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

Balance: 2.5mill | Order & Chaos: 500k

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, mandalore said:

this game 100% rewards you for playing more.  We have the best gear, sometimes by multiple tiers, because we farm the most.  We have the best vessels because we farm the most. 

Design problem for a pvp-focused game.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


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

Well Chaos got 900k in points today from the intended pooling mechanic.  If they had actually tried to keep their keeps over the last week then the score would be much much closer.  

Sure anything is possible to a point. I find it silly that people are so upset and bickering about the outcome of pre-alpha when everyone gets a participation trophy. Where's Vikingnail to claim he won shadowbane's alpha/beta or whatever...

My point is the current version we have should not be what the final product looks or functions like. It is not what was initially hyped/sold by ACE to be THE game. Until they show otherwise, no clue if they have any idea how to really make the game they sold us. JTC post about the situation didn't convince me one way or another that they know what they are doing. My guess is trying to make a game, maintain a playable version, along with please us is why companies don't do this unless they are asking for money up front.

I believe that "Uncle Bob" can be stopped or at least greatly reduced. Unless of course the game is designed from the ground up to reward Bob (looks at the current version). Other games/genres have systems in place, it just takes creativity and resources.

Holding off "sanctioned" campaigns because things weren't ready and then basically making a poor mans version doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Congrats on those that have put so much time/effort into winning a pre-alpha video game match, but I'm more concerned about the future and what ACE does to make this thing enjoyable long term for a much larger audience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t uncle bob about carrying over rewards from previous matches? 


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
18 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Isn’t uncle bob about carrying over rewards from previous matches? 

No kidding. Uncle Bob was a metaphor that involved a game of Risk that never ends, unlike a normal game of Risk, that does end. It showed how campaigns with winners could solve stagnation problems that sandbox pvp games tend to have.

Turning Uncle Bob into a metaphor for any situation where someone has an advantage over someone else is lame.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

You are correct that bad player behavior is addressed through game design. That is something we can agree on.

You really have to give ACE a chance to address this through rule set though.  This is the first time that guild politics have taken control of a campaign.  I would caution against calling them bad players.  They are certainly opportunistic, but that can't be used against them. 

Do I believe alphas are a good time to spout about elitism and shut out dissenting opinions?  Absolutely not.  That is pretty counter productive for an alpha. 

13 hours ago, Tooltip said:

@Oaths thanks, I was so excited when I saw that thread. Alas, it's a dumpster fire of accusations and politics. No headway was made on the issue at hand and so now it's locked.

My point is that CF is a competitive PvP game and we just got a taste of how mega guilds are gonna play it. . .

 . . .I just don't know how more carrots are going to solve this issue. What happened (it seems) is that the other factions lost the will to fight. That's a huge problem.

I would argue that the post was not meant for community feedback at all.  It was a statement acknowledging that an uncle bob scenerio had  been realized. (Edits since alliance carry over as an argument for uncle bob scenerio is tenuous.  Maybe it is just that uncle Bob and aunt Maurie decided not to attack each other?).  In his post he said that it is game design that caused, or at least precipitated a stacked campaign.  I believe ACE will move carrots around for a time, but I imagine their best mileage will come from taking carrots away or reducing the disparity between losing and winning. 

One important part, that people active on the forums should think about is that pann locked that thread conceding that they didn't want to pass out warnings since it would lead to account bans.  Seriously?  It is just a game, in alpha,  Be nice. (I am not pointing any fingers T_T;)

I am thankful that at the very least, lead developers see a problem and they would like to address it as well as possible.

13 hours ago, Tooltip said:

This is why PvP brackets were made, why millions of dollars are invested in "intelligent" match making, ELO rating exist, leagues, etc. It's because even though I like basket ball (I don't really), I don't want to play 1v1 or 10v10 with NBA players. I'll just stand there and watch them dunk.

So how is this mediated? I dunno that multi vector rewards is enough to stop this from happening and motivate players who are being crushed to keep fighting. I did like the suggestion of the game assigning players to factions (a la match making in most games) would help break up hegemonies and prestacking but I dunno

Yeah, your right on the money here.  I don't know the best way to mediate it, even though I can throw out some half baked 30 second idea, I definitely don't think this has a simple fix.  I think that by design ACE intended for the really hardcore players to be drawn to the DREGs (or w/e the GvG campaigns are).  Therefore, they would incentivise the NBA players to not play with the more casual player base.

Edited by Oaths

Share this post


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

Isn’t uncle bob about carrying over rewards from previous matches? 

 

2 hours ago, Jah said:

No kidding. Uncle Bob was a metaphor that involved a game of Risk that never ends, unlike a normal game of Risk, that does end. It showed how campaigns with winners could solve stagnation problems that sandbox pvp games tend to have.

Turning Uncle Bob into a metaphor for any situation where someone has an advantage over someone else is lame.

Seems like the current situation is similar to the example they gave during the KS.

A force has the power to stay at the top, some have given up, others keep trying knowing the outcome. Ending the campaign and starting a new one isn't going to change that much unless multiple factors change, most of which aren't realistic with the current state of the population and test version.

It isn't about having advantage just because but being able to maintain that advantage and others having few options to overcome.

Which currently is due to a wide variety of issues because "pre-alpha" going on 4 years...

Share this post


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

No kidding. Uncle Bob was a metaphor that involved a game of Risk that never ends, unlike a normal game of Risk, that does end. It showed how campaigns with winners could solve stagnation problems that sandbox pvp games tend to have.

Turning Uncle Bob into a metaphor for any situation where someone has an advantage over someone else is lame.

Yes and No.
Yes, the Uncle Bob problem was that a game where one player achieves a total domination becomes boring for everyone involved. We have seen this in many games.
The only "good" example that avoid the problem would be EvE where the universe is way bigger than the number of players, so there is a lot of empty space for small groups to strive. But empty space is also very boring.

No, in the sense that with the current system of carry-over materials, ressources and characters, each campaign is merely a global score reset. Sure... every 6 months, a lesser power might be able to field everything they accumulated so far and temporary overtake Uncle Bob, but that will be rare and only the biggest hardcore will invest 6 month of defeats for a single win.

 

What you probably want is a system like Risk Legacy or Hunt: Showdown, where the winners are rewarded amazing cosmetic things or accessories, but they lose all resources invested. Only "losers" would be able to escape with their characters and resources, giving them a headstart for the next campaign.
The point being: It must be more costly for the recent winner if they want to keep on winning.

With such a system, you guaranteed that campaign winners that already have advantages such as knowledge, experience, numbers... are forced to fight in white/green gear because they will lose it on each win. Thus giving an advantage to "losers" who might have been accumulating resources for a few past campaigns.

Share this post


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

 

What you probably want is a system like Risk Legacy or Hunt: Showdown, where the winners are rewarded amazing cosmetic things or accessories, but they lose all resources invested. Only "losers" would be able to escape with their characters and resources, giving them a headstart for the next campaign.
The point being: It must be more costly for the recent winner if they want to keep on winning.

With such a system, you guaranteed that campaign winners that already have advantages such as knowledge, experience, numbers... are forced to fight in white/green gear because they will lose it on each win. Thus giving an advantage to "losers" who might have been accumulating resources for a few past campaigns.

Making the winner redo all of their vessels?  Bleh. 


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
5 hours ago, Gaulwa said:

where the winners are rewarded amazing cosmetic things or accessories, but they lose all resources invested. Only "losers" would be able to escape with their characters and resources, giving them a headstart for the next campaign.

Hard pass. At least to me, "amazing cosmetic thing" is an oxymoron, and another way to say junk. In a long term MMO, the only thing that has value to me is something that actually does something for me. In order to get this piece of junk, I have to surrender everything I worked for and actually want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gorwald said:

You are all talking about vessels, farm, gear, it say a lot about how the game turned.

 

I run around in a white vessel with green gear and still kill folks.

I'd say lack of game knowledge and lack of organization and willingness to put in at least minimum effort at farming and crafting is what holds back most people.

Yes, this is a PvP game, but so is Overwatch, and this is not intended to provide the same kind of PvP experience as a MOBA. Part of this game's PvP is meta PvP at the logistical and organizational level.

Share this post


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

 

I run around in a white vessel with green gear and still kill folks.

I'd say lack of game knowledge and lack of organization and willingness to put in at least minimum effort at farming and crafting is what holds back most people.

Yes, this is a PvP game, but so is Overwatch, and this is not intended to provide the same kind of PvP experience as a MOBA. Part of this game's PvP is meta PvP at the logistical and organizational level.

As if people want to put in effort 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, mandalore said:

Making the winner redo all of their vessels?  Bleh. 

 

1 hour ago, VaMei said:

Hard pass. At least to me, "amazing cosmetic thing" is an oxymoron, and another way to say junk. In a long term MMO, the only thing that has value to me is something that actually does something for me. In order to get this piece of junk, I have to surrender everything I worked for and actually want.

 

Yes, I understand this is a flawed suggestion, however I am trying to find a solution to this snowball effect when the winning faction has easier time to harvest, craft, more export, better gear, and also very often, superior number, knowledge and organisation.

Some of theses advantages can be countered in a way or another.... but all of them together feeds each other into a gigantic snowball of doom.
If you tell a new player joining the race that he will have to run an uphill course while the previous winners are sliding downhill, he will have much trouble to catchup, if that is even possible at all, and more often than not will quickly become discouraged.

If you start a game of chess with two more queens because you won the previous match, you can see how it might be discouraging for others.

That's why you have Handicaps in some sport and not extra advantage to the already superior player.
Wear your handicap (as a cosmetic item) with pride! :)

Share this post


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

What you probably want is a system like Risk Legacy or Hunt: Showdown, where the winners are rewarded amazing cosmetic things or accessories, but they lose all resources invested. Only "losers" would be able to escape with their characters and resources, giving them a headstart for the next campaign.
The point being: It must be more costly for the recent winner if they want to keep on winning.

With such a system, you guaranteed that campaign winners that already have advantages such as knowledge, experience, numbers... are forced to fight in white/green gear because they will lose it on each win. Thus giving an advantage to "losers" who might have been accumulating resources for a few past campaigns.

I think there I some interesting ideas here . I really like a risk like game board layer to the camps, outposts, forts, and keeps game. I would really like see some strategic battle plans being required to advance on the enemy territory. It would give an under powered faction the ability to push back over time an regain a foot hold and take away power or debuff  the leading or controlling faction.  Maybe once a capturable element is turned over it has a window of time before it invulnerable to be flipped back and you can only capture a connecting capture point. it might promote a faction making plans to move in on multiple fronts to "cut supply lines" off and would give players something to do at all hours no matter keep siege time during a so called prime time.  

2 hours ago, mandalore said:

Making the winner redo all of their vessels?  Bleh. 

What if Vessels took a 10% or 15% durability hit when being removed from a campaign. then you can keep you epic vessels for a few campaigns. Maybe losing faction only takes a 5% instead of an assumed full loss of vessel.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gaulwa said:

 

 

Yes, I understand this is a flawed suggestion, however I am trying to find a solution to this snowball effect when the winning faction has easier time to harvest, craft, more export, better gear, and also very often, superior number, knowledge and organisation.

Some of theses advantages can be countered in a way or another.... but all of them together feeds each other into a gigantic snowball of doom.
If you tell a new player joining the race that he will have to run an uphill course while the previous winners are sliding downhill, he will have much trouble to catchup, if that is even possible at all, and more often than not will quickly become discouraged.

If you start a game of chess with two more queens because you won the previous match, you can see how it might be discouraging for others.

That's why you have Handicaps in some sport and not extra advantage to the already superior player.
Wear your handicap (as a cosmetic item) with pride! :)

That logic is twisted beyond everything. Either make everyone start from a scratch and let better more organized players win or everyone keeps theire stuff after campaign ends. How dumb it is to think that taking stuff from the winner is fair? Your hard work and commitment should be rewarded not the fact that you've lost campaign. And for the love of god don't bring up silly examples like chess game because it's not the same thing. There is such thing called "skill" and "experience" involved which means player whos got more of those will always win. Following this train of thought let's force winning chess player to use only half of his brain because it's fair and opponent can compete with him.

Edited by MazuR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sharkbait said:

What if Vessels took a 10% or 15% durability hit when being removed from a campaign. then you can keep you epic vessels for a few campaigns. Maybe losing faction only takes a 5% instead of an assumed full loss of vessel.  

How to reward the victors without insuring they become the next victors, and without punishing them for winning, is going to be a challenge.

If ACE had a clearer vision on how EKs will tie into the rest of the game in a functional way, then EK rewards could be a big deal in the long game without impacting the next campaign.

As to vessels, in the end, I think vessels are going to have to take durability hits. I don't think that having disciplines be a permanent afix to the vessel, and having no way to respec talents is going to play well. I'm betting players will be happier (or less grumpy) replacing worn or aged vessels than they will grinding another simply because they want to make a tweak, and we'll end up with ways to respec. Whether they age while locked to a campaign and/or when unlocking, I'm betting it will happen.

Share this post


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

How to reward the victors without insuring they become the next victors, and without punishing them for winning, is going to be a challenge.

If ACE had a clearer vision on how EKs will tie into the rest of the game in a functional way, then EK rewards could be a big deal in the long game without impacting the next campaign.

 

Zero import/export campaigns solves this problem for players that perceive that issue to be a problem.

However, it will not make the game easier for people who lack the determination to play the logistics side of the game.

Edited by DocHollidaze

Share this post


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

How to reward the victors without insuring they become the next victors, and without punishing them for winning, is going to be a challenge.

Yeah I was just spitballing on the initial idea of how to apply a handicap. There should be no reason to "throw" the campaign other than being an agent of anarchy and chaos. The outcome for winning should always be more significant than not winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gaulwa said:

 

 

Yes, I understand this is a flawed suggestion, however I am trying to find a solution to this snowball effect when the winning faction has easier time to harvest, craft, more export, better gear, and also very often, superior number, knowledge and organisation.

Some of theses advantages can be countered in a way or another.... but all of them together feeds each other into a gigantic snowball of doom.
If you tell a new player joining the race that he will have to run an uphill course while the previous winners are sliding downhill, he will have much trouble to catchup, if that is even possible at all, and more often than not will quickly become discouraged.

If you start a game of chess with two more queens because you won the previous match, you can see how it might be discouraging for others.

That's why you have Handicaps in some sport and not extra advantage to the already superior player.
Wear your handicap (as a cosmetic item) with pride! :)

I don't think you can fix this problem, its a player problem thats yet to be solved in any game.  It's human nature that there will be vary degrees of effort but trying to normalize rewards for different tiers of effort and skill isn't something I've seen as capable of being normalized.  If you do zero import cw's it doesn't solve the issue, it just starts it over.  The fact of the matter is that this game rewards time spent (as any game should) but the pvp of the game has consequences and those two factors compounded will punish those behind the top.  The power curve for gear can be lowered but people will press any advantage regardless of how small and CF is about incremental stat boost eventually adding up. 

 

The other problem is player perception of skill.  People think their small "elite" group of friends should be able to overcome insurmountable odds and that's not realistic in this genre.  A small 5 man guild isn't going to be able to compete with a 25 man guild.  The 25 man guild will pull ahead logistically, economically, numerically and at the end of the day why should 5 players time be worth more than 25?  People will quit when at a disadvantage.  Small guilds will always be at a disadvantage.  The smaller guilds can band together but that diminishes their fun bc they all identify as small.  This isn't a dev problem that can be addressed in a game marketed as siege warfare (unless you want 5 man sieges), this is a community entitlement 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

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...