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

My take on the new scoring system. The Good, Bad and Ideas

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Aedius said:

Per hour is kind of Pay2win, i know multiplt people that dont want to buy nor play this game because they remembered some bad experience with some Corean style game where multiple account where mandatory to be competitive.

 

Are we discussing how the game is paid for or how victory conditions are measured?


"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
1 hour ago, Andius said:

Are we discussing how the game is paid for or how victory conditions are measured?

Well, pay to win game is bad game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Aedius said:

Well, pay to win game is bad game.

What are you talking about?  How does pay to win come into this discussion at all?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a certain component of gameplay or meta-gameplay is deemed required to win, and you have to pay to enable said gameplay element - people denote it as P2W.

Like for example, there was a while in Black Desert online a while ago when the Ghillie suits were considered required for PvP. And well, you had to buy those on the cash shop. Many people considered that P2W. Not saying I did or do, but many people did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement with Jah for once in my life. I don't see how P2W entered this discussion at all. We're talking about conditions that divide points by member being measured by hour or by player or as I suggested a hybrid system that measures partially with both systems but not fully with either.

Nobody is discussing any kind of "pay-per-hour" mechanic. How is P2W even a part of this conversation?


"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

I think they've done a great job, they needed to make a new system to allow smaller more casual guilds to remain relevant during campaigns without being overshadowed by the massive guilds, the world felt dead before and now it gives people more reason to log in other than Sieges. 

In regards to the PvP not being the focus anymore I couldn't disagree more, simply because one way or another everything in this game either contributes or encourages PvP from harvesting to objectives in the new system.

This new system does make it harder for larger guilds to win simply because they'll now have more competition, I'm sure the devs said they wanted the game to not be just about winning and that they wanted it to be a fun experience for those who lose too. 

Obviously this new system is subject to change and I'm sure it will be polished properly. I am a casual player and have tested on and off so I could be misunderstanding some of the win conditions and the way some campaigns work, but i definitely think its a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DocHollidaze said:

If a certain component of gameplay or meta-gameplay is deemed required to win, and you have to pay to enable said gameplay element - people denote it as P2W.

Like for example, there was a while in Black Desert online a while ago when the Ghillie suits were considered required for PvP. And well, you had to buy those on the cash shop. Many people considered that P2W. Not saying I did or do, but many people did.

How does that relate to this thread?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aedius said:

Per hour is kind of Pay2win, i know multiplt people that dont want to buy nor play this game because they remembered some bad experience with some Corean style game where multiple account where mandatory to be competitive.

 

Per hour would simply promote gaming the system either by artificially reducing numbers or inflating them by afk or multiple accounts. Multiple accounts will give you a benefit in almost every mmo, same with folks having multiple gaming rigs. 

Eastern games tend to be extremely p2w and/or grindy. This game is nothing like those types.

Share this post


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

What are you talking about?  How does pay to win come into this discussion at all?

Guilds bringing in alts to do all there crafting and things is more of a determent in the per player system over player per hour system because they have to make that choice to bring them in or leave them out and reply in imports to get the crafted goods in. so changing it would favor multi accounts more beneficial in the proposed system where buying more account is more play to win when its not as much of a determent. but anyway my thought on it.
I think its better per player over per player per hour basicly with what andius mentioned on previous page especialy this one:
It may incentivize people to NOT PLAY THE GAME sometimes, for instance logging in for sieges only, or avoiding solo play if their guildies aren't on, as more can be accomplished in a group
when it more beneficial to not play the game then there a problem with the game.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, veeshan said:

when it more beneficial to not play the game then there a problem with the game.

Black desert online perfected afk gaming.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, McTan said:

I'm not sure a per player-hour is a good idea. Because then it will be a: "Player X was afk for ten minutes!" and leads us to a very dark place, very fast. At least the per-member calculations and expectations can be communicated at the beginning of a campaign and not be as intensely scrutinized on a minute-to-minute, but maybe a season-to-season scale.

I see your point, but there is an auto logout timer to mitigate that somewhat.

If someone is deliberately preventing that from doing its job, then that's on them. 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I think that divine favor wasn't needed. What we really need is a way for the smaller guilds to join in a nation or alliance with larger guilds, or to form a large alliance of smaller guilds. The divine favor system did get some people out in the world for fights (killing thralls, etc..) but it also creates a perverse incentive where you are punished for engaging in the incidental pvp that comes as a result. It's JUST LIKE the incentive we had at the beginning of 5.8 when the right play was to avoid each other and cap forts until the other side got bored and logged off. The main difference is that we don't have any way to track contribution towards the scorecard, so we don't know when to stop and take a break. Now you're punishing players who have a family, job, responsibilities or anyone who just doesn't enjoy that activity. 

Only a few of Crowfall's features are actually fun the majority of the player base. One is the incidental PvP you get out in the open world, and you can really get that far more frequently and with less of a time investment doing things you hate in any recently released BR game. The other is medium to large scale group vs. group fight and siege mechanics. Nothing is quite so memorable as a large scale fight with a skilled opponent- both sides forming well supported, well designed groups and testing their ability to organize, prepare and tactically control the battlefield. It can hardly be found anywhere in recently released MMOs, and it's something Crowfall does extremely well. The fights themselves aren't AoE spam fests, each side has to carefully select targets and coordinate abilities to make plays. It is literally the game's best feature and we should be trying to find ways to facilitate it as much as possible.


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
4 hours ago, veeshan said:


It may incentivize people to NOT PLAY THE GAME sometimes, for instance logging in for sieges only, or avoiding solo play if their guildies aren't on, as more can be accomplished in a group
when it more beneficial to not play the game then there a problem with the game.

Sure, but this wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the competitive nature of the game. Forcing people who can't log in for most of the day to compete with people who can log in for most of the day is hardly an enjoyable experience. The current system also does nothing to help solo players, as each of the activities it promotes are more efficiently and securely done with groups of players working together. Individuals are weak, groups are strong.


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
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, soulein said:

Sure, but this wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the competitive nature of the game. Forcing people who can't log in for most of the day to compete with people who can log in for most of the day is hardly an enjoyable experience. The current system also does nothing to help solo players, as each of the activities it promotes are more efficiently and securely done with groups of players working together. Individuals are weak, groups are strong.

So maybe the issue is they need more solo friendly cards in the mix of possible outcomes for the missions. you complained about the flower picking card for example but thats one that works well for solo play to get on the board. Killing mobs is another one like thralls are soloable easily and splitting up to get more ground to kill thrall (any pve mobs) is another one. Some tasks are better to zerg which is perfect for you guy since u can lock any small groups out by shear numbers. so they need a way to stay competative that isnt a numbers game.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

So maybe the issue is they need more solo friendly cards in the mix of possible outcomes for the missions. you complained about the flower picking card for example but thats one that works well for solo play to get on the board. Killing mobs is another one like thralls are soloable easily and splitting up to get more ground to kill thrall (any pve mobs) is another one. Some tasks are better to zerg which is perfect for you guy since u can lock any small groups out by shear numbers. so they need a way to stay competative that isnt a numbers game.

Why can't they just counter zerg with an alliance? Just federate or swear fealty until you're the same size as your opponent. That actually requires people to be social, something sorely lacking in modern MMOs.

Anything that you think is good for "solo play" will be taken by the large guilds and industrialized. Now no one is happy! The solo players get ganked by a 5-man team (which they promptly refer to as a zerg) and logout. The players in the top three guilds on the scoreboard are now fulfilling flower quotas instead of looking for pvp. Any pvp that does happen becomes a distraction from the all important flower picking operation. Any 24/7 activity that translates directly into points will eventually become cancerous to all but the most masochistic of players. The same thing happened with 24/7 forts back in the Trial campaigns. 


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
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, soulein said:

AoE spam fests

Icecaller.

6 hours ago, soulein said:

Why can't they just counter zerg with an alliance?

Because 1 organised guild with 50 players will win against 5 guilds with 10 players each.And this isn't even bringing the discussion if you have multiple zerg guilds allying to keep the world under control.

 

Edited by pamintandrei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, soulein said:

The more I think about this, the more I think that divine favor wasn't needed. What we really need is a way for the smaller guilds to join in a nation or alliance with larger guilds, or to form a large alliance of smaller guilds. The divine favor system did get some people out in the world for fights (killing thralls, etc..) but it also creates a perverse incentive where you are punished for engaging in the incidental pvp that comes as a result. It's JUST LIKE the incentive we had at the beginning of 5.8 when the right play was to avoid each other and cap forts until the other side got bored and logged off. The main difference is that we don't have any way to track contribution towards the scorecard, so we don't know when to stop and take a break. Now you're punishing players who have a family, job, responsibilities or anyone who just doesn't enjoy that activity.

We definitly need those cards :
- small guild will try to get 5 point then 10 then 15 point per campaign.

at some point, they will group with another guild.

How do you choose a guild for an alliance ?

By the point : you need people to get outpost ? You can find that in the score board.
Maybe territory domination should give more point, but the system seems good for small actives guilds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, soulein said:

The other is medium to large scale group vs. group fight and siege mechanics. Nothing is quite so memorable as a large scale fight with a skilled opponent- both sides forming well supported, well designed groups and testing their ability to organize, prepare and tactically control the battlefield. It can hardly be found anywhere in recently released MMOs, and it's something Crowfall does extremely well. The fights themselves aren't AoE spam fests, each side has to carefully select targets and coordinate abilities to make plays. It is literally the game's best feature and we should be trying to find ways to facilitate it as much as possible.

Funny thing that i think that one of the worst thing about Crowfall at the moment is large scale fight. Because of the lack of efficient AoE to help smaller groups to tear down bigger one (though, not going full ESO style with 5 man groups instantly killing 70/80 pugs, but find a nice balance in-between would be great.). Early 5.110 was great in this optic. But now to play DPS i'd go with the icecaller hogwash and that doesn't help at all.


1459889836-gein-william.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a different opinion on the current Guild system and winning conditions. From my prospective, DEVs actually move in the right direction.

During the TEST phase we have very limited population. When this 5.11 version will go LIVE and many thousands players will receive invitations to join the game it will be a very different story because there will be much more big guilds. So guilds which are small now will become big ones. This increased population will drastically change the whole system and most likely the DEVs will have to change the system again...

I also think that no guild should be able to win EVERYTHING. Thus, I do not understand the complaints that you have to meet winning conditions per player so that you need to keep your guild fit. If you are a competitive guild and would like to win cards during the campaign, than you probably have to CHOOSE to be fit and active all the time. If your main goal is to DOMINATE the map and win by points (not by cards) you CHOOSE to have a large guild and to dominate the map. Large guilds will never be able to be as effective as smaller guilds in winning cards and will mostly gather all together during the siege times. And I feel that it is fair.

Once again: none should be able to win EVERYTHING. In this case you will need to make that HARD CHOICE of which strategy should you follow.

Moreover, the current system punishes those guilds who have a lot of players with twink accounts in the guild for Crafting and Gathering along with fighting focused characters. And I strongly support that. That makes the game more fair for everybody.

 

P.S. To sum up, I wanna say that it is TOO EARLY to jump to any solid conclusions and make any big changes about the campaign and guild rules after just ONE very short 4-day Campaign.

Edited by Kira_Night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...