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

Campaign Player Retention....

Retention  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this proposal good enough ?

    • Yes, good enough if implemented properly.
      2
    • No, we need a separate system build around punishing leavers and awarding activity.
      2


Recommended Posts

... seems to be hot topic.

 

So instead of making complicated rules on why not to leave campagin how about, rules that are good for loosing side to stay as well.

For example ( numbers out of ass of course)

 

 

Campagin Type : 12 Goods Brawl

Base Export : 80% Winning God, 40% Losing Gods.

 

 

Then how about adding things like this for activities :

 

Activity  :  From - 10% to + 10% depending on how Crowfall measures it.   (so your personal activity matters)

 

Winning Side - if a god is considered Good for example, all Good Gods followers +5% (so even if your god is lowest of all you can still contribute to your own loot by helping other god in your faction)

 

Riding other God Settement +1% (max up to +5%) only can Gods outside of your morality ( ie good god can ride neutral or evil only). - 1% everytime your God Settlement is rided.   ( so even if you are on loosing side you can still secure loot by riding other weaker god)

 

Personal Goal randomed from chosen category (economic, warefare etc)  at start of campaign (ie. kill 500 dudes + 2% export) or collect 1000 mil stone and so on.

 

 

And rules for ending campaign :

 

Time Limit : 120 days

Or : God controls 40% Territory.

Or : God controls 30% Territory longer then 2 weeks.

Special Rule : If number of players dropped bellow 80% of starting number each player personal loot + 10% if he stays till end of campaign.

Or : Number of player dropped below 50% of starting number - campaign ends in 1 week.

Or : If at least 45 days passed and God is able to ride at least 5 other gods in 2 weeks, campaign ends in that god victory in 2 weeks unless he is sucesfully rided by others.

Or :....

 

 

How do you think :

Would such 'rules' (of course with proper values and goals) be able to convince both losing and winning side ( obviously not each person but factions as whole) to stay and play, WITHOUT adding any additional system ?

 

 

 

Edit : Suggestion forum because polls...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Naur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there needs to be an inherent punishment for players that leave a CW.  This isn't an issue like in Overwatch where 1 person leaving can severely limit the teams potential.

 

Any player leaving a campaign hurts their guild or faction.  At the guild level, it's up to the guild if they want to expel that person, and when it comes to the outer band CWs the factions could be so unbalanced (numbers wise) that it won't matter.  The only place it might matter is in the inner band CWs and again if a player is leaving, those are the campaigns that are more guild suited, and a player will be accountable to their guild.

 

If the campaigns aren't fun enough in the release state, then there is an underlying issue that no rule/carrot will fix.  The campaigns have to be fun in all iterations of the bands, with the only difference being the level of risk a player/guild wants to accept.  Make the campaigns fun, and there should be no need for leaving a campaign.

 

I do make a few assumptions though in my view of this; the biggest being that no regional group will have more than 4 CWs running at any given time.  I will break down my numbers here so people understand why I believe this.

 

NA group - 50k

EU group - 50k

-----

total player population 100k (this has been discussed and debated in other threads, but I believe this to be a good starting population)

 

Each regional group of 50k means peak population of 10k (derived from historical peak pops of other games of around 20%)

 

With 10k peak population I break it down 2000 in each of the 4 campaigns, and 2000 in the EKs.

 

While the overall game population will hopefully grow, any growth will more than likely look like a 20/80 split; where 20% of that growth will go into the inner bands, and 80% of that growth will go into the less risky outer bands and EKs.  So I'm assuming that growth for the dregs and shadows CW will be slower and there will be little need to have multiples of those CWs until another player population spike.  The shorter outer band CWs however may need additional campaigns, but I still think that 2 at the most of each type will be sufficient.

 

If the population is more around 200k then I could possibly see a need for double the original 4 campaigns, but that is wholly dependent on server/network tech.  EvE runs one game world, the tranquillity "server".  Tranquility is not really a server, but rather a bunch of servers linked together into a massive server group.  This same tech is where AWS comes in, and ACE has the ability to spin up or down Amazon server clusters to allow for population growth.  So if ACE can find a way to handle say 5-10k peak population in a single campaign then my theory is we would not need more than 1 CW of each band type until the population reaches around 300-400k.

 

All this to say, if the games not fun and retention is an issue, then let's look at why the game isn't fun.

Edited by Teufel

lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this to say, if the games not fun and retention is an issue, then let's look at why the game isn't fun.

 

Agreed. And if you coax people into staying in a campaign that is no longer fun for them, it could erode the joy of playing Crowfall for them.

 

"Man, 2 more weeks before I can leave this crap campaign without a penalty. At least there is Overwatch to play while I wait..."

 

Oh, and those poll options. I'm not willing to select either of those, as they both put words in my mouth I wouldn't agree with.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked most of your proposed rules, but disagree with any strategy that incentivizes players regardless of contribution.  The three potential issues are:

 

- Losers:  People leaving because they are losing - Why waste our time when we are going to die anyway? 

- AFKers:  People going away from keyboard because they want the free rewards - I can have the cat sleep on the jump button, and I can win without doing anything. 

- Others: People leaving when it is unclear the reason - Maybe they lost their internet connection?  Maybe they rage quit?  Who knows.

 

In order to ensure equity, you must reward for contribution to the effort, not time.  Contribution can be based upon a few things:

 

- Capturing/destroying objectives;

- Defeating enemies;

- Damaging enemies;

- Delivering resources for your team; or

- Healing allies.

 

Leaving a warzone through /quit, a menu, or other user interaction should be punished by time-based lockout from campaigns and branding as a deserter.  By using a system that motivates ONLY contribution, you punish the AFKers and losers; give others the benefit of the doubt; and reward all those that contributed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really vote for either. Though I do plan on playing there, I think that the "winner take all" in the Shadow/Dregs will be a tough sell. If people are going to dump 3-6 months into a campaign, they will want something. I'm afraid that once a significant portion of the server/campaign discovers that they will have to log in for the next 60 to 90 days to gain nothing, they will simply leave, or if unable to leave simply log in another toon on a different campaign. 

 

I understand it's the "Hard core" shard, but that means jack poorly made socks if half your population is gone within 30 days of campaign start up. Just my 0.02.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all im not a native english speaker so my grammer and spelling are most likely worse then that of a 6 years old child. I apollogize for that.

 

I liked most of your proposed rules, but disagree with any strategy that incentivizes players regardless of contribution.  The three potential issues are:

 

- Losers:  People leaving because they are losing - Why waste our time when we are going to die anyway? 

- AFKers:  People going away from keyboard because they want the free rewards - I can have the cat sleep on the jump button, and I can win without doing anything. 

- Others: People leaving when it is unclear the reason - Maybe they lost their internet connection?  Maybe they rage quit?  Who knows.

 

In order to ensure equity, you must reward for contribution to the effort, not time.  Contribution can be based upon a few things:

 

- Capturing/destroying objectives;

- Defeating enemies;

- Damaging enemies;

- Delivering resources for your team; or

- Healing allies.

 

Leaving a warzone through /quit, a menu, or other user interaction should be punished by time-based lockout from campaigns and branding as a deserter.  By using a system that motivates ONLY contribution, you punish the AFKers and losers; give others the benefit of the doubt; and reward all those that contributed. 

I like that thinking. After all the problem are not only leavers but afkler as well.

Why should somebody get the same res while leaving after 2 month as somebody who plays until the end

 

So if im right you dont get any res anyway until the campain ends.

 

All res you put aside can not be used to help your faktion win. So there needs to be a mechanic that prevents people from joining a CW just ot put all the res they find aside amasing res so that even if the faktion looses the 20-40% res they get from the one they put aside is the same as the 100% of the winner who put most res into winning the CW.

 

Maybe have a limit on how many res one can put aside depending on how mutch you contributed to your faktion in the CW.

 

Or how about a res lock so people cant put res aside until for example late summer or 60% of the CW map have been taken by a faktion.

 

Or the amount of loot you get out gets reduced by the time you do not play in the CW.

example: You put 10000 stones aside. Your faktion is loosing so you expect to get 40% anyway and leave to join another CW.

So you expect 4000 stones. However you get 0,14% less per day that the CW went on without you playing. Playing does only count if contribute to the faktion like mett suguests.

If you contribute a lot you get a bonus. So you could contribute a lot in the beginning then leave for a few weeks to have your bonus might be gone but you have no negative effect. This way you can also get rid of the negativ effect if you did not play in the cw for some time if you become aktiv again while people that leave mid game and dont come back get nothing if the cw goes on for long anough.

 

After all there will be the surrender option if i belive so that the campain can be endet befor winter hits.

If your faktion doesnt want to surrender then they either have a plan or at least belive for now that a comeback is possible.

 

0.285% per day is not mutch but comes to a 2% per week, loosing 8% per month or 20% in 2,5 month / 10 weeks.

If you faktion decided to continou the fight that long and did not completly loose then maybe it was worthwhile to stay in the cw in the first place instat of leaving at the first sight of loosing the cw.

 

If there is no pen for leaving then people will just leave CWs the moment they are loosing without even trying to fight back and that will kill the game even more.


o8WHnLc.png

THE most active European guild. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Maybe have a limit on how many res one can put aside depending on how mutch you contributed to your faktion in the CW.

 

Or how about a res lock so people cant put res aside until for example late summer or 60% of the CW map have been taken by a faktion.

 

Or the amount of loot you get out gets reduced by the time you do not play in the CW.

example: You put 10000 stones aside. Your faktion is loosing so you expect to get 40% anyway and leave to join another CW.

So you expect 4000 stones. However you get 0,14% less per day that the CW went on without you playing. Playing does only count if contribute to the faktion like mett suguests.

If you contribute a lot you get a bonus. So you could contribute a lot in the beginning then leave for a few weeks to have your bonus might be gone but you have no negative effect. This way you can also get rid of the negativ effect if you did not play in the cw for some time if you become aktiv again while people that leave mid game and dont come back get nothing if the cw goes on for long enough.

 

You have some great ideas here.  I loved the one that caps the amount of resources bring back based upon your overall contribution to the war effort.  I had not thought of that, and it really incentives contribution. 

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...