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

Campaigns Ending Early

Recommended Posts

Campaigns in Crowfall are supposed to last from 3-6 months from what I understand,

I was just curious about how to prevent good coordinated guilds from being able to rush  and end the campaign within 2 weeks or a month or something. Lets say a guild all plans to get on at 4am while no one is really playing, all zerg in and destroy the enemy keep. Or lets say a guild just found a huge group of nodes containing tier 10 ore. Now their crafters have created a bunch of amazing weapons and armor for their players. The likely hood of the enemy having the same quality armor at that exact point in time is quite low, so what is stopping that guild from charging in and destroying everyone early?

I think there needs to be some sort of mechanic preventing guilds from zerging and winning early, but I'm not sure what that should be. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's the different win conditions. Even if you shatter another factions strongholds and scatter them, then it just becomes a guerilla war until they get back on their feet. If you can't leverage that advantage into earning "points", then the weaker force can still win.

Edited by Vonpenguin

Share this post


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

Campaigns in Crowfall are supposed to last from 3-6 months from what I understand,

I was just curious about how to prevent good coordinated guilds from being able to rush  and end the campaign within 2 weeks or a month or something. Lets say a guild all plans to get on at 4am while no one is really playing, all zerg in and destroy the enemy keep. Or lets say a guild just found a huge group of nodes containing tier 10 ore. Now their crafters have created a bunch of amazing weapons and armor for their players. The likely hood of the enemy having the same quality armor at that exact point in time is quite low, so what is stopping that guild from charging in and destroying everyone early?

I think there needs to be some sort of mechanic preventing guilds from zerging and winning early, but I'm not sure what that should be. Thoughts?

There will be what's called Windows of Opportunity whereby keeps/castles/citys etc won't be able to be taken 24/7. You'll need to plan and wait for them to be vulnerable to attack and capture them. Some might not like that but its really the fairest way competition wise to ensure that lame 4am tactic isn't a factor.

Also the rewards gotten from winning a CW are based on time, so the zerg guild won't get much when they "win". Can say well they will just wait then, well in that time maybe an alliance forms to overtake them. Zergs though from my experience are neither patient nor good at adapting to adversity. So IMO, the games design will naturally weed them out and make "zerg" as a tactic less viable.

Share this post


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

There will be what's called Windows of Opportunity whereby keeps/castles/citys etc won't be able to be taken 24/7. You'll need to plan and wait for them to be vulnerable to attack and capture them. Some might not like that but its really the fairest way competition wise to ensure that lame 4am tactic isn't a factor.

Also the rewards gotten from winning a CW are based on time, so the zerg guild won't get much when they "win". Can say well they will just wait then, well in that time maybe an alliance forms to overtake them. Zergs though from my experience are neither patient nor good at adapting to adversity. So IMO, the games design will naturally weed them out and make "zerg" as a tactic less viable.

Thanks man that makes sense :)

Share this post


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

I think 6 months will be too long ultimately... I think at some point they thought maybe 6 weeks might end up being popular.

I agree, 6 months seems a little too long, I would imagine 2-4 months will be a good range to choose from.

Anything too short won't allow the game to played as intended. The game needs time to be able to gather resources build up forts and craft good items etc.

Edited by Antellect
Adding more information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most <-- keyword Zerg guilds are also somewhat competitive, sure they want to win and dominate but no one likes face rolling without a challenge. It's no fun for the ones being face rolled and it's no fun for those face rolling without any challenge. I think you will see these larger guilds looking for the CW's that have other zerg guild to face. This gives them bragging rights, it's not really any different from the skill groups and why they like to face other skill groups, it's just a different setup that allows for more people.

Share this post


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

I think most <-- keyword Zerg guilds are also somewhat competitive, sure they want to win and dominate but no one likes face rolling without a challenge. It's no fun for the ones being face rolled and it's no fun for those face rolling without any challenge. I think you will see these larger guilds looking for the CW's that have other zerg guild to face. This gives them bragging rights, it's not really any different from the skill groups and why they like to face other skill groups, it's just a different setup that allows for more people.

This is also exactly a problem I was thinking of. No one will have fun if some guilds are stomping other guilds in like a week. Maybe there can be some sort of a guild rating system or something in place to have good guilds play against other good guilds, while lesser skilled guilds or more casual players will have fun playing against one and other.

Share this post


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

This is also exactly a problem I was thinking of. No one will have fun if some guilds are stomping other guilds in like a week. Maybe there can be some sort of a guild rating system or something in place to have good guilds play against other good guilds, while lesser skilled guilds or more casual players will have fun playing against one and other.

People can just join servers with larger sized hardcoded factions of they need more teammates.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

People can just join servers with larger sized hardcoded factions of they need more teammates.

I thinks it's less about quantity of teammates and more about quality of teammates. If a really good, coordinated guild with dedicated crafters and gathers is put up against a much more casual guild it won't even be fair. The good guild won't have fun because they are winning so easily, and the more casual guild won't be having fun because they're are being beaten so bad.

which is why I believe a system should be in place to pin 

hardcore guilds/players vs hardcore guilds/players

casual guilds/players vs casual guilds/players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Antellect said:

I thinks it's less about quantity of teammates and more about quality of teammates. If a really good, coordinated guild with dedicated crafters and gathers is put up against a much more casual guild it won't even be fair. The good guild won't have fun because they are winning so easily, and the more casual guild won't be having fun because they're are being beaten so bad.

which is why I believe a system should be in place to pin 

hardcore guilds/players vs hardcore guilds/players

casual guilds/players vs casual guilds/players

Casual guilds have casual bands to enjoy and if a really good guild wants to go to casual bans they are dealing with larger hardcoded factions.  If a casual guild goes into the dregs and gets stomped that's really working as intended.  There need to be hardcore bands, and there can be softcore bands to varying degrees to catch a wide net of pvp players with different preferences.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Antellect said:

please excuse my ignorance, but can you explain what you mean by hardcoded factions

Some campaigns will have 3 factions that are hardcoded, that means if you join them you are on 1 of 3 teams and everyone on your team can not be attacked by you, and you are competing against 2 other teams, so ideally the population of those campaigns might be 1/3 for each faction.  There is another campaign band that will have 12 factions, so you still have teammates outside of your guild, but obviously a server split 12 ways has smaller teams than one split 3 ways.  Then there is a campaign band that will be purely guild vs guild and such.  Then the inner band will be FFA.  Though the guild vs guild and FFA band may not distinguish enough from one another and maybe will end up getting merged in some way. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

Some campaigns will have 3 factions that are hardcoded, that means if you join them you are on 1 of 3 teams and everyone on your team can not be attacked by you, and you are competing against 2 other teams, so ideally the population of those campaigns might be 1/3 for each faction.  There is another campaign band that will have 12 factions, so you still have teammates outside of your guild, but obviously a server split 12 ways has smaller teams than one split 3 ways.  Then there is a campaign band that will be purely guild vs guild and such.  Then the inner band will be FFA.  Though the guild vs guild and FFA band may not distinguish enough from one another and maybe will end up getting merged in some way. 

How would a FFA system work when seemingly a huuuuugggeee part of the game is inter dependency between players?

For instance if I've decided to devote a lot of time and skills into the gathering tree, its effectively useless because in FFA I can't give my resources to a crafter friend to make me some good armor or weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still get along with people in FFA.  It just doesn't have hardcoded teams and might generally have more hardcore or punishing rulesets attached to it. 

The best resources are going to be in the more dangerous campaign worlds, this is by design, you have to take big risks to get the best rewards.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

You can still get along with people in FFA.  It just doesn't have hardcoded teams and might generally have more hardcore or punishing rulesets attached to it. 

The best resources are going to be in the more dangerous campaign worlds, this is by design, you have to take big risks to get the best rewards.

Will there be a party system or something in FFA to ensure I can't do damage to my friends in large scale combat scenarios?

I doubt anyone will be able to be that precise in a 50v50 battle to not damage their friends accidentally. 

And if there is a party system, this won't likely end up being a FFA at all, because hardcore guilds are going to join and party up to get the best loot and any players trying to play solo in a "FFA" setting will get crushed by guilds of 100 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been playing with party immunity but the point of friendly fire is to punish players that can't utilize enough skill to avoid damaging their friends accidentally.  And yes the FFA vs GVG bands may end up getting merged because it looks like they might not go with full FFA.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

They've been playing with party immunity but the point of friendly fire is to punish players that can't utilize enough skill to avoid damaging their friends accidentally.  And yes the FFA vs GVG bands may end up getting merged because it looks like they might not go with full FFA.

Makes sense. Thanks for the input :)

Share this post


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

Will there be a party system or something in FFA to ensure I can't do damage to my friends in large scale combat scenarios?

I doubt anyone will be able to be that precise in a 50v50 battle to not damage their friends accidentally. 

And if there is a party system, this won't likely end up being a FFA at all, because hardcore guilds are going to join and party up to get the best loot and any players trying to play solo in a "FFA" setting will get crushed by guilds of 100 people.

 As of now, we have no clue how anything will really work. FFA, friendly fire, different world bands/rulesets, win conditions etc.

I believe "FFA" is used more as a harsher version of GvG but with friendly fire on. Not actual everyone for themselves with one single winner. They could make some mode like that, but isn't how the game is being built as you've pointed out with the interdependence.

For me, I don't want fair/balanced campaigns. The strongest/smartest should come out on top. Having faction, GvG, "FFA" options allows folks to choose what fits them the best. If someone doesn't want the super duper zerg guild running everything, factions are probably better. If someone wants to go against the odds or the harshest challenge, the Dregs are there with whatever in between.

Wanting a ruthless PVP world but fair with everyone playing nice doesn't make sense to me.

If a guild of whatever size/power is able to roll in and "win" quickly, I don't see anything wrong with that as long as they've met the criteria. If it happens too quickly or easily, the following campaigns could be tweaked to make it more difficult, but I don't believe ACE should go out of their way to stop a team from winning because they are better than others. That is a "emergent" or "players are the content" part of it. 

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...