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

Disbalance in the current DREGS rules

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is my last big post / comment for the next month, I promise. The goal of this post is to show how the DREGS score system is still imbalanced and to show that it needs improvement.

It is worth mentioning, that I did not expect much from this campaign and that I am sincerely glad for KGV that they were victorious at the end. Congrats! And yes, Zybak is a great player. KGV has won the campaign according to the current DREGS rules and they were the best to interpret these rules and to adopt their strategy to these rules. Period.

 

At the same time, I would like to show the imbalance in the win conditions using a few examples and a small analytics report.

To start with, please, look at this score tables comparison:

Score_tables_KGV_vs_DIS.jpg

 

You can see that while players' impact in KGV difference is HUGE: the difference between the 1st place and 13th place is 7 times (Zybak has made 7 times more contribution than Spunky based on this tables data); while in DIS most of the players have more or less equal contribution: difference between PSIcoh (1st place) and Hungry (13th place) is less than 2 times.

In fact the left table shows that the only active core of players were the first 7 people. Others have been mostly inactive the whole campaign (again, according to these numbers).

You might think: "That's right. But they might have had much less players into the campaign". Even Zybak mentioned that in his post: "If we had more players in our guild and played slightly less efficiently...we lose"  But that was not the case. According to the score tables, DIS had 56 accounts in the campaign while KGV had 32 accounts (please, correct me if I'm wrong). But when KGV had only about 7 really active accounts, DIS had 26 active accounts (the ones who have 250+ overall scores). This is ~22% and ~46% respectively. The difference is HUGE. I suppose that if KGV would have only those 7 players playing... or 7 players + another 7 players as a reinforcement for Siege defenses, they should have just killed the scoreboards.

As a result, this mechanics leads to the "One-man army" strategy being very effective. Thus, I have a few questions to devs:

Did this mechanic work according to your plan?

Was this intentionally made that "One-man army" with 78% of the rest of the accounts in the campaign being inactive could still win the campaign?
Would you like to change anything in these rules or does it work like it meant to be?

 

Second and the last point:

Here is a good example of Dregs being very PVE oriented / one-sided which also discourages PVP in the campaign:

18 hours ago, ZYBAK said:

This campaign really showed off the magic the of Divine Favor system. KGV was not the most dominant guild when it came to pure conquest and siege power. However we played the game with efficiency and didn't try to compete with the dominant force head on.

We didn't own the most conquest objectives but we owned a lot for the amount of people we have. We had an easier time with the "per player" cards because we have less people in our guild. 

Crem made some really good calls. We also were on a razor's edge for this thing so it felt REALLY good having literally EVERYONE's contributions matter in a campaign this close.

- If Grivyn didn't find the Hellcat and get paws...we lose

- If I didn't get as many skulls...we lose

- If the guys didn't run as many pigs and build...we lose

- If we didn't have mining trained guys for Hunger Shards...we lose

- If we had more players in our guild and played slightly less efficiently...we lose

- If we hadn't wasted more of the enemy guild's time...we lose

- If the enemy guild successfully sieged our keep...we lose

It was a Cinderella Story victory and I honestly don't expect it to happen again anytime soon. But the Divine Favor system is cool because THIS KIND OF THING CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN!

Winning in Crowfall is not purely about who can bring the most people to sieges. 

I will stress out some facts here:

1. "We didn't own the most conquest objectives but we owned a lot for the amount of people we have. We had an easier time with the "per player" cards because we have less people in our guild." - it seems like this was not the case. Otherwise further comments from devs would be much appreciated.

2. "If Grivyn didn't find the Hellcat and get paws...we lose" - this is PVE activity (1:0 in favor of PVE)

3. "If I didn't get as many skulls...we lose" - that's fair. It was a fun activity (1:1)

4. "If the guys didn't run as many pigs and build...we lose" - this is PVE also (2:1)

5. "If we didn't have mining trained guys for Hunger Shards...we lose" - another PVE... (3:1)

6. "If we had more players in our guild and played slightly less efficiently...we lose" - no comments

7. "If we hadn't wasted more of the enemy guild's time...we lose" - not sure what this actually means, but it feels like they were wasting other guilds time by involving them into PVP game which did't actually contribute much to the scoreboard. Anyways, let's say it was +1 to each category/side (4:2, PVE vs PVP)

 

Conclusions:

So, we see that the current rules heavily encourage PVE grind and actually discourage PVP activities. More you run around fighting with other players, less time you run piggies / smack hunger shards / kill Hell cats. 2/3 of victory is based on PVE and 1/3 is based on PVP.

Plus a couple of questionable(?) mechanics:

1) One-man army mechanics

and

2) Points granted per player in the campaign mechanics.

 

So I would like to address these findings to developers, as well as to the community and would appreciate any feedback you want to share.

(uhhmmm... maybe except the feedback I had from @Spunky recently who said: "who are u ? stfu already". I really do not appreciate this kind of the "Dad's jokes")

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
Posted (edited)

All PvE activities in the Dregs are potential PvP activities. Labeling activities as PvE or PvP, in a black and white way, overlooks that truth.

Things like the event notifications help to encourage PvE activities to draw PvP, so that is a good start. There is more work to be done to get the balance right.

Ultimately, the PvP to PvE ratio will be very sensitive to size of the maps and the number of players. These campaigns may be a bit large for the number of active players, but they'd be too small for the intended number of players in a campaign. Finding the right balance will be a challenge for ACE.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jah said:

All PvE activities in the Dregs are potential PvP activities. Labeling activities as PvE or PvP, in a black and white way, overlooks that truth.

Things like the event notifications help to encourage PvE activities to draw PvP, so that is a good start. There is more work to be done to get the balance right.

Ultimately, the PvP to PvE ratio will be very sensitive to size of the maps and the number of players. These campaigns may be a bit large for the number of active players, but they'd be too small for the intended number of players in a campaign. Finding the right balance will be a challenge for ACE.

Good points. Thought of them too. This is also something which is not that hard to implement too.

I would also suggest to do something with the night and morning hours where players can do whatever they want with no competition. They even can create a guild: night crawlers which will consist if 5 people who play mostly in the night time and still win 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)
2 minutes ago, SAM_BUKA said:

I would also suggest to do something with the night and morning hours where players can do whatever they want with no competition. They even can create a guild: night crawlers which will consist if 5 people who play mostly in the night time and still win the campaign.

I'm not understanding this part..

Do you mean If i can only play in the morning or at night, my actions wont count towards a win? the "no competition" part throws me off. 

Edited by Tigari

Xeilias - Through Strength of Arms, We Bring Peace

Share this post


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

I'm not understanding this part..

Do you mean If i can only play in the morning or at night, my actions wont count towards a win? the "no competition" part throws me off. 

I'm also a night crawler, Bro.

For example, ACE already decreased the number of pack pigs spawns during the night. They could further decrease the amount of resources spawning at night to balance the low time with prime time and to encourage PVP.


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

yea, i'm okay with them lowering resources between offtimes and primetime, BUT i should still be able to do stuff to help out my guild. My schedule changes alot, sometimes I can play primetime, sometimes i cant. The 2nd I can no longer be useful, is the same second my drive to want to play go aways. They should never make it were someone cannot be helpful in some way.


Xeilias - Through Strength of Arms, We Bring Peace

Share this post


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

yea, i'm okay with them lowering resources between offtimes and primetime, BUT i should still be able to do stuff to help out my guild. My schedule changes alot, sometimes I can play primetime, sometimes i cant. The 2nd I can no longer be useful, is the same second my drive to want to play go aways. They should never make it were someone cannot be helpful in some way.

The main idea is to decrease the amount of resources available during the low times. ACE already did that to pigs (probably still not low enough though).

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

yea, that seems to be a balancing issue though, and Id rather that stuff be adjusted come BETA, and we have a larger population. And if CF doesnt get a larger pop, it has bigger problems then Off hour farming


Xeilias - Through Strength of Arms, We Bring Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can't think of one pvp mmo with siege conquest mechanics that didn't include some form of pve. The better games blend both together well.

Edited by Barab

Hammers High !!  Master Brewer of the Dwarven Hold Mithril Warhammers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Barab said:

Can't think of one pvp mmo with siege conquest mechanics that didn't include some form of pve. The better games blend both together well.

The key word there is SOME. Not 2/3 of PVE.


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)
2 hours ago, SAM_BUKA said:

So, we see that the current rules heavily encourage PVE grind and actually discourage PVP activities. More you run around fighting with other players, less time you run piggies / smack hunger shards / kill Hell cats. 2/3 of victory is based on PVE and 1/3 is based on PVP.

More players = More PVP opportunity = Less ability to do PVE.

The current experience likely won't carry over to a much larger population. Imagine if there was only 1 map instead of 10. Game play behaviors would be incredibly different. The current ability to solo or single group roam around a map or several should be a thing of the past. Unless giant alliances control 5/10 maps or something which is a separate issue.

I would much prefer activities and cards that dealt with direct conflict that requires at least two sides, but I'm not holding my breath. I can only hope that more people will bring more PVP and make PVE much more difficult and in turn more rewarding for those able to do it and feed the scoreboard.

I agree that off hours should not be easy farm time, however I don't want to remove the value of playing at then either. What is needed is a healthy dose of risk vs reward and with that adjusting quality and quantity depending on the time of day.

Example: Caravan total pigs could be 20% after midnight, but the rewards could be 150% for turning them in. Higher risk/reward for transporters and easier gank potential for attackers. Neither should be discouraged or feel like they are wasting their time just because they can't play at primetime. Day could be broken into 6 hour periods or something with resource quantity and quality changing to reflex the population and risk/reward in the world.

The DF system gives a lot of options for players and devs in how to approach the game. Lumping it all into large scale events just feeds the zerg way of life. I prefer lots of options but make the risk/reward meaningful. Picking 1000000 flowers =/= taking a stronghold. Just as swarming a castle with 5x1 numbers shouldn't be the same as a smaller guild putting in 5x1 hours into the game every day. Balance is needed.

Edited by APE

Share this post


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

More players = More PVP opportunity = Less ability to do PVE.

The current experience likely won't carry over to a much larger population. Imagine if there was only 1 map instead of 10. Game play behaviors would be incredibly different. The current ability to solo or single group roam around a map or several should be a thing of the past. Unless giant alliances control 5/10 maps or something which is a separate issue.

I would much prefer activities and cards that dealt with direct conflict that requires at least two sides, but I'm not holding my breath. I can only hope that more people will bring more PVP and make PVE much more difficult and in turn more rewarding for those able to do it and feed the scoreboard.

I agree that off hours should not be easy farm time, however I don't want to remove the value of playing at then either. What is needed is a healthy dose of risk vs reward and with that adjusting quality and quantity depending on the time of day.

Example: Caravan total pigs could be 20% after midnight, but the rewards could be 150% for turning them in. Higher risk/reward for transporters and easier gank potential for attackers. Neither should be discouraged or feel like they are wasting their time just because they can't play at primetime. Day could be broken into 6 hour periods or something with resource quantity and quality changing to reflex the population and risk/reward in the world.

The DF system gives a lot of options for players and devs in how to approach the game. Lumping it all into large scale events just feeds the zerg way of life. I prefer lots of options but make the risk/reward meaningful. Picking 1000000 flowers =/= taking a stronghold. Just as swarming a castle with 5x1 numbers shouldn't be the same as a smaller guild putting in 5x1 hours into the game every day. Balance is needed.

I agree that with larger population things will change a bit. It also does not deny the fact that with current population campaign maps should be smaller: less adventure zones and less siege zones. Based on the experience with Infected, it feels like 2 Adventure zones and 2-3 siege zones should be enough for the current numbers of players.

 

At the previous campaign on "LIVE" I actually liked a card about rank 3 buildings. But 3 cards about different Rank 3 buildings was way too much.

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
3 hours ago, SAM_BUKA said:

I agree that with larger population things will change a bit. It also does not deny the fact that with current population campaign maps should be smaller: less adventure zones and less siege zones. Based on the experience with Infected, it feels like 2 Adventure zones and 2-3 siege zones should be enough for the current numbers of players.

At the previous campaign on "LIVE" I actually liked a card about rank 3 buildings. But 3 cards about different Rank 3 buildings was way too much.

Assuming they keep more maps then needed due to how strongholds/parcels work or something. Where they can't cram too much into one map, especially with how performance is currently. Beyond that I don't see much reasoning behind it.

Share this post


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

You might think: "That's right. But they might have had much less players into the campaign". Even Zybak mentioned that in his post: "If we had more players in our guild and played slightly less efficiently...we lose"  But that was not the case. According to the score tables, DIS had 56 accounts in the campaign while KGV had 32 accounts (please, correct me if I'm wrong). But when KGV had only about 7 really active accounts, DIS had 26 active accounts (the ones who have 250+ overall scores). This is ~22% and ~46% respectively. The difference is HUGE. I suppose that if KGV would have only those 7 players playing... or 7 players + another 7 players as a reinforcement for Siege defenses, they should have just killed the scoreboards.

Do you know that 7 Russians accounts left KGV after day 1 to EU campaign? The second part of the table is one of the most active players in KGV, you cut them out. Additionally the most of Dis score is generated from assists during the sieges. Do you think people who play 1h a day and don't do anything else should have 2/3 of victory points? Your data is not accurate, and idea of power card being more than 1/3 points (which applies only during 1/24 hours) makes no sense #SmallEncountersMatter.

P.S. Power card is already more than 1/3 points if you stragegically take forts/keeps with rank 3 class A/B building for the wealth card and don't lose your own.

P.S.2 I would not call running caravans or taking outposts a PVE activity. It may be easier now with not many gankers like ZYBAK around, but once campaign has its desire 2000 online population, there will be a bloodbath for every of these "PVE" objectives.

 

Edited by ComradeAma

Share this post


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

Do you know that 7 Russians accounts left KGV after day 1 to EU campaign? The second part of the table is one of the most active players in KGV, you cut them out. Additionally the most of Dis score is generated from assists during the sieges. Do you think people who play 1h a day and don't do anything else should have 2/3 of victory points? Your data is not accurate, and idea of power card being more than 1/3 points (which applies only during 1/24 hours) makes no sense #SmallEncountersMatter.

P.S. Power card is already more than 1/3 points if you stragegically take forts/keeps with rank 3 class A/B building for the wealth card and don't lose your own.

P.S.2 I would not call running caravans or taking outposts a PVE activity. It may be easier now with not many gankers like ZYBAK around, but once campaign has its desire 2000 online population, there will be a bloodbath for every of these "PVE" objectives.

 

Hmmmm..... I think you are mistaken here, my friend. I'm not a member of ACE team and this data is not mine. The conclusions I've made are based on the data from score tables from the last campaign. You can go ahead and check it yourself.

If you think that data presented in this thread is not correct and that players with 120 overall score were actually the biggest contributors, please report this issue to ACE team via forum and/or official support Email: support@artandcraftentertainment.com 

 

On the other hand, the data you have provided in your response (thank you for your feedback, by the way) does not seem correct to me. As far as I understood, when you say "people who play 1 hour a day" you mean DIS, right? If you did, than these assumptions are not based on any data whatsoever and live in some kind of parallel reality which you might have imagined.

 

P.S. Please, my friend, correct me if I'm wrong. From your reply I understood that there is a group of Russian players in KGV who help you out to run pigs and to achieve your PVE goals/cards during the night time (NA - night, Russia - day). Is that right?

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
Posted (edited)

we have more assists on the eu server than dis on na 😃 unknown.png

I'd expected to see more assist from current top na clan... coz, well, eu has pretty much poor population. some sieges enemy even do not shows up (except cal+kds, thx for em).

 

win condition in crowfall  is something different than most ppl be used to. I mean this is not like: evening login with full force of members, build up decent pvp group setup and having good lead -> then go to kill everyone. the top factors to win is not a teh zerg but exploring and organized actions for examle. or bring over 9000 pplz and delete server with hats throwing.

 

I think ACE's did it not coz they can. they wanna give every single player possibility to make effort. isnt' it?

sure, there should be some balancing on current scores and such.

all I hated atm is what they does not give winners more exports....

 

Edited by makkon

crowfall pvp makkonMyrmidon statement: rangefall

Discord makkon#8550

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, makkon said:

we have more assists on the eu server than dis on na 😃 unknown.png

I'd expected to see more assist from current top na clan... coz, well, eu has pretty much poor population. some sieges enemy even do not shows up (except cal+kds, thx for em).

 

win condition in crowfall  is something different than most ppl be used to. I mean this is not like: evening login with full force of members, build up decent pvp group setup and having good lead -> then go to kill everyone. the top factors to win is not a teh zerg but exploring and organized actions for examle. or bring over 9000 pplz and delete server with hats throwing.

 

I think ACE's did it not coz they can. they wanna give every single player possibility to make effort. isnt' it?

sure, there should be some balancing on current scores and such.

all I hated atm is what they does not give winners more exports....

 

Good job there on EU servers, Bro! We also learn from you guys (Vanguard) some tactics you use are pretty interesting ;)


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)
4 hours ago, ComradeAma said:

Do you know that 7 Russians accounts left KGV after day 1 to EU campaign? The second part of the table is one of the most active players in KGV, you cut them out. Additionally the most of Dis score is generated from assists during the sieges. Do you think people who play 1h a day and don't do anything else should have 2/3 of victory points? Your data is not accurate, and idea of power card being more than 1/3 points (which applies only during 1/24 hours) makes no sense #SmallEncountersMatter.

P.S. Power card is already more than 1/3 points if you stragegically take forts/keeps with rank 3 class A/B building for the wealth card and don't lose your own.

P.S.2 I would not call running caravans or taking outposts a PVE activity. It may be easier now with not many gankers like ZYBAK around, but once campaign has its desire 2000 online population, there will be a bloodbath for every of these "PVE" objectives.

@Grivyn  @banditeer

Are these guys the core of your night-crawler PVE squad who do all the dirty work for KGV? According to the score tables, they have contributed A LOT to the PVE part of KGV's scores. And looks like they are based on the different side of the Globe from NA.

Did the Cinderella story just got a bit dirty? 🤥

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 personal scores by themselves don’t show anything useful, they don’t show anything to do with the ability to accomplish objectives. By themselves all they show is the ability to brawl successfully. And yes I expect the larger group that’s roaming the map looking for brawls to have good KDA numbers. But again that’s one of the reasons objectives matter over KDA: de-emphasize numbers and sidestep the conceits of a video game where we all respawn.

And again as I said in the other thread: when you hold a dominant position other groups are busy defending themselves from you’re gonna have an easier time doing the PvE activities, that doesn’t mean the overall game is too safe or easy. Using my own group as an example: last campaign we couldn’t farm for more than 2mins without having to fight someone, we never got an “easy PvE experience”. And we weren’t gonna waste time trying to purposefully target the group several times our size doing those activities at most moments, cause when we do they just collapse onto us or call more people cause content. Kind of a victim of your own success.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...