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

Embrace The Sandbox.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jah said:

I would agree that the current scoring mechanics aren't very immersive, motivating, or fun. I'd love to see improvements to them.

I don't like them either but I see no alternative within the confines of the game to determine whom the winner of the campaigns are.  There is very clearly supposed to be one so they need a clear system to determine whom that is. 


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
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Jah said:

I'd love to see some suggestions. In my mind, most win conditions boil down to scoring mechanics involving points in some way.

Take, for example, the way that sieges are won right now. Either the attacker destroys the Tree of Life, the defenders destroy the Bane Trees, or the siege window ends. These don't sound like points on the face of it, but in a way they are. Points are scored by hitting the Trees. If you score enough points on the Trees you win.

What sort of win condition truly avoids having some sort of countable points involved?

 

They are choosing to have a throne war with a clear winner. They are experienced game developers and should be bringing fun ideas to the table. That is on their plate.

 

Here is my advice. Not every campaign has to have a winner that is singular and defined by points. Some could be an iron man competition or some form of area control where it will be more clear. Those should probably be shorter. Other campaigns could be more immersive and longer term with multiple objectives. These objectives could be competitive with other players and some not. Why should there be one win condition?

 

Here are a few ideas...

---- I said some earlier... make special crafted recipes that can only be made in that campaign. That would be a fun objective.

 

---- Put only specific resources on each campaign but not everyone of them so that is something to fight over and gather.

 

---- Make a campaign have deity based objectives that people must accomplish like destroying altars. The reward would be a blessing in a campaign of their choosing. More than one person would win this.

 

---- Once a guild takes a castle they have to hold it. If they lose that castle they become errant and can no longer capture another castle. This will force them to choose to bend the knee or just cause chaos until the end. This would be fun every once in a while to do.

 

---- Here is a twist. Make it so guilds can only capture one castle and can not claim another. The one's holding castles at the end win. Obviously this can be exploited by sub guilds and one large guild but maybe done on occasion would be fun.

 

*Keep track of stats and don't tie them to points. People will brag anyways.*

 

One objective for victory based on points isn't creative and is going to lead to problems stated earlier. Multiple and layered conditions/objectives is far healthier for the game.

 

Edited by nerion

Share this post


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

Why should there be one win condition?

The plan has always been for there to be different campaigns with different rules and different win conditions. I don't see any reason to think that one win condition will apply to all campaigns.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this format a couple of months ago and I still like it.

Each Wartribe grand general has a cart containing an artifact.  Let's assume there are 7 wartribes.  The carts act as pets and move at the pace of 100% runspeed (so a normal human out of combat with no buffs).   Each artifact gives a buff to every member of its owner's faction within 100m.  The goal is to assemble all 7 artifact carts in the same place under the control of the same faction.   The carts do not log out when their owners do - they drop owner tags at that point.   If their owner dies, they drop their owner tag.  If the owner moves more than 100m from the cart, it drops owner tags.  So one day faction/guild A gains control of a cart.  It follows one of their members around until he dies or logs off or gets too far from it at which point someone else has to pick it up.  Or they park it in their keep / fort (with no owner tag).  Or they park it (with no owner tag) in a corner of the map where they hope no one will look.  The CW ends when all 7 carts are together all under the control of the same faction (when one person has all 7 buffs, his faction wins).  There is no indication on the world map or whatever as to who owns which cart.  That's for scouts/spies to figure out.  In order for the seasons to progress, I guess we need a set time limit, and whichever faction/guild has the most carts at the end of the CW wins if the CW isn't ended by a single faction gaining all 7 and bringing them together beforehand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On the one hand feeling obligated to always chase points when chasing points isn't always fun is a problem. This game is full of many competitive players that will ultimately want to win.  

On the other hand Crowfall bills itself as the "Only Online Throne War Game you can Win" so a winner has to be determined somehow. 

We had a win condition that didn't involve points already. It was a Tug of War Mechanic that the winner was whoever held the most objectives when the campaign ended. The complaint there was that fights felt inconsequential leading up to the final night. Maybe that wouldn't be the case anymore. 

I think there are some short term things that would help:

  • Relax siege schedule from nightly to every other night. Most of the main guilds playing right now will ultimately be Dregs guilds. Sieges will be less frequent in the Dregs. Treating the faction campaign ruleset like the Dregs while having to defend your territory each night has gotta be tiresome.
  • The outpost capture mechanic needs the timer scaled for less people and shortened. We could also use a bit less outposts that grant points. Maybe some new types of outposts like the respawn outposts that have other reasons for capturing them other than points. 

Long term:

  • As far as "sandbox" goes I think one thing they could do is different metrics for "winning" which offer their own unique rewards/badges.  
    • Crafting badge for highest crafting score, single highest value item, most factory runs, most gold generated from a vendor, etc. 
    • Combat badge for most kills, highest K/D, most assists, highest damage done by a single attack, highest heal, most healing, most damage, most monster kills, etc.
    • Exploration badge for most of various things harvested, most legendary things harvested, etc. etc.
  • I think a stat tracker would be really cool that kept track of my long term stats, successes, failures and achievements. Battlefield had something like this with the "Battlelog". Other than badges, campaign victories are ultimately bragging rights. If you're the best at one particular thing in Crowfall (sandbox right?) then that would appear in your CrowLog (you gotta pay me now if you use this name). http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Blazzen85/
  • Different rulesets all together. The Bloodstone ruleset was teased a long time ago. If you don't like "points" then play a different ruleset. This will likely be a post launch thing though. https://youtu.be/IolWGu7xFlw

This is a tough problem to solve but I ultimately don't think that "points" are the problem. Points are just a measure for success in the campaign. I think the problem is ultimately what is required to get points and whether or not those things are fun. If I'm getting good PVP fights over objectives (that grant points) that's fun. If I'm standing in empty capture circles that's not fun. The recent 5.9 patch was a step in the right direction in regards to forts and back capping. I think a tweak to the siege schedule and changes to the outposts are the next logical step. 

I also think there's a lot of Dregs players currently playing the faction campaign ruleset that don't particularly like factions. The lack of a feeling of "ownership" over objectives is really missing in faction campaigns vs. what Dregs will have with free building. It's a lot more fun taking a rival's guild keep than it is a keep from a rival faction that didn't have much involved in building it. I've always gotten bored in faction games (WoW, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls, Etc.) because of this. There's also the lack of political intrigue, alliances, etc. You get a little bit of that in Factions but they're overall a lot more static which just isn't as fun IMO. Bring on the Dregs! 

TL;DR - I ultimately don't think points are the problem. The problem is the fun in getting points isn't quite there yet.  

Edited by blazzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Durenthal said:

The CW ends when all 7 carts are together all under the control of the same faction (when one person has all 7 buffs, his faction wins). 

 

46 minutes ago, blazzen said:

We had a win condition that didn't involve points already. It was a Tug of War Mechanic that the winner was whoever held the most objectives when the campaign ended.

To me, these are still win conditions that are based on "points."


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

To me, these are still win conditions that are based on "points."

I agree. "Points" are just a unit of measurement.

The Tug of War was different in that the points were only calculated at the very end instead of in cumulative 15 minute intervals as they are now. 

In Durenthal's example you win when you control all the points simultaneously. 

In the end it's the method in which you gain the "points" that is the issue, not the "points" themselves. 

1 hour ago, blazzen said:

This is a tough problem to solve but I ultimately don't think that "points" are the problem. Points are just a measure for success in the campaign. I think the problem is ultimately what is required to get points and whether or not those things are fun.

 

Share this post


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

The points system, as an indicator of victory, runs contrary to the sandbox nature of MMO's.

 

The more that you try to create a perfect system the more you go down a path of infinite balancing. Simplicity works and avoiding specific metrics for victory allow people people to play the game the way they want, like a sandbox.

 

---In a sandbox game, I can run a crafting guild that focuses on controlling trade and creating exclusive items. With a points system, I just need to chain craft what gives me the most effective/efficient points while supplying the grind.

 

---In a sandbox game, I could play as a small kingdom that wants to control a specific area for fun. I create my victory by controlling my small claim in the world. With a points system, the game tells me I am not winning. To win big you need to be big to get the most points. We see this playing out right now and this escalation will continue into dregs. Mark my words.

 

---In a sandbox game, We could have an empire that wants to just attack their enemies and protect their allies. In a throne game, do we need an objective other than combat and politics? Look at our damn boards and you will see plenty of motivation. With a points system, we must get to the top of a list and play the game in a very specific way to gain points. When you have that many minds put together, people will always find a way to game the points system.

 

Instead of points, create special objectives/quests for each campaign that can be completed at a player, guild, or empire level. In one campaign it could be a special recipe unique to that specific campaign must be crafted. If it was a lore rules campaign, it could be capture an altar of the opposing deity. These would be set objectives to add flavor for a campaign but not purpose.

 

Changing up campaigns with special rules, unique designs, and special objectives is perfect for shuffling the cards. That is the grand promise of Crowfall. Players will find plenty of reasons to kill each other. This is not an over sized WoW battleground with one objective, is it?

 

What we lack is real ownership and control.

Real pride in accomplishment. No one gives a poorly made socks about their faction- Guilds faction hop all the time..

Guild pride and guild ownership are where it is at. 

 

Edited by PaleOne

www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


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

The points system, as an indicator of victory, runs contrary to the sandbox nature of MMO's.

Changing up campaigns with special rules, unique designs, and special objectives is perfect for shuffling the cards. That is the grand promise of Crowfall. Players will find plenty of reasons to kill each other. This is not an over sized WoW battleground with one objective, is it?

I believe trying to fit a game into a generic term like "sandbox" is the issue.

Crowfall is not a "sandbox," it is whatever it is.

It might share some features with the general "sandbox" concept, but I wouldn't put Minecraft and Crowfall in the same group. 

Crowfall by design has a lot of dev created rails to follow. So maybe it's a Sand-Rails game 😂

UO, SWG, Albion, BDO, Shadowbane, etc all have a sort of "do what you want" theme but there is still dev provided paths to follow. Levels, gear progression, skill progression, do X to be able to do Y, etc.

Crowfall was presented as a game you can win. IMO it is sort of a glorified MMO Battleground. It lasts longer and allows a bit more freedom, but ultimately you need to do XYZ to win and move on to the next campaign. I feel like AV in Vanilla WoW was more rewarding then the current campaign model.

Now the issue is lack of XYZ. We have one very basic ruleset/campaign system that has seen little modification over the trials and since the initial campaigns started. Tug of War to now the KOTH/Points accumulation. 

My hope is we see a lot more rulesets and differing requirements to win. Which could allow various play styles and roles to excel and be awarded for their efforts. What they have planned and if they have time to do this before launch is unknown to me. However, it can't be chaos where everyone can do whatever and some how magically a winner is determined. There needs to be set rules and ways to win, just not only one.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the points system is funneling players to deliver one kind of gameplay @nerion.

People already have many different things they focus on. Legolasses and Gimli’s just competing for kill count is a thing for example. There are harvesters, crafters and traders.

The gist of the argument is that there should be more empowerment for guilds like @PaleOne stated.

There is also a myriad of ways to distinguish yourself outside the points system, you can be prolific writer of war stories, a talented leader, organizing and leading your guild to victory.

Or a funny streamer. You don’t get points for those occupations but you do get alot of credits and recognition.

 


The best skill at cards is knowing when to discard.
 

Share this post


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

I posted this format a couple of months ago and I still like it.

Yes please things like this are what I would enjoy.

We need multi-step, world wide, multi-group, strategic gameplay that is more then stand in a circle or kill a tree. Some of that happens now but it is barely there in comparison to what it could be.

1 hour ago, blazzen said:
  • Relax siege schedule from nightly to every other night. 
  • The outpost capture mechanic needs the timer scaled for less people and shortened. We could also use a bit less outposts that grant points. Maybe some new types of outposts like the respawn outposts that have other reasons for capturing them other than points. 
  • As far as "sandbox" goes I think one thing they could do is different metrics for "winning" which offer their own unique rewards/badges.  
    • Crafting badge for highest crafting score, single highest value item, most factory runs, most gold generated from a vendor, etc. 
    • Combat badge for most kills, highest K/D, most assists, highest damage done by a single attack, highest heal, most healing, most damage, most monster kills, etc.
    • Exploration badge for most of various things harvested, most legendary things harvested, etc. etc.
  • I think a stat tracker would be really cool that kept track of my long term stats, successes, failures and achievements. Battlefield had something like this with the "Battlelog". Other than badges, campaign victories are ultimately bragging rights. If you're the best at one particular thing in Crowfall (sandbox right?) then that would appear in your CrowLog (you gotta pay me now if you use this name). http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Blazzen85/
  • Different rulesets all together. The Bloodstone ruleset was teased a long time ago. If you don't like "points" then play a different ruleset. This will likely be a post launch thing though. https://youtu.be/IolWGu7xFlw

All great ideas.

Reward players for their specific efforts and styles of play. Track this and show off to each other. Albion Online does a decent job at this but could be expanded on.

Make outposts give natural rewards that impact gameplay in the moment, not "oooh 100 more points on top of the screen."

Bloodstone like rulesets are what I had hoped for.

43 minutes ago, PaleOne said:

What we lack is real ownership and control.

Real pride in accomplishment. No one gives a poorly made socks about their faction- Guilds faction hop all the time..

Guild pride and guild ownership are where it is at. 

While allowing guilds to claim things would be a step in the right direction, even in Factions, I'd like to see some actual world control. Not sure if it was the KS video or one after, but they had a graphic of forces spreading over the land. As in taking control. Not stand in a circle and claim a throw-a-way POI. Control a stronghold, outposts, or anything should impact the surrounding world one way or another. Just as the hunger is supposed to spread, so should guild/alliance power.

Share this post


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

To me, these are still win conditions that are based on "points."

Win conditions are predetermined, but they could be a lot more complex then get the most points in a week format. If you see any such thing as "points" is besides the point.

Durenthal's idea taken several steps farther that could involve controlling specific strongholds, outposts, and other POI, turning in XYZ resources, sacrificing XYZ, multiple groups doing multiple things together in the moment or over time, transporting X to Y in a given time frame, etc could all be conditions that would likely be more entertaining then get points and wait for the clock to run out. The amount of strategy, effort, and skill involved would also go up.

There is of course a lot going into the few guilds performing well and winning Trials for their faction, but much of it is behind the scenes mundane task work grinding out power in various forms. I'd like to see the excitement of a Siege to take place past a scheduled time frame and overflow into the game as a whole.

No idea if you played DAoC, but the experience of a Relic Raid or flipping the PVP dungeon Darkness Falls from one faction to another were a lot more entertaining then the Crowfall campaign system. Which didn't involve "winning" in the final sense of this game. It was a short term victory, but the effort and rewards were seen in the short and possible long term by everyone on the server. Maybe Dregs will be more like this with more similarity to Shadowbane, but still believe it is too little bang for the buck if it remains similar to the points design we have in the faction worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game needs enough people playing that the game can sustain multiple campaigns. At the end of a campaign, guilds and players should be able to go their separate ways and end up in different campaigns if they choose. It'd keep the game fresh in a way that's totally impossible right now. 


Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, srathor said:

There are many reasons people are not playing the game. 

Such as? 


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 minutes ago, srathor said:

Uhh. Read many many pages of stuff.

You know on the boards.

You might find a few examples. 

tldr ?


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:

tldr ?

 "pre-alpha" 4 years and counting

Heavy focus on PVE grinding

PVP in of itself is pointless

Ganking others doing PVE is seen as a main form of content

Two campaign rulesets show so far so little creativity nor progression

Harvest, Craft, PVE seem to be the core game

Lack of Dregs

POI flipping is well POI flipping

Point/Reward system not reflective of different types of play in one campaign

No Frostweaver

Wipes always a possibility

Some have been passive training for quite a while and have advantage

Missing key systems/features

Performance

Timed events lock some out of particular activities

Multiple changes that don't align with original concept

Lack of communication/transparency on where things are beyond the obvious 

There's countless other games to play

Not much for those that like to explore or achieve on a smaller scale

I like turtles

Lack of group tools

Crafting update MIA

Throne War is missing the Throne and the War

Share this post


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

 "pre-alpha" 4 years and counting

Heavy focus on PVE grinding

PVP in of itself is pointless

Ganking others doing PVE is seen as a main form of content

Two campaign rulesets show so far so little creativity nor progression

Harvest, Craft, PVE seem to be the core game

Lack of Dregs

POI flipping is well POI flipping

Point/Reward system not reflective of different types of play in one campaign

No Frostweaver

Wipes always a possibility

Some have been passive training for quite a while and have advantage

Missing key systems/features

Performance

Timed events lock some out of particular activities

Multiple changes that don't align with original concept

Lack of communication/transparency on where things are beyond the obvious 

There's countless other games to play

Not much for those that like to explore or achieve on a smaller scale

I like turtles

Lack of group tools

Crafting update MIA

Throne War is missing the Throne and the War

you missed :gating character progress behind random loot drops on rare spawns...


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

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...