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

Embrace The Sandbox.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I don't think 100% sandbox is the winner in this game.  If a Campaign is to have value and keep people interested and competeting (IE, PVP), then it needs to have a way to measure each participant organizations contribution towards a win and have that on display. 

The major fallacy with Nerions BG reference is that those BGs are very very short term.  AV lasted a day or two sometimes when it first came out but that was because people wanted to farm honor more than they wanted to win.  Campaigns last weeks at this point, and months in the future.

Everyone cannot get a blue ribbon, this "I identify as a winner because I crafted some rainbow armor" is ridiculous.  Competing against yourself to accomplish what you want to accomplish is definitely valid, but it must be done in a dangerous setting where the "chance to lose" is imminent.  People are so afraid of losing these days.  They want to create a system where they either can't lose or they can define their own win condition and everyone must accept them for who they are.

Sounds like a great single player game.

 

Thats not to say that I think factions are good, I don't, I think they are horrible.  But however they end up doing it, there needs to be a way to incrementally measure contributions towards a total long term win condition.

If they don't want to do scoring, then I think that the win condition would have to end the campaign, however long that took.

Edited by Ble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Ble  When you put points on a pedestal that becomes the objective. Similar to a large scale BG. You make my point with, how in original AV, people were farming honor and it messed the whole system up. The response was that larger guilds,  like we used to do, would queue an entire 40 people at one time to guarantee wins. When we didn't get enough people in, we would just leave and re-q. We would ignore all other points and essentially just rush their main base to speed run it over and over.

 

- Queuing with 40 mans to avoid the general public was not intended by the devs because they limiting queuing to groups of 5 people.

- We ignored all other pvp and simply just went for the main objective

- We literally would grind this over and over just to get the points.

 

Right there is the perfect example of escalation, efficient/effective grinding of points that ignores all other gameplay, and creative use of the mechanics to farm points. This will happen in dregs just like it did in AV. There are many similarities also to where we are in the game now.

Edited by nerion

Share this post


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

Jah, what we see in the game right now will happen on live. If the rewards go to the victor, based on points, this will keep happening. Escalation and escalation until one side is farming campaign points for rewards. Sure, everyone can pretend to be doing their own thing. Everyone can do that now and look how much fun we are having?

It's not the points that are causing the fun problem.  There are many many factors to why things are in a rough to play state, here are just a few.

  • Wipes and expected wipes,
  • Effort required to become competitive gear wise
  • Frequent whiplash inducing balance changes, both mechanically in terms of race/class powers, and economically with things like critters not dropping gold before the replacement of "you can sell anything to AI vendors" was in place.
  • Summer has started, so populations naturally drop off as the weather warms up.
  • Bank space.  That one missing feature adds a whole lot more squeeze requirement before you get to the juice.
  • Standing in circles for 20 minutes is not fun or good game play, but that's what is often required to get points.

I could go on, but in reality, it's not the points or winning that's the problem, that's been part of the original idea for the game since day one, it's the paths needed to be taken by players to get the points that's causing the "un-fun" state. 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

@Ble  When you put points on a pedestal that becomes the objective. Similar to a large scale BG. You make my point with, how in original AV, people were farming honor and it messed the whole system up. The response was that larger guilds,  like we used to do, would queue an entire 40 people at one time to guarantee wins. When we didn't get enough people in, we would just leave and re-q. We would ignore all other points and essentially just rush their main base to speed run it over and over.

 

- Queuing with 40 mans to avoid the general public was not intended by the devs because they limiting queuing to groups of 5 people.

- We ignored all other pvp and simply just went for the main objective

- We literally would grind this over and over just to get the points.

 

Right there is the perfect example of escalation, efficient/effective grinding of points that ignores all other gameplay, and creative use of the mechanics to farm points. This will happen in dregs just like it did in AV. There are many similarities also to where we are in the game now.

Yeah I dont totally disagree or at least let me say that what you say will happen, to me, is in the realm of possibility.

 

I think my main point is 3-part:

1) There needs to be a clear objective that everyone in the CW is trying to achieve.  (Win condition)

2) The Win Condition needs to last the full CW, or close the CW when its met and needs to be engaging to the entire population for the full duration of the CW.

3) The population needs to see/measure how each faction/guild/alliance/group stands in the current effort towards gaining the win condition so they can strategize what they must do to overcome and win/maintain the win.  (points, sliders, interactive/labeled maps, leaderboards etc).

 

As for the warzone analogies, I was mostly just pointing out that nothing matters since its over really quickly and even in the longest iteration of a battleground (early AV), it still didn't matter.... because it was short.  It didnt matter of you got 40man pubstomped or if you had an even game because shortly thereafter, you'd get another.  In CF, for us to fight the same "battleground" for months on end, something has to be there to keep us engaged and fighting.  And to your point, that something does, in fact, need to be more than a several-millions-number at the top of the UI.

Edited by Ble

Share this post


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

It's not the points that are causing the fun problem.  There are many many factors to why things are in a rough to play state, here are just a few.

  • Wipes and expected wipes,
  • Effort required to become competitive gear wise
  • Frequent whiplash inducing balance changes, both mechanically in terms of race/class powers, and economically with things like critters not dropping gold before the replacement of "you can sell anything to AI vendors" was in place.
  • Summer has started, so populations naturally drop off as the weather warms up.
  • Bank space.  That one missing feature adds a whole lot more squeeze requirement before you get to the juice.
  • Standing in circles for 20 minutes is not fun or good game play, but that's what is often required to get points.

I could go on, but in reality, it's not the points or winning that's the problem, that's been part of the original idea for the game since day one, it's the paths needed to be taken by players to get the points that's causing the "un-fun" state. 

 

 

I totally agree that there are more issues than just the points system. I was just trying to isolate one specific area and how it has contributed to the state of the game today and future game issues. I have made plenty of jokes about how boring circles are.

Share this post


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

If you want to win, that is your choice. The fact that there is a scoring mechanic doesn't prevent people who would rather "embrace the sandbox" from doing so.

The entire point of the embargo system is that if you don't win whatever you "chose to do" in the sandbox is ultimately less effective and less rewarding.

The entire point of the embargo system, and the campaign system at large is that you're not allowed to treat winning as optional.

The entire point of the embargo system is that you *have* to care about winning.

 

Saying "you can just log in to counterstrike and spin in circles at spawn if you want to embrace the sandbox" has as much merit as this statement. The only reason it is true at the moment is because the deliberate, well communicated, planned from the start punitive measures for not caring about winning aren't online yet.

They will be in the next major patch.


PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

The entire point of the embargo system is that if you don't win whatever you "chose to do" in the sandbox is ultimately less effective and less rewarding.

The entire point of the embargo system, and the campaign system at large is that you're not allowed to treat winning as optional.

The entire point of the embargo system is that you *have* to care about winning.

Incorrect. The embargo system is not your boss. You are allowed to treat winning as optional. You can ignore the scoring mechanics entirely and still win faction campaigns, as you well know.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Incorrect. The embargo system is not your boss. You are allowed to treat winning as optional. You can ignore the scoring mechanics entirely and still win faction campaigns, as you well know.

Not when I don't have Crowfall's top gardening squad inflating my team's numbers!

Again I'll invoke the spinning in spawn example.

CAN you win a match like this?

Yes.

Are you deliberately acting against the spirit of the game and undermining your own team while doing so?

Also yes.

Should this kind of freeloading be curbed by the proposed system creating more competition and multiple risk/reward tiers more closely matchmaking opposed forces?

Also yes.

"This is fine" doesn't seem like an acceptable way to address the issues the OP raises.

I shouldn't be able to freeload this hard, no matter how many visitors I have bleeding for me.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ultimately I think "Campaign ends in X days and whoever has the most points at that time" will die as a ruleset.

Simple reason is that when there are many campaigns running at any given time, any campaign that isn't competitive will result in a mass unlock to go to a campaign that IS competitive.

I imagine because of this that most campaigns will be based on a ruleset that the campaign is easily terminated if one side gets a serious upper hand. For instance: everyone starts with a keep that has a ton of high level guards with fast respawn and the number of guards goes down / respawn timer goes up as the campaign progresses. A group that loses their keep is eliminated.

Alternatively, no import campaign with a set number of white vessels each faction/guild can spawn in and they are destroyed upon death. The only way to get more lives is to make more vessels, and graveyards are setup so as to be limited in number / hotly contested. Points of interest are really only valuable in that they give an upperhand in the fight over the graveyards. Once all vessels are depleted you can't spawn in and are thus eliminated.

I think you'll see more ideas like that win out over "Whoever has the most points in 21 days" because they will run up until someone takes a clear lead, and then that group will usually win pretty damn fast after that. That's the kind of campaign people will actually stay locked into start to finish.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with any model that has a lack of points, is that hunger is the lore "clock" we are all fighting against. 

But there are other models out there.  For example travian has a "world wonder" goal.

https://travian.fandom.com/wiki/World_Wonder

I wonder if something like that could work as world ending option eventually

Build a giant statue to your god, with a periodic vulnerability window that enemies can use to try to knock it over with siege gear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all realize that point conditions will change where winning will have different conditions once we are out of alpha right? 

A full sandbox game is one where the players determine the conditions of everything and it ends up working mostly like eve, where 3-5 big factions dictate what everyone else does and it essentially becomes an RvR game. Crowfall has a win condition specifically to prevent stagnation. 

With that said, I fully expect there to be systems in place to have "best crafter" or "best trade guild" that give rewards for that playstyle at some point

Share this post


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

Incorrect. The embargo system is not your boss. You are allowed to treat winning as optional. You can ignore the scoring mechanics entirely and still win faction campaigns, as you well know.

^ This.

Since the beginning of the trials, not once have I chased points on the leaderboard. My only concern is helping my team win by insuring they have the materials and tools they need to win, and helping them maintain the lead through holding points.

In the current campaign, players are ranked on number of captures and K/D, while faction victory comes from holding POIs and denying those POIs to the enemy. The best path to one is not the best path to the other.

Share this post


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

^ This.

Since the beginning of the trials, not once have I chased points on the leaderboard. My only concern is helping my team win by insuring they have the materials and tools they need to win, and helping them maintain the lead through holding points.

In the current campaign, players are ranked on number of captures and K/D, while faction victory comes from holding POIs and denying those POIs to the enemy. The best path to one is not the best path to the other.

FYI, for those that don't know, ACE is pulling those manually currently. 

This is part of the testing and balancing process, to find out details about all the different victory conditions, and what focused players that do care will end up doing to the scores.  

The territory points are there as a base line, and ACE is trying to figure out what weight to give to the other metrics.  It would not do for a single crafted item to be worth more points than holding a fort of over 24hrs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I really hope that the Dregs isn't using the same point system we see in the Faction Campaigns. I'd like to see the Dregs base its victory condition on map control. The question then becomes: How do you prevent latecomers from spoiling the campaign by waiting for Winter to make their move and conquer the map? I'm sure this question is easy to answer, and the use of player built cities and the bane system for sieges/war declarations will mitigate this greatly.

The Dregs will have a vastly different "feel" than what exists currently in the faction campaigns and should correspondingly have a different system for declaring victory. I like the idea of a leaderboard where you're guild is only able to get on it if you meet certain conditions (owning a large enough city/stronghold, owning multiple cities/strongholds). Once the qualifier is established, the guilds on the list must either eliminate each other or force each other to "bend the knee", abdicating the campaign victory to another guild on the list. This also differentiates players and guilds who are "playing to win" from players and guilds who are just there for their own reasons (crafting, PvE, ganking, etc...) When you include the ability of guilds to band together and make their own "factions" (and break them up when things don't work out) there is the potential for different reward schemes based on player/guild/alliance status. 

Edited by soulein

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
58 minutes ago, soulein said:

I really hope that the Dregs isn't using the same point system we see in the Faction Campaigns. I'd like to see the Dregs base its victory condition on map control. The question then becomes: How do you prevent latecomers from spoiling the campaign by waiting for Winter to make their move and conquer the map. I'm sure this question is easy to answer, and the use of player built cities and the bane system for sieges/war declarations will mitigate this greatly.

The Dregs will have a vastly different "feel" than what exists currently in the faction campaigns and should correspondingly have a different system for declaring victory. I like the idea of a leaderboard where you're guild is only able to get on it if you meet certain conditions (owning a large enough city/stronghold, owning multiple cities/strongholds). Once the qualifier is established, the guilds on the list must either eliminate each other or force each other to "bend the knee", abdicating the campaign victory to another guild on the list. This also differentiates players and guilds who are "playing to win" from players and guilds who are just there for their own reasons (crafting, PvE, ganking, etc...) When you include the ability of guilds to band together and make their own "factions" (and break them up when things don't work out) there is the potential for different reward schemes based on player/guild/alliance status. 

In shadowbane you didn’t need a point system to know who was winning 


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


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

In shadowbane you didn’t need a point system to know who was winning 

You also couldn't "win" a shadowbane server. It would just stagnate and die until we were begging for a server wipe.


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
23 minutes ago, PaleOne said:

In shadowbane you didn’t need a point system to know who was winning 

Lol yea because asking the community who was winning was a fool proof system.  SB servers weren’t winnable.  They almost all died due to stagnation or CN zergs cleared them like a locust swarm.  All of the original servers died to the beta guilds smashing all competition into nothing but empty servers.  

 

There will have to be a point system system to determine the winner and controlling assets seems the best way to ensure who is winning a throne war sim about asset control.  

 

Tldr; could always tell who was winning a sb server? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Cf will have to better than the chaos that was sb and better than the circle standing that determines who’s winning now. 


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

I agree that without a scoring metric to determine a winner at the end of a campaign you'll never have a true winner. The persistent worlds in Shadowbane and Darkfall had "winners" during different eras of the various servers. Typically the "winner" would take over the map, their enemies would leave, the winner would get bored and leave, the server would stagnate, until a new challenger arose and the process repeated itself. These stagnation phases could last months and not everyone would come back to the game after they were over. It reached the point where the same couple hundred people were fighting each other over and over and it got very boring.

Sound familiar? Crowfall is still in pre-alpha though so I'm chalking the low population up to that but I do think it's very important that Crowfall work on retaining new/casual players to fill out the servers so it doesn't devolve into another dead PVP game. 

Crowfall's scoring system will determine an actual winner and the resetting campaigns will hopefully eliminate the server stagnation issue or at the very least streamline the whole process. It's certainly not there yet, it will require ongoing iteration, but that's true of any MMORPG and Crowfall was built with ongoing iteration in mind. 

Share this post


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

I agree that without a scoring metric to determine a winner at the end of a campaign you'll never have a true winner. The persistent worlds in Shadowbane and Darkfall had "winners" during different eras of the various servers. Typically the "winner" would take over the map, their enemies would leave, the winner would get bored and leave, the server would stagnate, until a new challenger arose and the process repeated itself. These stagnation phases could last months and not everyone would come back to the game after they were over. It reached the point where the same couple hundred people were fighting each other over and over and it got very boring.

Sound familiar? Crowfall is still in pre-alpha though so I'm chalking the low population up to that but I do think it's very important that Crowfall work on retaining new/casual players to fill out the servers so it doesn't devolve into another dead PVP game. 

Crowfall's scoring system will determine an actual winner and the resetting campaigns will hopefully eliminate the server stagnation issue or at the very least streamline the whole process. It's certainly not there yet, it will require ongoing iteration, but that's true of any MMORPG and Crowfall was built with ongoing iteration in mind. 

I think a king of the hill system for the dregs (as described in my post above) would work well giving people a reason to stick around, even if they aren't playing for the W. To your point, we haven't really had the population for more than one campaign per region, so it's hard to tell if the iterative campaign system works when there isn't enough of a critical mass to really test it.


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

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...