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

Blue Shell Mechanics


Recommended Posts

I know that each campaign starts with everyone on a basically even footing, but I'm sure there will be some people who come into campaigns, after about a year, having crafted the best armor/weapons possible, and have massive support from their guild into almost immediately building full-on forts, while other guilds/factions are starting from green materials to fortify.

 

How do the community/devs feel about "blue shell" mechanics meant to punish people for rushing too far ahead? Maybe greedy dragons who predate those who have the most shinies? Or do you prefer to just let people come into large campaigns, already starting to swing their big Mythril Hammer around, smashing everyone else before they have a chance?

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

I know that each campaign starts with everyone on a basically even footing, but I'm sure there will be some people who come into campaigns, after about a year, having crafted the best armor/weapons possible, and have massive support from their guild into almost immediately building full-on forts, while other guilds/factions are starting from green materials to fortify.

 

How do the community/devs feel about "blue shell" mechanics meant to punish people for rushing too far ahead? Maybe greedy dragons who predate those who have the most shinies? Or do you prefer to just let people come into large campaigns, already starting to swing their big Mythril Hammer around, smashing everyone else before they have a chance?

Crowfall will have many different campaigns with different rulesets.  Some will have little to no import, so the ability to build things immediately and have the best stuff immediately seems unlikely. 

Others may have higher and higher imports, this is a fun type of ruleset for some superguilds, they want to uncle bob vs each other to see who has the best macrologistic ability. 

Campaigns will also be resetting at varying frequencies, some might last a month, others half a year.  I also believe you won't be able to subscribe to a campaign if it is too far along. 

Also last we heard an account would be able to subscribe to 3 campaigns concurrently at any given time.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if in God Faction worlds, you have one Faction with huge forts, and all 11 others are just comprised of smaller guild/sub-guilds with very little pre-existing co-operation. These guilds have to work together to succeed, but in-fighting over "who's doing the most work and should get all the goodies" could result in Grecian city-state style division that suppresses their chances completely?

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

But if in God Faction worlds, you have one Faction with huge forts, and all 11 others are just comprised of smaller guild/sub-guilds with very little pre-existing co-operation. These guilds have to work together to succeed, but in-fighting over "who's doing the most work and should get all the goodies" could result in Grecian city-state style division that suppresses their chances completely?

Well the beauty of resetting campaigns is that if a bunch of people mess up in one campaign and let another group dominate them, they can learn from their mistakes and try to win the next one. 

I doubt ACE is going to try to protect players too much from making social/political errors.

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

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

But if in God Faction worlds, you have one Faction with huge forts, and all 11 others are just comprised of smaller guild/sub-guilds with very little pre-existing co-operation. These guilds have to work together to succeed, but in-fighting over "who's doing the most work and should get all the goodies" could result in Grecian city-state style division that suppresses their chances completely?

 

  • Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather a "win condition" that if one side got out to such an insurmountable lead that the campaign ends early and they win rather than having "blue shell" mechanics to let the losers catch up. Let the losers try to do better in the next campaign instead of artificially propping them up in the current one. 

Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

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

 

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

Okay? Are you attempting to describe my hypothetical as inconsequential?

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

I'd rather a "win condition" that if one side got out to such an insurmountable lead that the campaign ends early and they win rather than having "blue shell" mechanics to let the losers catch up. Let the losers try to do better in the next campaign instead of artificially propping them up in the current one. 

There is a balance to be made here between perpetual comback and slippery slope. Sometimes campaigns have to close, sometimes players can make a comeback.

Blue shell levels of knocking out the leaders is too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However Imports end up working is going to strongly hint at how 'bad or likely' a problem like this could ever actually present, but complexity of the map and win conditions can also heavily mitigate this sort of potential problem. For example it doesn't matter if you can win every fight if your team ultimately needs to win 10 fights all over the map at the same time and can only be in 1 place at a time. It would require a pretty spectacular series of mechanical and social failures for such a lopsided victory to happen easily, and thankfully due to how the CWs work, if it did happen it should be a temporary state.

The nice thing about some of these design choices is that if it did become a recurring issue ACE could make adjustments for the next go around without having to alter large swaths of the existing game, it would feel more natural from both a dev and player point of view.

lPoLZtm.png

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

There is a balance to be made here between perpetual comback and slippery slope. Sometimes campaigns have to close, sometimes players can make a comeback.

Blue shell levels of knocking out the leaders is too much.

If it was implemented, it would have to me more like a "Teal Shell" that can potentially hit any Faction, but favors negative impact on those who are extremely far ahead (like Bowser on Mario Party, who hates everyone, but REALLY enjoys pissing off the leaders).

 

For example, a dragon that likes to go after shiny things, no matter what he wrecks to get to them. Of course, it could always be possible to get to his den to loot them back plus more, or even preemptively find and raid him. This mob would be more dangerous at the end of campaigns, when sieging becomes a thing, since he will only attack places that are being sieged.

Or a group of thief NPCs that like to pickpocket AFKers, and as the seasons go on, they become more aggressive B&E-ers who loot world and faction chests (crafting skill to make better locked chests anyone?). Also has a hive that can be found (almost exclusively by those levelling up tracking, which would give that skill more import in your faction) and raided to take back the goods they've stolen from any of the factions that game. These thieves also will use your mats they steal, to craft their own gear (the more you mess them up early, the less they affect any of the factions through the progression of the game). So a terribly strong Faction would be able to strike things like them early and incidentally keep them from hurting any factions, or might even "make a deal with the devil" and purposely leave gear out to be stolen, just so those thieves will be more successful against the other factions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are overly complex (neat but sound beyond the scope of what is planned for the limited PvE) and boil down to a victory tax that I suspect would end up being trivially gamed. If the potential advantage is that big a problem, just remove or reduce the advantage from existing in the first place.

You're somewhat dancing around the problem that the theoretical blob is always going to have an advantage, and that's a simple truth in a sandbox. The blob will always have some sort of advantage unless there are 'hard' arbitrary gates on how much a blob can bring to bear on a particular endeavor. That sort of hard limitation is generally frowned upon in a sandbox. The lighter touch solution to that sort of problem is to instead do stuff like mitigate power projection and respawn mechanics, or make larger and larger numbers inefficient to supply or direct which makes it easier to nibble at the edges. It doesn't entirely mitigate the advantage of the blob you're facing, but it does take the edge off and require them to play well on top of having the numbers. If all goes well in the end the numbers just create a better buffer before failure versus guaranteeing straight up victory. 

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, eeliigaa said:

If it was implemented, it would have to me more like a "Teal Shell" that can potentially hit any Faction, but favors negative impact on those who are extremely far ahead (like Bowser on Mario Party, who hates everyone, but REALLY enjoys pissing off the leaders).

 

For example, a dragon that likes to go after shiny things, no matter what he wrecks to get to them. Of course, it could always be possible to get to his den to loot them back plus more, or even preemptively find and raid him. This mob would be more dangerous at the end of campaigns, when sieging becomes a thing, since he will only attack places that are being sieged.

Or a group of thief NPCs that like to pickpocket AFKers, and as the seasons go on, they become more aggressive B&E-ers who loot world and faction chests (crafting skill to make better locked chests anyone?). Also has a hive that can be found (almost exclusively by those levelling up tracking, which would give that skill more import in your faction) and raided to take back the goods they've stolen from any of the factions that game. These thieves also will use your mats they steal, to craft their own gear (the more you mess them up early, the less they affect any of the factions through the progression of the game). So a terribly strong Faction would be able to strike things like them early and incidentally keep them from hurting any factions, or might even "make a deal with the devil" and purposely leave gear out to be stolen, just so those thieves will be more successful against the other factions.

I would prefer they just build the mechanics in such a way that the system does not require cheese NPC BS to be the perpetual comeback mechanic.

Things like FF, taxes increasing with increased land ownership, larger windows of building vulnerability and more placed to defend, would allow the enemy players to make the comeback happen, rather than just have the game create arbitrary boundaries of success.

You just don't seem like you want the game being built, but want something far closer to theme park MMO with limited ability to lose, and are unwilling to simply let the community iterate through different campaign parameters to find the best solution without involving hard invisible walls to victory.

 The problem with that is, if you create an environment where you have a limited ability to lose, you also have a limited ability to win. It would be like constantly upping the amount earned when passing Go in Monopoly, based on the cost of rent on the board.  

In the end nobody would get anywhere. Somebody is going to lose, that's the whole plan for the game, not eternal perpetual conflict like EvE has.

  

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a comeback mechanic. Just sort of catchup for those that start at an early disadvantage.

 

EDIT: It sounds like you want a pure PvP environment with no mobs, even thought that's sooooo ResidentSleeper. Maybe you should be willing to have more complex world dynamics in the game, or are you not capable of dealing with that?

Edited by eeliigaa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for the most part this is a non issue. We can just look to the real world for an example. There's tons of people who inherit fortunes and the the vast majority of the time the families end up right back where they should be extremely quickly. Then you look at the wealthy successful people and find out 80% of them are first generation rich and are successful due to their own merits.

The free market will work itself out and Crowfall is going to be the free market on steroids.

Crowfall is a game where you can kill trust fund babies and take their resources. If undeserving players have resources they shouldn't have then it's not going to take long for balance to be restored to the force. 

 

Edited by Zybak
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zybak said:

I think for the most part this is a non issue. We can just look to the real world for an example. There's tons of people who inherit fortunes and the the vast majority of the time the families end up right back where they should be extremely quickly. Then you look at the wealthy successful people and find out the vast majority of them are first generation rich and are successful due to their own merits

Say what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States

 

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, eeliigaa said:

EDIT: It sounds like you want a pure PvP environment with no mobs, even thought that's sooooo ResidentSleeper. Maybe you should be willing to have more complex world dynamics in the game, or are you not capable of dealing with that?

PvP is the focus. The devs already said that Mobs are there just to increase the world threat lvl. What that means exactly remains to be seen, but dont expect complex PvE mechanics...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, eeliigaa said:

Not a comeback mechanic. Just sort of catchup for those that start at an early disadvantage.

 

EDIT: It sounds like you want a pure PvP environment with no mobs, even thought that's sooooo ResidentSleeper. Maybe you should be willing to have more complex world dynamics in the game, or are you not capable of dealing with that?

Maybe you should learn the terms before arguing because "just a sort of catchup" is the very definition of a perpetual comeback mechanic.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback

I would be perfectly capable of dealing with it, if that was they had been selling and having investors contribute to for the last two years. Since it's not, yea I would have a pretty big problem with it. The same kind of problem as someone who orders a steak, and then gets delivered a salad.

Maybe you should spend some time reviewing what it is you think you just got yourself involved in, because your expectations seem way out of whack for what's been sold to us for the last two years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eeliigaa said:

But if in God Faction worlds, you have one Faction with huge forts, and all 11 others are just comprised of smaller guild/sub-guilds with very little pre-existing co-operation. These guilds have to work together to succeed, but in-fighting over "who's doing the most work and should get all the goodies" could result in Grecian city-state style division that suppresses their chances completely?

And they will only have access to lower quality material in this campaign world. If they want to dedicate their entire guild to gaining green resources, have at it. 

CfWBSig.png

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...