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

Win Condition Proposal (Mainly For The Ffa Shard)

Win condition  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you in favor of this proposal?

    • I will play on the FFA shard and I approve.
      12
    • I will play on the FFA shard and I don't approve.
      5
    • I won't play on the FFA shard and I approve.
      1
    • I won't play on the FFA shard and I don't approve.
      3


Recommended Posts

As much as I support the necessity of a permanent server (with EVERYTHING in it, not for showing your trophies) with strict rules to help new players and new alliances defeat the major one even late in the game, I do understand if DEVs wouldn't want to make it.. since it would be against their primary idea.

 

Will they be willing to use a winning condition suggested by us, though?

 

What if any alliance on the shard with some holdings could candidate itself or another alliance as the winner? Any other guilds/alliances with some holdings should vote and if they all agree (= kneeling), the alliance is declared the winner and the shard can be reset or something (you 'lose' if you dont own holdings). If some alliance doesn't agree, there won't be a reset.

 

1. But!! There could be stubborn alliances unwilling to lose!

If the majority of the server is agreeing to let one alliance win the game, they should make sure the stubborn alliances are deprived of their holdings. If the major alliance can't make this happen they're not worthy of the winner title.

2. What if the major alliance doesn't want to win?

The vote can be called by any other alliance with holdings in the game and the candidate can't vote, meaning they can't sabotage the winning condition. Extreme case: the major alliance holds 100% of the holdings.. then the entire server can try to steal one of them and declare the vote (or else, GMs intervene).

 

This includes The Hunger and whatnot so it's not against DEVs ideas, but probably it would be best if The Hunger was indeed a condition only lasting "a winter" (as if the shard were a planet rotating around its sun) and not forever.. as it should not be impossible for new alliances to destroy the main one if the winning condition has not been satisfied when conditions were harsh.

 

Let's hear your opinion about this.. if there is some 'exploitable mechanism' I am not considering, shout it out please.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be a shard like this, why would anyone play on the others? I mean if we have a stable place with ALL of the features. Then there's no need to go for any other shard. All fun is here. (I voted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be a shard like this, why would anyone play on the others? I mean if we have a stable place with ALL of the features. Then there's no need to go for any other shard. All fun is here. (I voted)

 

Well for a start this mainly works on a FFA server. In a FvF server it's almost impossible for one faction to conquer the entire map over the other two (unless one eventualy kneels). And the majority of crowfall community is not intending to play on the FFA server anyway.

Call it a test perhaps. If people start enjoying it, then you could apply the rule to less harsh servers aswell.

 

So the answer to "why would anyone play on the others?" is different rulesets. Note: the shard is gonna end eventually, but when is gonna be decided by players! Which means it's probably take some time (as it did in a Shadowbane server). Overall this is coherent with the notion of revitalizing the server when someone eventually wins, which is what DEVs wanted in the first place.

 

--------------

 

3. What about zergs?

First off, their efficiency should be limited in large teamfights due to friendly fire. Second, this is not something we can avoid.. if one alliance gets really huge it is thanks to their policy. It's not impossible for the rest of the server to 'destroy it' anyway, as we saw all over again in Darkfall.

A small alliance COULD win even with this system.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say if one Alliance possesses +90% of the map, they'd automatically be declared a winner, there's hardly any contest in "who won" there, but I wouldn't mind a voting system either, since if somebody grabs 100% they have all the votes and would automatically win.

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...