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

Eternal Kingdoms as Campaign Marketplaces

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bashar said:

I get that you want a reason to spend more time in your EK, Svenn.  I really do.  But your proposal introduces a lot of complexity to replicate functionality that will already exist in the campaign world.  Even if the fan base reached a consensus on the forum that it was a desired feature, I don't see ACE spending the resources to implement it.  There are just so many other demands pressing for their attention.

Is this functionality guaranteed to exist in the campaign world? Worries about non-existent economies are very justified, imo. I mean, if I can attack you, and take all your inventory, why should I trade? If you can use the sword I'm trading to you to kill me and win a campaign, why should I trade?

1 hour ago, Bashar said:

In my opinion a better approach would be to limit the resources that you can collect from campaign victories to raw materials and some world exclusive items like relics.  This means that any equipment or other crafted goods that you import to a world are effectively spent once the campaign has concluded.  Since all equipment imported into campaign worlds would have to be crafted in the EKs, that would make the interim period between campaigns more important and increase the viability of an EK as a bazaar.  People would come together, exchange resources, and craft or buy the equipment and items that they want to take in to the next campaign.  You might even have some vessels who remain exclusively in their EK to produce goods to sell during those periods.

This assumes that we'll be able to bring more than a handful of items into the campaign world - it doesn't take more than 10-20 minutes to craft what you will be able to take into many EKs, and again, this doesn't impact the Dregs, and probably barely effects the GvG tier.

1 hour ago, Bashar said:

From a strategic standpoint, players entering a campaign would have to weigh the value of the items they're bringing in to a campaign versus what they can expect to get out of it.  It also means that during campaigns, players will have to weigh how worthwhile it is to craft an item versus the value of bringing back to their EK the raw materials it would consume.  Invest too much in equipment and you might not recoup your costs.  Invest too little and you might not have the wherewithal to complete objectives and protect the resources that you've earned.

Some players. GvG and dregs will likely see almost no importing, at least from the few impressions we have right now. Others will have almost no value in trading in EKs if they're only there to get items for importing into the game.

1 hour ago, Bashar said:

In any event, I think it's really too early to be having this discussion.  We don't have campaigns yet and the EKs are very rudimentary.  A lot of the systems aren't yet in play.  There are no victory conditions in the PvP maps, no craftable structures, no guild structure, minimal npcs.  While I'm all for building relationships between the two world spaces, I think the focus right now should be making sure that each is individually fun or interesting in their own right.

This game is supposed to be built on crafting and gathering. The game has to be designed around a sound, functioning economic model, and if Crowfall doesn't get that right, it's going to fail. It's never to early to be talking economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bashar said:

I get that you want a reason to spend more time in your EK, Svenn.  I really do.  But your proposal introduces a lot of complexity to replicate functionality that will already exist in the campaign world.  Even if the fan base reached a consensus on the forum that it was a desired feature, I don't see ACE spending the resources to implement it.  There are just so many other demands pressing for their attention.

Are you talking about the original idea, or the idea from a couple posts ago about replicating your vendors in your EK? Replicating vendors in EK shouldn't be a ton of work. It would just be calling the same inventory in a different location. There would need to be some extra coding for making it campaign specific.

35 minutes ago, Bashar said:

In my opinion a better approach would be to limit the resources that you can collect from campaign victories to raw materials and some world exclusive items like relics.  This means that any equipment or other crafted goods that you import to a world are effectively spent once the campaign has concluded.  Since all equipment imported into campaign worlds would have to be crafted in the EKs, that would make the interim period between campaigns more important and increase the viability of an EK as a bazaar.  People would come together, exchange resources, and craft or buy the equipment and items that they want to take in to the next campaign.  You might even have some vessels who remain exclusively in their EK to produce goods to sell during those periods.

But you're talking about people spending maybe a few hours once every couple months in the EK. That's exactly the problem. EK is just a staging area once every few months and worthless 99% of the time. The only real purpose they serve is as a sort of lobby where you set up your character before joining a campaign. Once you're in, you have zero need to touch an EK for months until the end of the campaign.

36 minutes ago, Bashar said:

From a strategic standpoint, players entering a campaign would have to weigh the value of the items they're bringing in to a campaign versus what they can expect to get out of it.  It also means that during campaigns, players will have to weigh how worthwhile it is to craft an item versus the value of bringing back to their EK the raw materials it would consume.  Invest too much in equipment and you might not recoup your costs.  Invest too little and you might not have the wherewithal to complete objectives and protect the resources that you've earned.

I don't think ACE would quite implement that system either, though, since I expect people would complain about not being able to re-use their Vorpal Longsword +5.  And, frankly, I find that a valid argument since a part of the game is developing your reputation and a big part of reputation in fantasy lore is artifact quality equipment.  Maybe a compromise could be made where equipment exported to the EKs would have their durability reduced to zero or transformed into a 1X blueprint so that it had to be recrafted before they could be used again.

Import rules are essentially a jump start. Since campaigns are slated to last a couple months imports are going to be relatively minor influences on the campaign overall (unless they allow for a ton of stuff to be imported). What would be the value in holding back from importing stuff from a campaign? It's not useful outside of campaigns other than building up your EK... which again is just a staging area once every couple months. It doesn't even matter if you recoup any costs because the goal of the game is to win the campaign. Why would you hold back from getting the most advantage you can? Honestly, again, unless there are massive amounts of imports allowed in a campaign... the exports aren't even that valuable. The main point of exports was supposed to be building your EK. However, if people have no real use for the EK that means the exports aren't really valuable either.

40 minutes ago, Bashar said:

In any event, I think it's really too early to be having this discussion.  We don't have campaigns yet and the EKs are very rudimentary.  A lot of the systems aren't yet in play.  There are no victory conditions in the PvP maps, no craftable structures, no guild structure, minimal npcs.  While I'm all for building relationships between the two world spaces, I think the focus right now should be making sure that each is individually fun or interesting in their own right.

As ringhloth said, it's never too early to be discussing the economy. I'm seeing potential issues in what we've been told the design is so I wanted to discuss these issues and potential solutions before everything is implemented and it's too late for any major changes.


Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ringhloth said:

Is this functionality guaranteed to exist in the campaign world? Worries about non-existent economies are very justified, imo. I mean, if I can attack you, and take all your inventory, why should I trade? If you can use the sword I'm trading to you to kill me and win a campaign, why should I trade?

This assumes that we'll be able to bring more than a handful of items into the campaign world - it doesn't take more than 10-20 minutes to craft what you will be able to take into many EKs, and again, this doesn't impact the Dregs, and probably barely effects the GvG tier.

Some players. GvG and dregs will likely see almost no importing, at least from the few impressions we have right now. Others will have almost no value in trading in EKs if they're only there to get items for importing into the game.

This game is supposed to be built on crafting and gathering. The game has to be designed around a sound, functioning economic model, and if Crowfall doesn't get that right, it's going to fail. It's never to early to be talking economics.

How do you think those swords get into your hands in the first place? You have to make it or trade for it. You should trade because you have to trade. What gear going to use if don't trade, what gear going to get looted by others, what gear can you loot if you don't trade for gear so you can actually kill other players to loot more gear. You see gear doesn't just magically appear in your inventory.

Crafting and gathering is important yes as all gear is crafted and will need resources to build structures and claim territory but to say the game is built on that? Pretty sure the PvP, strategy, politics ect is what the game is built on. Those are the things this game HAS to be designed around, everything else will fall in place.

Share this post


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

How do you think those swords get into your hands in the first place? You have to make it or trade for it. You should trade because you have to trade. What gear going to use if don't trade, what gear going to get looted by others, what gear can you loot if you don't trade for gear so you can actually kill other players to loot more gear. You see gear doesn't just magically appear in your inventory.

Crafting and gathering is important yes as all gear is crafted and will need resources to build structures and claim territory but to say the game is built on that? Pretty sure the PvP, strategy, politics ect is what the game is built on. Those are the things this game HAS to be designed around, everything else will fall in place.

If the crafting/economy is bad then the PvP, strategy, and politics will all fall apart since that is exactly what you are fighting over (if resources/gear are too easy to get, then holding a "strategic" resource location means nothing; if resources/gear are too hard to get then one guild can gain control and it will be damn near impossible to dethrone them; if a guild can get enough players and good gear, they can camp all the potential trading places blocking others from obtaining the gear needed to even stand against them)... The reverse is not true.

As for trading, if people just camp vendors or kill you when you go to trade and you can never buy anything then your only option is to rely on your own crafting skills or your guild. While relying on your guild is great, that means there will be very little trading. You might be okay with everything being solo/guild based... but many of us want an actual interesting in-game economy.

Edited by Svenn

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


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

If the crafting/economy is bad then the PvP, strategy, and politics will all fall apart since that is exactly what you are fighting over (if resources/gear are too easy to get, then holding a "strategic" resource location means nothing; if resources/gear are too hard to get then one guild can gain control and it will be damn near impossible to dethrone them; if a guild can get enough players and good gear, they can camp all the potential trading places blocking others from obtaining the gear needed to even stand against them)... The reverse is not true.

As for trading, if people just camp vendors or kill you when you go to trade and you can never buy anything then your only option is to rely on your own crafting skills or your guild. While relying on your guild is great, that means there will be very little trading. You might be okay with everything being solo/guild based... but many of us want an actual interesting in-game economy.

Sounds like you think there somehow will be only ONE place to trade and only one market...? This isn't a themepark game like WoW were the auction house is just one location and if you block that no one can trade? This is a sandbox game you trade and make the economy wherever and however you need to.

If you want an interesting economy or w/e that means you have to build it yourself. ACE provides the sand and some tools the rest is up to us.

Share this post


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

Sounds like you think there somehow will be only ONE place to trade and only one market...? This isn't a themepark game like WoW were the auction house is just one location and if you block that no one can trade? This is a sandbox game you trade and make the economy wherever and however you need to.

If you want an interesting economy or w/e that means you have to build it yourself. ACE provides the sand and some tools the rest is up to us.

Of course there won't be one place to trade. But there will be places that have good gear and places that have crap gear. All you have to do is camp at any vendor with good gear and murder people as they buy stuff. Then you get all that stuff for free. And you have a higher chance of killing them if they are 1) looking for gear because their gear is bad/broken and 2) pre-occupied with looking at a vendor inventory when you jump them.

I'm not saying it will happen every single time someone is going to buy a piece of gear, but good vendors could become hotspots for campers. Which blocks off people from being able to buy the good gear.

And direct player to player trading isn't safe because you roll up to trade and they bring a group of friends to murder you and just take the item for free.

So, my question to you is how are you imagining that trading outside of your guild is going to work (on a server other than 3 faction)? Do you expect it to actually happen? Do you think there will be popular vendors that people go to shop at? How do you envision that the economy will function when the best thing to do is just to kill a player who is looking to trade you something instead of actually trading them?

And the other issue is what incentive do people have to even be trading in a competitive world like this where there are actual winners?

Edited by Svenn

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


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

Of course there won't be one place to trade. But there will be places that have good gear and places that have crap gear. All you have to do is camp at any vendor with good gear and murder people as they buy stuff. Then you get all that stuff for free. And you have a higher chance of killing them if they are 1) looking for gear because their gear is bad/broken and 2) pre-occupied with looking at a vendor inventory when you jump them.

I'm not saying it will happen every single time someone is going to buy a piece of gear, but good vendors could become hotspots for campers. Which blocks off people from being able to buy the good gear.

And direct player to player trading isn't safe because you roll up to trade and they bring a group of friends to murder you and just take the item for free.

So, my question to you is how are you imagining that trading outside of your guild is going to work (on a server other than 3 faction)? Do you expect it to actually happen? Do you think there will be popular vendors that people go to shop at? How do you envision that the economy will function when the best thing to do is just to kill a player who is looking to trade you something instead of actually trading them?

And the other issue is what incentive do people have to even be trading in a competitive world like this where there are actual winners?

I'd imagine it'll depend on the ruleset band you're on. What you describe sounds like how it'll be on Dregs as it should be more like the wild west in that regard. But the outer bands will likely have varying degrees of "safer" areas to conduct business. So if one is a crafter/trade/economy based player than likely the outer band CWs are where they'll likely be able to best peruse that play style, otherwise they'll have to adopt and take different approaches the further in and into the Dregs they get.

Each CW band will likely have its own forms of economy and how it takes place. Trying to shoehorn a one size fits all "This is how it MUST work" ideology with the economy likely isn't going to make sense for this game.

and again the incentive to trading is that's how you get the gear out there.. like already said crafters don't just hit a button and it magically appears in players inventory. Can't win if you don't have gear, but according to you can't trade to get gear because of having to win?... Overthinking it IMO.

Trading/economy will happen as much or as little as it needs to naturally per ruleset band, forcing it isn't likely going to work in this game.

Share this post


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

I'd imagine it'll depend on the ruleset band you're on. What you describe sounds like how it'll be on Dregs as it should be more like the wild west in that regard. But the outer bands will likely have varying degrees of "safer" areas to conduct business. So if one is a crafter/trade/economy based player than likely the outer band CWs are where they'll likely be able to best peruse that play style, otherwise they'll have to adopt and take different approaches the further in and into the Dregs they get.

Each CW band will likely have its own forms of economy and how it takes place. Trying to shoehorn a one size fits all "This is how it MUST work" ideology with the economy likely isn't going to make sense for this game.

and again the incentive to trading is that's how you get the gear out there.. like already said crafters don't just hit a button and it magically appears in players inventory. Can't win if you don't have gear, but according to you can't trade to get gear because of having to win?... Overthinking it IMO.

Trading/economy will happen as much or as little as it needs to naturally per ruleset band, forcing it isn't likely going to work in this game.

Agreed on the fact that it depends on the ruleset. I said as much in previous posts. The outer bands will be fine as there will be plenty of "safe" spaces for trading. I expect those to have a robust economy. Unfortunately, I have very little interest in those campaigns myself. I'm all in for GvG stuff. That's where I see potential issues.

Also, I'm not saying this is how it MUST work at all. I just want discussion on how to make EKs relevant. If you read back through you'll see that I even agreed that having this type of thing as a campaign rule would actually be great. Then it could be turned on/off/tweaked per campaign. I just want to discuss what people are expecting/want from EKs and how to make them relevant (and maybe some discussion of what people expect of/want from inner band campaigns and the economy of those).

I lean towards the side of wanted a robust trading economy and EKs having some use more often than once every couple months. I can understand that some people don't care about EKs and have no interest in them being any more useful. I can understand people not wanting safe spaces at all for places like the dregs. I'm just asking people to try and imagine how these things will function and potential problems that arise from it (specifically, what sort of motivations do players have to do things like visit an EK, or attempt trading). If someone's thing is that they just don't like/care about EKs so they don't like this idea, that's totally valid.

In the dregs, if there are zero safe spaces trading is going to be difficult. It won't be impossible. And the game could function if every person/guild was self-contained. I just think that's less interesting, personally. I want competition, but I also want a functioning economy. I want trading. I want more than just pure killing each other. Perhaps things like alliances will open up more areas for "safe" trading so it's less of an issue. But how about identifying potential player behaviors that can hurt the gameplay/economy (like camping popular vendor spots). In theory there are a lot of solid ideas, but players will often find ways to exploit or work around great ideas (see: limited skill training/multiple accounts). So, if we can identify potential problems like that maybe we can find ways to improve the whole experience.

I feel like this thread is getting a bit derailed though. The main part of this post was how to make EKs more useful. Reasons for people to actually visit them more than for a few minutes between campaigns. I came up with an idea for this that tied into the economy of campaigns, but maybe that's the wrong answer. Several issues with it were pointed out which lead to a refined idea that I think was a bit better. Still, maybe there are better ways to go about making EKs relevant.


Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


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

Of course there won't be one place to trade. But there will be places that have good gear and places that have crap gear. All you have to do is camp at any vendor with good gear and murder people as they buy stuff. Then you get all that stuff for free. And you have a higher chance of killing them if they are 1) looking for gear because their gear is bad/broken and 2) pre-occupied with looking at a vendor inventory when you jump them.

I'm not saying it will happen every single time someone is going to buy a piece of gear, but good vendors could become hotspots for campers. Which blocks off people from being able to buy the good gear.

And direct player to player trading isn't safe because you roll up to trade and they bring a group of friends to murder you and just take the item for free.

So, my question to you is how are you imagining that trading outside of your guild is going to work (on a server other than 3 faction)? Do you expect it to actually happen? Do you think there will be popular vendors that people go to shop at? How do you envision that the economy will function when the best thing to do is just to kill a player who is looking to trade you something instead of actually trading them?

And the other issue is what incentive do people have to even be trading in a competitive world like this where there are actual winners?

You just described a finished campaign world, or one that has been won.  As soon as people figure out that it's impossible to progress because a guild has locked it down, the world will be "won", and people will move to the next one.

In those cases I suspect that the winning guild will have a few days/week of unrestricted access to focus on claiming their prizes, while at the same time everyone else will be off to other worlds, build up a week ahead of the previous victors, and make a fight of it again.

Locked down worlds are finished worlds.

The above said, we are all probably making some Misleading vividness fallacy arguments in this thread.

Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this idea up a year or so ago.  I still like it.

I think that life would be more interested if EK's had "orbits".  Some EK's would have relatively fixed positions in space.  Others loop through various bands.  As you moved into worse and worse neighborhoods, your resource nodes became more valuable, but that friendly herd of cows turn into doom bovines!

Perhaps some EKs might even find themselves embedded into campaign worlds...

 

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


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

You just described a finished campaign world, or one that has been won.  As soon as people figure out that it's impossible to progress because a guild has locked it down, the world will be "won", and people will move to the next one.

In those cases I suspect that the winning guild will have a few days/week of unrestricted access to focus on claiming their prizes, while at the same time everyone else will be off to other worlds, build up a week ahead of the previous victors, and make a fight of it again.

Locked down worlds are finished worlds.

A couple points here. First, I'd hope most campaigns wouldn't be decided too early, or I'd say there's a problem.

Second, the problem I'm describing is more of an early game thing. A guild does a rush early on and gets the best gear, then blocks other people from being able to get that gear and just dominates from early on. 

6 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

The above said, we are all probably making some Misleading vividness fallacy arguments in this thread.

Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

You're right. I'm making up potential problems with a lot of detail that I don't fully know right now. I'm just trying to get in the mindset of different types of players in campaigns with the information we have looking for ways to "exploit" the system (not in the "cheating" type of exploit of a bug or something, but in the use of mechanics to gain an advantage in ways not foreseen in the development of those mechanics). 


Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


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

A couple points here. First, I'd hope most campaigns wouldn't be decided too early, or I'd say there's a problem.

Second, the problem I'm describing is more of an early game thing. A guild does a rush early on and gets the best gear, then blocks other people from being able to get that gear and just dominates from early on. 

You're right. I'm making up potential problems with a lot of detail that I don't fully know right now. I'm just trying to get in the mindset of different types of players in campaigns with the information we have looking for ways to "exploit" the system (not in the "cheating" type of exploit of a bug or something, but in the use of mechanics to gain an advantage in ways not foreseen in the development of those mechanics). 

Heh. Weird, I sort of thought the opposite.  I think that as long as campaigns have a couple of limits in place when they start, that closing worlds quickly is great counter to Zerg guilds ruining everyone's fun.  

Here is my Misleadingly vivid scenario.

  1. New world starts, Zerg guild joins with a bunch of other players.
  2. Within a two weeks, other players realize that zerg is going to win, and move to next NEW world.
  3. For two more weeks, the Zerg guild collects as much as they can for embargo, which is really small because the world is so young.
  4. New world closes before zerg guild abandons the world they won, or the rules are set up so that nobody in the winning guild can join this one. (Account locked as winner is declared)
  5. Former players of world one can now play world two without the interference of the guild they just lost to.
  6. Zerg guild has to skip to a new group of players to dominate, leading to a repeat of 2 on.
  7. Zerg guild always ends up in empty boring worlds and gets few resources for their EK's.

It would not take long for zerg guild to start running into social problems of the "can't keep people interested in playing boring finished worlds" category, and zerg shrinks of fragments into more manageable smaller sub groups to find fun.

If don't right, fast closing worlds would be a good pressure release system, and keep the game fresh as long as it's fun. No reason to artificially increase a worlds duration past the point of someone claiming victory.

 

Share this post


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

Heh. Weird, I sort of thought the opposite.  I think that as long as campaigns have a couple of limits in place when they start, that closing worlds quickly is great counter to Zerg guilds ruining everyone's fun.  

Here is my Misleadingly vivid scenario.

  1. New world starts, Zerg guild joins with a bunch of other players.
  2. Within a two weeks, other players realize that zerg is going to win, and move to next NEW world.
  3. For two more weeks, the Zerg guild collects as much as they can for embargo, which is really small because the world is so young.
  4. New world closes before zerg guild abandons the world they won, or the rules are set up so that nobody in the winning guild can join this one. (Account locked as winner is declared)
  5. Former players of world one can now play world two without the interference of the guild they just lost to.
  6. Zerg guild has to skip to a new group of players to dominate, leading to a repeat of 2 on.
  7. Zerg guild always ends up in empty boring worlds and gets few resources for their EK's.

It would not take long for zerg guild to start running into social problems of the "can't keep people interested in playing boring finished worlds" category, and zerg shrinks of fragments into more manageable smaller sub groups to find fun.

If don't right, fast closing worlds would be a good pressure release system, and keep the game fresh as long as it's fun. No reason to artificially increase a worlds duration past the point of someone claiming victory.

 

That scenario just sounds broken to me. If a guild can just zerg and win in 2 weeks then there's a serious problem. I'm expecting 3 month long campaigns with at least 2-2.5 months of good competition. I'd get bored real quick if campaigns were decided in 2 weeks. That's not at all what I signed up for.

If they can't balance it so that zerg guilds can't just hop in and dominate a campaign with no way to overthrow them, I'd consider Crowfall a failure as a game.


Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pang said:

How do you think those swords get into your hands in the first place? You have to make it or trade for it. You should trade because you have to trade. What gear going to use if don't trade, what gear going to get looted by others, what gear can you loot if you don't trade for gear so you can actually kill other players to loot more gear. You see gear doesn't just magically appear in your inventory.

Crafting and gathering is important yes as all gear is crafted and will need resources to build structures and claim territory but to say the game is built on that? Pretty sure the PvP, strategy, politics ect is what the game is built on. Those are the things this game HAS to be designed around, everything else will fall in place.

Why do we have to trade? The systems of Crowfall don't seem to encourage it, at least not what we've heard. There's no currency, so we'll have to work out exhaustive barter deals for large scale transactions. There's no higher power to ensure that one side doesn't turn on the other and just slaughter them and take the goods. It can be very dangerous to move around large amounts of goods, with people constantly preying on each other. There's a lot of risk and no reward, if my guild can get all the resources we need ourselves. Why risk trading away our excess for goods we already have? A lot of the time game designers assume that if they put players in a sandbox, they'll trade and ally with each other. That's just not true. Alliances can occasionally happen, but that's really quite rare, especially in an adversarial game like Crowfall. There's nothing gained by working with my enemy, if he's ahead of me, if it's an equitable deal, since I'm just pushing him closer to victory. When you look at board games, the best alliance and trade mechanics come from rules that are specifically designed to encourage alliances and trading between players. You cannot just expect multiple groups of people to work together, when one of them is a winner, and the rest are losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ringhloth said:

Why do we have to trade? The systems of Crowfall don't seem to encourage it, at least not what we've heard. There's no currency, so we'll have to work out exhaustive barter deals for large scale transactions. There's no higher power to ensure that one side doesn't turn on the other and just slaughter them and take the goods. It can be very dangerous to move around large amounts of goods, with people constantly preying on each other. There's a lot of risk and no reward, if my guild can get all the resources we need ourselves. Why risk trading away our excess for goods we already have? A lot of the time game designers assume that if they put players in a sandbox, they'll trade and ally with each other. That's just not true. Alliances can occasionally happen, but that's really quite rare, especially in an adversarial game like Crowfall. There's nothing gained by working with my enemy, if he's ahead of me, if it's an equitable deal, since I'm just pushing him closer to victory. When you look at board games, the best alliance and trade mechanics come from rules that are specifically designed to encourage alliances and trading between players. You cannot just expect multiple groups of people to work together, when one of them is a winner, and the rest are losers.

I already explained why we have to trade.. Also yes there is a currency, they talked about it a while ago, its a craftable item. Also like already said there won't be just ONE economy or one type of economy based on ruleset of the CW and there won't even be the same economy on the same CW. Yeah you wouldn't trade with the enemy that's obvious, you trade with yourself and allies and your enemy will need to do the same... There is more rules that will be in place to encourage working together like sharing the spoils of winning and such.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

There was this little game called mine craft, that basically started as what the EK's are going to be, a place to build houses and stuff like a giant lego kit. 

I seem to remember it being pretty popular.

I think allot of us killer types might be shocked to find out the most popular and profitable part of the game for the less hard core gamer population could be simply EK castle building and socializing.

I don't think you can really compare Minecraft and the EK system because,

Minecraft is a game where the player can place down individual blocks to create essentially whatever the player desires. Minecraft in survival mode is also different from EKs because while the player can build whatever they want, the structures still has functional value (crafting tables/furnaces/Chests/etc). This is because they are actually surviving in the structure they just built. EK's are completely separate from the main part of the game.

EK's may have some customization, but not even close to the amount Minecraft has. EK's are just a group of pre-fabricated buildings that the player purchases and puts down. Even if there were 300 different building types (it will most likely be far less) that could be purchased for an EK it still would be exponentially less customization than Minecraft.

Share this post


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

I already explained why we have to trade.. Also yes there is a currency, they talked about it a while ago, its a craftable item. Also like already said there won't be just ONE economy or one type of economy based on ruleset of the CW and there won't even be the same economy on the same CW. Yeah you wouldn't trade with the enemy that's obvious, you trade with yourself and allies and your enemy will need to do the same... There is more rules that will be in place to encourage working together like sharing the spoils of winning and such.

I think you underestimate how big of a deal it will be that 2 tiers of the game just won't have an economy.

Share this post


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

That scenario just sounds broken to me. If a guild can just zerg and win in 2 weeks then there's a serious problem. I'm expecting 3 month long campaigns with at least 2-2.5 months of good competition. I'd get bored real quick if campaigns were decided in 2 weeks. That's not at all what I signed up for.

If they can't balance it so that zerg guilds can't just hop in and dominate a campaign with no way to overthrow them, I'd consider Crowfall a failure as a game.

In that scenario think he means that the zerg guilds isn't really "winning". Because the time was short they get less rewards and later because of bad rep they won't get any likely due to no one wanting to play with them. Its a self correcting mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ringhloth said:

I think you underestimate how big of a deal it will be that 2 tiers of the game just won't have an economy.

I think you missed the parts where I said all CWs will have economy's, they just won't all run same ways.

Share this post


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

I think you missed the parts where I said all CWs will have economy's, they just won't all run same ways.

You said it's stupid for enemies to trade with each other, and I agree. And in the lowest two tiers, guilds and individuals are the smallest groups. Alliances will occasionally happen, but aren't going to be frequent or reliable enough for an economy to rely on them. And guilds probably won't be able to sustain a currency economy all on their own.

Edited by ringhloth

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...