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

Incentive to even out factions

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I figure there might be a place for letting guilds decide to some extent who gets what.  

For example, if the current rules were "The Guild leader of the top guild gets 12 gold badges to distribute", then ACE offloads the problem of defining who worked the hardest in the guild to the guild leadership.

 

That doesn’t reward the guild, just creates tension.  The entire guild should benefit, not just some.  If everybody contributes, then everybody is rewarded.  


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 minute ago, mandalore said:

That doesn’t reward the guild, just creates tension.  The entire guild should benefit, not just some.  If everybody contributes, then everybody is rewarded.  

Ding!  He wins the prize. 

Of course it creates inner guild tension, AND cross guild tension.  This is supposed to be a throne war simulator right?  Isn't part of being a leader who would be king, being someone who can figure out how to alleviate tension caused by having to distribute limited rewards?

ACE is going to never get all the intersectionality possible options right.  That is going to be like trying to push a rope.  

And I didn't say all, I said to some extent.  The current campaigns have a rather limited set of rewards, but moving forward I expect there to be more types and options. When that happens, that should be one type.

Share this post


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

That is going to be like trying to push a rope.  

 

I laughed.  Loudly. 

 

24 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Of course it creates inner guild tension,

 

Creating inner guild drama for the sake of drama seems like poor design to me.  You shouldn't be creating drama in guilds because you can't find a balanced mechanic for winning; just seems like a lazy decision.  The prize for winning should be an in game advantage anyways, cosmetic rewards should be the only reward for winning otherwise you start to stack the winners with advantages people can't get. 

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
48 minutes ago, mandalore said:

I laughed.  Loudly. 

 

Creating inner guild drama for the sake of drama seems like poor design to me.  You shouldn't be creating drama in guilds because you can't find a balanced mechanic for winning; just seems like a lazy decision.  The prize for winning should be an in game advantage anyways, cosmetic rewards should be the only reward for winning otherwise you start to stack the winners with advantages people can't get. 

Well if it was sports, teams would be limited to number of players on a team, number of players on a side at a time, and amount of money that can be spent by a team to hire players.

But ACE doesn't have that way to divide groups, so is sort of in the posistion of trying to get groups to form their own divisions voluntarily, and so needs something in the mechanics that drives or motivates that division.  

It's easy to say, "That won't work", so what do you suggest?

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

It's easy to say, "That won't work", so what do you suggest?

I don't think a method as arbitrary as points can calculate winners in a game as complex as CF.  I don't thin you can track all the metrics that lead to winning.  Is the best crafter somebody who makes the most, somebody who makes the best or somebody who makes stuff used the most?  I don't think healing, support, leadership, logistics, morale, political, cunning or probably another half dozen of things that matter can be accurately measured by capping points.  I think they need to let campaigns play out till one side actually defeats their enemies.  Let there be a nuclear option for landslide campaigns but I don't think a point system can reflect who won with enough nuance.  Point systems are good for bragging about KDA and epeens and who has enough gumption to stand on a capture point and not claw their eyes out.  The downside to encouraging people to smash their enemies is what to do with the losers as they are pushed out.  There can be bend the knee mechanics to mitigate some attrition but just like in SB people are going to lose and quit, you can mitigate this but you can't prevent it.  I think defenders should have an advantage to make it hard, no matter what, to take assets but thats a razors edge balance because it means you have to ensure that cities can still be taken.  Spires in Shadowbane did a good job of this, working walls will help, better guard AI and the ability to build defensively will be a great boon. 

As for who gets what when they win I don't think winning should reward you with something that will help you win.  I don't think winners should be rewarded with more of an in game advantage, give them a cosmetic reward of one color or shade and then sell it on the store in a different color.  This way winners get something special and ACE gets to sell micro transactions that aren't pay to win; money in their coffers is good for us. 

 

I can poke a dozen holes in my own idea but I don't think points will work in dregs and it's clear it doesn't work in factions.  Nobody likes the mechanic, nobody likes standing on boring capture points to determine who is going to win. 


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
2 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Ding!  He wins the prize. 

Of course it creates inner guild tension, AND cross guild tension.  This is supposed to be a throne war simulator right?  Isn't part of being a leader who would be king, being someone who can figure out how to alleviate tension caused by having to distribute limited rewards?

ACE is going to never get all the intersectionality possible options right.  That is going to be like trying to push a rope.  

And I didn't say all, I said to some extent.  The current campaigns have a rather limited set of rewards, but moving forward I expect there to be more types and options. When that happens, that should be one type.

I would agree that one of the best ways to counter zerging for a win is to force the winners to fight among themselves over the distribution of the spoils of war. Any mechanic where you get more rewards by having more people on the winning side encourages zerging.

Take the current rewards for example. Every member of the winning side gets the gold sigil. The more people on the winning side, the more gold sigils are awarded. The spoils of war are actually multiplied by the number of winners with that mechanic.

Compare this to a situation where there is a finite reward that must be distributed among the winners. It would be more difficult to keep a coalition together if the distribution seemed unfair to some of the participants, and if there aren't enough rewards to go around there will be conflict. That conflict destabilizes zerg forces. It encourages people to break off and try to control the distribution of spoils themselves.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 2:57 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

Splitting up players that work together and want to play together by random, is a great way to convince them to stop playing.

Or reason for them to work together, even if that means working against their assigned faction...

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


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

Compare this to a situation where there is a finite reward that must be distributed among the winners. It would be more difficult to keep a coalition together if the distribution seemed unfair to some of the participants, and if there aren't enough rewards to go around there will be conflict. That conflict destabilizes zerg forces. It encourages people to break off and try to control the distribution of spoils themselves.

Even better when an alliance leading guild has to choose between rewarding allies with the limited spoils and rewarding their own members.

If ACE wants treachery and betrayal to be part of their throne war game, it can't be a big kumbyah, even some winners need to walk away a little butt hurt.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 2:57 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

This campaigns guild shift was planned weeks ago.  

Splitting up players that work together and want to play together by random, is a great way to convince them to stop playing. 

Letting players treat faction campaigns like dregs campaigns is a great way to convince the people factions are actually designed for to stop playing.

If players want to work together in a faction campaign reliably players should join the same guild.

If players want a reliable bloc of constant allies that span a number larger than a guild, over multiple campaigns, they should be playing dregs. Once dregs is online there is no reason to coddle players hat want to play the guild alliance game in factions. They need to step up to their appropriate arena.

There is nothing gained by allowing people to choose factions in this scenario.

There is no "perfect skill and population balance" solution. That's impossible.

However, the entire purpose of faction campaigns is not to end up in a pre-planned alliance with the same players over and over. The purpose of faction campaigns is to provide an environment for players that does not require them to do so in order to have a competitive campaign.

A simple "shuffle all entries and add next in que to least populated faction" mechanism would go a long way toward separating the player bases factions and dregs are designed for while allowing players that wish to work together to do so. it would allow factions to much better work as a functional farm system for dregs by allowing guilds to grow organically to a point they're ready to enter dregs as standalone entities rather than requiring them to sub to a larger bloc just to get started there.

Most importantly it would serve as an effective mechanical politics reset every campaign for the ruleset where your politics are supposed to be "greens good reds bad" regardless of your personal feelings about people on your team because you can't control who is on your team.

A guild holds 300 people. If you desparately need to play together with more than 300 people, in a faction campaign, you already have what you require to play dregs, and you should be playing dregs. If you don't care or aren't populous enough to be playing dregs, you should be playing factions.

Faction campaign are intentionally easier to win with less coordination, and are intended to have lesser rewards for this reason. There is nothing to be gained for anyone by turning faction campaigns in to dregs when both options are intended to exist and players are intended to be free to chose either.

The current situation in faction campaigns would still be happenning at our current population levels. The game's best guilds simply do not boast enough actives to fill out an entire guild. Under the system as is the "opposition should get better" argument does in fact apply. However, looking forward the current state of faction campaigns allows and encourages gaming a system intended to give random assemblages of soloists and small inexperienced guilds a shot at a win by breaking the core design goal of that system.

That's a problem for faction campaigns, and as faction campaigns are the 'training wheels' ruleset for new players, that's also bound to become a new player retention problem of the sort that kills pvp sandbox mmos. I don't think anyone wants a crowfall in 2021 where a group of 20 dedicated, smart, potentially excellent players start the game and get mercilessly farmed in faction campaigns because they simply weren't part of one power bloc that has decided to farm noobs for easy low level exports in stead of engaging their equals in dregs.

I'm not saying these measures are appropriate to implement now. When dregs is online, however, making those last few systemic adjustements that make factions annoying to play for the dregs mindset are not only appropriate, but sorely needed as much for the perception of fairness in a ruleset designed to be more fair for smaller groups of players as the actual health and competitive spirit of faction campaigns.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, VaMei said:

Even better when an alliance leading guild has to choose between rewarding allies with the limited spoils and rewarding their own members.

If ACE wants treachery and betrayal to be part of their throne war game, it can't be a big kumbyah, even some winners need to walk away a little butt hurt.

There is no such thing as an alliance leading guild in faction campaigns. That's the point of faction campaigns. Nobody is in charge. The system is the "alliance authority" and nobody is responsible for anyone else. ACE has already implemented several design decisions in the faction ruleset to specifically limit the impact treachery and betrayal can have in a faction campaign, and has done so by removing a significant amount of player freedom from that ruleset so that it actually functions for the purpose for which it was designed.

That's why players don't place structures in faction campaigns.

That's why they made harvesting doobers only accessible to your party.

That's why the scoreboard only has 3 teams on it, and all players must be on one of three teams.

That's why no guild controls any objective, nor has administrative priveledges to ban/grant access to said objectives.

That's why there's no concept of subguilds or kneeling.

That's why factions was the first ruleset implemented. Its actually harder to implement properly because it requires a lot of special case rules that simply will not and should not exist in the shackles-off "main event" scenarios where those things are supposed to matter.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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...