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

Capture Points - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Glitchhiker said:

I don't think so. In the contrary. At the end of a campaign, people that are sick of losing will flock to the winning faction (in the current system)

If you mean late joiners, that's easily addressed by locking campaigns to new joiners after Spring, and also, by other mechanics I'm sure the developers already have in mind to keep the factions balanced by population/ability initially. Keep in mind, when the game is live, there would be multiple simultaneous campaigns, with different rule sets, some starting, some ongoing (and locked to new joiners), and others finishing up. There would always be a campaign a player could join, but not necessarily one they could hop into at the last minute to take the easy fruits of other peoples' hard won victories.

If you mean people on the losing sides will quit the campaign, and rejoin to the winning side, I think you already can't do that. Once you join a campaign, vessels from your account can only enter that campaign into the faction you first chose. One would need a separate paid account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is already predictable that this system will fail in terms of encouraging open world PVP. I entered the game already I saw that the balance between factions is bad with a faction having a score that is almost the sum of the other two.
DEVs need reading the "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less" before launching a fail system with so many abstract choices that only limit new players' ability to organize objectively (PVP between factions). DEVs are adding many PVE elements that are only preventing players from entering in balanced PVP. It is a poor design for a game that should bother to create a fun campaign system.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

Please elaborate. I don't quite get what you're refering to.

In principle, the developers can ensure that everyone enters the campaign on day one on exactly the same footing. Imagine no imports and fresh, level-1 common grade vessels being required. Further, imagine that all three sides of a faction-war campaign were also balanced in numbers.

It is also possible that limited imports would allow some, previously successful, players to enter with modest advantages. In th Dev's video about Uncle Bob, they show a never ending game of Risk to illustrate the problem. With campaigns, each game of risk has rules on what you can bring to the table. Uncle Bob might have a hundred armies left over from last week's game, but today he doesn't get to use them at all. Or maybe, to give him a token advantage, he's allowed to place a few extra at the start. But he can't put down his hundred and utterly dominate the new game right from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should absolutely be a full wipe. This is the first sanctioned test run to really mimic the beginning of the game at launch. So lets mimic it and get good testing data with everyone beginning on an equal playing field.

Share this post


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

It is already predictable that this system will fail in terms of encouraging open world PVP. I entered the game already I saw that the balance between factions is bad with a faction having a score that is almost the sum of the other two.
DEVs need reading the "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less" before launching a fail system with so many abstract choices that only limit new players' ability to organize objectively (PVP between factions). DEVs are adding many PVE elements that are only preventing players from entering in balanced PVP. It is a poor design for a game that should bother to create a fun campaign 

 

There are even Sides on EU.  

Every Faction has strong Guild. 

The only thing is who cares about captures and who dont care 

The Performance at bigger Fights need a update. You will see much more ppl Fight. 

Many "Guild" dont play atm. You Judge due the Leaderboard actually is not even? It says nothing .

I think the First Campaign with a Reward will not look like this. 

All Sides have shown that they are able to win. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ardrea Alright, let's presume they'll have a system in play that will properly balance the populations and people can only have modest, if any ,advantage from the start. What you're suggesting about objectives having intrinsic strategical value means with every objective you lose, you become less competive and less likely to capture anything back. Aswell as your enemy becoming stronger and the score gap growing without a chance to come back.

Quite the dire situation for the losing faction. A game should be fun for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wipe spirit bank
Wipe passive skill tree however gran 10 times speed for first 2 weeks or first campaign, then toggle it back to 3x after that. This way it simulates fresh start to a degree, help the newbie who may have came late or didnt skill train cause they didnt know or just didnt know what they were putting points into. This should help alot imo however a full skill reset would suck if it was still 3 times speed hence the accelerated first couple weeks to get people back up to where they are currently atleast

Share this post


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

@Ardrea Alright, let's presume they'll have a system in play that will properly balance the populations and people can only have modest, if any ,advantage from the start. What you're suggesting about objectives having intrinsic strategical value means with every objective you lose, you become less competive and less likely to capture anything back. Aswell as your enemy becoming stronger and the score gap growing without a chance to come back.

Quite the dire situation for the losing faction. A game should be fun for everyone.

That's another question.

First off, a lot of people won't have fun regardless of how the game is structured. For example, already pure PvE'ers are sure to find this game un-fun. Further, I expect that solo PvP'ers who prefer fair 1v1 or small NvN short-duration fights are going to have a hard time here -- it's certainly not balanced around those. The Devs' original visions for this game seem much more strategic-minded to me, and purely tactical PvP'ers are going to have to come to terms with it. Posts of those sorts are pretty common in these forums.

Specifically to which ever faction gets ahead then proceeding to steamroll from logistical dominance; yes, that could be a problem, and I think the system I described is not in itself enough to give the game strategic fluidity. Ideally, each side should feel that's got a fair chance to turn it around, right up to the end, and that having marginally greater raw combat power alone does not guarantee victory. My feeling is that there needs to be additional systems to provide these features. Imagine that game of Risk, where Uncle Bob starts with a few extra armies, and has some good success in the early game. Risk has several means of keeping the game fun almost to the very end. First off, the mechanics of combat in it are structured to make randomness (stochastic variability of outcomes) have a big role in each fight. Having a greater number of armies can easily turn out to not assure victory, just from the dice roll system. If Risk had a Lanchester-style combat system, this would not be the case, but the designers wisely went with the one it has. Then, risk has another source of armies in the form of the cards system, where a player who is behind can get a windfall of luck, and get an opportunity to make a serious comeback. Finally, Risk has a complex spatial game, with regions with force generative value, choke-points, stronger and weaker positions, and so on. A strategy-minded player can often make a comeback on this basis.

I feel Crowfall certainly needs more attention to the spatial/strategic game, so that good strategy has more role to play over mass of combat force or hourly timing, like it is today. Others have posted some good ideas on this in another thread: Improvement to the camp/capture system.

Share this post


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

Would be glad to hear from the devs if there gonna be a wipe or not and what they gonna wipe.

I agree, and they'll tell us when they know for sure. Personally, I don't think we need a wipe, although one would be fine by me. The devs need to figure out how to set up a campaign so that it addresses the Uncle Bob problem, and offers a fair and reasonably balanced means of measuring victory.

Capture points need some work, and in the short term they probably can't do anything big (like my suggestions).

Since even the latest people to join aren't really far behind on passives, I think these could be kept. IIRC, they were wiped only about a month ago.

For the new campaign, I would like to see it limited to new or common/uncommon grade vessels only. The higher quality ones will grant an immediate ability of those to camp near the other faction's portals and prevent those factions without them to get a fair start.

I would also like to see it on very limited imports, say, five or ten or so. And perhaps zeroing out all remaining imports after Spring is done. Then allow limited exports starting from Fall, and grant most exports during Winter. If you want to export things, at least hang in until then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Don't Wipe... all advantages are a result of effort and a wipe is a slap in the face to those that spend effort.   Even a rumor of a wipe KILLS the testing population and thus the test.   We have been told and believed that the TEST server gets wiped anytime and frequently but the LIVE server will not be wiped except for a major patch, please hold true to this promise.  The ONLY other reason to wipe is because Dupes or Legacy items exist.

If you want a clean campaign, create it in the ruleset for that campaign...    bring up 2 campaigns, one for the active guilds with imports/exports and a noob campaign for those who cannot compete with the big guilds with no imports/exports.   The fact is that you will piss off one group or the other in either case.   Erasing effort is bad, really bad when expectations for the LIVE server are based on a promise of very limited wipes.   Playing to the lowest common denominator, the brand new, unskilled player is also bad, very bad, for the existing population, those who have put in considerable effort already and who count on continuous progression to meet team goals.

Quite a few of us have been testing for 3 years continuously with very little breaks, why should we pay the price to equalize vs new players?   Remember that some builds do not reach full potential until later game...   we expect a wipe for 6.0, we do not/did not when 5.8 launched.

If you don't think Uncle Bob got to the position he is in without any effort...    


 

 



 

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a wipe say about the fundamental campaign mechanic?  If you're saying that a wipe is necessary for an "even" playing field, then aren't you also saying that the concept of limited duration campaigns will inherently fail to create an "even" playing field?  I thought the entire purpose of campaigns was to wipe the scoreboard every now and again and that this, in and of itself, was sufficient?  In other words, the game mechanics can attempt to provide equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.

If the spirit bank and traditional RPG character progression (e.g. skills) are too much for a limited campaign duration to correct, then doesn't the entire framework of the game need to be rethought?

Again, the people advocating for a wipe have done nothing to detail how a wipe would improve playing conditions for any player, let alone the poor and downtrodden of Crowfall.  However, we can rest assured that anyone who invested time into the game on the LIVE server, with the expectation of not getting a wipe until 6.0, will be quite displeased.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pycet said:

Again, the people advocating for a wipe have done nothing to detail how a wipe would improve playing conditions for any player, let alone the poor and downtrodden of Crowfall.  However, we can rest assured that anyone who invested time into the game on the LIVE server, with the expectation of not getting a wipe until 6.0, will be quite displeased.

  

I agree with everything you said, but I'd add that if I was good at getting ahead once, I'll be better at doing it a second time.

"You may strike me down, but you will only make me more powerfull..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this, I don’t think it is a huge deal at this point no matter what they do.  We are still in pre-alpha.  If they do a wipe that is part of the deal. If they don’t and want to test that is fine also.

In MMO’ it is really no big deal if people advance much faster or have an advantage if it is not competitive.  Who cares if a person spends more money to finish a phone game that isn’t a competition?

But in a competitive PvP game, if the game gives an advantage because winning or p2w, people get upset.  If you win a campaign because you played better, that is fine.  But if the game gives you an advantage it doesn’t seem fair.  I totally understand the idea of progress and am for it, but it is hard to balance that with competition.  Only 1/3 at most really will be winners.

I don’t think many new teams would join a bowling league if the teams from last season all got 10 points in handicap and the winning team had 30 points.  I think it is way more likely they would join a league that is fairer.

I think there is a reason most PvP type game (ie FPS, MOBA, Battle Royal) don’t give advantages.

Share this post


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

@Ardrea Alright, let's presume they'll have a system in play that will properly balance the populations and people can only have modest, if any ,advantage from the start. What you're suggesting about objectives having intrinsic strategical value means with every objective you lose, you become less competive and less likely to capture anything back. Aswell as your enemy becoming stronger and the score gap growing without a chance to come back.

Quite the dire situation for the losing faction. A game should be fun for everyone.

This is an obvious issue, but to notice is only one step in the dialectical process of refining an idea.

The solution is obvious as well: Captured points of interests (camps, watchtowers, forts, keeps) need investment to install and keep operating (resources, money, but most preferably crafted items). That way a bigger empire will need much more resources than a small one. You could even tweak it that it scales exponentially. Et violá, you've got a self-balancing system.

Edited by Doradur

Share this post


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

This is an obvious issue, but to notice is only part of a dialectical process of refining an idea.

The solution is obvious as well: Captured points of interests (camps, watchtowers, forts, keeps) need investment to install and keep operating (resources, money, but most preferably crafted items). That way a bigger empire will need much more resources than a small one. You could even tweak it that it scales exponentially. Et violá, you've got a self-balancing system.

I would add that, in Risk, having a large controlled region comes with greater resource production, but also can come with more points of vulnerability which must be defended. The classic in that game is that Asia is worth a lot, but can't be easily held because it has too many vulnerable edge territories. A skilled Risk player might hole up in Australia until they have the accumulated power or get a windfall of armies to take Asia, and then try to fort up on no more than three choke-points on its periphery to keep it. Then, barring someone else's windfall, they're in a position for a final push for victory. (Anyone not familiar with this game should see the Wikipedia entry on it.)

A clever strategist analyzes the map and identifies defensible choke points at which to halt and fortify. Even so, controlling a large region with multiple points of attack allows the clever opponent to pick and choose their point of counterattack -- the spatial aspect of strategy becomes important. The large empire, if they lose initiative, has multiple points they need to defend, and an attacker only needs to be successful at one of their own choosing to turn the tide.

Unfortunately, Crowfall's current spatial game doesn't enable this, there isn't really any strategic value to one place over another past its arbitrary point value. Crowfall has an overly permeable spatial battlefield, and that the only strategic dimension at present is time -- hence we get capping at off-peaks, and not a lot else at a strategic level.

Share this post


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

I think there is a reason most PvP type game (ie FPS, MOBA, Battle Royal) don’t give advantages.

I think you're spot-on with this. Crowfall differs from the usual types of PvP games by focusing not on the small scale individual or team PvP matches, but on the larger multiple group "Throne War" campaigns. If there are some large number of potentially allied or rivaling groups, each with potentially some better or worse prepared characters, then if the system of alliances is not fixed, then surely it should be possible for a challenging and fun game to arise from it out of the natural shifting of alliances and turning of strategic fortunes. But I don't think it's assured, and that's where game design needs to be focused.

Possibly the locked sides, three-way faction wars aren't complex enough to show this. I can only betray my faction in a few trivial ways, and those don't have much of anything in it for me. If I'm say, order, and my faction is dominating, and I think the agreed division of final spoils isn't enough for my liking, I can't make a deal with Chaos and change sides just as they're trying to assault the portal choke-point I'm supposed to defend, and then we rage on through and take and destroy the supposedly secure main crafting keep that Order used to have. As they say on TV -- #Blindside!  Nothing in that is supported by game systems as of yet, so of course that level of complexity is missing. The best I can do is spy and reveal the time of an attack or two, before I'm found out, or maybe lead a harvesting group into a gank-trap. Hrm, not so throne-war-ish yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

@Zorph The faction system needs to be rethought to be fun on all sides of the factions. I find it unfair for the lower number faction to simply gain extra faction points to make it look like the PVP is balanced when it is not.

This system of strategic (suicide) dives into enemy territory to try to grab points in a small group is crushed by the numerical advantage in another games like REND and ALBION. The best way to do this is to introduce an MM to make the numerical advantage not decisive in battle. The DEVs are not in favor of mathematical buffs in the player statistics of the smaller faction. In this case, it is enough to create a MM system that makes the players have an advantage if they are in a minor faction like WOW with your balance in number of players by phase.

A single player is more important if they choose the side with more numerical disadvantage. For this it is necessary to have a system of MM that prevents that players in more numerous faction can crush players in the minor faction in zerg fights of 10x1, for example. Creating event zones with restricted combat by number of participants on each side would automatically avoid the formation of mega zergs and massive faction choice to a easy win. I'm not talking about creating closed maps, but a MM system in PVP events could be implemented to ensure a balance between the players of each faction and to do with smaller factions could overcome the handicap by ability against high numbers.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 2:39 PM, hamon said:

It is already predictable that this system will fail in terms of encouraging open world PVP. I entered the game already I saw that the balance between factions is bad with a faction having a score that is almost the sum of the other two.

Are you actually playing the game or waxing philosophical on what you are predicting will happen.  I'm playing and seeing PvP happening all over with groups from all factions regardless of the current score ....

Share this post


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

 

@Zorph The faction system needs to be rethought to be fun on all sides of the factions. I find it unfair for the lower number faction to simply gain extra faction points to make it look like the PVP is balanced when it is not.

This system of strategic (suicide) dives into enemy territory to try to grab points in a small group is crushed by the numerical advantage in another games like REND and ALBION. The best way to do this is to introduce an MM to make the numerical advantage not decisive in battle. The DEVs are not in favor of mathematical buffs in the player statistics of the smaller faction. In this case, it is enough to create a MM system that makes the players have an advantage if they are in a minor faction like WOW with your balance in number of players by phase.

A single player is more important if they choose the side with more numerical disadvantage. For this it is necessary to have a system of MM that prevents that players in more numerous faction can crush players in the minor faction in zerg fights of 10x1, for example. Creating event zones with restricted combat by number of participants on each side would automatically avoid the formation of mega zergs and massive faction choice to a easy win. I'm not talking about creating closed maps, but a MM system in PVP events could be implemented to ensure a balance between the players of each faction and to do with smaller factions could overcome the handicap by ability against high numbers.

This then would devolve into a series of uninteresting and certainly less than memorable numerically balanced arena style PvP battles.  RIFT does that, SWTOR does that, among a number of others.  IMO it significantly dilutes the concept of a game where the recruitment, formation, and organization of a 'side', be it guild or a faction, matters.  Instead, its a bunch of 10v10, 5v5, etc... PvP matches as opposed to open world PvP.  I am personally not here for that and already have plenty of game choices if that is what I was looking for.   

Edited by Cosian

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...