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

World Rules And Win Conditions


Arawulf
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the examples given to us in the World Rulesets post, I see that there are specific and varying rules for factors such as PvP Type, Loot, Decay, Import,  Export and Faction. What I'm wondering is what will the win-conditions will typically be at the world's conclusion? For example, if the Export Rules state that the winners get 80% of the loot and losers get 40%, what determines a win? Is it the amount of territory controlled? Will every world be generally following the system where the 'team' with the most control points held for the longest duration wins? Are there win-conditions that are based on other factors such as number of kills, last man standing, etc? 

Edited by arawulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess at whatever we like (we being the Devs and  / or the players)

 

In WWIIoL they would run intermission events - win conditions varied greatly;

Capture of a certain town

Capture of a % of towns

Take and hold

Defend

Breakout

 

etc.

 

The only limits are variables the game can measure.

 

 

Edit: I should add that one of the things that annoys me personally about this sort of discussion is many players are very short sighted and simply think of simple conditions.

 

Scenarios can have quite complex (and overlapping) victory conditions and can also be asymmetric. 

 

For example:

Side A

Victory: Must achieve a Kill:death ratio >1.5 with Human Templars AND capture Dread Citadel and hold for 24 hours.

Hidden Victory Conditions:  Must capture and hold (simultaneously) Anger Keep, Bane Keep and Hell Fortress for 12 hours.

Automatic defeat: Fail to spawn >200 Human Templars within 48 hours of the start of the campaign.

 

Side B

Victory: Must achieve a Kill:Death ratio >2.0 with Centaur Legionaires AND a Kill:Death ratio >2.0 with Frostweavers (any race)

Hidden Victory Conditions:  Must capture and hold (simultaneously) Defiance Keep, Evervale, FrostHall and 70% of Great River Forest for 6 hours.

Automatic defeat: Fail to spawn >150 Centaur Legionaires AND >100 Frostweavers (any race) within 48 hours of the start of the campaign.

 

Draw conditions: Neither side reaches victory conditions in 2400 hours.

 

Sounds complex - computers can monitor this with ease.

Edited by gyrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

conditions like these would be absolutely horrible.

 

 

their premise was to fight stagnation with those resets/wipes.

so unless there actually is stagnation, there shouldn't be a reset

 

 

the more predicitable these win conditions are, the more people will try to anticipate.

 

"meh, they already got this and this? no need to even try anymore, gonna log off till next week, see ya then"

 

on the other hand, if people have no idea when seasons gonna change / server's gonna reset, they'll actually play like the world matters!

 

IMO, all campaigns need to be monitored and then changed accordingly. fixed variables will be abused quickly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

IMO, all campaigns need to be monitored and then changed accordingly. fixed variables will be abused quickly!

 

That's why I suggested the possibility of 'hidden victory conditions'.

 

These are the sort of conditions that could (potentially) surprise everyone.

 

So, even if one side is losing they would continue to fight because they don't know if maybe just capturing one last keep could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat... or at least force a draw?

 

Edit: And there may not be hidden victory conditions either - who knows!

 

 

 

 

In fact - you could even set up a system of blind bidding like so

Side A has 250 'points' to spend on their bid and they have options which are selected by someone (maybe a guild leader - or the player of the match in the last campaign?)

-250 points Capture Dread and Fear Citadels with a team K:D ratio of >2:1 (declared)  {very hard}

-300 points Capture Dread and Fear Citadels with a team K:D ratio of >3:2 (declared) {quite hard}

-400 points Capture Dread and Fear Citadels with a team K:D ratio of >1:1 (declared) {hard}

-500 points Capture Dread and Fear Citadels (declared) {difficult but doable}

 

So the guy picking these goals has 250 points but he doesn't think he can win with a K:D ration that high... he thinks his team could maybe win with a 1:1ratio

 

So he needs 150 points... to get them he must risk something:

+50 points Hidden Enemy Victory conditions: capture 6 random victory locations hold for 12 hours

+50 points Hidden Enemy Victory conditions: capture X-2 random victory locations and hold for 12 hours

+50 points Hidden Enemy Victory conditions: capture victory locations timer reduced by 6 hours

 

He needs 150 points so selects all three... he now knows that the enemy has a second (hidden) victory condition where if they can capture 6(-2) =4 specific victory locations and hold them for 12(-6) = 6 hours they will win.  But neither he, nor the enemy know which ones.

 

Note the system would need to be blind to prevent players exploiting the system.

Edited by gyrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why i suggested the possibility of 'hidden victory conditions'.

 

These are the sort of conditions that could (potentially) surprise everyone.

 

So, even if one side is losing they would continue to fight because they don't know if maybe just capturing one last keep could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat... or at least force a draw?

 

randomly owning 3 keeps shouldn't consitute a win.

that'll only leave a sour taste in the mouth of the guild/faction that owns 70% of the map but eats a loss.

 

 

A win should feel like a win.

If they want us to treat these campaigns like actual MMO servers, then they need to make sure, that they feel like one.

"snatching away wins" is a concept I can't get behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why i suggested the possibility of 'hidden victory conditions'.

 

These are the sort of conditions that could (potentially) surprise everyone.

 

So, even if one side is losing they would continue to fight because they don't know if maybe just capturing one last keep could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat... or at least force a draw?

 

A fly in the ointment of "hidden conditions" is that people would make spy characters just to find out what the conditions are for the other sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm definitely a fan of well defined win/lose conditions.  I'm pretty open to what defines them though.  What I do not want to see if a fluid condition that affords devs the opportunity to immediately conclude a campaign.  It could lead to claims of favortism and a salty playerbase.

 

My only concern with a static win condition like proposed above by requiring 3 claims or something would be a late night crowd on a separate time zone coming together and simply meeting the auto-win condition in a campaign that has lasted a couple months or so with no real challenge because of the time of day they went full bore.

[@--(o.O)@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope they could set some fairly nuanced win conditions, if the goal is really to avoid stagnation. One group controls the majority of all resources on the world, wins most of the battles. It's clear they have dominated the world and logins are slowing down because of it. Winner.

 

If someone could "fake" taking everything over and griefing all opposition off the server, I'd be impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fly in the ointment of "hidden conditions" is that people would make spy characters just to find out what the conditions are for the other sides.

Hidden victory conditions would be hidden to all players, and should be uncommon.

Known victory conditions should be known to all players before they enter the campaign.

 

There will be spies and duplicate accounts no matter what.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

randomly owning 3 keeps shouldn't consitute a win.

that'll only leave a sour taste in the mouth of the guild/faction that owns 70% of the map but eats a loss.

 

 

...

It was an example of what might be possible.  "3 keeps" was just a number I picked as an example.

 

Besides it would depend on which three keeps wouldn't it? 

 

The game could be set up to pick random keeps based on certain conditions.

 

You could say "capturing 3 cities shouldn't have won World War II!"   But what if those cities were Moscow, London and Washington?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden victory conditions would be hidden to all players, and should be uncommon.

Known victory conditions should be known to all players before they enter the campaign.

 

There will be spies and duplicate accounts no matter what.

 

Exactly.  Hidden conditions would be hidden to all.  They have to be - since players do tend to spy and exploit (as you say).

 

You might know that when you made your bid there were a few options in there... you might know you cannot let your main citadel fall.  You might also know that the enemy can win on secondary conditions (hidden) IF they can capture 90% of a certain resource... but what resource is it?  Should you protect the forests?  the iron mines?  or the wheat fields?   Damn... better protect them all then...

 

And better not let on either... since the enemy could potentially concentrate in the mountains and take the iron easily ... or on the plain and take the wheat... they could be wrong... but what if they get lucky?

Edited by gyrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an example of what might be possible.  "3 keeps" was just a number I picked as an example.

 

Besides it would depend on which three keeps wouldn't it? 

 

The game could be set up to pick random keeps based on certain conditions.

 

You could say "capturing 3 cities shouldn't have won World War II!"   But what if those cities were Moscow, London and Washington?

 

 

by that logic, killing your guild-leader should net me a win too...

 

stop bringing rl examples into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by that logic, killing your guild-leader should net me a win too...

 

stop bringing rl examples into this.

 

Maybe... I did consider that.  the only reason I don't like specific 'assassination' conditions is it could lead to players simply not logging on to prevent that type of victory - using alt accounts and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that most of these conditions would be bad. You don't want a server win/loss determined by silly conditions like KDA, owning a specific or couple specific keeps, kill of an important individual, some kind of single event near the end of a worlds life or anything random or achievement like (You managed to kill 50 templars in 5 minutes, you win!).

 

Those achievement like win/lose conditions would just cheapen the experience in a world. It would no longer be about just dominating everything and instead about going through the checklist of possible win conditions to see if you happen to guess it correctly.

 

"Alright guys, we have an awesome K/D and we've tried every combination of 3 keeps except for X, Y, Z and X, Z, A. So screw our current holdings, we need to get Z for the possible win condition, and if that doesn't work we can drop Y for A."

 

Does not seem fun.

 

 

While just letting a server go as it would in a normal Conquest game and being able to catch that moment where further time spent on the world would just start hurting peoples fun would be optimal, such conditions are very hard to spot. Generally your either watching for conditions that can lead to it (percentage of world owned by one group) or consequences of it already happening (people not logging in as much). Both can be bad as you could stop a world before it gets fun or after your losing players.

 

 

They could go the way of a point system we've seen in other games with RvR with some changes.

 

Instead of just owning prebuilt keep X and gaining 10 points every hour, a player built city with whatever special upgrades is worth X points every day. So groups would want not only more cities/keeps and the like, but they'll want to upgrade them so they are getting more points for them. Then set the cap at some insane amount that a single player city fully built might take a year to reach and you've given yourself plenty of time to fight over and destroy and allow the landscape to change, but the group that can consistently hold and build well fortified cities/keeps would be slowly building up their lead.

 

Now if a group manages to own 70% of the map and can keep it for a considerable amount of time, they are gaining points so quickly that they are very likely to succeed and or everyone else will realize they need to group up and take as much from that group as possible.

 

 

Another option would be to just have limited resources on a world. Those mining/lumber POIs on the map can only produce so many materials and as they run out they produce less and less each shipment. Now have those tied to the season changes, so as the material come in slower the environment gets harsher as well as resource nodes players pick up become fewer and fewer.

 

Now if player cities/keeps had material maintenance costs, it'd be harder and harder to maintain your holdings as time went on. Groups would wither and lose their places while others would group up to try and survive. By the end when you reach the last season phase it'd be pretty clear what groups managed to keep the largest holdings while having fought off the armies of winter undead and player groups trying for their last hope of zerging holdings to try and take over and put themselves in a good position before the world ends.

 

That option may be a bit more organic than the first as people can just play it normally and the rest will happen naturally as resources get low and people get desperate.

 

 

But plenty of other ways it can go. I'm of the mind that they probably don't have any definite info on it themselves or they would have already thrown it out. Sure they are considering many options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people get so hung up on numbers from my posts, which are purely speculation?

 

Win conditions can be anything the game can track - that's my point.  Anything at all, anything you like.  In any combination you like.  As many as you like.

 

Want the world win condition to be "Capture the enemy capital." and that's all - then that's it.

 

OR want the win condition to be "Craft 100 swords of Icebane plus capture 10 keeps plus capture 80% of all timber plus have a KD ration of >1:1 plus have faction mana of 10000 stored up plus achieve a diplomatic peace with NPC faction X.

 

and to prevent exploitation you can have hidden goals too.  In the original SWG the path to becoming a Jedi was to obtain mastery in 3 classes IIRC?  But no-one knew which 3 - and it varied from character to character.  That sort of idea.

 

If you want win conditions of "Dominate everything" then that's fine too.  But, if you ever played WWIIoL you would know that toward the end of a campaign people do log out and change sides when they realise the conditions are hopeless.

 

There is no 'perfect' win condition.  No matter what conditions you pick: pure crafting / pure conquest / pure diplomacy someone will think its 'pointless'.

With this game you can change the conditions for every world and campaign...surely in there you can think of something you might like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people get so hung up on numbers from my posts, which are purely speculation?

 

Win conditions can be anything the game can track - that's my point.  Anything at all, anything you like.  In any combination you like.  As many as you like.

 

Want the world win condition to be "Capture the enemy capital." and that's all - then that's it.

 

OR want the win condition to be "Craft 100 swords of Icebane plus capture 10 keeps plus capture 80% of all timber plus have a KD ration of >1:1 plus have faction mana of 10000 stored up plus achieve a diplomatic peace with NPC faction X.

 

and to prevent exploitation you can have hidden goals too.  In the original SWG the path to becoming a Jedi was to obtain mastery in 3 classes IIRC?  But no-one knew which 3 - and it varied from character to character.  That sort of idea.

 

If you want win conditions of "Dominate everything" then that's fine too.  But, if you ever played WWIIoL you would know that toward the end of a campaign people do log out and change sides when they realise the conditions are hopeless.

 

There is no 'perfect' win condition.  No matter what conditions you pick: pure crafting / pure conquest / pure diplomacy someone will think its 'pointless'.

With this game you can change the conditions for every world and campaign...surely in there you can think of something you might like?

 

hehe, maybe I should've been a little clearer, sorry

 

my point was, that if you define win conditions with these simple numbers like

 

"...Craft 100 swords of Icebane plus capture 10 keeps..."

 

then the actual stagnation isn't being measured at all. Plus people WILL try and cheat this system somehow. They will focus on that nonsense and work down their list.

Look at the Jedi grind in SWG.

 

 

I want their system to track territory gain dependant on time, reference this to the logins of the guild they took that territory from, compare it to the general influx of new players in that campaign; look at the history of those players (is it a whole guild that just joined, are these players known to just grief or are these players actually interested in territory control; did that guild ally with any of the already established guilds in the current campaign in a previous campaign)...

did the system then determine, that a good chunk of players has been lost and the campaign has "advanced" on a political stage, then go ahead, the season's gonna change.

 

And not because some random bellend crafted 50 spears

 

I hope we can agree :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehe, maybe I should've been a little clearer, sorry

 

my point was, that if you define win conditions with these simple numbers like

 

"...Craft 100 swords of Icebane plus capture 10 keeps..."

 

then the actual stagnation isn't being measured at all. Plus people WILL try and cheat this system somehow. They will focus on that nonsense and work down their list.

Look at the Jedi grind in SWG.

 

 

I want their system to track territory gain dependant on time, reference this to the logins of the guild they took that territory from, compare it to the general influx of new players in that campaign; look at the history of those players (is it a whole guild that just joined, are these players known to just grief or are these players actually interested in territory control; did that guild ally with any of the already established guilds in the current campaign in a previous campaign)...

did the system then determine, that a good chunk of players has been lost and the campaign has "advanced" on a political stage, then go ahead, the season's gonna change.

 

And not because some random bellend crafted 50 spears

 

I hope we can agree :)

 

Basically was close to the point of my previous post as well.

 

Less about the numbers the OP was talking about or even the amount of options, just the type of system he's suggesting is one that is more grinding and achievement like than any actual indication of someone having won.

 

 

 

OR want the win condition to be "Craft 100 swords of Icebane plus capture 10 keeps plus capture 80% of all timber plus have a KD ration of >1:1 plus have faction mana of 10000 stored up plus achieve a diplomatic peace with NPC faction X.

 

and to prevent exploitation you can have hidden goals too.  In the original SWG the path to becoming a Jedi was to obtain mastery in 3 classes IIRC?  But no-one knew which 3 - and it varied from character to character.  That sort of idea.

 

And SWG was exactly my thoughts on your type of suggestions before you mentioned it, but as the above poster pointed out Jedi grinding actually hurt the game quite a bit, people started focusing on grinding that over actually having fun and playing other parts of the game. It became the equivalent to a level grind and a system like this for a win condition is all this would do. Guilds would have checklists of things they need to accomplish to cover as many conditions as possible, even if they don't know what they are. It stops being about the politics and drama between the groups and more about who can grind conditions out faster to hopefully get lucky and get the winning condition.

 

While I can agree that we CAN do anything for conditions to win and some worlds with unique and even grindy conditions would be worth testing, these types of things would be bad for most of the standard worlds.

 

 

Now as far as how to judge a win condition when the people in the world are just playing organically with politics and power decide who is taking what from who, it gets a bit harder. It's not as if they are going to have part of their staff knee deep in every single political dealing on all the campaigns, trying to figure out if a guild is a griefing one or if they are interested in territory control and such isn't generally something they will be able to do when depending on just their coding. Such predictions, if possible, could easily be used to find bots and gold sellers and the like if actions were able to be monitored and dissected that way automatically. Same with checking things on a 'political stage' it's not something they can do automatically and considering the amount of worlds and people involved with them, also having to dedicate staff to customer support both in and out of game, they can't have people handling that.

 

Logins can be monitored but if your taking action AFTER people have already gotten annoyed/bored enough to stop logging in, your honestly doing it too late as your losing players to the game every world campaign and if they feel that type of thing will continue every world, they have little reason to come back. They've already gone through the phase of "Well this is annoying, not much to do but we can hope and see if it changes." to just not wanting to play, that's too late.

 

So they'll likely be restricted down to stuff like how fast territory is changing hands, how large are the areas that aren't changing hands, stockpiles of resources, sizes of guilds/alliances and other hard facts like that which can reach points to where it's unlikely the landscape will change much anymore.

 

Say if at normal you've got 40% of the POIs changing hands in a week on average, if it ever fell down to like 15% and stayed around there for a decent length of time it'd probably be at a point where it starts needing to move toward an ending. Obviously numbers would change but that type of stuff can at least be handled automatically and fine tuned until the system is pretty good at figuring out when a world's landscape is going stale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The win conditions are probably going to be the most important part of their game vision, and they haven't released any real examples yet. They did say they're open to different win conditions for different rulesets, and player input on rulesets and win conditions, which is good.

 

But as others have stated, tying win conditions to a point-keeping system really just turns the world into either a Capture-the-Flag or King-of-the-Hill, which usually isn't very fun in an MMO.

 

We'll see what they have in store I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the win condition to coincide with onset of server stagnation.  I have no idea how to define or measure that, but in my opinion if the win condition is reached while there is still more fun to be had...and suddenly the world ends, I just think that would be bad at least for the rulesets that are designed to have longer running cycles.

 

If the win condition is reached because a team/clan/faction/whatever merely reached the required number of points, or was the point leader at the end of X amount of time that would really suck.  I agree that win conditions are probably the factor that will determine whether I play the game or not, at least at a conceptual level.  Only thing that would overcome a bad campaign concept for me would be really, really fun combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what determines a win? Is it the amount of territory controlled? Will every world be generally following the system where the 'team' with the most control points held for the longest duration wins? Are there win-conditions that are based on other factors such as number of kills, last man standing, etc? 

 

The joy in the system we are building is that we have the opportunity to experiment with various win conditions. Different campaigns can try different things! We've discussed a ton of options, and this will likely be an area we play around with throughout Alpha and Beta to find the ones that work best. 

 

What will become clear, are the ones that work and the ones that absolutely don't.

Tully Ackland

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc. 

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...