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

Eternal Kingdoms made intresting for pvpers


Recommended Posts

I was wondering if it was possible to trade with the enemy because that could put a whole new spin on how i look at eks. For example if my guild is on the chaos faction and our side has clearly pulled ahead and will most likely win and split 10000 gold (you can replace this with any resource) between all the chaos players/guilds and my guilds cut is 1000gold. Now lets say a balance guild offers us 1500gold to leave the campaign/yield, i might be inclined to take that 1500gold and if the balance guild bribed enough people they may cause an upset and actually end up winning. Now the balance teams technically win the cw but the guilds and players that took the bribes leave with more winnings to spend on their eks. This way you would have a set of players who are sacrificing all their resources to win the game and then another set of players who may not "technically" win the war but receive all the plunder from it. You could have guilds notorious for taking bribes to grow their kingdoms while other guilds have a honourable reputation. You could even accept the bribe and then ignore the conditions of the bribe and get a reputation of being greedy etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a bit like how you play an FPS/Moba, with everyone having their own objectives :
some play for the kills and have awesome stats, but in the end they lose because they didn't play the objective.

here one plays for the money, but in the end loses because he prefered money over victory. 

 

It may be hard to balance, but I prefer favorising (at least a little) campaign-victory over self-victory (ie more rewards if you win campaign for example). Not that I dislike treason (it will make thrilling campaigns and I love that), but it should be a meaningful choice to betray with real consequences and not something you do just to buy a new pair of boots (you'd want to buy at least a castle !). 

 

It ensures Crowfall won't be a game were everyone betrays everyone all the time, but one where treasons are big, meaningful and shape the Crowfall Universe's history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure everyone just overthinks these sort of topics about "value in EK". It really just comes down to people playing how they want to play. The more optional content makes some people happier. Pretty simple.

 

OS_Sig3.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a bit like how you play an FPS/Moba, with everyone having their own objectives :

some play for the kills and have awesome stats, but in the end they lose because they didn't play the objective.

here one plays for the money, but in the end loses because he prefered money over victory. 

 

It may be hard to balance, but I prefer favorising (at least a little) campaign-victory over self-victory (ie more rewards if you win campaign for example). Not that I dislike treason (it will make thrilling campaigns and I love that), but it should be a meaningful choice to betray with real consequences and not something you do just to buy a new pair of boots (you'd want to buy at least a castle !). 

 

It ensures Crowfall won't be a game were everyone betrays everyone all the time, but one where treasons are big, meaningful and shape the Crowfall Universe's history. 

 

Well i dont think it would count as a small betrayal since the gws go for months and to possibly mess up months of time for people on your own side...I dont think ppl would be like "meh lets just requeue" like in mobas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There's been some pretty epic betrayals in Eve Online with millions of game $ involved and its these sort of events that are talked about and made into folk lore!

 

Unfortunately I'm more in line with the following fellow, if we take a Game and it's entire Community as a "Nation":

 

 

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within .  .  . He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist . . .  A murderer is less to fear.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

I'm being serious here.  It is my belief that the degree to which "treachery and betrayal is cool" has been taken in the current generation of gamers is actually a problem for a game's health and logevity - unless the proper level of limitations and boundaries are set.

 

This is "The Internet", which means (IMO) all the glorification of "treachery and betrayal-zors!" is just laughable. The Internet is the most ez-mode platform to mislead and lie to people due to anonymity and lack of Consequences, yet it's spawned a generation of gamers that think it's leet shizz. /palmface

 

Supporting Multiple Accounts, as an example, can completely eliminate any mode of real Consequences for lying and betrayal, if not outright cheating.  Meaning, Consequence is the Govenor to Betrayal (Bad Behavior).  Minimize / remove consequence risk, and things get out of balance quickly in the human dynamic.

  • Here's what DRIVES all this:  IRL money making.  Those are the smart guys leading the majority around by the nose (sheeple) with the "treachery and betrayal" drama-queen high-school dance routine.  Because it's PROFITABLE for them IRL

So:  Yes people lie.  A great many do.  You can't eliminate it, it's part of life and in gaming.  It's not admirable, it's a destructive dynamic for a "Nation", or Game and Community overall, no matter it feeds those who profit from it.  In Crowfall it can be an expected part of the dynamic, of course.  This is going to be a "Throne War" Simulator.  IMO however I go back to the idea " . . .  - unless the proper level of limitations and boundaries are set. "

 

Relvance here:  In the end you DO need limitations in certain game mechanic/dynamic areas:.  

  • IMO you look hard at mechanics that support/encourage destructive influence on core game play dynamics (generally speaking), places where players are tempted to "game the system" in an inappropriate way - particularly if it can be tied to IRL money making.  Things like REWARD systems, honor points for kills, looting or reward level bonus triggers, etc.
  • IMO NO TO TRADING WITH THE ENEMY / COMPETITORS

To enable trading with opposition members opens up a freeway for those actually NOT interested in playing the game, instead motivated to effectively eliminate the opposing-forces competitive dynamic by simply populating each side with their own people.  When that happens, the entire structure of competition is dissolved, no matter the window dressing still floating around.  As an example scenario given the context is a game that will be supporting multiple accounts.

 

Dunno, tricky topic here.  On the one hand if people didn't exploit gaming platforms the way they did nowadays (motivated by financial gain) it might have some possibilities.  Maybe this is already planned by ACE so the point is mute.

 

But, my opinion on the matter anyway, motivated by an interest in the health of the game overall and maintenance of competitive dynamics (e.g. different factions meant to compete against each other, each populated by individual Guilds).

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its a faction based campaign then I don't think you should be allowed to trade with the enemy.  The idea of a faction is that you should be forced to support your team and hate the other teams for the dynamic to work.  In more open campaigns, where alliances are formed more organically, than there shouldn't be any restriction on who you can trade with and thus the possibility of betrayal exists.

 

Faction based PVP campaigns are the training wheels for the game from my perspective.  Its quite genius.  A new player can make an impact into the world without being in a pre-established guild because his faction wont be able to just grief him as we would if he entered into a more open PVP campaign.  Essentially you earn your stripes on the blue server but the true glory will be in the open world.

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its a faction based campaign then I don't think you should be allowed to trade with the enemy.  The idea of a faction is that you should be forced to support your team and hate the other teams for the dynamic to work.  In more open campaigns, where alliances are formed more organically, than there shouldn't be any restriction on who you can trade with and thus the possibility of betrayal exists.

It may very well happen that you are allies with one person in an outer band campaign, and at the same time find yourself an enemy with them in an inner band campaign.  We will be allowed to play 3 campaigns at a time.

 

I don't see how or why we should implement coding that limits trading with people of different factions or guilds.  The beauty of a system like this, is the players impose the restrictions, not the game code.  Part of the economic structure in CF will be that of robbing, which is basically a forced trade.  By "robbing" I mean guilds will go out and scout merchant caravans to attack to supply them with goods to further their war effort.  Sometimes these caravans will be neutral guilds in that campaign, other times they will be enemy guilds, and I would wager that at some point and time, we will have an attack on a friend of a friend.

 

The OP brings up a valid way for a potential guild to collect more resources by playing the angle in a campaign.  It's up to us as players to accept that by allowing that guilds assets to stand, or up to us to stop it, by going to war with the guild that wants to be the betrayer.

lUvvzPy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may very well happen that you are allies with one person in an outer band campaign, and at the same time find yourself an enemy with them in an inner band campaign.  We will be allowed to play 3 campaigns at a time.

 

I don't see how or why we should implement coding that limits trading with people of different factions or guilds.  The beauty of a system like this, is the players impose the restrictions, not the game code.  Part of the economic structure in CF will be that of robbing, which is basically a forced trade.  By "robbing" I mean guilds will go out and scout merchant caravans to attack to supply them with goods to further their war effort.  Sometimes these caravans will be neutral guilds in that campaign, other times they will be enemy guilds, and I would wager that at some point and time, we will have an attack on a friend of a friend.

 

The OP brings up a valid way for a potential guild to collect more resources by playing the angle in a campaign.  It's up to us as players to accept that by allowing that guilds assets to stand, or up to us to stop it, by going to war with the guild that wants to be the betrayer.

 

You can only count on allowing "players to impose the restrictions . . ." to a point.

 

That's the point.

 

My experience has been that MMO communities are not only unable to, but are unwilling to, "police themselves".  There's not enough time in the day, and there's not enough talent, overall, with the objectivity or maturity to do so.  

  • What we'll have is nothing new:  A PILE of "geniuses" from The Interz-net-zors, all with competing desires, wants, opinions, attitudes, levels of honesty or dishonesty, etc., piling into the game like a schoolyard on recess.

The whole spiel about "it'll all work out because it's, it's, well, it's SAND BOX!  And all we need is a bunch of Players Sand Boxing, which means it'll all work out . . ." has never worked out very well in my experience.

 

On the one hand I agree with the SPIRIT of what you have suggested, if I assume there is no ulterior motive going on.  But re-read my post up about two or so.  Right now there are a TON of people proactively planning ways and means to "game the system" for profit in CF.  Right now, and you know who you are. It's part of their life-plan, how they make a living or some extra cash (in some cases a lot of it).

 

CF is going to, thankfully, provide a whole boatload of Sand Boxing.  Fair enough.

 

The problem here is that's the obvious statement that tweaks everyone's emo-strings so they smile all giggly.  But it's the red-herring, the (unintentional) misdirect.  It's not even the "challenge" to understand.

 

What's vastly more important, and far more difficult to define given the (usually) open-ended manner in which the above is promoted, is:  What are the boundaries and limitations?  Where are the fences?  How many fences and how tall?  How are those calibrated to achieve the desired result for the game overall, across all play styles and all customers, without going too far?

 

I would guess the vision for the game by ACE is the place.  It's their game, they'll make that decision.

 

Maybe they'll assume a significantly looser posture on the fence-lines.  I get the feeling they won't err too far the other way due to the nature of the game as advertised.  Still, it begs the question:  "How far can the player base be trusted to define those very boundaries when what's usually promoted is there should be none at all?"

 

 If left to their own devices, in the face of an industry polluted through and through with cheating and the "new" accepted "standard" of lying and cheating are what all the cool kids do. The attitude often articulated as "It's the dev house's responsibility to make sure the code is bug free.  If I find a loophole that gets me (insert whatever here), exploit early and often, ride that train until they shut it down, and they can't do much to me anyway because I've got (X) accounts on tap.  Ban one, who cares."  That attitude carries over into the "gaming the system" situations, because of course it's not actually "cheating" or "exploiting", technically, by the letter of the law (depending).

 

I've always said "Freedom is defined by the Boundaries that shape it."  Factions exist for a reason, makes sense there's be a restriction here.  And, in service of Freedom believe it or not.

 

On Topic:  Different Bands are going to have different rule sets, yes?  Well, maybe this would be one of those?  If you are in the Dregs, then trade away regardless of Faction or any other status.

 

Otherwise I don't feel trading between opposing factions in a Campaign is wise.  It's one of those dynamics players simply game the system over . . . if they can.

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..........

 

On Topic:  Different Bands are going to have different rule sets, yes?  Well, maybe this would be one of those?  If you are in the Dregs, then trade away regardless of Faction or any other status.

 

Otherwise I don't feel trading between opposing factions in a Campaign is wise.  It's one of those dynamics players simply game the system over . . . if they can.

How do we limit trading in the outer band CWs when they can just finish the campaign and trade in the EKs?  The outer bands will be the quicker of the 2, outer vs inner.

 

When the OP asked his question I was thinking of limits like found in WoW, where you can't talk with someone from the other side.  However I believe that CF will be more like EvE, where enemies can trade freely between one another.

 

I don't feel that the mechanic of trading inherently introduces destructive influence.  Trading is good for the in game economy, and putting too many coded limits on that would be more burdensome.  By limiting trading while in a CW there is only a waiting period before goods can be traded in the EK, and the outer bands will see guilds playing with and against each other many times over. 

 

What the OP describes is Game of Thrones"esque"; which is exactly what advertising for CF describes the game as: "It's like the unholy love child of Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, and EVE online."

 

I've been watching a series about Britain in the 9th century, and it's very interesting how both sides support one another, even though they are at war.  Sure there is lots of killing, but at points during these year long conflicts, both sides will come to terms in trade because it benefits both parties at that point.

 

If guild A feels cheated by something that guild B did in a God's Reach campaign, they may hold a grudge when entering into the dregs.  That is the type of meta-gaming a lot of players are looking forward to.

lUvvzPy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Teufel

 

Wasn't the point to the OPs post manipulating "trades" between factions while a Campaign is active, for the purposes of influencing win/lose, or "throwing" the fight?  This means, explicitly, he wasn't referring to chat channel restrictions.  Is that correct?

 

What we lack in MMOs are the real-world feedback mechanisms that limit/control these types of things.  The shortest summary would be "Consequences".  If the game world actually simulated, in real fashion, all the push-back related to this kind of thing (those being patriotism, national and cultural identity, sovereign nations actually operating as sovereign nations with established economies (e.g. real "factions"), then it might work as you advertise. 

 

This is however an MMO, in our Internet age where consequence doesn't really exist.  This means, in my personal experience, gaming platforms and dynamics like this are "gamed" out of scope of original intent.

 

Because once Pandora's Box is opened, you can't close it.

 

Thus, while lots of people pile on the "sheeple leading" window dressing of sand box, leet-intrigue, etc., the truth is it's really a mode of exclusion:  It endorses the idea that key competitive guidelines can be dismantled . . . and there should be NO limits to that.

 

This is the key issue in my mind.  The "no limitations" idea.  I'm strongly against that naïve approach given all we know, and have experience with in MMOs over the past 10 years at least and the fact this kind of conduct has gravitate even MORE SO to being influenced by external to the game factors:  Money making.

 

If we say the game should support the ability to betray, steal, etc., Ok, fair enough.

 

There needs to be a limit, or balancing factor to that, in game structure and mechanics however.  That could take, heck, any form imaginable.  But the principle point would remain IMO:

 

Don't drop a hungry Doberman in an unoccupied butcher shop with the counters open . . . and expect anything good to come of it.

 

Anyway, ACE makes the decisions here.  They have the background, they'll decide based on what they want to see out of CF.

 

My .02 anyway.

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.............

 

I've always said "Freedom is defined by the Boundaries that shape it."  Factions exist for a reason, makes sense there's be a restriction here.  And, in service of Freedom believe it or not.

 

On Topic:  Different Bands are going to have different rule sets, yes?  Well, maybe this would be one of those?  If you are in the Dregs, then trade away regardless of Faction or any other status.

 

Otherwise I don't feel trading between opposing factions in a Campaign is wise.  It's one of those dynamics players simply game the system over . . . if they can.

 

Define it any way you wish, all bands, all players are capable of trading with one another. For the most part, that is the entire part of the EK. Take Op's original post. Say the balance guy pays off top guild from opposing group to simply abandon the CW. The CW eventually ends and is destroyed etc. There is nothing in the game mechanics which prevent the free trade of materials in the EK between any player/group. The player who is getting paid off most definitely is not going to want to be paid in the CW in which he is sabotaging because at the end of the day the CW is going to blow up and the benefit of those extra resources is negated by import/export rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Teufel

 

Wasn't the point to the OPs post manipulating "trades" between factions while a Campaign is active, for the purposes of influencing win/lose, or "throwing" the fight?  This means, explicitly, he wasn't referring to chat channel restrictions.  Is that correct?

 

I thought of WoW as an example because it has a hard coded mechanic that does not allow players from the Alliance to talk with those in the Horde.  I thought the OP was asking if there would be a hard coded mechanic in CF that limited trading between factions in God's Reach or other campaigns. 

 

What we lack in MMOs are the real-world feedback mechanisms that limit/control these types of things.  The shortest summary would be "Consequences".  If the game world actually simulated, in real fashion, all the push-back related to this kind of thing (those being patriotism, national and cultural identity, sovereign nations actually operating as sovereign nations with established economies (e.g. real "factions"), then it might work as you advertise. 

 

While EvE does not have true nationalism in the game, I would contend that EvE does have a majority of the playerbase that is for or against specific game factions, and for or against certain player alliances.  Being a pilot that always flew for the North, I would never join a BoB corp (before BoB was broken up), and having severe distaste for Goonswarm pilots, I currently would not try and join one of their corps (even though I read somewhere they are trying to re-brand themselves).  My loyalties lay with Amarr (for RP reasons) and corps/alliances that were originally part of MM/RawR.

 

Why is it not possible that we will have the same player experience in CF?

 

This is however an MMO, in our Internet age where consequence doesn't really exist.  This means, in my personal experience, gaming platforms and dynamics like this are "gamed" out of scope of original intent.

 

Because once Pandora's Box is opened, you can't close it.

 

Thus, while lots of people pile on the "sheeple leading" window dressing of sand box, leet-intrigue, etc., the truth is it's really a mode of exclusion:  It endorses the idea that key competitive guidelines can be dismantled . . . and there should be NO limits to that.

 

This is the key issue in my mind.  The "no limitations" idea.  I'm strongly against that naïve approach given all we know, and have experience with in MMOs over the past 10 years at least and the fact this kind of conduct has gravitate even MORE SO to being influenced by external to the game factors:  Money making.

 

If we say the game should support the ability to betray, steal, etc., Ok, fair enough.

 

There needs to be a limit, or balancing factor to that, in game structure and mechanics however.  That could take, heck, any form imaginable.  But the principle point would remain IMO:

 

Don't drop a hungry Doberman in an unoccupied butcher shop with the counters open . . . and expect anything good to come of it.

 

Anyway, ACE makes the decisions here.  They have the background, they'll decide based on what they want to see out of CF.

 

My .02 anyway.

Answers in bold.

 

Going back to your question about the OP wanting to manipulate trades; I see nothing wrong with that, as that is how money is made on the market, buy low sell high.  If a player is able to make a deal for their "allegiance" and acquire materials/silver out of it, then I see nothing wrong with that.  Is there any difference between buying mercenaries outright before a campaign kicks off and buying off guilds in the campaign in order to satisfy a win condition?

 

Verot explains it well, how all in campaign trading can be bypassed because of the EKs.

 

EvE is a game that Crowfall has partially taken ideas from, not just in mechanics but in philosophy.  Scams are allowed in EvE, and the devs have publicly acknowledged that they will not refund because of a scam.  It is up to the players to be careful of how they spend their Isk.  BoB was taken down from the inside because of a spy that gained so much power he was able to dismantle one of, if not the largest alliance at the time.  CCPs attitude was it broke no rules and was perfectly allowed.  The players (long before the situation with BoB) came up with ways to deal with spies, like require screenshots of your primary account applying for membership; so potential corps would know what alts you had.  They would do a background check on the primary character and all alts, by looking at your history of sec status, purchase history of the character (characters can be sold between accounts in EvE) and reaching out to past corps leaders to find out about you.  I had to go through 2 of these interviews before I joined what would be a 5 year camaraderie.

 

You could have guilds notorious for taking bribes to grow their kingdoms while other guilds have a honourable reputation. You could even accept the bribe and then ignore the conditions of the bribe and get a reputation of being greedy etc.

The OP had this to say at the end of his post.  Personally, while I wouldn't play this way, I see nothing wrong with having guilds that want to play the anti-hero or even villain.  It brings back nostalgia from UO when you had PKs and Anti-PKs, and guilds were built around the idea of protecting average players from these PKs.

 

Trading should be allowed between anyone at anytime, and on this issue of trades it does not break anything in game to allow this.  While I understand your concern for exploits, RL $ trading and other subjects, I felt the OP was talking about a coded mechanic where different factions would be able to trade with one another.

lUvvzPy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, instead of worrying about how potential trades will affect the outcome of the war, I think you should be more concerned with players who quit as soon as the odds don't look good.If 1/3 of the competing faction quits because they can just jump ship and go to a new CW with limited impact, it will greatly affect the balance of power for a given CW. Typically a player is forced to tough/grind it out because of the significant time invested in a given server/faction.  Over time some games have mitigated this loss to the player by offer server/faction changes (looking at you WoW). This is an obvious money grab for the developer because with a few simple scripts the player is up and running in their new home. 

 

CF completely removes this restriction on players because the worlds are supposed to end, to specifically deal with the "Uncle Bob" situation. However, this will to some degree lead to players jumping ship the moment they hit rough water. Why stick around on a sinking ship when you see clearer skies on a brand new CW? Even if characters are locked to a CW for the duration, they could easily play an alt while their "main" auto levels. This is why I always hoped for a hybrid training system, in which you had some passive training you could set and forget, but you would also get a "bonus" for actively using the skills you want.

 

I'm beginning to get off topic, but suffice it to say that the fractured world design is great but it will likely open the door to behaviors some players may find off putting .

Edited by Verot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game is all about risk and reward with the realms, part of me likes the idea of the safety of the EK, but I also think it would be interesting to have benefits if you take the risk of opening up the EK to pvp and destruction.  But what would those benefits be? higher level resources? unique npcs or mob npc for the kingdom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP had this to say at the end of his post.  Personally, while I wouldn't play this way, I see nothing wrong with having guilds that want to play the anti-hero or even villain.  It brings back nostalgia from UO when you had PKs and Anti-PKs, and guilds were built around the idea of protecting average players from these PKs.

 

Trading should be allowed between anyone at anytime, and on this issue of trades it does not break anything in game to allow this.  While I understand your concern for exploits, RL $ trading and other subjects, I felt the OP was talking about a coded mechanic where different factions would be able to trade with one another.

 

The bolded sentence would only be true if that's the design intent.  What I'm doing is filling the Devil's Advocate role versus the go-along-with-the-crowd Group Think, that's all.  I'm interested in seeing what the thoughts are between the Forum Dwellers and ACE in how the "vision" is going to work.

 

Is the following excerpt from another forum still true?

 

 

One interesting twist CF will have on the 3 faction ruleset:

"The three factions are Order, Balance and Chaos. The victory condition for Order and Chaos is pretty straightforward: amass the most victory points to win; however, the win condition for Balance is different. Balance wins if they can ensure no clear victory between the other two. This means that they are enticed to swap sides as often as required to make sure that neither of the other two factions becomes too strong or powerful."

 

I concede this is a difficult topic to talk about given the massive complexities you could stack up with the game-play and human dynamics involved.

 

But if I look at the above excerpt it does in fact suggest part of the game structure that sets the stage for competition between players are Faction Allegiances.  My point, in playing Devil's Advocate, is that players nowadays simply want to "game the system", which might include heavy real world incentives related to money, in the name of "freedom" and "playor contentzors", and the mechanism by which that occurs is simply disabling or sidestepping things, because the game lets it happen.

 

"Everyone should absolutely be allowed to trade with each other".  Well, OK.  That's one way to go about it.

 

Or, if the FActions are meant to be meaningful it's entirely possible you might consider disallowing it.  Maybe.

 

Another poster somewhere made the comment in a forum "Well, why bother having Factions if they are going to be meaningless?  Just do away with them."

 

So, we'll see how it hashes out. 

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...