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

The End of Nightcapping--Congrats ACE

Recommended Posts

As someone who gets off work 30 minutes before the old siege window, this not sieging every night is a complete blessing. 30 minutes later and only M/W/F/Sa is radical. 🙏

Share this post


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

@Jah

If you take away from my post that most of it is not on topic,  then you must have a reading comprehension issue

Speaking of which, that is not what I said. I didn't say it was mostly off topic. I pointed to some of the specific things you mentioned as reasons why you were surprised people supported these mechanics and suggested those things were not what was being supported. It was clarification.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so because not everyone can play the times "certain" guilds want to play, it gets changed. Guess if you don't play in their window you get to be a farmer or crafter... way to shoot yourself in the foot ACE. Might as well change the name to winterfall. 3-2-1... whine from fluffernutters...


 

"tell the world that it is the will of the gods that my Rome be head of all the world."

Share this post


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

so because not everyone can play the times "certain" guilds want to play, it gets changed. Guess if you don't play in their window you get to be a farmer or crafter... way to shoot yourself in the foot ACE. Might as well change the name to winterfall. 3-2-1... whine from fluffernutters...

Is UxA going to play dregs? 


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
2 hours ago, mandalore said:

Is UxA going to play dregs? 

ill take this one for em, the answer is not for long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Audin said:

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.

 

Might be something in this system, i quite like it, it would make action around the forts at certain times more interesting. Question, how would the outposts play a part in this? same system as this or the one we have atm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Staff said:

ill take this one for em, the answer is not for long

Pfffttt you sure as hell aren't going to do anything about our stay in CF. ACE will be the one to dictate how long or short we stay. you are nothing more but an annoying little gnat.

 

 


 

"tell the world that it is the will of the gods that my Rome be head of all the world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, weaponsx said:

Pfffttt you sure as hell aren't going to do anything about our stay in CF. ACE will be the one to dictate how long or short we stay. you are nothing more but an annoying little gnat.

 

 

ACE please ban he called me a gnat

Share this post


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

Might be something in this system, i quite like it, it would make action around the forts at certain times more interesting. Question, how would the outposts play a part in this? same system as this or the one we have atm?

Since they limited the amount of outposts in the zone I would keep it the one we currently have but it would also toggle a zone wide buff to your faction. Could be extra heal, dmg, run speed, harvest yield, extra damage vs buildings etc. It would give more of a short term incentive for players to capture along with the long term campaign points as a win condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours 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?

I question if complex campaign map strategy is a viable goal for faction campaigns when the entire point is a lack of leadership structure and ability to compete without assembling massive player hierarchies. Making "player leadership" and grand strategy too important in faction campaigns kind of undercuts the purpose of faction campaigns. You're supposed to be able to enter faction campaigns, talk to nobody and know nothing about politics, and still have a competitive experience.

It seems to me the entire point of faction campaigns compared to dregs is you're told by the ephemeral CPU leadership who to fight, where to go, and all you need to worry about is how to fight and whether you want to show up with your little squad.

Its an introductory/casual campaign type. Being led by the nose in to fight locations seems appropriate for it.

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
16 hours ago, Audin said:

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.

 

Not a bad suggestion.  It could see it working better if points were accrued not based on time held, but based on time/ticks spent with the target switching sides. So you don't get points for just standing around in your fully captured/held fort, but rather you get points when opposed and the circle starts to switch sides.

I wouldn't take away what we already have, but use this as a way to accrue more points.

But the above said, I would not want to distract ACE from the dregs milestone and game style to add in a change like this, and if that game style doesn't have the same points structure, I would not circle back to this until we see how dregs does play out.

Cheers

 

Share this post


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

I question if complex campaign map strategy is a viable goal for faction campaigns when the entire point is a lack of leadership structure and ability to compete without assembling massive player hierarchies.

I agree, and think that this cuts to the core of the problems with the 5.8x & 5.9x factions campaigns; too many player styles in one game space.

For 5.100 Ace used wartribes and their loot to create a complete game loop in GR. I think that helped, a lot. New and pure casual players have a place to go and something to do; rather than logging in once, getting crushed & never coming back.  Not to suggest GR is perfect, but I think it's a good starting point for future iteration.

Now they're working on a space for hardcore guilds to call their own. Once we have that space, the structured guilds trying to paint the planet and our 50+ vs 50+ fights will go there.

After that factions campaigns will be small guilds and the randos that want to run with them having small battles with each other over whatever POI the game says is important now.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


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

Pfffttt you sure as hell aren't going to do anything about our stay in CF. ACE will be the one to dictate how long or short we stay. you are nothing more but an annoying little gnat.

 

 

To say that players won’t impact your experience and thus your decision is fluff.  If UxA plays on the dregs and gets zerged off over and over that is 100% going to influence whether you play or not.  It’s not like you guys have done your selves any favors, politically.  Personally I’ve always liked the 10th and it’s members but this new angle you guys have taken is confusing to me.   I’ll support you guys to play however you want. 

Edited by mandalore

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

Only reason people burned out in the beginning is because you're trying hard and made your guild nightcap and cap over and over and over again, which is very unnecessary at this stage of the game, and with factions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yianni said:

Only reason people burned out in the beginning is because you're trying hard and made your guild nightcap and cap over and over and over again, which is very unnecessary at this stage of the game, and with factions.

At what stage would burning out night capping be appropriate?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

At what stage would burning out night capping be appropriate?

At a time that maybe mattered, not in a pre alpha, you can still get a shiny trinket without nightcapping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yianni said:

At a time that maybe mattered, not in a pre alpha, you can still get a shiny trinket without nightcapping

Its not about trinkets. Its about giving feedback on game mechanics to make the game better.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

It seems to me the entire point of faction campaigns compared to dregs is you're told by the ephemeral CPU leadership who to fight, where to go, and all you need to worry about is how to fight and whether you want to show up with your little squad.

That's a negative viewpoint of potential faction players that I don't entirely agree with. A group of 5 that plays together regularly might be experienced veterans and good pvpers, but choose to play on factions because they only play a couple of nights a week, or they don't want to merge into a high-commitment, hardcore Dregs guild. I think CF can provide a good experience for that type of player too. It doesn't need to be a "grand strategy" that involves large team organization or complicated map planning, it's about giving players more fun choices of what pvp-focused activities they can do when they login.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


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

That's a negative viewpoint of potential faction players that I don't entirely agree with. A group of 5 that plays together regularly might be experienced veterans and good pvpers, but choose to play on factions because they only play a couple of nights a week, or they don't want to merge into a high-commitment, hardcore Dregs guild. I think CF can provide a good experience for that type of player too. It doesn't need to be a "grand strategy" that involves large team organization or complicated map planning, it's about giving players more fun choices of what pvp-focused activities they can do when they login.

To me that just sounds like people who need to sub to a more consistent guild. Factions to me sounds like horde vs alliance with pre build political systems and safety nets for casual players.  What you’re describing is middle aged family players who don’t have the time commitment to be dregs players but don’t really fit into the niche of factions but don’t have a choice Bc the idea of subbing is anathema. 


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
58 minutes ago, miraluna said:

That's a negative viewpoint of potential faction players that I don't entirely agree with. A group of 5 that plays together regularly might be experienced veterans and good pvpers, but choose to play on factions because they only play a couple of nights a week, or they don't want to merge into a high-commitment, hardcore Dregs guild. I think CF can provide a good experience for that type of player too. It doesn't need to be a "grand strategy" that involves large team organization or complicated map planning, it's about giving players more fun choices of what pvp-focused activities they can do when they login.

It is not a negative viewpoint. It is precisely why I'm playing faction campaigns.

Option a: Go join the current mass battle that draws my entire faction.

Option b: do whatever the hell else I want because I have no responsibility to take my guild to join said mass battle if I don't feel like it and at best I'll lose a tiny bit of score and can make it up next week if I feel so inclined.

I have no obligation to replace a wall, I have no obligation to farm for siege weapons, I have no obligation to rescue some failed caravan attempt, and I can skip a large number of these with few ill effects to my personal wealth as I'm going to figure out really early if I care about how this campaign is going to go and whether I think we have a shot at winning.

In an environment where structure fights are purely optional, if you want to have anything resembling a populated structure fight you can't leave that to an unorganized mass of small groups and solo players to be choosey about targets. You need to explicitly define the targets for them so they all MUST show up in the same spot to fight if they want to fight at all. That's the only form of leadership a CPU faction can leverage.

I offer as evidence the entire live server history of crowfall up to this point, which has operated under faction rules. The only fights that are any fun were the fights that literally forced multiple factions to a single point. it took several iterations to get to where we are now, and where we are now and how people are responding to it validates my point here.

 

I'm not saying more activities isn't a good idea. I'm always for more sand in the sandbox. I'm saying that making campaign scoring elements in factions campaigns any more strategically complex than they are right now is unnecessary complication for no benefit.

 

When given the choice of dregs or factions, people are not playing a faction campaign to be patton and fight rommel. They're playing a faction campaign so they don't have to be patton because rommel is off annexing dregs.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...