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

"Soft" Population Control: Total Export Cap

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.

Honestly I fundamentally disagree with the implementation of export caps in the first place once we have victory conditions.

Unlimited embargo based export fractioning/bonuses cleanly solves this problem because having more accounts does not equate to having more exports. Everyone is capable of attempting to embargo everything, and winning lets you keep some or all as per the original design solves that problem.


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
Just now, PopeUrban said:

Honestly I fundamentally disagree with the implementation of export caps in the first place once we have victory conditions.

Unlimited embargo based export fractioning/bonuses cleanly solves this problem because having more accounts does not equate to having more exports. Everyone is capable of attempting to embargo everything, and winning lets you keep some or all as per the original design solves that problem.

Yep, that would help to reduce the incentive to pad a faction/guild with extra accounts just to increase winnings.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

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.

I know they have said that location limits of some sort will be in play.  Just not specifically what those limitations are.  I agree, that there should always be an incentive to ship out resources.  I actually think the end of the world embargo should only be one of the ways of getting materials out for winning. I would like to see active rewards put into play.

For example, your team takes a fort, and for 1 hour after there is a chest in it that will export to an EK bank up to 6 storage units without cost per player that uses it. 

  • Miss the active window and you don't get to use it. 
  • Don't have prepared resources you can get there quickly enough, you miss it.
  • Enemies keep you from being able to move the materials to the fort, you miss it.
  • Think you need all your resources to win the war, don't use it.
  • Have an alt army, well it will be hard to organize them all to show up at the new fort with enough material to justify shiping out.

If you hold off an attempt, the chest activates as well.

Stuff like that is more interesting to me from an economy point of view than the win the world materials rewards. I would rather see more world winning rewards along the lines of relics, banners, skins, etc.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

I really like the idea of periodic Exports that are tied to locations and limited windows of opportunity.

Same. Great idea, KS. Would up the incentive for certain PoIs changing hands.

Also, as I believe they have moved away significant from EKs being somewhere you go between CWs to more of a fluid transportation between (without import and exports), this gives more constant life to the EK building.

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
9 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I know they have said that location limits of some sort will be in play.  Just not specifically what those limitations are.  I agree, that there should always be an incentive to ship out resources.  I actually think the end of the world embargo should only be one of the ways of getting materials out for winning. I would like to see active rewards put into play.

For example, your team takes a fort, and for 1 hour after there is a chest in it that will export to an EK bank up to 6 storage units without cost per player that uses it. 

  • Miss the active window and you don't get to use it. 
  • Don't have prepared resources you can get there quickly enough, you miss it.
  • Enemies keep you from being able to move the materials to the fort, you miss it.
  • Think you need all your resources to win the war, don't use it.
  • Have an alt army, well it will be hard to organize them all to show up at the new fort with enough material to justify shiping out.

If you hold off an attempt, the chest activates as well.

Stuff like that is more interesting to me from an economy point of view than the win the world materials rewards. I would rather see more world winning rewards along the lines of relics, banners, skins, etc.

 

I see a flaw in this idea and it is related to peak time vs dead times. The data we have at the moment is only from alpha but you can already see how the population fluctuates between peaks of 90 concurrent players to dead times of 25 in the US server. Having a guild who is really active in dead hours (where peak is low) would probably screw up your idea, being able to exploit the system when almost no one is online (see attachment 1 at the bottom of the post). While at the same time forcing it to scheduled time of the day (like only during peak times when most of the players are on) would be like to implement a pvp system similar to the one in Black Desert online where the fights for the territory only happen during the weekend prime time, which honestly sucks really hard and is a really poor game design decision. Don't get me wrong I like the concept a lot but i see it equally exploitable as the other ideas introduced here. 

 

Also I see that most people here are worried about multi-accounting, but remember that to truly benefits of multi-accounting you have to play them really efficiently. Even if you bring 5 accounts and have 5x export slots, are you able to farm 5x to really benefit from it? The answer is obviously no and if you can, props to you for being able to farm 5x alone, which is a skill by itself, like being strong and skilled in the battlefield.

 

Lastly, we assume that export rules will be divided in categories  (factions, gvg, dregs) but it may be completely possible that between the "faction" campaigns there will be several import/export ruleset changing by each of the campaign, which would then give choice to the players to pick and join the campaign which has the ruleset they think are most appropriate for their playstyle.

 

 

Attachment01:

img_8822.jpg

 

 

Edited by Nyamo

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

I see a flaw in this idea and it is related to peak time vs dead times. The data we have at the moment is only from alpha but you can already see how the population fluctuates between peaks of 90 concurrent players to dead times of 25 in the US server. Having a guild who is really active in dead hours (where peak is low) would probably screw up your idea, being able to exploit the system when almost no one is online (see attachment 1 at the bottom of the post). While at the same time forcing it to scheduled time of the day (like only during peak times when most of the players are on) would be like to implement a pvp system similar to the one in Black Desert online where the fights for the territory only happen during the weekend prime time, which honestly sucks really hard and is a really poor game design decision.

 

 

Actually the opposite is true.

The scheduled mine fights of Shadow Bane, the spiritual predecessor for CF (Also built by Todd), were some best PvP in MMO history, or so I have been told.

What facts do you have to substantiate "sucks really hard"?

I think the bottom line is, if there is an exploitable window for taking POI's due to low server population, there is something wrong with the conquest mechanic that needs to be addressed, not something wrong with the rewards, because taking and holding a fort/keep is supposed to be rewarding in all sorts of ways.

Share this post


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

Actually the opposite is true.

The scheduled mine fights of Shadow Bane, the spiritual predecessor for CF (Also built by Todd), were some best PvP in MMO history, or so I have been told.

What facts do you have to substantiate "sucks really hard"?

I think the bottom line is, if there is an exploitable window for taking POI's due to low server population, there is something wrong with the conquest mechanic that needs to be addressed, not something wrong with the rewards, because taking and holding a fort/keep is supposed to be rewarding in all sorts of ways.

They suck for 2 reasons:

1. Deciding WHEN to attack a fort is part of a war strategy. If you fix it into a scheduked timeframe you are removing lot of strategy from the table. That feeling when you wake up in the morning just to know they have destroyed your castle is amazing good. If there is a war there shouldn’t be safe havens.

2. Assuming that the argument above is not enough you are actually putting a real-life barrier in terms of accessibility to the game. People who work at night, during the weekends, or that for real life reason can’t attend an arbitrary timeframe decided by the developers just suck. People with same real life necessities (like people who work during game peak hours) should be able to have access to the game in the same way that someone who instead can play during peak hours can.

 

Glad you had fun with scheduled mine fights in shadowbane but i really hope the developers would never impose a scheduled time for having access to some core mechanics like conquer and defence of POI. Or, again, since each campaign is different at least make campaigns that don’t have these restrictions.

 


catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nyamo said:

 

Also I see that most people here are worried about multi-accounting, but remember that to truly benefits of multi-accounting you have to play them really efficiently. Even if you bring 5 accounts and have 5x export slots, are you able to farm 5x to really benefit from it? The answer is obviously no and if you can, props to you for being able to farm 5x alone, which is a skill by itself, like being strong and skilled in the battlefield.

 

Just to address this, it isn't unrealistic for a person to have more items than their export slots allow on a single account, indeed it is often assumed that you'll have more than your export, which is how multi-accounting might help simply expand your inventory. So, truly, you aren't farming 5x, you'll be farming the normal amount, as your export isn't assumed to supposed to fit in the amount of items a single account can procure, if that makes sense. In other words, a person doesn't need to farm 5x the items to take advantage of 5 accounts worth of export inventory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nyamo said:

They suck for 2 reasons:

1. Deciding WHEN to attack a fort is part of a war strategy. If you fix it into a scheduked timeframe you are removing lot of strategy from the table. That feeling when you wake up in the morning just to know they have destroyed your castle is amazing good. If there is a war there shouldn’t be safe havens.

2. Assuming that the argument above is not enough you are actually putting a real-life barrier in terms of accessibility to the game. People who work at night, during the weekends, or that for real life reason can’t attend an arbitrary timeframe decided by the developers just suck. People with same real life necessities (like people who work during game peak hours) should be able to have access to the game in the same way that someone who instead can play during peak hours can.

 

Glad you had fun with scheduled mine fights in shadowbane but i really hope the developers would never impose a scheduled time for having access to some core mechanics like conquer and defence of POI. Or, again, since each campaign is different at least make campaigns that don’t have these restrictions.

 

Shadowbane's mine times weren't set by developers. They were set by the current owners of the mines.

Shadowbane's siege timers weren't set by a developer. They were given a rough window by the attacker which the defender had to work within to set a more specific vulnerability window.

They invented these systems after launching with always on vulnerability. The problem with always on vulnerability in a video game is that unlike real life, a whole lot of hte inhabitants of your world aren't in that world all the time. This creates a situation in which, in Shadowbane (and also in EVE and other always-vulnerable systems) promotes avoiding PvP as the primary strategy rather than a supplementary one.

Player set vuln windows allow defenders to determine a point in time when they are best capable of bringing defending forces to defend, forcing attackers to contend with defenders rather than empty objectives. This also requires attackers to assemble a sufficient force. Setting the vuln window is part of player strategy. It is not arbitrary and the mechanic serves a vital purpose of ensuring armies actually meet in a game about armies meeting one another populated by adults with other life responsibilities so they can arrange to show up for these important fights. Without that element, a large number of "battles" are resolved without any actual player combat at all, and taking objectives is often pointless because they become impossible to effectively defend as everyone has to log off at some point, and most players do not spend the majority of their day logged in, but rather spend the majority of their day logged out because of real life responsibilities like jobs and sleep and families and stuff.

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
23 hours ago, Jah said:

I really like the idea of periodic Exports that are tied to locations and limited windows of opportunity.

Three stage embargos maybe?

Stage one is "deposit" in to a bank. These embargo banks work like normal local banks, you can add and remove items freely. The size of the embargo bank is relative to the value of the POI. For instance a "wild" uncapturable embargo may have 6 slots, but a fully upgraded castle may have an entire inventory's worth. This could also interact with the skill system, allowing the unlock of special embargo space for specific item types if you skill in to it. For example, if you're skilled in mining, perhaps there are nodes to add a few ore-only embargo slots to all embargos, or if you're a smith add certain smithing only embargo slots, etc.

Every x amount of time (for wild embargos) or at the end of each vuln window (for owned embargos) the Gods pluck the items from said bank for safe keeping, clearing the bank and placing the items it contains in to the "locked" embargo state. For owned embargo locations, this could even allow a method of capturing enemy embargo. If your objective is captured before the embargo fires off, your items are in stead granted to the new owners at embargo time, allowing them to either keep and use them in the campaign or place them back in the embargo bank to await the next cycle, which in turn gives you time to try and retake it and get your stuff back. Lets say the items are assigned at random in Faction Campaigns and to players with the proper guild/nation roles in Dregs for distribution.

At the end of the campaign, you get to have a sit down with the Gods (maybe even a specific god you chose at account creation for a little non-gameplay impacting lore flavor?) and you are judged. The Gods allow you to keep more if you are worthy (winning) and less if you are not (losing) by simply giving you two boxes and a portal. The box on the left contains everything the gods have kept in embargo. The box on the right is big enough to place whatever percentage of those items you've earned the right to keep. In the case of 100% export wins, you just skip the boxes altogether. Move your items between the boxes, and take the portal when you're done, and get an ominous message from the gods about your performance and any other things they may wish to say to you.

This postgame instance could also be used to add other rewards where applicable, allowing the player to donate items to other boxes to achieve campaign specific cosmetics, EK blueprints, and the like as trophies of specific campaign types or allegiance with specific gods through the sacrifice system.

It would also allow the player to watch the world they've been fighting over be consumed by hunger's final stages from afar, out in space in a spectacular fashion, since it'd be all client side effects ACE could go pretty nuts with it. I like to think its a sort of "crow space" where you interact with the gods face to face, unlike anywhere else, to punctuate how far away they are and reinforce the lore of crows as divine scavengers without disrupting gameplay.

 

This does sort of functionally create soft embargo caps which would slightly advantage having more accounts, but to a far lesser degree than now. The general idea is that the impact would be similar to inventory/bank space as it is now. You may feel less crunch with multiple accounts using the smaller embargos, but you'd have to run to them on all of those accounts. For the larger ones, the capacity should be large enough that they don't feel like much of a limit at all, as the primary risk isn't running to a dangerous and campable POI, but defending the objective. In the full time scale of a given campaign, the though is that these systems would easily allow for more opportunities at embargo for a single account than they could theoretically use anyway, but that the individual embargo exports are small enough the players are encouraged to contest the points for the entirety of the campaign to clear bank space even if they don't fight over every objective. Players can "work smarter" and frequently utilize the smaller embargos at greater risk of loss, or "work harder" and infrequently use the much larger embargos less often and at less locations which allows player as intended to get their asses kicked early on and really be pushed to start prioritizing embargos late in the game when its harder to get more stuff.

That push to export embargo late game could be a great driver to kneel/sub. When its winter and you've got six banks full of valuable stuff you haven't been able to embargo because you haven't been able to take any POIs and all the wild embargos have been eaten by hunger, you have a pretty good incentive to either kneel to the guy who controls the big embargo banks, or kneel to the opposition to take it from him even if you don't care as much about the win condition grading of how much you keep.

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
6 hours ago, Dondagora said:

Just to address this, it isn't unrealistic for a person to have more items than their export slots allow on a single account, indeed it is often assumed that you'll have more than your export, which is how multi-accounting might help simply expand your inventory. So, truly, you aren't farming 5x, you'll be farming the normal amount, as your export isn't assumed to supposed to fit in the amount of items a single account can procure, if that makes sense. In other words, a person doesn't need to farm 5x the items to take advantage of 5 accounts worth of export inventory.

Yes, on a superficial first glance seem like you said, but you are forgetting that most of the players will be in a guild and that players trough grouping will surely be able to export almost of their inventory anyway through an efficient use of stacking and division. Since english is not my native language i will try to explain this using a super simplified version and using fictional numbers.

Ok let's assume that:

max export lost of a campaign are capped up to 5 per account
there are only 25 kind of resources in game
resources stack up to 100
even if you farm like a crazy the average person will be able to farm around 500 resources in a given campaign.

 

Now, a player with 5 accounts, as you said will be bale to export all the 25 resources, but the total would be around 500 because that's the realistic time it takes o farm 500 resources even if you do this like a crazy the whole day A player with only 1 account would also have 500 resources but these resources will be spread trough the 25 possible types so he will not be able to export all of them by itself. Since the max stack per resource is 100 he will probably have an average of 20 each resources considering that an average player would farm up to 500 resources). He just need to find other player with incomplete stacks as him and trade the other resources to fill up his incomplete stacks to become stack of 100. So with 5 players dividing 25 resources in stacks of 5 types each they will be able to export all the items anyway. And these players if they want can trade back in their ek so they have all the 25 resources spread out. What i want to say is not the number of max export slot that matters but that a single person cant farm efficiently with 5 accounts compared to 5 real persons with 5 different accounts. so honestly do not see export as a problem since the volume of the resourse the multi account will collect will be on average of other players investing the similar playtime of the multi account user. 

 

3 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Player set vuln windows allow defenders to determine a point in time when they are best capable of bringing defending forces to defend, forcing attackers to contend with defenders rather than empty objectives. This also requires attackers to assemble a sufficient force. Setting the vuln window is part of player strategy. It is not arbitrary and the mechanic serves a vital purpose of ensuring armies actually meet in a game about armies meeting one another populated by adults with other life responsibilities so they can arrange to show up for these important fights. Without that element, a large number of "battles" are resolved without any actual player combat at all, and taking objectives is often pointless because they become impossible to effectively defend as everyone has to log off at some point, and most players do not spend the majority of their day logged in, but rather spend the majority of their day logged out because of real life responsibilities like jobs and sleep and families and stuff.

See looks like we are talking of different things here. My argument was referred to faction campaigns, no to campaings in which players or guild own specific buildings like dregs. I was referring to what @KrakkenSmacken said here and he was explicity talking of forts and keeps

 

On 6/9/2018 at 5:18 AM, KrakkenSmacken said:

For example, your team takes a fort, and for 1 hour after there is a chest in it that will export to an EK bank up to 6 storage units without cost per player that uses it. 

  • Miss the active window and you don't get to use it. 
  • Don't have prepared resources you can get there quickly enough, you miss it.
  • Enemies keep you from being able to move the materials to the fort, you miss it.
  • Think you need all your resources to win the war, don't use it.
  • Have an alt army, well it will be hard to organize them all to show up at the new fort with enough material to justify shiping out.

that's why i was saying that since forts are faction controlled poi, these poi should be able to been attacked anytime for the arguments i expressed earlier. Or you are saying that the faction which take control of the fort should then say WHEN the other faction can attack it? Like if in the campaign we have now, chaos takes a fort and then they can set the timer when balance and order can take it back? What worked for the mines don't work very well in a 3 faction environment.


catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nyamo said:

They suck for 2 reasons:

1. Deciding WHEN to attack a fort is part of a war strategy. If you fix it into a scheduked timeframe you are removing lot of strategy from the table. That feeling when you wake up in the morning just to know they have destroyed your castle is amazing good. If there is a war there shouldn’t be safe havens.

2. Assuming that the argument above is not enough you are actually putting a real-life barrier in terms of accessibility to the game. People who work at night, during the weekends, or that for real life reason can’t attend an arbitrary timeframe decided by the developers just suck. People with same real life necessities (like people who work during game peak hours) should be able to have access to the game in the same way that someone who instead can play during peak hours can.

 

Glad you had fun with scheduled mine fights in shadowbane but i really hope the developers would never impose a scheduled time for having access to some core mechanics like conquer and defence of POI. Or, again, since each campaign is different at least make campaigns that don’t have these restrictions.

 

That kind of thinking was one of the major factors in basically killing a game I used to play, Naval Action.  Constant and unlimited port flipping, basically made port capture pointless and irrelevant, just like it is now in CF.

Share this post


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

That kind of thinking was one of the major factors in basically killing a game I used to play, Naval Action.  Constant and unlimited port flipping, basically made port capture pointless and irrelevant, just like it is now in CF.

Now in Crowfall is irrelevant not because you an flip it whenever you want but because there are no benefits for conquering it nor for losing control of it. With the addition of elements that makes having the control of the fort relevant. Btw @KrakkenSmacken seems like i want to win this discussions to all costs, while it is not. Again the best solution would have different campaign with different ruleset to meet all players need, which is something Crowfall can do thanks to the campaign system itself, so that mind-like players can play together in campaign they believe have the ruleset that matches better their real life need and their definition of a fun and challenging pvp. So the base purpose of my intervent here was not to bash you to death (which is something i don't like do in general) but to provide suggestions to the developers so they can hear lot of different voices.

 


catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

Now in Crowfall is irrelevant not because you an flip it whenever you want but because there are no benefits for conquering it nor for losing control of it. With the addition of elements that makes having the control of the fort relevant. Btw @KrakkenSmacken seems like i want to win this discussions to all costs, while it is not. Again the best solution would have different campaign with different ruleset to meet all players need, which is something Crowfall can do thanks to the campaign system itself, so that mind-like players can play together in campaign they believe have the ruleset that matches better their real life need and their definition of a fun and challenging pvp. So the base purpose of my intervent here was not to bash you to death (which is something i don't like do in general) but to provide suggestions to the developers so they can hear lot of different voices.

 

You're not wrong about choices. 

It will actually be interesting to see what survives. Up until now most games had one or maybe two modes to see what was best.  CF could have dozens or more, so all sorts of things to try out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2018 at 2:03 AM, KrakkenSmacken said:

Actually the opposite is true.

The scheduled mine fights of Shadow Bane, the spiritual predecessor for CF (Also built by Todd), were some best PvP in MMO history, or so I have been told.

False.The Mine system was flawed. BTW Todd had nothing to do with the mine system, they came along much later. 
The gist of it was, each Zone had a mine, There were many (around 35 or so), though magic and expansion mines were most sought after. What was supposed to be a hour window of PvP once the mine went live, ended up being 15 minute fights at best, with people coming in at the end of the window to "ninja" the mine. Once claimed, it delivered 23 hours of production to your city's warehouse. It was bad design.

Banes,,.... well, that was another story.

 


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Armegeddon said:

False.The Mine system was flawed. BTW Todd had nothing to do with the mine system, they came along much later. 
The gist of it was, each Zone had a mine, There were many (around 35 or so), though magic and expansion mines were most sought after. What was supposed to be a hour window of PvP once the mine went live, ended up being 15 minute fights at best, with people coming in at the end of the window to "ninja" the mine. Once claimed, it delivered 23 hours of production to your city's warehouse. It was bad design.

Banes,,.... well, that was another story.

 

It wasn't a bad design, the community just became lazy at the end of SB and remained so through all the emulators.  The owner could pick a time between 1500 and 2300 cst for the mine to vulnerable and for an hour it could be taken but whoever held it at the end of the hour would own it.  The meta at the end of live was to simply send as many ninja claimers as you could when they were engaged or just try to claim it in their stack and hope everybody was afk.  In SB people could just pop an afk character in a camp, on a macro, and just loot on another account for hours and that was considered high end farming.  The longer a server was up the less mine fights were done because people already had all their gear made and as long as you repaired it would never break.  CF could still use the mine systems from SB and they would remain valuable through the entire life of a campaign as gear is constantly breaking and the seasons aspect will make farming harder but you will still have to do it as the cycle of gear never stales like it did in SB.  Not all of the POI's in CF need to be SB style mines but it would place a substantial value on the few mines if there were in areas for people to contest. 

 

That system wouldn't work well in factions but it seems like factions just over complicates things for the team. 

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
16 hours ago, Armegeddon said:

False.The Mine system was flawed. BTW Todd had nothing to do with the mine system, they came along much later. 
The gist of it was, each Zone had a mine, There were many (around 35 or so), though magic and expansion mines were most sought after. What was supposed to be a hour window of PvP once the mine went live, ended up being 15 minute fights at best, with people coming in at the end of the window to "ninja" the mine. Once claimed, it delivered 23 hours of production to your city's warehouse. It was bad design.

Banes,,.... well, that was another story.

 

This is taking the thread a bit off topic, but here is my idea in regards to fort/keep POI flipping rules.

On 5/29/2018 at 12:59 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

I already posted my suggestion, in 6 easy to understand rules.

  • The world has 2-3 hour days.
  • 9 day week based on pantheon.
  • Forts must be exposed one "day" per "week". (Roughly 2-3 hour window once per real day)
  • When your group claims a fort or keep, you must pick a different "day" to expose than all your other forts and keeps until you have picked every day possible.
  • All your groups POI's become exposed when any fort or keep is exposed.
  • POI's stop producing while exposed.

I think that forcing teams to spread holdings out over time, and exposing large teams POI income assets to attack more frequently is a good model to to try to see how it impacts perpetual comeback.

If POI's do not count towards victory conditions, but forts and keeps do, or POI's are worth way less "points" (whatever those are), a large team will probably have to support itself in keeps and forts without the same level of material as underdog groups have because underdog POI's are less vulnerable, easier to defend and potentially more productive.

It might be worthwhile to focus on the capture/exposure mechanics more first, to make sure they are fun and interesting, before tying the victory conditions to them.

People will do whatever it takes to win, even if it's not fun, so unhinging them a bit for now may allow for better transparency into how fun the base model is.

NA tried to "improve" the Port capture/hold game by making Ports "more important".  They put in huge barriers to crafting based on port resource generation. Ports could only generate 4 different resource types each. They then upped the ante and locked the big/fun ship building recipes behind being in a nation that could effectively hold at least 4-5 ports. 

The exodus of players after that change was head turning.

Now it's not entirely off topic, if a fort or keep flip/defend also triggers a limited export window, say for example during the day (2-3 hours) after for the current set flip setting or capture.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 4:19 PM, mandalore said:

reply

True, 100% agreed. Here, it could work quite well. My argument was with "The scheduled mine fights of Shadow Bane, the spiritual predecessor for CF (Also built by Todd), were some best PvP in MMO history, or so I have been told."

I agree with your point whole heartedly. Here, given limited duration and gear degradation, there could be a place for it. "Best PvP in MMO History".... not so much.

 


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Armegeddon said:

 "Best PvP in MMO History".... not so much.

When SB fights were good they were out-custard-standing but some many people duped, exploited or key-cloned that the odds of getting good fights diminished every day.  Some of the better banes I went to still crush PvP in a lot of MMO's but for every good fight I got in SB I got 10 meaningless poorly made socks fights.


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

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...