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

Say No to Shadowbane Style Mines


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

You limit server access based on guild actual members. So guilds below 30 play 0-30 servers, guild 30-60 plays 30-60 and so on. You make brackets. It's like Dota matchmaking but instead of being based on MMR it is based on guild member numbers.

How do you account for the difference in activity between guilds with very active players and guilds with lesser levels of activity?

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Getting back on track, I can't stress enough that hitting rocks for hours isn't how I want to spend my game time, and that seems to be necessary for supplying crafters with what they need to keep ever

Ok, I stopped reading this thread around page 8 (and didn't read each post meticulously), so forgive me for addressing the elephant in the room if it's already been addressed...   Nyamo, do

First, I like the idea. But, the key to PvP health is variety, in my opinion. This should be in, SB style mines should be in, 24-hour active mines that cannot be captured should be in, hot spots

Just now, tsp_maj said:

How do you account for the difference in activity between guilds with very active players and guilds with lesser levels of activity?

This is done by the "type" of the campaign. I mean if i have a guild who is not very active I may want to play in the "faction" campaign cause I already know that the "dregs" would not be suitable for our guild. So this system is already in place. And if this guild still decide to pick dregs regardless... well that was that guild personal choice or his own death sentence.

Point is we need to have "brackets" inside each category. So, for instance, 30 ppl guild playing a dregs are not destroyed by a 200 ppl guild playing the same dregs.
And back on the very original topic, 30 ppl guild are most likely to be all located in the same "time zone" so a primetime approach to siege is more suitable. While a 200+ guild is probably to be an international one, where prime time approach may not be the best.

And the good thing is Crowfall already have the tools for this, by setting custom campaigns rules.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

So you are saying large casuals guild shouldn't join the dregs? If this guild is "large" enough can zerg your lovely dregs. What I am advocating here is that there should be ruleset for small guild dregs and rulesets for large guild dregs or you will end up having large guild zergs ruining the experience there.

An international guild is by definition a guild in which someone has to play with higher ping... otherwise it wouldn't be international (since the server has to be located in a physical place... so the real definition of international guild is a guild with high ping imo)!!! People joining an international guild are aware of the issue and are fine with that. So, ping is not a valid argument. It may be for you but not all players care about ping.

 

The issue is we will have to, be forced to, imposed on us international players. International players by definition have ping issues. Therefore a portion of our guild will have a bad ping. These players will not have an enjoyable experience. There is a difference between someone choosing to join an international guild, and someone being forced to in order to compete.  If you don't care about ping that's fine, but you are in the severe minority of players with that opinion. 

Again its not about guild size. It's about forcing players to have a subpar technical experience or lose their stuff. 

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

This is done by the "type" of the campaign. I mean if i have a guild who is not very active I may want to play in the "faction" campaign cause I already know that the "dregs" would not be suitable for our guild. So this system is already in place. And if this guild still decide to pick dregs regardless... well that was that guild personal choice or his own death sentence.

Point is we need to have "brackets" inside each category. So, for instance, 30 ppl guild playing a dregs are not destroyed by a 200 ppl guild playing the same dregs.
And back on the very original topic, 30 ppl guild are most likely to be all located in the same "time zone" so a primetime approach to siege is more suitable. While a 200+ guild is probably to be an international one, where prime time approach may not be the best.

And the good thing is Crowfall already have the tools for this, by setting custom campaigns rules.

Seems like a lot more assumptions then I feel comfortable with.  How do you stop a 60 man guild from splitting into two groups and dominating by working together?

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

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

The issue is we will have to, be forced to, imposed on us international players. International players by definition have ping issues. Therefore a portion of our guild will have a bad ping. These players will not have an enjoyable experience. There is a difference between someone choosing to join an international guild, and someone being forced to in order to compete.  If you don't care about ping that's fine, but you are in the severe minority of players with that opinion. 

Again its not about guild size. It's about forcing players to have a subpar technical experience or lose their stuff. 

But if there are different campaigns you force no one. Let player chose the campaign they want to. The low-ping but primetime or high-ping but 24/7. As long as there is a choice it is the player who chose which one to take part to, so as you can see there is no one forcing you to join a particular campaign.

On the contrary is you, by advocating only one type of campaign, forcing people willing to play with higher ping for the sake of playing on a 24/7 to play on a prime time campaign because that would be the only one available. 

I like how you are kind of trying to show that is me who is reducing player freedom while it is you in the end. Keep trying harder, and bring valid arguments next time.

Edited by Nyamo

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

Seems like a lot more assumptions then I feel comfortable with.  How do you stop a 60 man guild from splitting into two groups and dominating by working together?

TOS

EDIT: I mean that if the TOS is written in a way to prevent exploits like this, then that would be a bannable offense.

Edited by Nyamo

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to keep on this path of 20 questions but don't you feel like you went from "Free world, do what you want" to a lot of very specific restrictions?  Is there going to be a tribunal that presides over cases of a 3rd party guild coming in mid fight and wiping one team from behind?  Whos to say that they werent working together?

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

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

I don't want to keep on this path of 20 questions but don't you feel like you went from "Free world, do what you want" to a lot of very specific restrictions?  Is there going to be a tribunal that presides over cases of a 3rd party guild coming in mid fight and wiping one team from behind?  Whos to say that they werent working together?

A 3rd party guild is completely fine. This is a game of throne, right? So alliances are more than welcome and you should expect backstabs. But a single guild, which on purpose abuses or exploiting the system is making a violation of the TOS. There is a huge difference from a third party joining a fight, to a guild who on the sole purpose of ruining other players experience splits in 2 sub guilds to dominate a campaign. You play by the rules and stick to the campaign suited to the one of your guild size. If then alliances happens inside a campaign... well, that's what a game of throne is!!!

And, btw there is already a tribunal, and it is made by the devs. Try to start duping items and then see what happens... Or try to start flaming and insulting people here and see if they don't rush banning you from the forums...

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, I hate the idea of locking people out. Albion Online did that and it was a horrendous mechanic that made me quit the game much sooner. People should not be locked out or otherwise debuffed or buffed based on numbers or any sort of game mechanic. Truly open PvP, please, it's been so long since a game did that. And it could be so successful with a generation of gamers who have never experienced it, but are willing to play hardcore games.

Edit: It should be very apparent to Devs that not everyone who goes hard on this forum will be interested in the game they are creating. I hope they keep their sanity and manage not to give in to those players.

Also, the danger of the premise: "build all sort of variety of servers so everyone is happy," is splitting your player base too thin. PvP games need Players, otherwise Player vs. Player quickly becomes Player vs. Noone and then Nobody vs. Noone. Some players who would love something outside of their comfort zone and play for years might otherwise play for two months on a run of the mill server-type they are familiar with and then quit.

Edited by McTan
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nyamo said:

But if there are different campaigns you force no one. Let player chose the campaign they want to. The low-ping but primetime or high-ping but 24/7. As long as there is a choice it is the player who chose which one to take part to, so as you can see there is no one forcing you to join a particular campaign.

On the contrary is you, by advocating only one type of campaign, forcing people willing to play with higher ping for the sake of playing on a 24/7 to play on a prime time campaign because that would be the only one available. 

I like how you are kind of trying to show that is me who is reducing player freedom while it is you in the end. Keep trying harder, and bring valid arguments next time.

There is no reasoning with you. People have told you throughout this thread why 24/7 does not work. Your ideas for limiting guilds in campaigns don't make sense.

 

Edited by Zatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zatch said:

People have told you throughout this thread why 24/7 does not work.

They told me it does not work for them as I told them it does work for me. This is what the forums are about, right?

2 minutes ago, Zatch said:

There is no reasoning with you.

I guess it is over then. Thank you so much for the time you spent discussing with me.

Edited by Nyamo

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

I should add, I hate the idea of locking people out. Albion Online did that and it was a horrendous mechanic that made me quit the game much sooner. People should not be locked out or otherwise debuffed or buffed based on numbers or any sort of game mechanic. Truly open PvP, please, it's been so long since a game did that. And it could be so successful with a generation of gamers who have never experienced it, but are willing to play hardcore games.

Edit: It should be very apparent to Devs that not everyone who goes hard on this forum will be interested in the game they are creating. I hope they keep their sanity and manage not to give in to those players.

That includes you right?  That part of my suggestion is more of a brainstorm.  I knew it was controversial when I suggested it, pretty sure I’ve been convinced that it’s better to not have it, though I still have concerns that don’t have any attempted solution.

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

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

A 3rd party guild is completely fine. This is a game of throne, right? So alliances are more than welcome and you should expect backstabs. But a single guild, which on purpose abuses or exploiting the system is making a violation of the TOS. There is a huge difference from a third party joining a fight, to a guild who on the sole purpose of ruining other players experience splits in 2 sub guilds to dominate a campaign. You play by the rules and stick to the campaign suited to the one of your guild size. If then alliances happens inside a campaign... well, that's what a game of throne is!!!

And, btw there is already a tribunal, and it is made by the devs. Try to start duping items and then see what happens... Or try to start flaming and insulting people here and see if they don't rush banning you from the forums...

So an alliance of 120 is ok as long as it’s broken up into 4 guilds?  How is that any different then just allowing a 120 man guild in?  

I could formulate that team right now.

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tsp_maj said:

So an alliance of 120 is ok as long as it’s broken up into 4 guilds?  How is that any different then just allowing a 120 man guild in?  

I could formulate that team right now.

Point is that there isn't a perfect system. But what you can do is to make a system that is perceived fair by the people using it, even if it has his flaws.

If you put a 200+ guild on the same server of  the 30+ guilds, these guilds will feel they stand no chance and probably will have a bad game experience. We are talking of game experience here and what they perceive as users. These 30+ guilds smashed by a "zerg" will probably come crying in the forums (if you scroll back there is already someone here fearing these so called zergs) and they will try to advocate anti-zerg measures.

So, while technically 30x4 is equal to 120 and 1x120 is equal to 120 the two things are perceived differently and act differently. If "by design" you direct these to an environment suited for them they will feel the system is more fair.

So, back on your question, you could allow the 120 guild in the first place. But I personally would expect people screaming that this game has become a zergfest. If you see some people here are already advocating "measures" to prevent zerg from joining. Separate the "zergers" from the "hardcore" and you will have less drama.

 

Edited by Nyamo

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does everyone pretty much agree that something needs to happen with PoI's and harvesting? Not that it would override or exclude traditional harvesting, but that there needs to be a PoI system which complements the traditional harvesting system and ties in directly to harvesting skills.

Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

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

Point is that there isn't a perfect system. But what you can do is to make a system that is perceived fair by the people using it, even if it has his flaws.

If you put a 200+ guild on the same server of  the 30+ guilds, these guilds will feel they stand no chance and probably will have a bad game experience. We are talking of game experience here and what they perceive as users. These 30+ guilds smashed by a "zerg" will probably come crying in the forums (if you scroll back there is already someone here fearing these so called zergs) and they will try to advocate anti-zerg measures.

So, while technically 30x4 is equal to 120 and 1x120 is equal to 120 the two things are perceived differently and act differently. If "by design" you direct these to an environment suited for them they will feel the system is more fair.

So, back on your question, you could allow the 120 guild in the first place. But I personally would expect people screaming that this game has become a zergfest. If you see some people here are already advocating "measures" to prevent zerg from joining. Separate the "zergers" from the "hardcore" and you will have less drama.

For some reason this made me smile.  Sounds like you've got a lot of gaming experience but not really in this type of game.  Even without that experience you've realized one of the biggest challenges, and possibly downfalls of the sandbox PvP style MMO.  That alone should give you some extra respect for the challenges they are facing in attempting to make it work despite what seems like a crippling flaw in the design. 

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this idea, but I've spent a ton of time trying to come up with a system that would be a viable compromise.  I encourage the brainstorm though.  Maybe you'll solve it.

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

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

So does everyone pretty much agree that something needs to happen with PoI's and harvesting? Not that it would override or exclude traditional harvesting, but that there needs to be a PoI system which complements the traditional harvesting system and ties in directly to harvesting skills.

I'll agree with anything you say, just make it better. 

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

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

I don't know how you can have a no rules sandbox with a GIANT RULE that says NO ATTACKING EXCEPT DURING THE HOURS OF 6 to 10 PM.  But that's fine.  I don't need to understand it.

There is no such rule. You are arguing against strawman versions of what people are saying.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

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

I am advocating here is that there should be ruleset for small guild dregs and rulesets for large guild dregs

What does that mean?

If small guilds don't want play the political game and form alliances to combat large guild or be the "small kingdoms the ally themselves with larger powers then GR (3 faction) is a better place to play.

 

This isn't a shut down statement it is a "from what I can see CF will offer these options already" reply. What are you really asking for that won't be in CF?

 

Quote

So does everyone pretty much agree that something needs to happen with PoI's and harvesting? Not that it would override or exclude traditional harvesting, but that there needs to be a PoI system which complements the traditional harvesting system and ties in directly to harvesting skills.

This is already happening. Lumber mills, quarries, etc and Adventure Zones will all house special resources that will drive PvP conflict. They are also expanding this with new sacrificial specific AZ and a few other things. Basically so far they are adding more reasons for us to go out and fight for land control. 

Edited by Keaggan
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Keaggan said:

What does that mean?

If small guilds don't want play the political game and form alliances to combat large guild or be the "small kingdoms the ally themselves with larger powers then GR (3 faction) is a better place to play.

 

This isn't a shut down statement it is a "from what I can see CF will offer these options already" reply. What are you really asking for that won't be in CF?

 

This is already happening. Lumber mills, quarries, etc and Adventure Zones will all house special resources that will drive PvP conflict. They are also expanding this with new sacrificial specific AZ and a few other things. Basically so far they are adding more reasons for us to go out and fight for land control. 

I think Soulein is advocating for POIs to produce resources you pvp for versus actually harvesting. 

Edited by Zatch
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...