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

How are you balancing campaigns?

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of the potential campaigns and it seems that either the biggest guild or the ones willing to play the most are likely to win (assuming close to the same ability/skill). Just playing more gives you a huge advantage in all the situations I have seen listed.  More people on your side is going to give an advantage.

Is there any talk of time played as part of the campaign? Are they doing anything limit on size of realms/guilds depending on the scenario?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zolaz - I have read or skimmed through most of that.  Is there anything in particular for balance?  Maybe I missed it.

I want to know how a guild of 50 can compete against a guild of 200?

I have read on forums some of the smaller guilds could join forces.

Edited by Zorph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see population balance on factions but guild v guild or ffa shouldn't have limits. but it CF and campaigns are designed to have different rules. one guild v guild could have an unlimited population in one guild but another campaign could be a 50-100 limit per guild.

 

if the skill is equal or similar with your 50v200 then the 200 will win every time (I'm assuming gear would be equal also). if the 200 has a few good players and numbers while the 50 has 25 great players then the 50 group could win. 


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Zorph said:

I was thinking of the potential campaigns and it seems that either the biggest guild or the ones willing to play the most are likely to win (assuming close to the same ability/skill). Just playing more gives you a huge advantage in all the situations I have seen listed.  More people on your side is going to give an advantage.

Is there any talk of time played as part of the campaign? Are they doing anything limit on size of realms/guilds depending on the scenario?

 

It's simply not the time yet to make definite statements about balance. Actually in no field of the later game. We are just not there yet. 

The big point about Crowfall is, that it's basic systems allows it to be enormously flexible in the future regarding those questions. The time limited campaigns and the dying worlds principles allow to offer and adjust campaigns over time.  

So maybe a campaign with it's special rules won't work, because 50-people guilds can't compete with 200-people guilds. And maybe this may cause more people to be unhappy. In that case this single campaign would be a loss. ACE can adjust rules then and offer other campaigns with other rules that could solve the problems. And campaign rules liked by more people will probably have more success than those people hate.

We will see, once we are there. 

Just let's finish the initial game-loop first within the next few months and get into optimization and rulesets when the time has come to do so.


2W1ZHpA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kraahk said:

It's simply not the time yet to make definite statements about balance. Actually in no field of the later game. We are just not there yet. 

The big point about Crowfall is, that it's basic systems allows it to be enormously flexible in the future regarding those questions. The time limited campaigns and the dying worlds principles allow to offer and adjust campaigns over time.  

So maybe a campaign with it's special rules won't work, because 50-people guilds can't compete with 200-people guilds. And maybe this may cause more people to be unhappy. In that case this single campaign would be a loss. ACE can adjust rules then and offer other campaigns with other rules that could solve the problems. And campaign rules liked by more people will probably have more success than those people hate.

We will see, once we are there. 

Just let's finish the initial game-loop first within the next few months and get into optimization and rulesets when the time has come to do so.

Thank you for the response.  I am super impressed how this game is trying to keep balance.  It doesn’t seem like p2w or no lifers will have auto win characters.

This topic is one that is pretty important to my guild.  Our moto is hardcore at hear, but casual by nature.  Most have other major commitments work/family, etc…  They do like to be competitive (doesn’t need to “win”). But they don’t want to be in last place just because they don’t play as much either.

Thanks again and looking forward to the development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good questions I'm curious myself if a 200 member guild is even possible and about how easy it will be to ally other guilds and the part they'll play in defeating a possible 200 man guild.

Share this post


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

Good questions I'm curious myself if a 200 member guild is even possible and about how easy it will be to ally other guilds and the part they'll play in defeating a possible 200 man guild.

Sure, it's possible. There are some very large "Gaming Communities". Whether they show here in those numbers, who knows. An alliance would be needed, and absolutely do-able. What the mechanics will be, again, who knows. Remember though, that doesn't mean the 200 man guild can't have allies as well! I think this will only be an issue in the Dregs, or non-faction rulesets. I've seen many server wars in Shadowbane, that's about what I would expect it to take.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 1:47 PM, Zorph said:

Just playing more gives you a huge advantage in all the situations I have seen listed

I dont actually see a issue with this. I mean, do you truly expect to have the same playing field as someone who puts alot more effort than yourself? 

 

 

As for the numbers question, it may be a real issue. But it also depends on alot of factors, including multiple different campaigns and load balancing.

The larger 400 person guild could elect to all go on one campaign and dominate it completely. So other guilds would choose to not try and contest that campaign. Or they could split their numbers across 4 campaign with 100 each which is much easier for another, much smaller guild to contest. 

Also they can adjust a "max" return from a campaign so its simply not worth putting all of a guilds eggs in one basket, forcing them to split resources anyway.

 

I think theres alot of different and clever options they can do to at the very least, limit the advantage of numbers. But i dont think they should limit the advantage that playing more gives you. Obviously theres a quality vs quantity factor you can, and should manipulate. But if two people with the same quality of play are measured against each other, the person who dedicated more time should have an advantage. 


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe play time equals effort.  If another person plays better and uses their time better that is great. They should win.  I am hoping for a more level playing field that doesn’t reward p2w or no lifers.  I

BTW I am part of a gaming community and could bring a large group of players.  But I don’t feel we should auto win because we have more players than another guild that is more efficient or plays better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 1:18 PM, Zorph said:

@Zolaz - I have read or skimmed through most of that.  Is there anything in particular for balance?  Maybe I missed it.

I want to know how a guild of 50 can compete against a guild of 200?

I have read on forums some of the smaller guilds could join forces.

Multiple worlds, limited player ability to dominate more than one.

If your small guild finds itself in a world with a team you think is just going to Zerg you, move out of their way.

Also depends on the band.  If your the big kid on the block in the dregs, could be that 5 small kids come and kick the crap out of you enough that they end up fighting for the world.

ACE has plenty of time to figure out how to do the world balance game, simply because they are not relying on getting it just right the first time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 2:47 PM, Zorph said:

I was thinking of the potential campaigns and it seems that either the biggest guild or the ones willing to play the most are likely to win (assuming close to the same ability/skill). Just playing more gives you a huge advantage in all the situations I have seen listed.  More people on your side is going to give an advantage.

Is there any talk of time played as part of the campaign? Are they doing anything limit on size of realms/guilds depending on the scenario?

 

My worry is not huge guilds but the massive power gaps in gear, of course it is related to mega guilds I guess.   Talking 40-50% more power on gear.... that's a game killing gap imo.    Gear should give a large edge advanced should be stronger but i consider a large edge 15-20%.   You still have a hope to win in those situations if you play well.   40-50% no its over you and your friends are free kills.

Picture a guild at the start of the campaign that farms during normal peoples sleeping and working hours gear up their guild and instant 40-50% stronger.... that leaves zero hope for everyone else.     Dont get me wrong the effort of the dedicated guild should lead to more power but not instant campaign is over power.    People gearing up in normal stuff should not be so much weaker as to be pointless trying, everyone should have a punchers chance let skill at least play some role.

 

Seems a shocking number of folks testing here really really hate the idea of not being 50%+ stronger just from gear giving them auto wins.   I just cant understand why people that claim they like pvp would not be cool with 15-20% stronger as a reward for their advanced farming and crafting.    Why must they demand that gear give auto wins regardless of skill?  There is nothing hardcore PvP about that at all, I bet deep down they know they lack skill and want an insane edge, kind of like cheat engine users.   I do end up gettign the top gear in games, I did not want or need my gear to give that much of an edge kills the fun for me and the people fighting me, If i play poorly make mistakes i should die to the lower geared person.... not the case in Crowfall atm gear progression needs to be balanced for sure.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 2:18 PM, Zorph said:

@Zolaz - I have read or skimmed through most of that.  Is there anything in particular for balance?  Maybe I missed it.

I want to know how a guild of 50 can compete against a guild of 200?

I have read on forums some of the smaller guilds could join forces.

if you are fighting 50v200 you are probably have other bigger problems.  You have to be Elite troops if you are counting on everyone on your side to kill in a 4 to 1 ratio.  There are very few guilds that can boast that or do that.  

If you find yourself in that situation, I suggest you beat a hasty retreat and find some friends.  Quantity has a quality all its own.


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my biggest concerns of late with CF and one I hope ACE manages to address successfully. The game has always been touted as FvF but as of late I have noticed a shift in the thinking of the testers where guild dynamics are being prioritised over those of faction.

DAoC managed rather well in terms of its RvR in keeping the main priority of the game focused on the factions even though guild identity still remained important. 

I don't know how this will be addressed but I don't think restricting the numbers of a particular guild in a campaign is the right solution as someone previously suggested. A good MMO needs to maintain an aspect of choice and I think restricting numbers will impact on this.

The problem is going to have to be addressed in another manner but whatever ACE decides to do they need to come up with something to ensure the needs of the factions always far outweigh the needs of large guilds. You only have to look at the likes of Albion Online to see how implementing systems to the benefit of these guilds only ends up having a massively negative impact on the entire game.


uGlR0Ph.png

Share this post


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

This is one of my biggest concerns of late with CF and one I hope ACE manages to address successfully. The game has always been touted as FvF but as of late I have noticed a shift in the thinking of the testers where guild dynamics are being prioritised over those of faction.

DAoC managed rather well in terms of its RvR in keeping the main priority of the game focused on the factions even though guild identity still remained important. 

I don't know how this will be addressed but I don't think restricting the numbers of a particular guild in a campaign is the right solution as someone previously suggested. A good MMO needs to maintain an aspect of choice and I think restricting numbers will impact on this.

The problem is going to have to be addressed in another manner but whatever ACE decides to do they need to come up with something to ensure the needs of the factions always far outweigh the needs of large guilds. You only have to look at the likes of Albion Online to see how implementing systems to the benefit of these guilds only ends up having a massively negative impact on the entire game.

Only half of the game is FvF (3fac and 12fac campaigns)

The other half is GvG (GvG and Dregs)

The problem is that the other half is not in any way represented as a test environment the moment, so all of the natural GvG organizations are on the only servers they can play.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I won't be playing there, the only concern with the 3 faction/DAoC model will be people, or guilds, jumping in on the strongest percieved faction to "win" at campaign. Look at the way it is currently. In my experience at least, the population trends highest for Chaos, then Order with Balance pulling up the rear. I'm not going to debate the tug of war mechanic, as I will think that will change. It's too easy of a win condition for that faction (basically shifting all your numbers on to the "losing" side until they, of course, are no longer "losing")

I wouldn't want everyone jumping to the percieved strongest faction, just for the sake of winning easy and "phat lootz" at campaign end. It cant be a random generation of faction assignment, because it would split up guild/community members. 

Maybe if guilds had to register for campaigns with a number of slots for players, providing a preference to faction. Ace could then assign the factions with roughly equal numbers, though the desired faction may not be achieved or designated. This of course would hamper "faction identity". I guess there is no good answer.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our guild is a larger gaming community and if “Crowfall” was the game we picked we could easily be the 200 member guild.  But we have been on that side also and it isn’t fun.  We like more fair competition when possible. 

I am just suggesting that when making campaigns to consider the differences in play time and size of guilds.  I and I bet many are OK losing because the other side was better (more organized/skilled).  But I hear people crying all the time that someone got a slight advantage for paying.  Why is it so different if they get a HUGE advantage and almost an auto win if they play 2 times more?

Every other sport/game tries to even out the teams and makes it fair for all.  I don’t know of any other game that allows one side to play and gets points for playing longer.  Look at MOBA and FPS everyone gets the same play time.  They don’t make the give win condition on how many kills you can get in 2-3 months.

I know Ace and the rest are going to address this in the future.  Just talking in this forum.

Share this post


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

Though I won't be playing there, the only concern with the 3 faction/DAoC model will be people, or guilds, jumping in on the strongest percieved faction to "win" at campaign. Look at the way it is currently. In my experience at least, the population trends highest for Chaos, then Order with Balance pulling up the rear. I'm not going to debate the tug of war mechanic, as I will think that will change. It's too easy of a win condition for that faction (basically shifting all your numbers on to the "losing" side until they, of course, are no longer "losing")

I wouldn't want everyone jumping to the percieved strongest faction, just for the sake of winning easy and "phat lootz" at campaign end. It cant be a random generation of faction assignment, because it would split up guild/community members. 

Maybe if guilds had to register for campaigns with a number of slots for players, providing a preference to faction. Ace could then assign the factions with roughly equal numbers, though the desired faction may not be achieved or designated. This of course would hamper "faction identity". I guess there is no good answer.

TBH I don't think faction identity should be a priority.

As a guy who intends to take our small guild to faction campaigns at release, I'm far more interested in the faction campaigns overall design goal of providing an environment in which smaller organizations intentionally give up a measure of identity and control in exchange for built in systemic alliances that persist for the campaign.

It creates a push for people to treat the world bands as a "difficulty tier" system on an organizational level, which is precisely why I think its a fantastic system for making crowfall and open pvp systems in general more accessible without dumbing them down.

If you want greater identity, loot, and control you should be willing to enter the campaign rings designed for it. Faction bands are purpose designed so that your guild isn't any more important than anyone else's and for this reason a "guild preference registration" system that at least attempts to balance populations and prevent gaming the system for the same reason that such a system is entirely inappropriate in GvG and Dregs.

The game should endeavor to fit organizations in campaigns that are natural fits for their member counts, and piling 200 people in to a faction you know already dominates the map isn't quite in the spirit of faction campaigns, and should thus be systemically discouraged. That option remains open to you, but that option should remain open to you in its proper context, in gvg and dregs, where you'll also have to deal with the intended hardships of player politics and reputation to make it work.

Faction campaigns SHOULD be load balanced because their entire reason for existing is to provide a load balanced game for people that can't or don't want to compete in the other, non-load balanced, half of the campaigns.

If you want your guild to matter, you should be encouraged to graduate to campaigns where your guild is intended to matter. If you just want built in allies who can't leave you, you should also be prepared to fight in whichever faction actually needs your help.

As a "faction guy" my goal is quite simply to use those bands to grow my organization in to something I feel comfortable in moving to tougher bands. I think it seems only natural that no guild should be synonymous with a faction because factions are specifically designed to be systemic entities with no player defined identity anyway.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


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

TBH I don't think faction identity should be a priority.

Faction campaigns SHOULD be load balanced because their entire reason for existing is to provide a load balanced game for people that can't or don't want to compete in the other, non-load balanced, half of the campaigns.

Agreed.

My point was to say that "some" may relish the idea of repping a certain faction. Also, lets say I had a small guild, 15 to 20 (of which I could form up 8 to 10 usually). I really enjoy cooperating with you in a campaign. I may find myself on opposite sides in the next campaign, which would be unfortunate (assuming that ACE did assign guild rosters to random factions for the sake of balance (no pun intended)). 

So again, you are 100% correct. Balancing the campaign is priority one. Just stating some things that some players may not particularly care for.


.

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...