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

The End of Nightcapping--Congrats ACE

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Crushedvelvet said:

I personally dislike this fort/siege schedule as it only fixed a few minor things like back capping, and created a slew of new headaches.

1 - yes night capping forts is dead.....bc no pvp allowed at 98% of forts lol, theres only one objective fort to fight over for 17 out of 24 hrs of the day.... in 6 zones......really, really, boring and anti sandbox feel going on.

This also removes any strategy for map movement or control as you are literally forced and pointed to what you have to fight over or care about.

This directly helps the faction with the more active player base as now they know exactly where to stack their troops and what they have to defend. (as admitted by most balance they are having an easier time keeping stuff capped)(reference scoreboard)

 

The 5 man fort group now cant use geography and movement as a weapon to get around numbers, they are forced into non winning fights or, to not pvp and farm n craft to try to eliminate any numbers advantages with gear n vessel upgrades.

Also now the “night capping” is just towers and gy’s, it definately still exists, as shown by wb roaming group doing towers last night at 2 am in marq with 7 dudes (not funneled to active fort bc forts are pointless still)

This directly ties to why the campaign map is dead, pvp has no purpose for character progression or reward and you can make epics in gods reach and campaign temple and eks, why would any one trying to get geared up risk getting slaughtered when you have designed the game to have more safe havens than pvp locations? No one is on campaign because of this, it is by design advantageous to not pvp or be in pvp locations.

2 - i agree on back capping being dead and this being a good thing, shorter fort timers might make the last ten minute strat be less viable if fort windows were only 30 mins? more people might d up for 25 mins over 55 mins etc.

3 - reduced pvp siege burnout is now replaced with pvp boredom.

fort locks and less towers have removed almost all campaign map participation, with a main reason being they are all still absolutely pointless for account/character progression.

Why would me and a buddy go try capping towers when we could be farming up gear or vessels for guildmates or factionmates, there is no reward to pvp only risk and detrimental gear hits.

The game in current format is minecraft with a 5 hr pvp window.

4 - circle standing time is much improved, good job 

5 - Respawn cap points have all the same problems forts n towers do, usually they have no strategic purpose bc, capping alerts enemies to the zone, usually not near a valuable objective, and also again they do nothing for a characters development. gy’s are pointless, besides in siege zones during 10-11 if you dont have a fort. 

All in all im really surprised how vocal some are in support of these mechanics because it sure seems like its killing the pvp and world persistence. There are far to many hideouts for people to progress outside of pvp, and far to little pvp objectives with meaningful purpose that people care and want to fight for. Fights for just points on the scoreboard hasn’ t worked for 6 months. Make pvp have a purpose towards something and people will pvp, until then, this is what crowfall campaigns will look like.

Big yes on all the bold points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a schedule system for objectives is good, and it does help with the nightcapping issues that is so frustrating in Survival games, or any territory control scenario like GW2 WvW.

This issue though is really a hardcore players problem:

14 hours ago, Angelmar said:

burnout is greatly decreased

I'm not sure that casual players have burnout, and for that segment of the playerbase it's more important to make sure there is fun content available when they can play. Once the Dregs is open for hardcore players (and 3-Faction has it's intended audience) ACE can tweak the schedule again if needed. It might turn out that nightly sieges are better in 3-faction but hard to tell with low testing pops. Either way, now ACE has a nice tool they can use to make the adjustments.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


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

All in all im really surprised how vocal some are in support of these mechanics because it sure seems like its killing the pvp and world persistence. There are far to many hideouts for people to progress outside of pvp, and far to little pvp objectives with meaningful purpose that people care and want to fight for. Fights for just points on the scoreboard hasn’ t worked for 6 months. Make pvp have a purpose towards something and people will pvp, until then, this is what crowfall campaigns will look like.

The thread is about some specific changes. Its not about how safezones are ruining world pvp, how objectives like forts don't feel useful, etc. The thread isn't about how everything is great now. Its about how less sieges per week is a welcome change, having less outposts is a welcome change, and not having all 12 forts flip every night to whoever stayed up the latest is a welcome change.

Those changes are not killing pvp. There are a variety of other factors that might be, but the specific changes discussed in this thread are not.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Having a schedule system for objectives is good, and it does help with the nightcapping issues that is so frustrating in Survival games, or any territory control scenario like GW2 WvW.

This issue though is really a hardcore players problem:

I'm not sure that casual players have burnout, and for that segment of the playerbase it's more important to make sure there is fun content available when they can play. Once the Dregs is open for hardcore players (and 3-Faction has it's intended audience) ACE can tweak the schedule again if needed. It might turn out that nightly sieges are better in 3-faction but hard to tell with low testing pops. Either way, now ACE has a nice tool they can use to make the adjustments.

The majority of the hardcore deciding to be on the same "team" is more of the problem, rather than that they exist, or even play to win.

It's just a different way to avoid real challenge than farming in GR, but is at least, if not more, detrimental to the game in general and people having fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jah

My reply was directly in response to anglemars post and numbered referencing every point made, with my opinions. I don’t need you to try to unvalidate my opinion just because you might disagree with portions of it. 

Feel free to disagree with my opinion but don’t try to take some righteous stand point like others opinions arent valid on the said topic being discussed.

Share this post


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

This also removes any strategy for map movement or control as you are literally forced and pointed to what you have to fight over or care about.

That is a good point - there isn't much map strategy involved when the spreadsheet tells you where to go. Makes it harder for small groups to have any impact.

Edit: IDK what the solution is for that, maybe some wildcard objectives or some activity to force a vulnerability window to open?

Edited by miraluna

tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel like pushing for completely player-driven, emergent sandbox gameplay in the casual Faction ruleset that tells you who you can and cannot kill is going down a rabbit hole that won't lead to anything good.  A lot of us have to accept that once Dregs comes out we're never playing Factions again and let the casual playerbase have their game.  This includes myself, who definitely Faction gameplay is 1000% not for me.

 

As someone who had to do a lot of hurry-up-and-wait fort/outpost flipping duty during Cybele I really don't think that the old capture free-for-all was a game for casuals.

Edited by Hungry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would make it so that Forts no longer gave points every 10 minutes or whatever it is currently.  Instead, make it so that all the points are accrued during the Fort siege window.  Meaning if the faction wants to gain points from said fort they'll need to actively hold the fort to accrue maximum points during the siege window.  Basically a king of the hill scenario.

Example: 2 hour siege window

Faction A holds fort for 25 minutes        1,250 points

Faction B holds fort for 70 minutes-       3,500 points

Faction C holds for for 25 minutes         1,250 points

 

I would develop the fort siege system even further by having small points of interest in the vicinity of the fort that could be captured at lower value to generate points as opposed to just one circle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Crushedvelvet said:

Also now the “night capping” is just towers and gy’s, it definately still exists, as shown by wb roaming group doing towers last night at 2 am in marq with 7 dudes (not funneled to active fort bc forts are pointless still)

To be fair we were in Marq defending the fort, but when we saw outposts flipping and no move being made to attack us we ventured out because wait for it... the only reason we care about forts is the potential for PVP. Your group vs our group in open world PVP in the middle of the night, brought about because this schedule is working to put people who want to PVP in the same proximity as eachother.

So yes, the schedule is working. The imbalance of who leads which faction and how well they work together is the subject of an entirely different thread, but thank you for giving a good example of how the change is leading to PVP which is all any of us ever really wanted.

As to your other concerns I don't appreciate the accusatory tone of their presentation, but I do agree with most of them. The points system is dumb and I can't wait until it's replaced with meaningful rewards to fight over. These three faction trial campaigns aren't driving any lasting sense of accomplishment for winners or losers and the badge colors are entirely meaningless.

I choose to play this as the PVP game it was presented as, and have gravitated towards others that feel the same way as I do. That doesn't make me more right than someone that wants to be a master crafter and build a name for themselves by making the best items available in the free city. Or the person that just wants to spend their evenings after work casually busting rocks with a big hammer to give their guild raw materials. Or even the solo player that just wants to sneak around and gank the casual rock farmer. ACE has this forum for us all to give feedback from those differing perspectives so they can build the game with the knowledge we've gained as a reference. It would go a real long way towards getting something worth playing at the end of development if there was less finger pointing and half ass politicking like your or my guild means anything more than the group of friends we chose to play with and more constructive discourse about how to make things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, miraluna said:

That is a good point - there isn't much map strategy involved when the spreadsheet tells you where to go. Makes it harder for small groups to have any impact.

Edit: IDK what the solution is for that, maybe some wildcard objectives or some activity to force a vulnerability window to open?

If "small groups" are looking to avoid fights at forts there are Outposts avail 24/7, which have had their overall point values as % of total points buffed to be the same as keeps....

Many of the fort windows also have multiple forts open simultaneously, so players like crushed can game which of the 2 or 3 forts he wants to hit in which order.

I still don't think people are really clocking the points value changes, they're just making assumptions on pre-siege schedule values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KatzeWeiss

7v2 at 2 am isnt group vs group fort fights, and from our perspective the map was being capped by balance and after 3 towers we went to see, to get rolled by 7. Was stomping Jecht and I 7v2 fun? competitive? at the open fort which by design is supposed to be important?

No, it was not any of those things and we then left the zone bc no other chaos online to fight your 7. Not sure what you think is accusatory as nothing was accused, just the facts of what happened.

Forts as an objective obviously arent that important if you take 7 dudes roaming to cap all towers of a zone at 2am when there’s only 30 people online. This isnt accusatory, its a fact, and also directly to my point that locks arent helping create fort pvp.

 Thank you for proving my point that roaming and squashing 2 people with 7 at 2 am is what you are considering a success of locks creating pvp. Even though the only reason we came into that zone was because we saw multiple towers flip, nothing to do with a fort.

Finally, I agree it would be great if people tried to stay on point and not just mud sling as it is not constructive and we are all supposeded to be helping build a successful game together.

Share this post


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

Actually Tark was -W- i just gave him a home after he left them. Like i did a few other -W-

When your boss calls you into the back office to fire you and you decide to quit instead they still fired you.  When Tark was permabanned he was rocking your tags.  I thought you didn’t like to spin but it looks like DJ DOOOOOOLMAR is back in the hizouse tonight.  

1 hour ago, Crushedvelvet said:

I personally dislike this fort/siege schedule as it only fixed a few minor things like back capping, and created a slew of new headaches.

1 - yes night capping forts is dead.....bc no pvp allowed at 98% of forts lol, theres only one objective fort to fight over for 17 out of 24 hrs of the day.... in 6 zones......really, really, boring and anti sandbox feel going on.

This also removes any strategy for map movement or control as you are literally forced and pointed to what you have to fight over or care about.

This directly helps the faction with the more active player base as now they know exactly where to stack their troops and what they have to defend. (as admitted by most balance they are having an easier time keeping stuff capped)(reference scoreboard)

 

The 5 man fort group now cant use geography and movement as a weapon to get around numbers, they are forced into non winning fights or, to not pvp and farm n craft to try to eliminate any numbers advantages with gear n vessel upgrades.

Also now the “night capping” is just towers and gy’s, it definately still exists, as shown by wb roaming group doing towers last night at 2 am in marq with 7 dudes (not funneled to active fort bc forts are pointless still)

This directly ties to why the campaign map is dead, pvp has no purpose for character progression or reward and you can make epics in gods reach and campaign temple and eks, why would any one trying to get geared up risk getting slaughtered when you have designed the game to have more safe havens than pvp locations? No one is on campaign because of this, it is by design advantageous to not pvp or be in pvp locations.

2 - i agree on back capping being dead and this being a good thing, shorter fort timers might make the last ten minute strat be less viable if fort windows were only 30 mins? more people might d up for 25 mins over 55 mins etc.

3 - reduced pvp siege burnout is now replaced with pvp boredom.

fort locks and less towers have removed almost all campaign map participation, with a main reason being they are all still absolutely pointless for account/character progression.

Why would me and a buddy go try capping towers when we could be farming up gear or vessels for guildmates or factionmates, there is no reward to pvp only risk and detrimental gear hits.

The game in current format is minecraft with a 5 hr pvp window.

4 - circle standing time is much improved, good job 

5 - Respawn cap points have all the same problems forts n towers do, usually they have no strategic purpose bc, capping alerts enemies to the zone, usually not near a valuable objective, and also again they do nothing for a characters development. gy’s are pointless, besides in siege zones during 10-11 if you dont have a fort. 

All in all im really surprised how vocal some are in support of these mechanics because it sure seems like its killing the pvp and world persistence. There are far to many hideouts for people to progress outside of pvp, and far to little pvp objectives with meaningful purpose that people care and want to fight for. Fights for just points on the scoreboard hasn’ t worked for 6 months. Make pvp have a purpose towards something and people will pvp, until then, this is what crowfall campaigns will look like.

This schedule is so factions can play on more casual schedule and not lose their assets when they work or sleep or otherwise adult.  Dregs will have player determines windows for its fights (afaik).  We’ve talked about it on the dev partner, I know JTodd did windows of opportunity for his other siege game and I know Blair played it (at least long enough to escape that reekor, the kobold king).  In dregs you’re irregular warfare is a viable thing but in factions not really.  You have a choice to make: play regular forces at predetermined times under the safety of a faction or play how ever you want whenever you can but with no safety net of people who aren’t specifically yours. 


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

The faction vs faction i thought was supposed to be for the more casual guilds. I agree with crushed. The schedule just makes it more casual for the people that take this game more seriously.

This is a very zerg friendly game specially on the casual setting. Stuff like timers just make the weaker factions even weaker.(which will be a problem when live also even in que games their always a weak side.)

Take what we see now chaos doesnt have enough to defend a keep and attack. After 15mins thanks to bane tree chaos will now have to fight the guilds of balance that was defending their keep and the guild already attacking. It literally goes against the whole reason to have all 3 up at a single time.

When the game goes live there will always be a weaker side. But the weaker side currently gets the most gain by taking their ball and going home. This is why i feel in a 3 faction campaign we currently only have 2 factions and a three man gank squad.

Timers haven't added to the game being more fun (people dont even want to show up everyday to CF main event). It has made it so the smaller player base gets forced on top of each other to find fights.

 

Share this post


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

7v2 at 2 am isnt group vs group fort fights, and from our perspective the map was being capped by balance and after 3 towers we went to see, to get rolled by 7. Was stomping Jecht and I 7v2 fun? competitive? at the open fort which by design is supposed to be important?

Oh you were the group of two, that explains the salt. When we stepped off the fort we ran into a group of five chaos, and while finishing them off we had four order members charge at us hoping to catch us while fighting. And after that while we were flipping the outposts is when we ran into you, then immediately got hit by another small group which I assumed was with you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the other chaos in zone weren't communicating with anyone else, between the three chaos groups and the order group in zone I lost track of who was who. This was all in the span of ten minutes as the fort window was closing but maybe it was just a coincidence everyone just happened to be hanging around a couple parcels away from an active fort.

Share this post


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

Why would me and a buddy go try capping towers when we could be farming up gear or vessels for guildmates or factionmates, there is no reward to pvp only risk and detrimental gear hits.

Why are you gearing up if not to PvP? What are you saving your gear for?

1 hour ago, Crushedvelvet said:

@KatzeWeiss

7v2 at 2 am isnt group vs group fort fights, and from our perspective the map was being capped by balance and after 3 towers we went to see, to get rolled by 7. Was stomping Jecht and I 7v2 fun? competitive? at the open fort which by design is supposed to be important?

No, it was not any of those things and we then left the zone bc no other chaos online to fight your 7. Not sure what you think is accusatory as nothing was accused, just the facts of what happened.

Forts as an objective obviously arent that important if you take 7 dudes roaming to cap all towers of a zone at 2am when there’s only 30 people online. This isnt accusatory, its a fact, and also directly to my point that locks arent helping create fort pvp.

 Thank you for proving my point that roaming and squashing 2 people with 7 at 2 am is what you are considering a success of locks creating pvp. Even though the only reason we came into that zone was because we saw multiple towers flip, nothing to do with a fort.

Finally, I agree it would be great if people tried to stay on point and not just mud sling as it is not constructive and we are all supposeded to be helping build a successful game together.

I guess what you were unaware of because of lack of communication on your faction was that we had already fought another full group of chaos as well as a group from order. So from our perspective we had many encounters. Perhaps more communication on your faction would have allowed your multiple groups to get together and come pvp with better odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KatzeWeiss

 

I guess staying constructive was out of the question after a couple hours lol.

At no point was I, or am I "salty'. I listed all my concerns with factual backing not emotional accusations.

You also fail to realize that at 2 am the fort changed to a different zone......you stayed in Marq with your roaming 7 man capping towers instead of being funneled to the active fort at 2 am, bc I'm sure you all realized as does everyone else no one is going to fight for a fort at the start of a 15 hr window lol

Thus FURTHER proving MY point that fort locks aren't funneling people to the forts, and also as an example of how people just hit the current based schedule in the last 10 mins. (Marq was 1-2am est)

Thank you again for your in game factual support of my points being addressed.

I thank you and welcome your opinions, though would again say, staying away from pointless mudslinging or disregarding someones opinion as "Salt" does not help the game of Crowfall become better.

 

Share this post


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

@Jah

My reply was directly in response to anglemars post and numbered referencing every point made, with my opinions. I don’t need you to try to unvalidate my opinion just because you might disagree with portions of it. 

Feel free to disagree with my opinion but don’t try to take some righteous stand point like others opinions arent valid on the said topic being discussed.

You wondered why people support "these mechanics" but then you listed problems/mechanics that are not what this thread is about.

I don't disagree with you on the points you made about too many hideouts, objectives not seeming meaningful, etc. I was clarifying what people were supporting because you said it surprised you.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Jah

If you take away from my post that most of it is not on topic,  then you must have a reading comprehension issue, bc everything mentioned was directly about or directly correlated to how fort locks havent done what the original post described as being successful for the game or the factions model, outside of the points I agreed with. You continue to confuse someone disagreeing with you as being off topic or irrelevant.

Edited by Crushedvelvet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

think to many are focusing on how the game plays now vs people these kind of campaigns are supposed to attract and keep the game funded.

 just to add how the game is playing now will be much different i feel then when released unless the player base is really small. 

Edited by Drewcifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...