Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
courant101

Alternative World

Recommended Posts

If this was not, an optional one-off campaign structure in addition to  the standard way campaigns are structured, it would deprive casual players of experiencing the various seasons and their effects on the landscape, NPCs, and resource scarcity.  But the argument could be made, that having the whole seasonal cycles being spread across the bands would encourage people to step out of their comfort zones and play in harder bands than they might otherwise to experience the full game.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if a campaign starts in God's Reach, it's not necessary that it becomes so harsh once it gets in the Dregs / Winter.

 

It could be slightly more "hardcore" PvP wise, but not go full hardcore with friendly fire, full loot, etc.

 

Example:

- Spring /// God's Reach /// RvR /// friendly fire:off /// decay:10% /// loot:no 

- Summer /// The Infected /// RvR /// friendly fire:off /// decay:12% /// loot:no

- Fall /// The Shadow /// Alliances /// friendly fire:off /// decay 15% /// loot:minimal

- Winter /// Dregs /// Alliances & Guilds /// friendly fire:off /// decay 18% /// loot:minimal

 

Or some campaigns could at the opposite get hardcore really quickly. Players could get informed about the type of campaign before it starts.

 

edit: actually I think it wouldn't be problematic if the campaign would remain "RvR" all the way from God's Reach to Dregs. Maybe the resources gained and export could be adjusted to take this into account though.

Edited by courant101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was not, an optional one-off campaign structure in addition to  the standard way campaigns are structured, it would deprive casual players of experiencing the various seasons and their effects on the landscape, NPCs, and resource scarcity.  But the argument could be made, that having the whole seasonal cycles being spread across the bands would encourage people to step out of their comfort zones and play in harder bands than they might otherwise to experience the full game.

Ultimately, the longer you make a campaign, the closer it is to a regular MMO. The whole idea of seasons and the decrease of resources is to force strategic decisions based on army size, supply chain and to level the playing field for varying sizes of groups. Forcing players to join campaigns where large guilds have already dominated for possibly several seasons is completely counter-active to the general goal of Crowfall and almost every design decision they've made so far.

 

Also, you force players to find existing worlds that are in the rule-set that they want instead of joining a fresh game to put everybody on an even footing. Every time you join a game in the same rule-set, it will always be in the same season and you will ALWAYS be competing against people who have been playing in that world before you.

 

I'm just saying, there's no way you can force a design decision like that on everybody.

Edited by IdeaMatrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure what to say

 

[this post was written when the OP had nothing but a citation in it]

 

... and a beautiful gif of the Hunger hooking worlds which was pretty self explanatory imo!  :)

 

What does it mean? 

 

COf7r4JUAAAhFTZ.jpg

 

Now you can bring the popcorns, I added some text, the read is going to last a bit longer (but will not necessarily be more exciting).  :P

 

What if the hunger was World of Warcraft all along?

 

If we can fight it, fear its greatness, contemplate the way it spreads and the speed at which it infects the worlds, then WoW could probably fit in the lore of Crowfall and replace the Hunger.

 

Wooaahh!

Such great ideas.

You are worth two thousand game designers and developers of nowadays!

:)

I would like it if some of these would be implemented into the game, besides the normal/original game concept.

 

I appreciate your message Urahara :) however it's all ACE who crafted those ideas, I just rearranged the puzzle pieces in another way.

 

Lots of potential in these ideas. I bet the devs have already contemplated or even included some of them. The rest bear discussion.

 

This development model is great for playing with things like this. Which gives me hope for real longevity of the game. Imagine if SB had embraced this instead of railing against it? New, fresh rule-sets constantly, winning conditions, constantly populated servers, organic wipes as opposed to letting them just atrophy and die.

 

I agree, the number of possibilities to make modifications and adapt the game to players' and developers' wishes is incredible. Crowfall really isn't a solid and immutable system like most MMORPGs. Not only the lore and the world architecture would allow major changes to occur, but the tools ACE is using to create those worlds would facilitate that too. It's a really exciting experience that pushes the boundaries of innovation in many ways. I guess now we just need to let more people know about this project, so we really get a "massive" universe inhabited by a massive number of players.  :P

 

There are some positives to this model for one type of CW with progression.  This is particularly true if the rules let you choose to keep some items in the vault and export others out after each season while your vault moves intact to the next ring and season of this "Progressive CW"...  the advantages for doing this would then be that the hardcore players would have better gear in shadow and dregs having brought it in during earlier seasons or having built up crafted items inside the CW. The progression would alter the no import rule of the dregs to a "carry-over" vault that exists only in the CW and while you cannot add to the vault as an import say from your EK you do have any items left in there from the previous season if you prefer not to export them...

 

I am still pondering how the actual gear and vessels we play with in the dregs will pan out since we will be stealing each others stuff pretty frequently...  seems that nobody in their right mind would play in the dregs in high end gear IF it is just too valuable to loose.   Seems to me in a full loot environment most people will play in mediocre gear and immediately vault for export any high end materials found.

 

I also believe that being able to export more than once during a campaign would be something beneficial overall.

 

I agree that it would allow the more hardcore players to get better equipment and a larger quantity of resources in preparation to the Winter / Dregs phase. However, there would always be the option for hardcore PvPers to join a campaign that spawned in the Dregs, so they can be guaranteed low import and more equal footing, and not be obliged to go through all other rulesets and seasons.

 

It could be an interesting choice at the end of each season for those participating in 4 seasons campaigns: do I export my things to make sure they're not getting stolen or destroyed? Do I put all my resources in the war effort to conquer more territories? Do I leave this campaign to join another CW of the same band? Do I leave this world and export some of my stuff in my EK based on my performances during this season?

 

And I also agree that the quality of vessels in the Dregs is a big question mark. Why would a PvPer risk to lose its better gears in a harsh, high loot environment. I was thinking that not all the Dregs campaigns could have hardcore looting rules though. Maybe some could be softer. Dregs for me means "in general more hardcore than other bands" but not necessarily full loot / friend fire / high gears decay in all Dregs campaigns. 

Edited by courant101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ultimately, the longer you make a campaign, the closer it is to a regular MMO. The whole idea of seasons and the decrease of resources is to force strategic decisions based on army size, supply chain and to level the playing field for varying sizes of groups. Forcing players to join campaigns where large guilds have already dominated for possibly several seasons is completely counter-active to the general goal of Crowfall and almost every design decision they've made so far.

 

that's why it was already suggested to eventually offer it not as a forced update to the core game, but as a possible extra game play mode for those interested in it. And I think that fits well withing the realm of exploring campaign rules etc as the game evolves. If it wouldn't suit your style, nothing would stop you from ignoring it, just like you have the choice of what danger level you'd like to choose for your campaign. 


Dear ace, it was wrong of me to feel scammed, as time goes by, I realize that more and more. Thank you for letting me sell my account!

-a very satisfied customer-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I really agree with your vision of an alternative world, but there's definitely some interesting ideas in here. I had to like your post regardless because it was so well formatted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres my question. You said that the worlds progress based off of which "Faction" wins, but do we even have to choose gods in the Shadows and Dregs since those CWs are guild based not choose a god based?

 

If we do thats kinda lame and redundant since it doesnt actually mean anything if we have to choose a god in a campaign only to have to murder all other followers of that god so that we can win.

 

And if we dont have to choose a god then how would the 2 inner rings progress the CWs? Since if your not aligned to a god you wouldnt be aligned to a faction. Also since there isnt a faction point system, even if there was some alignment choices. What determines the end result of the campaigns in those two rings? In shadows from what i understand it is possible for an "alliance" of guilds to win, but in the dregs its only possible for one guild to win with the option of kneeling for guilds that didnt win.

 

So if the alliance in the shadows has 2 Chaos based guilds 2 Order based guilds and 1 balance based guild what happens?

 

In the dregs does the affiliation of the one guild that wins determines the outcome? If this is the case, then what is stoping one guild from picking balance learning the entire map and dominating for long periods of time constantly gathering major resources for crafting up untill the point where they have an abundance of high tier resources before anyone else? And stacking all future campaings that they join with imports?

 

Also for the above case (if there is some sort of faction binding in shadows/dregs) ACE has stated that you pick gods when you join a campaign. Whats stoping that over powerd faction from joining earlier seasons with stacked gear choosing chaos then dragging a CW to the shadows, then they win the shadows take their exports and leave then join the same CW anew but as balance and just rinse and repeat for more high tier loots?

 

Another Also that i just thought of before finishing this, how would you repopulate each world with new resource nodes if the world that carries over is the same? They would have to repopulate for each new resource that can be found in the newer bands, but the areas already have resource nodes there? So does the iron mine at the B12 by A9 map location just magically become a diamond mine? or do they have to go through and add new nodes in the existing areas to allow for new diamonds mines to just appear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres my question. You said that the worlds progress based off of which "Faction" wins, but do we even have to choose gods in the Shadows and Dregs since those CWs are guild based not choose a god based?

 

If we do thats kinda lame and redundant since it doesnt actually mean anything if we have to choose a god in a campaign only to have to murder all other followers of that god so that we can win.

 

And if we dont have to choose a god then how would the 2 inner rings progress the CWs? Since if your not aligned to a god you wouldnt be aligned to a faction. Also since there isnt a faction point system, even if there was some alignment choices. What determines the end result of the campaigns in those two rings? In shadows from what i understand it is possible for an "alliance" of guilds to win, but in the dregs its only possible for one guild to win with the option of kneeling for guilds that didnt win.

 

I'm not sure which alternative would be better regarding the faction alignment, but how I envisioned it was that the God alignment would be made at the Crow level (while maybe being allowed to change a number of time, or not) but players could obtain more than one Crow either in-game or through the store.
 
So even in the Dregs and Shadow, the players would still be fighting for a God/Faction, however it would be like a very very secondary goal since in those bands, the influence of the Gods/Factions is a lot less significant and all the emphasis is put on Guilds/Alliances/Noble Houses.
 
Concerning your question about campaign progression, the Campaign Worlds would "fall" naturally toward the Hunger, so no matter what players do, the campaign will inevitable get pulled into the center of the universe and the seasons will pass. What  players can do however by dominating as Order is to slow down this process and make seasons longer (to stay longer in the God's Reach/Spring world band, let's say). At the opposite, if it's Chaos that dominates, the world will plunge faster into the Hunger and seasons are shorter as well as the CW duration as a whole. If Balance dominates, the length of a season will be equivalent to how it was set in the ruleset.
 
I'm not sure if it could work let's say in Dregs to still have this Chaos/Order/Balance mechanics to influence the progress of a CW, maybe it could still work even though guilds and alliances have players from different alignments, but the effect would be dimmed and negligible, or it could be turned off if it's useless. My guess is that it could remain there and still have some interesting consequences, like full Order guilds trying to make the Dregs CW as long as possible because they're losing, or predominantly Chaos alliance that would plan their strategies based on the the possibility to shorten the CW length. Also there would be this dilemma between pursuing a personal goal (joining the strongest  guild to win) vs. a faction/RP goal (helping a guild/alliance of my faction).
 
The winning conditions in the Shadow and Dregs should remain the same that what they're in the current design. I think those changes wouldn't require any major changes in the rulesets or anything the devs have planned so far.
 
 

So if the alliance in the shadows has 2 Chaos based guilds 2 Order based guilds and 1 balance based guild what happens?

 

In the dregs does the affiliation of the one guild that wins determines the outcome? If this is the case, then what is stoping one guild from picking balance learning the entire map and dominating for long periods of time constantly gathering major resources for crafting up untill the point where they have an abundance of high tier resources before anyone else? And stacking all future campaings that they join with imports?

 

If an alliance has 2 Order and 2 Chaos guilds, or a mix of Chaos/Order players in each guilds, nothing happens. The Shadow/Dregs campaign progress as it's intended in the current design. There's no influence of the Gods/Factions in those world bands. However, the Chaos/Order point system to make the world plunge faster / slower could possibly still be activated in those world bands without creating issue. It's a system that would only affect (slightly, most of the time) the length of the season.

 

There would be no "winning" at the end of a season, so even though a faction is dominating, it doesn't get stronger in that particular campaign. However there would be some exports / travels allowed at the end of the season, so in God's Reach / Infected, those who performed the best would be (slightly) advantaged by being able to export more, however it still doesn't impact on the current campaign and I think it wouldn't impact much on the other campaigns either.

 

I'm not sure how the scenario you're  describing could happen, do you mean in the case that several players of the same faction decide to leave the current campaign at the end of the season, and export a certain amount of resources in a new CW? The imports are still limited and all the safeguards against Uncle Bob would be retained if I'm correct.

 
 

Also for the above case (if there is some sort of faction binding in shadows/dregs) ACE has stated that you pick gods when you join a campaign. Whats stoping that over powerd faction from joining earlier seasons with stacked gear choosing chaos then dragging a CW to the shadows, then they win the shadows take their exports and leave then join the same CW anew but as balance and just rinse and repeat for more high tier loots?

 

Another Also that i just thought of before finishing this, how would you repopulate each world with new resource nodes if the world that carries over is the same? They would have to repopulate for each new resource that can be found in the newer bands, but the areas already have resource nodes there? So does the iron mine at the B12 by A9 map location just magically become a diamond mine? or do they have to go through and add new nodes in the existing areas to allow for new diamonds mines to just appear?

 

Well each world band keeps its import rules. If a group of player from Chaos forfeit the campaign together and rejoin later, they'll lose most of their wealth in that campaign, and when they rejoin they'll be hit by even stricter import rules than they had the previous season.

 

When a Crow is not participating in any campaign, it can join any existing CW no matter which band / season it is (new CWs spawn regularly in every world band), the import rules depend on the distance that separates the CW from the EK and the specific ruleset of the CF. The import would be the highest for a CW that is in the God's Reach band and with a ruleset that allows high import.

 

As for the resources nods, it would be the same thing as it is in the current design: as seasons pass, the map remains the same but the quality and quantity of the resources change. I don't know how it's planned exactly by ACE right now, but it would be unchanged I guess.

 

From inside the campaign, the only things that change from how it works now are:

1) the way the teams are broken out evolve with each season, from Faction (Spring) to Gods (Summer), then Alliances (Fall) and finally Guilds/Noble Houses (Winter), however maybe some campaigns could remain 3-Factions from Spring to Winter and it would still be coherent with this model.

2) the rulesets (PvP, import, export, etc.) are changing as the campaign evolves

3) at the end of each season, players can export some items based on performances

4) at the end of each season, players can decide to travel to another CW of the same band/season

5) there's an incentive (making CW shorter/longer) to make our faction Order/Chaos/Balance dominates

 

Apart from those things, the way campaigns progress would be almost identical to what is proposed now by ACE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting model, and something I'd but my name behind for an alternate rule set but frankly, I think I prefer the way it is now.  The way your proposal works, you're essentially placing a lot of faith in other people for your continued performance farther down the line.

 

In the transition from God's Reach to Infected; what if most of the players who played for your God left the world?  You'll be hamstrung against the other Gods in Infected through no fault of your own.

 

Also, it would mean relaxing the import/export rules between bands as it simply wouldn't make sense that you couldn't take your stuff from the previous band.  The benefit with the bands is that you can limit the amount of resources a world has (and frankly I love the thought of starting in a hostile environment with limited resources) but if you are playing on one world for a campaign of considerable length, then whoever has the power at the start of the campaign is likely to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting model, and something I'd but my name behind for an alternate rule set but frankly, I think I prefer the way it is now.  The way your proposal works, you're essentially placing a lot of faith in other people for your continued performance farther down the line.

 

In the transition from God's Reach to Infected; what if most of the players who played for your God left the world?  You'll be hamstrung against the other Gods in Infected through no fault of your own.

 

I don't see a reason why one God would get massively depopulated during the transition between God's Reach and Infected. It could happen, but the entire Malekai faction could also stop playing mid-campaign in the current design too I guess. As players could join the campaign at any moment, there could be incentives to repopulate a faction if (but as I said I see no real reason for that to happen) a significant portion of the players from a specific faction stopped playing.

 
 

Also, it would mean relaxing the import/export rules between bands as it simply wouldn't make sense that you couldn't take your stuff from the previous band.  The benefit with the bands is that you can limit the amount of resources a world has (and frankly I love the thought of starting in a hostile environment with limited resources) but if you are playing on one world for a campaign of considerable length, then whoever has the power at the start of the campaign is likely to keep it.

 

There would be campaigns spawning in each bands and they would all keep their intended import rules. The Campaigns being created in Dregs would have the stricter import rules, as it's planned now, while the God's Reach would have more relaxed rules. The major difference as you mention is that for the CW spawning in God's Reach, the "Dregs/Winter" season would be played with less item scarcity than if the CW had spawned in straight in the Dregs/Winter world band. And that's positive I guess, since otherwise the God's Reach players may not be interested in trying some harsher rulesets at all.

 

Those who want to start in a harsher environment can pick a newly created Dregs or Shadow world. The main issue with the current way I imagine it working is that the Dregs players would always play in Winter, and seeing the same environment over and over again may be displeasing. I guess we could find a solution to that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point though; the eventual winner is largely going to be dictated through God's Reach and/or Infected.  This means that after the first couple of play throughs, people will largely be done with the rule set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point though; the eventual winner is largely going to be dictated through God's Reach and/or Infected.  This means that after the first couple of play throughs, people will largely be done with the rule set.

 

I wonder why you believe that the eventual winner would be largely dictated through the two first seasons, and how it's different than the current design.

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...