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

Campaign Scoring - The good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, miraluna said:

The Campaign is being designed for 2000 players, not the <200 we have currently in the test. 10x the players might change the feeling from pve grind to pvp bloodbath¬†ūüėÜ

With that kind of population it would be a good time. Problem is the game it self would crash with more than 100 in each zone. Hopefully it will run better soon and be able to handle a fun sized population where all of our current "large guilds" are small fries in the greater populations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, oneply said:

 I remember that part in the Kickstarter about not wanting to grind and wanting to play to crush. Well there’s lots of unrewarding grind and crushing your enemy means nothing. 

If you can even find your enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Whenever I look at these cards I always remember of the War tabletop game. Where all players receive an objective card and the whole game is completing it without lettting anyone know.

It was pretty interesting game that I unfortunately only had a few chances to play.

What would you people think about every Guild choosing one of these objective cards at the beginning of the campaign? They would be more focused like:

Ownership: Gain X points every 24 hours you control Y keep.

Conquest: Gain X points if you control most of Y island for 24 hours

Killer: Sacrifice 10 skulls/per member in less than 24 hours for Y

Stuff like that.

It is more of a directive every guild would follow. They still would have to do all other objectives to win, but I think it would be interesting to have that sort of focus. Plus the whole strategizing to stop other guilds from doing what they want would be interesting to see.

I'd like to at least try this.

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So personally, when they unveiled the DF system, I thought it was a step in the right direction and I still think it's a fine system to use. However, the lack of clarity surrounding how the points are awarded is a tough sell for me. There was even a 10 minute discussion in general chat between Duffy, Hungry, and Coolster (I think? Correct me if I'm wrong) trying to figure out who ranked where on the Top and Seasonal Wealth cards and I don't know if they ever came to an agreement on how that played out.

Quote

The level of obfuscation of progress in the game currently is absolutely necessary to its competitive aspect. It demands that you actively play and consider the actions of your opponents to determine what their goals are and determining a course of action to stop them. Knowing that there's a (what could be assumed is an insurmountable) gulf in what your competition has towards a goal and what you do can also significantly demoralize a team and help them conclude that they shouldn't even keep trying/playing. After a season has ended it would be great if a guild could see who contributed what to a specific goal but that's about as much disclosure they should allow.

I do have to disagree and agree with different parts of your point here @moneda. I don't think the obfuscation is absolutely necessary. I believe having at least some idea of where the rankings are currently would lead to more interesting decision making in a guild's strategy. I'm not sure I would advocate for knowing exactly what the scores are at any given time and seeing how much of a lead the guild in first has, but having some information like who's currently in 1st, 2nd, & 3rd might create interesting strategies. For example, if guild 1 is super far ahead on one card, maybe they  focus the other cards with the remaining time. But this also opens guild 1 up to getting lazy and a situation where guild 2 has been stockpiling resources and dumps them at the last second for an upset. Or that same situation can go the other way with the guild 2 working towards closing that gap - forcing guild 1 to pay attention to it and splitting their attention.

Share this post


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

The level of obfuscation of progress in the game currently is absolutely necessary to its competitive aspect. It demands that you actively play and consider the actions of your opponents to determine what their goals are and determining a course of action to stop them. Knowing that there's a (what could be assumed is an insurmountable) gulf in what your competition has towards a goal and what you do can also significantly demoralize a team and help them conclude that they shouldn't even keep trying/playing. After a season has ended it would be great if a guild could see who contributed what to a specific goal but that's about as much disclosure they should allow.

 

Want: Clear goals, clear feedback on the progress to those goals. Like, it doesn't necessarily need to show you yours or your enemies' progress on an objective. That can be hidden, but it should give feedback when you personally make progress toward something (eg. upgrading a structure to the right level, sacrificing a required item).

What we had in the last campaign was a situation where guilds were guessing on how to interpret the cards. Some guessed correctly. Others didn't. That's not much fun.

Edited by nihilsupernum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circle standing is the most boring aspect of this game, building buildings just to boost a score is lame. winning keeps, forts, killing people in the field, there is the "win". Circle standing, running packs, turning in trinkets for score is just fail.


 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My thoughts on it:

Dregs cards

1. There needs to be UI added with metrics displayed on each seasonal card as to where your guild is at.  This will let guilds know right away if they are doing something wrong. (Only see your own guilds numbers)

2. Intent of the cards can be misleading, I have seen long drawn out discussions on how some cards can be interpreted as.  You should not need a wiki to explain a win condition.

3. DF should be increased from card to scale 1 - 10, per member based cards will still keep smaller guilds in the running but it will help make the conquest side of things not seem as worthless.

4. Player Temple merchants selling card objective items, do you want this to be a factor in scoring?¬† Personally don't care, but some in house discussion should happen before guilds start using commerce to be kingmakers¬†ūüėõ

5. Need cards that are not scaled at all, just meet the requirement, you get the points.  These can be 5 pts.  Ie. The rank 3 class-b card was an unhealthy grind and can burn people out and only large guilds can really score high on this.

Edited by neven

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I would advocate for knowing exactly what the scores are at any given time and seeing how much of a lead the guild in first has, but having some information like who's currently in 1st, 2nd, & 3rd might create interesting strategies. For example, if guild 1 is super far ahead on one card, maybe they  focus the other cards with the remaining time. But this also opens guild 1 up to getting lazy and a situation where guild 2 has been stockpiling resources and dumps them at the last second for an upset. Or that same situation can go the other way with the guild 2 working towards closing that gap - forcing guild 1 to pay attention to it and splitting their attention.

I don't see that scenario playing out unless numbers are provided, which I'm just 100% against.


Hi, I'm moneda.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like us to thematically divert from power wealth and glory and instead use the god pantheons to categorize divine favor, It is the gods we are trying to appease is it not?  I think an additional tri tier hierarchy is just diluting the importance of the other. So order, chaos, balance.  Each has 4 gods, we have four seasons.  This would allow you to develop the personalities of these gods farther by showing us what it is they want.  I am already starting to like Yaga because she seems to be the only one with any sense about her.   I can now get a wide array of cards to represent the wide array of the pantheon.

Some confusion can be averted by creating a system that is easier for the user to intuit.  If I can begin to create a more generalized understanding of what has meaning in the dying worlds, then I can function as a unitary actor upon that stage as an organic consequence.   One of the major reasons the fluff is of significant consequence to all players in MMO's.   We need cards that reflect different play-styles/personalities and rewarding them, you have your archetypal characters in place that should be by their design reflecting different personalities.  Marry these two systems in a more cemented way, have your inside baseball personality structure of the gods.  And each campaign include a little blurb on the scoring card that is vague and slowly begins to iron out who and what the gods are, what they want, and how that relates to me the player.


-The Legion shall forever be reborn

 

qliewl5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I like the Divine Favor system. It needs some clarity, and I would prefer not having to infer who scored on what bits (and it would be nice if the Top cards were clearly explained).

One thing I have noticed that I think is super important: People aren't trying to knock each other's scores down very much. This is a critical strategic failure on behalf of the player base. Instead of trying to insure wins, we seem to be focusing more on blindly trying to out PvE each other. Some of this is our fault as we're not making the moves we should be to compete, but a good chunk of it is the condensed campaign timelines and lack of useful intel. For example, not having multiple siege windows (or even 1!) before wealth is scored prevents us from trying to reduce our opponents ability to score by destroying buildings. With longer campaigns I think we'll see more strategic PvP occur and less focus on just pure PvE. I say it a lot but PvP is the means to the ends, not the ends itself. It's a tool to beat your opponents and it's definitely capable of it with the Divine Favor system, but due to circumstances it's a tool that's rarely being used strategically to try and win. It's more being used as entertainment itself, which is what creates a sense that the game is all about PvE when it comes to Divine Favor.

However even with that mentality, the Divine Favor system does have cards that are even more nebulous to counter, primarily kill X or sacrifice X cards. All of the cards showing an approximate ranking or current value would help drive conflict as groups can decide to chase certain cards or groups as needed. This is the sort of intel that drives the big strategic PvP side of things, this is the sort of intel we need access to if you want to create good PvP, not the stuff like pack pigs and who's attacking guard outposts.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

So personally, when they unveiled the DF system, I thought it was a step in the right direction and I still think it's a fine system to use. However, the lack of clarity surrounding how the points are awarded is a tough sell for me. There was even a 10 minute discussion in general chat between Duffy, Hungry, and Coolster (I think? Correct me if I'm wrong) trying to figure out who ranked where on the Top and Seasonal Wealth cards and I don't know if they ever came to an agreement on how that played out.

We did figure it out, the weird bit is that Top cards are broken into Quartiles based on those who scored in those areas. What's weird is that if you tie with someone you both get the better quartile and it's possible in certain scenarios (when only 5 guilds qualify) for it to then skip one of the quartiles. This seemed to happen in Fall for Top Wealth, it rewarded +5,  +4, +4, +2, and +1. Skipping +3 since two guilds tied. Still seems a little weird to me, but I think that's what happened.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

We also have a HUGE target on our back now.

That's a big overstatement, for sure.

Also, nobody directed to go hard on score cards. Everything was a player driven initiative.

 

Overall, it felt like this Dregs campaign was mostly solely a PVE grind which nobody was expecting from a PVP game. This is definitely the wrong trend for Crowfall to focus on. I think that everyone will agree on that. Score cards are good in general. Possibility for a small guild to win the campaign is also a good thing. And I sincerely glad for KGV that all their efforts were paid up. But this much of PVE grind is just killing all the interest in the game for the vast majority of players. Consequently, the score cards need to be reworked / improved. We already saw PVP focused player base leaving Crowfall for this exact reason. We don't want Crowfall go the New World's direction, or do we?!?

 

Even cards meant to be PVP focused cards worked the opposite way actually. Players began to log out just to avoid being killed and to avoid giving their skulls to the opposite guild. I understand that when there is only one guild which dominates PVP that hard and these is no Alliance mechanics to counter that, people just give up and start to avoid any direct conflict. Or another good example: more time you spend looking for PVP, more you lose on the PVE grind side. But that is a completely OPPOSITE what developers intend to do: ACE/devs want to encourage PVP, while in reality current score cards/mechanics actually encourage players to avoid PVP at all cost and concentrate on PVE grind with the minimal risk of encountering other players. So they go to the less populated zones (like siege zones) and farm sacrifice shards / hell cats / pigs whatever else to have the max score on the board. I know that 90% of players even farm Thralls for Majors in siege zones because you can run for hours there and hardly meet anyone on your way. The only fun part starts and ends during the siege window. But is 1 hour of pvp (which ends up to be only 20 minutes of fighting and 40 minutes of running) and 23 hours of PVE grind good enough? I don't think so.

 

Siege times were the BEST and the most exciting parts of the game and that is why the most people are still playing it. What does ACE promotes in their videos? That's right - sieges and PVP. What happens in the Reality? That's right, 23 hours PVE grind. After the siege window 60%+ of players just log out and go play ARMA / ESO / POE and etc. (look at the Twitch channels).

 

To sum up, there are some adjustments need¬†to be done to the score system to actually encourage PVP (not vise-a-versa) and to decrease the amount of repetitive and non-sense PVE grind. Running pigs for hours and standing in the circle for hours is simply not fun (you also just dump all those resources into a structure which will just disappear in 2 days). As a result, it becomes a chore which none is looking forward to and none is excited about it. This is why we, backers,¬†TEST this ALPHA version of the game and provide our feedback to developers to help them make Crowfall great again¬†(ūüėÖ) more exciting, interesting and involving, so that much more people would want to join our competitive community and, as a result, make the game even more interesting.

@mdonley  @jtoddcoleman @thomasblair

Edited by SAM_BUKA

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
4 hours ago, BarriaKarl said:

Whenever I look at these cards I always remember of the War tabletop game. Where all players receive an objective card and the whole game is completing it without lettting anyone know.

It was pretty interesting game that I unfortunately only had a few chances to play.

What would you people think about every Guild choosing one of these objective cards at the beginning of the campaign? They would be more focused like:

Ownership: Gain X points every 24 hours you control Y keep.

Conquest: Gain X points if you control most of Y island for 24 hours

Killer: Sacrifice 10 skulls/per member in less than 24 hours for Y

Stuff like that.

It is more of a directive every guild would follow. They still would have to do all other objectives to win, but I think it would be interesting to have that sort of focus. Plus the whole strategizing to stop other guilds from doing what they want would be interesting to see.

I'd like to at least try this.

I actually like this idea. Even during the last video shootings the developer's story was that every guild had their own objectives: someone had to destroy buildings, others had to collect skulls, others had to defend certain point of interest. I believe that could be a move in the right direction.


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

Did any of the top guilds actually try to fight each other over score cards or did they just try to look for general fights or avoid fights? Avoiding a fight is as important a part of strategy as engaging in one, especially if it's one you know you can't win. Concentrated strategic effort could have mitigated how much effort was directly tied to PvE (plus with longer seasons and several sieges per season to act on those potential scoring targets). Right now the timeline is too condensed which creates an emphasis on PvE instead of an ebb and flow of PvP to nab things, PvE with chance of PvP to build them up, and then PvP to take those objectives or destroy them before they count for scoring. There needs to be a flow to the actions and strategic choices, just running around brawling anyone and everything should never be the path to victory, you should be making important choices. Likewise PvE alone should not be able to gain you a win, and technically that seems true for the most part. We'll know for sure when theirs longer campaigns with more time to act.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

I would like us to thematically divert from power wealth and glory and instead use the god pantheons to categorize divine favor, It is the gods we are trying to appease is it not?  I think an additional tri tier hierarchy is just diluting the importance of the other. So order, chaos, balance.  Each has 4 gods, we have four seasons.  This would allow you to develop the personalities of these gods farther by showing us what it is they want.  I am already starting to like Yaga because she seems to be the only one with any sense about her.   I can now get a wide array of cards to represent the wide array of the pantheon.

Some confusion can be averted by creating a system that is easier for the user to intuit.  If I can begin to create a more generalized understanding of what has meaning in the dying worlds, then I can function as a unitary actor upon that stage as an organic consequence.   One of the major reasons the fluff is of significant consequence to all players in MMO's.   We need cards that reflect different play-styles/personalities and rewarding them, you have your archetypal characters in place that should be by their design reflecting different personalities.  Marry these two systems in a more cemented way, have your inside baseball personality structure of the gods.  And each campaign include a little blurb on the scoring card that is vague and slowly begins to iron out who and what the gods are, what they want, and how that relates to me the player.

That's an interesting thought, by the way. 

Different Gods could provide different objectives for the campaign and guilds themselves could choose which God's they want to bring favor to. These different Gods would provide different rewards at the end of the campaign.


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
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Duffy said:

Did any of the top guilds actually try to fight each other over score cards or did they just try to look for general fights or avoid fights? Avoiding a fight is as important a part of strategy as engaging in one, especially if it's one you know you can't win. Concentrated strategic effort could have mitigated how much effort was directly tied to PvE (plus with longer seasons and several sieges per season to act on those potential scoring targets). Right now the timeline is too condensed which creates an emphasis on PvE instead of an ebb and flow of PvP to nab things, PvE with chance of PvP to build them up, and then PvP to take those objectives or destroy them before they count for scoring. There needs to be a flow to the actions and strategic choices, just running around brawling anyone and everything should never be the path to victory, you should be making important choices. Likewise PvE alone should not be able to gain you a win, and technically that seems true for the most part. We'll know for sure when theirs longer campaigns with more time to act.

If you can spread and go solo-farming on the big, vast and empty territory with almost no risk, you will be 5 times more productive than a group of 5 people doing the same thing (trying to score on those cards). This encourages nothing except solo-farming grind game. The ACE's idea is to encourage group actions, not solo-farming grind.

 

I even received a warning on this forum for 'encouraging people to play solo' by revealing a 'secret' of solo farming motherlodes. Here is the exact citation from the message I have received from ACE team in the beginning of June: "I'll point out that we try to refrain from encouraging people to use multiple accounts to do things like harvesting motherlodes alone. While it's not something we can stop, we prefer to encourage people to play together. This is a game meant to be experienced with friends and guildmates, and we like to promote that." So, I encourage people to play together, to have fun, and I ask developers to create the right conditions / rules to make this concept possible. I fully agree with ACE on that statement.

(checkmate¬†haters and solo PVE grinders)¬†ūüėú

Edited by SAM_BUKA

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

The map is/was just too big for any scoring to have legitimate testing imo. Anybody mentioning guilds not going after each other must be ignoring all the PvPers who spent forever roaming and got maybe one decent fight a day outside of siege window. There is no competition for resources because there is no scarcity. Got ganked running pigs? Move over a zone, odds are it's empty since there's 50 of us on at a given time at most.

The cards are just symbolic of another overarching issue which are the tooltips. They are completely devoid of useful information, whether it be skills, items, DF cards, etc.

 

It seems like the intention is a basic formula, PvE gets you Divine Favor, but PvP occurs as you protect your PvE members while they can work on completing the objective. It's a king of the hill type game, the problem is we all have hills to stand on, and if you do want to go knock someone off theirs it's hours of looking around to find where they are.

 

Idea is solid I think, just need to hunger games us in a small area instead of playing hide and seek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SAM_BUKA said:

Siege times were the BEST and the most exciting parts of the game and that is why the most people are still playing it.

You can't speak for most people. Because of my work schedule I anticipate missing the vast majority of sieges. The small scale PvP is often way more fun than blobs pecking at each other and occurs way more often.

1 hour ago, Duffy said:

Did any of the top guilds actually try to fight each other over score cards or did they just try to look for general fights or avoid fights?

I can only verify that KGV did all of the above, depending on what cards were up and how we felt in the moment. After the siege Sunday night KGV determined it needed a great deal of PvE done in order to even guarantee a 2nd placing in DF, but we also spent a decent amount of time until the campaign ended killing groups running pack pigs (and then running those pigs ourselves, yes) which can have a significant amount of time spent not gaining anything but poorly made dergss and giggles.


Hi, I'm moneda.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SAM_BUKA said:

If you can spread and go solo-farming on the big, vast and empty territory with almost no risk, you will be 5 times more productive than a group of 5 people doing the same thing (trying to score on those cards). This encourages nothing except solo-farming grind game. The ACE's idea is to encourage group actions, not solo-farming grind.

 

I even received a warning on this forum for 'encouraging people to play solo' by revealing a 'secret' of solo farming motherlodes. Here is the exact citation from the message I have received from ACE team in the beginning of June: "I'll point out that we try to refrain from encouraging people to use multiple accounts to do things like harvesting motherlodes alone. While it's not something we can stop, we prefer to encourage people to play together. This is a game meant to be experienced with friends and guildmates, and we like to promote that." So, I encourage people to play together, to have fun, and I ask developers to create the right conditions / rules to make this concept possible. I fully agree with ACE on that statement.

(checkmate¬†haters and solo PVE grinders)¬†ūüėú

Another problem is your particular experience is not indicative of everyone else: we rarely got any "peaceful" farming at all which definitely slowed down our ability to compete in PvE grinding, which seems to indicate the system working as intended. We had to do everything in groups and fight almost constantly to make any real progress. So my experience was mostly the opposite of quietly solo farming, and we weren't even particularly in the running. Those who got away with quietly solo farming could have been lucky, ignored, or purposefully avoided because they weren't as easy or viable targets.

And to my greater point, a quick count just from this campaign's seasonal cards shows at least 45 points that could have taken/prevented simply by PvPing over each other's forts/keeps. How much built up stuff actually changed hands or was destroyed by the top couple of guilds? (I really don't know, it seems like not much from what I can tell, it looks like most things did not change hands but some input from those guilds would give us insight). If their was fighting/destruction over those objectives add in the knock on effects from those fights to the Top cards and PvP can swing things pretty wildly.

I also think it's important that the big announced/scheduled things should be more important moments of conflict, the big binary win/loss effects. Interrupting farming with PvP should be a mild setback, not an ending competition one. This creates varying scales of conflict because as I keep on harping: PvP is a means to an ends, not the ends. If you treat it as the ends you create a game with no strategy, no winning, no depth, and no variety.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Duffy said:

And to my greater point, a quick count just from this campaign's seasonal cards shows at least 45 points that could have taken/prevented simply by PvPing over each other's forts/keeps. How much built up stuff actually changed hands or was destroyed by the top couple of guilds? (I really don't know, it seems like not much from what I can tell, it looks like most things did not change hands but some input from those guilds would give us insight). If their was fighting/destruction over those objectives add in the knock on effects from those fights to the Top cards and PvP can swing things pretty wildly.

No one came for the KGV keep when it was up. We did recall once due to a sighting, but it was just a solo with a catapult who was dealt with by the people we had on Defensive watch.


Xeilias - Through Strength of Arms, We Bring Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...