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

The Winds of Change - Official Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Ideally this would be mitigated by a rolling schedule of campaign openings. Currently in testing our limited number of campaigns generally all start and close all at once.

However, with the potential for reaching a no-win situation due to seasonal effects, players that have been so crippled for supplies in a campaign that they can not recover should ideally have to option of ceding the campaign, locking themselves out, and joining a fresh one.

So long as campaigns have "schedule A" and "schedule B" that coincide with the start of autumn or winter you shouldn't be in a situation where you are forced to stick around for a campaign you know you've lost. That's kind of the whole point of the campaign system in general, to mitigate the negative forces of stagnation by allowing losers to lose and start fresh so they don't have to just stay and get farmed by uncle bob... snip...

I agree this will happen in a majority of campaigns because humans are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. No one has ever been able to explain to me how designing  Crowfall game mechanics that flow against evolutionary bias such as limiting material spawns to fight over, and making activities harder, increases participation. And so I think 'The Popes Gambit' of Bandwagon off to another campaign world will be extremely fashionable.

BUT IF, ArtCraft can drop the idea that winter equals harder just for the sake of harder, and instead adopts the idea that winter equals more complex, people might stick around until the end of the campaign. Should not the best stuff drop in winter when the risk is higher? And let those that want the low hanging fruit move to warmer climes.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please keep in mind that we didn't sign up for a farming simulator.  Food consumption is already ridiculously fast.  Spending 500+ clicks to make a day's worth of brisket is not fun.  Constantly farmi

I agree this will happen in a majority of campaigns because humans are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. No one has ever been able to explain to me how designing  Crowfall game mechanics

See how changing seasons will affect gameplay! FULL STORY

1 hour ago, corvax said:

I agree this will happen in a majority of campaigns because humans are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. No one has ever been able to explain to me how designing  Crowfall game mechanics that flow against evolutionary bias such as limiting material spawns to fight over, and making activities harder, increases participation. And so I think 'The Popes Gambit' of Bandwagon off to another campaign world will be extremely fashionable.

BUT IF, ArtCraft can drop the idea that winter equals harder just for the sake of harder, and instead adopts the idea that winter equals more complex, people might stick around until the end of the campaign. Should not the best stuff drop in winter when the risk is higher? And let those that want the low hanging fruit move to warmer climes.     

Oh people are going to leave the moment they think they cannot win and if they make it so you can't easily swap servers those people will just slowly leave the game.  I love the idea of harsh seasons but the idea of farming being more of what I do in CF gives me erectile dysfunction.  Harvesting is already the majority of the game, making it more as it gets longer is going to custard suck.  I want seasons to impact more than just harvesting but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, corvax said:

 'The Popes Gambit' of Bandwagon off to another campaign world will be extremely fashionable.   

FOEX tactical directive #5:

If you can't win, go somewhere where you can. Bravery is expensive. Knock it off.

 

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing TBH. In a system set up to have winners and losers, I'd much prefer the system allow winners to win and losers to lose rather that expecting winners to spent months stomping people with no challenge and losers to spend months getting stomped. The social metrics of bragging rights and the multiplicative effect of campaign export rewards should provide enough of a push/pull to influence those decisions. Cutting and running, in general, should be a last choice for most people under this setup, provided they have the option of the first choice of kneeling to a superior power for greater gain. If your options are "surrender" or "swear fealty" we only need to ensure that 'swear fealty" is actually the superior option without also making "surrender" feel so unrewarding you wonder why you bothered to play in the first place.

This is why I prefer victory rewards functionally act as multipliers rather than dividers. If the minimum you can pull out of a campaign is literally just the items you collected, your time feels valuable even if you take the bare minimum reward. If the minimum is "you left because you were out of stuff, but also you only get to keep half your stuff" that's going to be extremely frustrating.

Not only that, multiplying rewards is just mathematically easier. You can always multiply a value to an integer, but you can't always divide. If all you have to export is one suit of gear, what does 50% export look like? It looks like an incomplete set of equipment that can be an active setback to your next import campaign. However if your "lose" condition is 100% and your "win" is 150% then the half set of gear is much more effective as a bonus because, hey, you have to craft less for your next set. You're also far more likely to value exporting good crafted items compared to using them directly, which creates an interesting push/pull. Do you use that near perfect rolled purple weapon now, or do you gamble it in exports for a shot at duplicating it? That's an interesting choice, and if you're not risking actually losing it entirely, it is a choice players are much more likely to make.

This alone could be a huge part of the reward system feeling valuable without feeling punative in lower end (e.g. faction) campaigns. If I am at the very least guaranteed an opportunity to leave a campaign with the stuff I gathered I'm probably not going to be too put off by being forced to leave early. However if I am told that by kneeling I can get 110% I have a damn good reason to kneel and stick around and actually help the people I kneeled to even though I have "lost" as I'm still seeing a net positive for my time spent.

And honestly, with the way that resourcing versus degredation works, I don't think its out of line to just inflate resource output for winners and even "half-winners" to encourage kneeling as default and allowing winning to accomplish its goal of creating trade commodities for external wealth. In this system kneeling actually improves your chances in the next campaign rather than limiting them, and thematically reinforces the intended design of players choosing to kneel and fight for their new overlords rather than take their ball and go home.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26.6.2018 at 9:21 PM, Armegeddon said:

As long as it remains as it is now, I don't really see that as a problem. I probably farmed around 2k ore yesterday by myself. If I were skinning, I'd have stacks upon stacks of meat. I could literally sacrifice apples because I had so many on my lumberjack. I do have four accounts though, but the point is you don't have to be in a "super alliance". What you do have to be is active. People that just want to log in and line up for PvP are going to have a rough go of it unless someone is willing to carry their weight. Solo players..well..

I hope there will be differently styled campaign running at the same time. Some with all seasons and a hard winter for the squirrels amongst us and some campaigns whith a focus on fighting, where gathering and crafting isn't that important.

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

FOEX tactical directive #5:

If you can't win, go somewhere where you can. Bravery is expensive. Knock it off.

 

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing TBH. In a system set up to have winners and losers, I'd much prefer the system allow winners to win and losers to lose rather that expecting winners to spent months stomping people with no challenge and losers to spend months getting stomped. The social metrics of bragging rights and the multiplicative effect of campaign export rewards should provide enough of a push/pull to influence those decisions. Cutting and running, in general, should be a last choice for most people under this setup, provided they have the option of the first choice of kneeling to a superior power for greater gain. If your options are "surrender" or "swear fealty" we only need to ensure that 'swear fealty" is actually the superior option without also making "surrender" feel so unrewarding you wonder why you bothered to play in the first place.

This is why I prefer victory rewards functionally act as multipliers rather than dividers. If the minimum you can pull out of a campaign is literally just the items you collected, your time feels valuable even if you take the bare minimum reward. If the minimum is "you left because you were out of stuff, but also you only get to keep half your stuff" that's going to be extremely frustrating.

Not only that, multiplying rewards is just mathematically easier. You can always multiply a value to an integer, but you can't always divide. If all you have to export is one suit of gear, what does 50% export look like? It looks like an incomplete set of equipment that can be an active setback to your next import campaign. However if your "lose" condition is 100% and your "win" is 150% then the half set of gear is much more effective as a bonus because, hey, you have to craft less for your next set. You're also far more likely to value exporting good crafted items compared to using them directly, which creates an interesting push/pull. Do you use that near perfect rolled purple weapon now, or do you gamble it in exports for a shot at duplicating it? That's an interesting choice, and if you're not risking actually losing it entirely, it is a choice players are much more likely to make.

This alone could be a huge part of the reward system feeling valuable without feeling punative in lower end (e.g. faction) campaigns. If I am at the very least guaranteed an opportunity to leave a campaign with the stuff I gathered I'm probably not going to be too put off by being forced to leave early. However if I am told that by kneeling I can get 110% I have a damn good reason to kneel and stick around and actually help the people I kneeled to even though I have "lost" as I'm still seeing a net positive for my time spent.

And honestly, with the way that resourcing versus degredation works, I don't think its out of line to just inflate resource output for winners and even "half-winners" to encourage kneeling as default and allowing winning to accomplish its goal of creating trade commodities for external wealth. In this system kneeling actually improves your chances in the next campaign rather than limiting them, and thematically reinforces the intended design of players choosing to kneel and fight for their new overlords rather than take their ball and go home.

Losing should have severe consequences and winning should have majestic boons.  I suggest trying to win and if you can’t compete, running isn’t the solution.  Get better allies, disrupt their allies, make better specs, get better gear, disrupt trade, custard with their harvesters but if you’ve allowed your enemy to out manaveur you so entirely that you will never win then you’ve done custarded up and that’s on you.  

 

If you allow people to just leave every time they are losing you will destroy the entire game loop.  You wanna leave, then you leave with nothing because people mass leaving will destroy a campaign and those who aren’t losing shouldn’t suffer (and I don’t just mean the winners, I mean the majority people in the middle). 

 

People lose because they won’t adapt.  This static identity is so adamantly part of them it weighs them down.  If you lost then it’s because you didn’t want to win as much as the other team.  

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

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

If you allow people to just leave every time they are losing you will destroy the entire game loop.  You wanna leave, then you leave with nothing

The first part is nonsense, but I agree with the second part.

You can't force people to keep playing a campaign they know they've lost They won't, and so now you've just forced them to go play a different game. But they shouldn't be rewarded in any way for quitting.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree to disagree on this one, sure, but I think there are levels here.

Allowing losers to lose, immediately, and collect the spoils due to losers robs the winners of nothing. They win. They get the rewards for winning. Then everyone plays a new campaign.

What you're suggesting is that players are functionally unable to choose to lose by penalizing them extra for resigning. What's the difference between resigning and getting the "loser" reward (and many bands do have rewards for losers) or being forced to simply fail to log in and wait to get the "loser' reward.

The second example is exactly the thing campaigns are supposed to prevent. You're asking the "loser" to get farmed, and they won't. They simply won't log in. You're asking the "winner" to have nobody to fight. And they won't. because the people they've thoroughly trounced won't log in.

Losing and quitting should functionally carry the same reward or penalty because forcing people to quit should be a way to win that gets everyone on to the next campaign without wasting anyone's time.

Further, ESPECIALLY in the lower bands losers need to get something. Or you end up with an endless cycle of losers walking away empty handed, winners getting exports, and the entire campaign model falls flat on its face for any campaign with imports. The biggest winners day one remain the winners forever, at least until they decide to leave the band. That is the entire point of the lower bands. They're training wheels, and they're where you fall back to when you get your poorly made socks pushed in in the dregs.

The suggesting that losers get nothing everywhere but the tippity top tier campaign ring will destroy the game more effectively than people not logging in because they don't wanna get farmed but can't quit their campaign because they'll lose whatever meager reward losing would have given them.

And that "winner take all" ring totally SHOULD exist. It would be a huge disservice to the community if it did not. However that ring should be the aspirational goal, the championship ring, not the baseline you ask new players, small unaligned guilds, and soloists who just want to feel out the world and find guilds naturally to join.

Because if you do that, they're going to quit after their first campaign of getting nothing.

If it is EVERY ring, and if you don't ALLOW PEOPLE TO RESIGN, you are simply undermining the entire point of campaigns. Campaigns don't exist to see who wins in a time frame. They exist to see who wins, period, so everyone can try again and nobody has to sit around and get farmed or sit around and be bored because they've owned so hard nobody is logging in.

Forcing people to hang around a campaign they know they've lost just to get their spoils is a surefire way to alienate over half of your players, because over half of your players are going to lose every campaign that has players in it. That's just math. Winners are the minority of all players. They deserve the most and best rewards by far, but you simply can't have a game where the majority of your player base receives literally nothing. It simply won't work.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mandalore said:

Losing should have severe consequences and winning should have majestic boons.  I suggest trying to win and if you can’t compete, running isn’t the solution.  Get better allies, disrupt their allies, make better specs, get better gear, disrupt trade, custard with their harvesters but if you’ve allowed your enemy to out manaveur you so entirely that you will never win then you’ve done custarded up and that’s on you.  

 

If you allow people to just leave every time they are losing you will destroy the entire game loop.  You wanna leave, then you leave with nothing because people mass leaving will destroy a campaign and those who aren’t losing shouldn’t suffer (and I don’t just mean the winners, I mean the majority people in the middle). 

 

People lose because they won’t adapt.  This static identity is so adamantly part of them it weighs them down.  If you lost then it’s because you didn’t want to win as much as the other team.  

Unfortunately the mmorpg genre is full of games that follow this exact same design, and it's driven players away and sunset games. If winning is the only way to enjoy the game then you have a fundamentally flawed game. Although I always strive to win, I sure as custard don't want to drive other players away while doing so and leave a dead game in my wake. You have to also consider that many guilds don't play solely to win at any cost; what are these guilds to do in crowfall when it comes to enjoyment?

I think the biggest thing they need to figure out is that if there is a mass exodus from campaigns that they need to look into what are the reasons.

Edited by Helix
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 7:40 PM, coolster50 said:

I think I asked that question in one of the past livestreams. I think the answer was that PH would be capped at 3 during the Winter (playing into their idea of winter being harder to get higher quality resources)

Which raises a whole new set of issues. Are they really gonna prevent me from using my training?

I'd rather they mess with the loot tables. It sounds like the same but for there is a diference with resources drops decaying with season and me just magically sucking at it.

I i trained to full pips I want to be five times better than a newbie. Capping and removing skill directly from players seems like a flaw.

So don't mess with PH (or even other stats) but with the loot tables directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BarriaKarl said:

Which raises a whole new set of issues. Are they really gonna prevent me from using my training?

I'd rather they mess with the loot tables. It sounds like the same but for there is a diference with resources drops decaying with season and me just magically sucking at it.

I i trained to full pips I want to be five times better than a newbie. Capping and removing skill directly from players seems like a flaw.

So don't mess with PH (or even other stats) but with the loot tables directly.

PH doesn't do anything but decides which loot table you roll on, so lowering PH would just have your skills roll in a lower tier loot table, basically the same thing as you're proposing. Blair shared a chart of how it works sometime ago. I'll edit if I find it

M5wbmVX.jpg

^ This. Your beneficial harvest, harvest critical chance, and harvest critical amount will remain unchanged (I assume), but you'll just roll on tiers less likely to drop the higher quality resources

Edited by coolster50

giphy.gif

You Can't Be A Genius, If You Aren't The Slightest Bit Insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coolster50 said:

PH doesn't do anything but decides which loot table you roll on, so lowering PH would just have your skills roll in a lower tier loot table, basically the same thing as you're proposing. Blair shared a chart of how it works sometime ago. I'll edit if I find it

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 11:15 PM, PopeUrban said:

FOEX tactical directive #5:

If you can't win, go somewhere where you can. Bravery is expensive. Knock it off.

 

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing TBH. In a system set up to have winners and losers, I'd much prefer the system allow winners to win and losers to lose rather that expecting winners to spent months stomping people with no challenge and losers to spend months getting stomped. The social metrics of bragging rights and the multiplicative effect of campaign export rewards should provide enough of a push/pull to influence those decisions. Cutting and running, in general, should be a last choice for most people under this setup, provided they have the option of the first choice of kneeling to a superior power for greater gain. If your options are "surrender" or "swear fealty" we only need to ensure that 'swear fealty" is actually the superior option without also making "surrender" feel so unrewarding you wonder why you bothered to play in the first place.

This is why I prefer victory rewards functionally act as multipliers rather than dividers. If the minimum you can pull out of a campaign is literally just the items you collected, your time feels valuable even if you take the bare minimum reward. If the minimum is "you left because you were out of stuff, but also you only get to keep half your stuff" that's going to be extremely frustrating.

Not only that, multiplying rewards is just mathematically easier. You can always multiply a value to an integer, but you can't always divide. If all you have to export is one suit of gear, what does 50% export look like? It looks like an incomplete set of equipment that can be an active setback to your next import campaign. However if your "lose" condition is 100% and your "win" is 150% then the half set of gear is much more effective as a bonus because, hey, you have to craft less for your next set. You're also far more likely to value exporting good crafted items compared to using them directly, which creates an interesting push/pull. Do you use that near perfect rolled purple weapon now, or do you gamble it in exports for a shot at duplicating it? That's an interesting choice, and if you're not risking actually losing it entirely, it is a choice players are much more likely to make.

This alone could be a huge part of the reward system feeling valuable without feeling punative in lower end (e.g. faction) campaigns. If I am at the very least guaranteed an opportunity to leave a campaign with the stuff I gathered I'm probably not going to be too put off by being forced to leave early. However if I am told that by kneeling I can get 110% I have a damn good reason to kneel and stick around and actually help the people I kneeled to even though I have "lost" as I'm still seeing a net positive for my time spent.

And honestly, with the way that resourcing versus degredation works, I don't think its out of line to just inflate resource output for winners and even "half-winners" to encourage kneeling as default and allowing winning to accomplish its goal of creating trade commodities for external wealth. In this system kneeling actually improves your chances in the next campaign rather than limiting them, and thematically reinforces the intended design of players choosing to kneel and fight for their new overlords rather than take their ball and go home.

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

I agree with this in theory, but I don't see the developers creating an enforceable contract tool when betrayal is encouraged in their vision of a throne war simulator. A team or faction that bends the knee and does not help finish that campaign by participating has in fact technically left the server, but still has their hand out for a reward. How do we enforce the choice they made to swear fealty, I don't think we can, but it would be cool if oath swearing could somehow be made binding.

I'm sorry but leaving the server when the season of Un-plenty triggers will now and forever be known as The Popes Gambit :)  

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

I'm sorry but leaving the server when the season of Un-plenty triggers will now and forever be known as The Popes Gambit :)  

I am completely fine with this. Print the shirt.

Edit:

On the subject of enforcing kneeling, I kinda view kneeling as a codified loss of freedom. You're a serf, and you've lost autonamy, right? You had the option to pack it in and go home or agree, systemically, to take orders. In this instance I support codifying it and making it conditional because players made a choice here. As the guy collecting serfs, you still have your autonamy. As a serf, though, SHOULD we let you keep your rewards if you don't do the job your overlord asked you to do?

I think there's a good case here for making pledging allegience (a mutually beneficial arrangement entered in to by two free willed parties) and bending the knee (an antagonistic arrangement in which one party enters under duress) mechanically different.

It seems we already need some form of activity tracking for campaign score, and possibly for passing out export credits. I think making kneeling conditional and one way isn't out of line simply because it kinda HAS to be to work at all. If you kneel, your fate is tied to your master AND your master gets to dictate the rules for collection. Dealing with two hostile powers that likely don't like one another very much seems to dictate it almost has to be a systemic contract right?

The trick for the kneelers would be TECHNICALLY fulfulling their vows while still undermining their master for external gain. That sounds a lot more throne-war to me if this is a real system with real limitations. The kneeler is guaranteed green to the agressor, but the kneeler is required to do X to get rewarded as a kneeler. The aggressor sets these terms when the treaty is signed, and that treaty (and that treaty alone) is ratified by divine right, an unbreakable contract which is not to be entered lightly.

This is something we haven't seen done before because no sandbox really had a campaign structure that needed the question "how do we get losers to stick around?" answered. We know that the concept of kneeling is on ACE's mind all the way back to the kickstarter, with different reward amounts for win, lose, and kneel. Kneeling may mean that you are systemically prevented from winning BUT if it systemically prevents you from losing (unless your master loses) it could answer that question and be really healthy for the game.

You are right though. The only way kneeling as a concept will work at ALL is if it is systemically enforced. Its up to ACE if kneeling is a mechanic they think is important enough to enforce in this manner. It is by default a relationship rooted in distrust so it may actually be a good idea to codify implicit required trust in the same way we do so for trade windows for this system alone.

Someone kneels to you and you get to go "no" or "okay, you may have your share of the spoils, scum, but only if you accomplish this task" and send your new serfs on their way with no supervision. This allows kneeling to be prely transactional and calculated and worthy of a different mechanic than normal alliances and subs. I think that sounds like an extremely politically interesting dynamic that allows larger agressors to actually press gang the defeated in a manner similar to real war while circumventing the problems with press gangs in a game where people can just log out (and loss of time is a non-threat) or respawn (and loss of life is a non-threat) without the threat of imprisonment or death being options, how DO we allow one power to threaten another in to submission?

Its kind of a solution to emulating aspects of war while working around the realities of video games similar to vuln/siege timers. The question is what we lose and gain. Vuln timers lose us the ability to launch surprise attacks, but we gain massive player counts for important battles. Contractual kneeling may lose us some abilities to betray people, but we may gain a mechanic that allows us to actually press gang the defeated in stead of annihilating them. Whether that political interaction is desired or valuable I'm sure is a matter of opininion that varies from person to person, but I've yet to see a sandbox that really allowed people to embark on a Targeryan or Ghenghis khan style "build an army by conquest" route and... it could be interesting?

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 3:12 PM, corvax said:

I agree this will happen in a majority of campaigns because humans are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. No one has ever been able to explain to me how designing  Crowfall game mechanics that flow against evolutionary bias such as limiting material spawns to fight over, and making activities harder, increases participation. And so I think 'The Popes Gambit' of Bandwagon off to another campaign world will be extremely fashionable.

BUT IF, ArtCraft can drop the idea that winter equals harder just for the sake of harder, and instead adopts the idea that winter equals more complex, people might stick around until the end of the campaign. Should not the best stuff drop in winter when the risk is higher? And let those that want the low hanging fruit move to warmer climes.     

 

They should add some kind of high level Hunger-related resource, more valuable than Hunger Shards, that is only harvestable during the final season - the Winter stage of a campaign.

This resource won't be equivalent to mundane resources that form the basic ingredients to crafting but could perhaps be an optional additive to crafted items that produce remarkable upgrades or changes in produced modifiers. It could perhaps go in the hunger shard crafting slot but be an Epic or Legendary level version of the Hunger shard. They could even be listed as a required ingredient for the most prestigious of buildings or parcels.

Hunger Gems

Something worth fighting for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the overall concept (the ambiance of it) and your open approach (explicit info, etc.). 

nb.: As long as we do not have to eat every 5 minutes, which I nickname the H1Z1 syndrome.  Make eating as automatic and hassle-free as possible.  Note that I have not playtested in about two months, so my comment/suggestion is very general.

Edited by baraz

Baraz / Siriel, The Shipwrecked Pirates and ally of the WinterbladesUndead Lords (UDL)
- Loved Shadowbane. I play mostly Darkfall, Mount & Blade Warband, Heroes & Generals, Fallout 4 (Steam).

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...