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

Crowfall unveils 'The Infected' - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, jpollard said:

I promise that you don't have to sacrificially tank a whole campaign for us to understand the point you'd be trying to make.

 

Whats the sac value of a trial?  

 

They are so defeated by 2 20 man guilds that they would rather tank a trial than rally cohesively and unified against a competitive force.  CF is about alliances, people should make them instead of throwing a tantrum because they have lost 9 (+ ?) campaigns because they would rather act like a horde than an army.  


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
15 hours ago, Felagunda said:

Try to tell the Dev's that.  They still have bigger issues to fix before they move on with the type of algorithium that can balance through boons and curses to each individual player based off of a mix of faction member numbers, gear, passive difference between the factions, and possible other factors in a given campaign zone.  Also I am pretty sure ACE stated they would never hard caps or soft caps for balancing in some Q&A.  That said it's still Pre Alpha.  I repeat ACE have bigger fish to fry first. Maybe ACE  can be made to see reason. 

It could turn out to be a good thing what Winterblades did.  They helped show the flaw in the design.  I honestly suggest we drive the point home by all joining balance.

I am wondering if anyone played Sword of the New World (the first one) at the end of it's life, 2006-09.  That situation is shaping up to look what we have developing in Crowfall.  In SOTNW, one alliance (group of guilds) owned and controlled 90% of the map for 3-4 years.  They prevented anyone from being able to compete through any means.  The population shrank at an alarming rate but the alliance in power never choose to break up and fight each other.  Instead they chose to continue stifle competition through any means possible.  The OP's alliance greed, need, desire to rule that game ultimately killed the game the game they loved so much and so much time and energy invested in.

This is how "hardcore" players are and how they will always be, I fear. I have seen it any many other games / shards but the case of SOTHNW was the worst case ever. Mostly because it was a known issue that went on for almost 4 years before ending the game.

 It is a problem with both players and game design.  Both share responsibility.  When the Devs how many other issues to get to first the only thing in our control is to regulate ourselves into fun conditions.  I only wish I had played EU this campaign and not NA looked like a fun time for you guys!  Another potential idea is to not have an NA and EU but put them together.  People in NA west coast are kinda hossed not matter what anyway the difference in ping to NA to EU isn't that big for many of us.  I suggest we could alternate where campaigns were hosted taking turn between NA and EU until the game has a larger population and diversity.

For this reason in this game I say we must keep R6-8 in God's Reach it is the only built in mechanism new and intermediate players have in their favor to allow them to one day  compete.  Does it split the population?   Yes.  Did more people quit the game because of stacked faction?  In my honest opinion   "Winning DUH" - Charlie Shen.

The point of the game is to win the throne.  It sounds like that alliance played the game as intended while others did not.  Win by any means necessary.  


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
17 hours ago, Felagunda said:

This is how "hardcore" players are and how they will always be, I fear. I have seen it any many other games / shards but the case of SOTHNW was the worst case ever. Mostly because it was a known issue that went on for almost 4 years before ending the game.

 

The problem isn't that some players are hardcore, the problem is that not enough hardcore players have decided to stick around and play Crowfall.

I keep seeing casual guilds and players pop in. Lot's of new and soon to be gone names I'm sure.

Sorry, casual doesn't fuking cut it here, this game requires way to much logistical grinding for casual to have a chance.

Dude keeps complaining about faction stacking, but I'm guessing hasn't been around long enough to know any real context. Factions were decent at various points but also one side gets completely outnumbered all the time. 1.5 years ago Balance amounted to like a dozen people while UDL was the zerg. But this year some groups decided to quit because the game was too much hard work, or the people that were doing a lot of the work for them switched sides. The people who decided to neckbeard and work hard on the logistical grind won, a lot.

How is any guild supposed (much less be demanded of) to balance out the game for every one else when people just quit all the time and can switch factions every two weeks. This game is enough work already to have to work on the behalf of other lazy players demands.

2 months ago I was averaging 30 hours a week in Crowfall, running 6 accounts constantly. 

Fights in this game are 90% won before the fights ever happen. Numbers, group comps, gear. You can sit there and mash buttons but if you out compete on those 3 components you will 90% win.

People aren't going to win sht running around in groups half full of assassins wearing green wartribe armor. /rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Felagunda said:

Try to tell the Dev's that.  They still have bigger issues to fix before they move on with the type of algorithium that can balance through boons and curses to each individual player based off of a mix of faction member numbers, gear, passive difference between the factions, and possible other factors in a given campaign zone.  Also I am pretty sure ACE stated they would never hard caps or soft caps for balancing in some Q&A.  That said it's still Pre Alpha.  I repeat ACE have bigger fish to fry first. Maybe ACE  can be made to see reason. 

It could turn out to be a good thing what Winterblades did.  They helped show the flaw in the design.  I honestly suggest we drive the point home by all joining balance.

I am wondering if anyone played Sword of the New World (the first one) at the end of it's life, 2006-09.  That situation is shaping up to look what we have developing in Crowfall.  In SOTNW, one alliance (group of guilds) owned and controlled 90% of the map for 3-4 years.  They prevented anyone from being able to compete through any means.  The population shrank at an alarming rate but the alliance in power never choose to break up and fight each other.  Instead they chose to continue stifle competition through any means possible.  The OP's alliance greed, need, desire to rule that game ultimately killed the game the game they loved so much and so much time and energy invested in.

This is how "hardcore" players are and how they will always be, I fear. I have seen it any many other games / shards but the case of SOTHNW was the worst case ever. Mostly because it was a known issue that went on for almost 4 years before ending the game.

 It is a problem with both players and game design.  Both share responsibility.  When the Devs how many other issues to get to first the only thing in our control is to regulate ourselves into fun conditions.  I only wish I had played EU this campaign and not NA looked like a fun time for you guys!  Another potential idea is to not have an NA and EU but put them together.  People in NA west coast are kinda hossed not matter what anyway the difference in ping to NA to EU isn't that big for many of us.  I suggest we could alternate where campaigns were hosted taking turn between NA and EU until the game has a larger population and diversity.

For this reason in this game I say we must keep R6-8 in God's Reach it is the only built in mechanism new and intermediate players have in their favor to allow them to one day  compete.  Does it split the population?   Yes.  Did more people quit the game because of stacked faction?  In my honest opinion   "Winning DUH" - Charlie Shen.

The sandbox PvP genre of MMOs has never and will never be built around fair fights.

It is deliberately built around encouraging players to create unfair fights through communal effort, strategy, politics, or just straight up grind.

Crowfall is not built to make sure everyone has a fair fight. It's built to make sure that when people win those wins don't create an unwinnable condition for a competent challenger.

I have been around for a while and I recall a time when a completely different set of guilds and factions were the so-called "unbeatable" element.

The fact is that crowfall doesn't have the slippery slope that typifies the kind of stagnation you're worried about. The only thing preventing you from overturning the current balance of power is your ability to play the game as well as they do. They're not stacking up some kind of insurmountable economic or territory advantage in crowfall. You can be in the same equipment, with the same abilities, same buffs, and same vessels within a week.

Punishing people for being good at the game is not the same thing as preventing an unwinnable scenario.

Crowfall has never ever been an unwinnable scenario for anyone. Mechanically or socially there is nothing preventing you from upsetting the current power balance any more than W/HoA upset the previous power balance, or when UDL upset the power balance of my guild owning a campaign full of nothing but newbies because everyone else was on vacation.

It has simply lacked enough people willing to compete. That is not a design problem. The design is structured specifically to ensure you always have a chance, and to ensure you can get every single tool the people you're trying to beat have in a few days.

Not weeks.

Not months.

Days.

The problem is those not willing to do what they did and actually get those tools, build those tight group specs, recruit and train people to use them, and drill those specs to their point of competency.

I've played games where "too big to fail" is a real thing. EVE is like that, SOTNW was like that, Archeage was like that. At a certain tipping point in those games the winners could arrest total control of vital mechanisms for further advancement and completely halt the grown of future challengers.

Crowfall is not like that. The people winning don't have the ability to stop you from becoming exactly as powerful as they are.

People being beaten by players that are better than you. That's it. That's the point of the game.

There is no magic game design switch that suddenly makes people care more about winning. If as many people cared as much about winning on the other factions as they do on balance, and put in the same amount of work, you'd see more competitive campaigns.

The reason this is not happening is that winning is unrewarding. There's no point to winning, it isn't rewarding, and thus a large number of players don't care very much. You can get the "grand prize" of a gold badge more easily on a losing faction. Winning costs tons in gear decay and replaces none of that wealth, and doesn't even earn you anything, not even a cosmetic trophy, that you couldn't get with less work on a losing team. That's the design flaw.

Winning is quite literally pointless in the current state of the game, so only a very specific type of player cares about winning.

Currently balance holds crowfall's hardest working guilds, chaos holds the largest number of players. Chaos has developed a pattern over ten campaigns of having strong potential early and becoming demoralized after a few defeats and basically giving up. Order has moved from being a pseudocompetitive team with chaos to either joining chaos in order to counter balance's dominant position, or joining balance to more efficiently beat up the people they hate in chaos.

CSC moving to chaos may be the shot in the arm they need in the short term, but in truth when you let people pick their team in a game with only three teams you're always going to experience the scaling effect of bandwagoning in a way you don't experience when you automatically assign those teams, or you let the players determine how many teams there are themselves.

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
5 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

There is no magic game design switch that suddenly makes people care more about winning. If as many people cared as much about winning on the other factions as they do on balance, and put in the same amount of work, you'd see more competitive campaigns.

It's not even just that balance cares more about winning, we have people willing to push for victory when pushing isn't convenient. The majority of suggestions I see for "fixing" the faction imbalance I've seen here on the forums amount to "let people who put in no effort have a chance to win against groups that do". ACE has made the field as level as can be realistically expected with the power curve as shallow as it is and resources available everywhere. Hell there is even gear dropping off wartribes so you don't even need to have crafters in your guild to get into the fight any more.

Maybe this isn't enough to keep the zoomers from running off to play MOBAs, but until ACE announces that Crowfall is dropping it's throne war MMO tagline what can they really be expected to do?

Share this post


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

 

Maybe this isn't enough to keep the zoomers from running off to play MOBAs, but until ACE announces that Crowfall is dropping it's throne war MMO tagline what can they really be expected to do?

What are you saying about my precious boy, BenQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DocTrine said:

The problem isn't that some players are hardcore, the problem is that not enough hardcore players have decided to stick around and play Crowfall.

I keep seeing casual guilds and players pop in. Lot's of new and soon to be gone names I'm sure.

Sorry, casual doesn't fuking cut it here, this game requires way to much logistical grinding for casual to have a chance.

Dude keeps complaining about faction stacking, but I'm guessing hasn't been around long enough to know any real context. Factions were decent at various points but also one side gets completely outnumbered all the time. 1.5 years ago Balance amounted to like a dozen people while UDL was the zerg. But this year some groups decided to quit because the game was too much hard work, or the people that were doing a lot of the work for them switched sides. The people who decided to neckbeard and work hard on the logistical grind won, a lot.

How is any guild supposed (much less be demanded of) to balance out the game for every one else when people just quit all the time and can switch factions every two weeks. This game is enough work already to have to work on the behalf of other lazy players demands.

2 months ago I was averaging 30 hours a week in Crowfall, running 6 accounts constantly. 

Fights in this game are 90% won before the fights ever happen. Numbers, group comps, gear. You can sit there and mash buttons but if you out compete on those 3 components you will 90% win.

People aren't going to win sht running around in groups half full of assassins wearing green wartribe armor. /rant

That's the interesting thing about Crowfall. Not EVERY player has to grind 40+ hours a week to be viable. If everyone chips in resources here and there, the entire guild can be geared out with little effort. In a weekend of solid harvesting 5-10 hardworking people can gear out 20. The other things you mention don't take hours of grinding but are still difficult to accomplish. Imagine if you could convince guild or faction-mates to switch characters or builds with one conversation instead of weeks of back and forth bickering. The social and organizational elements of this game are what set it apart. The people who just want to jump in and "get fights" or do small-scale ganking aren't fully engaging with the game's design.


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
On 9/4/2019 at 2:57 PM, Felagunda said:

Try to tell the Dev's that.  They still have bigger issues to fix before they move on with the type of algorithium that can balance through boons and curses to each individual player based off of a mix of faction member numbers, gear, passive difference between the factions, and possible other factors in a given campaign zone.  Also I am pretty sure ACE stated they would never hard caps or soft caps for balancing in some Q&A.  That said it's still Pre Alpha.  I repeat ACE have bigger fish to fry first. Maybe ACE  can be made to see reason. 

While artificial population regulators can work somewhat if done well, this is hard to pull off and Crowfall isn't designed for it.

I wouldn't mind seeing rewards based on population and player effort though and some sort of carry over system. 

No clue what launch rewards will look like but I hope they aren't everyone on the faction gets a trinket.

Rather see some sort of whatever that reflects the efforts put in by a player, guild, faction. That could be done in numerous ways and doesn't require retooling or creating an artificial environment where players are rewarded/punished for picking a side or playing with certain others.

Quote

It could turn out to be a good thing what Winterblades did.  They helped show the flaw in the design.  I honestly suggest we drive the point home by all joining balance.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a flaw to play a far from complete pre-alpha as a launched game. ACE presents the current version as a game, but it isn't.

If this was live and an actual population and different campaigns running, this would be less of an issue.

Newer and less skilled players wouldn't be going up against Winterblades, at least not wisely.

As is, guilds that have been together for years are against groups that met yesterday. People that play everyday and have since we could to people that installed a week ago and put in an hour or two here and there.

There is no natural separation.

If there was a healthy population and multiple campaigns with various risk/reward, players would likely split themselves naturally. 

Quote

I am wondering if anyone played Sword of the New World (the first one) at the end of it's life, 2006-09.  That situation is shaping up to look what we have developing in Crowfall.  In SOTNW, one alliance (group of guilds) owned and controlled 90% of the map for 3-4 years.  They prevented anyone from being able to compete through any means.  The population shrank at an alarming rate but the alliance in power never choose to break up and fight each other.  Instead they chose to continue stifle competition through any means possible.  The OP's alliance greed, need, desire to rule that game ultimately killed the game the game they loved so much and so much time and energy invested in.

This is how "hardcore" players are and how they will always be, I fear. I have seen it any many other games / shards but the case of SOTHNW was the worst case ever. Mostly because it was a known issue that went on for almost 4 years before ending the game.

ACE is very aware of this and stopping Uncle Bob (the alliance in SOTNW) was a main design goal. Unfortunately their solution seems to just have Campaigns that end. This doesn't really account for all the other elements that go into these games. As we've seen so far in testing, Uncle Bob is a live and well but just in a different form. Again, this is partly due to the pre-alpha element, but some is just unavoidable because of how these games work.

Quote

 It is a problem with both players and game design.  Both share responsibility.  When the Devs how many other issues to get to first the only thing in our control is to regulate ourselves into fun conditions. 

I'm guessing those winning are having fun. I wouldn't, but to each their own. Those winning don't need to put themselves at a disadvantage for the sake of you or anyone else, but it would be a nice attempt at helping the testing population and future testing. ACE needs to focus on finishing this and making it a game that people actually show up for. Then we'll see if steps need to be taken.

For now, don't take it too seriously and get what you can out of it. Everyone gets a participation trophy. I've play maybe an hour for the last few Trials (had to re-level after the wipe, boo) and get the same as someone that players 5 hours each day. Winning/losing is pointless except pride. If you are concerned that much, you should be able to take a step back and realize it's hopefully temporary and it isn't even a game, it's a pre-alpha of a game to be someday.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 7:42 AM, mandalore said:

 

Whats the sac value of a trial?  

 

They are so defeated by 2 20 man guilds that they would rather tank a trial than rally cohesively and unified against a competitive force.  CF is about alliances, people should make them instead of throwing a tantrum because they have lost 9 (+ ?) campaigns because they would rather act like a horde than an army.  

People play games because they are fun. They play social games like CF so they can have fun together.

If people stop playing, it's because playing isn't fun for them.  Gripe all you want about what they chose to do, it won't change the fact the thing they won't ever do, is play a game they don't think is fun. Losing 9+? times in a row, not fun.  Feeling like there isn't anything they can do as an individual, or with the groups they are involved with to change that situation, also not fun.

Don't think that they are not playing "something" together and having fun elsewhere.  Almost my whole guild is off playing Conan right now because for them it's more fun. They still get together, they still work together, still play other games together, and they still have fun together. 

Just not here right now, because as it is, pissing up the rope that is the balance alliance, just isn't that fun.

Share this post


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

People play games because they are fun. They play social games like CF so they can have fun together.

If people stop playing, it's because playing isn't fun for them.  Gripe all you want about what they chose to do, it won't change the fact the thing they won't ever do, is play a game they don't think is fun. Losing 9+? times in a row, not fun.  Feeling like there isn't anything they can do as an individual, or with the groups they are involved with to change that situation, also not fun.

Don't think that they are not playing "something" together and having fun elsewhere.  Almost my whole guild is off playing Conan right now because for them it's more fun. They still get together, they still work together, still play other games together, and they still have fun together. 

Just not here right now, because as it is, pissing up the rope that is the balance alliance, just isn't that fun.

Wouldn’t you think after losing 9+ fights that maybe you’re doing it wrong?  I don’t mean your guild I mean anybody.  If I’m playing league and I lose 9 straight games I have to acknowledge that some of that is on me and I need to change something.  If guilds are struggling with 20 man guilds in faction it’s going to suck with 50 man guilds in dregs.  

I empathize with it not being fun.   It hasn’t been fun for me for a while Bc of the forced faction play.  

Do you think this game is going to work for small guilds?  Shadowbane def didn’t work for them.  Will CF? 


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
45 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Wouldn’t you think after losing 9+ fights that maybe you’re doing it wrong?  I don’t mean your guild I mean anybody.  If I’m playing league and I lose 9 straight games I have to acknowledge that some of that is on me and I need to change something.  If guilds are struggling with 20 man guilds in faction it’s going to suck with 50 man guilds in dregs.  

I empathize with it not being fun.   It hasn’t been fun for me for a while Bc of the forced faction play.  

Do you think this game is going to work for small guilds?  Shadowbane def didn’t work for them.  Will CF? 

Yea, as long and ACE fully uses the potential in having multiple worlds open, and creates some rules to support multiple styles and skills of play. Just like MOBA's and pretty much every competitive system has ranks, CF has this possibility with worlds.

  1. Many world to chose from.  Right now part of the problem is the large guilds are crammed in with the smaller ones.  It's not just that the three biggest and most dedicated are all on the same team, it's also that they are all competing for the one world. No team, no matter the size, can compete on all the worlds if several dozen are active at a time. 
  2. Worlds starting at different times. Right now everyone is piling into the same world, same time, same seasons, same same same.  There was nowhere (Infected is a start in that direction) for new or less organized guilds to learn how to do that job against similarly organized/smaller groups, and there is nowhere to go and be competitive once you know your out of the fight. It's fight the biggest and the baddest all the time, or basically nobody. It would be like trying to learn LoL only playing against platinum level players.  You would get mopped up so fast, so badly, and so often, you really would not learn anything, and ultimately just would give up.  Without ways to participate at some level in skill and dedication divisions, there simply won't be any fun.
  3. Worlds that eliminate. I'm a bit surprised to be honest that even with the worlds being ended, and the connection to Travian Games who already use the elimination model, that this part of the conquest model is not more often talked about and planned for. Perhaps that will happen in the Dregs, with sub par teams having to quit the field/world and move onto the next one, long before winter and worlds end finishes things, thus giving them opportunity to enter a new world without the Uncle Bob that trounced them.   Right now that is already the behavior of players come winter. They move out of the campaign, and into GR. Much to the angst of the wolves, the sheep have no interest in being food.  Rewards to encourage them to stay will in my opinion simply not work as fighting human nature is just a losing battle.  Let them surrender, leave, and move on.
  4. Guild level restrictions.  As in,
    • Guilds and their members (marked at crow/account level) can only join X number of campaigns at a time, can only enter the same tier of campaigns as other guild members, etc. Right now that could be done between NA and EU.  Join NA, can't join EU, and vice-versa.
    • Restrict access to certain worlds based on guild size.  Some worlds just won't let you in if you have a guild larger than X.
    • Rank guilds based on success, and open some worlds that isolate guilds with less than X or even no wins under their belts. 
    Basically encourage and restrict until Uncle Bobs fight over worlds with other Uncle Bobs because that's the best option for them.

I think more people would participate in a world without the -W- HoA alliance vs what we currently have. Rules and controls just need to be put in place to fence in those that want that so -W- and HoA couldn't, and really wouldn't even want to sneak in with the full force of the guild.

Oh and for the record, I believe the statistics on average active guild size is around 10. Not CF guild size, but all games guild size.  I am pretty sure that Blair said that Raph Koster is fond of mentioning that statistic, and he seems like someone that would know.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

Wouldn’t you think after losing 9+ fights that maybe you’re doing it wrong?  I don’t mean your guild I mean anybody.  If I’m playing league and I lose 9 straight games I have to acknowledge that some of that is on me and I need to change something.  

Heh, I think most people will look for something else to blame or just play a different game. 

Share this post


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

Yea, as long and ACE fully uses the potential in having multiple worlds open, and creates some rules to support multiple styles and skills of play. Just like MOBA's and pretty much every competitive system has ranks, CF has this possibility with worlds.

  1. Many world to chose from.  Right now part of the problem is the large guilds are crammed in with the smaller ones.  It's not just that the three biggest and most dedicated are all on the same team, it's also that they are all competing for the one world. No team, no matter the size, can compete on all the worlds if several dozen are active at a time. 
  2. Worlds starting at different times. Right now everyone is piling into the same world, same time, same seasons, same same same.  There was nowhere (Infected is a start in that direction) for new or less organized guilds to learn how to do that job against similarly organized/smaller groups, and there is nowhere to go and be competitive once you know your out of the fight. It's fight the biggest and the baddest all the time, or basically nobody. It would be like trying to learn LoL only playing against platinum level players.  You would get mopped up so fast, so badly, and so often, you really would not learn anything, and ultimately just would give up.  Without ways to participate at some level in skill and dedication divisions, there simply won't be any fun.
  3. Worlds that eliminate. I'm a bit surprised to be honest that even with the worlds being ended, and the connection to Travian Games who already use the elimination model, that this part of the conquest model is not more often talked about and planned for. Perhaps that will happen in the Dregs, with sub par teams having to quit the field/world and move onto the next one, long before winter and worlds end finishes things, thus giving them opportunity to enter a new world without the Uncle Bob that trounced them.   Right now that is already the behavior of players come winter. They move out of the campaign, and into GR. Much to the angst of the wolves, the sheep have no interest in being food.  Rewards to encourage them to stay will in my opinion simply not work as fighting human nature is just a losing battle.  Let them surrender, leave, and move on.
  4. Guild level restrictions.  As in,
    • Guilds and their members (marked at crow/account level) can only join X number of campaigns at a time, can only enter the same tier of campaigns as other guild members, etc. Right now that could be done between NA and EU.  Join NA, can't join EU, and vice-versa.
    • Restrict access to certain worlds based on guild size.  Some worlds just won't let you in if you have a guild larger than X.
    • Rank guilds based on success, and open some worlds that isolate guilds with less than X or even no wins under their belts. 
    Basically encourage and restrict until Uncle Bobs fight over worlds with other Uncle Bobs because that's the best option for them.

I think more people would participate in a world without the -W- HoA alliance vs what we currently have. Rules and controls just need to be put in place to fence in those that want that so -W- and HoA couldn't, and really wouldn't even want to sneak in with the full force of the guild.

Oh and for the record, I believe the statistics on average active guild size is around 10. Not CF guild size, but all games guild size.  I am pretty sure that Blair said that Raph Koster is fond of mentioning that statistic, and he seems like someone that would know.

I don't think these are as viable of solutions as you do.  Gracen, WeaponsX and the rest of the 10th (they go by UxA now) all played SB and small guilds didn't really have a place in the ecosystem of guilds.  They either hide on the sidelines, got absorbed or got smashed and quit: I see nothing different that can prevent that.

Lets say there are 20 servers at launch, each with different time zones, different expected lifespans and a smattering of faction/dregs and each of those servers has 2,000-3,000 players (the dream).  Your expectation is that the find a way to measure both regular and irregular mechanics to accurately "tier" players to prevent stacking and I don't think you can accuracy track the irregular aspect of warfare and logistics that will help shape the battlefield.  This isn't a moba where the team has the same amount of people and are of relative skill.  How do you track a spies metric?  How about people who play for politics and sabotage?  Commanders?  Scouts?  Logistics?  Theorycrafting?  CF isn't a game of personal skill.  What you bring to the fight, what they have geared, what the commander leading that force does are all just as important as somebody's personal skill.  MOBA's lack all of that, it's easy to track my moba metrics: they are static.  After a few campaigns have ended then they can start adding victories to the metric (track it by guild/account) and then limit some campaigns with a few of those but even that's wonky imo.  Not every campaign will be the same length so is somebody who has won 3 two week campaigns better than somebody who barely lost a 6 month campaign?

Travian games isn't part of CF anymore.  That's an odd connection to bring up.  I also don't think Koster has been involved past the kickstarter so I'm not sure how influential his ideas from 3+ years or how closely they followed his ideas. 

CF is a game struggling to not be about Uncle Bob but almost every mechanic it has supports it.  Imports = Uncle Bob.  Winning Guilds carrying over their player knowledge, logistics chains and command knowledge = Uncle Bob.  Any system that allows the winner to carry over advantages from its victories to the next campaign will be Uncle Bob imo.  If I was them I'd allow exports to EK's but I'd be stingy as custard with imports.  CF is too esoteric too allow any advantages to be carried over.  Small guilds claiming sovereignty they can neither protect or enforce is another issue. 


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
41 minutes ago, mandalore said:

I don't think these are as viable of solutions as you do.  Gracen, WeaponsX and the rest of the 10th (they go by UxA now) all played SB and small guilds didn't really have a place in the ecosystem of guilds.  They either hide on the sidelines, got absorbed or got smashed and quit: I see nothing different that can prevent that.

Lets say there are 20 servers at launch, each with different time zones, different expected lifespans and a smattering of faction/dregs and each of those servers has 2,000-3,000 players (the dream).  Your expectation is that the find a way to measure both regular and irregular mechanics to accurately "tier" players to prevent stacking and I don't think you can accuracy track the irregular aspect of warfare and logistics that will help shape the battlefield.  This isn't a moba where the team has the same amount of people and are of relative skill.  How do you track a spies metric?  How about people who play for politics and sabotage?  Commanders?  Scouts?  Logistics?  Theorycrafting?  CF isn't a game of personal skill.  What you bring to the fight, what they have geared, what the commander leading that force does are all just as important as somebody's personal skill.  MOBA's lack all of that, it's easy to track my moba metrics: they are static.  After a few campaigns have ended then they can start adding victories to the metric (track it by guild/account) and then limit some campaigns with a few of those but even that's wonky imo.  Not every campaign will be the same length so is somebody who has won 3 two week campaigns better than somebody who barely lost a 6 month campaign?

Travian games isn't part of CF anymore.  That's an odd connection to bring up.  I also don't think Koster has been involved past the kickstarter so I'm not sure how influential his ideas from 3+ years or how closely they followed his ideas. 

CF is a game struggling to not be about Uncle Bob but almost every mechanic it has supports it.  Imports = Uncle Bob.  Winning Guilds carrying over their player knowledge, logistics chains and command knowledge = Uncle Bob.  Any system that allows the winner to carry over advantages from its victories to the next campaign will be Uncle Bob imo.  If I was them I'd allow exports to EK's but I'd be stingy as custard with imports.  CF is too esoteric too allow any advantages to be carried over.  Small guilds claiming sovereignty they can neither protect or enforce is another issue. 

Not tier by players, but by guilds, and by the only metric that matters, wins over other guilds.  Nothing and no metric is perfect and all are subject to Goodhart's law ("entities who are aware of a system of rewards and punishments will optimize their actions within said system to achieve their desired results.") but its wrong to assume that all efforts to quantify skills and create rules around those will be a failure despite some inaccuracy or deliberate gaming of the systems.  Thinking that way is just a form of the Nirvana fallacy.

It's on the players to join the guilds that suit them, and guilds to assimilate and bring up to speed new players, and it's up to ACE to compartmentalize the guilds that do that well consistently in such a way as to separate them from those that do poorly and want to be separated. 

Totally agree on stingy with imports in some campaigns. That could be one of the "easy" filters that would encourage Uncle Bobs with piles of resources, who would want to participate in worlds that let them bring all their advantages to bear, over worlds with Zero imports that they have to run into with a clean slate every time.

Self administered filtering would be ideal, but as we have seen from the last bunch of trials, there is more motivation to win endlessly, than there is to stage up for a good fight, and more motivation to simply not play, than to be knocked down equally endlessly.

There is a very good reason competitive professional sports have things like maximum team size limits, salary caps, and drafts where the best new prospects get forced onto the teams lowest annual results in standings, not that I am suggesting anything close to such a draconian measure for a game that is played for fun.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bads will like this change until they realize the people they were trying so hard to beat are gone from the game and not likely to return.  So the drive to accomplish gone, what next?  Craft stuff untouched, harvest stuff untouched, now without pvp, the need to replace or improve gear is removed.  The need for crafters diminishes.  They leave.  Gatherers and people trying the game out will be the final players, 10-25 max I’d say.  Game is dead.  Dreggs might bring some back but that’s probably years down the road.  And even if you come back for dregs format, the same broken interactions and abilities will slap you in the face.  Well job ACE.

Share this post


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

Not tier by players, but by guilds, and by the only metric that matters, wins over other guilds.  Nothing and no metric is perfect and all are subject to Goodhart's law ("entities who are aware of a system of rewards and punishments will optimize their actions within said system to achieve their desired results.") but its wrong to assume that all efforts to quantify skills and create rules around those will be a failure despite some inaccuracy or deliberate gaming of the systems.  Thinking that way is just a form of the Nirvana fallacy.

It's on the players to join the guilds that suit them, and guilds to assimilate and bring up to speed new players, and it's up to ACE to compartmentalize the guilds that do that well consistently in such a way as to separate them from those that do poorly and want to be separated. 

Totally agree on stingy with imports in some campaigns. That could be one of the "easy" filters that would encourage Uncle Bobs with piles of resources, who would want to participate in worlds that let them bring all their advantages to bear, over worlds with Zero imports that they have to run into with a clean slate every time.

Self administered filtering would be ideal, but as we have seen from the last bunch of trials, there is more motivation to win endlessly, than there is to stage up for a good fight, and more motivation to simply not play, than to be knocked down equally endlessly.

There is a very good reason competitive professional sports have things like maximum team size limits, salary caps, and drafts where the best new prospects get forced onto the teams lowest annual results in standings, not that I am suggesting anything close to such a draconian measure for a game that is played for fun.

 

The fact that 2 20 man guilds have crushed the population so completely that people have left the prealpha is astounding to me.  40 people have crushed the population.  There 50k backs and 40 people killed it?  That’s the weakest community in any format I’ve ever heard of.  


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
4 minutes ago, mandalore said:

The fact that 2 20 man guilds have crushed the population so completely that people have left the prealpha is astounding to me.  40 people have crushed the population.  There 50k backs and 40 people killed it?  That’s the weakest community in any format I’ve ever heard of.  

You cant honestly think a handful of players ruined this game. ACE made this mess, they listened to all the wrong feedback for so long now.

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...