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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well ... let's try to explain it again to you. But I promise it will be the last. If you lose your farm and that is a risk in an open world game. You will not lose the game, you can try again, you can make a new strategy to farm, join your guild and program something for the caravans. You can gank other people by doing the caravan. There are several farm options and strategies. But if you have an Alliance that dominates the game and maps with either farm or territory fights. You will not play. That simple. The deal is not whether you will always be able to fame and leave with all the loot or that you will always fight for territory and win. The point is to have the OPPORTUNITY for that to happen. But if only one Alliance dominates the game, you won't even have the opportunity and that's the problem. You understood? I can make a drawing, because I already made some 20 topics telling you that.

 

Their arguments:

The game was not made for that

make friends

Do fights always have to be with the same number of players? (and that's not what we're talking about, I'm sorry.)

I almost forgot another one.

Which game has this?

 

Making a bunch of artificial restrictions and trying to micromanage players makes no sense in these types of games?

Limit the number of players in a guild and the maximum number of alliances? (remembering that this was just an idea, we had other cool ideas in this discussion) Just to not have a big alliance that dominates the game and makes it more competitive.
Are there too many artificial restrictions and trying to micromanage players?

Edited by ViskFlw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ViskFlw said:

Limit the number of players in a guild and the maximum number of alliances? (remembering that this was just an idea, we had other cool ideas in this discussion) Just to not have a big alliance that dominates the game and makes it more competitive.

  • Limited guild size = Multiple guilds working together = Alliance.
  • Limiting alliance size = Multiple alliances and guilds working together = Same zerg problem.
    • Restricting numbers makes it slightly harder to play, that's it.
  • Other games do this and it doesn't change much.
    • If you've played Albion then you should know that. The guilds/alliances that were doing well in beta, launch, months in, and today are completely different. That is with a game with a permanent map, not campaigns that end every few days/weeks/months and reset the board. Small guilds still have value and fun.
  • Your suggestion of punishing players/guilds for working around such rules is never going to happen because of the logistics.
29 minutes ago, ViskFlw said:

if only one Alliance dominates the game, you won't even have the opportunity and that's the problem.

  • I agree but that is not an impossible problem for players to deal with on their own as they have in every game without devs holding our hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ViskFLW

”If you join Purple Tsunami.....”

 

Holy poorly made dergs I laughed so hard soda almost shot out of my nose. All I’m saying is it’s official now because it made the official Crowfall forums. @Dern @Ruq you’re welcome.

Share this post


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

Fundamental issue with Crowfall is the game is incredibly number sensitive when played competitively. There have been threads in here or in Ace Development Partners forums on this issue going back to 2017 (blazzen is the OP in one of them, in fact).  In Shadowbane, Darkfall, and EVE engaging against uneven numbers was commonplace.  Its an open world sandbox, no one is going to have exactly the same numbers. A differential of +/- 20% was routine and the outcome of such a fight is not a foregone conclusion.

Crowfall has a low skill ceiling, get-out-of-jail-free cards (ults), little customization (which was nerfed in 5.11), and is not balanced around rock-paper-scissors counter play or focused on rewarding coordination (like applying critical CC/Debuffs at same time to secure kills). 

Alliances are needed long term so that players can self-police and counter-balance against larger forces.  This is just especially keenly felt in Crowfall right now because of how significant a role numbers plays in CF. 

Alliances should likely become the scoring entity, requiring allied players to split benefits amongst themselves.  This is provides a constant downward pressure on alliances--provided the rewards are worth possessing. 

Some folks have suggested alliances should be able to be created ad-hoc and be temporary (like what the "small" guilds did for Saturday night).  Alliances, especially if they are going to suspend friendly fire should be a commitment that doesn't get turned on and off at will (and thus exploited and gamed).  Betrayal and swapping sides needs to be an option, but creating an "alliance" and turning off friendly fire should not be something done for a siege hour and immediately desolved afterward.  Communication problems and the inherent difficulty keeping 100s of players happy is the inherent problem of a true "zerg" and part of what naturally makes them unstable and prone to failure cascades if victories are no longer coming easily.

A group of 30-40 is not a zerg, despite many of the complaints in this thread.  One of the OPs post suggest a "zerg" of 15 guys which is a joke.  The real zergs will be hundreds of players and are more likely the product of a series of allied guilds than hundreds of players all under one guild tag.  

This is totally correct! I don't know how they are going to do balancing without messing with number caps. I truly hope they don't do a "zerg debuff" to fix the issue with the core issue which is the ceiling is so low that a "casual player" that is good at games can be up to par with someone "hardcore." Now with the time gates on things it may take a bit more effort for the better player. I think a lot of people will hit skill ceiling before they even get close to their skill cap. IE if someone is a 2000+ wow 3s player (only using it as a reference) they will hit the skill ceiling, and may be near 75% of their actual skill cap of what they can do as a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is now the right time for the Zerg to complain about the scoring system and win conditions? =))


I have never claimed any leadership positions in DIS. I express my own thoughts and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, neven said:

Now is the time for the zerg to congratulate KGV on their victory,  Good work KGV!  

I just did.


I have never claimed any leadership positions in DIS. I express my own thoughts and opinions.

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...