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

"Soft" Population Control: Total Export Cap

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mandalore said:

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

This suggestion is literally only applicable to faction campaigns. It wouldn't make any sense in dregs where there's no built in factions to balance.

Its also a poorly made socksty idea for faction campaigns.

There is a limited window for joining campaigns in the final design. Just let people register for faction campaigns as a unit, and disallow joining a new guild while in a campaign. Automatically population balance the 3 or 12 factions at the end of registration. Don't let people choose their faction. Just expect them to choose a guild/sub to one if they want to play with specific people, or register alone if they don't particularly care. Use guild pops to numbers balance the campaigns at the time of registration and fill in the remainder with solo registers.

Done. Faction campaigns are population balanced, bandwagoning is impossible, and the small guilds and new solo players those campaigns are made for function as intended.

Let people send and accept guild invites while tied to the campaign but don't allow them to "activate" until it is over. Let people gkick while tied to the campaign to get rid of trouble in their own ranks, and it won't destabalize the pop numbers.

Collect metrics per account on hours played and play times and use that data over time to weight them as a larger or smaller impact on population. After a few campaigns you'll have a robust dataset that can attempt to balance faction campaigns via not just population, but timezone spread and average time played as well.

And just don't bother attempting to pop balance dregs. The pop balances itself there.

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
3 hours 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.

 

I know many people that only have to log in once with all their ALT accounts to get that share based on overly simplistic end of campaign rules.  No matter how you try to design it, say for example by requiring X hours played, or whatever, some clever players will figure out how to game around the increasingly complex rules you will have to apply. Those rules would have to decide things like "How about the participation of pure crafter players?", "Are all crafting roles equal by design?", "What resources should count for more 'effort' to harvest over others?", and other impossible to algorithmically answer questions.  

Also, end of world embargo only, will result in a totally cut game economy loop for EK's.  They are going to need regular occurrences of material input to have an effective economy,  just like people get paychecks every two weeks, not one every quarter.

If you try to do it only by account, you are left with two choices.

  • ALT owners can collect a full share per ATL no matter the participation
  • Totally unwieldy rules trying to determine individual participation.

However.

If the team is forced to decide amongst themselves the amounts to split, you leave it MORE in the hands of the players to figure out for themselves, not less like some are suggesting.

Bring your 5+ alts and park them, the only way you get a share of the bounty is if your teammates valued your contribution, not because you imported a pile of gold and bought resources and parked the account.  If your guild Zergs a server in a week, all the members get to only share a one shiny gold ore between them because they had such high numbers and won so fast.  

But probably the best way to handle it is a mix.  Every player gets a set amount, AND the team gets a collective amount to distribute. That way the system makes sure everyone gets something, and players get to decide amongst themselves who to reward with extra for going the extra mile.

Share this post


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

Automatically population balance the 3 or 12 factions at the end of registration. Don't let people choose their faction. Just expect them to choose a guild/sub to one if they want to play with specific people, or register alone if they don't particularly care. Use guild pops to numbers balance the campaigns at the time of registration and fill in the remainder with solo registers.

Done.

Yea no poorly made socks done. 

Done as in, now you have a game nobody will play because they don't have a real choice how to play it, or who they play it with.  Why not just pick their race, class, and profession training for them as well?

Share this post


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

Yea no poorly made socks done. 

Done as in, now you have a game nobody will play because they don't have a real choice how to play it, or who they play it with.  Why not just pick their race, class, and profession training for them as well?

Because race/class and professions aren't identical and player choice actually matters.

Factions are functionally identical.

People can guild or sub to play with exactly who they want to.

The only choice they don't have is what color the NPC faction shield over their head is.

Loss of personal responsibility and a measure of prestige to be assured of a reasonable number of allies and a reasonably balanced number of enemies is the entire point of faction campaigns. Your faction does not represent you and never did its a box filled with random people that you can't control. There's no reason to let you choose it when letting you do so undermines the fundamental point of the faction ruleset.

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
17 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

If the team is forced to decide amongst themselves the amounts to split, you leave it MORE in the hands of the players to figure out for themselves, not less like some are suggesting.

Per Todd, on multiple occasions, the entire function of faction rulesets is that players have zero control of decisions to make at the faction level.

Allowing the "team" to choose assume the team has a heirarchy and leadership. It does not by design. The 50 man guild has equal importance as a solo player that logs in once for all possible decisions to be made within the confines of faction rulesets.

Teams do not have leaders in faction rulesets by design. Everyone is the same grunt member, and there are no officers.

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
22 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Because race/class and professions aren't identical and player choice actually matters.

Your assuming that gods and factions won't have any flavor bonus/negative effects or treatment.

No way is ACE going to write lore like 

Quote

EMPRESS OF THE SEA: ..... The undisputed master of the blade, not one of the Gods could stand against her in single combat and survive.....

and not have it have an in game impact at some point. It's not just going to be "what color the NPC faction shield over their head is".

11 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Per Todd, on multiple occasions, the entire function of faction rulesets is that players have zero control of decisions to make at the faction level.

Per my first post in this thread, 

Quote

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

....

 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.

 

Stop reacting, and start reading.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m against factions Bc of the sheer work it will take the team to do.  The dregs are easy, let the people play the game, adjust class balances so nothing is wildly stronger than all the other classes, Fox exploits and mostly leave the god damn population alone.  Faction PvP takes away the throne aspect of the game imo.  Who the custard wins when everybody wins equally?  

Edited by Pann
See PM

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, KrakkenSmacken said:

Your assuming that gods and factions won't have any flavor bonus/negative effects or treatment.

No way is ACE going to write lore like

You didn't play Shadowbane did you?

Lore existed in spades, but took a back seat to gameplay mechanics by sheer necessity. You're working from an assumption here that in no way mirrors anything we've been told about how the game is supposed to work.

At most we've been told that players may be able to sacrifice to god statues of their choice for various buffs. Why that would be limited to factions in an environment that is supposed to be roughly equitable (faction campaigns) I have no idea.

We have already seen that population balancing is both a desired and necessary element in faction campaigns for them to serve their primary gameplay function. You can not achieve that goal while allowing players to choose a faction, or at most locking them out of choosing a desired faction based upon registration population caps.

5 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Stop reacting, and start reading.

I did read. My post specifically states

1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

And just don't bother attempting to pop balance dregs. The pop balances itself there.

Because I honestly don't feel there is any point. As well, GvG is no longer a ring. It was merged in to Dregs specifically because Dregs will naturally just functionally end up a gvg environment anyway last I heard.

My entire post was in relation to faction campaigns.


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
16 minutes ago, mandalore said:

I’m against factions Bc of the sheer work it will take the team to do.  The dregs are easy, let the people play the game, adjust class balances so nothing is wildly stronger than all the other classes, Fox exploits and mostly leave the god damn population alone.  Faction PvP takes away the throne aspect of the game imo.  Who the custard wins when everybody wins equally?  

TBH I'm for factions specifically because it adds an element of accessibility that I think these kinds of games need. It's the "bush league" where soloists and smaller organizations can meet naturally and have a measure of success against similar opponents, and ideally, move in to the big leagues so that we don't have an SB or EVE situation of "join one of the existing big organizations or achieve a once in a life time hail mary and convince enough noobs to join a noob zerg"

I see faction campaigns as the hisec of Crowfall, only a better hisec because it actually tasks the player with playing mostly the same game as the big boys by just making all the guild leaders and buolding placements controlled by a computer. The fact that they cap out at lower resource tiers is the part that makes the system work.

Sandbox pvp can be a job, and some people want to play sandbox pvp, run about, and murder people and do objectives occasionally without having to play politics. I think that's a valuable thing to have for new players, small organizations, or (gasp) people that play casually. I also think that it is absolutely appropriate to have those campaigns pay out less and in lower tier materals as a basic function of risk/reward.

It encourages people that want to play random gank and maybe a fort or castle when they feel like it have a space to do that and aren't mucking up the dregs with that playstyle.

I think that "little league" is a think almost all sandboxes lack, and it prevents a lot of people new to the genre from really becoming die hard fans as the barriers to entry for playing the 'real" game are often huge. Become a faceless grunt and take orders from people you've never met or get farmed. I want a game that transitions people in to getting gud in stead of demanding that they do so from the moment they log in, and does so without dumbing down the game. And yeah, some people can just stay there and that's fine too. More buyers for the surplus dregs mats because they can't get purples or whatever.

I think having faction campaigns achieves this goal.

I want dregs to notice and actually be somewhat threatened when NEW players enter the fray rather than the sad situation our sandboxes usually end up in, where you just see the same people with different hats over and over. That means those players need a place to 'get gud' and so completely roflstomp everyone else there that they actually enter the dregs as a legitimate threat, having "graduated" from it.

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
15 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

TBH I'm for factions specifically because it adds an element of accessibility that I think these kinds of games need. It's the "bush league" where soloists and smaller

... Snip ...

I want dregs to notice and actually be somewhat threatened when NEW players enter the fray rather than the sad situation our sandboxes usually end up in, where you just see the same people with different hats over and over.

I think ACE should wait until we see if factions need to be balanced, before deciding to limit player choice. 

The current population is so low, that no matter how unbalanced the factions seem to be now, there is no way to tell if that is even needed moving forward. Especially if the big guilds end up in the dregs like everyone expects them to, rather than skewing the faction worlds.

Share this post


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

I think ACE should wait until we see if factions need to be balanced, before deciding to limit player choice. 

The current population is so low, that no matter how unbalanced the factions seem to be now, there is no way to tell if that is even needed moving forward. Especially if the big guilds end up in the dregs like everyone expects them to, rather than skewing the faction worlds.

Maybe, but my experience indicates that bandwagoning will be an ongoing issue that get worse as overall population increases.


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
8 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

TBH I'm for factions specifically because it adds an element of accessibility that I think these kinds of games need. It's the "bush league" where soloists and smaller organizations can meet naturally and have a measure of success against similar opponents, and ideally, move in to the big leagues so that we don't have an SB or EVE situation of "join one of the existing big organizations or achieve a once in a life time hail mary and convince enough noobs to join a noob zerg"

I think its going to be where people hide when they don't want competition.  RvRvR and ARAC style SB in one game are going to sabotage each other.


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
13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

This suggestion is literally only applicable to faction campaigns. It wouldn't make any sense in dregs where there's no built in factions to balance.

That isn't really true.

The core concept of the suggestion is that campaign rewards shouldn't scale up with the number of people on the winning side. I don't get the sense that the people arguing against the suggestion even understand it.

Adding more people to your faction or guild shouldn't result in greater rewards for winning.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

That isn't really true.

The core concept of the suggestion is that campaign rewards shouldn't scale up with the number of people on the winning side. I don't get the sense that the people arguing against the suggestion even understand it.

Adding more people to your faction or guild shouldn't result in greater rewards for winning.

It looks like you two are both arguing different points.


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
15 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I know many people that only have to log in once with all their ALT accounts to get that share based on overly simplistic end of campaign rules.  No matter how you try to design it, say for example by requiring X hours played, or whatever, some clever players will figure out how to game around the increasingly complex rules you will have to apply. Those rules would have to decide things like "How about the participation of pure crafter players?", "Are all crafting roles equal by design?", "What resources should count for more 'effort' to harvest over others?", and other impossible to algorithmically answer questions.  

Also, end of world embargo only, will result in a totally cut game economy loop for EK's.  They are going to need regular occurrences of material input to have an effective economy,  just like people get paychecks every two weeks, not one every quarter.

If you try to do it only by account, you are left with two choices.

  • ALT owners can collect a full share per ATL no matter the participation
  • Totally unwieldy rules trying to determine individual participation.

However.

If the team is forced to decide amongst themselves the amounts to split, you leave it MORE in the hands of the players to figure out for themselves, not less like some are suggesting.

Bring your 5+ alts and park them, the only way you get a share of the bounty is if your teammates valued your contribution, not because you imported a pile of gold and bought resources and parked the account.  If your guild Zergs a server in a week, all the members get to only share a one shiny gold ore between them because they had such high numbers and won so fast.  

But probably the best way to handle it is a mix.  Every player gets a set amount, AND the team gets a collective amount to distribute. That way the system makes sure everyone gets something, and players get to decide amongst themselves who to reward with extra for going the extra mile.

I should have been clearer. I do not mean every player gets a percent of the total based on win/lose. I mean every player gets a percent of what they themselves embargo.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


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

Share this post


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

I should have been clearer. I do not mean every player gets a percent of the total based on win/lose. I mean every player gets a percent of what they themselves embargo.

I don't see how that changes the multiple account issue, except maybe in the prices of materials in campaign. 

If you can import gold/dust/other valuables, and then exchange/buy them in campaign for higher quality items you can export, just because you have an account in the campaign, it can be leveraged. Heck, even just parking an account with piles of imported food/apples etc to sell in the winter would probably be extremely profitable.

With the ability to permanently gain access to worlds for trading/winning, simply by having an account signed in, and then plunking rare resources into embargo for export,  you open the way for a "player" to be represented by multiple accounts.  

With for example unlimited apple production possible in EK's, with it just needing time to generate,  you create a way for someone to leverage extra accounts into a exporting block, while simply piggybacking on the successful faction.

Funneling at least some of the embargo exports through group choice will allow players to decide if that guy with 5 accounts, is actually worth giving 5x the winnings to.

Share this post


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

I don't see how that changes the multiple account issue, except maybe in the prices of materials in campaign. 

If you can import gold/dust/other valuables, and then exchange/buy them in campaign for higher quality items you can export, just because you have an account in the campaign, it can be leveraged. Heck, even just parking an account with piles of imported food/apples etc to sell in the winter would probably be extremely profitable.

With the ability to permanently gain access to worlds for trading/winning, simply by having an account signed in, and then plunking rare resources into embargo for export,  you open the way for a "player" to be represented by multiple accounts.  

With for example unlimited apple production possible in EK's, with it just needing time to generate,  you create a way for someone to leverage extra accounts into a exporting block, while simply piggybacking on the successful faction.

Funneling at least some of the embargo exports through group choice will allow players to decide if that guy with 5 accounts, is actually worth giving 5x the winnings to.

Because there is no difference between a person using their alt or main to do the embargoing. So what if they are on multiple sides of the embargo? They still either have to embargo themselves or get someone to carry the material to them and trade for them to embargo it. Your "plunking rare resources" comment requires either direct effort or relationship capital spent on receiving said resources at the embargo.

It changes it completely because I can't just be a member of the side that wins, I have to do something in order to benefit from those wins. And how much I earn from the win is directly proportional to my effort or expended capital, exactly as it should be. 

Let's be very clear that your false dichotomy of "(1) full share regardless of participation level or (2) unwieldy rules for individual participation" does not include the direct tying of individual exports to individual embargo. If you have a player that manages to get active people to trade them a disproportionate amount to embargo, that player is just good at that aspect of the game. Kudos to them.

Frankly, I have not heard any exporting idea that is even close to being as reasonable or elegant as: individual gets direct percent of what individual embargoed. No need for fancy caps or weird calculations of effort. Players determine how much players get.

I don't care about imports, as I will be focused on servers without them.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


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

Share this post


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

Because there is no difference between a person using their alt or main to do the embargoing. So what if they are on multiple sides of the embargo? They still either have to embargo themselves or get someone to carry the material to them and trade for them to embargo it. Your "plunking rare resources" comment requires either direct effort or relationship capital spent on receiving said resources at the embargo.

It changes it completely because I can't just be a member of the side that wins, I have to do something in order to benefit from those wins. And how much I earn from the win is directly proportional to my effort or expended capital, exactly as it should be. 

Let's be very clear that your false dichotomy of "(1) full share regardless of participation level or (2) unwieldy rules for individual participation" does not include the direct tying of individual exports to individual embargo. If you have a player that manages to get active people to trade them a disproportionate amount to embargo, that player is just good at that aspect of the game. Kudos to them.

Frankly, I have not heard any exporting idea that is even close to being as reasonable or elegant as: individual gets direct percent of what individual embargoed. No need for fancy caps or weird calculations of effort. Players determine how much players get.

I don't care about imports, as I will be focused on servers without them.

Ohhhh. I think I see what your assumption is regarding the embargo mechanic.

I think you are under the assumption that the location of embargo is going to be somewhere that is not in fact the same as your group/factions base of operations.

If that is what you are thinking, I would not count on that being the case. I know that was part of the original pitch for kickstarter, but since then quite a bit has changed, not the least of which is the race/class split and more related, the addition of the spirit bank.  I know we have heard a bit of "not sure yet" noise from ACE regarding how they will finally handle end of campaign rewards.

If you have to haul things to embargo, and it's always dangerous/difficult, and you are limited in how much you can place "per trip", whatever that is, then yes the per-player limit can work.  

If on the other hand, embargo is located in keep/fort POI's, possibly next to the banks, which is what I personally expect, with the dangerous "travel" being considered to have happened during the harvesting process, and a player can keep their vessels at well secured locations, then the multiple account problem persists.

This is all a much bigger problem on servers that do have imports, than those that do not. That said, I do think there should be a world limit on total possible exports for each campaign, based on how long the campaign ran.  That should limit the "per player" limit or percentage recovered of all those who participated in the campaign.

So for example in a world where everyone loaded up thousands, maybe only 10% gets through, while in a world where everything was thrown into winning, and only a few hundred were put into embargo per player, 90% gets through.

 

Share this post


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

Ohhhh. I think I see what your assumption is regarding the embargo mechanic.

I think you are under the assumption that the location of embargo is going to be somewhere that is not in fact the same as your group/factions base of operations.

If that is what you are thinking, I would not count on that being the case. I know that was part of the original pitch for kickstarter, but since then quite a bit has changed, not the least of which is the race/class split and more related, the addition of the spirit bank.  I know we have heard a bit of "not sure yet" noise from ACE regarding how they will finally handle end of campaign rewards.

That would be very disappointing to hear them go away from this. The same philosophy could work, even if players could construct embargo locations in their city. But, if anyone can embargo anything at any time from any place, then honestly, I have no idea what a good system would look like. And it would greatly diminish what are likely to be excellent sources of PvP (hauling and embargoing material).

I disagree about any artificial caps. All those artificial things assume that devs know best about player decision-making. Players should always have to wonder whether they should try to embargo or use materials. When players hit the embargo cap, they will have less incentive to play.

Edited by McTan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


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

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...