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

Eternal Kingdoms as Campaign Marketplaces

Recommended Posts

Personally, I think the transference should be limited in the following ways.

  • You can take materials out, through the spiritbank mechanic, which will have a delay that is based on how well you are doing in the campaign it was exported from, and takes between 2 and 7 days.
  • You can import back into a campaign only one type of item, blue prints.

That way there is reason to always be taking resources out, trading with other players in the EK for high quality BP's, but in no case are you bringing new resources, or products, back into the worlds.  It's a material one way door, so you can't flood items back on your teams behalf, only quality blueprints, which could have been made in world.

This would allow smaller guilds to trade for what they can't produce BP wise, but still obligate them to fight for in world resources to make items, and use in world factories to produce them.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Personally, I think the transference should be limited in the following ways.

  • You can take materials out, through the spiritbank mechanic, which will have a delay that is based on how well you are doing in the campaign it was exported from, and takes between 2 and 7 days.
  • You can import back into a campaign only one type of item, blue prints.

That way there is reason to always be taking resources out, trading with other players in the EK for high quality BP's, but in no case are you bringing new resources, or products, back into the worlds.  It's a material one way door, so you can't flood items back on your teams behalf, only quality blueprints, which could have been made in world.

This would allow smaller guilds to trade for what they can't produce BP wise, but still obligate them to fight for in world resources to make items, and use in world factories to produce them.

 

We need a guarentee of scarcity in CWs - if you put resources into the CW, more resources have to come out to bring those resources in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ringhloth said:

We need a guarentee of scarcity in CWs - if you put resources into the CW, more resources have to come out to bring those resources in.

That would be a complex mess to test programmatically.

Take for example the ability to Quality bootstrap. Now if you boot strapped a set of plate to blue, using boot strapped rings, and green sheets, just how could you tell how much "resource", was used, so you can track it?

I would not want to touch the code, or decisions necessary to balance in/out with a ten foot cat 5 cable with a system as complex as they have built.

What about by bands.  If your in a band that has no access to blue and up, and someone tries to pull in a blue item, now you have to flag it as no good.

Far easier programmatically, and balance wise, to simply say ALL BP's are allowed in, find your own resources.

 If your dumb enough to pull a blue BP into a green capped world, that's your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ringhloth said:

Then what's the point of the siege window? This doesn't make any sense.

The point of the siege window is to give people a chance to fight to defend their assets. Without a siege window people tend to destroy assets while the owners are asleep. or otherwise unable to play. It is enough for the structures to be protected, it is not necessary to also make bases into safezones where people don't have to worry about PvP.

This mechanic is familiar to anyone who played Shadowbane and it works.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way.
Definitively against the dynamic of acquiring stuff and looting in CW.

However perhaps it is a good idea to connect somehow your business in CW with your favourite mercantile EK. 
You could have on your shop in a EK a way to expose what you are selling in an other shop you are running in a CW.

This way you can attract customers to risk they way to your CW city and purchase "the best vessel around"... or thugs which ambush them on the way... or armies which besiege the city and steal your stuff.  

Edited by RikForFun

Catelyn: War will make them old, as it did us. I pity them.
Mathis: Why? Look at them. They're young and strong, full of life and laughter. And lust, aye, more lust than they know what to do with. There will be many a bastard bred this night, I promise you. Why pity?
Catelyn: Because it will not last. Because they are the knights of summer, and winter is coming.

A Clash of Kings, Chapter 22, Catelyn II.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowfall Discord Channels: international (english) - italiano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some merit to this idea, at least in terms of the basic premise of tying EKs to CWs in a more meaningful way. One of the common complaints some people have about the EKs is that they are safe areas, with no risk - there might be a way to introduce risk there, and expand upon the reward end of the equation by extending it more directly into the CWs.

Currently it is possible for an EK, or portion of it, to have PVP and/or asset destruction flags checked, enabling these mechanics in their normally safe EK. Imagine a scenario where you could choose, at the beginning of a campaign, to allow travel from that Campaign World to your EK and back - either for the entire duration of the campaign, or during certain windows, or at the beginning or end etc - but doing so made the EK, or the specific parcel/domain where these accessed assets (factories, bank etc) were located, to have PvP and asset destruction turned on...

This would be a serious risk for an EK-owner to take. On the one hand, it might give them the option of getting more or better recipes into a campaign, or even allow them to take advantage of and use higher quality resources harvested from a CW, and use the resulting items crafted from them in that very same campaign, as opposed to the next one in the cycle. On the other hand, it would mean not only would they be able to travel to this EK, but so would everyone else on that campaign world...that would be a gut-check of a strategic decision to make, and could change the nature of a campaign entirely.

Not only that, but it would expand upon something that is mostly lacking and another common complaint about the current system - a lack of connection not only between EK and Campaign World, but between successive Campaigns. You could very well win a Campaign, a battle, but lose the overall war because your homeland EK was devastated in the process.

ACE's willingness to consider different and even extreme rulesets is one of the things that has been of most interest to me. A wrinkle liks this could be something that brings it all to a whole different level.

Edited by Anthrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anthrage said:

I think there is some merit to this idea, at least in terms of the basic premise of tying EKs to CWs in a more meaningful way. One of the common complaints some people have about the EKs is that they are safe areas, with no risk - there might be a way to introduce risk there, and expand upon the reward end of the equation by extending it more directly into the CWs.

Currently it is possible for an EK, or portion of it, to have PVP and/or asset destruction flags checked, enabling these mechanics in their normally safe EK. Imagine a scenario where you could choose, at the beginning of a campaign, to allow travel from that Campaign World to your EK and back - either for the entire duration of the campaign, or during certain windows, or at the beginning or end etc - but doing so made the EK, or the specific parcel/domain where these accessed assets (factories, bank etc) were located, to have PvP and asset destruction turned on...

This would be a serious risk for an EK-owner to take. On the one hand, it might give them the option of getting more or better recipes into a campaign, or even allow them to take advantage of and use higher quality resources harvested from a CW, and use the resulting items crafted from them in that very same campaign, as opposed to the next one in the cycle. On the other hand, it would mean not only would they be able to travel to this EK, but so would everyone else on that campaign world...that would be a gut-check of a strategic decision to make, and could change the nature of a campaign entirely.

Not only that, but it would expand upon something that is mostly lacking and another common complaint about the current system - a lack of connection not only between EK and Campaign World, but between successive Campaigns. You could very well win a Campaign, a battle, but lose the overall war because your homeland EK was devastated in the process.

ACE's willingness to consider different and even extreme rulesets is one of the things that has been of most interest to me. A wrinkle liks this could be something that brings it all to a whole different level.

If you thought ALT's could be a problem before....

Main character, all my cool buildings and economic center, totally protected in an No PVP zone.

Alt, small EK, with a door to my main EK, marked for PvE, maybe through a valsel parcel, owned by the whole guild as a material staging area that the only goods in it are the ones you are moving immediately, with a single very basic shop where trades are made and goods sold, always in limited quantities.

There are just too many promises already out there about how EK, are "Yours forever", to entertain tying them to CW's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ringhloth said:

Is it? Where do they say that EKs are just going be something that many players will visit once a campaign is over, and then ignored the rest of the time? Pretty sure they have said over and over again the EKs will be central marketplaces, which means frequent visits.

 

 

They have also stated that they realize and took into account that not everybody will have the same interest level in the EKs. Not all CW bands will have the same interaction level of the EKs based on export/import rules so why is it hard to understand that not all players will need to/want to use the EKs the same as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's come up a couple times... but how is trading going to work right now in a full open PvP world? Look at both Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies. Both of these games had safe spaces where you could trade. Without any safe spaces I think trading will be a very limited thing. Going to someone else's city to buy stuff? They lie in wait for you to purchase things off their vendor, or they trade you, then immediately ambush you and kill you and take it back? That's not going to promote a very healthy economy. It's going to promote only trading within your safe circles.

Maybe people want trading to be very limited and only with people you know. I'm not saying that's wrong. Personally, I'd prefer a functioning economy where trading is pretty frequent at the cost of a few safe spaces. I've never been a big fan of safe spaces but the more I think about how this is going to work the more potential issues I see.

For example, in a normal MMO you might have crafters whose goal is just to craft and accumulate wealth. They would set up neutral shops (in a PvP area, so it's still dangerous) for all players to buy from. That's part of a healthy, functioning economy. However, in Crowfall there is zero incentive for them to do this. They can't win a campaign just by running a shop, so they wouldn't get to take much of that wealth out of the campaign. So, neutral shops just aren't a thing.

These are the type of things that I haven't seen discussed that concern me.


Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Svenn said:

It's come up a couple times... but how is trading going to work right now in a full open PvP world? Look at both Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies. Both of these games had safe spaces where you could trade. Without any safe spaces I think trading will be a very limited thing. Going to someone else's city to buy stuff? They lie in wait for you to purchase things off their vendor, or they trade you, then immediately ambush you and kill you and take it back? That's not going to promote a very healthy economy. It's going to promote only trading within your safe circles.

Maybe people want trading to be very limited and only with people you know. I'm not saying that's wrong. Personally, I'd prefer a functioning economy where trading is pretty frequent at the cost of a few safe spaces. I've never been a big fan of safe spaces but the more I think about how this is going to work the more potential issues I see.

For example, in a normal MMO you might have crafters whose goal is just to craft and accumulate wealth. They would set up neutral shops (in a PvP area, so it's still dangerous) for all players to buy from. That's part of a healthy, functioning economy. However, in Crowfall there is zero incentive for them to do this. They can't win a campaign just by running a shop, so they wouldn't get to take much of that wealth out of the campaign. So, neutral shops just aren't a thing.

These are the type of things that I haven't seen discussed that concern me.

I think trading/economy will happen as much as it needs to in order to facilitate victory and winning the campaign. Expecting it to be like past games, when you agree this isn't just a normal MMO here is likely the real cause of your concern. So no its likely trading and economy won't be the same or just like past games, it'll be what it needs to be for Crowfall.

EDIT: fyi SWG wasn't really an Open World PvP game, it had a flagging system so you could totally avoid PvP everywhere if one wanted to. So no there really wasn't safe places just populated places where people would go to buy/sell partake in the economy.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pang said:

I think trading/economy will happen as much as it needs to in order to facilitate victory and winning the campaign. Expecting it to be like past games, when you agree this isn't just a normal MMO here is likely the real cause of your concern. So no its likely trading and economy won't be the same or just like past games, it'll be what it needs to be for Crowfall.

I don't think it needs to be exactly like other games. However, I will be pretty disappointed if they put all this work into features that work towards a great economy only for the economy to not really exist because of other features. 

Quote

EDIT: fyi SWG wasn't really an Open World PvP game, it had a flagging system so you could totally avoid PvP everywhere if one wanted to. So no there really wasn't safe places just populated places where people would go to buy/sell partake in the economy.

You're right. It wasn't so much safe spaces as it was PvP flagging. Still, the point remains that players could trade without fear of being killed.

Edited by Svenn

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

If you thought ALT's could be a problem before....

Main character, all my cool buildings and economic center, totally protected in an No PVP zone.

Alt, small EK, with a door to my main EK, marked for PvE, maybe through a valsel parcel, owned by the whole guild as a material staging area that the only goods in it are the ones you are moving immediately, with a single very basic shop where trades are made and goods sold, always in limited quantities.

There are just too many promises already out there about how EK, are "Yours forever", to entertain tying them to CW's.

This would not be a problem, unless the devs are stupid enough to allow it to be a problem - like every other element of a game's design, if you design it poorly, of course it will not work. There are plenty of ways to design what I am describing so none of what you mention is an issue.

I don't see anything of meaning or merit in your last statement. Tying EKs to CWs would - again, if done correctly - actually be one of the higher-return investments on expended resources, given that it would almost entirely involve existing content and mechanics. A single addition would change and add value to two primary game areas - literally.

Personally, I am all for putting more options into the hands of players, to be used in new and creative ways. Having a personal - cut off from the mainland - which is accessible only from a CW, a doorway which must be committed to staying open throughout a campaign, where things would have to be move physically from point A to point B...that opens up, quite literally once again, a world of content and potential gameplay.

Last word on this idea from me since everything else is I suspect going to be a matter of opinion - back in the early stages of Shadowbane's development (come on, you knew it was coming), the devs had this idea of a game-space called the Badlands. It would have taken something which other games, and ultimately it itself, would manifest only through a visual effect on screen, and make it a playable experience, a physical area. So instead of entering a Runegate for example in one part of the world and simply popping out in another, you would have to travel for X amount of time or distance through this other space, some kind of inter-dimensional landscape, where you would run the risk of encountering others.

I forget exactly what the original application was for the idea, if it was Runegates or server travel or something to do with death, but the idea here is to get additional value out of mechanics that already exist by using them in novel ways, and that add new opportunities for gameplay. I think there are a great many people who are not entirely satisfied with the lack of consequential permanence or strategic connecting between the EKs and the CWs beyond the resource/gear cycle, which is awesome and significant to be sure, but not quite the same as a holding you are invested in and build over time that can be fought over. It's the one thing that CF is missing, and while it does allow for a shadow of that to be manifest if players choose to do so collectively, something like what I described would take it to another level.

In any case, we know that ACE very much intends to play with the rules that CWs rune on. EKs have rules as well, and I'd be surprised if they would not be open to playing with those rules as well. I suppose we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that in 3-faction play where multiple guilds and many independent players in small groups will be a part of the faction it is very likely a robust economy will develop given a long server time, say a 1 year CW.  Less likely in 12-factions and unlikely in shadows or dregs.  

On my thoughts on twinks...   the devs could very likely put quality caps on gear imports rather than limiting imports to BPs...  There is potential that we could create BPs with materials that would be unavailable in that CW at all making the BP worthless.

Yes...  the more hardcore crowd is pretty flat on enthusiasm for all this EK work, we want POIs and factories and recipes for walls to be worked on rather than carebear city functionality.   But the devs made a promise to people and are fulfilling that promise.


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Frykka said:

I believe that in 3-faction play where multiple guilds and many independent players in small groups will be a part of the faction it is very likely a robust economy will develop given a long server time, say a 1 year CW.  Less likely in 12-factions and unlikely in shadows or dregs.  

That's a good point. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who wants to play in a pure GvG style campaign. In things like 3 faction campaigns there will be plenty of other people to safely trade with. And I can see dedicated crafters making a home there since it's a lot safer and they have an actual chance of winning that campaign. Those campaigns will likely have a nice, healthy economy.

So, then that leaves the problem (or maybe not, depending on your perspective) of other campaigns (like GvG, whether that ends up as Dregs or something separate) not having "neutral" dedicated crafters and trading being a thing that really only happens within your guild/alliance for the most part. I'm torn on this because I like the idea of a healthy, functioning, campaign-wide economy... but I also realize that in a competitive GvG setting it's not beneficial to be trading with your enemies. That's why I think some way to encourage neutral crafters in that setting would be a good thing.

That means every guild HAS to have a set of dedicated crafters to be able to produce the gear, because they likely won't have anywhere else to get it from. They might be able to find some stuff for sale from other guilds, but any really good items are likely to be given to guild mates so they can win the campaign. A guild of pure combat trained players is not really going to be viable I think. In this setting, crafters might even be more important than combat specced players.

I'm really just brainstorming here to try and think of the mindsets of people in different campaigns and how that will affect the economy (and thus the balance and rest of the game).

Edited by Svenn

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Svenn said:

That's a good point. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who wants to play in a pure GvG style campaign. In things like 3 faction campaigns there will be plenty of other people to safely trade with. And I can see dedicated crafters making a home there since it's a lot safer and they have an actual chance of winning that campaign. Those campaigns will likely have a nice, healthy economy.

So, then that leaves the problem (or maybe not, depending on your perspective) of other campaigns (like GvG, whether that ends up as Dregs or something separate) not having "neutral" dedicated crafters and trading being a thing that really only happens within your guild/alliance for the most part. I'm torn on this because I like the idea of a healthy, functioning, campaign-wide economy... but I also realize that in a competitive GvG setting it's not beneficial to be trading with your enemies. That's why I think some way to encourage neutral crafters in that setting would be a good thing.

That means every guild HAS to have a set of dedicated crafters to be able to produce the gear, because they likely won't have anywhere else to get it from. They might be able to find some stuff for sale from other guilds, but any really good items are likely to be given to guild mates so they can win the campaign. A guild of pure combat trained players is not really going to be viable I think. In this setting, crafters might even be more important than combat specced players.

I'm really just brainstorming here to try and think of the mindsets of people in different campaigns and how that will affect the economy (and thus the balance and rest of the game).

I would not be opposed to specific campaigns being participants in the EK's at different levels, and to different degrees.  Let the players decide on how restrictive or open worlds fair with their feet.

If massive back and forth is popular, then let it run, if zero back and forth is popular, that will win.  The beauty of the system they are designing, even if they totally bork it and and completely ruin an entire world with floods of EK produced goods, that has no impact on other campaigns. If it is incredibly fun and popular, to run in a God's reach Kindom with dregs level gear pulled from dregs campaigns, why not.

The weak (poorly configured) campaigns will perish, and the strong will survive and be used again.

I think a great many of these EK suggestions are more about campaign configuration options people would like to try, and less about the EK itself.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I think a great many of these EK suggestions are more about campaign configuration options people would like to try, and less about the EK itself.

Yep. I would be less opposed to some of these ideas as campaign variants than I am as core design changes to Crowfall.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be another interesting idea, is to allow players to START an open campaign, with their EK as the center piece. 

So you take your land, vassals, and all buildings into an empty world, that autopopulates and fills in the blanks into a full sized real world complete with band appropriate resources and POI's.  From then on, while the campaign runs, you effectively don't have an EK.

The risk, is that even starting established other players and teams will come and knock you over your buildings and take your stuff.  

The reward, resources kept, and buildings constructed, without the need to embargo, because the whole thing returns to it's EK state when the campaign ends.

Basic deeds and building items would remain, but in a broken state if destroyed, needing to be re-built again.

Allow for these EK based campaigns to include other EK's, so multiple base EK's can go at it with each other.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun, but then again we don't know how much fun the generic campaign worlds are going to be.  

Maybe a few will have import rules that include buildings and fortifications, and not just standard gear, and that would serve the same purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be possible for a hardcore crafting guild to act as a mercenary group, and sign up as a sub-guild for a particular Dregs CW? I usually think of mercs as pvpers (enforcers) but crafting has so much value in CF I could see it happening. That crafting guild could also be running a merchant EK to sell to the high import bands at the same time.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svenn's idea in the original post is "clearly flawed".  It breaks CWs as we currently understand them.  And that's a Bad Thing.

However, his premise is spot-on.  As currently outlined, EKs are going to be mostly empty and useless.  Yes, I'm declaring them broken before they exist.  In that context, the only way to fix EKs is to tie them more closely to CW's somehow.  So, props to Svenn for trying to find a creative bridge.  Maybe breaking our current understanding of CWs is a Good Thing.  The relationship between CWs and EKs has always felt half-baked.  There's a more elegant solution hiding here somewhere.


Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

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...