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

Make Enternal Kingdoms More Meaningful!

Recommended Posts

What I'm wondering is why you think it needs to be separated.  Essentially those who like/want conflict in the EKs would be happy with an EK that has it so that you are at the risk of conflict all the time, hurrah!  But it would segregate the community that is probably not going to be terribly massive anyway given the general direction of the game as a whole.

 

So why not just layer that EK on top of the hypothetical "one world" EK by having players, at the creation of their account, either opt in or out of the 'All PvP, all the time' EK vs. the toggle on and off PvP EK?  That way we keep the community together (since people that don't opt in can still feed into the conflict) but those who want to be at risk can be so.

 

Though personally I think it doesn't quite mesh with what the devs have spoken about because you'll get situations like Uncle Bob who controls the entire map.  Which they have purposefully designed the game around to not happen.


Between dreams and reality.


Lantern Watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody will move to someone else's EK for a conflict when some player is in charge of the ruleset. Additionally the idea of personal EK is that it's yours, so it's not as someone can sneakly come in, make a settlement and take it over.

 

Please read again what I wrote, point by point, and understand the difference from personal EK. Plus, nothing changes in terms of community with the proposed idea. With current EK system people are already separated into their own EKs. My idea actually allows for more interaction as people can port to a Eternal World where multiple even dozens of guilds live in the same contestable land and actively fight each other or bond in alliances without being separated into exclusive EKs, as long as they choose that because nobody forces them into this scenario or staying in personal EK and visiting others for chat or trade.

 

Also having played for years UO, SB and DF I've yet to see anyone completely dominating any server or map. The only instance of that I've seen was CN when server was already nearly barren of other NA/EU guilds.

 

I'll once again post it so maybe for a hundreth time people quit posting about how it will be too harsh, how some people don't want to pvp in EK, how people will quit because they'll lose pixels, etc.

 

First, the concept that I proposed does NOT affect those players who would rather enjoy the safety of their own personal EKs. The idea of personal EKs, being run entirely by their owners, with their desired rule sets, would remain untouched. Let me say it again, this idea does NOT change anything in the current set up of personal Eternal Kingdoms as it's proposed at this moment.

 

- The proposed idea is to ADD extra set of EKs, or simply call them Eternal Worlds, to the existing list of personal EKs and campaign worlds. They'd work as a mix of EK and campaign worlds in a sense that they'd not be owned and managed by players like personal EKs, but they'd be persistent unlike campaign worlds.

 

- Those Eternal Worlds would have set open settlement, PvP and conquest rule set (up to discussion, probably something ala SB). Players will be able to settle in them, but just as with personal EK, they'd have to bring resources from campaign worlds. Everyone will be able to move in there, if they choose from, and everyone will be able to bring in loot into them from campaign worlds, if they choose to not bring it into their personal EK.

 

- What does this mean? Once again, nothing is changed with personal EKs. Those who wish to only enjoy personal and friends' EKs after campaigns, they'll be able to do so, nothing has changed. What changes? Those who will want to continue politics, sieges, strifes and pvp in an open and unrestricted manner, similar to traditional servers (DF, SB, etc), they'll be able to choose to build their cities or keeps in those EKs and enjoy such type of conflict base game beyond campaigns.

 

Nothing is essentially changed, only thing is that there is a cherry on top of the cake and literally everyone is happy.

Edited by Nefastus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as there is an incentive to open your EK to PvP, and that incentive is rewarding enough, then there is hope that EKs will be meaningful to the Play to Crush fanatics.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with this whatsoever. The devs don't either, since it is already in the game with the current mechanics - people interested in that just need to make their EKs open and full PvP. Done and done.

 

I'll once again post it so maybe for a hundreth time people quit posting about how it will be too harsh, how some people don't want to pvp in EK, how people will quit because they'll lose pixels, etc.

 

First, the concept that I proposed does NOT affect those players who would rather enjoy the safety of their own personal EKs. The idea of personal EKs, being run entirely by their owners, with their desired rule sets, would remain untouched. Let me say it again, this idea does NOT change anything in the current set up of personal Eternal Kingdoms as it's proposed at this moment.

 

- The proposed idea is to ADD extra set of EKs, or simply call them Eternal Worlds, to the existing list of personal EKs and campaign worlds. They'd work as a mix of EK and campaign worlds in a sense that they'd not be owned and managed by players like personal EKs, but they'd be persistent unlike campaign worlds.

 

- Those Eternal Worlds would have set open settlement, PvP and conquest rule set (up to discussion, probably something ala SB). Players will be able to settle in them, but just as with personal EK, they'd have to bring resources from campaign worlds. Everyone will be able to move in there, if they choose from, and everyone will be able to bring in loot into them from campaign worlds, if they choose to not bring it into their personal EK.

 

- What does this mean? Once again, nothing is changed with personal EKs. Those who wish to only enjoy personal and friends' EKs after campaigns, they'll be able to do so, nothing has changed. What changes? Those who will want to continue politics, sieges, strifes and pvp in an open and unrestricted manner, similar to traditional servers (DF, SB, etc), they'll be able to choose to build their cities or keeps in those EKs and enjoy such type of conflict base game beyond campaigns.

 

Nothing is essentially changed, only thing is that there is a cherry on top of the cake and literally everyone is happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You spend your life savings opening a movie theater. Some guys show up every day, but they never see a movie.

 

All they do is play video games in the lobby.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people interested in that just need to make their EKs open and full PvP. Done and done.

 

Agreed, so long as there are mechanics that reward taking on the additional risk.  If there are no benefits to opening full PvP in your EK, then the PvP in them will be meaningless.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there should be rewards for maintaining an open PvP EK, but I don't think battles between such EKs will be meaningless. Such fights would have the same fun, glory and loot as any other battle. I've seen the 'meaning' question raised before, but I can't say I get why people would find such a battle meaningless. Like I've said, if I'm playing SB and have a great victorious bane, the fact that some guy in another country is playing WoW as a Panda doesn't render my experience in SB meaningless.

 

Agreed, so long as there are mechanics that reward taking on the additional risk.  If there are no benefits to opening full PvP in your EK, then the PvP in them will be meaningless.

Edited by Anthrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I get why people would find such a battle meaningless. Like I've said, if I'm playing SB and have a great victorious bane, the fact that some guy in another country is playing WoW as a Panda doesn't render my experience in SB meaningless.

 

To clarify-- people playing differently, especially in your example of playing a different game, has no impact on the "meaningfulness" of something like an SB bane.

 

However, defending your city from an attacker does lose some meaning when you have the option to simply opt out of the fight and keep your city in total safety.

 

I don't mind if there are options for people who don't want high risk.  I do mind if there are no incentives to take on the greater risk.  Conflict becomes too optional, and thus less meaningful for me.

Edited by jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who hasn't opted into PvP will never have to defend their city -  it's not like they are baned and then and opt-out of PvP, taking away the meaning - there is no meaning in this context to question. It's exactly as if that person is one of millions of people playing a different game you cannot PvP with. I don't see why anyone would worry or care about them. I don't see the why optional and meaning are being equated - both you and the person you are fighting who have opted in, are the only people that matter, anything else doesn't impact the meaning of your fight.

 

It's like the difference between the universe and the observable universe. It's pointless to worry about anything beyond the observable universe.

 

As for there being incentives for taking on higher risk and being open PvP, the reason any of us do it in the first place is still there. The fight, the glory, the fun, the loot, to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you...none of that changes. How does what someone else does in 'their game' impact what you do in yours, as long as you have people to do it with?

 

To clarify-- people playing differently, especially in your example of playing a different game, has no impact on the "meaningfulness" of something like an SB bane.

 

However, defending your city from an attacker does lose some meaning when you have the option to simply opt out of the fight and keep your city in total safety.

 

I don't mind if there are options for people who don't want high risk.  I do mind if there are no incentives to take on the greater risk.  Conflict becomes too optional, and thus less meaningful for me.

Edited by Anthrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can opt in and out of PvP whenever you want, depending on circumstances, that reduces the risk.  If, once you choose to go down a PvP path, you are in some way stuck with it, that raises the stakes.  If everyone else that you are competing with has to face those risks, the competition feels more meaningful than when you are competing with people who don't face the same risks.

 

Take, for example, the "hardcore" Asherons Call server-- Darktide.  You could not opt out of the PvP there.  If you played on Darktide, you were exposed to all the risks.  You could not choose to hang out on the safe servers for a while and then bring your character into Darktide when you wanted.  This added "meaningfulness" to the experience for me.  Making headway on that world was difficult and felt rewarding.  If I could make all the progress I wanted on a safe server and then dabble with PvP on Darktide it wouldn't have been as satisfying.

 

Please stop implying that I object to people playing a different game or under different rulesets.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the concern is that people could opt out of PvP whenever they want. That's perfectly reasonable. I just don't think they plan to allow someone who has opted in to PvP, using the currently known mechanics for example, to opt-out during the middle of the agreed-upon war between EKs. I find it very hard to believe that is what they are planning.

 

If you can opt in and out of PvP whenever you want, depending on circumstances, that reduces the risk.  If, once you choose to go down a PvP path, you are in some way stuck with it, that raises the stakes.  If everyone else that you are competing with has to face those risks, the competition feels more meaningful than when you are competing with people who don't face the same risks.

 

Take, for example, the "hardcore" Asherons Call server-- Darktide.  You could not opt out of the PvP there.  If you played on Darktide, you were exposed to all the risks.  You could not choose to hang out on the safe servers for a while and then bring your character into Darktide when you wanted.  This added "meaningfulness" to the experience for me.  Making headway on that world was difficult and felt rewarding.  If I could make all the progress I wanted on a safe server and then dabble with PvP on Darktide it wouldn't have been as satisfying.

 

Please stop implying that I object to people playing a different game or under different rulesets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I just don't think they plan to allow someone who has opted in to PvP, using the currently known mechanics for example, to opt-out during the middle of the agreed-upon war between EKs. I find it very hard to believe that is what they are planning.

 

I wish you would stop distorting my message in order to discount it.  I didn't mention "opt-out during the middle of the agreed-upon war" at all.

 

If there is one thing I have learned from arguing on forums, it is that you cannot force someone to understand you when they don't want to.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not distorting your message, I'm trying to clarify it. You say you didn't mention people opt-ing out during the middle of a war, and you've said you don't object to people playing under different rulesets...but you say there is a meaning problem? Under what circumstances if it's not those two above that we've excluded?

 

I wish you would stop distorting my message in order to discount it.  I didn't mention "opt-out during the middle of the agreed-upon war" at all.

 

If there is one thing I have learned from arguing on forums, it is that you cannot force someone to understand you when they don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in my EK world, ill invite or keep open to public. But have a PVP arena. Were the winner will get a reward from me IE land, house, mats, ect.... Have a PVP tourny world. Knights from all around CF will come, and have a grand old time. TRADE, EAT/DRINK, FIGHT, DIE, REWARDS


LW_sig_concept6_zpsdcbxhvyp.jpg
The Lantern Watch - A Crowfall-first guild. Welcome Home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be obtuse, really. In your Darktide example, you say that "If I could make all the progress I wanted on a safe server and then dabble with PvP on Darktide it wouldn't have been as satisfying." This is the crux of my point. You're saying the experience would be less satisfying to you, less meaningful to you, if you made that choice. If you don't make that choice, your level of satisfaction and meaning is retained. So don't make that choice.

 

You've made a point of telling me you don't care about or don't object to other people's ruleset choices. So if you don't make that choice, this is where I fail to see the problem. That's pretty clear no?

 

Now let's make my position and the problem I see clear.

 
Some people - perhaps not you - are expressing the feeling that CF is not Play2Crush enough. The implication being that the presence of subsections of the gameworld - EKs - where some people can avoid sieges and PvP, negatively impacts their Play2Crush experience and perhaps even ruins the whole enterprise. Some people want changes made so that there is no way to avoid PvP. Again, you may not be one of those people, but there are several posts which reflect this position.
 
My position is that if these people had their way, we would not be able to have our Play2Crush experience. This is because, as both history and the current market shows, the hardcore PvP player-base alone is not large enough to support the costs of an MMO. This was an issue with SB, and if you take away the non-PvP elements of CF, you won't be able to pay the bills, and there goes your Play2Crush along with it.
 
That's it. I have no issue with expanding the PvP experience, of mechanics which go further than what we know of now, in terms of enabling persistent, politics-infused PvP - via additional EK ruleset control and some optional changes there - I want those things too. These claims however that CF in it's current form takes the meaning out of Play2Crush, and that it can only be remedied by removing all of the non-PvP stuff...that's nonsense. I've waited over a decade for SB-style gameplay, I really really don't want to see it attached to SB-style longterm viability.

 

 

If you can opt in and out of PvP whenever you want, depending on circumstances, that reduces the risk.  If, once you choose to go down a PvP path, you are in some way stuck with it, that raises the stakes.  If everyone else that you are competing with has to face those risks, the competition feels more meaningful than when you are competing with people who don't face the same risks.

 

Take, for example, the "hardcore" Asherons Call server-- Darktide.  You could not opt out of the PvP there.  If you played on Darktide, you were exposed to all the risks.  You could not choose to hang out on the safe servers for a while and then bring your character into Darktide when you wanted.  This added "meaningfulness" to the experience for me.  Making headway on that world was difficult and felt rewarding.  If I could make all the progress I wanted on a safe server and then dabble with PvP on Darktide it wouldn't have been as satisfying.

 

Please stop implying that I object to people playing a different game or under different rulesets.

 

 

Did my Darktide example clarify anything?  If not, I'm not sure I want to keep trying.

Edited by Anthrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse, really. In your Darktide example, you say that "If I could make all the progress I wanted on a safe server and then dabble with PvP on Darktide it wouldn't have been as satisfying." This is the crux of my point. You're saying the experience would be less satisfying to you, less meaningful to you, if you made that choice. If you don't make that choice, your level of satisfaction and meaning is retained. So don't make that choice..

 

 

if there was a way to level in peace and hop in and out of Darktide it would impact the feel of the whole server, not just for the people who chose the easy path.  If the only way to climb to the top of the Darktide server is to struggle through the Darktide gauntlet then the accomplishment has more meaning.  Allowing people to jump into Darktide with power and resources that they earned in a safe server would not be "fair" to the people who struggled to achieve something within that harsh ruleset.  It would make them feel like taking the difficult path was arbitrarily shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Ultimately, it is a choice to play in a high risk ruleset, and I have no problem with someone making a different choice.  What I want is a ruleset where I get some reward for choosing the high-risk ruleset, and can compete with others who have chosen that same path.  That will exist on the Dregs, and I want it to exist in some way on the EKs as well.

 

 

These claims however that CF in it's current form takes the meaning out of Play2Crush, and that it can only be remedied by removing all of the non-PvP stuff.

 

Yep, that is not me.  I do not think that non-PvP stuff will ruin CF.  I'm not one of the people claiming that CF is not play to crush enough. I am ok with there being options for people to dial down the "hardcore" aspects.

 

I just want a harcore option for the EKs that doesn't resemble, "sure, open PvP in your EK for no reason, knock yourself out."  Some of the magic of a game like Shadowbane or Darktide is lost in that situation.

Edited by jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important takeaway from this topic, and actually many other threads like this on forums such as Shadowbane Emulator, Magicbane, Darkfall and even MMORPG.com is this: the hardcore PvP crowd isn't currently feeling the Eternal Kingdoms as meaningful, which in turn will make the Campaigns less meaningful in their eyes. This could harm the initial playerbase and reduce replayability with the campaigns. Yeah, those things might not be in the vision for the game, yeah it might be. This is not a small issue, and in fact it's one of the only issues being brought up around the web with the game (outside of the PVE crowd's non-interest in the game).

 

But let's face it: PvP in modern MMOs lacks risk, reward and impact. GW2 and ESO are prime examples of this. This game won't have the PvE content those games have, and has more of a focus on PvP. Therefore we should be taking the PvP crowd's feedback on this topic, and we should be trying to incorporate mechanics that make the PvP in Crowfall feel both impactful, but also have a sense of risk, reward and permanence. Without these facets the game will be painted by these communities with the same brush other modern MMOs have been painted with, such as GW2 and ESO's meaningless PvP.

 

It is as simple as that. It's not our call on whether that will happen but all we can do is give feedback, and the feedback from these hardcore communities is clear: they want more permanence. They want more PvP, conflict, risk and political intrigue outside of the Campaigns to help make those temporary Campaigns more meaningful. The EK is one way this could be done, maybe there are others.

Edited by taroskin

Crazy Talk co-co-co-gl

Guardians of Moonforest fangirl

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...