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

Capture Points - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Ardrea said:

.......

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.   .....

I think the goal of making each side feel they have a chance to turn things around is laudable to be sure.  No one could disagree with this.  Clearly people keep logging in to campaign style games as long as there is hope.  Some will continue to fight regardless of the odds but in general, logins drop when its clear the outcome.

I have seen so many attempts to tune mechanics to address the problem of 1 side, 1 guild, and/or 1 faction dominance.  Virtually all attempts to provide some type of handicap to the underpop side have failed.  And, the interesting thing is that in most cases the implemented mechanics were not well received by the playerbase ... even by those on the underpop side the mechanics were designed to help. 

I used to be the poster child for implementation of some type of balancing mechanic to help the underpop side as I often found myself on the underpop team with little hope of wining a campaign.  But after seeing the results of what I thought were some pretty creative balancing mechanics I've come to a few conclusions:

1.  The hope to turn things around rests more in turning it around in the next campaign rather than the hope of turning around a clearly lost position in the current campaign.  If its clear things are lost and the losing side has been given a modicum of opportunity to turn it around, end it already!

2.  Everyone who plays is willing to stomach a little lost hope.  The key is ensuring that the lost hope doesn't last forever or go on for extended periods.  Shorter campaigns and quick ends to campaigns where 1 side is clearly dominating for a period is desirable.

3.  Players will self-balance.  Alliances and sides will shift as players recognize that one 'side' is winning over and over is destructive to the game.  Even the winning side will eventually come to this conclusion as they find fewer and fewer enemies to fight.  The problem we often see is it takes too long for this to occur.  It is often a little to late and player numbers have already dropped.  Mechanics that cause this to occur naturally are desirable.

4.  As I have posted previously in this thread, shorter campaigns are highly desirable.  They serve to provide that fresh start, can serve to re-energize a losing side, and provide opportunities for players to form new alliances, and shift loyalties and associations to self balance.  I believe the shorter campaigns solve a lot of problems and mitigate the need to impose potentially complex handicapping into the campaign itself.

P.S. -  I like the Risk analogy but I doubt people are going a like a bunch of RNG injected into this game.  Finally, at the end of the day its still about the number of armies on the board. :)

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That concept of trying to make it fair for new players, has a habit of creeping into a game developers mindset way after soft launch and was one of the main reasons i left another pvp orientated game after many years of passive training (yes ...Eve online). You get it wrong and you will alienate and basically nullify all the hard work that the individual went through to reach said level.

I like the way its heading with the score system, making it more rewarding for the following factions to steal a victory right at the last moments of the campaign. Should drive activity (though what is the reward again?).  TBH i think it needs this so that people don't just avoid playing the warmer seasons :)

Doesn't really matter if you wipe before soft launch in my opinion, though having said that it would certainly be beneficial for me personally if i could continue to test different variations of passives, disciplines and races. 

Having only tested since near the end of 5.7 i only have that to draw on for contrast. I think you guys have done a great job and can't wait for soft launch.  I can see this becoming another milestone pvp game. To reiterate my only concern at this stage is these concessional boosts for new players that has been eluded to in previous posts. I think that is a step in the wrong direction after launch. I understand why you would do that but pardon the pun it throws a gauntlet into the face of those who have skilled up the more linear way.

Share this post


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

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 ....

 

3 hours ago, Cosian said:

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.   

I think it's a good idea for you to take a look at the awful balance of the old "factions" in the game called shadowbane (crowfall is considered by gamers as shadowbane 2 since it has the same DEV) before saying that I can not say that DEVs are committing the same mistake. There is even a question on reddit Q&A about the total unbalance that occurred in shadowbane and is possibly already being repeated in crowfall:

"I'd like to know how they plan to prevent super zerg guilds from forming. Coming from Shadowbane, the Chinese nation killed the game. They would field 500 players, while the biggest NA/EU guilds at the time could only field 100 or so. Eventually, all cities were CN owned, then the game died."

PS: You would possibly be a "chinese" faction player and would just look for your own fun in the game would not care if the players are stopping playing and suddenly you realize that your game is empty because all the enemies have given up. How wonderful!!!

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

I think it's a good idea for you to take a look at the awful balance of the old "factions" in the game called shadowbane (crowfall is considered by gamers as shadowbane 2 since it has the same DEV) before saying that I can not say that DEVs are committing the same mistake. There is even a question on reddit Q&A about the total unbalance that occurred in shadowbane and is possibly already being repeated in crowfall:

"I'd like to know how they plan to prevent super zerg guilds from forming. Coming from Shadowbane, the Chinese nation killed the game. They would field 500 players, while the biggest NA/EU guilds at the time could only field 100 or so. Eventually, all cities were CN owned, then the game died."

PS: You would possibly be a "chinese" faction player and would just look for your own fun in the game would not care if the players are stopping playing and suddenly you realize that your game is empty because all the enemies have given up. How wonderful!!!

I would not disagree that this kind of problem has existed in many games.  But, the solution to the problem is not to turn it into a small scale arena PvP game!  Yup, you won't have that numerical imbalance problem, but neither will you have the open world PvP game I believe that people are expecting here.

You could brute force numerical balance at the very beginning of a campaign by 'side locking'.  You cannot join a campaign on a side with more than say 10% numerical superiority over another side.  Or you set a top end numerical limit 700 side A, 700 side B, 700 side C. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cosian said:

1.  The hope to turn things around rests more in turning it around in the next campaign rather than the hope of turning around a clearly lost position in the current campaign.  If its clear things are lost and the losing side has been given a modicum of opportunity to turn it around, end it already!

2.  Everyone who plays is willing to stomach a little lost hope.  The key is ensuring that the lost hope doesn't last forever or go on for extended periods.  Shorter campaigns and quick ends to campaigns where 1 side is clearly dominating for a period is desirable.

I completely agree. I think the moment players realize their position is clearly lost should occur as late as possible. I don't think it would serve the game's interest well if that happens before Spring is over, and most of the losing sides lose heart and stop playing that campaign. If that does happen, then there should be a mechanism to call a campaign early and let everyone move on to the next. But all around, that's a bad result and the devs should try to ensure it doesn't happen often.

This is another reason I don't like present system of accumulating arbitrary victory points, they build up an inertia of prior failure which can be seen as impossible to overcome. Good strategy and shifting alliances might collapse a sprawling empire with too many weak points for the over-extended current leaders to properly defend; but how does it make up their lead of 120,000 victory points?

I wonder if it would be practical to not even call a victor of a campaign until the very last moment -- no explicit label of points or scores or leader-boards until it's over. It might even be possible to not do this at all. If the point of winning a campaign is to get the rewards, just skip the point tally in between end of game rewards and in-campaign operations and make the rewards flow directly from them. I suggested one way to do this back in my post on page 7 here, where keeps would be where each faction could craft their export points, and those points bound to keeps would be granted to them at the conclusion of the campaign if those keeps were controlled then. This may not be workable, or even good in itself, but I think it illustrates that a system where one's faction could claim to have won because they got the most rewards through strategic gameplay, instead of getting the most rewards because the system assigned them to be the winners from arbitrary points, is possible.

Share this post


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

"I'd like to know how they plan to prevent super zerg guilds from forming. Coming from Shadowbane, the Chinese nation killed the game. They would field 500 players, while the biggest NA/EU guilds at the time could only field 100 or so. Eventually, all cities were CN owned, then the game died."

Not every campaign will be these three-way faction campaigns. They also have a lot of tools at their disposal to ensure campaigns are equitably started, and that campaigns are suited for the kinds and numbers of players they want in the game.

The Devs could be very imaginative on how they gate players into a game, and what those players are allowed to start with or import from the beginning. They cold invite specific players, or invite specific guilds or groups of guilds together, they could ask for sign-ups and seat them in different starting locations based on size and prior victories, they could match them by active timezones, and even base it on how many passive skills they have trained.

At one time one's guild might be involved in a bunch of campaigns.

For example, a three-month long Guild vs Guild duo-war with another very large guild and only veteran players with 1 Million or more passive points trained, 500 imports, and epic vessels are required to join. Maybe these are by devs' invite only.

Then, there could be several medium length three-way faction war campaigns going, each with only the first 20 sign-ups from any guild are allowed in, with no imports and any level 30 vessel. In these, each guild has to pick a faction their members will join, and each faction has a total limit of players. The campaign starts once everyone has signed up for it and the factions are balanced to the devs' satisfaction, and no joiners are allowed after that.

There might also be a big months-long, solo, everyone for themselves individually campaign, where only initial legendary gear and vessel can get in. In that campaign, you're even fighting against your guildmates -- no alliances are supported by the campaign rules, only what you can agree to and keep faith with from player to player -- a backstabber's paradise.

Finally, your guild's new members are all busy in the ongoing short four-day "Noobpaigns", where only level common vessels come in, with no imports and few exports, where players can only join on day one (no worries, a new one of these gets started every day), and player must have less than 100,000 total passive points to join, and these campaigns only have lower rank nodes. New players get to play a few of these, if you want to, to familiarize themselves with the basic game, do some fighting where you're not constantly outclassed, and get some modest rewards.

I know we're all focused on the 3-way faction war, but we have to think outside the box for the almost unlimited campaign possibilities later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 11:06 PM, YouTubejasonwivart said:

wipe everything for the 1st sanctioned CW!

 

Won't help singleton players or noobs, they will still get rolled by the organized guilds and murdered mercilessly. Except, with a wipe, it will be obvious that it is their fault for getting wrecked and their ego will no longer get a chance to blame it on some external factor like showing up late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The problem with imbalanced factions is usually more to do with bandwagoning and we’re already seeing it in these test runs. After a couple losses folks head for the winning side - it’s just a fact of human nature (worse they sometimes just quit). The average person wants to win and the won’t play the side they think is doomed to losing.

How do you combat that? How do you make folks switch to the current weak side to rebalance faction numbers without imbalancing the overall game? 

Edited by Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Duffy said:

The problem with imbalanced factions is usually more to do with bandwagoning and we’re already seeing it in these test runs. After a couple losses folks head for the winning side - it’s just a fact of human nature (worse they sometimes just quit). The average person wants to win and the won’t play the side they think is doomed to losing.

How do you combat that? How do you make folks switch to the current weak side to rebalance faction numbers without imbalancing the overall game? 

After the campaign is underway, you make late joiners join some other campaign, and you do not allow people already in it to change sides. For a campaign in progress, you don't make people switch sides to rebalance it, you give the weaker side other options (many discussed above in this thread) to give them a fair chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@duffy I dunno, Winterblades switched to Balance when Balance was losing over a period so apparently self-balancing is alive and well ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could make it harder to move sides, maybe lock accounts to a faction 🤷🏼‍♂️ Once people have picked a side the only way to move could be an expensive cash shop item and/or a character/spirit bank wipe? 

Or another option would be not to allow anyone to move over to the dominant faction on the following campaign. People couldnt just jump to the winning faction each campaign then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Duffy what are you talking about?  HoA was on Chaos and left to Order, W left Order and went to Balance, Sugoi left Balance and is now Order.  The factions have had some serious swap ups for the major houses.  I don't know if this real question or somebody just not following the game of crows drama that is happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@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.

 

Edited by Duffy

Share this post


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

@Duffy what are you talking about?  HoA was on Chaos and left to Order, W left Order and went to Balance, Sugoi left Balance and is now Order.  The factions have had some serious swap ups for the major houses.  I don't know if this real question or somebody just not following the game of crows drama that is happening. 

Don’t know about NA particularly but over on EU the current balance appears way off. Only an observation but Chaos are totally running away with it, they are everywhere? So I can see what Duffy is saying.

Share this post


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

Don’t know about NA particularly but over on EU the current balance appears way off. Only an observation but Chaos are totally running away with it, they are everywhere? So I can see what Duffy is saying.

There can't be more than 50 consistent EU testers.  I understand why they have an EU server (they wanted EU backers) but I feel bad for people that think EU is going to be as populated as the NA servers.  There's no way they can balance what you want. 

Share this post


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

Don’t know about NA particularly but over on EU the current balance appears way off. Only an observation but Chaos are totally running away with it, they are everywhere? So I can see what Duffy is saying.

There is nothing to be gained from winning a campaign right now. That is a big part of why the losing sides let the winning side run the score.

Share this post


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

There is nothing to be gained from winning a campaign right now. That is a big part of why the losing sides let the winning side run the score.

Yeah your possibly right about that, can’t say I’ve been overly concerned with it. Like you said no point really yet.

 

10 minutes ago, mandalore said:

There can't be more than 50 consistent EU testers.  I understand why they have an EU server (they wanted EU backers) but I feel bad for people that think EU is going to be as populated as the NA servers.  There's no way they can balance what you want. 

Forgot the world revolves around America lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes 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.

 

I would agree that the bandwagon crowd will float to a winning side .... but on the other hand, they have marginal influence on a campaign win.  This will be largely driven by what the major groups do.  But that said, I support a numbers balancing mechanic at the start of the campaign but once its on its on and if people elect to leave a side mid-campaign because they are losing there does not need to be some buff that is applied because a sides numbers have dropped. This is unnecessary and unwarranted.   If the campaign has a clear and unassailable leader and the other sides have been given an opportunity to turn it around,  simply end the campaign and on to the next.

Edited by Cosian

Share this post


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

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..."

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.

Edited by Frykka

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...