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

02/04/15 - Day 3 - Zombiewood & Faq


Recommended Posts

Question:  Can we have multiple characters in multiple campaigns?

 

I think this is an important consideration from a number of perspectives, but perhaps most importantly joining a 1 year long campaign could be the equivalent of a jail term if you find yourself in either a dominant or untenable position early on.  It would certainly be more palatable if we could have multiple characters on our account, and dip our toes in multiple waters.  No sieges going on during an off hour on your GvG world?  Well then jump over to your FFA world character.

 

Even if we are not allowed multiple characters, people will have multiple accounts to circumvent.  So I would rather have a thoughtful approach that takes these issues into account and maybe even has some family relationship between characters across an account.

Personally I hope that we're limited to one character per account.

 

Even with 0 character I already feel lost with these multiple worlds + EK + Hunger + different PvP features + conditions + ratios import export + Kingdoms + kneel + world destructions...  :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So it looks like the full FAQ isn't displaying (too many words)    here's the text version while I fix this.    How is it different than a normal MMO? A key facet of most (if not all) strategy ga

02/04/15 - Day 3 - Zombiewood & FAQ  Hey gang,   Today's update is light on art, but heavy on meat.  If this one doesn't get you talking, nothing will.   First off, we've had a lot of questions

Good and bad, but more confirmation than I thought would happen.     What we still don't know: How the whole fealty system works How the whole fealty system plays in to EK worlds What purpose the

The key question here is the winning condition. 

 

There seems to be an assumption by some that winning is directly about defeating players, but I'd argue that it is about beating the Hunger, that is the Environment.  I'm guessing ofc, but an answer to that would shed some light on the relevance of those battles of 'Risk'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say, the number of campaigns running at once is limited only by the population of paying players willing to play at the same time. The paradigm laid out so far would start small (six servers was the number shown in graphic example) and could easily expand with need.

Six campaigns going at once is far too many. Now take into account each are going at different lengths, people aren't able to be everywhere, there are potential punishments for quitting campaigns, some people dislike certain rulesets, some people will be on a unwinnable/not fun anymore campaign and aren't able to leave, etc. You can probably think up even more negative scenarios where the only reality I can come up with is a severe case of poor population distributions. You lose the reason why we play MMORPGs, the persistence and the playing with the same people. You'll have some of that but only a portion of the whole.

 

Also like what was said before is you've got players who won't care about EK (me) and will find no desire to care about the resource game, which then also excludes me from rulesets that allow import because I'd be at a disadvantage anyway.

 

Argh, I'm on my phone so this is tough but this update does nothing to quell what was already a healthy dose of skepticism from yesterday, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say, the number of campaigns running at once is limited only by the population of paying players willing to play at the same time. The paradigm laid out so far would start small (six servers was the number shown in graphic example) and could easily expand with need.

 

Well, I would just flip that statement on it's head.  "The number of campaigns running at once will be dictated by the population of paying players expecting to play at the same time."

 

And if I was a gambling man, I would suggest that the number of worlds 1 month after public launch will vastly outnumber the number of worlds 24 months after launch.  There is always a surge in population right out of the gate, then a decline (either gradual or dramatic, depending on the quality of the game) as times goes on and people leave for the next shiny new thing.

 

Exactly why a modular world configuration and the resulting flexibility to accommodate a changing player base, without cloning the same map across dozens of servers, and without forcing the merger of said servers back onto themselves (WS is effectively down to a single North American server), is just plain smart design.

rSHxVEY.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily we got some skeptical and realistic / pessimistic people in this world. They play the double role of quality assurance and safeguard.

We all know the real game isn't out in the BG's it is back in the EK's where we can craft some epics and group up to kill a boss!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, my main concern about multiple campaigns running at once... of course it comes down to strategy... but most are going to wait out for the "easier" of rulesets. Or the ones that gives them the most advantage, instead of allowing everyone to get their feet wet with different rule sets. We'll have to see how it works, but I doubt most guilds are going to go to FFA rule sets unless they knew they could still "play together" and gain an edge to the other "FFAers" or they might not jump into FactionVFaction because they may be against each other. Of course they'll jump into the Guild v Guild ruleset.

 

I guess it gives everyone a choice to their particular playstyle, but I just can't see it working if they allow Campaign hopping due to "oh, look that campaign is empty, let's go zerg it", leaving the campaigns they left with less players.

 

Just imho anyway.

I think the devs should implement a mechanic that encourages "moving outward" so that players experience the different rulesets and conditions of the various world orbits.

I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good and bad, but more confirmation than I thought would happen.  

 

What we still don't know:

  • How the whole fealty system works
  • How the whole fealty system plays in to EK worlds
  • What purpose the divinities have
  • How all these "campaigns" tie in to the larger universe

Those are big, important questions that relate to how this entire macrocosm works.  Right now we know there are at least 3 types of rulesets - FFA, GvG, and 3 faction.  We know 3 faction is Order, Balance, and Chaos.  I suspect fealty/divinity plays a role in the 3 faction system.  Whatever the "God War" world ruleset is, we don't know yet.  They are important questions because, as of right now, world/campaign hopping is to be discouraged but at the same time you have the Eternal Kingdoms which can have the same rulesets- or more- that the rest of the universe has, but none of the impermanence.  As such, one of the big questions to be asked is this:

 

Why play on a world outside the Eternal Kingdoms?

 

Right now the only answer we have to that is "resources" and "you need things from other worlds to get stuff in the EK."  But say we don't give a hoot about having the prettiest castle on the block on our EK world.  Instead we focus on long term FFA mechanics.  Other people don't care about that either, so they come join our EK and we go at it.  Based on what I'm reading thus far, this seems perfectly fine.  But it shouldn't be because it allows for full participation in the game without participating in the universe as a whole.  Even perma-crafters from AA, GW2, etc were engaged in the universe as a whole.  

 

Thus we get to the MMO vs MOBA comparison thanks to non-transitory campaigns.  On the plus side, lack of world hopping means people must commit.  On the down side, no one likes playing a game they have no shot at.  Think of all the BGs, arena, WvWvW, etc matches you participated in where you crushed the opposition within the first 15% of the match.  The rest becomes boring and horrible.  With no quick "win" in some campaigns, getting stuck for a week or longer would be absolutely brutal.  And a year?  Not possible.  I've yet to see a MMO where one "side" hasn't dominated after 2-3 months and kept dominating until they left the game/disbanded.  Getting stuck in a campaign will be a horrible player experience.  And getting all your characters stuck in a campaign (assuming ren's idea of 3 chars per account)?  Even worse.  

 

This is where the overall universe system needs to come into play because there has to be a purpose to going out to the other worlds and risk getting "stuck" in a campaign.  In a traditional MMO or MOBA, if one thing I'm doing sucks, I have the freedom to do something else.  This is what makes things fun.  Lack of world hopping could prevent that from happening.  But, with a universe/deity/champion/fealty system, it would make such horribleness worthwhile to some extent.  Not all guild will be large enough for GvG worlds/campaigns (guessing equal numbers required), but 3 faction works fine.  Or if I log in solo one night, I can participate in 3 faction if they're doing well or go FFA to goof off for an hour.  But regardless of what I do, there has to be an overarching goal to advance... something.  Otherwise, what's the point?  

 

My excitement for the game is still high, but not nearly what it was before this update.  The pitfalls with this system right as we understand them right now are quite large and I'm skeptical of them being navigated successfully.  You're running the risk, it seems, of ending up with a half-MMO, half-MOBA that appeals to everyone with no real endgame and overly complex restrictions on just what a user can participate in.  If you want people to do whatever they want and choose worlds like they would an Action Quake II server, that's fine; if you want people to be able to help out guildies where needed across any world, that's fine (maybe implement a world transition cooldown); if you want to let people create their own persistent worlds in the form of the Eternal Kingdoms, that's fine.  Just acknowledge that you're creating three different games then instead of a single game with epic purpose and proportions.  

 

I still have high hopes and pray that the next updates will cover this over-arching universe system and what the purpose of the game is.  I apologize if I'm coming off overly negative.  After 20 years, skepticism can't be helped  :unsure:

This sums up most of what we've talked about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key question here is the winning condition. 

 

There seems to be an assumption by some that winning is directly about defeating players, but I'd argue that it is about beating the Hunger, that is the Environment.  I'm guessing ofc, but an answer to that would shed some light on the relevance of those battles of 'Risk'.

It doesn't look like defeating the Hunger is possible on the Dying Worlds. We can slow it down, maybe push it back for a while, certainly loot its minions  ;) , but those inner worlds are all dying; and the closer they are to the center, the faster they will die.

 

For many, winning in the dying worlds means "rescuing" loot from them before they disappear.

How can you maximize that loot? Dominate the map in spite of hostility from the environment and other players!

Edited by chancellor

I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key question here is the winning condition. 

 

There seems to be an assumption by some that winning is directly about defeating players, but I'd argue that it is about beating the Hunger, that is the Environment.  I'm guessing ofc, but an answer to that would shed some light on the relevance of those battles of 'Risk'.

 

i agree with the first line to some extent...

 

but if your "guess" is accurate, that makes it EVEN WORSE, imo...

 

it means the Fight is against Code, and NOT the Players....very bad as far as i'm concerned...pretty much a deal breaker...

 

yes, the Environment and hence the Huger is IMPORTANT, for the reasons they have elaborated upon, and i'm fairly certain for a LOT more we don't know about as of yet...

 

but a "win" has to be in the context of Competition between Players...or there truly can be no real "meaning" , imo...

FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the devs should implement a mechanic that encourages "moving outward" so that players experience the different rulesets and conditions of the various world orbits.

You mean something like how some group could come along and burn all the pretties up so they have to go back out into the cold cruel BG's and compete for resources so they rebuild? Where there was no 100% safe area? You mean a game like that?

 

Sorry wrong game.

Edited by gauis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Try doing that now for all his friends and guildmates and all their alts and alt accounts and the new account he will make just to troll you. I'm not exaggerating either that did happen in Shadowbane. You couldn't .ignore fast enough nor was your /ignore list big enough. You know those one or two guys in any game that turn one channel into "Barrenlands" chat from WoW? Barrenlands chat was tame compared to SB and it wasn't one or two guys it was 30+. 

Gaius, I played EvE for 9 years. I can handle this stuff. I really do just ignore them. Maybe I'm just different.

 

Oh, you blew up my ship. Good thing I've got 7 more just like it.

 

Oh, you called me names on a forum. Ouch.

 

Oh, you're barricading me in a station and I can't get out. I'll play the market for a few hours then log out and do fun things with/to my wife.

 

It just doesn't get to me.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. I foresee scrub guilds hiding on low pop/not popular campaigns and claiming to be 1337 pvp gods.  This would limit the chances for a true Play 2 Crush imo.

 

Yep this has happened before on an entire game scale.  Where they all hid in a low pop/not popular game claiming to be 1337 pvp gods.  I think the game was called shadowbane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things,

 

For those worried about Campaign stagnation, getting "stuck" in a no-fun campaign, the devs can just move the Hunger in, wipe out the server and start over. Heck, Raph even said that the game gets harder when you're winning. Maybe winning draws the Hunger to you. Now you're fighting players and Hunger. Good luck with that.

 

 

 

I agree with you. I foresee scrub guilds hiding on low pop/not popular campaigns and claiming to be 1337 pvp gods.  This would limit the chances for a true Play 2 Crush imo.

 

Yep this has happened before on an entire game scale.  Where they all hid in a low pop/not popular game claiming to be 1337 pvp gods.  I think the game was called shadowbane.

 

 

This won't happen. The Hunger will take you out. End of worry on that score.

 

"No real endgame" That's old thinking. The whole thing is endgame. The old style of progression to an endgame is what we are all here to avoid, isn't it? We are sick of it. We want something better. Now that they're trying something else, we complain that we aren't progressing toward something and that there's no real endgame? What kind of sick humor is this?

 

The purpose of the game is to destroy your enemies on the battlefield. I think we'll have opportunity to do that. What else do you need, really? Persistence? Life is ephemeral. Live in the moment, enjoy it while you can. Then do it again tomorrow.

 

They want this to succeed. They have a plan in place for active community participation. They will be watching and doing what they can to keep it fun. Stop thinking of your old MMOs where nothing changed. The old way was to set it up and it took massive amounts of squeaky wheels to get anything changed. These guys (and gals) are going to experiment. They're going to tinker. They're going to burn the world and see what is left standing. Then they're going to create a new world using what they've learned. Over and over. That's why they designed it the way they did.

 

The experiment doesn't end when the countdown hits zero. That's just the next phase starting. When this game launches it will be just another phase of the experiment. Maybe the whole thing adds up to 42.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem: The trophy for winning a campaign....wouldn't THAT create an unfair advantage? It's like restarting the game but the winner from last game gets to have an extra move at the start. Which could create problems.

 

As for the idea; I LOVE IT! Taking the old school board games, critically analyzing their structure, and applying it to MMOs! In fact, there should be a Suggestion Box page specially FOR campaign ideas. Might have a few downsides but it's an idea, none the less.

 

I was also thinking that change of environment is what we REALLY need.

 

And what I love is how this game is creating a whole new sub-genre :D This type of game doesn't seem like the type that will ever get boring due to the campaign switch.

 

Now with the light of how the zone system works, payment system: I think subscription and subscription only is the absolute best way to go when this hits market (Notice: Most definitely not a matter of 'if' but 'when'). The Free to play side of this would be limited to a few campaigns that aren't as dangerous/high paced/rewarding as the subscription locked campaigns, but you can still play and have a ton of fun. No buy items in-game with money please, that's unbalanced in a fashion due to the ever so hated wealth division, the rich can buy up stuff to win the game while the not-so-rich (notice, not 'poor', just 'not rich') have to deal with nothing. As Todd said, Strategy based. Yes please. Strategy and strategy only. No other gimmicks.

ϟhαdσwßłαdə

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem: The trophy for winning a campaign....wouldn't THAT create an unfair advantage? It's like restarting the game but the winner from last game gets to have an extra move at the start. Which could create problems.

 

As for the idea; I LOVE IT! Taking the old school board games, critically analyzing their structure, and applying it to MMOs! In fact, there should be a Suggestion Box page specially FOR campaign ideas. Might have a few downsides but it's an idea, none the less.

 

I was also thinking that change of environment is what we REALLY need.

 

And what I love is how this game is creating a whole new sub-genre :D This type of game doesn't seem like the type that will ever get boring due to the campaign switch.

 

Now with the light of how the zone system works, payment system: I think subscription and subscription only is the absolute best way to go when this hits market (Notice: Most definitely not a matter of 'if' but 'when'). The Free to play side of this would be limited to a few campaigns that aren't as dangerous/high paced/rewarding as the subscription locked campaigns, but you can still play and have a ton of fun. No buy items in-game with money please, that's unbalanced in a fashion due to the ever so hated wealth division, the rich can buy up stuff to win the game while the not-so-rich (notice, not 'poor', just 'not rich') have to deal with nothing. As Todd said, Strategy based. Yes please. Strategy and strategy only. No other gimmicks.

The trophy will only be an advantage to the person/team on the next world they go to. And if that's the case, chances are, others will gang up on them, so that they may be able to get the trophy? Or just so that they aren't that much ahead in advantage. Also there are plenty of games out there like this. And none of them have a sub fee.And they have said it's not going to be F2P today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things,

 

For those worried about Campaign stagnation, getting "stuck" in a no-fun campaign, the devs can just move the Hunger in, wipe out the server and start over. Heck, Raph even said that the game gets harder when you're winning. Maybe winning draws the Hunger to you. Now you're fighting players and Hunger. Good luck with that.

 

 

 

This won't happen. The Hunger will take you out. End of worry on that score.

 

"No real endgame" That's old thinking. The whole thing is endgame. The old style of progression to an endgame is what we are all here to avoid, isn't it? We are sick of it. We want something better. Now that they're trying something else, we complain that we aren't progressing toward something and that there's no real endgame? What kind of sick humor is this?

 

The purpose of the game is to destroy your enemies on the battlefield. I think we'll have opportunity to do that. What else do you need, really? Persistence? Life is ephemeral. Live in the moment, enjoy it while you can. Then do it again tomorrow.

 

They want this to succeed. They have a plan in place for active community participation. They will be watching and doing what they can to keep it fun. Stop thinking of your old MMOs where nothing changed. The old way was to set it up and it took massive amounts of squeaky wheels to get anything changed. These guys (and gals) are going to experiment. They're going to tinker. They're going to burn the world and see what is left standing. Then they're going to create a new world using what they've learned. Over and over. That's why they designed it the way they did.

 

The experiment doesn't end when the countdown hits zero. That's just the next phase starting. When this game launches it will be just another phase of the experiment. Maybe the whole thing adds up to 42.

 

bairloch, your reply just reeks of simple acceptance. There's nothing wrong in questioning their ideas. There's nothing wrong in wondering what the "end game" will be. Your interpretation is that you're fine with the idea that having a finite battlefield, others, however, have issues with this. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Your first paragraph really does worry me. Is that what people want? How easy is it for you to say, "Oh, the server went stagnant, the devs will just push The Hunger in to reset it! Boom! Problem fixed!" When you should be thinking, "Why'd the server go stagnant in the first place? What was the issue? Was there a complete lack of fun and that's why it went stagnant? Did the rules cause people to quit? Did the dominance of one guild ruin the game itself?" or a plethora of other questions. In my opinion, to have a world simply go stagnant and just have devs push an end to the game sounds awful. Where is the fun in that? What is the point? Where is the end game?

 

Unfortunately, The Hunger seems to be like a limitation; a simple time frame that may or may not have any real meaning. What decides if a world is 1 week? Or 6 months? Or a year? What happens when the short time frame game feels empty and too transitory, but the yearly one ends up being stagnant rather quickly? Are the devs just going to be there to change The Hunger's progression on the fly? Who decides when a game has become stagnant? What conditions are required before The Hunger is pushed, or not pushed?

 

There's a lot of questions and truthfully, there are a lot more "holes" in their idea than content. It's pretty reasonable to be skeptical and to question a lot of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting stuck in a campaign will be a horrible player experience.  And getting all your characters stuck in a campaign (assuming ren's idea of 3 chars per account)?  Even worse.  

 

This is true. However having people abandon ship early because things aren't going their way (or even half way through) is equally bad. If changing campaigns is as easy as changing your socks you're going to have people jumping around and find campaigns/fights that are more in their favor, rather than band together and try to fight it out. 

 

It's a question of how long should a campaign last, how long are players willing to be fighting a losing battle or how long a status quo should exist, and what should be the restrictions be when it comes to campaign hopping. You don't want people to feel trapped and quit till the campaign resets, but at the same time you don't want to encourage rampant hopping as well. Every world should matter, and the players/guilds that decide to settle on them should be committed; other wise you get gw2's borderland desertion syndrome.

 

Ultimately you don't want to end up with a system where in the long run absolutely nothing matters, and "losing" can be "dodged".

Edited by Helix
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...