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

PvP Options Outside of CWs

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MJayed said:

An arena mode does not threaten the player-driven focus of this game. If an arena(or alternative PvP gamemode) uses gear obtained through CW/EKs, the players will have to participate in the core game to its full extent to be relevant in those modes. EK's that want to have PvP arenas and/or events won't be obsolete. They can be used for practice, tournaments/events with prizes, and pickup fights.

Game-provided instant PvP options has vast appeal to many types of players. PvP with low stress/risk and minimal downtime is something a lot of players will want from time to time. This game is advertised as a PvP mmo and it will attract players that will enjoy an option like that.

Except those very options have the tendency to detract from other alternatives, I’ve seen it in many games. When battlegrounds were introduced in wow, open world pvp participation dropped significantly. Crowfall will never be a good arena pvp, and there already better options for that anyway. What crowfall should focus on is being the best open world, territorial siege based pvp game. Have different flavours / variations of that.

Share this post


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

Except those very options have the tendency to detract from other alternatives, I’ve seen it in many games. When battlegrounds were introduced in wow, open world pvp participation dropped significantly. Crowfall will never be a good arena pvp, and there already better options for that anyway. What crowfall should focus on is being the best open world, territorial siege based pvp game. Have different flavours / variations of that.

I am not a WoW player, but Crowfall forces world PvP in order to get anything in this game. Death to world PvP would be the death of Crowfall. I truly do not think unranked 1v1 or 6v6 arenas will kill the game.

edit: If this game was a normal mmo where world pvp is an option but not required...I would agree. CF is not that type of game.

Edited by MJayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MJayed said:

I am not a WoW player, but Crowfall forces world PvP in order to get anything in this game. Death to world PvP would be the death of Crowfall. I truly do not think unranked 1v1 or 6v6 arenas will kill the game.

edit: If this game was a normal mmo where world pvp is an option but not required...I would agree. CF is not that type of game.

If Crowfall tries to attract an audience that would rather play arena matches than campaigns, those customers will resent being forced to play in Campaigns in order to compete in arenas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 4:13 PM, MJayed said:

So? There is counter play outside of disciplines as well such as player skill. I know guys who make builds to kill their counters. This isn't supposed to be a competitive game mode. Some people love beating people when they are at a disadvantage. There is no risk or rewards. The real competition is CWs. Arenas are for fun.

Winning is fun. To win you need to compete.

If there is no reward, people won't bother if they are just going to get steamrolled.

I'm not sure you have played many online games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think player driven PvP events in EKs will be more than enough to fill this need without detracting from the campaigns.

That being said there should never be any consideration for removing durability loss From EKs, as much as I love dueling, the thought of EKs dedicated to risk free activities sounds like an incredible detraction from campaigns. If no one is making that argument here, pardon me. Just have seen it mentioned before in regards to hopeful EK focused players.

Besides for the points around not balancing the game around 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3 (pick your poison) it could be cool to see events in campaigns that provide some benefits towards win conditions or providing temporary benefits to factions or guilds. All thats needed is to limit player involvment to some type of evenly matched game mode (Hunger Dome, anyone? Maybe even gladitorial events for individual rewards?). This could be accomplished through creating a separate world as part of an event that players would join or queue through the runegates as part a campaign cluster/bands (however these terms apply). When it expires it is no longer accessible and is therefore not an ongoing thing. That would be my compromise, and I agree it would be fun.

Edited by Lightsig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This suggestion uses the same flawed logic as "we should put in pve dropped gear" and "we should have pve servers" in that it appeals to accessibility at the expense of the fundamental design of the game.

ACE has been pretty clear on this, they're making one game, and variants on that game are intended to be alternate campaign rules, with the EKs being the player controlled endpoint of all winnings for use showing off, building player controlled spaces with player controlled rules, and in some cases as a limited economic link between campaigns in the form of imports.

Avoiding things in crowfall you hate is intended to be an opportunity to create a relationship between you and another player that likes doing those things. Allowing you to short circuit that mechanism chips away at the very foundation of that design by robbing other players of the potential of that relationship. As the game is primarily designed around fostering rather than avoiding relationships both cooperative and antagonistic with other players, any suggestions that aim to avoid them are inherently at odds with crowfall's design.

There are enough MMOs trying and failing to be all things to all people. It doesn't take some astronomical million or more players to run a successful, populated game. It takes a team and a community willing to work within the limitations of a niche audience that can provide the budget of a niche audience.

Edited by PopeUrban

Share this post


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

I think player driven PvP events in EKs will be more than enough to fill this need without detracting from the campaigns.

That being said there should never be any consideration for removing durability loss From EKs, as much as I love dueling, the thought of EKs dedicated to risk free activities sounds like an incredible detraction from campaigns. If no one is making that argument here, pardon me. Just have seen it mentioned before in regards to hopeful EK focused players.

Besides for the points around not balancing the game around 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3 (pick your poison) it could be cool to see events in campaigns that provide some benefits towards win conditions or providing temporary benefits to factions or guilds. All thats needed is to limit player involvment to some type of evenly matched game mode (Hunger Dome, anyone? Maybe even gladitorial events for individual rewards?). This could be accomplished through creating a separate world as part of an event that players would join or queue through the runegates as part a campaign cluster/bands (however these terms apply). When it expires it is no longer accessible and is therefore not an ongoing thing. That would be my compromise, and I agree it would be fun.

Already a thing, in CW and EK.  You can die and as long as you don't get beheaded, you can be revived without durability loss.

So all a player needs to do is set up an EK with rules about not beheading, and enforce them, and no dura loss exists.

Share this post


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

Already a thing, in CW and EK.  You can die and as long as you don't get beheaded, you can be revived without durability loss.

So all a player needs to do is set up an EK with rules about not beheading, and enforce them, and no dura loss exists.

I mean, I can understand why they would do that now, in testing. Hopefully that doesn't carry over to launch *fingers crossed*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lightsig said:

I mean, I can understand why they would do that now, in testing. Hopefully that doesn't carry over to launch *fingers crossed*

If you don't get beheaded while you are bleeding out, and you get resurrected before you release, then you haven't really died. I don't think that is a testing mechanic, that is how it is intended to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

This suggestion uses the same flawed logic as "we should put in pve dropped gear" and "we should have pve servers" in that it appeals to accessibility at the expense of the fundamental design of the game.

ACE has been pretty clear on this, they're making one game, and variants on that game are intended to be alternate campaign rules, with the EKs being the player controlled endpoint of all winnings for use showing off, building player controlled spaces with player controlled rules, and in some cases as a limited economic link between campaigns in the form of imports.

Avoiding things in crowfall you hate is intended to be an opportunity to create a relationship between you and another player that likes doing those things. Allowing you to short circuit that mechanism chips away at the very foundation of that design by robbing other players of the potential of that relationship. As the game is primarily designed around fostering rather than avoiding relationships both cooperative and antagonistic with other players, any suggestions that aim to avoid them are inherently at odds with crowfall's design.

There are enough MMOs trying and failing to be all things to all people. It doesn't take some astronomical million or more players to run a successful, populated game. It takes a team and a community willing to work within the limitations of a niche audience that can provide the budget of a niche audience.

*assuming you are talking about arenas*

This is off target.  Arenas are not an alternative to CW's like PvE options are. You can't go to arenas to circumvent the core game. If you go to arenas without playing in CW's you will not be able to compete. The main goal of this suggestion is to offer a viable alternative to CW PvP that requires CW participation and resources to be competent at.

On 5/8/2018 at 9:08 PM, Jah said:

If Crowfall tries to attract an audience that would rather play arena matches than campaigns, those customers will resent being forced to play in Campaigns in order to compete in arenas.

I agree that players who want to be good in arenas will have to join CW's. I disagree that this is a problem. The game isn't going to be advertised as an arena mmo. Customers resent games for a multitude of reasons and I don't see being forced to play the game a reason many will get behind.

22 hours ago, DocHollidaze said:

Winning is fun. To win you need to compete.

If there is no reward, people won't bother if they are just going to get steamrolled.

I'm not sure you have played many online games.

I win in most multiplayer games I play. I know the attitude that competitive people have. :}

Rewards? Competitive people do not need rewards. If you were reading this thread players like Zatch just want to beat people in campaigns. Being the "best" is a driving force in itself.

You want to get a reward? Play the core game...use your rewards in arenas/eks/etc.

Edited by MJayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's been a lively thread for almost a week, and no dev response. They either didn't see it, saw and don't care, or saw and and care but don't have time to respond. None of us surely have a say in it, and you aren't going to convince anybody who thinks differently from you, because well that's not how humans generally work. So... </thread>

Edited by DocHollidaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 4:11 PM, izkimar said:

Except those very options have the tendency to detract from other alternatives, I’ve seen it in many games. When battlegrounds were introduced in wow, open world pvp participation dropped significantly. Crowfall will never be a good arena pvp, and there already better options for that anyway. What crowfall should focus on is being the best open world, territorial siege based pvp game. Have different flavours / variations of that.

OW PVP in WoW was pointless and the typical gankfest that happens in PVE games. BGs offered rewards and ranking in a structured "fair" setting. However, while PVP gear was okay, for the most part playing the main focus of the game (PVE) provided the best gear that in turn could be used in PVP. I realize this has changed over the years.

The Hungerdome setup was rather fun despite the early stage of development. Taking that idea and whatever "arena" versions a step further could be even more entertaining. To me, such things are as you suggest, flavors/variations of the core model. Although if that did remove precious resources from the core, that wouldn't fly. If ACE is struggling for years down the line where they have no possibility for growth, might not be so good.

On 5/8/2018 at 6:08 PM, Jah said:

If Crowfall tries to attract an audience that would rather play arena matches than campaigns, those customers will resent being forced to play in Campaigns in order to compete in arenas.

Pretty sure I didn't resent DAoC because of Battlegrounds nor did it stop what I enjoyed about the game (RVR). BGs were mini RVR, not too different than what an "Arena" could be to a full fledged CW. Someone not clear about what a game is all about and resenting it has larger issues.

7 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

This suggestion uses the same flawed logic as "we should put in pve dropped gear" and "we should have pve servers" in that it appeals to accessibility at the expense of the fundamental design of the game.

ACE has been pretty clear on this, they're making one game, and variants on that game are intended to be alternate campaign rules, with the EKs being the player controlled endpoint of all winnings for use showing off, building player controlled spaces with player controlled rules, and in some cases as a limited economic link between campaigns in the form of imports.

Avoiding things in crowfall you hate is intended to be an opportunity to create a relationship between you and another player that likes doing those things. Allowing you to short circuit that mechanism chips away at the very foundation of that design by robbing other players of the potential of that relationship. As the game is primarily designed around fostering rather than avoiding relationships both cooperative and antagonistic with other players, any suggestions that aim to avoid them are inherently at odds with crowfall's design.

There are enough MMOs trying and failing to be all things to all people. It doesn't take some astronomical million or more players to run a successful, populated game. It takes a team and a community willing to work within the limitations of a niche audience that can provide the budget of a niche audience.

As I commented above, I don't see how an "Arena" or whatever slimmed down version of a CW would change anything. The OP suggests players having to play in CW to gain whatever gear and what not to be effective in alternate forms of play. Would simply allow another outlet and reason to keep logged in and playing instead of logging out and doing something else because of insert reasons.

In any MMO I've played that offered optional "Arenas," I've spent plenty of hours in them when the larger game was on hold (friends/guild offline or not active, needing a break from the "grind," small gameplay time, practice outside of sterile dueling, etc). I could of just as easily logged off and played something else or gone for a walk. Instead I kept my time/energy/money focused on that particular game. Hanging out and fostering relationships in an EK is not what I signed up for. I don't need a social simulator. Already have a throne war sim, wood chooping sim, running sim....

Totally understand not wanting to cater to everyone, but offering alternate ways to play the core game (the fundamental design of the game IMO) seems possible at some point in time with a successful game. A micro version of a CW or removing features doesn't greatly impact the overall game if that nice community is still active and participating. If they only want to make "one game" they should of done that, by design it is more than that IMO. Ex: Hungerdome - Having the exact version as before, even with gear provided, would not take anything away from the core CW system.

2 hours ago, DocHollidaze said:

Well, it's been a lively thread for almost a week, and no dev response. They either didn't see it, saw and don't care, or saw and and care but don't have time to respond. None of us surely have a say in it, and you aren't going to convince anybody who thinks differently from you, because well that's not how humans generally work. So... </thread>

Not sure you understand how this forum or the internet work...

2 hours ago, Lightsig said:

"Why should the devs even consider such an impactful and game changing system in the current state of development?", is the right question.

 

How would any form of "arena" impact/change the game?

OP's 1st sentence starts with this being a post launch suggestion. This is the suggestion forum. Devs clearly have plenty on their hands, but it's fairly natural and common to have such forums to let fans throw their ideas out there. Even if one of them popped in and said "that sounds interesting," has no bearing on what they do now or years down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, APE said:

How would any form of "arena" impact/change the game?

Whether this was available at release or added years down the road "arenas", instanced PvP not impacting or impacted by campaigns, would heavily impact the distribution of players across the campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lightsig said:

Whether this was available at release or added years down the road "arenas", instanced PvP not impacting or impacted by campaigns, would heavily impact the distribution of players across the campaigns.

Personally, would be neat to see "Skirmish" style worlds where you can go in with five (6v6) to eleven (12v12) other players and have a mini-war of your own. Maybe some crazy game types along with it, for fun and flavor. But this seems like something that would be great after full launch, when they have gotten their base game down moreso to me. Since its already a hurdle in their way. 

Edited by Theoval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, APE said:

Someone not clear about what a game is all about and resenting it has larger issues.

I get the impression that those larger issues are widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, APE said:

In any MMO I've played that offered optional "Arenas," I've spent plenty of hours in them when the larger game was on hold (friends/guild offline or not active, needing a break from the "grind," small gameplay time, practice outside of sterile dueling, etc). I could of just as easily logged off and played something else or gone for a walk. Instead I kept my time/energy/money focused on that particular game.

Here's my thought:

I like to play other games, go for walks, etc. I don't need basketball to also be football any more than I need this whole throne war simulator to also be an arena pvp game. It absolutely takes development focus to implement and update such things, and creates community fracturing in a game that already has by design a high degree of community fracturing due to campaign bands.

What is so wrong with playing an arena game when you want to experience of an arena game, playing a battle royale game when you want to play a battle royale game, and playing a throne war game with farming and thievery and your gear breaking when you want that experience?

Like, what's this fascination people have with only being able to play one game even though they clearly actually want to be playing two or three different games? If the game you're playing is boring because people aren't online or whatever, what is gained by playing a watered down version of what you could be playing if you just logged out and played a game entirely centered around that?

That's what I don't get about these kinds of suggestions rooted in 'accessibility' or 'retention' or in a broader industry sense making "live services" out of games poorly suited for that monetization model. You're basically adding separate games to the one you're already playing for no good reason other than to bring in and retain customers that don't want to play your game anyway by either entrapping them in a skinner box or offering them a version of a thing they already sort of liked but got bored of that still isn't as good. You just end up with fractured products where most of the parts are simply never as good as they could have been if you simply focused on being one game and not one game and two or three crappy mods for that game.

Edited by PopeUrban

Share this post


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

Here's my thought:

I like to play other games, go for walks, etc. I don't need basketball to also be football any more than I need this whole throne war simulator to also be an arena pvp game. It absolutely takes development focus to implement and update such things, and creates community fracturing in a game that already has by design a high degree of community fracturing due to campaign bands.

What is so wrong with playing an arena game when you want to experience of an arena game, playing a battle royale game when you want to play a battle royale game, and playing a throne war game with farming and thievery and your gear breaking when you want that experience?

Like, what's this fascination people have with only being able to play one game even though they clearly actually want to be playing two or three different games? If the game you're playing is boring because people aren't online or whatever, what is gained by playing a watered down version of what you could be playing if you just logged out and played a game entirely centered around that?

That's what I don't get about these kinds of suggestions rooted in 'accessibility' or 'retention' or in a broader industry sense making "live services" out of games poorly suited for that monetization model. You're basically adding separate games to the one you're already playing for no good reason other than to bring in and retain customers that don't want to play your game anyway by either entrapping them in a skinner box or offering them a version of a thing they already sort of liked but got bored of that still isn't as good. You just end up with fractured products where most of the parts are simply never as good as they could have been if you simply focused on being one game and not one game and two or three crappy mods for that game.

Your right, but the draw to blend is an achiever trait.  I know, I have it.  There is this unspoken, often not even consciously registered draw to the idea of progress in one thing being applicable to another.

It sorta like how Pokemon Go tried to bill itself as a exercise thing.  Ohh, two birds with one stone, yay.  

The draw to use your Open world training to also excel in an arena with the exact same skills, reflexes, and even equipment is a rather big one.

That's what the fascination is.  You wouldn't see it with people to play PUBG/CF, because there is no achievements in PUBG to speak of. But take a MOBA with even simple leveling like League of legends, and suddenly the idea you could redesign an arena game that utilizes the existing CF progression, and you have to spend zero time grinding levels in the MOBA version, while still benefiting.

Arena is about the only variant of CF I simply don't agree with being workable.  I've played LoL, and tried to even climb the ladder, (never broke into gold), and I know how absolutely critical the balance in the game is. Just go look at the change log on powers.  .25 second nerf here, .10 second buff here.  It's absolutely crazy how important every single microsecond and every single half of a percentage point in stats is. 

No way do I want ACE to have to worry about that.  Players making a few wall cages and arenas for others to watch what would basically be gladiators beating the stuffing out of each other is about as close as I think this game should ever come to "Arena" sports.

All the rest of the options I have seen like short term campaigns, raid adventure style worlds, one and done death worlds, hungerdome and others can work. 

But an arena where balance is absolutely critical because of the nature of the game, nope.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...