run around as a confessor.  Some might think this is a cool challenge, but many others will think that its crap. 

 

This all being stated, I do think that the devs said something about always having access to the low quality versions of Gundams, so I don't think any of what I suggested will actually happen.  Some things are too hardcore, it seems, even for our carebear hating, uber-tear-drinking crowd.      

I agree that forcing you to be disembodied for an extended period of time would simply be non enjoyable mechanic. I find it interesting that you mentioned that you may have to settle for a different Archtype that you want. Do you find it reasonable, even if it was just on the most high risk rulesets, that you could be denied all the Archtype you have trained into? Would you prefer to at least have all the starter Archtypes available.

 

Perhaps conquest of the graveyard could give you access to the promotion classes as a spawning interval as conquest bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

If you look in the article (and if I am remembering correctly), it is stated that you can choose to avoid campaigns you are not prepared for.  Therefore, you would actually have to accept the added risk willingly or pass it up.  If you accept the risk, then you are intentionally gimping yourself for added challenge/fun or because you're not very bright.  The devs needn't account for this type of independent player behavior.  All things being equal, the "price of the ticket" should balance out with the reward, which is the entire point of risk v. reward.  In the Dregs, the cost of a ticket (using Gilgamer's example, i.e. import) is zero, and that is precisely where the time component comes in (discussed to death, makes very good sense).   

 

Clear enough for you, Doc?

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look in the article (and if I am remembering correctly), it is stated that you can choose to avoid campaigns you are not prepared for.  Therefore, you would actually have to accept the added risk willingly or pass it up.  If you accept the risk, then you are intentionally gimping yourself for added challenge/fun or because you're not very bright.  The devs needn't account for this type of independent player behavior.

 

You just argued that Uncle Bob scenarios aren't a problem, because people can simply choose not to play those games. Well done. You're on your way to top-notch game design.


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

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.

I didn't miss it, though you managed to edit it out when you quoted me.

 

I said: "Players can only buy one-ticket per account, but the more they pay for their ticket in the Outer Bands, their odds of winning increase only ever-so-slightly."

 

I say this only because of ACE's claims of a shallow power curve.  Also, having high-imports does not immediate advantage any one player or group of players because it's an option available to all players. 

 

Again, this depends hugely on how steep or shallow the gear power curve is, and if many people (like a large guild) are working in concert to all bring in a lot of high-value imports.  One person in great gear, with a high-quality vessel will not drastically increase their odds of winning a campaign, but if their whole guild is able to do so they might, but that's only if their opponents are not doing the same, because they will have that option too.  My analogy wasn't focused on whether high-imports allowed players to increase their odds of winning, but rather if it increase their exposure to risk in a loss. 

 

Having the slight advantage of better gear at the start of a campaign does not negate the risk, if you are required to put your gear/vessels into the Embargo to carry it out of CW.  I think they said they are undecided on what happens to the gear you are wearing in the final moments of the campaign, but if it's subject to the Export rules and there is some amount of RNG involved in what is exported versus what is culled, then the element of risk still stands.  If as Freeze stated you can waltz through an entire campaign w/o concern for losing the gear and vessels you import, even if you lose the campaign, then there is no risk (of item loss), but I am not sure that is the case.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just argued that Uncle Bob scenarios aren't a problem, because people can simply choose not to play those games. Well done. You're on your way to top-notch game design.

Large powers that have invested in their economies play in Campaign A. The people that haven't the time or the will to do that can still Play on Campaign B. Getting this balance right won't be easy, as both A and B have be fun and rewarding, or the players in Campaign B  will feel left out and can never try out the play style of  Campaign A, if they so choose.

 

To argue that there you can never build up a large power base, or economy and use it in a campaign, negates a large draw of the game. What is the point of an economy that has no practical use?

 

There are a good deal of tools in the toolbox to keep a downward pressure on a dominate force from staying dominate in this current game concept. That does not mean that dominate forces won't exist. At the end of the day, Players that work together and stay organized will do better than a bunch of lone wolfs, no matter how many rules you put in place to even the odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large powers that have invested in their economies play in Campaign A. The people that haven't the time or the will to do that can still Play on Campaign B. Getting this balance right won't be easy, as both A and B have be fun and rewarding, or the players in Campaign B  will feel left out and can never try out the play style of  Campaign A, if they so choose.

 

Why in the world would there even be a Campaign B?

 

Alright, I'll go ahead and explain this for you. If there exists a spectrum of importable power across guilds and players, then every campaign is equally susceptible to comparatively powerful interests importing their power into it. Thus, invariably, every campaign will be a Campaign A. There won't be any Campaign Bs in the first place.

 

Did you have some ridiculous fantasy universe in mind, wherein all the powerful guilds play in certain campaigns together and leave the less-powerful guilds to play in other campaigns? Why would that ever happen?


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

Why in the world would there even be a Campaign B?

 

Alright, I'll go ahead and explain this for you. If there exists a spectrum of importable power across guilds and players, then every campaign is equally susceptible to comparatively powerful interests importing their power into it. Thus, invariably, every campaign will be a Campaign A. There won't be any Campaign Bs in the first place.

 

Did you have some ridiculous fantasy universe in mind, wherein all the powerful guilds play in certain campaigns together and leave the less-powerful guilds to play in other campaigns? Why would that ever happen?

All Campaigns will be susceptible to strong powerblocks of players.  People play together in an MMO. No import rules or shallow skill curves will remove this vulnerability completely. Campaign B in this example is a ruleset that mitigates imports more harshly than campaign A. So you don't have to worry about going up against someone that has an established resource pool to draw on.

 

That being said, I would not want every single campaign to be balanced around the idea that there should be no carried over economy influencing it. Not only would that destroy much of the economy of exporting goods in the first place, It would not remove the risk. All things being equal, an experienced group of organized players will still have an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just argued that Uncle Bob scenarios aren't a problem, because people can simply choose not to play those games. Well done. You're on your way to top-notch game design.

 

This, exactly and happily.  However, I still think players are pretty damned inventive though, and if there is a way, they will find it.  The reason I spend time here arguing these things is that I do not want CF to suck (I suppose I share that with everyone here).  If you've watched a number of MMOs during development, you have certainly seen so many promises that didn't pan out.   

 

EDIT:  I do still think there is a potential problem with the single character option in relation to a type of Uncle Bob scenario, because choice is significantly limited.  It all depends on the rulesets, I guess. 

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want to play in no-import Dregs ruleset and never mess with EK stuff - couldn't I be a "tenant" in an established EK with relic/artifact buffs in exchange for whatever resources I can export? I like buffs  :) but would rather be pvping in the CW.

Maybe, but Guilds will own the best-buffing EK's and they will want to save their relic buffs for guild members.

Also, the Dregs will be won by Guilds, unless ACE comes up with unforseen victory conditions. Make friends now. Lots of us are attracted to the Dregs.


Honestly, you are the type of person that is much to competitive, has zero compassion for other people and think you are better than everyone else. You likely love to troll people on a day to day bases to get others angry and laugh about it. You make playing any online game unfun for everyone else.  -Kuroaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dregs has to cost more time to have the biggest risk.  It's math.  :mellow:

 

 

Sure, Dregs must cost more time, but the cost doesn't mean the campaign must have a longer duration and I much rather they keep the duration based on fun within the CW, instead of using it as a knob to balance risk/reward, since increasing length of campaign can lead to the Uncle Bob problem (within the CW), and is not necessary to create the desired risk/reward ratios.   Risk is what you invest (which is boiled down to time) versus the chance of getting a return, and the amount of return.  Losers being able to keep some percentage of time essentially lowers their initial investment cost, which lowers their risk (unless of course you don't get anything into the embargo).

 

Lets just take 2 bands as an example to show how risk/reward ratios can be adjusted with amount of return and with what losers can recover.  Both campaigns being 3 months long, one with winner take all (dregs) and the other (shadows) the losers get to keep 2 months.  For simplicity, we will say that all players import 1 month of resources (so that there is no variable in the chance of return).

 

Dregs: Investment: 3 months, chance of return: 5%, amount of return: 18 months 

Shadows: Investment: 2 months (3 month length+1 month import-2 months losers keep), chance of return 5%, amount of return: 10 months

 

Sure, as the game progresses and people have a greater stockpile of time, they can utilize more of it in the other campaigns and thus risk more time.  Certainly, this could get to a point where Dregs are no longer the highest risk, but that can be a good thing, since it will likely infuse new blood into the Dregs and allow those with larger stockpiles to fight it out and consume them via bad investments.  It would only become a problem if the chance of return is too greatly skewed by investment, but with a low power curve, this shouldn't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of losing my character every time I die seems likes its just going to suck real fast. Everything about the dregs, minus a version of character death, sounds custard awesome but that one thing is going to drive people out of it once they are forced to play something they don't want over and over. You people aren't realize people's attachments to their preferred playstyles and avatars.


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of losing my character every time I die seems likes its just going to suck real fast. Everything about the dregs, minus a version of character death, sounds custard awesome but that one thing is going to drive people out of it once they are forced to play something they don't want over and over. You people aren't realize people's attachments to their preferred playstyles and avatars.

We don't know that you are forced to play archetypes vessels that are "available" or if you will always have at least the "basic" level Vessel, and high quality vessels are what you fight over. Losing our corpse does not really mean that you are forced to choose other archetypes, just that you won't guarantee always having that really strong vessel.

 

That all being said, Forcing someone to play a Knight, even when they really hate playing the knight because that is the only vessel available would not be a fun game play mechanic. Making someone just step down to a lower level body of the same archetype, so they have to work to build it up again isn't all that bad. In fact, depending on how Promotion class vessels work, that could bring an interesting dynamic of risk to the campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of losing my character every time I die seems likes its just going to suck real fast. Everything about the dregs, minus a version of character death, sounds custard awesome but that one thing is going to drive people out of it once they are forced to play something they don't want over and over. You people aren't realize people's attachments to their preferred playstyles and avatars.

 

This isn't an RPG. It isn't the kind of game with avatars to get attached to. Do people get attached to their ships in Eve? No, because they're disposable. Their pilot is eternal, the vessels, literally, are used, destroyed, and replaced. Same thing here. Your physical body in Crowfall is just a piece of equipment, nothing more. If you can't handle playing a game where you don't have a specific character that you play endlessly, stay out of world bands where you can lose your vessel. They aren't for you.


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

Large powers that have invested in their economies play in Campaign A. The people that haven't the time or the will to do that can still Play on Campaign B.

 

Alright, I'll go ahead and explain this for you. If there exists a spectrum of importable power across guilds and players, then every campaign is equally susceptible to comparatively powerful interests importing their power into it. Thus, invariably, every campaign will be a Campaign A. There won't be any Campaign Bs in the first place.

 

Campaign B in this example is a ruleset that mitigates imports more harshly than campaign A.

 

So you're proposing that the highest risk, highest reward, most dog-eat-dog world bands will be where the people who are too new or too bad to have built-up power should play, and the lowest risk, lowest reward, most big-happy-faction world bands will be where the established powerhouses should play? That's really how you think the game should be designed? That's really how you think the game will be played, regardless of design?


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

This isn't an RPG. It isn't the kind of game with avatars to get attached to. Do people get attached to their ships in Eve? No, because they're disposable. Their pilot is eternal, the vessels, literally, are used, destroyed, and replaced. Same thing here. Your physical body in Crowfall is just a piece of equipment, nothing more. If you can't handle playing a game where you don't have a specific character that you play endlessly, stay out of world bands where you can lose your vessel. They aren't for you.

 

Yep, this is true, and the one reason I am no longer as enthusiastic about CF.  I still want it to be a great game, though, and hold out hope for an option that would still make it awesome for mandalore, me and others. 


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just argued that Uncle Bob scenarios aren't a problem, because people can simply choose not to play those games. Well done. You're on your way to top-notch game design.

 

This, exactly and happily.

 

You misread me. That wasn't a laudatory observation.

 

You are making the argument that no game (not no Campaign World; no game) has to worry about Uncle Bob scenarios, because people can just play a different game. In other words, you are insisting that Uncle Bob scenarios are never bad. Is that really what you're "exactly and happily" endorsing?


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

You misread me. That wasn't a laudatory observation.

 

You are making the argument that no game (not no Campaign World; no game) has to worry about Uncle Bob scenarios, because people can just play a different game. In other words, you are insisting that Uncle Bob scenarios are never bad. Is that really what you're "exactly and happily" endorsing?

 

I guess I should have read your post more carefully (the difference between game and campaign).  I am happy to see that the Uncle Bob scenario will be better kept under check by ACE's design in CF.  Am I convinced we won't see it in CF?  No--but I do think that we are less likely to have to deal with it directly, due to campaign choice (not game choice). 

 

I can choose to join the campaign that is more fitting my guild, experience and gear and therefore compete against those very similar to me and my team.  Or, if I just want to play what I currently consider to be a soulless, complicated arena, I can go into the Dregs (as long as I have a good group with me, alliances set up, etc.) where Uncle Bob can't really exist (and therefore happily ignore him).  It's the game equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and yelling "La! La! La! I can't here you!"  ACE is giving us options, at least.       


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can choose to join the campaign than is more fitting my guild, experience and gear and therefore compete against those very similar to me and my team.

How, exactly? What reason has ACE given you to suppose that you'll have any ability at all to control who you're in a campaign with? Edited by hamopeche

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

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...