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

Uncle Bob via Mega Alliance?

Recommended Posts

Hello Crowfall Dev Team, 

 

In regards to campaigns and the Uncle Bob mechanic.  What I've found troubeling with the points system is how easily it's manipulated.  


First :
Imaging you are Balance.  

You are somewhat behind. 

You want to catch up. 

So what you do is, cap a fort.

So far so good.  Working as intended.

When it then reaches a rather high cap bonus then you get an "ally" on a different faction.  Flip that very fort to -neutral-.  They dont cap it.  Just set it to neutral.

Your Balance character then swoops in and cap the fort to Balance faction once more.

U get the Cap Bonus, and the holding bonus.

 

Second.
Flipping of Keeps.  Something which is presently happening on the EU server, between the Chaos and Balance faction.

They get the daily KEEP Catch Up bonus

They make sure that Order can’t catch up cause the bonus is being cashed in every single day

And in the end when our Keep is fat, they will Slaughter it.
 


TBH.
Fun fights.

Horrible point system … which truely doens't award effort invested. 


Regards Soulreaver.

 


Huginn ok Muninn, fljúga hverjan dag, Jörmungrund yfir; óumk ek of Hugin,, at hann aftr né komi-t, þó sjámk meir of Munin

Gathering of Ranger videos

Share this post


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

TBH.
Fun fights.

Horrible point system … which truely doens't award effort invested.

 

 

I agreed ont the system point, for the award, it's ugly,

but fight too. too many abuse and broken things for fun, when you have to play a class you dont like because it's OP or because part of you stuff is remove ( orb ) or useless ( quiver )
it's not fun.

not mentionning when you are half the time in the air or kill people with druid ult in canyon : very not fun fight.

Share this post


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

No, it was your guild that pushed the false narrative that Balance outnumbered everyone.

 

Have you done an actual count in your video of people participating in combat?


Share this post


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

@jtoddcoleman There was no mega-alliance. 

So Balance and Chaos flipping keeps on EU is pure coincidence?  *smiles*

 


Huginn ok Muninn, fljúga hverjan dag, Jörmungrund yfir; óumk ek of Hugin,, at hann aftr né komi-t, þó sjámk meir of Munin

Gathering of Ranger videos

Share this post


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

I think as a community we should work together to help the new players gets started even if they are an opposing faction. Say you see someone out in basics.intermediates and you know you well out gear them ( I know this is hard as we all are out for blood) but maybe leave these new players alone or help them out somehow. It will build the population even more.  Of course alts not withstanding here because names do get known pretty quickly if you are active. Just my thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately Sins are built just for this the ganking of new and un-experienced players but it is still alpha and we want people to get geared so we can have these epic fights on the battlefield.

 

I would like to see general chat return for this, it was a great place for new people to ask questions and get some help. There were also a number of guilds that were actively recruiting, which as we all know is an important part of being competitive.

Share this post


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

Have you done an actual count in your video of people participating in combat?

 

48 minutes ago, Tark said:

Only new players are complaining about numbers because they dont exactly understand the issue at hand. You are attempting to deceive others that our beef is with numbers.

 

19 hours ago, Tark said:

Fake news. Largest faction with gear and experience. Nothing to see here.

19 hours ago, weaponsx said:

you begged, made deals, bargained, what ever it took to get as many as you could on balance to get that shiny shiny.

 


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to open this can of worms as i said I would stay out of it but it's not any one person or guilds fault this occurred, pointing fingers and placing blame is not going to solve the issue at all and it will continue to cause is animosity among the population, so what if two guilds that are more organized are on the same faction, the game design allowed. You can't blame them for it, they just did what they wanted as guilds. Its not their job alone to balance the factions.  Pointing fingers and placing blame on bad design is not going to solve the issue.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

Largest faction with gear and experience. They weren't mutually exclusive. Learn to read.


Share this post


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

 You can't blame them for it, they just did what they wanted as guilds. Its not their job alone to balance the factions.  Pointing fingers and placing blame on bad design is not going to solve the issue.

 

Most people realize this, including ACE based on J Todd's post here. What you yourself probably don't realize (by no fault of your own) is that Tark's continuous vitriolic posting on this matter is driven by more than just an interest in fairness. There is a big personal issue at play here that only she can overcome on their own time. It's best to just offer kindness and patience and move along. 

Share this post


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

 

Most people realize this, including ACE based on J Todd's post here. What you yourself probably don't realize (by no fault of your own) is that Tark's continuous vitriolic posting on this matter is driven by more than just an interest in fairness. There is a big personal issue at play here that only she can overcome on their own time. It's best to just offer kindness and patience and move along. 

It is easy to try to use our history as a crutch instead of looking at it objectively. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jtoddcoleman said:

Hey gang, let's take a quick walk down memory lane.

WAY, WAY back in Shadowbane beta (I’m guessing this was 2002?) we had an interesting thing happen.  Our testing community was heavily guild-focused; teams from UO and new groups were waging war and building cities and sieges were happening and, in spite of the bugs, the game was kind of working.  Guilds were going at each other, vying for domination of the Aerynth, the Shadowbane world.

And then, one day, the fighting just stopped.  A couple of the top guilds decided that, instead of fighting each other, they would work together in a big mega-alliance.  They had enough manpower and enough skill to take over the server.  That guild was called the Rolling 30s, led by a guy named Bone Dancer, and they did a pretty good job of locking the server down for a while. 

I'm looking at the state of the Trials of Malekai campaigns, and one of them looks strangely familiar.

So, I have a few thoughts.

First: if the game literally gets to a point where it is mathematically unwinnable, we can always end it early.  This is testing, and the goal of testing is to (1) find bugs and (2) learn things so that we can iterate over the design.  If we hit a point in this campaign – or any campaign – where we aren’t learning anything useful, then we can (and will) shut it down and move on to the next test.

Second: while I know this can be aggravating, I want to make it clear that this isn’t a player problem; it’s a design problem.  And it’s not an unknown out-of-nowhere design problem, either… as I said, I’ve seen this before.  One of the major reasons that we pushed off the First Sanctioned campaign is because we didn’t have a rewards system in place that would help keep this from happening (the other major reason, of course, was performance.)

Will the reward system absolutely fix it?  No, probably not… but it will certainly help.

Right now, the reward system is about as simplistic as a reward system can be: players on the winning team get a gold badge, everyone else gets silver.  EVERYONE gets the badge.  So, it really shouldn’t be a shock that players are working together to get the gold… because why wouldn’t they?

A better solution, and one that we’re in the process of implementing, uses a combination of Multi-Vector Rewards and Reward Scarcity.  I was holding off on discussing this because I wanted to lock the rewards down first, but it seems like a number of people are concerned, so let’s go ahead and talk about it now.

Reward scarcity is just that.  If every person competing at the Olympics could get a gold medal just by holding hands with their fellow participants, we’d see a lot of gold medals and a lot less competition.   So, step one is to limit the number of players who can earn any given reward.

On top of that, we need to have Multi-Vector Rewards; not just a single “do-this-one-thing-and-only-this-one-thing-to-win” rule because single vector problems are the easiest to game (and as I noted above, this reward system is about as simple as it gets).

So, here’s an example of a better reward structure (and it’s JUST an example):

1.      Gold medal for the top 20 players in the winning faction

2.      Gold medal for the top 20 individual contributors across all factions, in killing/captures/harvest/craft

Even this super-simple example is better than the “everyone hold hands” model we have on ToM… and more vectors, with varying levels of enforced scarcity, would be even better because it drives players to have to make hard choices to “win”.

Between now and First Sanctioned, we’ll be spending a lot of time working through the rewards design to help offset this behavior – and once we have more players (and more campaigns running) that will certainly help, as well.  (Dregs will, too, because guilds are more willing to form alliances than they are to form “mega-guilds” as that requires giving up their guild identity.)

As I said, if the situation on any Campaign gets bad enough, if the game literally gets to a point where it is mathematically unwinnable (i.e. another variant of the dreaded Uncle Bob Scenario) then we will end the Campaign and put up a new one, making whatever adjustments we can.

I know I could probably step in and ask the main guilds right now to stop holding hands and fight each other… but I’m not going to do that, because it would skew the test and any learning we might take from that test would be flawed.  The simple fact is: our design needs to stand up to actual player behavior, not player-behavior-when-we-ask-them-to-play-how-we-want-them-to.  Once we launch, we can’t expect players to treat our design with “kids gloves” just because we asked them nicely. 

I know that it can be really frustrating to test an unfinished game, and for that I can only say: I get it, I hear you.  All I can offer in response is: we’re watching, we’re learning, and we will continue to do the best we can to adjust and iterate as quickly as possible.

Thanks for sticking with us as we work through these issues.

Mr. Coleman,

I want to thank you for allowing me to participate and test Crowfall. This is the best money I have ever spent on a pre-release game. The value I have received for my initial investment cannot be calculated. I have made friends and frenemies that go all the way back to Grey-box Hunger Dome, and I can see the ride is just getting started with all the salt and sand getting thrown around over the Trials of Malekai.

Also I think it was very generous of you to reward the winners and the losers of ToM with a 2% crit badge for helping you test Crowfalls first rewards campaign. And I will be on every night ready to test combat and rewards systems until you have the data points you need from this campaign. Most corporations making games don’t give their customers Jack poorly made socks, and sometimes they don’t even release the game itself.

However; I am not convinced that a lot of time and energy needs to be invested in a complicated (or fair)  rewards system over top of the embargo system. The real value of Campaigns ls tied to the embargo mechanic. This is where faction and campaign loyalty will have the biggest impact, and it will be a house of contention based on what I am witnessing on this thread.

Yours in Crowfall,

Corvax

Share this post


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

OK, if that is the case then the video shows -W- being pushed back and off their position 4 times by something close to even numbers.  Further, -W- was unable to take the breach on their first attempt and had to retreat as well.  Given you are stating that actual numbers in the fight were even, this also suggests that gearing didn't play a part since Chaos was controlling the battle ... until ....  Chaos sallied forth to knock -W- off the bane tree hill they had retreated to.  That was a tactical error and you lost the hill fight.  You were pushed back to the gate away from the breach.  -W- was then able to get in the now lightly defended breach.  All Chaos had to do is defend the breach and they would most likely have won.  No numbers disparity and gear disparity did not matter.  Chaos lost due because they lost the hill fight and did not defend the breach plain and simple.

 

The order went out the window we had when the server crashed everyone out, and everyone was spamming to log in alot of chaos ran out and attacked people crashing and died in the process :P
Thats was the turning point of that battle but thats kinda what happens when there 20 small guilds in different voice compared to a large one all in same voice.

The thing is though ur never gonna see that many players on chaos again since the euro guys who came over to assist against balance because there now to busy on the Euro campaign.
one thing is Winterblades was even fight with all chaos could muster for seige, HoA was same as Order. Then you had all ur other players that are not in winterblades or HoA which there are a reasonable amount of them ontop of that population wise between factions. so you have double the population of the 2nd highest pop and prob 3-4 times order. sooo yeah


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

 

  • Kills: I can farm kills against alts and manipulate the rankings so that I win.

You can put like a 1hr debuff one somone when they die by a player so they dont provide score next death. You can also have people higher on the scoreboard worth more for killing. or have killing spree reward more score when it gets broken so harvesters arnt worth much unless there killing people that jump them


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

Kind of a shame when this Thread is more fun than the game itself - Just saying

 

Sad but true i spend more time alt tabbed in this thread than in the actual game


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fascinating how many people here are engaging in some pointless act of vanity to try to improve their standing within the community. This thread was started by one of the driving forces behind Crowfall's development and instead of the community debating him on the merits of his design vision, bickering and nonsensical debating have filled 7 pages.

Few people in this thread have actually tried to respond to him, about their concerns with his fix. 

This is probably why you guys never see them in the forums anymore. You provide zero value to the discussion. Jtodd doesn't give a rats ass about team stacking, populations, or whatever excuse you need to come up with to justify that you wanted to "win" at a pre-alpha test which awards a participation trophy. Keep on going on about it though, I'm sure this thread will join the graveyard of irrelevant discussions that have become the Crowfall forums.

Edited by Scree

Share this post


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

You can put like a 1hr debuff one somone when they die by a player so they dont provide score next death. You can also have people higher on the scoreboard worth more for killing. or have killing spree reward more score when it gets broken so harvesters arnt worth much unless there killing people that jump them

Sure, but you'll have to build in safeguards for every vector. How long will that take? Is this really a system that is going to change the behaviors of play? What does this system accomplish? I'm curious, does anyone really think a system that rewards those who play longer (effectively all of these reward vectors are going to be boiled down to a measure of who played the most) are going to accomplish anything? If anything my biggest grief with it, is that unlike the skill system that allows players to not have to worry about logging in to "keep up with everyone", this system blatantly seems to reward the no-lifer basement dwellers. I'm fine with that, but it wasn't what was sold to me originally. 

Even if you somehow adjust these vectors to be divided by time played, the whole system becomes wonky and unintelligible pretty quickly; try calculating your Kills Per Minute on the fly as you roam the world. Now try to figure out how to stop someone from getting 15 kills and logging off till campaign end. Nothing about this proposal works for me. I don't even understand what its goal is and that's disconcerting to say the least. Rewarding the top x players, why? This is a team game, it should have team rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scree said:

Sure, but you'll have to build in safeguards for every vector. How long will that take? Is this really a system that is going to change the behaviors of play? What does this system accomplish? I'm curious, does anyone really think a system that rewards those who play longer (effectively all of these reward vectors are going to be boiled down to a measure of who played the most) are going to accomplish anything? If anything my biggest grief with it, is that unlike the skill system that allows players to not have to worry about logging in to "keep up with everyone", this system blatantly seems to reward the no-lifer basement dwellers. I'm fine with that, but it wasn't what was sold to me originally. 

Even if you somehow adjust these vectors to be divided by time played, the whole system becomes wonky and unintelligible pretty quickly; try calculating your Kills Per Minute on the fly as you roam the world. Now try to figure out how to stop someone from getting 15 kills and logging off till campaign end. Nothing about this proposal works for me. I don't even understand what its goal is and that's disconcerting to say the least. Rewarding the top x players, why? This is a team game, it should have team rewards.

I wonder why JTC thinks attacking it from the rewards side will fix the problem? I'm a bit skeptical and it only punishes teams. I also wonder whether he was speaking specifically for factions, or if he was lumping dregs into that as well.


Share this post


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

I wonder why JTC thinks attacking it from the rewards side will fix the problem? I'm a bit skeptical and it only punishes teams. I also wonder whether he was speaking specifically for factions, or if he was lumping dregs into that as well.

So a few things on this, I actually agree that rewards are probably how you adjust behaviors. Psychology aside, people play games to win, and when they win they expect to get a reward. In some games, being on a leaderboard is sufficient, because it showcases how badass you are. These games tend to focus on individual achievement, and the impact of winning or losing as a team is of secondary consequence. Take for example Counter-Strike; One player can go 30-0 but his team still loses. Ultimately it doesn't matter though, because the rewards for winning are non-existent (ignoring the external awards like an eSports tournament prize for the moment).

Let's take for example one of the proposals I sent to JTodd. I wanted to acknowledge that players are more likely to join a winning team, if doing so is incentivized (or if no penalty exists for joining that team. Let's use Guild Wars 2 as an example here. There are no real tangible rewards for winning a WvWvW "week". Players can participate on whatever server faction they are currently on, but it is possible with money to transfer to a server. The absence of any real reward structure (beyond a meaningless individual track which only incentivizes individual behaviors) means that players have no reason to join a losing faction and by doing so they are almost assuredly going to lose. This isn't fun. Guess what happens? Everyone transferred off to join the winning servers. It was more fun. For them.

So how do we solve this?

I proposed that whatever rewards are finally assigned to a winning faction (or guild), that they are given to individuals on the following conditions;

  • The moment you decide to join a faction campaign, you are assigned a locked reward percentage at the time of joining.
  • This reward percentage can range from 0% to 500%.
  • The reward percentage is calculated from two factors; how populated the faction you joined vs the other factions and the score of the faction you joined vs the others.
  • If a guild joins a campaign, the reward percent is locked in for all guild members, regardless of when they actually join that campaign (and that guilds member count is fully realized/considered for determining reward percents going forward).

The percentage takes into account things like a new campaign starting up. The difference in points would be negligble and thus at the beggining of a campaign, only the population would weigh on your score. Similarly, later in a campaigns seasons, populations might be balanced but the scores might be lopsided. Adding additional players to that campaign might be desirable to help counter-act the skill of the other factions. In my mind, scoring imbalances would be weighted more than populations, but this weight might simply adjust the longer a campaign goes on. Maybe during the opening seasons of a campaign, the population is all that matters but near the end only score matters in determining awards.

Ultimately this proposal is designed to do a few things;

  • If you want to play with your friends, you can. We don't need arbitrary faction-locks ("this faction has too many players" errors) here.
  • It takes into account that campaigns end and guilds/players might want to join an already-in-progress campaign
  • If you decide to play on a faction that is overwhelmingly ahead, you'll get 0% rewards. That's right, you'll take home nothing. 
  • Guilds can join a faction and not be penalized if other people jump in to try to piggyback on their leadership/presence
  • Target the un-aligned player who has no guild. Why would he care what faction he joins? Oh, I get 300% rewards? Hrmm. Balance achieved.
  • Decentivize team stacking. Sure you might still want to play with someone and that's fine. I just don't want you to be rewarded for that behavior.
  • Incentivize being the underdog. I really like the idea of guilds that purposefully seek out high percent rewards to try to spice up already-in-progress campaigns. 

I think the final important note to bring up here is that everyone must acknowledge that Crowfall already has the best solution implemented for dealing with Uncle Bob. Campaigns end. If my proposal fails, and it can because in some cases no amount of manipulation will allow for some games to be course-corrected... the campaigns ending is the perfect solution. The games reset and players go off to the next one (with hopefully better results).

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...