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

Metagame flow observations and clarification

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

I first took that test almost 20 years ago now, back in the fine days of EQ.  I like it about as well as any other personality test that lets me spam Facebook with how I want other people to view me...which is not much at all.  That's really not the direction I was going.  It's like I want to talk about how the different soccer positions contribute to the team's victory and you are saying some people play soccer to exercise, or spend time with friends, or to travel to various cities for away games.

When my friends and I play games together, outside a tournament setting, we allow virtually infinite takebacks--we've rolled back games hours before, and if that's impossible we just restart.  As much as we are playing against each other, we are playing with each other, trying to push the game to the limits and discover what its capable of.  Not what it looks like when you trounce and punish people for mistakes.  This is the type of lens I was looking through, but maybe that interests only me.  I have certainly learned a great deal from the responses in this thread.  Thank you all.

It sounds intellectually interesting, but I'm not sure if your going to get far until more systems are in place.  We don't even have a list of potential win conditions.  Kinda hard to figure out how to win a game, when the win conditions are not known.

KrakkenSmacken    Achiever 67% (95th%)   Explorer:  27% (25th%)   Killer:  80% (95th%)  Socializer:  27% (25th%)

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

 Kinda hard to figure out how to win a game, when the win conditions are not known.

That's legitimate.  As you can see in my original post, I am very much aware that interesting and varied win conditions have the potential to create an interesting and varied game.  I was merely speculating on the current "control forts and keeps" faction v. faction v. faction game that we have currently.  That this is the first mode they introduced bears some significance I think, but perhaps not enough to warrant thinking about it yet.  I wonder how many different rule sets will exist at one time.  Certainly if the risk-reward is equal this would allow people to exercise some preference, though I worry that it won't be just another puzzle to decide which campaign offers the best risk-reward and everyone plays there ignoring the others.  Many people claim they want to play for "fun" or want games to accommodate their unique personal snowflake of individuality, but they also feel entitled to the same rewards and complain quite vocally when people playing differently advance more efficiently.  Will people really play the more "fun" campaign, or will they play the more rewarding campaign and advocate via forums and feedback for the game to change to accommodate them?

Share this post


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

That's legitimate.  As you can see in my original post, I am very much aware that interesting and varied win conditions have the potential to create an interesting and varied game.  I was merely speculating on the current "control forts and keeps" faction v. faction v. faction game that we have currently.  That this is the first mode they introduced bears some significance I think, but perhaps not enough to warrant thinking about it yet.  I wonder how many different rule sets will exist at one time.  Certainly if the risk-reward is equal this would allow people to exercise some preference, though I worry that it won't be just another puzzle to decide which campaign offers the best risk-reward and everyone plays there ignoring the others.  Many people claim they want to play for "fun" or want games to accommodate their unique personal snowflake of individuality, but they also feel entitled to the same rewards and complain quite vocally when people playing differently advance more efficiently.  Will people really play the more "fun" campaign, or will they play the more rewarding campaign and advocate via forums and feedback for the game to change to accommodate them?

Probably the difference between a scrub and someone playing to win.  The answer is, some will, some won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 11:01 AM, Arcadi said:

 

Hmm...yes, each sentence you write makes sense, but when I put them together, I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Is it simply that you are saying I'm wrong, nothing more?  I think my confusion is I am looking for an alternative model or suggestion or continuation of discussion, but your replies seem merely dismissive.

I'm trying to consider how people will try to "win" the game.  Specialization seems to provide better opportunity to win than suboptimal and inefficient spreading of playtime, resources, and/or skill points--even if you can.  It is the part of the discovery portion of games that there are plenty of bad choices that can be made, but considering these while strategizing is rarely productive.

If you are saying a portion of the player base will not really be contenders, then I agree, but how will the game be played in the hands of the best players?  What does the idealized state look like?  When you model a Chess exercise playing both sides, do you intentionally make mistakes because "people make mistakes", or do you try to find the best way it could play out?

Do you think guilds should not emphasize specialization, but instead have a bunch of jack-of-all-trades members?  Or are you commenting on the other case, the viability of a freemarket crafter?  Are you saying that everyone will either be in a guild or content with the inferior versions they can obtain themselves and so there will be no economy, online self-sufficient guilds and content-with-inferior-versions casuals and anti-socials?  That might be an interesting idea to explore.  Maybe the concern about this game needed an economy is invalid and aside from the guild vs guild aspect (which exists outside a game economy) there is no demand at all?

I'm saying that attempting to predicatively analyze the metagame is often folly, since the metagame is a reaction to, and not the goal of, any specific design.

Then I do my own analysis of the overarching design without any claims to its effect on the resultant metagame.

But hey, yeah, if we're gonna try and forecast the metagame here, I'll give it a shot.

People will attempt to "win" the game (if by "win" you mean "play most efficiently") by hyperspecializing among a large number of users if they have a large number of users avaliable, or by diversifying if they don't. That's true in any competitive multiuser system no matter what the underlying design is.

The economy itself is, if this design carries through, more likely to be an expression of the base value of items rather than the training required to make them as time advances. This is just the way of MMO economies. For the first maybe year, yeah, having a niche as a specialized crafter might give you some economic wieght. Once that's done though, training becomes meaningless as relates to economic value as competition enters the market, mass production goes online, and cost becomes primarily about availability of material with a small amount of wiggle room for the randomization of rolls. E.G. you can be maxed out in logging and ave a perfect logging vessel with perfect logging gear, but neither of these is a guarantee that you'll be more efficient at turning that build in to profit than anyone else. 50 halfassed loggers could flood your market and make it more profitable for you to in stead go hit some rocks.

As far as I can tell the game state is "people will use the systems on offer to try and play most efficiently" and "playing most efficiently is subjective from player to player" but this isn't unique to crowfall. What is (somewhat) unique to crowfall is the mechanics seem to be a bit more forgiving in the short term for the solist in an economic sense than similar models, while designed to edge players toward trade and inter-reliance more as they reach higher tiers of equipment and training.


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
On 7/15/2018 at 6:41 PM, Arcadi said:

I did mention the implications of the different rules sets in my post and I completely agree.  That capability has potential to be real game changer.

However, some of the flexibility is one-way.  If you commit to a 3-6 month no import no export campaign (which I personally think would be a lot of fun), you lose 3-6 months of resource and wealth accumulation against players who are using imports/exports.  

2

 

Hi there. If Ace holds to the plans listed in prior talks the Dregs campaign and perhaps other higher risk campaigns will allow higher quality materials saved after the campaigns thus the eternal campaign a greater worth to these Dregs like export servers. This will not function though if the higher quality materials are more easily gained in another campaign type which allows exports.

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...