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

Capture Points - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Duffy said:

@Cosian Have you looked at Chaos lately? People are leaving it in droves. But even then we’re talking test conditions among diehards, not a realistic view of release conditions.

Some correction will happen among the diehards (most of us), but the general populace is susceptible to the pressure of picking a winning side. If you think the majority of the population is gonna correct itself just to have a good match versus win tangible rewards - I disagree. Most people want the carrot of winning prizes, maybe certain campaign styles will have player corrected balance by virtue of a highly restrictive or no carry over rule set, but those will probably not be the greatest draw for players.

 

@Ardrea I do not advocate for any side switching mid campaign, that’s a no - no. I don’t have a solution to the problem given the resetting nature of campaigns and faction allegiance. What I can think of so far is too gameable.

 

The thing is that Chaos has the largest overall gaming alliance in UDL, LoD, LotD, and more with the ability to field 100+ players.   Our expectation is that they would be the zerg…    that it did not happen and UDL seems to have punted and plays the spoiler with only 2-3 groups is surprising.

We know that there are much larger gaming guilds out there  looking for the next big thing among the 3-4 candidates heading for the finish line.   Which game gets it right in optimization and fps in large fights will probably win if the combat and strategy is remotely fun.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Frykka said:

How about being good at getting ahead 5 or more times: 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8...   don't really need practice at it so much.   How many epic and legendary items have you had wiped?     Yes, we expect it but on a controlled and very limited basis on the live server AS we have been repeated told.   The best solution is for two campaigns just as post-launch will do...   CW's for new players (faction), CW's for established guilds (Shadows GvG)…   I know we are getting there in 6.0 for certain but lets play this as expected, not as an artificially created unstable level playing field, that simply will not help new players git gud.

We're on the same side of this debate. Just because I can do it better the next time, doesn't mean I want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cosian said:

Eu não discordaria que esse tipo de problema tenha existido em muitos jogos. Mas, a solução para o problema não é transformá-lo em um jogo PvP de arena de pequena escala! Sim, você não terá esse problema de desequilíbrio numérico, mas você também não terá o jogo PvP de mundo aberto que eu acredito que as pessoas estão esperando aqui.

Você poderia fazer um balanço numérico de força bruta no início de uma campanha através de 'bloqueio lateral'. Você não pode participar de uma campanha em um lado com mais do que 10% de superioridade numérica sobre o outro lado. Ou você define um limite numérico de extremidade superior 700 lado A, 700 lado B, 700 lado C. 

 

And who said it will be a 5x5 or 10x10? I said the participants on each side will be automatically balanced. If there are 100 players from each faction in the PVP area at the time the event begins, everyone enters the battle simultaneously. Now if there are 40 players in a minor faction and large faction have 100 players, the 60 remaining will wait in a separate phase and will only be brought to battle if someone in the 40 players of same faction leaves the PVP phase or more enemies enter in PVP zone with a invisible balanced MM. In practice this makes it better for players in the smaller faction as they are more likely to actively participate in more PVP events and have a chance to score more points than players who have chosen larger factions. Large factions have a natural progression penalty to balance the faction points without any complex system.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

And who said it will be a 5x5 or 10x10? I said the participants on each side will be automatically balanced. If there are 100 players from each faction in the PVP area at the time the event begins, everyone enters the battle simultaneously. Now if there are 40 players in a minor faction and large faction have 100 players, the 60 remaining will wait in a separate phase and will only be brought to battle if someone in the 40 players of same faction leaves the PVP phase or more enemies enter in PVP zone with a invisible balanced MM. In practice this makes it better for players in the smaller faction as they are more likely to actively participate in more PVP events and have a chance to score more points than players who have chosen larger factions. Large factions have a natural progression penalty to balance the faction points without any complex system.

Isn't AoC doing battle royale? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutos atrás, mandalore disse:

Não é AoC fazendo battle royale? 

 

Eu não acho que um 100 vs 100 vs 100 em uma zona PVP com a guerra de cerco é um simples Battle Royale ... Eu acho que seria uma guerra do trono em que ambos os lados podem ganhar! Melhor do que um 100 vs 10 vs 5, como aconteceu em outros jogos fracassados predecessores de Crowfall.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

 

I do not think a 100 vs 100 vs 100 in a PVP zone with siege war is a simple Battle Royale ... I think it would be a throne war in which either side can win? Better than a 100 x 10 as happened in other failed games predecessors to Crowfall.

If you are out numbered 10 to 1 you need to forge alliances with other guilds, recruit grow and build an army or make a pact with the devil if need be if you aim to win anything.  This is aiming to be a redneck game of thrones... not some custard rehashed version of wintergrasp where snowflakes get artificial buffs to help them feel accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@cyjaxYou know full well that the natural tendency is that most players simply leave the campaign due lack of competitiveness or go to the larger faction, do not they? The DEVs themselves want to make up for this by adding abstract buffs at capture points to mask the  unbalance, but that will not improve the real fun factor.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hamon said:

@cyjaxYou know full well that the natural tendency is that most players simply leave the campaign due lack of competitiveness or go to the larger faction, do not they? The DEVs themselves want to make up for this by adding abstract buffs at capture points to mask the  unbalance, but that will not improve the real fun factor.

You continue to propose that instanced numerically balanced arena style PvP as a solution here.  I don't get it.  You do recognize this is being designed as an open world PvP game and all that entails, don't you.  It's Open World PvP ... not just PvP. 

Whether its 5v5v5 or 100v100v100 matters not.  Its instanced arena PvP.  It is no longer an open world PvP game.  Balance at the start of the campaign as needed and then let it happen as it happens.   You cannot control people staying or leaving.  So I guess if one side decides to stop playing during a campaign and can only field 20 people then I sit in a friggen queue waiting to play if I am on the overpop side?  

I would be cautious about suggesting that the 'DEV's want to do this'.  As I understand this thread, Pann put it out here because ACE wants comments on some ideas as opposed to something they have decided is needed.

Share this post


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

@cyjaxYou know full well that the natural tendency is that most players simply leave the campaign due lack of competitiveness or go to the larger faction, do not they? The DEVs themselves want to make up for this by adding abstract buffs at capture points to mask the  unbalance, but that will not improve the real fun factor.

Didn't happen like that in the other pvp rpg made by the lead person making CF. 

Share this post


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

Você continua a propor que instale o PvP num estilo de arena numericamente equilibrado como uma solução aqui. Eu não entendo. Você reconhece que isso está sendo projetado como um jogo PvP de mundo aberto e tudo o que isso implica, não é? É Open World PvP ... não apenas PvP. 

Se o seu 5v5v5 ou 100v100v100 não importa. Sua arena instintada PvP. Não é mais um jogo PvP de mundo aberto.  Equilibre no início da campanha conforme necessário e, em seguida, deixe que aconteça quando acontecer.    Você não pode controlar as pessoas que ficam ou partem. Então eu acho que se um lado decide parar de jogar durante uma campanha e só pode campo 20 pessoas, então eu me sento em uma fila esperando para jogar se eu estou no lado do overpop?  

Eu seria cauteloso ao sugerir que os 'DEVs querem fazer isso'. Pelo que entendi este tópico, Pann colocou isso aqui porque o ACE quer comentários sobre algumas idéias, em oposição a algo que eles decidiram ser necessário.

 

This self-balancing system creates an element that does not exist in this game: betrayal and side shifting. When a player feels constrained by making less PVP, he can switch sides and join in minor faction to make more score. Betrayal is part of the game of thrones and simply does not exist now. In addition the issue of balancing numbers will not rule out the importance of logistics. The better prepared faction will continue to win and this will only curb the mass migration of players to just one side.

Share this post


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

 

This self-balancing system creates an element that does not exist in this game: betrayal and side shifting. When a player feels constrained by making less PVP, he can switch sides and join in minor faction to make more score. Betrayal is part of the game of thrones and simply does not exist now. In addition the issue of balancing numbers will not rule out the importance of logistics. The better prepared faction will continue to win and this will only curb the mass migration of players to just one side.

ZSKGsKW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

This self-balancing system creates an element that does not exist in this game: betrayal and side shifting. When a player feels constrained by making less PVP, he can switch sides and join in minor faction to make more score. Betrayal is part of the game of thrones and simply does not exist now. In addition the issue of balancing numbers will not rule out the importance of logistics. The better prepared faction will continue to win and this will only curb the mass migration of players to just one side.

shocked-baby-o.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hamon said:

 

This self-balancing system creates an element that does not exist in this game: betrayal and side shifting. When a player feels constrained by making less PVP, he can switch sides and join in minor faction to make more score. Betrayal is part of the game of thrones and simply does not exist now. In addition the issue of balancing numbers will not rule out the importance of logistics. The better prepared faction will continue to win and this will only curb the mass migration of players to just one side.

Confused_Christian_Bale.0.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hamon said:

 

This self-balancing system creates an element that does not exist in this game: betrayal and side shifting. When a player feels constrained by making less PVP, he can switch sides and join in minor faction to make more score. Betrayal is part of the game of thrones and simply does not exist now. In addition the issue of balancing numbers will not rule out the importance of logistics. The better prepared faction will continue to win and this will only curb the mass migration of players to just one side.

I feel that your suggestion will only exacerbate any problem of faction imbalance. If players can swap sides on a whim then many players would simply swap to the winning side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

I feel that your suggestion will only exacerbate any problem of faction imbalance. If players can swap sides on a whim then many players would simply swap to the winning side. 

 

Just put something logical: For example, a player of the stronger faction could go to the weakest and be accepted by faction god, because your army really needs help to stay in war, but the opposite would not be allowed, because by the logic nobody wants a weak traitor on his side if the god is already winning the war. Entry into a new faction depends on the personal opinion of the gods whether they will accept it or not.

As I said, instead of players being trapped in factions during the campaign they could switch sides to try to earn more points through more opportunities (betrayal). Instead of waiting to finish the campaign defeated as now, they can try to hold the ranks and earn many capture points with much PVP followed even being in small numbers, because even in old wars a small group could decimate a great army with tactics that annulled the number of enemies, but in CrowFall this does not exist.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

because even in old wars a small group could decimate a great army with tactics that annulled the number of enemies, but in CrowFall this does not exist.

I can’t think of any examples of this that hold true.  When has a much smaller force won wars (not battles) against a vastly larger force?  

Also, this isn’t real life.  You get that right? This is game about magic creatures using magic to fight magic wars for magic gods.  Realism went out the window when they let me play a cannible deer person cursed by a nature goddess for wandering in the woods or a living stone servant of one of those previously mentioned magic gods.  Realism doesn’t apply here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam war... There are no terrain advantages in game with narrow passages, bridge blocks, dense forests, rivers or swamps that could prevent numerical advantage with the use of guerrilla tactics, so yes the game needs to compensate for this with some system.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...