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

UPDATED REVIEW..where are we??? Not far.. and its sad. :(

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Like I said above. 
 

There are not many comparisons to be made in MMORPG land regarding campaign resets. Those sorts of things however are common in elimination/RTS type games like Travian, and the currently in beta Starborne. 

It's going to take a while for ACE to find all the dial settings that are ideal for specific group sizes. Smaller groups will tend to enter campaigns for smaller guilds, or those campaigns that don't have known large guild presence. The grease for those wheels is supposed to eventually be the EK's, which have been deliberately neglected during the build of the core game, where players and guilds can trade for the interdependent things they can't get for themselves. 

So some worlds can be configured to favor the larger guilds, and other worlds the smaller ones.  It's a question of how many of each at any given time should be running, given the active population. 

It's not one size fits all, and anyone who thinks that way is doing so with limited vision IMHO.

well  i dont know to me doesn't make sense creating worlds for bigger and worlds for smaller groups of player and it's just because the biggers have the option to split themselfs in different groups and still being competitive in any campaign (if the meta game is mandatory in that way if not they just ignore it) but there is no way to think that small groups will duplicate in size or triplicate and the most important of this is that normaly it's much more than duplicate or triplicate in size the difference in between. another thing to take in count is what number determines what is a big guild or smaller so now you have the same problem as before multiplicated by 2 times now you need to predifine the small guild number and the big guild number which means you have to create both worlds with different meta games in terms of population which highly increase the dificulty of it's own purpose and at very top of that let say the "big guild number" you have to make an average so what happens with the bigger guild they actually have to split aswell because they're above the average.

In conclusion that just add more dificulty on this purpose and doesn't really solve any problem at all.

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


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

well  i dont know to me doesn't make sense creating worlds for bigger and worlds for smaller groups of player and it's just because the biggers have the option to split themselfs in different groups and still being competitive in any campaign (if the meta game is mandatory in that way if not they just ignore it) but there is no way to think that small groups will duplicate in size or triplicate and the most important of this is that normaly it's much more than duplicate or triplicate in size the difference in between. another thing to take in count is what number determines what is a big guild or smaller so now you have the same problem as before multiplicated by 2 times now you need to predifine the small guild number and the big guild number which means you have to create both worlds with different meta games in terms of population which highly increase the dificulty of it's own purpose and at very top of that let say the "big guild number" you have to make an average so what happens with the bigger guild they actually have to split aswell because they're above the average.

In conclusion that just add more dificulty on this purpose and doesn't really solve any problem at all.

I just don't agree with you here, at all TBH. Large guilds will want to play like a large guild, and small guilds will want to play like small guilds. 

If you have 35 very active players, your guild will not make the choice to play in the 30 member worlds by splitting your guild into two, less effective groups, that will still have problems coordinating and working together because they split their efforts.  Since guild membership is on the account level, not in the campaign level, there will be a metric crap ton of messing around to try to support scenarios of multiple sub groups playing in one world as a single group, AND at the same time try to participate in a big guild world at the same time. This game is also not kind to teams who decide to split resources.  It requires enough effort that focus on one world at a time will be critical to success. 

There is also in the presented view, an assumption that winning one type of world will be equal to winning another, but that is not a valid assumption.  If ACE gives out 30 top team rewards in the 30 member world, and up to full guild membership in unlimited worlds, do you really think that sub guild members, or split guilds will be happy getting no rewards because they split teams into the 30 member world?

Personally I am not worried about this, because of the way CF is designed to have different worlds, with different rules.  Lets take a guess at 200k users, with worlds that hold 10k users each as an absolute cap. (Other games with campaigns seem to cap out between 1/3 and 1/4 of those numbers). That would mean that there would be 20 different campaigns going on at once.  Given a moderate lifetime of a campaign of say 2 months (60 Days). That would allow for 2.5 campaign starts per week. So say every two weeks there are 4 small group (<30) campaigns, and 1 large group (>30) campaigns, I think you would find a pretty close balance. 

IF and that's a huge capitals IF, a large guild (>120 active members) decided to try to split into 4 seperate guilds of 30 to dominate a small guild server, the answer for the small guilds would be simple.  All smaller guilds that found themselves in an early "Uncle bob" roll over, could simply wait 3-4 days, abandon the large guild dominated server, and jump into a different small server where they had a competitive chance, leaving the large guild to play kings of an empty hill. 

In short, I very much believe in the promise on the FAQ.

Quote

Our intention is to make this a community-driven process. We’ll take the best ideas we find, wherever they come from, and give them a shot. If an idea gains enough traction and fits within the architecture, we’ll try it.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

I just don't agree with you here, at all TBH. Large guilds will want to play like a large guild, and small guilds will want to play like small guilds. 

If you have 35 very active players, your guild will not make the choice to play in the 30 member worlds by splitting your guild into two, less effective groups, that will still have problems coordinating and working together because they split their efforts.  Since guild membership is on the account level, not in the campaign level, there will be a metric crap ton of messing around to try to support scenarios of multiple sub groups playing in one world as a single group, AND at the same time try to participate in a big guild world at the same time. This game is also not kind to teams who decide to split resources.  It requires enough effort that focus on one world at a time will be critical to success. 

There is also in the presented view, an assumption that winning one type of world will be equal to winning another, but that is not a valid assumption.  If ACE gives out 30 top team rewards in the 30 member world, and up to full guild membership in unlimited worlds, do you really think that sub guild members, or split guilds will be happy getting no rewards because they split teams into the 30 member world?

Personally I am not worried about this, because of the way CF is designed to have different worlds, with different rules.  Lets take a guess at 200k users, with worlds that hold 10k users each as an absolute cap. (Other games with campaigns seem to cap out between 1/3 and 1/4 of those numbers). That would mean that there would be 20 different campaigns going on at once.  Given a moderate lifetime of a campaign of say 2 months (60 Days). That would allow for 2.5 campaign starts per week. So say every two weeks there are 4 small group (<30) campaigns, and 1 large group (>30) campaigns, I think you would find a pretty close balance. 

IF and that's a huge capitals IF, a large guild (>120 active members) decided to try to split into 4 seperate guilds of 30 to dominate a small guild server, the answer for the small guilds would be simple.  All smaller guilds that found themselves in an early "Uncle bob" roll over, could simply wait 3-4 days, abandon the large guild dominated server, and jump into a different small server where they had a competitive chance, leaving the large guild to play kings of an empty hill. 

In short, I very much believe in the promise on the FAQ.

 

the idea is that using this card system related to the effort dedicated for each member of a guild [That actually joined the campaing] on the objective of the card. which take in count each player contribution instead as the whole guild, then you could try to add bonuses to the cards system arround a certain group size let say between 20 to 30 which honestly those are the best number for any guild or community to be able and confortable to reach and play simultaniously so you could add an bonus or the entire card focused on that numbers an example could be as follow: this objective is done by participating 20 players atleast to a maximum of 30 taking the example of the skulls for each member so you add a bonus on that card which stablishes a certain amount of players that should be in participating so you can actually manage the size of the groups of your campaigns like that establishing a minimum and a maximum of members for being able to complete those bonus of the current cards or instead of adding like a bonus thing just do it as a new whole card.

This could match perfectly with your idea where campaings are more focused on lets say groups of 20 to 30 active guild mates players to any other kind of bigger numbers as could be 50 to 60 or 90 to 100 whatever i think adding those kind of bonuses to the card system could manage the direction of each campaings in teams size terms. 

I would create those cards related to the effort dedicated for each member of a guild [That actually joined the campaing atleast 1 time instead of the whole guild(online/offline status)] on the objective of the card. those cards are going to bring a mandatory size of that campaing and you can change it to a bigger numbers for other campaings. 

So i need to clarify that this is a kind of idea that i have so you need to clarify certain numbers of what's size is supposed to be on each campaing, obviously for me that is needed to be done by design. because if not people simply ignore it.

That said i respect this FAQ Statement "Our intention is to make this a community-driven process. We’ll take the best ideas we find, wherever they come from, and give them a shot. If an idea gains enough traction and fits within the architecture, we’ll try it." 

The result of that is out there to check it out in other games which his open world sucks and their main things are instanced. So one more time if you make it as community driven it just follows their own needs which always translate the more players on our side the less we have to deal with and every one want to take part of the piece of cake instead of fighting each other which is more healthy for a pvp game.

Finally i do respect it but i think it's incorrect point of view. i have already explained why and how i see it from here related to lots of mistakes done out there and if your decision is to let it open to a whole community driven i will have to accept it but never will become a better game in that way. Recently speaking of AoC (Ashes) Steven said that he don't want to call his mmo as sandbox because the developers vaguely missunderstand the concept and they make the statements of a game and then they call it as sandbox on purpose to dont create more content maybe this could be one example. i trully dont think it's the case because i have seen this team for years developing his game so in conclusion my personal opinion of this point "community-driven" it's a mistake.

 

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

In short, I very much believe in the promise on the FAQ.

LMAO. Now that made me laugh. My posts are littered with quotes from their FAQ and heck, outright statements by ACE team over the years, along with kickstarter info. Many of those 'promises' were forgotten or abandoned over the years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When huge population comes to play game on release, because of unique CF tech ACE will release several campaigns with unique rulesets. One will favor zerging, one will favor small scale. Player will pick campaign they like. Everyone is happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2020 at 3:00 PM, EnsaimadaBlanca said:

i dont know to me doesn't make sense creating worlds for bigger and worlds for smaller groups of player and it's just because the biggers have the option to split themselfs in different groups and still being competitive

I will start here.  I will try to explain things better so people that only drop into game from time to time will understand the point I am trying to make.  Not trying to put you down, just want to let you know my opinion.  

Crowfall has always been a game that has mentioned different campaigns with different rule sets.  If 2 campaigns started on the same day, the large guild would have to decide with one to play.  Can't defend everything.  Lose the one campaign because most are in the other defending. Along with the Import/Export Caps on each campaign, makes another decision for the Guilds.  A smaller guild would want to bring in more items because they might not have the dedicated trained crafters/gatherers to start from scratch.

Zergs are going to happen and do.  Even in the population size we have now.  There is no way to really control Guild/Friendly/Ally size.  All this can be done without any ingame mechanic.  Not the controling it, but the formation of.  Alot of us have already seen long periods of Crowfall with larger guilds.  The community usually finds a way to knock them down.  Either by teaming up or avoiding them so they get bored and split themselves.  Seen both tactics so far.  I don't think an in game mechanic needs to be implemented. 

Card system I don't believe is an anti-zerg mechanic.  One Card gives points based on what the guild turned in divided by how many players were active that campaign.  Small guild gathers 5 items divided by 5 members = 1. Large guild gathers 20 items divided by 20 members = 1.  Equalizes the large vs small.  On a different card is for "Landless guild" destroying x number enemy siege engines.  Most large guild take keeps and mini-keeps.  This helps smaller guilds that can't man the battleground with enough bodies to take or defend such items.

Open world . . . uh ok my understanding that WoW has areas like Barrens that is Suppose to be open world pvp that you mentioned, but what Barrens number are you on. I am on Barrens 3.  Crowfall is not instanced.  Campaigns are different worlds with portals in that world to get from one place to another.  Going to a different Campaign is really like going to a different world with different rules. God's Reach is a never ending world with it's own rules.

Benefit for willing Campaign is coming, and it will be before beta. They are working alot on other things.  I believe I saw a campaign that had a reward but not positive.  So it might be in game but not turned on right not.  I have not seen this affect the number of people playing in the campaigns though.

PVP game.  Alot of people get this confused.  Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game?  I enjoy the pvp in game so far.  Yes it needs work, but pretty good for Alpha.  It just seems to get better to me.  I also craft and gather alot of stuff.  I enjoy the crafting.  So from what I read, you said that the Crafters/gatherers/builders/traders/pig runners should go play a different game so they can do those things without the pvp.   Nah. . . that's no fun.  I wanna do that stuff here so I can PVP.  Alot of this game is based off the crafters.  We had a reset not long ago and the crafting skill is not high enough yet to make a difference.  Once crafted gear is better then wartribe gear, then this game does a flip.  Most everyone will have to be gathering to give things to the crafters to get the gear they want.  Or to get money to buy the Crafted gear with gold.  So many hours of PVE is involved so me and my buddies can go murder people.

Map size has already been an issue with players logging in thier alt accounts to keep the enemy off the map.  There should be no limit except to protect the server from blowing up.

player numbers on test.  This is hard to calculate because it fluxes so much.  People are not playing on the test server because it's for testing.  Points don't really matter.  The version on Live server now is way down because there is a wipe coming. I have seen a few organized fights set up on test.  The current population on test will find almost all the game breaking bugs.  Then it will move to Live, where more people care about points and stuff.  

The current Live server saw a 150 person siege.  I only staggered once, and that was upon first entering that parcel.  Frame rates have been climbing with each optimization pass they do.  And they know they need to still work on that.

Traders/Economy  is in game. It is not that obvious right now due to wipes and crafter skill.  Crafter skill comes into play with this alot.  Right now that only things to sell are WarTribe drops.  People have set up vendors for those items.  There is also EK's that have vendor towns.  In previous versions, some EK's turn into major vendor areas.  Just about anything you would want was in those EK's.  Those vendors were put up to sell the excess crafting items or overflow.  To get a nice piece of gear, you might have to craft 15.  Instead of destroying the 14 you don't wanna use, you would put it on a vendor.  It would be better for someone.   There is also a "Free City" in some campaigns that is a different zone with pvp turned off and has vendor slots.  This is to help with the limited Imports/Exports on certain campaigns.  Can't buy something from an EK and import it into campaign if the campaign is set to zero imports.

Edited by DarnHippy

Share this post


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

I will start here.  I will try to explain things better so people that only drop into game from time to time will understand the point I am trying to make.  Not trying to put you down, just want to let you know my opinion.  

Crowfall has always been a game that has mentioned different campaigns with different rule sets.  If 2 campaigns started on the same day, the large guild would have to decide with one to play.  Can't defend everything.  Lose the one campaign because most are in the other defending. Along with the Import/Export Caps on each campaign, makes another decision for the Guilds.  A smaller guild would want to bring in more items because they might not have the dedicated trained crafters/gatherers to start from scratch.

Zergs are going to happen and do.  Even in the population size we have now.  There is no way to really control Guild/Friendly/Ally size.  All this can be done without any ingame mechanic.  Not the controling it, but the formation of.  Alot of us have already seen long periods of Crowfall with larger guilds.  The community usually finds a way to knock them down.  Either by teaming up or avoiding them so they get bored and split themselves.  Seen both tactics so far.  I don't think an in game mechanic needs to be implemented. 

Card system I don't believe is an anti-zerg mechanic.  One Card gives points based on what the guild turned in divided by how many players were active that campaign.  Small guild gathers 5 items divided by 5 members = 1. Large guild gathers 20 items divided by 20 members = 1.  Equalizes the large vs small.  On a different card is for "Landless guild" destroying x number enemy siege engines.  Most large guild take keeps and mini-keeps.  This helps smaller guilds that can't man the battleground with enough bodies to take or defend such items.

Open world . . . uh ok my understanding that WoW has areas like Barrens that is Suppose to be open world pvp that you mentioned, but what Barrens number are you on. I am on Barrens 3.  Crowfall is not instanced.  Campaigns are different worlds with portals in that world to get from one place to another.  Going to a different Campaign is really like going to a different world with different rules. God's Reach is a never ending world with it's own rules.

Benefit for willing Campaign is coming, and it will be before beta. They are working alot on other things.  I believe I saw a campaign that had a reward but not positive.  So it might be in game but not turned on right not.  I have not seen this affect the number of people playing in the campaigns though.

PVP game.  Alot of people get this confused.  Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game?  I enjoy the pvp in game so far.  Yes it needs work, but pretty good for Alpha.  It just seems to get better to me.  I also craft and gather alot of stuff.  I enjoy the crafting.  So from what I read, you said that the Crafters/gatherers/builders/traders/pig runners should go play a different game so they can do those things without the pvp.   Nah. . . that's no fun.  I wanna do that stuff here so I can PVP.  Alot of this game is based off the crafters.  We had a reset not long ago and the crafting skill is not high enough yet to make a difference.  Once crafted gear is better then wartribe gear, then this game does a flip.  Most everyone will have to be gathering to give things to the crafters to get the gear they want.  Or to get money to buy the Crafted gear with gold.  So many hours of PVE is involved so me and my buddies can go murder people.

Map size has already been an issue with players logging in thier alt accounts to keep the enemy off the map.  There should be no limit except to protect the server from blowing up.

player numbers on test.  This is hard to calculate because it fluxes so much.  People are not playing on the test server because it's for testing.  Points don't really matter.  The version on Live server now is way down because there is a wipe coming. I have seen a few organized fights set up on test.  The current population on test will find almost all the game breaking bugs.  Then it will move to Live, where more people care about points and stuff.  

The current Live server saw a 150 person siege.  I only staggered once, and that was upon first entering that parcel.  Frame rates have been climbing with each optimization pass they do.  And they know they need to still work on that.

Traders/Economy  is in game. It is not that obvious right now due to wipes and crafter skill.  Crafter skill comes into play with this alot.  Right now that only things to sell are WarTribe drops.  People have set up vendors for those items.  There is also EK's that have vendor towns.  In previous versions, some EK's turn into major vendor areas.  Just about anything you would want was in those EK's.  Those vendors were put up to sell the excess crafting items or overflow.  To get a nice piece of gear, you might have to craft 15.  Instead of destroying the 14 you don't wanna use, you would put it on a vendor.  It would be better for someone.   There is also a "Free City" in some campaigns that is a different zone with pvp turned off and has vendor slots.  This is to help with the limited Imports/Exports on certain campaigns.  Can't buy something from an EK and import it into campaign if the campaign is set to zero imports.

You turn things that are not exactly as i said in your favor to your post and that's why mostly doesn't make sense to me so many things that you change of my meaning. I'm not gonna waste more than 15 min on details.

Anyways i appreciate your opinion but at the end of the day if your opinion isn't based on the facts and instead you need to change it or take it from another perspective to negate the reality that's why it doesn't make sense to me.

An quick example is:  "PVP game.  Alot of people get this confused.  Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game?  I enjoy the pvp in game so far.  Yes it needs work, but pretty good for Alpha.  It just seems to get better to me.  I also craft and gather alot of stuff.  I enjoy the crafting.  So from what I read, you said that the Crafters/gatherers/builders/traders/pig runners should go play a different game so they can do those things without the pvp." 

I dont say that they have to play another game cause of that. i just say they know since first moment that the game is based on pvp so they are accepting this fact from first day. In fact related to " Just because there is alot of pvp in a game, does that make it a pvp game?" this make no sense, of course if the game have a lot of pvp does make it pvp game ofc it's doing it wtf this i not a game where you choise when flagged or not every campaign is pvp you have an newbie zones to start the game and so on without pvp but the core base of the game is pvp. honestly that doesn't make sense to me and at top of that you start saying a lot of people get this confused. Underating other people post that are based in facts instead of opinion. It's a fact that the game it's what it's not an opinion.

I don't need to deffend anymore things that "i have said" cause there is no point if you or other people that i have found on this forum are missunderstanding or manipulating facts for some purpose on his own post which is not attached to the truth or reallity.

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole post is based in facts!!    "You can't handle the truth! ! "    Sorry you got mad, but I am laughing the whole time.  

PVP/PVE  This is a game with both and people need to know this is not strictly a pvp game.  So because this game has PVE, does it make it a pve game? 

So silly to get hung up on this little thing and not listen to the facts all over the rest of the post.   Only hearing what ya want.  I tried to explain and was calm.  You reply with a rant.  LOL still making me laugh.  If you didn't understand what I was trying to say, ask and I could try to explain it more.  Instead you pick one thing to argue about and get mad about it.

Have fun in your own reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2020 at 2:04 AM, EnsaimadaBlanca said:

I DO NOT GET IT.

Sorry, I might have missed it in your response, but how does ACE stop players from working together. Regardless if guild size is 20, 50, 500.

Players will work around any restrictions.

Ex: Guild cap is 50? Have a guild of 500? Make 10 smaller guilds that can all focus on different things, work together, screw with the card system and have 10 times the chance to win the campaign.

Performance is a factor, but is improving. While I don't see this game ever running smoothly with crazy high numbers, it should be able to handle a couple hundred. Much older games have pulled it off. Even with it being laggy, people still find large encounters to be fun.

The more restrictions in place the more artificial the experience. Players should be able to play with who they want, when they want, where they want.

ACE has mentioned 2000 player limit on campaigns. Not sure if that is total or logged in at once. To me it seems silly that there will be guilds of 500-1000+ on at a time spoiling your fun. The game doesn't really support or reward such numbers. PVPers want to PVP, not defend/attack empty castles or roam around for hours not finding anyone. If everyone is on the same side the game will die. Players will naturally split into guilds/alliance sizes that fit the game. Some will be larger, some will be smaller, and many will be in the middle.

I understand your POV, but I don't want to see Crowfall be overly restrictive. I play a variety of games and genres, Crowfall's niche doesn't really exist. There needs to be more "open world" games where players can use whatever resources they have to win or lose. There are already plenty of games that try to balance numbers and restrict players. I want to experience fights with a lot of players, a bunch of smaller guilds taking down a zerg, and other experiences that can't happen in other games.

ACE hasn't marketed this as a "megamassive guild" game and I don't see why that would even be an issue. They have marketed this as a "Throne War" with the concept of large scale fights which to me isn't 20v20 or 50v50 that is pretty small for a modern "PVP game." We've already seen larger sieges then that with multiple guilds involved. Not one guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 or whatever imbalance you believe will happen.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, APE said:

To me it seems silly that there will be guilds of 500-1000+ on at a time spoiling your fun. The game doesn't really support or reward such numbers. PVPers want to PVP, not defend/attack empty castles or roam around for hours not finding anyone. If everyone is on the same side the game will die. Players will naturally split into guilds/alliance sizes that fit the game. Some will be larger, some will be smaller, and many will be in the middle.

 

 

There will probably be short periods of time where mega alliances exist and stagnation occurs. It's already happened during testing. And the end result is big portions of their players get bored and quit or start in-fighting or whatever and make new guilds. Probably a self correcting phenomenon to some degree, but the time before it corrects probably sucks a lot.

Share this post


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

There will probably be short periods of time where mega alliances exist and stagnation occurs. It's already happened during testing. And the end result is big portions of their players get bored and quit or start in-fighting or whatever and make new guilds. Probably a self correcting phenomenon to some degree, but the time before it corrects probably sucks a lot.

Anything could happen, but I'd like to see Crowfall resemble an actual game before ACE starts playing with the big picture stuff.

Lots of things they could try with campaign rules and the card system to reward smart play vs throwing numbers at everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 3:51 PM, DarnHippy said:

That whole post is based in facts!!    "You can't handle the truth! ! "    Sorry you got mad, but I am laughing the whole time.  

PVP/PVE  This is a game with both and people need to know this is not strictly a pvp game.  So because this game has PVE, does it make it a pve game? 

So silly to get hung up on this little thing and not listen to the facts all over the rest of the post.   Only hearing what ya want.  I tried to explain and was calm.  You reply with a rant.  LOL still making me laugh.  If you didn't understand what I was trying to say, ask and I could try to explain it more.  Instead you pick one thing to argue about and get mad about it.

Have fun in your own reality.

Keep laughting. it's much more healthy for you. "Only hearing what i want", no i just explained it you missunderstand arround the stuff that i have said and manipulate things in your favor. That's it and it can proved on this comment, that you think annoucing that you are laughting about it will give you superiority and in fact only give you an ignorant position. if not if were something that make you laught why would you put it into a post. 

it describe your arrogance and ignorance pereftcly at same time.


                                                 

Share this post


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

you missunderstand arround the stuff that i have said and manipulate things in your favor

Most of that post is what is really happening in game.  There is nothing to misunderstand.  And you ability to call people names shows the type of person you are.

About the mention about Crafters,gatherers, pig runners.  Ok, i might have misunderstood that.  There is nothing else.  Everything else is what is currently happening in game and that is a fact you can't change no matter how many names you call me.

"annoucing that you are laughting about it will give you superiority and in fact only give you an ignorant position."  Nah... I am laughing because you have to find one thing to argue about and it's like watching a comedy.  OH and ignorant people usually are the ones that call people Ignorant and other names.

Have a nice day. 🙂

Edited by DarnHippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/30/2020 at 6:59 PM, APE said:

Sorry, I might have missed it in your response, but how does ACE stop players from working together. Regardless if guild size is 20, 50, 500.

Players will work around any restrictions.

Ex: Guild cap is 50? Have a guild of 500? Make 10 smaller guilds that can all focus on different things, work together, screw with the card system and have 10 times the chance to win the campaign.

Performance is a factor, but is improving. While I don't see this game ever running smoothly with crazy high numbers, it should be able to handle a couple hundred. Much older games have pulled it off. Even with it being laggy, people still find large encounters to be fun.

The more restrictions in place the more artificial the experience. Players should be able to play with who they want, when they want, where they want.

ACE has mentioned 2000 player limit on campaigns. Not sure if that is total or logged in at once. To me it seems silly that there will be guilds of 500-1000+ on at a time spoiling your fun. The game doesn't really support or reward such numbers. PVPers want to PVP, not defend/attack empty castles or roam around for hours not finding anyone. If everyone is on the same side the game will die. Players will naturally split into guilds/alliance sizes that fit the game. Some will be larger, some will be smaller, and many will be in the middle.

I understand your POV, but I don't want to see Crowfall be overly restrictive. I play a variety of games and genres, Crowfall's niche doesn't really exist. There needs to be more "open world" games where players can use whatever resources they have to win or lose. There are already plenty of games that try to balance numbers and restrict players. I want to experience fights with a lot of players, a bunch of smaller guilds taking down a zerg, and other experiences that can't happen in other games.

ACE hasn't marketed this as a "megamassive guild" game and I don't see why that would even be an issue. They have marketed this as a "Throne War" with the concept of large scale fights which to me isn't 20v20 or 50v50 that is pretty small for a modern "PVP game." We've already seen larger sieges then that with multiple guilds involved. Not one guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 or whatever imbalance you believe will happen.

Ape i'm glad to see your pov as always

So starting with the example i mean atleast they probably have to be enemys at some time (probably a lot of times) and it still affect the fact that friendly fire isn't allowed in between their 10 guilds. 

Talking about restrictions i dont know what can be more artificial than virtual stuff, but you know, it simply doesn't feel like that to me. they will just be able to play with who they want but less zerggy anyways as @ComradeAma said "I think if you design the game around the idea that in order to be successful in the game, you require a guild size of 50+ as a minimum, you are clearly saying to 73% of the player population, you have no chance to really participate in the game in a meaningful way" and as in my experience the 73% just decrease cause they group up with larger guilds which always keep growing cause of their benefits of being part of a massivemega guild.

Isn't imbalance that i believe will happen. It just always happen if its not design driven. 50v50 is pretty small for a modern game, for me it's more than enough. One guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 they simply just don't face an obvious lost battle or get deleted about the speed of light which you can't reallize it happened. 

That said i think most of people that play games just buy games in their own purpose, yes there are exceptions there are guilds that join all together into the game, which is something good but i would say that more than 75% of players that join/buy a game are in between this numbers 1-5 lets be realistic. Then they look arround trying to find the big guild that will give them advantage. Just because the game is rewarding doing it and finally those big guilds grow up faster and faster until you created another non sense megamassive guild game.

In conclusion all depends of the meta game designed. if it's allowed will happen.

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


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

Most of that post is what is really happening in game.  There is nothing to misunderstand.  And you ability to call people names shows the type of person you are.

About the mention about Crafters,gatherers, pig runners.  Ok, i might have misunderstood that.  There is nothing else.  Everything else is what is currently happening in game and that is a fact you can't change no matter how many names you call me.

"annoucing that you are laughting about it will give you superiority and in fact only give you an ignorant position."  Nah... I am laughing because you have to find one thing to argue about and it's like watching a comedy.  OH and ignorant people usually are the ones that call people Ignorant and other names.

Have a nice day. 🙂

when you spread the word that you are laughting about others. isn't like watching a comedy it's that you're trying to show that you're handling it. 

so you didn't call me ignorant on that statment. i see, when you say it, it doesn't affect you for some reason, looks interesting.

have luck! 🤥

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I guess you have a degree in psychology.  I lose.  Nice playing with you.  

If you haven't figured it out yet, you never will.

I'm rubber and your glue, the names bounce off me and stick on you.

Share this post


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

So starting with the example i mean atleast they probably have to be enemys at some time (probably a lot of times) and it still affect the fact that friendly fire isn't allowed in between their 10 guilds.

Why would they have to be enemies?

If you've played Albion then you should know that it isn't difficult for large guilds or alliances to manage multiple smaller guilds, including not blowing each other up. Feeder guilds (harvesters, crafters, new players, whatever) exist to feed larger guilds that usually contain the "best/veteran" members that will have the best chance to earn whatever rewards/goals that will benefit everyone. I was in a guild with several hundred members and we had no problem playing as an organized group, but rarely did we have hundreds online at once so it wasn't really a "massive zerg" rolling from zone to zone.

There have been multiple "alliances" in Crowfall happening of various guild numbers and sizes and they manage to not step on each others toes while fighting a common enemy be it during siege or out in the world.

Quote

Talking about restrictions i dont know what can be more artificial than virtual stuff, but you know, it simply doesn't feel like that to me. they will just be able to play with who they want but less zerggy anyways as @ComradeAma said "I think if you design the game around the idea that in order to be successful in the game, you require a guild size of 50+ as a minimum, you are clearly saying to 73% of the player population, you have no chance to really participate in the game in a meaningful way" and as in my experience the 73% just decrease cause they group up with larger guilds which always keep growing cause of their benefits of being part of a massivemega guild.

Isn't imbalance that i believe will happen. It just always happen if its not design driven. 50v50 is pretty small for a modern game, for me it's more than enough. One guild of 120 vs a guild of 30 they simply just don't face an obvious lost battle or get deleted about the speed of light which you can't reallize it happened. 

That said i think most of people that play games just buy games in their own purpose, yes there are exceptions there are guilds that join all together into the game, which is something good but i would say that more than 75% of players that join/buy a game are in between this numbers 1-5 lets be realistic. Then they look arround trying to find the big guild that will give them advantage. Just because the game is rewarding doing it and finally those big guilds grow up faster and faster until you created another non sense megamassive guild game.

In conclusion all depends of the meta game designed. if it's allowed will happen.

It's very easy to say 20v20 or 50v50 is ideal, but without instanced battlegrounds or hard caps on zones, people will do what they want. Capping zones too low runs into a bunch of other issues. Like logging in alts or players showing up early to block others from entering a zone, which is not fun game play.

It makes sense that Albion has instances with one shared world. I don't see that model fitting Crowfall.

You might think 50v50 is more then enough but you are one person. I would like to see a bit larger and someone else might want to see even more. Limiting guilds to 50-100 would likely be enough for most, but again, doesn't stop multiple guilds from working together. Already had ~150 in Crowfall with poor performance and still had fun. If they can improve it, I don't see why they couldn't push it to 200+ for sieges. Maybe not the norm every single time, but at least a possibility. That ~150 was several guilds, not 1 or 2 larger ones. Making massive guilds doesn't make much sense logistically or for other reasons when smart players can just work together in an alliances with or without friendly fire.

We've never experienced Crowfall with an actual realistic population so it's hard to say how most things would work. If there are 500, 1000, or even 2000 players online in one campaign, they'll either need to make way more maps, caravans, strongholds, etc or tons of players are going to be trying to fight over limited resources.

My main point is there is nothing ACE can easily design that will prevent players from former larger armies if that is what players want to do. At least not with making the game into something it isn't or wasn't sold to be.

With campaigns having end points and the card system potentially rewarding less zergy guilds, hopefully massive armies are not a requirement. At the moment it is too early to tell as references other games with very different designs doesn't prove what will happen in the future.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the discussion of discussion of engagement size and zerging...

The ideal is a system that provides groups of many different sizes with content that is enjoyable and rewarding, and does so in the same game environment. Crowfall has done some good things in that direction with victory cards, objective types, and activities sprinkled around the map. Iteration on each of these is surely needed.

Divine Favor:

The system has definitely provided groups of different sizes ways to compete. The multiple paths to victory is good, though I'd like to see multiple paths to multiple victories. If large alliances want to fight over land, great. If smaller guilds want to battle for efficiency or other goals, fabulous. Each of them can win their respective game and both don't feel like they were cheated out of victory because someone gamed the cards. There's work to be done to find what's fun about each playstyle and reinforce that in the game systems. I'm wary of efficiency cards because it incentivizes guilds to kick casual players.

Outposts:

One way of providing content that favors smaller groups is to distribute the conflicts around the map. A large zerg can only be in so many places. Outposts and activities like pack pigs do this to a certain degree. I'd like to see it expanded, and again reinforce what's fun and redesign what's not. Outposts are very meh right now. Standing in circles whilst running in circles is an old, boring mechanic, that doesn't really drive conflict. Solo players capping outposts seems to defeat the purpose of the objective.

It would be awesome If outposts within a given zone felt more like a king of the hill and/or capture the flag minigame that was decoupled from the larger territory capture and building minigame in a way that encouraged small group conflicts. All of the components are basically there. Like with siege windows, adventure zones could be designated hotspots for conflict. Holding outposts would award points. Certain outposts would regularly spawn a relic type object that would need to be taken to a shrine within the zone and sacrificed to score points. The large area, distributed nature of the conflict would help disincentives zerging, and the events could also occur during siege windows when larger alliances would be fighting over land.

Events:

Pack pigs is another class of activity that helps to distribute players around the map. Currently it doesn't do enough, and it's tilted toward the territory control and building minigame. Adding other events surrounding harvesting, war tribes, monster relic drops, etc. that trigger at semi-regular time intervals and are announced within the zone could help drive hotspots of small group conflict. Connecting this to divine favor in a meaningful way would also promote these activity as a minigame activity with a path toward victory. There has to be many objectives active at the same time to discourage zerging for this class of activity.

Zergs:

The primary concern I have right now with large group vs. group combat is that there's no way for a smaller group to realistically engage a larger group, even in a limited fashion. The one exception to this might be during a siege where the smaller group has the advantage of high level guards and ballistae. But in general, there's no valid strategy to engage with a larger force. As WarGames taught us 'the only winning move is not to play'. If you're encouraging people to avoid conflict, haven't you defeated the purpose of the game? If there was some way to zone, split, block, or otherwise control an engagement plus a way to effectively disengage and retreat, then maybe a small group would consider taking a fight with a larger group in some scenarios. Maybe if you're running a full group of guinies?

Share this post


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

 

Zergs:

The primary concern I have right now with large group vs. group combat is that there's no way for a smaller group to realistically engage a larger group, even in a limited fashion. The one exception to this might be during a siege where the smaller group has the advantage of high level guards and ballistae. But in general, there's no valid strategy to engage with a larger force. As WarGames taught us 'the only winning move is not to play'. If you're encouraging people to avoid conflict, haven't you defeated the purpose of the game? If there was some way to zone, split, block, or otherwise control an engagement plus a way to effectively disengage and retreat, then maybe a small group would consider taking a fight with a larger group in some scenarios. Maybe if you're running a full group of guinies?

I made a post in suggestions regarding in combat/ out of combat toggles and how it effect group fighting and movement speed.  I'd be interested in your opinion.  I see this as a big problem right now also.

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...