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

Campaigns Ending Early

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, APE said:

 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. 

I think I may have worded this wrong,

I'm all for dominating players being able to dominate. Players should be rewarded for being good at the game, not put at a disadvantage.

But the issue I have regarding the quick winning is that the game will not be able to play out as intended. The crafting and gathering seems to be a huge part of the game, and rushing to win early will really take away from this part of the game. If guilds are able to win within 2 weeks using only tier 1 or 2 gear, a majority of the crafting is deemed pointless. This also would take a lot of the strategy aspect away from the game, because if players are able to win within 2 weeks, they didn't really plan anything. They are just flat out better players. And at that point I don't think the game would be fun for the people doing the stomping or the people getting stomped.

This is why I mentioned earlier some sort of rating system for guilds possibly. Guilds of equal skill level won't be able to end the game quickly because they are equally skilled players. This leaves a lot up to potential strategy, who has the better crafters, etc.

And Regarding the FFA thing, they really should  not have it say FFA because it  doesn't make sense in the way this game is being designed. 

And lastly the friendly fire idea, I do see the value in friendly fire adding another level of difficulty to the game for hardcore players. And it may work in a 5v5 or even a 10v10 small skirmish, but in a giant 50v50 or 100v100 battle over a keep or something, friendly fire just seems like a disaster.

 

Share this post


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

I think I may have worded this wrong,

I'm all for dominating players being able to dominate. Players should be rewarded for being good at the game, not put at a disadvantage.

But the issue I have regarding the quick winning is that the game will not be able to play out as intended. The crafting and gathering seems to be a huge part of the game, and rushing to win early will really take away from this part of the game. If guilds are able to win within 2 weeks using only tier 1 or 2 gear, a majority of the crafting is deemed pointless. This also would take a lot of the strategy aspect away from the game, because if players are able to win within 2 weeks, they didn't really plan anything. They are just flat out better players. And at that point I don't think the game would be fun for the people doing the stomping or the people getting stomped.

This is why I mentioned earlier some sort of rating system for guilds possibly. Guilds of equal skill level won't be able to end the game quickly because they are equally skilled players. This leaves a lot up to potential strategy, who has the better crafters, etc.

And Regarding the FFA thing, they really should  not have it say FFA because it  doesn't make sense in the way this game is being designed. 

And lastly the friendly fire idea, I do see the value in friendly fire adding another level of difficulty to the game for hardcore players. And it may work in a 5v5 or even a 10v10 small skirmish, but in a giant 50v50 or 100v100 battle over a keep or something, friendly fire just seems like a disaster.

 

As I said, we don't know how it will work. Regardless of guild size or how good they might be, if the win condition is obtain X and it takes Y weeks for it to show up in the campaign be it dev provided or player crafted, there is no rushing. Could be kill/craft/gather XYZ which too takes time/effort and can't be rushed without everyone else just laying down.

However, as players progress through passive training and build up stock piles of gear/resources, campaigns likely will need to adapt. What was hard on day one might be trivial 6 months later for the game as a whole. Also factor in import/export rules that campaigns will have, a fresh campaign might not be everyone logging in without anything like the typical survival game. Established players might come in with Tier 5 gear while others Tier 1-2 or nothing. After a point, guilds will have folks with high crafting skills and will be able to outfit their side efficiently, so it might not take months to get to whatever point that it did previously. Honestly hope gear isn't the major deciding factor overall.

While I hope non-combat aspects are important, they are just part of the puzzle and sometimes pure brute strength might win, others the political PVP, gathering/sustaining, having the better stronghold/defense, etc. Really so many ways it could go if the devs get creative.

I don't see everyone in their corner gathering/crafting/gearing up then settling it with a giant duel for the win. A lot more hopefully goes into it.

ACE from the start was against "Uncle Bob" as they call it with a team dominating easily or extended periods. Hence campaigns ending and restarting. Every time, we have a chance to start semi-fresh. Be it change Archetypes/Comp, what is imported, ruleset type, alliances, guild priorities, etc.

Overall, I hope CF is an actual social game. If one guild is dominating, everyone else has the option to work together. If one guild is so large they have zero chance as losing, that is something for ACE to figure out or not. Factions remove this issue a great deal though and where I assume newer/smaller groups will start or stay. Everyone ruleset doesn't have to cater to all players. Someone might simply never cut it in the Dregs.

While a form of ranking could help, I don't see it really part of the design they have presented. Tournaments and what not would be fun, but overly gamey mechanics segregating players into "fair/balanced" competition isn't the focus from what I see. Hopefully over time players will go to what mode fits them best to avoid being burnt out, but there is no answer to please everyone.

With so much potential variety of rulesets/campaigns, not sure how ACE could even fairly rank guilds/players. Everyone has different strengths which might result in win/loss at different situations.

I agree the "FFA" term seems misused at least from how I use it.

As far as FF and large scale, some people want that disaster. Be it for fun or to show off how well they can perform with it. Again, it isn't for everyone. Hopefully CF is popular enough that we see a wide variety of options at any given time. Really one of the strongest selling points that I see for the game.

 

 

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire increases the skill-ceiling, leave it in there in the hardest rulesets and give the best players a chance to shine.  Not everyone has to play such rulesets.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

I think I may have worded this wrong,

I'm all for dominating players being able to dominate. Players should be rewarded for being good at the game, not put at a disadvantage.

But the issue I have regarding the quick winning is that the game will not be able to play out as intended. The crafting and gathering seems to be a huge part of the game, and rushing to win early will really take away from this part of the game. If guilds are able to win within 2 weeks using only tier 1 or 2 gear, a majority of the crafting is deemed pointless. This also would take a lot of the strategy aspect away from the game, because if players are able to win within 2 weeks, they didn't really plan anything. They are just flat out better players. And at that point I don't think the game would be fun for the people doing the stomping or the people getting stomped.

This is why I mentioned earlier some sort of rating system for guilds possibly. Guilds of equal skill level won't be able to end the game quickly because they are equally skilled players. This leaves a lot up to potential strategy, who has the better crafters, etc.

And Regarding the FFA thing, they really should  not have it say FFA because it  doesn't make sense in the way this game is being designed. 

And lastly the friendly fire idea, I do see the value in friendly fire adding another level of difficulty to the game for hardcore players. And it may work in a 5v5 or even a 10v10 small skirmish, but in a giant 50v50 or 100v100 battle over a keep or something, friendly fire just seems like a disaster.

 

Different bands, different worlds, different rulesets will by definition have different intent.  

  • There may be FFA farm worlds, where you run in, and pull what you can out as quickly as possible with no crafting, but only what you carry in.
  • There may be fast pace worlds thunderdome style,  where the intent is to be last man standing after X number of people enter, no resurrection, and just the gear you bring with you and some sort of set reward.
  • There may even (eventually) be custom MOBA style worlds with a whole different style and feel to them than a full MMO campaign.
  • There may be worlds what don't even have a clear "win" condition in the outer bands, but simply die as the hunger takes them.

My point is, that the individual campaign experience "as intended" is more defined by world rules than some universal overarching CF vision.  If you don't like a style of campaign, don't play it, find one that you do.

Quote

ARE THERE ANY VICTORY CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THE PASSAGE OF TIME?

There certainly can be!

Our system allows us to make any number of Worlds, and any number of rules sets. The amazing thing about this design is that it allows for a huge degree of experimentation! Most MMOs get one chance – at launch – to find a mix of rules that appeals to the players. The great thing about the Campaign architecture is that we can be trying dozens of ideas in parallel, all the time. It’s like a generic algorithm for MMO design: the good ideas can be replicated (and riffed on), the bad ideas can be filtered out.

 

That doesn't even include all the creative things players themselves will set up in their own EK's, where they are the masters with control of PvP, access, etc.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours 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

Viking said it:  Rulesets by Band.

Because in order for your suggestion to be implemented mechanically, you'd have to have deterministic criteria identifying what constitutes "hard core" vs "casual".

This is why operating off the Bands and their associated rule sets works.  The criteria is set and not polluted by "subjective intelligence".


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

Share this post


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

 . . . [snip]

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.

. . . [snip]

Just an opinion, not an argument.  Call it a conceptual caution:

You do want everything about ANY game, PvP or otherwise, to operate on the principle of fair and balanced.  In context with game design and intent.

This is because "fair", depending on the context, has absolutely NOTHING do to with "nice", or "easy", or fluffy.  It is, if properly understood, an uncaring double-edged sword.

  • "Fair" is not at odds whatsoever with "Ruthless". 

Within context, we are talking about an artificial construct, an MMO.  Structure, form, function, intent in design.  As a result "fair" is a core structural member to all aspects of that construct no different than the support pillars and such keeping a bridge up not only in clear weather, but in foul.

Most people however don't think beyond the sheeple-music piped into their ears from the general "genius population" of the Interz-nets.  And so they simply believe "fair" means fluffy pink bunnies.

When the mechanics of applying Fair in game design doesn't really have much to do with that.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning you may or may not see guilds of all sizes and skill levels trying to rush whatever CW they choose. This makes sense as a strategy to start but not for the long haul. Getting the first couple wins under your belt quickly gives you the advantage of whatever the win reward may be and intimidation factor going forward. It won't last long though, people will want to gear and play the game to it's full potential.

This is all just guess work of course because we don't even know if rushing a campaign will be possible regardless of size/skill. You also have to remember the larger the force the more mouths to feed and people to gear, a medium sized guild will likely be able to move around and gear faster then a large zerg guild which is compounded by seasons, I would imagine an unprepared large guild will suffer during winter. If you need to save up food/rations for the winter season one good tactical hit on a large zerg guild could virtually disable them and leave them scavenging to survive.

 

Of course we don't know if any of this will be the case, we have very little knowledge as to how things will play out, we could be completely wrong on all accounts.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter the ring or win conditions of the CW being played, some sort of high mobility military strategy will have to be employed early on by a guild wishing to claim POI's, with early (Spring/Summer) conflicts being focused on high value POI's defined by general gatherer/crafter needs or win conditions. Be it by large population raids on consecutive single POI's (AKA Zerging) or traditional military swarm tactics or strategic force deployment based on scouting by patrols, claiming and holding territory early in a campaign will be mandatory for victorious guilds.

Just like any other strategy game the work you put in early should put you at an advantage. If no one is prepared to contest territory early then they better be turtling up for the late game if they want a chance to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zerging isn't going to work, you will need to allocate your personnel to many POIs all at once, and if you are a zerg guild the quality of your players is pretty crappy, and having crappy squads ferrying resources to your strongholds isn't going to work out well vs good pvp groups.  The mega zerg guilds are basically going to end up being loot pinatas for the vultures. 

Eventually super organized guilds will emerge to try and manage the logistics of creating good supply lines to fund their dominance, but there are only so many great pvpers that exist in the world, and generally they don't gravitate to guilds where they end up taking orders from worse players. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

Zerging isn't going to work, you will need to allocate your personnel to many POIs all at once, and if you are a zerg guild the quality of your players is pretty crappy, and having crappy squads ferrying resources to your strongholds isn't going to work out well vs good pvp groups.  The mega zerg guilds are basically going to end up being loot pinatas for the vultures. 

Eventually super organized guilds will emerge to try and manage the logistics of creating good supply lines to fund their dominance, but there are only so many great pvpers that exist in the world, and generally they don't gravitate to guilds where they end up taking orders from worse players. 

Believe it is too early to tell who will actually play CF whenever it reaches a "game" state.

Seems people talk about "zerg guilds" and "great PVPers" as groups out there looming in the gameverse. There are so many gamers these days that what/who CF attracts is an unknown beyond the rather small pool of folks that visit here or did at one time. Looking at the guilds new and old, I don't see many out there making a name for themselves of much worth. Doing well in X game 5-10-15 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot.

I could see a mindless zerg guild do poorly just as it could do well. Sometimes simply throwing numbers can work.

What I have seen work is large Alliances of several guilds be it amazing or not with decent leaders communicating and running their own shows for the common goal. This works well until it doesn't and the Alliance eats itself. 

As has been said, we don't know the full details of how CWs/victory will work so can't say for certain XYZ will or won't do well.

Also see folks talk like CF as a whole can be won or one victor will emerge. With whatever number of CWs happening, this isn't going to happen. Maybe certain groups will perform better on a consistent basis, but if there are enough matches going on, there will be lots of people winning/losing regularly. 

Then again, if servers can't handle 20 people at a time, I fully agree Zergs won't work :)

At this point, my assumption is the super elite PVP master groups won't be on every single CW at all times (as you said, there aren't that many), nor will there be massive sheep zergs (CF won't be that popular). Likely "average" skilled/sized teams will be the normal, with outliers bringing increased challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bramble said:

Just an opinion, not an argument.  Call it a conceptual caution:

You do want everything about ANY game, PvP or otherwise, to operate on the principle of fair and balanced.  In context with game design and intent.

This is because "fair", depending on the context, has absolutely NOTHING do to with "nice", or "easy", or fluffy.  It is, if properly understood, an uncaring double-edged sword.

  • "Fair" is not at odds whatsoever with "Ruthless". 

Within context, we are talking about an artificial construct, an MMO.  Structure, form, function, intent in design.  As a result "fair" is a core structural member to all aspects of that construct no different than the support pillars and such keeping a bridge up not only in clear weather, but in foul.

Most people however don't think beyond the sheeple-music piped into their ears from the general "genius population" of the Interz-nets.  And so they simply believe "fair" means fluffy pink bunnies.

When the mechanics of applying Fair in game design doesn't really have much to do with that.

It is a matter of perspective or definition of terms.

I was using fair/balanced to relate to players wanting games restricted to fit their playstyle or wishes so that they have a chance. To me that isn't fair to the community as a whole. Such as wanting an anti-zerg mechanic or a way to slow groups down that are more efficient than others.

When it comes to lobby/ranking systems, sure break it down and put people in groups to help level the field. In a MMO, especially something like CF, no thanks. The multi-band/ruleset feature should do most of the work naturally. If things get out of hand, the devs can turn the knobs.

As long as people are playing within the dev created rules/design, anything is fair. Expecting everyone else to play a particular way is not.

 

Share this post


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

Believe it is too early to tell who will actually play CF whenever it reaches a "game" state.

Seems people talk about "zerg guilds" and "great PVPers" as groups out there looming in the gameverse. There are so many gamers these days that what/who CF attracts is an unknown beyond the rather small pool of folks that visit here or did at one time. Looking at the guilds new and old, I don't see many out there making a name for themselves of much worth. Doing well in X game 5-10-15 years ago doesn't mean a whole lot.

I could see a mindless zerg guild do poorly just as it could do well. Sometimes simply throwing numbers can work.

What I have seen work is large Alliances of several guilds be it amazing or not with decent leaders communicating and running their own shows for the common goal. This works well until it doesn't and the Alliance eats itself. 

As has been said, we don't know the full details of how CWs/victory will work so can't say for certain XYZ will or won't do well.

Also see folks talk like CF as a whole can be won or one victor will emerge. With whatever number of CWs happening, this isn't going to happen. Maybe certain groups will perform better on a consistent basis, but if there are enough matches going on, there will be lots of people winning/losing regularly. 

Then again, if servers can't handle 20 people at a time, I fully agree Zergs won't work :)

At this point, my assumption is the super elite PVP master groups won't be on every single CW at all times (as you said, there aren't that many), nor will there be massive sheep zergs (CF won't be that popular). Likely "average" skilled/sized teams will be the normal, with outliers bringing increased challenges.

For some people it is too early, for other people they are pretty much correct in all of their projections because they understand gamer behavior.

The super elite pvp master groups will be on the CWs with the best resources, because those have the rulesets that attract those kinds of players. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


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

For some people it is too early, for other people they are pretty much correct in all of their projections because they understand gamer behavior.

The super elite pvp master groups will be on the CWs with the best resources, because those have the rulesets that attract those kinds of players. 

I don't disagree that better players will likely head towards the higher risk/reward CWs, but how many such individuals/groups will exist is unknown, along with numbers of CWs and chances for those folks to matter or for others to care about. If CF can manage to attract enough people to have massive zergs or a large highly skilled player base, I'll be happy. As of now, I don't see a strong draw for either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one who played shadowbane knows the answer to this.  You know why one guild never took over a server?  Because we are all crabs in a bowl pulling each other down. People resent each others success. Anytime one nation gets to powerful politics shift to balance them. Not to mention the fact that many large guilds implode once stress is introduced. I would not worry about this too much.

Edited by scipio

zmZi1zl.jpg

Share this post


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

Any one who played shadowbane knows the answer to this.  You know why one guild never took over a server?  Because we are all crabs in a bowl pulling each other down. People resent each others success. Anytime one nation gets to powerful politics shift to balance them. Not to mention the fact that many large guilds implode once stress is introduced. I would not worry about this too much.

This ^   Even if a guild manages to cap many POIs the remaining guilds WILL all work to take them down a notch and most probably coordinate multiple attacks on POIs splitting the defender or forcing a choice.   If the windows for choice are too large though a defender could schedule one in time to get forces to the other after.  Like In Shadowbane though even fierce enemies will cease fire for a short time to take the top dog down.

 


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree, typically when guilds work together they end up spending most of their time fighting each other until it all blows up. One thing you can always count on is GM's ego's (I don't mean that in a bad way) a GM sure as poorly made socks doesn't want another GM running their guild and that is exactly what happens in most cases when guilds align. One guild becomes the top dog and the leader of sort of the other guilds which never ends well. I've seen more alliances that band together to take down the giant guild end up disbanding and destroying them selves because of the inner fighting between them.

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...