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

Embargo Changes - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, APE said:

I don't disagree that it can't be exploited but systems can be built with this in mind. Diminishing returns, time restrictions, location, in-combat/out-combat. Not easy obviously, but other games have attempted various options. If campaigns are going to potentially last weeks/months, they'll need a way to reward players appropriately. If I can just swoop in last day to the winning faction and get the same rewards as people that have been playing every day, that will be an issue. I hold devs/studios responsible for figuring out the issues that their systems create. If they can't find a solution, shouldn't have made the problem. We are paying them to make a fun and functioning product. 

Scoring individual player actions for reward in a game like this one is folly IMO. Sandboxes are predicated on an innumerable variation of "silent tactics" from game to game that have large impact swings through mechanically unmeasurable actions.

Did the group of players feinting two of three forts without capping specifically to draw defenders away contribute less? They didn't capture anything. Didn't kill anyone. How do we appreaise their contribution to the war?

Did the player that looted 3000 metal from a single enemy contribute less than the player that killed two enemies and cost the enemy nothing? How about the player that didn't kill anyone and single handedly drove three opposing players in to retreat?

Did the ten man squad blockading the enemy fort during a keep battle and forcing respawns to spawn twice as far away, or even on a different map contribute less than a player hitting a tree? They got two kills between them and didn't capture or attack any objectives.

Did the scout or spy that laid out enemy movements and plans that put your force where it needed to be to sieze victory contribute less?

What about the spy that cleaned out the entire enemy guild bank and sent them back to farming for two days?


I could spin off an ongoing list of tactically cruicial but mechanically unmeasurable actions that are actively discouraged in a system that rewards narrow definable actions for the metric of scoreboard points.

Individual scoreboard totals are fine for a peen waggling contest but in the context of "what should we reward" any individual efforts need to be either accrued at an organizational level (guilds, factions, etc.) or be transferable so players can handle the reward and compensation of "silent actions" themselves.

The current model we have as reference, for the gold badges not only can't adequately gauge player's contributions to overall victory, but actively pits players against their allies as they compete with one another over who gets the top percentile and who gets nothing.

This is a larger symptom of Crowfall's overall reward system, in that it praises means, not ends.

There is no "do this thing to win the campaign" only "do a bunch of stuff to get points... and then at some point in the future we'll count them."

Player rewards, campaign victory, etc. should revolve around the former, with the march of seasons simply being a failsafe timeout to prevent campaigns from lasting too long.

Owning more bubbles on a map should be secondary to "How does owning these things make it easier for me to achieve the endgame goal in winter?" Your marketing is throwing around #TakeTheThrone but there's no throne to take. All of those objectives should track points in case of a fallback victory but the reward structure, for any campaign type should be a single achievable objective. I can't #TakeTheThrone when there's no throne to take. I'll just end up running in circles back capping the weakest objectives for more points.

Give me contextual advantages for an endgame. Make those points on the map confer buffs or debuffs or NPC soldiers or something for a final battle over that throne in winter because the hunger has finally sapped the magic that protected it. Make me plant a flag and say "THIS IS MINE AND THE GAME IS OVER" End the worlds with a roar, not a whimper. Say "holding the throne for three ends the game, the throne begins vulnerability windows in winter" and make every other thing in the game feed in to a set of tools, advantages, and disadvantages all centered around preparing for and achieving that single goal in the final action packed end of the apocalypse.

Then use the score as a fallback in case nobody can pull it off at the end of winter.

We didn't talk about who's going to get 6 bannermen and who's going to get 7 in game of thrones. We talked about how Winter is coming, and who's going to be on the Iron throne after it does. We watched great generals build armies, secure incidental victories, backstab one another on the path to taking  the iron throne.

The fellowship of the ring isn't trying to stop Sauron from having slightly more land mass in Mordor than the allied races. They're trying to stop Sauron from waging a campaign of TOTAL CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.

In virtually every fantasy epic there's a single, easily definable end goal for "winning the story"

The journey to get there was only interesting because of the question "When the socks hit the fan, who came prepared to take it home?"

In many of these stories the central conflict is one between the status quo and the disruptive force. The conquerer versus the brave defender. In Crowfall the central conflict is one in which everyone who's important is scavenging and conquering a dead world. We're ALL Sauron. We're ALL Dany. We're ALL also Gandalf and Jon Snow. The only difference is perspective. You're always the hero of your own story.

We ALL have a time limit for our game plan because winter is ALWAYS coming. Forever. In an Endless cycle.

Only there is nothing to plan FOR. No goal. Just the same shuffling of control from one faction to another like we were playing a persistant thing that needs to remain in place and be playable forever. It doesn't. The scoring system doesn't reward preparation, ingenuity, upsets, or creativity. It rewards and breeds stagnation.

Worlds END and we're in no way exploring the design space of what that means. We're just playing a standard persistant sandbox MMO with a timer haphazardly slapped on to it.

It's boring after a week. Winter is coming, and I don't care. The game is decided by the end of summer anyway.

What if outposts gave us mobility and tactical utility, forts gave us refined building materials while we owned them, and keeps let us use those building materials to build and bank siege engines and wall reinforcements? What if we lost the ability to do all oft that in Winter? What if everything that happened from spring to the start of winter was purpose built to prepare for the total war of winter, where we use these things to attempt to control the ultimate goal of #TakingTheThrone?

What if taking over the world was a goal in and of itself, and we unlocked the ability to simply destroy that which we don't think we can defend in winter? What if scorched earth was a viable strategy in the endgame? What if raising an army to rout the lazy and decadent major powers in the final hours was a viable strategy?

What if all that came before winter was preparation, and winter itself was when the game was won or lost, and what if all those preparations could count for nothing if poorly employed?

What if the Throne War simulator actually acted like a war for a throne?

Edited by PopeUrban


Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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...