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

Changes Ace need to make


Recommended Posts

Focus on the small clan. 
A lot of players join Crowfall solo or with a handful of friends.  Currently there is not much of anything to do in game for these small bands. Hit some mob spawns to get some loot. Perhaps capture an outpost. Then what?    The siege objectives are swarmed by 25+ member clans who also bring their allies that are just as big. There will be those who say "This is a Throne War MMO, recruit more".  That is true.  But there is something missing in the game for the 1-15 man groups.  Its either bring 30+ or don't play.  This doesn't bode well for the new players entering the game. They'll move on rather quickly.

Some may reply here and say “they could do caravans!”  For what ? Building materials for buildings that they have no chance of capturing?  Before the change, I thought the caravans were a step in the right direction.  This was something a small group could do and gain benefit from it.  More content that focuses on the small group is needed in the game. The world is too dead outside of siege windows.  Suggestion: Battle objectives. A quest designed for a small group to take POI objectives or defend. Reward mats, mob drop gear, and gain campaign points. Activities that when a player logs in, he/she can roll out with 1-5 players and have something to do.

Create the in game clan management windows. It's already hard enough to communicate in this game. Why have the clan management outside of the game?  Share member count of clans, stats from previous campaigns or accomplishments. 

Catering to large clans 
There are no negatives to having as many players on your side as possible.  Bring more, win more.  Your game doesn’t have a high skill level to play so numbers will be the deciding factor in most conflicts.  There has been talk of an alliance system but I am afraid this would make the numbers ratio even worse without doing it right.  The large clans will just ally other large clans because again, bring more, win more. The game will turn into a few mega alliances. At that point, might as well play a faction campaign. 

Introducing a reasonable clan cap size, 500 is way too much. Your game can't even handle it. I suggest a 75 limit for a clan. Give a bonus to items crafted by clan mates that are worn by the same clan.  This will give a reason to keep crafters on your roster.  Choices should be made, players will need to be cut to keep within limits. Could even look at a softcap, if exceeded, have a campaign points penalty or something.

Change the siege window. All holdings should go live at the same time for as long as the window is open. It's too easy for the larger clans to capture additional holdings because their current holdings are not vulnerable. They basically can have their whole roster show up with no worry of defending.  If you want more holdings, you'll have to make a choice on defensive strategy. Large clans will still hold an advantage since their numbers will allow them to defend more territory.

Holdings should only accrue points while they are vulnerable with a bonus to the clan that holds it at the end of the window. This should give more urgency for clans to seize and control a holding throughout the siege window instead of taking a holding in the last minutes.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree,

The requirement to zerg to do anything worthwhile is a big problem. Any new player or tester joining will be faced with one thing, join a zerg or quit. If you can't field 30+ players then  you cannot really participate in any meaningful way in this "throne war simulator". There are no small group objectives that will keep a new player in the game. If the only thing to do if not in a zerg is farm trash mobs then you will 100% see those players quit. 

Either there needs to be some serious thought into how to force the zerg to split forces because of objectives or you need to consider anti-zerg skill mechanics, buffs or something. 

 

If a clan cap does get put in also consider removing clan symbols above peoples heads except for those in the same clan. The reason for this is to disrupt people from making multiple clans but working together. If people get forced into multiple clans you have a potential for friendly fire as long as they can't tell who it is they are fighting. Not seeing enemy clan symbols makes it that much harder for a zerg to fight a smaller force because they could end up AOEing or fighting friendlies. 

 

TLDR: Stop letting the zerg have their way with the game unless you want the game to have a handful of zerg clans and the rest of the player base to never even touch the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Audin said:

Some may reply here and say “they could do caravans!”  For what ? Building materials for buildings that they have no chance of capturing?  Before the change, I thought the caravans were a step in the right direction.  This was something a small group could do and gain benefit from it.

I agree with this, I didn't like that change. It  was good small scale pvp content with risk v reward when Caravans provided crafting mats (even if it was limited to blue quality to preserve the value of highly trained harvesters). Now we really need something to replace caravans for small group, because Forts are so valuable atm that large guilds are willing to bring 30 players for them.

15 hours ago, Audin said:

Change the siege window. All holdings should go live at the same time for as long as the window is open. It's too easy for the larger clans to capture additional holdings because their current holdings are not vulnerable. They basically can have their whole roster show up with no worry of defending.  If you want more holdings, you'll have to make a choice on defensive strategy. Large clans will still hold an advantage since their numbers will allow them to defend more territory.

Agree with this too, need more objectives open at once to force strategic choices.

I dislike artificially low member caps on guilds however, it doesn't work in practice and players just figure out workarounds. The one way I could see this to work is a special tournament Campaign ruleset where each invited guild has a limited roster size.

tiPrpwh.png

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

The one way I could see this to work is a special tournament Campaign ruleset where each invited guild has a limited roster size.

Without thinking over it too much -- this sounds like it could initially work. Open multiple limited size campaigns 15-30 per guild, allow guild leaders/officers to setup a roster a day or two prior. Tag the guild leader to have the ability to enter any of the campaigns that the guild is entered in to effectively act as the "general" to observe the progress of their troops.

The counter to this however -- many guilds could simply ask various members to drop guild, and join as unguilded (or as a newly formed guild -- or less populated guilds) but same faction. This could be possibly mitigated by "locking out" any accounts that have either quit/joined a guild the moment the campaign roster request posted. BUT then it could further be worked around by larger guilds simply splitting up into guilds of 30-50 players, and allying with the "overall" guild. In other games this could be mitigated by tying specific guild rewards, materials, and any crafted item of those won materials to be limited to that specific guild...but that'd remove a certain selling portion of the market.

But in games that promote massive PVP for the sake of PVP -- zergs are simply inevitable. It's why I'm ultimately pro arbitrary debuffs to weaken zergs (or even larger groups), significantly strengthen the smaller force (that weakens with each enemy removed until a relative baseline), or to enable friendly fire.

Personally, I hate 5v1 encounters -- I get it, because PVP, but it is quite literally only in PVP-centric games that it occurs because it attracts that specific player base. In quite a few other PvE/PvP games -- sure PvP is allowed, but a lot of times the possible 1v1 both may realize it isn't worth while, or that 5v1 group is on their way to another objective and simply don't want to waste their time. Currently in CF though -- if a group sees you, they'll run to the ends of the earth to kill you...at which point, if caught, I already know my fate and start deleting items...because if I can't have these blue materials, I'm going to burn em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that in addition to some of the things mentioned here (especially meaningful objectives for roamers/small groups if these are indeed lacking) adding more build options for self-sustain and hyper-mobility are also essential solutions for this. Zerg busting requires extreme amounts of kiting and self-sufficiency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 7:43 AM, miraluna said:

I dislike artificially low member caps on guilds however, it doesn't work in practice and players just figure out workarounds. The one way I could see this to work is a special tournament Campaign ruleset where each invited guild has a limited roster size.

This is how it´s done in BDO: https://wiki.blackdesertonline.com/index.php?title=Node_War#Nodes_.28Tier.29  Only guilds holding a T3 or T4 node are allowed to participate in the war for one of the territories. Everyone else can queue for a supporting spot. There are always so many supporters that [guild + supporters] are levelled out across all factions.

Works great.

 

GvTm2yj.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 12:18 AM, Audin said:

Focus on the small clan. 
A lot of players join Crowfall solo or with a handful of friends.  Currently there is not much of anything to do in game for these small bands. Hit some mob spawns to get some loot. Perhaps capture an outpost. Then what?    The siege objectives are swarmed by 25+ member clans who also bring their allies that are just as big. There will be those who say "This is a Throne War MMO, recruit more".  That is true.  But there is something missing in the game for the 1-15 man groups.  Its either bring 30+ or don't play.  This doesn't bode well for the new players entering the game. They'll move on rather quickly.

Some may reply here and say “they could do caravans!”  For what ? Building materials for buildings that they have no chance of capturing?  Before the change, I thought the caravans were a step in the right direction.  This was something a small group could do and gain benefit from it.  More content that focuses on the small group is needed in the game. The world is too dead outside of siege windows.  Suggestion: Battle objectives. A quest designed for a small group to take POI objectives or defend. Reward mats, mob drop gear, and gain campaign points. Activities that when a player logs in, he/she can roll out with 1-5 players and have something to do.

Create the in game clan management windows. It's already hard enough to communicate in this game. Why have the clan management outside of the game?  Share member count of clans, stats from previous campaigns or accomplishments. 

Catering to large clans 
There are no negatives to having as many players on your side as possible.  Bring more, win more.  Your game doesn’t have a high skill level to play so numbers will be the deciding factor in most conflicts.  There has been talk of an alliance system but I am afraid this would make the numbers ratio even worse without doing it right.  The large clans will just ally other large clans because again, bring more, win more. The game will turn into a few mega alliances. At that point, might as well play a faction campaign. 

Introducing a reasonable clan cap size, 500 is way too much. Your game can't even handle it. I suggest a 75 limit for a clan. Give a bonus to items crafted by clan mates that are worn by the same clan.  This will give a reason to keep crafters on your roster.  Choices should be made, players will need to be cut to keep within limits. Could even look at a softcap, if exceeded, have a campaign points penalty or something.

Change the siege window. All holdings should go live at the same time for as long as the window is open. It's too easy for the larger clans to capture additional holdings because their current holdings are not vulnerable. They basically can have their whole roster show up with no worry of defending.  If you want more holdings, you'll have to make a choice on defensive strategy. Large clans will still hold an advantage since their numbers will allow them to defend more territory.

Holdings should only accrue points while they are vulnerable with a bonus to the clan that holds it at the end of the window. This should give more urgency for clans to seize and control a holding throughout the siege window instead of taking a holding in the last minutes.
 

I wanted fort chests to be lootable/stealable by all so that would be small scale content but zerg guild are like no why fight for keep if we dont get a 100% safe chest an hour to loot for silly amount of stuff.

even mob camp dont support a group there not enough mobs for more than 2 people to farm even then ur still waiting on respawns. i would accelerate mob spawn for each extra player up 2 to 5 player cap

edit: They should also make all the US fort go at exact same time not spaced out by an hour so 2 per hour so we get 6 at the same time so zergs cant cap them all 

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dungeons & Dragons Online has an interesting system.  While not directly relatable as it is xp/reknown generated towards guild level involved, small guilds get HUGE bonuses, that slowly drop off as player count increases.  A chart for this can be seen here "https://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown".

Again, while mechanically quite different, the theory is good, and some of it could be applied here in some fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bonuses are good enough that it is in every player's best interests to clan up, and heavily favors smaller groups.  In this game, I would see this as a positive.  For sure an in game guild system, even if it is via text commands.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 4:49 AM, Simonic said:

Without thinking over it too much -- this sounds like it could initially work. Open multiple limited size campaigns 15-30 per guild, allow guild leaders/officers to setup a roster a day or two prior. Tag the guild leader to have the ability to enter any of the campaigns that the guild is entered in to effectively act as the "general" to observe the progress of their troops.

The counter to this however -- many guilds could simply ask various members to drop guild, and join as unguilded (or as a newly formed guild -- or less populated guilds) but same faction. This could be possibly mitigated by "locking out" any accounts that have either quit/joined a guild the moment the campaign roster request posted. BUT then it could further be worked around by larger guilds simply splitting up into guilds of 30-50 players, and allying with the "overall" guild. In other games this could be mitigated by tying specific guild rewards, materials, and any crafted item of those won materials to be limited to that specific guild...but that'd remove a certain selling portion of the market.

But in games that promote massive PVP for the sake of PVP -- zergs are simply inevitable. It's why I'm ultimately pro arbitrary debuffs to weaken zergs (or even larger groups), significantly strengthen the smaller force (that weakens with each enemy removed until a relative baseline), or to enable friendly fire.

Personally, I hate 5v1 encounters -- I get it, because PVP, but it is quite literally only in PVP-centric games that it occurs because it attracts that specific player base. In quite a few other PvE/PvP games -- sure PvP is allowed, but a lot of times the possible 1v1 both may realize it isn't worth while, or that 5v1 group is on their way to another objective and simply don't want to waste their time. Currently in CF though -- if a group sees you, they'll run to the ends of the earth to kill you...at which point, if caught, I already know my fate and start deleting items...because if I can't have these blue materials, I'm going to burn em.

I hadn't thought of trashing my stuff rather than let it be looted.  Thanks for the tip.

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

I wanted fort chests to be lootable/stealable by all so that would be small scale content but zerg guild are like no why fight for keep if we dont get a 100% safe chest an hour to loot for silly amount of stuff.

Why not both? Some POI lootable every hour by anyone and some the way they are now?

aeei5jG.png

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

Dungeons & Dragons Online has an interesting system.  While not directly relatable as it is xp/reknown generated towards guild level involved, small guilds get HUGE bonuses, that slowly drop off as player count increases.  A chart for this can be seen here "https://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown".

Again, while mechanically quite different, the theory is good, and some of it could be applied here in some fashion.

How does this help smaller guilds? I´m not sure if I got it right, but that seems to be a system to get bonuses. And with 300 % for a 6 man guild compared to 76,5 % for a 24 or 18 man guild, the larger guild still seems in favor (76,5 x 24 / 6 = 306 or 125,5 * 18 / 6 = 376,5). But that´s only the catch up. In the end the larger guild will still have x times the players with those bonuses. Are there more balancing tools? If not - wouldn´t it be better to drop guild bonuses completely?

Edited by DoomYa

GvTm2yj.gif

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

Why not both? Some POI lootable every hour by anyone and some the way they are now?

The problem with the ones the way they are now sit in the uncle bob scenario. small guilds are gonna get left behind as larger guilds who can take forts will be stacking up on dust, gold and resources every hour depending on the fort as the chests stand now atleast

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 10:18 AM, Audin said:

Change the siege window. All holdings should go live at the same time for as long as the window is open. It's too easy for the larger clans to capture additional holdings because their current holdings are not vulnerable. They basically can have their whole roster show up with no worry of defending.  If you want more holdings, you'll have to make a choice on defensive strategy. Large clans will still hold an advantage since their numbers will allow them to defend more territory.
 

This is the best point you made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the mini keeps are supposed to fulfill this role as intended to be claimed by guilds fielding <10-15 players at peak, the medium keeps 15-30 and the larger keeps more than that (or something to that effect, at least at current population numbers).  If there were disincentives for larger guilds (some algorithm to base it off players in campaign weighted more than players in guild total) to go after smaller keeps (and maybe even we get small and large forts, too, for similar purposes) that could help.  The ideal situation in Dregs would be only a handful of large keeps, a healthy amount of medium, and numerous small so that more guilds can get their "base of operations" without feeling like they are forced to compete against zergs.  Might be more of a growing pains thing and just figuring out what needs tweaking.  Dabbling ourselves we only ever encountered walls of players with a barely full group of 5 other than the random loner lmao.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Deioth said:

I feel like the mini keeps are supposed to fulfill this role as intended to be claimed by guilds fielding <10-15 players at peak, the medium keeps 15-30 and the larger keeps more than that (or something to that effect, at least at current population numbers).  If there were disincentives for larger guilds (some algorithm to base it off players in campaign weighted more than players in guild total) to go after smaller keeps (and maybe even we get small and large forts, too, for similar purposes) that could help.  The ideal situation in Dregs would be only a handful of large keeps, a healthy amount of medium, and numerous small so that more guilds can get their "base of operations" without feeling like they are forced to compete against zergs.  Might be more of a growing pains thing and just figuring out what needs tweaking.  Dabbling ourselves we only ever encountered walls of players with a barely full group of 5 other than the random loner lmao.

Things I would change:

One keep per scoring guild/alliance/faction, to ensure more guilds have keep access.

One fort per guild/alliance/faction, to incentivize and reward keep holders for participation without them overwhelming fort windows.

Keeps generate the same resources as forts, leaving a maximum of 2 pois worth of mats, again to engage keep holders to also be fort holders while ensuring those without keeps have a wide range of fort opportunities. This would more evenly spread the rewards, and thus competition for rewards, among multiple tiers of competitor numbers/skill. 2 chest, 1 chest, and no-chest organizations.

Scale power gain upward for each successfully defended window of a given keep or fort, and drastically scale up power gain for building upgrades of all types to replace the lost opportunities from multiple keeps/forts. This makes siege windows more dynamic by providing multi-layered priorities for attack and defense related to power score.

Provide loot and power rewards based upon a portion of upgrade materials for razing buildings and removing trees to reward raiding and encourage participation even if you can't cap anything else. Use the harvesting model (most total damage) to assign this reward. This provides economic incentive and damage for those windows, and ensures top end competitors are still playing to crush one another while providing less (but not zero) incentives for crushing those already beneath them.

Gain +1 power per tick for outposts on maps in which your organization owns a keep or fort to encourage landed guilds to prioritize their home turf for outpost play while keeping incentives for unlanded guilds even across all zones.

Force recall binding to the largest POI your guild owns, to reinforce territorial advantages and limitations. This increases a sense of place, ownership, neighbors, and personal rivalry between organizations.

Place a cooldown on gate travel (except temple/free city gates) of 30 minutes after recalling whether alive or in crow form. This limits movement independant of map generation to ensure the practical utility of territory in such a small world, and ensures the ability to effectively remove foreign hostiles for a predictable period long enough to accomplish a PvE task. This allows better control of an area when taking part in these tasks while still ensuring constant risk in high value spawns from locals. This also creates interesting randomized advantages and disadvantages based upon seasonal cards and map generation.

Link all temples to the free city every campaign, but disallow runegate travel to other temples. Never link temples together without passage through a PvP area. Provide all god statues in the free city. Separate world banks and the free city bank. POIs have world banks. Temples and the free city use the free city bank. Losing all POIs dumps your world bank to the free city bank, as does the end of the campaign, and allow this bank to overflow if this happens. This ensures unlanded guilds have easier access to the free market and sacrifice objectives than landed guilds. This in turn encourages landed guilds to run local harvesting or local markets while allowing them to participate in these systems at an elevated risk compared to unlanded organizations. The lord's couriers versus the bandit hordes as it were. This also ensures that landed guilds who lose all land can immediately still access their accrued wealth in temples and immediately use it in the market to help them rebound.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's a simple answer to this question when the game is live and we have more than one campaign to choose from.

Just add different campaigns with different guild size criteria. Guilds and choose to join 'brackets' that limit the number of accounts that are allowed in a campaign from their guild. So not guild size. But how many can go into the campaign.

Small Guilds are 25 people or less.
Medium Guilds are 50 or less.
Large Guilds are 100 or less.

Doing it like this, if you had people who were focusing on crafting or resource gathering they wouldn't impact your number. Nor would mule accounts or things like that. Guilds already choose how big or small they want to be, so this would help facilitate that.

Another flavor would be to limit how many from a guild could be in a zone at the same time - although I think you'd be more likely to see 'My Guild I' and 'My Guild II' type scenarios.

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...