Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
bignick22000

Campaign seasons and full wipes (The Equity issue)

Recommended Posts

I am very concerned anything beyond cosmetics/quality of life advantages, won’t go over well in reviewing the game long term.  In competitive games perceived fairness is crucial. 

I am guessing the game would totally flop if they sold this advantage for $100.

BTW – passive skill training IMHO is fine because there is an in game mechanic to balance it out at release.  Also it won’t make a huge difference in the first campaign either way.  I am more concerned at launch. 

1 year down the line power guild has top end gear starting off.  They would normally be ahead, but since they have better gear on top of being the best. They are way ahead from the very beginning.  Winners normally give a handicap, not take points.  Now maybe ACE has a balancing mechanism I am not aware of, but I don’t see how if you give an advantage to teams that win this won’t increase the chance for Uncle Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to play an MMO not a moba, the whole enjoyment with an mmo is the continuous progression of your character/vessel. If I wanted to start from scratch every time I’d play a moba and I can’t stand mobas 

i agree there needs to be limitations to how powerful a vessel can get otherwise the pvp becomes to power based and not skill based but not carrying anything over or grinding lvls again and again is not fun

Share this post


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

I want to play an MMO not a moba, the whole enjoyment with an mmo is the continuous progression of your character/vessel. If I wanted to start from scratch every time I’d play a moba and I can’t stand mobas 

i agree there needs to be limitations to how powerful a vessel can get otherwise the pvp becomes to power based and not skill based but not carrying anything over or grinding lvls again and again is not fun

Vessels upgrades are rather weak in comparison to going to green gear tbh, although vessels do last till u change the spec


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

I am very concerned anything beyond cosmetics/quality of life advantages, won’t go over well in reviewing the game long term.  In competitive games perceived fairness is crucial. 

 

I am guessing the game would totally flop if they sold this advantage for $100.

 

BTW – passive skill training IMHO is fine because there is an in game mechanic to balance it out at release.  Also it won’t make a huge difference in the first campaign either way.  I am more concerned at launch. 

 

1 year down the line power guild has top end gear starting off.  They would normally be ahead, but since they have better gear on top of being the best. They are way ahead from the very beginning.  Winners normally give a handicap, not take points.  Now maybe ACE has a balancing mechanism I am not aware of, but I don’t see how if you give an advantage to teams that win this won’t increase the chance for Uncle Bob.

 

In one campaign.  

This keeps getting missed in all these "must have absolute balance" threads.  There is hopefully going to be enough population that there will be multiple campaigns running, and new ones starting, every single week, or even more often. 

Don't happen to like playing against the steamroller players, stick to campaigns where they simply don't exist.  Go to the no imports, find the short campaigns that guilds don't care for, say out of the dregs.  

You the player have the agency and choice where to play, so if you don't like playing with those who have some perceived advantage, take your vessel, and move to a different world. 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You the player have the agency and choice where to play, so if you don't like playing with those who have some perceived advantage, take your vessel, and move to a different world. 

Sounds like witchcraft to me, best to ignore it and make another thread. 

PolishedSecondaryBlackfootedferret-size_

 

I hope there are enough people for multiple servers.  I also hope they don't do too many and half those cw are sparsely populated.  There were waaaaay to many servers for SB launch. 

Edited by mandalore

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

I hope there are enough people for multiple servers.  I also hope they don't do too many and half those cw are sparsely populated.  There were waaaaay to many servers for SB launch. 

I hope what they do is try to schedule to fully populate one server, and as they approach 80% or some sort of capacity, they open up the next one.  80% so that if a guild recruits mid campaign, players that are interested can still join.

I also hope that they do a good job of steering new players to the newly opened ones, rather than a blind free for all.  Maybe even close off new access to servers that have past summer.  I also hope for tighter controls on vessels leaving worlds.  For example start earning those embargo spots early, and if you bail, you bail no your locked away assets.

I trust them to ask Travian a few questions about how they manage server rolling.  Those guys have been doing the whole new server thing successfully for quite some time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Server caps are going to limit how guilds recruit, expand and generally where they go.  Why would I rush to a server at 80% and possibly lose some of my guys who are a day or two late?  How much is it going to suck for a server to fill and a guildie who was busy that weekend doesn't get in. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

Server caps are going to limit how guilds recruit, expand and generally where they go.  Why would I rush to a server at 80% and possibly lose some of my guys who are a day or two late?  How much is it going to suck for a server to fill and a guildie who was busy that weekend doesn't get in. 

ACE could declare a server "full", and make sure they have 10% wiggle room that allows for guilds to pull in members around the lockout. 

I would also expect that after spring, there will be a drop off in players, so more slots could open up, for players that are already in a guild.

Share this post


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

 

I would also expect that after spring, there will be a drop off in players, so more slots could open up, for players that are already in a guild.

Yea but that's not a constant, the wiggle room is a better idea than hope and see if people leave. 

Edited by mandalore

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bignick22000 said:

Pycet I think I really don't understand what you are trying to convey, we are talking but do not seem to be on the same page. When you said:

This blows my mind that you do not see the power difference in character from a new account training tier 1 skills vs an account training tier 4 because I have clearly stated my argument with evidence as to  why I think it does and granted I'll admit this isn't tested and I didn't crunch the numbers but I don't think i need to do that to say their is a significant difference. And I don't think your mean "articulate" because you don't articulate evidence, you explain it, provide it, cite it but telling some one to articulate evidence is asking them to speak clearly.

Yes I gave you the evidence you were asking for you just denied it.

Ok this rebuttal is something we can talk about. Honestly I don't know the exact differential but I can say I crafted some advanced common gear trying to get some hit crit chance and I landed around 1% crit hit chance which is nothing compared to some one who is getting 3 crit hit chance modifiers as well as a 3% to a critical hit and remember I only added up the bonuses in the last two tiers for Ranged and long ranged bows only. If we had two players in advanced common gear and one had beginning tier passive training another and capped tier four training. the higher trained character is just going to win with those types of modifiers. If it didn't they would have to talk about catch up modifiers.

This really depends on how well the catch up mechanic works, how long it takes some one to catch up. And they only have the basic ideas for this and it sounds like they still might be hashing it out.

Do you mean for an individual player or as a whole for the entire campaign?  Now If I was arguing the outcome for the entire campaign i would say this has no affect on the out come of the campaign since theoretically all factions could have the same number of newbies evening out the power levels. However, my concern is for the individual and not just the individual but what it means to have every one start and the same pace allowing newer players to stay on pare with advanced players. Not to mention this even keel start really changes the early game play of the mechanics.

I am not proposing to "cease basic functions" I'm suggesting that passive training is re-rolled every new campaign not stopped you can't just change my argument to make it look diabolical. And I have given you information and the data is in the skill tree to look at again saying I did not state information with out a counter argument is not how debates work.

This might be true Pycet and if I am being honest with you I hope so I was going to try and chrunch some numbers to really understand that difference all i have to go in is other games and the difference in damage when I get an item that does +6% to crit hi chance, it makes a huge difference.

Ok here is the hart of our argument and your right I don't know the exact numbers you got me,  but I didn't think a 9% hit crit chance and a 6% increase verses some one who doesn't have it was a debatable topic, it seems to be straight forward. In fact most people don't disagree that the passive trainings give a good amount of advantage versus some one who doesn't. If the passive skill training didn't make a difference their would be no need for make up mechanics.

And your idea that I have the "Burden of proof is not how this kind of debate works unless I missed this rule in the forums somewhere. And even if it was their are different levels of burden of proof such as

I have given you reasonable belief, reasonable evidence, some evidence, as well as substantial evidence. I think Pycet what it comes down to is that you really like the Passive training system and I have serious reservations about it. But to be honest the best posts that swayed me against my current idea where the people that symply stated the liked the idea of passive training becuase the glory of their character continued over. Some stated that if their was a hard reset on those skills they would simply stop playing. I empithise and understand that argument.

I don't think my argument is wrong or invalid and I provided why I think its not, my idea is just how I would prefer to play the game if I was making it so I simply thought I would share which is what these forums are all about. Your obviously not going to change your mind but I do understand why you want the passive skill training my objective was to at least try to get you to see my point.

 

In order to meet your burden, you need to do two things: (1) show that there is a difference between players due to skill training; AND (2) show that this difference is sufficient to warrant changes to the game.  The former is not in dispute by anyone as we all can look at the skill training nodes and determine that one player will be different than another due to choices (and time) in skill selection [you might even call discussing the issue a straw man].  However, you have done nothing to show how these differences actually affect gameplay.  In other words, you have not met ANY standard of burden of proof, regardless of how low the bar may be.

If you cannot state the degree to which the skill system actually benefits the players in the game, e.g. by showing how outcomes are dependent upon it, then how can you possibly know the degree to which it needs to be changed or if there is even a problem in the first place?

The entirety of your posts can be boiled down to this: "I have a fear that the passive leveling system may create player differentiation that has a material affect on player outcomes."  That's great and it's somewhat valuable feedback as best I can tell.  It's something that's solely within your perception and no one can change that...

However, this debate was already made many years ago.  As far as how it specifically applies to Crowfall, passive training is something that has been promoted as a critical aspect of the game.  Among other things, it helps balance the game for casual players (note: the people who cut our teeth on sandbox mmos when they first hit the market and who now cannot dedicate our lives to videogames) because active leveling requires a time sink (and more often than not, simply isn't any fun).  This fundamental aspect of Crowfall was used to obtain significant starter monies from investors, backers, etc.  In short, it's not something that is going to go away without a material loss to the game's player base.

Due to complaints like yours, among other things, the developers have capitulated and attempted to balance active and passive leveling.  There are a myriad of game mechanics that help ensure any gains from passive skill training are relevant, but not over burdensome.  For example: (a) there are level caps that prohibit players from having too many points in any particular attribute [you're so caught up on the fact that one player might get more skill points than another that you fail to see that those skill points might be worthless due to hard caps]; (b) there are going to be catch-up mechanics implemented to decrease any difference; (c) the skill trees themselves tend to be front loaded in that the earlier trees provide more benefit or, alternatively, the earlier skill trees can be trained so quickly relative to the later, that the practical/real world difference in skill training is not going to be that great; (d) the benefits from the nodes themselves can be increased or reduced based upon balance; and (e) there will be campaigns with different rulesets and limitations. 

In other words, the present debate is not on whether core mechanics should exist, rather it is on the balance of those mechanics.  Again, without more substantiation as to how those mechanics are out of balance, you're not really saying anything. 

What this thread is really about is: (1) how the developers have done a poor job providing information about the game to the public and how they're aware of the various debates and have acted accordingly in an attempt to ensure the fundamental vision of the game is intact while making it more congenial for a larger player base; and (2) how it's easier to make posts complaining about the game than it is to learn the game.  Fortunately or unfortunately, all this really means is that they have to budget their resources and these types of things are not particularly important investments considering the state of flux of the game.  The fact that they haven't spent time on this aspect is probably a good thing...  [I would much rather have better performance and frost weavers for example, but I digress].

Again, ask around.  The community is quite helpful and we were all new once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Synns said:

I want to play an MMO not a moba, the whole enjoyment with an mmo is the continuous progression of your character/vessel. If I wanted to start from scratch every time I’d play a moba and I can’t stand mobas 

i agree there needs to be limitations to how powerful a vessel can get otherwise the pvp becomes to power based and not skill based but not carrying anything over or grinding lvls again and again is not fun

Ya you have a point with the wanting to play an mmo not a moba, some other posters have made me see that side of the argument. But MMO does not always mean your progression is forever, a lot of mmos give the perception of eternal progression and then a new expansion comes out and all your old gear and levels are useless, this is essentially a hidden wipe disguised as a leveling opportunity but its characteristics are the same as a wipe. Some things do stay such as earned, skins, housing items, other cosmetic items, mounts.

The ongoing argument that i do know ACE is really looking at is how to minimize UNCLE BOB honestly they are looking into it and I trust them. My Ideal however is a completely fresh start every campaign but that's just my ideal I threw out their.  I do respect you thoughts and it does make sense, I'm just in the minority here and that's fine.

Edited by bignick22000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bignick22000 said:

Ya you have a point with the wanting to play and mmo not a moba, some other posters have made me see that side of the argument. But MMO does not always mean your progression is forever, a lot of mmos give the perception of eternal progression and then a new expansion comes out and all your old gear and levels are useless, this is essentially a hidden wipe disguised as a leveling opportunity but its characteristics are the same as a wipe. Some things do stay such as earned, skins, housing items, other cosmetic items, mounts.

The ongoing argument that i do know ACE is really looking at her is hour to minimize UNCLE BOB honestly they are looking into it and I trust them. My Ideal however is a completely fresh start every campaign but that's just my ideal I threw out their.  I do respect you thoughts and it does make sense, I'm just in the minority here and that's fine.

Thus item decay. Other games have to do it with power creep, while CF can do it with decay, campaign wipes, and winner rewards.

Uncle Bob I would have to say is probably "THE" most important problem games systems wise that ACE is trying to solve for, and is probably about on the same level as the performance issues,

Frankly, with the way CF and campaigns are being built, "why not both?" is valid. 

Just don't suggest things like this as a game option where it affects a players account at a fundamental level, suggest it terms of strictly a campaign setting option and you will get more traction.

Cheers.

Share this post


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

However, this debate was already made many years ago.  As far as how it specifically applies to Crowfall, passive training is something that has been promoted as a critical aspect of the game.  Among other things, it helps balance the game for casual players (note: the people who cut our teeth on sandbox mmos when they first hit the market and who now cannot dedicate our lives to videogames) because active leveling requires a time sink (and more often than not, simply isn't any fun).  This fundamental aspect of Crowfall was used to obtain significant starter monies from investors, backers, etc.  In short, it's not something that is going to go away without a material loss to the game's player base

This makes sense to me and I do see its point. We are on opposite sides of what we think is important but your previous statement above is solid and I hear it. However I don't think its a bad thing ACE has taken a look at some of the passive leveling concerns This is all part of the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Just don't suggest things like this as a game option where it affects a players account at a fundamental level, suggest it terms of strictly a campaign setting option and you will get more traction.

You are absolutely right here. When Ideas are shared an ideal is put out on the floor. I gave you what was ideal to me knowing this it was subjective to my tastes.  The beauty of these types of discussions is that the community talks, debates and that idea is molded, it also gives the devs a chance to see feedback and wants form the community.

Through this discussion I molded my ideal and I think it would be awesome if the game could hold enough population to allow a competitive campaign that did not allow for imports or passive skill training imbalance.

And its important to note I wasn't saying passive skill training should go away I was suggesting that passive skill training should be for that specific campaign.


Side note:
let me voice this concern of mine and see if you know the answer.  What if I want to change paths? Say I spent a year putting points into Ranged and decide I want to do something different? Will I be able to respec or and I doomed to stay that skill for ever?

Edited by bignick22000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bignick22000 said:

Side note:
let me voice this concern of mine and see if you know the answer.  What if I want to change paths? Say I spent a year putting points into Ranged and decide I want to do something different? Will I be able to respec or and I doomed to stay that skill for ever?

They have talked about a way to respec your skill training but that's a post launch problem and we know next to nothing about it short of they know it's an issue. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bignick22000 said:

Side note:
let me voice this concern of mine and see if you know the answer.  What if I want to change paths? Say I spent a year putting points into Ranged and decide I want to do something different? Will I be able to respec or and I doomed to stay that skill for ever?

Two possible paths have been suggested/hinted at by ACE and both revolve around the skill tomes.

  1. If ACE implements a passive skill cap based on zero day account maximum, and I do not personally think that will need to happen with how much "power" they moved into active progression. Then a person with a zero day account would be stuck somewhat stuck starting the climb up again. Players not at the cap could simply get tomes to "catch up" in whatever it was they wanted to try.
  2. ACE could implement a points refund model, where they allow you to fill tomes with points you spent on one thing, and then trade them to other players for the ones you wanted. 
    1. This has the advantage of leaving the amount fully in the hands of the player and part of the player economy.
    2. It has the disadvantage of being subject to the diminishing returns plan they had for tomes.  
      1. If you don't know what that is, it was pretty simple.  If you have a tree trained 50% full, spending points from a tome would cost you double. If your at 90% trained, you would only get 1/10 points spent to create the tome. Basically your current trained percent would be used to claw back the effectiveness of the tome.

All of the above is very speculative, even if hinted at by ACE once or twice.

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...