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

Petition - Simple Fixing You Can Do Today!

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Playing to win getting a bit too rough on you?

Its not a matter of playing to win, when the outcome comes out to be who can stand in more circles. The game is supposed to be built around PVP so make the game about pvp and not who has the most free time in thier lives to waste on something as redundant as standing in a circle, moving to the next just to have someone come along 5 mins later and retake it. There is no point to any of the capture systems in forts, outposts right now other than points gained. Thats not PVP nor is it remotely fun other than the very slight chance you actually get some pvp out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ComradeAma said:

Lets count how many people play NA balance.

Lets count how many first/second time posters there are.  Never seen so many in a single thread before.  Couple that with how fast they jumped into it.

Some would say it's an ALT campaign, and some would say it's new players picking this one thread to jump into as the first thing they actually think is important enough to +1.

I'll let y'all decide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, damebix said:

@ACE

There are SIMPLE fixes you can do today to improve your player experience and still get all of the testing data you need.  Please reply here with a +1 to sign the petition!

 

1)  Put any kind of TIMER on the capture of forts (6 hrs, 12 hrs, anything!)

2)  Increase siege timers to every 3 days (72 hours)

3)  Make outposts useless again. Remove the points attained from them (for now).  

 

We know all of the stuff above works, so let's put it on hold until other systems are in that improve the points mechanics.

 

THANK YOU!

1) bigger/stronger side will capture everything, isnt it?

2) bigger/stronger side will capture everything, isnt it?

3) remove outposts. they are anyway useless

 

all decisions is about EU server (balance is lowest, chaos is 20-30 max small guilds/groups, order is 50+ cooperated big guilds)

 


crowfall pvp makkonMyrmidon statement: Out of Fury

Discord makkon#8550

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

1,  the capture timer would be useful,  the amount of back capping and off hours circle standing is embarrassing. 

2.  Sieges are the focal point of the the game atm and no show Sieges/Banes aren't fun for anyone.    Sieges should matter, they should add systems and mechanisms to bring together active players (attacking and defending) and not be a simple...  "Hey come to the siege at least an hour early tonight any maybe there will be fighting but probably not...."

3.  Removing Outposts would help reduce the circle standing but long term perhaps instead linking outpost to forts so that you have to take all the outpost tied to a fort before you can siege the fort would be better.   Heck... linking Forts to Keeps with a similar system would help with Sieges as well,  you need to take outposts before you can capture the Fort and you need to hold the Fort before you can seige the Keep.

I understand  ACE is trying to entice players to play in these recent campaigns by giving rewards but sadly they actual game play is lacking and if they want to retain players they will need to divert some of their resources to improving game play sooner than later.     The current game play that focuses on circle standing,  logging in 1+ hours early to avoid queues for mostly no show sieges is not going to encourage players to stick around to keep testing for very long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a miserable play experience to login for 6 hours and stand in circles and get zero fights in a pvp game.

10 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Lets count how many first/second time posters there are.  Never seen so many in a single thread before.  Couple that with how fast they jumped into it.

Some would say it's an ALT campaign, and some would say it's new players picking this one thread to jump into as the first thing they actually think is important enough to +1.

I'll let y'all decide.

 

 


This post was paid for by "Mandalore for Emulated CF Community Manager 2032™". 

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, mandalore said:

It's a miserable play experience to login for 6 hours and stand in circles and get zero fights in a pvp game.

 

No arguments there. Standing in circles is bad game play, and constant fort flipping is also bad game play.

I just happen to think the proposed "immediate fixes" favor a very specific type of game play, and totally cuts out casual players from the greater war game, (solo's could not effectively contribute without camps) and are slanted towards "what will help us win" more than than better game play.

I would rather ACE implement real fixes, than spend time tweaking an incomplete system.  This last campaign has at least been competitive, and these changes would pretty much guarantee the next one wouldn't be.

I can bear up with great fortitude to the complaints about certain guilds feeling burnt out by the pace, considering how deaf to other players complaints those same guilds have been when it comes to "doing what it takes to win", even at the expense of those players game experiences.

Shoes on the other foot, and suddenly it's a "simple fix you can do today".  

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

No arguments there. Standing in circles is bad game play, and constant fort flipping is also bad game play.

I just happen to think the proposed "immediate fixes" favor a very specific type of game play, and totally cuts out casual players from the greater war game, (solo's could not effectively contribute without camps) and are slanted towards "what will help us win" more than than better game play.

I would rather ACE implement real fixes, than spend time tweaking an incomplete system.  This last campaign has at least been competitive, and these changes would pretty much guarantee the next one wouldn't be.

I can bear up with great fortitude to the complaints about certain guilds feeling burnt out by the pace, considering how deaf to other players complaints those same guilds have been when it comes to "doing what it takes to win", even at the expense of those players game experiences.

Shoes on the other foot, and suddenly it's a "simple fix you can do today".  

Krak you're one of my favorite people to discuss Cf with.  Is what we are advocating for bad because we, the enemy. are advocating for it?  Who cares who is pushing for a change the game needs?  We can all agree that standing in circles for hours is more about us spiting the other team than enjoying the game itself and thats just a bad mechanic then.  The circle poorly made socks is just bad when it can be done endlessly but anybody for hours undefended while the majority of the pop is you know working, sleeping, eating or in general living.  The match shouldn't be dictated by the silent majority that plays when the majority are of the server can't be on. 

Edited by mandalore

This post was paid for by "Mandalore for Emulated CF Community Manager 2032™". 

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

No arguments there. Standing in circles is bad game play, and constant fort flipping is also bad game play.

I just happen to think the proposed "immediate fixes" favor a very specific type of game play, and totally cuts out casual players from the greater war game, (solo's could not effectively contribute without camps) and are slanted towards "what will help us win" more than than better game play.

I would rather ACE implement real fixes, than spend time tweaking an incomplete system.  This last campaign has at least been competitive, and these changes would pretty much guarantee the next one wouldn't be.

I can bear up with great fortitude to the complaints about certain guilds feeling burnt out by the pace, considering how deaf to other players complaints those same guilds have been when it comes to "doing what it takes to win", even at the expense of those players game experiences.

Shoes on the other foot, and suddenly it's a "simple fix you can do today".  

This. This. This. 

I am probably a dirty casual because I have a job and a child. I'm OK with admitting that. 

What I don't like seeing is WBs leading a petition and skewing the votes (at least, that's how it looks on the surface) to push for a change that would potentially alter the rules to better benefit their inherent organization. On top of it, my small group and I (and others like it) would have literally nothing to do but lag during siege fights and then go craft on week nights. And maybe get into a fort fight that would end up being just a laggy siege fight all over again. 

Either standing in circles or standing by the fire waiting for your guild to lead something is still standing around. As casuals, we at least don't have that problem lol. 

Share this post


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

This. This. This. 

I am probably a dirty casual because I have a job and a child. I'm OK with admitting that. 

What I don't like seeing is WBs leading a petition and skewing the votes (at least, that's how it looks on the surface) to push for a change that would potentially alter the rules to better benefit their inherent organization. On top of it, my small group and I (and others like it) would have literally nothing to do but lag during siege fights and then go craft on week nights. And maybe get into a fort fight that would end up being just a laggy siege fight all over again. 

Either standing in circles or standing by the fire waiting for your guild to lead something is still standing around. As casuals, we at least don't have that problem lol. 

We agree on the message, you get that right? 


This post was paid for by "Mandalore for Emulated CF Community Manager 2032™". 

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

We agree on the message, you get that right? 

I was agreeing with Krakken mostly, not necessarily disagreeing with you. You and I probably agree on a lot of things, but the outline of the petition above is one I don't agree with unless we have further PvP implementation. 

This all just sounds like the same "an end to nightcapping" argument we've seen for 2.5 months now... Whether you do or don't like nightcapping or backflipping PvP assets, there's no short-term fix that's going to accomplish NOT completely polarizing the community. I have faith that they will figure on something eventually but that's down the road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

+1

His suggestions are about bandaiding a problem and not completely fixing because everyone knows of ALL the other things @jtoddcolemanand @thomasblairare working on.

  • Making outposts not give points should be easy.
  • Changing siege timers, should be easy.
  • Changing fort capture mechanics may take more time and I would personally be fine with them staying as is if the above two were fixed. Keeping forts as is would allow players to join up with a couple people to take during day or anytime.

Ideally in the long run, outposts would do different things and work in a more strategic manner then currently, note that I am not asking for that now. I just want the first 2 steps and if the 3rd is easy I'd agree with that too.

Circle standing is not engaging gameplay. It takes too long and its too easy for people to just run and capture something else. The nightly sieges and circle standing IMO is actually against casuals. You have to plan for multiple hours for sieges due to caps already. Do you really want to spend all day standing in a circle to "win".

The most effective thing to do right now is to actually not PVP and instead run and backcap.

The system needs a change, hopefully major ones in future. Right now I think people just want easy to implement minor ones to make the game less about circle jerking.

Edited by Ussiah

Share this post


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

1)  Put any kind of TIMER on the capture of forts (6 hrs, 12 hrs, anything!)

2)  Increase siege timers to every 3 days (72 hours)

3)  Make outposts useless again. Remove the points attained from them (for now).  

  1. Agree that we need some type of timer/vulnerability window on forts. 
  2. Disagree. This will potentially magnify the zone cap issues. Increased scarcity typically causes an increase in demand. I've yet to make it into the main siege zone despite several attempts over the last week because I can't afford to login 1-2 hours early. 
  3. I think there should be less outposts (10 per zone instead of 25) which would decrease their percentage of the total available points (currently 23.8%) while also potentially having more fights over them because of there being less of them overall. The capture timers need to be scaled for smaller groups and made faster also. 

I covered a good bit of this in the article linked below. It will take time for ACE to implement new features though. For now, if the everyday siege window, fort/outpost swapping, or any other issue is getting to you then do what I did and just take a break.  

https://crowfall.com/en-US/news/articles/the-strategy-game/

 

Quote

 

IMPROVING THE STRATEGY GAME

While the changes in the 5.8.1 patch are a step in the right direction, they will not fix everything. Here are some of the remaining issues as I see them:

  1. Even with the changes in point values and reduction in the number of camps and towers, over half (61.9%) of the total points available each turn will be subject to “night capping”.

  2. Despite being group-oriented objectives, forts are often captured with little to no resistance because they can be captured at any time.

  3. Runegates allow respawn but cannot be captured, hurting the strategy game due to a lack of territory control.

My first suggestion is for forts to have one-hour rolling vulnerability windows. Every hour, different forts would be vulnerable to attack while others would not. At the end of the one-hour vulnerability window, whichever faction controls the fort holds it until that fort’s next vulnerability window. The number of vulnerable forts would change based on server population trends. During server primetime, more forts would be vulnerable simultaneously; during server off-hours, fewer forts would be vulnerable.

This mechanic could be used in several ways such as, but not limited to:

  1. In server off-hours, having fewer vulnerable forts means it will focus players into certain areas to drive conflict instead of capturing empty forts. (This would also further deter “night capping”.)

  2. In the hour before the keep sieges begin, the forts in the various siege zones could become vulnerable. These forts would become strategic locations to capture or hold before the keep sieges begin.

  3. Once the keep sieges begin, the forts in the adventure zones that do not have keeps to siege could become vulnerable. This would force each faction to make strategic decisions on troop allocation. It would also incentivize players to spread out rather than all attack or defend one location. This would not only make things more interesting strategically but would also help with server performance by spreading the player load into more zones.

Camps and towers should be left vulnerable to capture at any time so that they remain as objectives for solo players and smaller groups; however, I think that the total number and/or the % of total points they provide should be further reduced. Another option would be to have camps and towers provide other benefits instead of points such as wilderness outposts for crafting, banking or even respawn locations.

In order to have territory control which is critical to the strategy game, all respawn points (aside from the beachhead) need to be capturable locations. This means removing the ability to respawn at runegates since they cannot be captured. This would place greater importance on capturing and holding respawn locations. Further, it would allow for more strategic gameplay such as capturing forts in a siege zone prior to a siege as a staging/respawn location.

Another benefit of that option would be giving players the ability to lock down an area in order to protect their harvesters from would-be attackers and actually drive the attackers out of an area. Under the current design, that’s difficult when attackers are always able to respawn at nearby runegates.

It would also give a feeling of “fronts” in the campaigns where zones directly connected to your faction’s beachhead will feel more like friendly territory and vice versa for zones connected to enemy beachheads. The ability to capture and control all respawn points (aside from beachheads) would inspire and reward decisiveness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...