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

Petition - Simple Fixing You Can Do Today!

Recommended Posts

Forts take minutes to take and you can spend upwards of 20 minutes getting to some.  How are we supposed to defend them?  Have 10 people at all of them? 


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
Just now, miraluna said:

That suggestion was for generating PvP.

Yeah, I see that.  If a toast msg went out game wide or something.  Definitely.  But also, people who are more likely to cap uncontested can just cap and run away, whereas people who are capping during the server play times have to cap and wait. 
 

Share this post


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

It is not as effective as back-capping, though.

Not as effective to what end? To finding fights? I'd say it's much more effective, at the cost of maybe gaining points on the board, but then maybe that's what other members of your faction could be doing. Everyone doesn't have to be doing everything at once.

Also, the usage of "back-capping" as some pejorative against people who are playing the game as they see fit but in a way that one doesn't like (not you specifically Jah, "one" in the general sense) is something I hope ends sooner than later.

22 minutes ago, Ble said:

I would then say that this current strategy being employed by the other factions needs a bit more consideration.

I'd say the point system is need of more consideration and that until it's improved people shouldn't be suggesting half-assed changes that don't allow their competition to compete.


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


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

Not as effective to what end? To finding fights? I'd say it's much more effective, at the cost of maybe gaining points on the board, but then maybe that's what other members of your faction could be doing. Everyone doesn't have to be doing everything at once.

Also, the usage of "back-capping" as some pejorative against people who are playing the game as they see fit but in a way that one doesn't like (not you specifically Jah, "one" in the general sense) is something I hope ends sooner than later.

Given some of the feedback in this thread, it seems that the outpost and fort capping system is being defended because it represents a way to catch up with the people who are holding keeps. It is in that context that I say running around capping is more "effective" than looking for pvp.

I don't think "back-capping" is so much a pejorative against the people who are doing it, as a pejorative against the mechanics that reward it. If the objective is to win the campaign, you are better off capping undefended outposts and forts than looking for a good fight.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

If the objective is to win the campaign, you are better off capping undefended outposts and forts than looking for a good fight.

Back in the early days of development ACE described (what I believe was) the Bloodstone rule set in which a strategy was described where one team split their numbers into one group that engaged the enemy and another that did not, IIRC. I'm unsure why ACE needs to implement mechanics that force conflict when the players have decided it's in their best interest to avoid it.

I also think that, even with the current lackluster system, a higher population would encourage more PvP than any suggestion made on this forum to date.


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like 1 & 2, they would move things to actual fighting over forts regularly and decrease some of the nightly pressure on Sieges to provide the primary PvP opportunity and source of points. I wouldn't mind if forts also needed siege equipment just to make them like mini sieges that happen every couple of hours or something. They need some sort of temporary win condition and incentive to group up and fight over them when they become target-able.

Item 3 I don't agree with, keep the outposts. They serve as both small group targets, ways to participate if you miss the primary events, and safety zones for those that control them in small or 1v1 situations. Ultimately if owning the outposts decide the campaign the fort and keep game was very close.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some validity from more or less everyone in this thread beyond the people thinking that some of these active players are alts. Particularly @Medelyn.

It does seem that most seem to think that the circle standing mechanic is somewhat flawed. I actually kind of like Srathor's idea of doing something with the land for points as well but that would require making sure there are things to actually do on that land. Could be an interesting long term fix.

The current outpost mechanic is probably the most painful because there is very little pvp reward for going around and standing in said circles. I do agree with those that want something to be available for smaller groups of people to be able to contribute, particularly on factions which is where more incoming players would show up. The argument for something to be available to those who play at off hours is a good concern as well. I'm not sure that outposts the way they are really are provided with any content from the outposts as they exist. It might be kind of interesting if there were stashes of things that generated over time at the outposts that people could grab or steal if they took the outpost from another faction giving some more activity to people traveling to them/turning them over. Would likely require a reduction in the amount of outposts though.

Making the towers actually act like sentries and sending out alerts to a faction if they see multiple enemies in an area might be interesting as well whether or not they were actually attacked.

 

We're stuck in a weird spot where we have guilds that are wanting to play on the Dregs in a bit more competitive/hardcore setting but ultimately that just is not available at this time. I've spent more hours recently that I'd like to admit doing the circle standing stuff. I've got some decently fun fights from it like earlier this morning but most of it is just afk standing waiting for the circle to turn.

It is nice to see things active though both in terms of how strongly people feel about the game as well as how hard some are working to pull themselves back into contention.

 


C4sIZDW.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, BarriaKarl said:

Yep. Read above the profile pic.

I am a Raven. You are a Jackdaw. Medelyn above is a guest.

uLP4Dzv.png

Whereas I don't see you on the leaderboard. Are you even playing in this campaign?

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@damebix 
I'm a noob and a casual and my understanding of PVP games is surely limited.
People of your guild played since Shadowbane and were on Crowfall since grey boxes era. 
When you or somebody from your guild state something about development, I'm ready to hear and try to understand.

Therefore I'm really upset you started a "petition" asking for signature which is NOT the kind of things expected in a forum thread.
I'm upset you asked for a "+1", instead of offering to discuss and better explain to all Crows your point of view.  
As a conseguence I perceived a bias from your side about this proposal.

By the way I suspect ACE is not going to act after a petition-styled request, being this a dangerous way to lead their business.

However, being this NOT a petition, but a thread in official forum of Crowfall community, some others offered a propositive contribute and I agree with them.
 

4 hours ago, miraluna said:

And "+1" doesn't contribute much to a constructive feedback discussion :P

Why not make the systems better? For example, Capture a Fort, then you have to successfully defend it for 30 mins before you get the points.

 

9 hours ago, Aedius said:

we need reason to stay on a fort after taking it

 

11 hours ago, srathor said:

Capturing and holding an objective is worth too much. Doing something on the land you own should be worth more. Take a parcel. It is worth 30 points every 15 minutes.  But it should only be potential points.  You should only get 10 points for holding it. The other 20 points should be from things done on that parcel. Gathering, crafting,  killing players or mobs. 

 


Catelyn: War will make them old, as it did us. I pity them.
Mathis: Why? Look at them. They're young and strong, full of life and laughter. And lust, aye, more lust than they know what to do with. There will be many a bastard bred this night, I promise you. Why pity?
Catelyn: Because it will not last. Because they are the knights of summer, and winter is coming.

A Clash of Kings, Chapter 22, Catelyn II.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowfall Discord Channels: international (english) - italiano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, like I said this is a bandaid for a quick fix (after this campaign is over) until they actually put in the work needed to the system.


qMEsHyg.png

www.winterblades.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jah said:

uLP4Dzv.png

Whereas I don't see you on the leaderboard. Are you even playing in this campaign?

Nope. Altho I have bought the game and have the money to buy my PC finally, I decided to play the long game and fix my life before that. My money is right now better spent on something long term. But yeah, no.

I wasn't calling out medelyn or anything. He(She?) was just the closet guest at that moment.

I don't really wanna derail the thread. But it is clear there was some clear intention to game the system. Which is quite honestly pretty disrespectful to other players and most of all the Devs themselves.

Again, don't wanna derail the thread. If you guys wanna propose changes that will benefit the game be my guest.

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Trust and believe I want the best for the game just as much as the next guy. I just want the game as it was stated. (PVP)  Right now theres not even a 100% chance to get that at sieges. Changing the forts and or outposts to actually have meaning is a way to help that chance of having pvp at said spots other than just randomly roaming the world standing in circles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems there are two main camps, those who want points gain tied to pvp and those who want to avoid pvp, and gain points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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) A timer on the capture of forts would be a good addition, but I wouldn’t make it 6 hours. 1 hour would be sufficient given your intention to increase pvp. 

2) I’d be fine with every 48 hours rather than every 72.

3) I think outposts should have value...but just not the value they have now. Cut their value by 75% IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the main problem is that its based on points, what if the 2nd world war was based on this point system, who would of won? ignoring the facts that some mad guy shot himself and a country had to surrender due to a big explosion.

This system which didn't really work in Guild wars 2 either, just consists a group of players running about taking stuff by standing in circles and then moving onto the next target, there is no reason to defend places because you will just retake it later in the loop of taking stuff. We should be fighting over land/zones and those zones hold beneficial buffs to gatherers and crafters to whoever owns them but you can only own a zone if you own a zone which is adjacent to it. Bring a more tactical side to the games pvp instead of this tedious retake loop.   

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...