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

"Soft" Population Control: Total Export Cap

Recommended Posts

Saw a post on trying to even out the populations for each faction to keep things balanced, and while I do feel the system should keep it loose so that we can benefit from alliances and politicking and such, there should be pros and cons to everything. So, for discussion, here's an idea to play around with: Instead of having every world have a "Export X Slots Per Player", have it "Export X Slots Per Faction". In this, you could have a hypothetical campaign that has an export of 100 slots per faction. If that faction only has a single player, they will receive all the slots, being able to export 100 slots worth of items if they win. But if the faction has two players, each player will receive only 50 of the 100, evenly distributing the slots to the players.

 

This will create a balancing effect in which players self-police the population of their faction, weighing the pros and cons of whether it's worth the loss per-player to bring more people in or if it's worth the risk to join less populated factions for greater reward.

 

Thoughts on this sort of system? Are there any obvious problems that might arise from this? 

Edited by Dondagora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like this sort of system, where being a zerg means splitting up the spoils of war across more people.

The opposite would be terrible-- where you get more spoils of war as a direct consequence of being a bigger zerg.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jah said:

I do like this sort of system, where being a zerg means splitting up the spoils of war across more people.

The opposite would be terrible-- where you get more spoils of war as a direct consequence of being a bigger zerg.

I like the idea of the system, but in faction campaigns it could be a problem.

Imagine the problem of a hostile faction buying up accounts, flooding a side, and then exporting on timer or zerging the win event. But that's faction, and low quality mats, so really, not nearly as much impact to not put a restriction like this in place.

On the guilds and dregs campaigns, yea it could work.

It would allow ACE to influence groups to what they thought was a good guild size, without outright dictating.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of devs not meddling with politics and if we as the community turn things to poorly made socks then shame on us.


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mandalore said:

I like the idea of devs not meddling with politics and if we as the community turn things to poorly made socks then shame on us.

"Meddling with politics" is an unavoidable side-effect of designing the game. Different designs have different impacts on politics.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jah said:

"Meddling with politics" is an unavoidable side-effect of designing the game. Different designs have different impacts on politics.

 

Don't be so pedantic.  As little dev intervention as possible in politics is important in a game with pvp and consequences.  Zergs will rise and fall, if the community has issues with this let the community handle them.  If some people need to be hunted and killed, Mr. Freeman, then let the community do it.  Fair fights aren't really possible, nothing is ever truly fair and coding far enough to meddle in the politics of the community is a step too far.

Edited by mandalore

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mandalore said:

Don't be so pedantic.  As little dev intervention as possible in politics is important in a game with pvp and consequences.  Zergs will rise and fall, if the community has issues with this let the community handle them.  If some people need to be hunted and killed, Mr. Freeman, then let the community do it.  Fair fights aren't really possible, nothing is ever truly fair and coding far enough to meddle in the politics of the community is a step too far.

I am not being pedantic. Any design decision will have an effect on how politics will play out. I think this mantra of "not meddling with politics" amounts to putting ones head in the sand and ignoring what the consequences of different design decisions will be.

Yes, zergs will rise and fall. But some designs make them more likely to rise. Some designs make them less likely to fall.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want fair fights or any other kind of forced fairness. But I do think anticipating the effect of different designs on player behavior is important.

 


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mandalore said:

 

Don't be so pedantic.  As little dev intervention as possible in politics is important in a game with pvp and consequences.  Zergs will rise and fall, if the community has issues with this let the community handle them.  If some people need to be hunted and killed, Mr. Freeman, then let the community do it.  Fair fights aren't really possible, nothing is ever truly fair and coding far enough to meddle in the politics of the community is a step too far.

Don't be so dramatic. 

ACE is laying down the rules of the game so that it's fun for most players, and whatever they end up restricting export limits by are the rules of the game.  That's not intervention, that's game design, and everyone will be on the same playing field.

Intervention or meddling would be if after a world ended they decided they didn't like the winning team, and then changed the export rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mandalore said:

 

Don't be so pedantic.  As little dev intervention as possible in politics is important in a game with pvp and consequences.  Zergs will rise and fall, if the community has issues with this let the community handle them.  If some people need to be hunted and killed, Mr. Freeman, then let the community do it.  Fair fights aren't really possible, nothing is ever truly fair and coding far enough to meddle in the politics of the community is a step too far.

 I wouldn't consider it "interfering in politics", just another mechanic which entails managing a limited resource which, in this case, is Export. Just like how you can't "have the cake and eat it too" with any other resource, it will incite player interaction, but not dictate it in any heavy-handed manner, I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jah said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't want fair fights or any other kind of forced fairness. But I do think anticipating the effect of different designs on player behavior is important.

That's oddly specific and clear for you.  I don't think you can code for a good community though, people are poorly made socks regardless. 

 

45 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Don't be so dramatic. 

ACE is laying down the rules of the game so that it's fun for most players, and whatever they end up restricting export limits by are the rules of the game.  That's not intervention, that's game design, and everyone will be on the same playing field.

Intervention or meddling would be if after a world ended they decided they didn't like the winning team, and then changed the export rules.

They aren't making a game for most players, JTC has iterated that multiple times.  This is a game of conquest, of assets, of thrones, of betrayal so please please take your "fair and even"  hogwash back to wow or whatever godforsaken instanced pve game cursed us with you.  If you lose you deserve nothing, if you win then you should be able to decide how its distributed among the ranks.  If selfish people try to steal from their guilds, they will eventually be outed or they wont but that's for the community not the devs, 

Edited by mandalore

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mandalore said:

I don't think you can code for a good community though, people are poorly made socks regardless. 

Personally, I'd rather code for a bad community. Good communities are boring.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jah said:

Personally, I'd rather code for a bad community. Good communities are boring.

They are indeed boring but then some people want fair boring games. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

They aren't making a game for most players, JTC has iterated that multiple times.  This is a game of conquest, of assets, of thrones, of betrayal so please please take your "fair and even"  hogwash back to wow or whatever godforsaken instanced pve game cursed us with you.  If you lose you deserve nothing, if you win then you should be able to decide how its distributed among the ranks.  If selfish people try to steal from their guilds, they will eventually be outed or they wont but that's for the community not the devs, 

I ment all the players that DO play the game, not all the players that COULD play the game.  If it's not fun for most of them, then ACE won't have them for long, and the game will be dead. 

Your argument is a false dilemma.  There is going to be a spectrum of systems and both advantages and disadvantages to groups that ACE will lay out.  They seem pretty set on the small group size and FF rules, which has an impact on the effectiveness of groups. Heck, they don't even know what they are going to do with exports and rewards yet, so I have no clue how you are concluding one policy or another is dev interference. 

 

19 minutes ago, mandalore said:

They are indeed boring but then some people want fair boring games. 

All games need to have rules that are reasonable and fair that all players play by, or they are not in fact games. 

If I was allowed to for example mail Todd $10,000 and he would give me an indestructible set of gear with the best stats, 10X the health of any other character, and full exports win or lose,  you would rightly be disgruntled off and probably start in about the game not being "fair". 

So drop the belittling commentary, it only weakens your arguments and taints your opinions.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were in QFT?  How many Tough as Nails are you stacking?


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

They aren't making a game for most players, JTC has iterated that multiple times.  This is a game of conquest, of assets, of thrones, of betrayal so please please take your "fair and even"  hogwash back to wow or whatever godforsaken instanced pve game cursed us with you.  If you lose you deserve nothing, if you win then you should be able to decide how its distributed among the ranks.  If selfish people try to steal from their guilds, they will eventually be outed or they wont but that's for the community not the devs, 

So you say this, but when a faction wins, who's to decide how the exportation is split up? If it's "everybody gets 10 slots to take stuff in", then isn't that "fair and even" hogwash? It sounds to me like you want to give everybody on the winning side participation trophies for picking the right faction if you prefer this way about it.

 

But I say this: if you spend $100 on a chocolate bar, you'll have lost money for over-investing on the chocolate. You spend $5 on the chocolate bar, you're getting what you put in. You spend $1 on the chocolate bar, you negotiated a steal. This is, of course, an analogy for how I view how the conquests should work. Just as you say, if you win you take everything, if you lose you get nothing, but not all victories are equal. If you spent $100 dollars on a chocolate bar, you've still "won", but you just exerted the most amount of effort and probably got the worst end in terms of chocolate per dollar.

 

And you're also talking a lot about "letting the community decide what to do", but this alternate to the system wouldn't prevent that in any way, at least not any more than the current one does. Guilds can still redistribute their loot from a campaign victory, and people can still steal from their guilds, and guilds can still punish thieves, and thieves can still get away with their misdeeds. The community is still in control, but now victory is just a single chocolate bar and it's up to the community to decide how much it's worth to them.

Edited by Dondagora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget you guys want to play tri-faction and hide.  My mistake, as you were.   


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago, I argued that all exporting should be done at the single character (account) level. You embargo materials, and based on win/loss rules, you get a percent of all those materials.

Guild A: Very large, all* exports run through leadership, so all embargoed materials are in their accounts when the CW ends. Do they adequately pay their members? Build the equipment and invest in buildings necessary and helpful to their members or themselves?

Guild B: Very large, FFA exports with guild runs. Do the membership at large give enough to their guild to support their numbers? What expectations do you set?

Guild C: Small, tight-knit. Regardless of who embargoes what, everything is pooled together and strategically used.

The answers to these questions help determine how long these guilds survives this game. You can imagine other scenarios.

No caps necessary, players reacting to what other players do. As for set factions, I don't care what you do, but stay away from any caps, hard or soft, in my Dregs.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


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

No caps necessary, players reacting to what other players do. As for set factions, I don't care what you do, but stay away from any caps, hard or soft, in my Dregs.

Preach brother, preach!


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, McTan said:

Years ago, I argued that all exporting should be done at the single character (account) level. You embargo materials, and based on win/loss rules, you get a percent of all those materials.

Guild A: Very large, all* exports run through leadership, so all embargoed materials are in their accounts when the CW ends. Do they adequately pay their members? Build the equipment and invest in buildings necessary and helpful to their members or themselves?

Guild B: Very large, FFA exports with guild runs. Do the membership at large give enough to their guild to support their numbers? What expectations do you set?

Guild C: Small, tight-knit. Regardless of who embargoes what, everything is pooled together and strategically used.

The answers to these questions help determine how long these guilds survives this game. You can imagine other scenarios.

No caps necessary, players reacting to what other players do. As for set factions, I don't care what you do, but stay away from any caps, hard or soft, in my Dregs.

All modes have embargo rules which determine how much you get, but for the Dregs I'd like it to work something like this (just my personal preference):

Just as suggested here, there's an amount of slots given to the victor for them to export items from the campaign. With kneeling mechanics, though, the winner may distribute their slots to others. In a similar fashion to other rulesets, making and promising export slots to too many that kneel to you might diminish your own reward a good amount, should you follow through. In this sense, victory will be seen as a limited resource which engages players more with each other than making campaigns giant gather quests.

We have differing opinions on this and probably won't come to any agreement here, but I feel there's merits to both our concepts. Yours considers exports to be capless and, in that sense, provide players an ultimate freedom to take everything. Mine takes exporting, and therefore victory, and makes it into a limited resource to further engage and incite players. To which I say thus: literally no downside to testing both, benefit of temperary campaign worlds afterall.

Edited by Dondagora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one area where I would like to see it play out live a bit first - can be pre-release, in testing - before we commit to anything that might be used by people with an ulterior motive against Crowfall. While I do prefer a hands off approach, no artificial constraints, I also see and have seen how badly that can go. I think we need a clearer picture of how everything is going to work before we can make any firm conclusions on this one.

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...