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

Uncle Bob via Mega Alliance?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jah said:

You logged off and let us capture the map.  Went to bed like a human that had to go to work in the morning.

Order is indeed a much smaller faction than both Balance and Chaos in this campaign. Balance and Chaos had  similar populations, but Order was significantly smaller. Your guild leaving Order and switching to the largest faction, Chaos, played a role in that.

The Winterblades does have a gear advantage, as a result of playing the game as intended. We spent the many hours required to compete over harvesting resources and craft good gear. But that doesn't seem to be what the thread is about.

Fixed that for ya.

 

 

Share this post


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

You logged off and let us capture the map.

Order is indeed a much smaller faction than both Balance and Chaos in this campaign. Balance and Chaos had  similar populations, but Order was significantly smaller. Your guild leaving Order and switching to the largest faction, Chaos, played a role in that.

So what your saying is you would like all our chaos euro population to leave there server and come play on NA to satisfy your need to have equal population?

As for gear you are away all the new players like to go Chaos due to being the bad faction is fun? alot of chaos population has come much after the last wipe and havant even had a chance to harvest or even get a grasp of how the game works?
 

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, veeshan said:


As for gear you are away all the new players like to go Chaos due to being the bad faction is fun? alot of chaos population has come much after the last wipe and havant even had a chance to harvest or even get a grasp of how the game works?
 

Who’s fault is that? 


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
10 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Who’s fault is that? 

I dont even understand this comment? I was just stating the Chaos has alot and i mean alot of new players compared to the other factions. non of which know what to farm or even how to even make tools to do it lol
one of the largest active chaos guild didnt even know how to craft or how vessels even work to put it in comparison they been playing for like 4-5 weeks or something like that.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

I dont even understand this comment? I was just stating the Chaos has alot and i mean alot of new players compared to the other factions. non of which know what to farm or even how to even make tools to do it lol
one of the largest of not the largest chaos guild didnt even know how to craft or how vessels even work to put it in comparison they been playing for like 4-5 weeks or something like that.

Again, who’s at fault for them not understanding basic concepts of the game?  


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

The problem with reward scarcity in faction campaigns:

There are only three teams. You are encouraging players to compete with their own team for limited rewards and by doing so potentially shafting the majority of the winning team.

Lets put forth a theoretical scenario in which all three teams are evenly populated, with even distribution of play schedules, training, gear, skill, etc.

If your rewards can only address the top 100 players on a team, where is the incentive for the remaining 900 to play? In this dream scenario of player behavior the faction campaign reward system is broken. In a real life scenario where those top 100 players are almost certainly routinely the same people with tone of disposable time, previous knowledge from testing, or as crowfall moves forward past release, simply more training invested the entire reward mechanism breaks down. Even if those players turn out twice as much score over the course of a campaign, in a faction with 500 or 1000 players, those 100 players did not actually swing the campaign. They actually contributed less to the win than the lower scoreboard positioned other 900 who get reduced or no rewards.

Scarcity is a great design for dregs, but for faction campaigns where you can't simply say "We'll never get top 50 in this alliance, so lets start our own" all it accomplishes is ensuring the majority of the winning team gets shafted, and this inevitably leads to infighting and splintering in a ruleset where 'green is people I want to help' is the intent.

If Winterblades is in balance with me and defending a siege in this scenario, but they're already topping the leaderboard, I actually have more incentive to avoid helping these members of my faction than to help them. I want them to fail so that my efforts for objectives where they are not present move me up the scoreboard. If I help them and we get the same credit, I have not earned any additional rewards as their lead over my guild remains constant. In a reward system that only rewards the top performers, without the option of just starting my own competing team, I am actively going to avoid helping anyone higher on the scoreboard than me because I'm penalizing myself by doing so. In fact, if we already have a huge lead, I am actually more encouraged by this implementation to actively sabotage the top of the leaderboard for my own material gain, and would have no qualms about doing so. As long as balance wins, I will happily throw literally every other guild in my faction under the bus if you reward me for this behavior.

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
8 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Again, who’s at fault for them not understanding basic concepts of the game?  

"Fault" is a pretty dumb word to define a new player just coming to the game. 

Nobody is at "Fault", they just are not educated. 

Unless of course unless you think it's an 8 year olds "fault" for not having finished high school.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

The problem with reward scarcity in faction campaigns:

There are only three teams. You are encouraging players to compete with their own team for limited rewards and by doing so potentially shafting the majority of the winning team.

Lets put forth a theoretical scenario in which all three teams are evenly populated, with even distribution of play schedules, training, gear, skill, etc.

If your rewards can only address the top 100 players on a team, where is the incentive for the remaining 900 to play? In this dream scenario of player behavior the faction campaign reward system is broken. In a real life scenario where those top 100 players are almost certainly routinely the same people with tone of disposable time, previous knowledge from testing, or as crowfall moves forward past release, simply more training invested the entire reward mechanism breaks down. Even if those players turn out twice as much score over the course of a campaign, in a faction with 500 or 1000 players, those 100 players did not actually swing the campaign. They actually contributed less to the win than the lower scoreboard positioned other 900 who get reduced or no rewards.

Scarcity is a great design for dregs, but for faction campaigns where you can't simply say "We'll never get top 50 in this alliance, so lets start our own" all it accomplishes is ensuring the majority of the winning team gets shafted, and this inevitably leads to infighting and splintering in a ruleset where 'green is people I want to help' is the intent.

If Winterblades is in balance with me and defending a siege in this scenario, but they're already topping the leaderboard, I actually have more incentive to avoid helping these members of my faction than to help them. I want them to fail so that my efforts for objectives where they are not present move me up the scoreboard. If I help them and we get the same credit, I have not earned any additional rewards as their lead over my guild remains constant. In a reward system that only rewards the top performers, without the option of just starting my own competing team, I am actively going to avoid helping anyone higher on the scoreboard than me because I'm penalizing myself by doing so.

Your problem is the use of the word "only", and assuming that all the rewards are reserved for the top 100.

There needs to be some intersectional rewards, but the "best" rewards should be reserved for the best guilds and players. One of the problem with the current campaign is there is only two categories of prize, and entire factions get the exact same reward, one kill or camp capture, or 500.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

Your problem is the use of the word "only", and assuming that all the rewards are reserved for the top 100.

There needs to be some intersectional rewards, but the "best" rewards should be reserved for the best guilds and players. The problem with the current campaigns, is there is only two categories of prize, and entire factions get the exact same reward, one kill or camp capture, or 500.

 

The gradient doesn't matter is what I'm saying. It could be totally linear.

In a reward system that rewards leaderboard position rather than raw contribution, I am actively incentivized to sabotage anyone in my faction higher than me on the leaderboard.

If you reward players for sabotaging the best members of their faction, players will sabotage the best members of their faction.

It doesn't matter if its for 5 exports or 500. more rewards is more rewards.

If in stead rewards are accrued based on performance irrespective of leaderboard position then WBs performance has only potentially positive effects on my rewards, and I am actively encouraged to fight WITH them. Reward me based on captures and contribution alone, and naturally if i top the leaderboards I have more rewards.

Stopping uncle bob alliances, as i've said many times, is as simple as not allowing people to choose their faction and simply allowing guild or solo registration and assigning players and guilds as needed to balance population and prevent pre-stacking campaigns. Weight this against previous performance if necessary. If you don't allow the best guilds to have a method to stack a faction, the best guilds can't stack a faction.

Leave alliance play for the alliance gametype. Use reward scarity THERE to ensure players create enough competing alliances. It doesn't work in a preset teams scenario.

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
39 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

"Fault" is a pretty dumb word to define a new player just coming to the game. 

Nobody is at "Fault", they just are not educated. 

Unless of course unless you think it's an 8 year olds "fault" for not having finished high school.

I wasn’t blaming the new player. I was blaming the complexity of CF and it’s lack of NPE, it’s lack of resources and the fact that while it’s a group based PvP game a disproportionate amount of its players want to play in small groups or solo. 


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
34 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Your problem is the use of the word "only", and assuming that all the rewards are reserved for the top 100.

There needs to be some intersectional rewards, but the "best" rewards should be reserved for the best guilds and players. One of the problem with the current campaign is there is only two categories of prize, and entire factions get the exact same reward, one kill or camp capture, or 500.

 

The capture mechanic doesn’t measure best, it measures who can afk at a capture point and fight the urge not to log.  What makes the best crafter?  Somebody who makes the most stuff?  Somebody who makes only a few things but higher quality?  Somebody who only makes items per order?  What’s the best harvester?  The guy who farmed the most greens? The most legendaries?  How do you determine the best pvpers?  The guy with the least deaths?  The most kills?  The one with the most assist?  The most damage delt? The most healed?  The most overall healing?  The most efficient healer?  How about scouts?  Siege Engineers? I don’t think they can accurately reward the best if you can’t accurately determine the best.  

CF will have some of the most diverse character creation in the genre.  It will have dozens of main roles and another two dozen off the beaten path roles; that’s by its design.  It’s counter to that design to then reward people for playing how they arbitrarily determine is best.  


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

@jtoddcoleman

This is a long post and thank you for reading. I have spent some time thinking about rewards in 3 faction games. What I feel is important is giving players a reason to keep playing and to have a goal to always be working towards. With that said here is what I propose you consider.

 

Give out “campaign points” use these points at a static vendor in temple with different unique rewards (cosmetic armor sets, cosmetic  weapons, mounts, titles etc.). Campaign points are rewarded at the end of each campaign. The amount of campaign points you receive at the end of the campaign is decided by what rank you are in at the end.

These ranks  broken into different tiers. Each rank requires a set of “leaderboard points” get these points by killing enemies, capping camps, towers, forts, and keeps. Balance the points according to time investment and contribution to the faction. Have a mechanic to counter people using multiple accounts to get free kills for points. Have system where you can only get so many points for each activity over a set amount of time. An example would be you get points for capping a fort only once every hour or something like this. Some way to prevent people from abusing this point system. Also make getting max rank take a VERY long time so not many people will obtain the top rank.


 

Ranks 1 is top rank all the way down to 5 and even lower unranked. To become rank 5 you would need to atleast have x number of points (preferably not just one kill or one death) actually make the bar high to start being ranked. An example could be the equivalent to capping 1 fort and 20 camps to become ranked 5(the lowest rank) then have set amounts to rank up kind of like a exp bar or something, like once you reach x amount of points you get the next rank. Now to make this more interesting add in names for each rank that somehow tie into the lore of the gods or w.e. within each rank have a system that slows ppl down from maxing out rank one. Example if you did bronze thru platinum. You could do bronze 1 bronze 2 bronze 3 then silver silver 1 and so on. Again just an idea and names obviously would be different to first the lore of crowfall.


 

I played the game gloria victis for a short time and I think its “glory” system is very well done and gives players something to work towards at all times. Maybe look into that system and see how they did and take some ideas from there.

 

This whole idea of one cool item at the end of a campaign is great and I love the badges, however if there is only one item up for grabs that is boring to be blunt. Using this point system and a vendor with many choices will add for more interest and incentives to get the highest rank to obtain the most campaign points at the end of the campaign. Maybe also keep the badge system in place but only award the item to the winning faction and the losing faction gets a few “campaign points” as compensation this way everyone is getting something. Also the winning faction taking the one item that says they won x campaign is cool too. While also benefiting the losing faction by obtaining extra points to use at the vendor.

 

This is an idea that I think will make the game more interesting and keep players coming back for more. The only downside I can see to this system is, people will say why fight against your own faction. Understandable argument , however this system is just rewarding people based on how much time they invested into the campaign and how much they contributed to their team. Also your are not fighting since all ranks are obtainable if you put in enough time. Also I want to reiterate to make it VERY time consuming to get the highest ranks and rewards so not everyone can achieve max potential.


 

I wonder what other peoples thoughts are on this idea. It is always nice to have something more to be working towards while contributing to your team.

Edited by Idodmg

Share this post


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

Balance was not the largest faction. Chaos had more people than Balance on both the first night of the campaign, and the second night when the first siege happened.

Any campaign is unwinnable when people stop trying to win it. The imbalance in the score right now is a direct result of chaos giving up as soon as they lost the first siege. 

"Try harder" - Winterblades

"You're actually really good, stop trying harder and come join balance with us" - Also Winterblades

 

I have immense respect for both of these guilds but call a spade a spade man. You know good and well that you stacked the best assemblage of players and econ on the server deliberately to squelch competition. You know good and well that one member of this assemblage is worth 3 average players in the current state of testing. You're good, and you removed one of the few real existing obstacles to your dominance by choosing to ally with rather than compete with them.

That's why you did it. You played the ruleset well, you gamed the system well. You're playing to crush and there's nothing wrong with that, but your two guilds deliberately made an alliance to remove the ability of your enemies to perform better in order to gain the reward.

Given the same scenario, population, resources, and skill level of guild members I would do the exact same thing. The only difference is I wouldn't be attempting to spin it as anything other than a blatant power grab for cool loot.


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
16 minutes ago, mandalore said:

The capture mechanic doesn’t measure best, it measures who can afk at a capture point and fight the urge not to log.  What makes the best crafter?  Somebody who makes the most stuff?  Somebody who makes only a few things but higher quality?  Somebody who only makes items per order?  What’s the best harvester?  The guy who farmed the most greens? The most legendaries?  How do you determine the best pvpers?  The guy with the least deaths?  The most kills?  The one with the most assist?  The most damage delt? The most healed?  The most overall healing?  The most efficient healer?  How about scouts?  Siege Engineers? I don’t think they can accurately reward the best if you can’t accurately determine the best.  

CF will have some of the most diverse character creation in the genre.  It will have dozens of main roles and another two dozen off the beaten path roles; that’s by its design.  It’s counter to that design to then reward people for playing how they arbitrarily determine is best.  

its impossible to measure who the best crafter is or gatherer is, you can tally up the total kills made by X players weapons in the hands of others but what if the most skilled only crafts for himself? and what about gathering, is the guy who only gathered what he needed in 1 hour worse then the guy who took 10 hours to gather what he needed but gathered so much more? these things are impossible to measure and we shouldnt try to waste our time with something that cant be measured. PvP is another thing, and honestly one of the few things eso has ever done right as an mmo, theyre alliance point system(pvp points basically) allowed me as a healer, 1vXer, blaze tank, interruption tank, glass cannon ganker, and zerg bomber to succeed and climb the rankings with time and effort frequently reaching the top 10 in my faction as several different builds and roles, crowfall should adopt a system more like that then the current afk outpost capping meta we have, sure there are leeches in that system who get one hit on someone and get ap they didnt earn or players stealthing into keeps and sitting there until someone else caps it for them and getting a share of the gathered ap but the best still rise to the top fairly easily unlike what we have now where on chaos there are frequently players with 0 kills and very few assists in the top 10


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I know I could probably step in and ask the main guilds right now to stop holding hands"

ROFLMAO

Just what we think too....Ride in the coat tails, holding hands and frolicking in the meadows of Crowfall.

Enjoy your Gold Shiny :)...It will be a Badge of Dishonour.

 

 

I note @Jah

You've reduced your numbers in the commentary to 60 now, but didn't edit the video title to reflect your misleading.

And I further note, we are waiting for your to confirm that there were 63 ooppps 60 now, ACTUALLY AT THE FIGHT.

I cant believe you tagged jtodd with your lies (lying via deception) and claim everyone else is misleading ACE. This just shows total disrespect to him.

 

Steal $1 or steal $100, not a lot in it some would say....others would say, if you have the precedence to steal $1, then you'd steal $100. 

Dishonesty is dishonesty...the value matters little, its in your DNA.

 

Edited by Shiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jah

Still waiting...for a reply to this please.

On 2/16/2019 at 3:04 AM, Jah said:

Both enemy factions could easily outnumber Balance right now. In fact, Chaos outnumbered Balance the first two nights of this campaign.

I agree though, the inability to attack whoever you want is a big part of why Faction campaigns will never be as good as the Dregs.

But if you think the Dregs will solve the problem where people are crying rivers about imbalanced forces, you are mistaken.

Oh my.../sigh

More misleading dribble.

1. Out number = Possibly Yes.

2. Outnumber at the fight. Actually at the fight as you seem to continually wish to mislead people to thinking = 100% NO.

 

Question for you: Lets put some perspective into your misleading comments, which you are purely clutching as the basis for your argument and only have that to hold onto which is numbers, pure numbers, and which also remains unsubstantiated even after repeated requests for it:

How many LVL 1-10 players, inexperienced, in Intermediate Gear and Welfare Weapons (vendor), no jewelery, and no idea of a good discipline set-up.. would it take to take down a fully Geared (Blue/Purple or Gold), experienced, correctly specked, correctly disciplined, coloured jewelry wearing opposition faction combatant, just one of them. 

 

This really makes a joke out of your continued "NUMBERS" argument - consider only the FACTS, that you want to consider, and use those as your only defense.

 

Sir, You have been found wanting! - Time for your Leaders to face the community and stop hiding. Let them post something with some maturity and less bombastic arrogance.

 

Note to self: Must stop calling this misleading, must call it what it as now...lying!

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The problem with reward scarcity in faction campaigns:

There are only three teams. You are encouraging players to compete with their own team for limited rewards and by doing so potentially shafting the majority of the winning team.

Lets put forth a theoretical scenario in which all three teams are evenly populated, with even distribution of play schedules, training, gear, skill, etc.

If your rewards can only address the top 100 players on a team, where is the incentive for the remaining 900 to play? In this dream scenario of player behavior the faction campaign reward system is broken. In a real life scenario where those top 100 players are almost certainly routinely the same people with tone of disposable time, previous knowledge from testing, or as crowfall moves forward past release, simply more training invested the entire reward mechanism breaks down. Even if those players turn out twice as much score over the course of a campaign, in a faction with 500 or 1000 players, those 100 players did not actually swing the campaign. They actually contributed less to the win than the lower scoreboard positioned other 900 who get reduced or no rewards.

Scarcity is a great design for dregs, but for faction campaigns where you can't simply say "We'll never get top 50 in this alliance, so lets start our own" all it accomplishes is ensuring the majority of the winning team gets shafted, and this inevitably leads to infighting and splintering in a ruleset where 'green is people I want to help' is the intent.

If Winterblades is in balance with me and defending a siege in this scenario, but they're already topping the leaderboard, I actually have more incentive to avoid helping these members of my faction than to help them. I want them to fail so that my efforts for objectives where they are not present move me up the scoreboard. If I help them and we get the same credit, I have not earned any additional rewards as their lead over my guild remains constant. In a reward system that only rewards the top performers, without the option of just starting my own competing team, I am actively going to avoid helping anyone higher on the scoreboard than me because I'm penalizing myself by doing so. In fact, if we already have a huge lead, I am actually more encouraged by this implementation to actively sabotage the top of the leaderboard for my own material gain, and would have no qualms about doing so. As long as balance wins, I will happily throw literally every other guild in my faction under the bus if you reward me for this behavior.

can always do a lottery where ur name gets pulled out of a hate and ur tickets are the score u have so even with 1 score u have a small chance still but the more you contribute the more tickets are in the pot for you.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

can always do a lottery where ur name gets pulled out of a hate and ur tickets are the score u have so even with 1 score u have a small chance still but the more you contribute the more tickets are in the pot for you.

This sounds terrible. Imagine going nuts and metagaming a huge alliance to get mad points and then getting shafterd after 3 months by a die roll.

My preferred scenario would be straight up metric = reward where those metrics are personal rather than leaderboard based, and using the aformentioned "que for campaign and system assigns faction" setup to control uncle bob.

Changing the scoring metrics alone would clamp down on player's desire to stack faction campaigns with better/more players but would do so at the expense of the actual team spirit of those factions.

Using simple scoring metrics and a more agressive anti-metagaming measure in faction campaigns would control faction stacking without also damaging the fundamental teamwork assumption of the faction campaigns imo.

And then use the leaderboard method in dregs to encourage people to just make more factions and hard decisions about numbers versus changes at winning/scoreboard there as it sounds fantastic for that environment. I think in dregs its a great mechanism for balancing players desire to create massive allainces or kneel versus reward output by having less players in an alliance guaranteeing better rewards if they win.

I just think that without the ability to kneel or splinter in to more factions in faction campaigns it doesn't really work for anyone but the top of the leaderboard, and in a theoretical scenario of factions where everyone is pulling their weight people are gonna get shafted because of the scarce rewards with no method to turn greed in to content other than dunking on your own guys.

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
5 hours ago, Jah said:

@jtoddcoleman You can see some examples of the spin, and the people who were pushing it, above. Most of them are in the same guild, a guild that recently picked up several ex-Winterblades who clearly have bitter feelings about their former guild.

/who faction 15 minutes before the first siege of NA Trials of Malekai:

Balance:
unknown.png
unknown.png

Chaos:
unknown.png
unknown.png
unknown.png

/who zone for each faction present at the siege that broke Chaos' will:

Balance:
unknown.png


Chaos:
unknown.png
unknown.png

@jtoddcoleman Do you have server logs that would confirm these numbers?

I am very sure Mr Coleman can see right through your smoke and mirrors....just need a little wind and all is clear to see.

Excuse me /leans over to fart...ahh, clear already, didn't need as much wind as I thought. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...