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

A campaign win reward that would keep people playing--

Recommended Posts

On 31.10.2018 at 2:41 AM, PaleOne said:

Suggestion--

 

I think the idea of limiting exports will suck as no one will want to play a game where you bust your ass and then lose half your campaign harvested mats and items ...

 

At the end of the campaign the winners get...

The quality levels of the items and materials they export advanced one quality level.

The losers remain the same..

 

What do you think?

 

Winning shouldn´t give an advantage in the following campaigns.

Perhaps a title, some cosmetics or something for the EK?

Share this post


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

Winning shouldn´t give an advantage in the following campaigns.

Perhaps a title, some cosmetics or something for the EK?

For people who feel that way, there will be No Import Campaigns.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Winning shouldn´t give an advantage in the following campaigns.

Perhaps a title, some cosmetics or something for the EK?

Honestly,

after playing  Shadowbane and Darkfall extensively. Commanding and winning multiple sieges and putting in the time necessary to manage an empire..

if there is no actual physical benefit that results in any real advantage —

 

Then you will get what we have now- empty campaigns- low participation and people just giving up if it gets difficult .

 

“incentives are important, learned that in rehab”

— Capt Ron.

 

 

in SB and DF we worked for months to build our cities because they were permanent unless someone took them from us.

now because those games eventually stalemated Crowfall is experimenting with “temporary worlds”

 

but personally I can’t see the same passion developing for temporary holdings or the same level of effort put in, unless the incentives are strong and lasting and have a real effect on the game.


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


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

Honestly,

after playing  Shadowbane and Darkfall extensively. Commanding and winning multiple sieges and putting in the time necessary to manage an empire..

if there is no actual physical benefit that results in any real advantage —

 

Then you will get what we have now- empty campaigns- low participation and people just giving up if it gets difficult .

 

“incentives are important, learned that in rehab”

— Capt Ron.

 

 

in SB and DF we worked for months to build our cities because they were permanent unless someone took them from us.

now because those games eventually stalemated Crowfall is experimenting with “temporary worlds”

 

but personally I can’t see the same passion developing for temporary holdings or the same level of effort put in, unless the incentives are strong and lasting and have a real effect on the game.

That's a good point.

What could be a good model, is that in campaigns where it's build up instead of hippos, (if that's a thing), is that the rewards not be export of raw materials, but the winners actually get to haul the finished buildings/lands/ etc they built into their EK, if they win.

Imagine a guild being able to pull in an entire "Island" into their EK, minus the ranked materials.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

Imagine a guild being able to pull in an entire "Island" into their EK, minus the ranked materials.

Perhaps some sort of reward that allows players or guilds to put a vendor in a future beachhead. This would allow players to buy/sell goods in a campaign that would restrict the problem with vendors in EK's. Mainly selling gear to enemy factions would be curtailed. This would also make the game world seem more alive and interactive. Currently beachheads are little more then empty space. 

I still wish instanced EK's were deleted from game and instead utilize beachheads as shared EK for everyone in faction. Ultima Online housing 20 years ago is still better then todays games with garbage instanced housing, sad panda....

Share this post


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

Perhaps some sort of reward that allows players or guilds to put a vendor in a future beachhead. This would allow players to buy/sell goods in a campaign that would restrict the problem with vendors in EK's. Mainly selling gear to enemy factions would be curtailed. This would also make the game world seem more alive and interactive. Currently beachheads are little more then empty space. 

I still wish instanced EK's were deleted from game and instead utilize beachheads as shared EK for everyone in faction. Ultima Online housing 20 years ago is still better then todays games with garbage instanced housing, sad panda....

Past winning as a qualifier to placing a beachhead shop is actually a really cool idea.

Gets around the "your own team are trolls" problem and population explosion.  Each win, you get a shop token, that like a vessel is locked to a campaign until you pull it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PaleOne said:

Then you will get what we have now- empty campaigns- low participation and people just giving up if it gets difficult .

Campaigns are empty because there is absolutely nothing to do. No win condition, no reward for winning, no reward for the time spent in game, no reward for your contribution, no guilds or any other social tools ingame. Stagnation since 5.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PaleOne said:

but personally I can’t see the same passion developing for temporary holdings or the same level of effort put in, unless the incentives are strong and lasting and have a real effect on the game.

People obviously play pvp games like MOBAs and BRs just for the fun (cosmetics) and the win (rankings) - the difference is the time investment (grind is the enemy here) so that's a really important balancing act for CF.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if there is a main campaign that lasts litterally YEARS and allows all the players on it, but its a time gated server where taking control of keeps/land requires months and much more resources to craft things.

- People winning in "Mini Campaigns" can bring over either an item or structure(Outpost) as well as cosmetic rewards from that mini campaign. Also winning rewards gives some kind of global advantage called a (War Relic) to the main campaign that grants an effect like: 10% more stone yeilds.

-Each mini campaign will offer a unique War Relic to the winners.

-Signficantly more players are allowed on the main campaign. 1000v1000v1000 battles.

---------------------

Cosmetic rewards and titles can be used on any other campaign including main or mini campaigns.

---------------------

-What if almost all of the main campaign territory allowed building placements.

-Players can make outposts that act like a smaller version of in game fortresses and are required to help sustain resources for building and upgrading the main fortresses in game.

-Clans or players that own outposts recieve rewards everytime a caravan from their outpost reaches a Fortress.

-Outposts will be like a livable city for players with activities and if upgraded; quest givers; where players are encourages to live out of and defend.

-Outposts can be destroyed by opposing factions through direct action like sieging or indirect such as raiding caravans.

-Outposts slowly degrade over time unless a steady stream of supplies reaches it through the caravan system.

-Outposts can be upgraded through players donation resources directly to that outpost.

-Fortresses can be upgraded and supported through caravans that transverse from Outposts.

-Outposts are significantly harder to construct and require a longer time than on the Main Campaign than on the mini campaigns.

-Outposts will act as a player holding or city and are upgradable and cosmetic building skins, trophies and banners can be placed here. Players can place vendors and play mini games like poker here.

-Upon destruction outposts will give a portion 1/6 of the resources to build/upgrade split between all enemies who siege or kill the caravans supporting the outpost.

-Upon winning a mini campaign a player has the option to port over to the main campaign a piece of their gear or if that player owns an outpost they can port that.

-Clans owning an outpost automatically port (1) outpost over, however if the clan owns multiple outposts a player can opt to choose to port that as well rather than a piece of gear.

-Winners of mini campaigns can port over a piece of their gear to the main campaign and can equip and use their titles and cosmetic skins won on all the other campaigns including the main one.

-------------------

-The main campaign would be brutally harder than the mini campaign requiring more resources for contructions, much much harder pve mobs, but balanced in a way that people bringing over their rewards from other mini campaigns wont completely unbalance everything but winning mini campaigns will drastically help the main campaign faction's war efforts.

----------

Imagine being on the main campaign seeing various mini campaign conqueror's unqiue titles and skins relevant to the side campaigns they won and thanking each other for their victories towards the main campaign war efforts.

 

Edited by IsilithTehroth
Was a incoherent mess of thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small and personal objectives is the way to go IMHO. Everytime i see people talking about winning CWs and exporting tons upon tons of mats I just feel left out. That is guild things to worry about. I don't really care about such lofty goals, I just want to log-in, have fun and hopefully have enough money to not run in rags.

Player could be rewarded for any action that makes for good gameplay.

Fighters:

Fought in a siege and won? there will be a reward to you. Fought in a siege and got the most kills (can we track this?)? Reward. Attacked a caravan? Reward. Was the first to kill a dragon/giant/queen spider? More rewards. The person with more beheadings? Brutal, take some more rewards.

Gatherers:

Was the person to gather more mats total in the CW? Big reward. The player to gather more wood, stone, ore, blood, necro parts? rewards again. The first person to gather a legendary in this CW? reward.

Crafters:

The first person to make a legendary? Big rewards. The person who crafted more items total? Rewards. More swords, maces, arrows, bows, staves? Maybe next CW the item in question get extra stats? just brainstorming. More factory runs? Tricky. Most popular store? The store that made more money? Reward, reward, reward.

Edit: We could make some of those daily. Being the person to craft more swords in day X, while not leaderboard worthy, should be worth something, right? Same with gatherer's and fighter's objectives. And I can see those being super motivating to players.

Most of those will (should) be present in the CW leaderboard so getting rewards for them should already be planned. The focus should be in the small, repeatable objectives that small time groups/persons could do. The rewards of those should be minimal and any guild would scoff at them but this is all about personal rewarding.

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 5:19 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

That's a good point.

What could be a good model, is that in campaigns where it's build up instead of hippos, (if that's a thing), is that the rewards not be export of raw materials, but the winners actually get to haul the finished buildings/lands/ etc they built into their EK, if they win.

Imagine a guild being able to pull in an entire "Island" into their EK, minus the ranked materials.

There was a short lived MMORTS that usd this as its central gimmick, and it seemed dumb at first until you really got in to it.

In that game, every single player had a private little universe, and in that private little universe, one could do everything they could in the public one. The problem was, that universe had one star system with one star system's worth of resources, one star system's worth of anchor points for build ques, etc. etc.

Now, you could be content to just live in your little universe and never leave, but you'd eventually cap out, couldn't research fun new things due to lack of facilities, couldn't support bigger fleets to mine more things or kill more whatevers, etc.

There were two, simultaneous games at play in this game.

The "main" game was the public universe. You wanted to control that space, use it, etc. but because it was a public space it was of course subject to the machinations of other players. It was easy, even trivial to expand in that space, offering virtually unlimited reach to your empire. However you'd have to contend with other players as not all star systems were created equal, and players wanted to be the best, biggest, winningest, etc. as is the way in any PvP game.

The SECOND game was where it got interesting though. The second game was starjacking. Flying a special shp to a star and completing a very long process which would remove that star and its entire system from the public world and place it in your private one. The space left vacant could isolate sections of the galaxy from one another, break apart empires, etc. Eventually a new star system would spawn in its place, with random properties, and it may not be as good.

So there you have a whole game full of players with two contradictory goals. Players want to steal the best systems for themselves, but they also need to leave them where they are to have a cohesive empire through which to travel to access new star spawns and generally be a bigger presence on the map.

And, rightly, players developed two contradictory play patters for this reason. Social players and empire builders would invest heavily in the shared universe and its opportunities for trade. By all rights these massive star empires owned large portions of that world, politicked with each other, warred with each other, etc.

However, solo players and raiding focused groups didn't seek to own any of it. Their only goal was to break the universe in to little peices, steal it, and use the stolen pieces to make even bigger war machines to do it again. These players were anathema to the first type, and generally very small groups. I found it uniwue in that it created a PvP environment in which one COULD interact with a large player created political metagame without actually ever needing to be part of it. Raiding style players were effectively the barbarians and everyone else was playing civ. And IT WAS FUN no matter how much you leaned on either side of it.

What was important about the starjacking mechanic was that your personal space was literally just for you. No friends or enemies, it existed specifically to serve as a metric of individual advancement that could directly impact your footprint in the social world. You had a personal, selfish, and largely nontransferrable base of mechanical power with a high incentive to grow it at the expense of every other player in the game.

Of course this literally destroyed the game as it was the ultimate "win more" mechanic that eventually made the game so inaccessible to new players that it folded.

However, the idea of having to prioritize whether to use a perpetual resource socially or annihilate it for your own enrichment is a compelling one that may be compatible with crowfall's design.

The Hunger fills this function in an NPC fashion. The Hunger is greedy and eats everything players need to become more powerful, including eventually entire campaigns right? What if we allowed PLAYERS to do the same.

Imagine you have the ability to craft a 'warp crystal' that functions very much like a hunger crystal. However, you must craft this crystal by sacrificing an amount of exports equal to the campaign's lose penalty, and sacrificing the ability to gain any more for the duration of the campaign. (For example, if the campaign begins with 100 exports, and the losers get to keep 50%, it would cost you 50 to create) When this crystal is destroyed, it also destroys the spawners and resources in its range of effect. These become EK features you can place in any EK where you have permission to do so. However they only last as half as long as the crystal was alive. The destroyed nodes or spawners will eventually respawn on that parcel, perhaps with a week long delay, though perhaps not as the same types and ranks as they once were.

If you've been winning, you have massive stacks of things to export, and massive incentive to continue to want to earn and use exports. Stealing bits of the map is a net loss for you. If you've been losing, however, stealing that r9 motherlode or boss camp to have it sit in an EK for a time, or better yet selling it to another player might be a much more compelling. There's no way the output of that map feature you can exploit for at best maybe a day will even come close to approaching what you'd have gained from it during a 3 month campaign, but if the "nuclear option" is the only way to pull anything out of the campaign, it becomes attractive for you. This also functions as a powerful but costly denial tool that breaks up stagnant farms.

You've now created an uncertain X factor in the otherwise static 'win more' by allowing players the option of simply hamstringing the winners. If you're willing to nuke your own exports to ensure nobody gets the good stuff, you've begun to effectively level the playing field in your favor if you were never able to get the good stuff in the first place. Even if the crystal is destroyed in minutes, you've had a powerful effect on the game state.

There is of course the problem of "what happens when everyone destroys all of the resources at one time" to address, which could be handled by decreasing the respawn timer based on frequency of these being spawned or other means but I think it could be a much more exciting way to create a catch up mechanic by simply retarding the acquisition rate of the people that need caught up with without actually giving the underdog a method to "fail forward" quite as hard as the OP's suggestion. One could even argue that its existence actually increases rather than decreases the value of good exported by the winners.

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

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...