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

The potential of this game saving the MMO genre

Recommended Posts

Just putting my 2 cents in this thread of ppl arguing past each other.

Chess having the Uncle Bob problem is ridicilous. Uncle Bob is when the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. It's possible in chess that one player inevitably lost because of piece trading but the balance between them always stays the same till the end and the chance for the losing player to turn it around always stays the same aswell.

Also the Uncle Bob problem is not simply fixed just by resetting a campaign depending on how the devs are going to handle population distripution, import/export and victory rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eeehm could it be that the discussion got slightly out of hand? Even I dunno what is going on anymor so I go back to the topic and ask again, what do you think about the ideas/input I gave for some game mechanics?

Share this post


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

Eeehm could it be that the discussion got slightly out of hand? Even I dunno what is going on anymor so I go back to the topic and ask again, what do you think about the ideas/input I gave for some game mechanics?

Which mechanics did you want to discuss? 

Edited by mandalore

Share this post


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

Just putting my 2 cents in this thread of ppl arguing past each other.

Chess having the Uncle Bob problem is ridicilous. Uncle Bob is when the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. It's possible in chess that one player inevitably lost because of piece trading but the balance between them always stays the same till the end and the chance for the losing player to turn it around always stays the same aswell.

Also the Uncle Bob problem is not simply fixed just by resetting a campaign depending on how the devs are going to handle population distripution, import/export and victory rewards.

Ridiculous? Just read the CF article where he explains what is uncle bob (slippery slope). You do not know what you're talking about. Chess is the classic example of playing with Uncle Bob. You only know how to belittle others' opinions (like mandalore). This is a forum for feedback discussions. Please stick to facts and opinions based on things that can only be proven.

 

"Examples of Slippery Slope

StarCraft and Chess both have slippery slope. They manage to be good games anyway, despite this anti-climactic property.

Chess

In Chess, when a player loses a piece, their ability to attack, defend, and control space on the board is slightly reduced. Sure, there are many other factors in Chess—positioning, momentum, pawn structure—that determine if a player is actually “losing,” but losing a piece does have an effect. Clearly, losing a lot of pieces, say 8, puts a player at a significant disadvantage. It’s pretty hard to make a comeback in Chess, and a game is usually “won” many, many moves before the actual checkmate move.

This is why there are a lot of forfeits in Chess. Good players don’t actually play out the pointless part of the endgame when they recognize the opponent will definitely win. Chess players would say that forfeits being a regular part of the game is fine and not awkward, but it’s a disappointing quality compared to games without slippery slope."

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

Ridiculous? Just read the CF article where he explains what is uncle bob (slippery slope). You do not know what you're talking about. Chess is the classic example of playing with Uncle Bob. You only know how to belittle others' opinions (like mandalore). This is a forum for feedback discussions. Please stick to facts and opinions based on things that can only be proven.

 

"Examples of Slippery Slope

StarCraft and Chess both have slippery slope. They manage to be good games anyway, despite this anti-climactic property.

Chess

In Chess, when a player loses a piece, their ability to attack, defend, and control space on the board is slightly reduced. Sure, there are many other factors in Chess—positioning, momentum, pawn structure—that determine if a player is actually “losing,” but losing a piece does have an effect. Clearly, losing a lot of pieces, say 8, puts a player at a significant disadvantage. It’s pretty hard to make a comeback in Chess, and a game is usually “won” many, many moves before the actual checkmate move.

This is why there are a lot of forfeits in Chess. Good players don’t actually play out the pointless part of the endgame when they recognize the opponent will definitely win. Chess players would say that forfeits being a regular part of the game is fine and not awkward, but it’s a disappointing quality compared to games without slippery slope."

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback

Uncle Bob is not equal to Slippery slope.  

Uncle Bob is what happens in a long term game where the winner is predictable or known and the game does not end as it naturally should.   That's why Tournament chess games end far before the endgame, when player realize they are on the slippery slope to a loss, and can't be bothered to finish the game. That is the opposite of Uncle Bob, because the GAME IS OVER. 

The other Uncle Bob situation is when a person can rally advantage of one victory, into a future victory.  Poker tournaments are an example of this, where eliminating one player, gives a potential "Uncle Bob" chip advantage over other players to the player that eliminated them.

Your conflating Uncle Bob, with Slippery slope. Sometimes slippery slope leads to Uncle Bob, and sometimes it does not.

 

Share this post


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

Eeehm could it be that the discussion got slightly out of hand? Even I dunno what is going on anymor so I go back to the topic and ask again, what do you think about the ideas/input I gave for some game mechanics?

 

Sorry for diverting the issue from the topic. Unfortunately we have many players who have misconceptions and question me as if I did not know anything right. I hope everyone is satisfied with my extremely well-founded explanation. And for all: do not ask any more questions whose answers can be answered by google search. It was nice talking to everyone.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


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

From my interpretation of it slippery slope leads to the uncle bob scenario but they are in fact two different, very similar, aspects of end game problems. 

 

 

 

In fact, Uncle Bob is the player who is favored by the system of slippery slope (it's a nickname).

Share this post


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

@KrakkenSmacken

[...]biggest challenges that Crowfall set out to fix was what we call “the Uncle Bob scenario” also known as “slippery slope”

That does not change my summary statement one bit.

Quote

Sometimes slippery slope leads to Uncle Bob, and sometimes it does not.

Chess does not have "Uncle Bob", but it does have slippery slope. 

Winning one game of Chess does not increase my chances of winning the next game of chess. That's Uncle Bob, and that video link even explains that through the "multi year" part of the risk game.  They had to add the multi year aspect to the example to demonstrate that, because every single game of risk is loaded with slippery slope. 

Without any sort of slippery slope, the only win condition option left is sudden total defeat regardless of current score.

But whatever. 

Back to OP's ideas.  I think most of the ideas miss the point that this is a game being designed to more tournament like, than a support system for king "role play".  For example, the below from the OP indicate a rather severe disconnect on what the core game design is about.

Quote

So basically I think that Guilds are not needed or at least don`t call them guilds for the simple reason that you play a king. (Guilds and how they operate is a huge part of the original bands description.)

For example you begin with your character and one parcel, you build now a house on that parcel and you have food provisions. As a result you gain a NPC citizen.

...

There you can assign your citizens to jobs for example NPC warriors of farmers or whatever,

...

My idea is that you as a king need to go in the wilderness (the campaign) for 2 things

 

This entire threads original premise is more RTS and RPG support than MMO or even MOBA. 

That is not a bad idea really, and a CF engine with limited match lengths, and RTS resource accumulation via NPC thralls at some time in the very distant future might be interesting, but that is not even in the ballpark of what CF was and is being built for now.

CF is more MMO/MOBA hybrid than it is RTS/RPG.  OP is looking for a different game, probably because one of those types of games simply does not exist, as far as I know.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

 

In fact, Uncle Bob is the player who is favored by the system of slippery slope (it's a nickname).

I really thought it was a racist term when I first heard it and snicker every time I see it.  As for them combating it, I don't think it can be eradicated.  It can be mitigated with projected systems in place (CW's die, import and vessel restrictions for new cw's). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2019 at 4:12 PM, hamon said:

My point? I am just demonstrating that the current game has abandoned the original idea that everything in CF revolved around surviving against Hunger, collecting, looting, killing and doing all sorts of things just to stay alive. In the concept of the game it is the main element and now the DEVs launch live campaign where the most important are the faction points or create guilds? I know there the original idea was so good and the DEVs turned into this joke of campaigns with faction points, guild points, fuuuck points. This ended the immersion of the whole story they created in first project. Hunger now is one secondary abstract element in game.

Wrong...   it is winter in the world now.   The hunger is everywhere in the game spawning debuffs, Hunger crystals that corrupt and consume the resources I need...   there is less food in the world.   When these mechanics for The Hunger are optimized and fully realized with the seasons, it will drive conflict and weed out the weak.   Go harvest right now and tell me you aren't feeling the hunger.

 

Edited by Frykka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, neither Chess nor Starcraft have an Uncle Bob problem, because when one game ends, the winner cannot bring anything but knowledge into the next game. That is, at the beginning of the next game, there is no difference between the previous winner and the previous loser. The board and pieces are reset.

Slippery slope is a bit of a dicey premise, in my opinion. Neither Chess nor Starcraft have a design flaw that I'd call "slippery slope" - this concept seems to be used to obscure a simple reality: winning an early battle often leads to winning the game. Break the pawn structure, wipe some SCVs, it's not a problem, it's precisely how the games are supposed to work.

Crowfall needs to worry about these two things because the campaigns last significantly longer than Chess games and Starcraft matches. Notice that slippery slope and Uncle Bob were irrelevant in Hunger Dome scenarios three/four years ago.

Ultimately, I think the only aspect they should really worry about is how quickly and easily a side that lost an early battle can regain the character-based power necessary to compete in the next battle. If it's lose one big battle and lose all hope, then we have a problem. If it's lose one big battle and have an uphill struggle that can be done, good.

Edited by McTan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Chess and Star Craft have slippery slope/snowball effects, usually any game where concession is a regular component of high level play indicates a probable snow ball mechanic. Any game where you get stronger for every small "victory" and your opponent gets weaker before the game actually ends has a snowball effect.

Sirlin has a good article about it: Further Reading

Edited by Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, seriously though, I can see hamon's logic. The greatest fault chess has is exactly the fact losing pieces means you chances of winning are forever diminished. A little more complex than that, but anyone who plays chess must have experienced that moment where all you 'good' pieces are gone and you just go 'custard this, there is no way I can win anymore'.

My favorite tactic is getting a head start and them just forcing exchanges, cuz really, the first one to go out of special pieces is screwed.

... That is it. Just wanted to point out why chess sucks. Not really getting what this thread about anymore.

 

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, McTan said:

For me, neither Chess nor Starcraft have an Uncle Bob problem, because when one game ends, the winner cannot bring anything but knowledge into the next game. That is, at the beginning of the next game, there is no difference between the previous winner and the previous loser. The board and pieces are reset.

Slippery slope is a bit of a dicey premise, in my opinion. Neither Chess nor Starcraft have a design flaw that I'd call "slippery slope" - this concept seems to be used to obscure a simple reality: winning an early battle often leads to winning the game. Break the pawn structure, wipe some SCVs, it's not a problem, it's precisely how the games are supposed to work.

Crowfall needs to worry about these two things because the campaigns last significantly longer than Chess games and Starcraft matches. Notice that slippery slope and Uncle Bob were irrelevant in Hunger Dome scenarios three/four years ago.

Ultimately, I think the only aspect they should really worry about is how quickly and easily a side that lost an early battle can regain the character-based power necessary to compete in the next battle. If it's lose one big battle and lose all hope, then we have a problem. If it's lose one big battle and have an uphill struggle that can be done, good.

Slippery slope is not a design flaw, it's a design choice.  Some games work great with it, for others it can be too much.

The real reason it's such a potential problem for a game like CF, is that ACE wants players to play the whole campaign (as opposed to elimination games like PUBG), not just half of it, and ACE does not want "too much" power to carry over from one campaign to the next. 

But for many games that end decisively,  it's a good and necessary mechanic. 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

No, seriously though, I can see hamon's logic. The greatest fault chess has is exactly the fact losing pieces means you chances of winning are forever diminished. A little more complex than that, but anyone who plays chess must have experienced that moment where all you 'good' pieces are gone and you just go 'custard this, there is no way I can win anymore'.

My favorite tactic is getting a head start and them just forcing exchanges, cuz really, the first one to go out of special pieces is screwed.

... That is it. Just wanted to point out why chess sucks. Not really getting what this thread about anymore.

 

Yikes - "getting a head start" - what? You are just describing winning the game. And besides that, losing pieces does not always mean your chances of winning are diminished.  

 

Share this post


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

Slippery slope is not a design flaw, it's a design choice.  Some games work great with it, for others it can be too much.

The real reason it's such a potential problem for a game like CF, is that ACE wants players to play the whole campaign (as opposed to elimination games like PUBG), not just half of it, and ACE does not want "too much" power to carry over from one campaign to the next. 

But for many games that end decisively,  it's a good and necessary mechanic. 

So, you just agreed with me? I am not sure why you quoted my post.

Another very important aspect of both Chess and Starcraft is the ability of a side to concede the match and end the game "early" - meaning without a Checkmate or without eliminating all opponent structures and units.

There are two issues at stake, yes: the current campaign and the next campaign. Each has unique, but intertwined problems.

The current campaign has to have win conditions that are understood & minimize any sort of counterproductive winner behavior, such as milking a winning campaign. Instead of setting a timer on the campaign and whoever has the most points wins, put a winning point count, and whoever gets there first wins. No reason to milk a winning Uncle Bob-like scenario, as there is no benefit.

The next campaign has the bigger problem, from my perspective. In Chess and Starcraft, it is rare to see the losing side never play the game again. In CF, that will not be the case. Ultimately, I do not think they can avoid this fact: the side who wins a campaign will have an advantage in the next campaign, because their members are more likely to stay and the losing sides will more likely bleed members.

Edited by McTan

Share this post


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

Yikes - "getting a head start" - what? You are just describing winning the game. And besides that, losing pieces does not always mean your chances of winning are diminished.  

 

Well, I did say it was more complicated than that.

The key points is that your losses are not recoverable. Every loss and your (and the game's) options are cut off. Slowly, ever so slowly, the game starts to become simple, boring, predictable?

It is hard to explain.

What made me realize that problem was learning to play shogi. Pretty close to chess, but there is one major difference -- you can capture, and as such use, your opponent's pieces. That means a constant flux of options. The end-game has the same number of options than we had at the start. Once you play that you realize how punishing and limiting the losses in chess are. And consequently how insurmountable a gap those can generate.

In shogi you always feel like you can recover if you play it right. Which is the kind of feeling CF should give.

So yeah, be more like shogi and less like chess. /thread

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...