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

Recommended Posts

The 20% loss of equipment feels like too steep of a punishment for losing. This game needs to reward pvp risk taking. So instead of punish the loser by having them now needing to go craft another item for their equipment why not reward the winner by making skulls worth something.

I was hoping to make skulls could have a vendor that is out in the world so there is risk to it still. Something that trades players a certain amount of resources per skull. I don't care the number but this would allow pvp only players to directly help add more resources to their guild and also be another place for fights and ganks to happen. Maybe have 3 or 4 skull vendors(each resource leather, wood, stone, and ore)in a campaign that randomly spawn for 1 hour with an announcement and can trade skulls for a specific resource. The exchange could be like 1 skull 10 white x, 8 green x, 5 blue x, 3 purple x, and 1 gold x. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BehindYou said:

The 20% loss of equipment feels like too steep of a punishment for losing. This game needs to reward pvp risk taking. So instead of punish the loser by having them now needing to go craft another item for their equipment why not reward the winner by making skulls worth something.

I was hoping to make skulls could have a vendor that is out in the world so there is risk to it still. Something that trades players a certain amount of resources per skull. I don't care the number but this would allow pvp only players to directly help add more resources to their guild and also be another place for fights and ganks to happen. Maybe have 3 or 4 skull vendors(each resource leather, wood, stone, and ore)in a campaign that randomly spawn for 1 hour with an announcement and can trade skulls for a specific resource. The exchange could be like 1 skull 10 white x, 8 green x, 5 blue x, 3 purple x, and 1 gold x. 

THIS.......and pvp ranks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see some skull collectors variation from our mobs.

Hell i can even imagine the urgu one looking all savage and badass on a hut full of macabre items around.

Could perhaps make them heralds (kings?) that double as npcs. Dont attack them and you can just trade. Want to try your luck after you sold everything you had for some extra items? Stop your enemies from doing the same? Go for it!

Mats are okay but i would like to see a more robust selections. Maybe have each tribe collector have their own special itens on top of the mainstream ones.

Maybe some itens require x different skulls, maybe it requires y from a single guild.

Of course this is all under the premisse we avoid people gaming it. But overall it is a interesting idea.

Edited by BarriaKarl
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jah said:

If kills generate resources you create an incentive to farm naked alts.

If skulls or kills for rewards, ranks, or anything became a thing then some sort of anti-exploit would also need to be created.

The "farm alts" reasoning seems to be the first thing that pops up for any sort of PVP reward system yet I don't believe I've ever actually seen it as an issue or at least past the rough draft stage. Win trading is also a potential problem, but good design is all that is needed.

  • Anti- Exploit and Diminishing Returns:
    • Skull loses value the more they are killed in a given period.
    • Value based on player activity or "rank" (lvl 1 poor vessel <<<< legendary vessel that has turned in 1000 skulls)
    • Value based on if they were solo/grouped, how many attackers they had or were in the area.
    • Skulls are character bound.
    • Value based on if two players have defeated each other in a period and how often they have turned in each others skulls.

Such things exist and have worked in multiple games in some form. Could ACE create a working system? No clue, but it isn't impossible to make a system that is both rewarding and hard to exploit.

If someone wanted to farm 100 different alts for the same value as one real player, go for it. Only cheating themselves at that point.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of having rng locations with rng vendors for a set period and it being announced was the thought to hurting the exploiting some. Also a set limit per day could also be introduced. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 8:09 PM, APE said:

The "farm alts" reasoning seems to be the first thing that pops up for any sort of PVP reward system yet I don't believe I've ever actually seen it as an issue or at least past the rough draft stage.

You've never seen alt farming abused before? I certainly have.

I'm not saying it can't be solved, but it's not easily solved. The fixes for it tend to have unfortunate side effects as well.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

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

You've never seen alt farming abused before? I certainly have.

I'm not saying it can't be solved, but its's not easily solved. The fixes for it tend to have unfortunate side effects as well.

This.

Lets say you implement a diminishing return for the same skulls. Now you're just penalizing people who engage in protracted fights over a position. If FOEX and WB decide to spend and evening fighting over a series of outposts in a zone, your PvP is worth less skulls than deciding to not contest territory and in stead encourages us to not do that and just go gate ganking randoms.

You can't really build a "kills are value" economic system that fairly represents risk for its rewards because the number of variables that determine how risky a kill is are too vast. The fact that many games have tried and failed at it isn't an indicator it works. There's always an easy exploit, and the more valuable the kill system is, the more incentive there is to exploit it. Titles and stuff are generally fine because who gives a poorly made dergs if you sploit your way to a title that doesn't do anything. When you start using such a system as a stand in for currency, or having it pay out hard value, the cracks begin to show almost immediately.

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
13 hours ago, Jah said:

You've never seen alt farming abused before? I certainly have.

I'm not saying it can't be solved, but its's not easily solved. The fixes for it tend to have unfortunate side effects as well.

Which games? Did they have anti-exploit mechanics?

I've played almost every semi popular MMO so I've probably seen/forgotten such things, but I don't remember it ever being an issue where it took away from my experience.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

This.

Lets say you implement a diminishing return for the same skulls. Now you're just penalizing people who engage in protracted fights over a position. If FOEX and WB decide to spend and evening fighting over a series of outposts in a zone, your PvP is worth less skulls than deciding to not contest territory and in stead encourages us to not do that and just go gate ganking randoms.

How does zero PVP reward potential encourage PVP more then a system that has possible diminishing return rewards?

How would two guilds fight over POI for an evening without any interaction with other players in a game with an actual population?

If contesting territory is only for skulls, there is a larger issue.

9 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

You can't really build a "kills are value" economic system that fairly represents risk for its rewards because the number of variables that determine how risky a kill is are too vast. The fact that many games have tried and failed at it isn't an indicator it works. There's always an easy exploit, and the more valuable the kill system is, the more incentive there is to exploit it. Titles and stuff are generally fine because who gives a poorly made dergs if you sploit your way to a title that doesn't do anything. When you start using such a system as a stand in for currency, or having it pay out hard value, the cracks begin to show almost immediately.

Which games has it failed in? Did they have anything in place to counter exploiting?

I'm more a fan of cosmetics, titles, ranks, PVP unlocked powers/passives then gold, resources, items.

Non "economic" rewards are easier to manage, but good design could manage it all well enough.

For me, I just want anything instead of nothing. There should be some form of individual PVP progression and rewards. Most "themepark" MMOs have them along with plenty of "PVP" MMOs.

Behind the scenes calculations can only do so much when it comes to how "risky" a fight actually was, but I've seen other games do it decently where it wasn't common place to exploit and the rewards still felt good to earn.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with APE, even if this still has issues and isnt perfect it still is something. As long as it isnt straight up causing issues it is a win. Sure, maybe some guilds wanna set up bots and trade skulls for some marginal gains, but so be it. As long as people arent breaking the game so be it, that is why we gotta come up with ways to make those exploits as worthless as possible. That is where the community should step up, find how it can be gamed and REPORT it.

This community has a serious problem of throwing shade on interesting ideas simply because they arent end all fix all solutions. "That is interesting but doesnt solve this game problems", saw this time and time again. That is alright, but does it help fix ONE problem? Does it makes the game better?

Hell, considering the ability CF has to try multiple things on different CWs and mix things up the best thing we can have is ideas to try. Say only 30% of people like a idea, if this game doesnt flop that is more than enough to have it on a CW for those people.

And this idea absolutely goes in the awesome category. Only problem it has is the players ruining their own fun, but that is the #1 problem devs have. Hardly something new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

This community has a serious problem of throwing shade on interesting ideas simply because they arent end all fix all solutions.

It's unfortunate that so many are adverse to Crowfall actually being what it was originally planned to be. A core game that could support multiple ways of playing it.

Too much of "I don't like that or I can't see how that could work." Designing a game around limited imaginations and what individuals don't like makes no sense. Especially when those suggestions have worked in similar successful game formats.

Ranks and PVP rewards??? No way that could work.

Gear Looting??? Madness.

Friendly Fire??? Nonsense, no game has ever worked with it.

PVE only servers in a PVP game??? Nah, no way that works.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh the penalty is only to steep atm because gear is not easy come atm, should be easy come easy go atm they shifted towards the easy go part not so much the easy come part

Bank space might be an issue aswell since you will want multiple sets of equipment and since gear doesnt stack it will realy fill up the limited bank spaces.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, APE said:

Which games? Did they have anti-exploit mechanics?

I've played almost every semi popular MMO so I've probably seen/forgotten such things, but I don't remember it ever being an issue where it took away from my experience.

It's already an issue in Crowfall with victory cards that award points for skulls, kills during siege, killing of enemy pack pigs, etc. It was an issue in the Decapathons. It was an issue in the Trials of the Gods when winners were determined by kills or KDR.

If there are rewards for killing alts people will do it. And it's not just alts. Even without alts people will trade kills if it is rewarded.

Darkfall had its "bloodwalls" where people macro'd hitting each other to skill up. Shadowbane added PvP XP and people macro'd killing alts to level.

Any attempt to diminish the returns on kills will hit normal players harder than abusers. If an abuser kills 10 different alts per day, it is difficult to compete with that through normal open world play. The abuser can also play normally on top of killing alts. How does anyone compete with that?

The most obvious solution to farming alts is random matchmaking battlegrounds, so it is difficult to ensure you will face your own alts. That is an example of "unfortunate consequences" in my mind, because I'm not here for matchmaking battlegrounds, I'm here for an open world pvp sandbox.

Can you give an example from an open world pvp sandbox style game where killing people in normal play generates rewards more efficiently that killing alts or trading kills? What specific mechanics are used to accomplish this?

Looting works because it is a zero-sum game. The reward is taken from one player and given to the other, so there is no incentive to farm alts or trade kills.

 

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jah said:

It's already an issue in Crowfall with victory cards that award points for skulls, kills during siege, killing of enemy pack pigs, etc. It was an issue in the Decapathons. It was an issue in the Trials of the Gods when winners were determined by kills or KDR.

ACE has also made zero attempt to thwart such things.

Quote

If there are rewards for killing alts people will do it. And it's not just alts. Even without alts people will trade kills if it is rewarded.

I agree but if the effort far outweighs the reward, it is much less likely to be abused to the point it actually matters. 

Quote

Darkfall had its "bloodwalls" where people macro'd hitting each other to skill up. Shadowbane added PvP XP and people macro'd killing alts to level.

Good design and macros shouldn't be used in the same discussion. Both games seemed to have cannibalized themselves.

Quote

Any attempt to diminish the returns on kills will hit normal players harder than abusers. If an abuser kills 10 different alts per day, it is difficult to compete with that through normal open world play. The abuser can also play normally on top of killing alts. How does anyone compete with that?

This assumes what anti-exploit are in place? Would seem like nothing.

Quote

Can you give an example from an open world pvp sandbox style game where killing people in normal play generates rewards more efficiently that killing alts or trading kills?

DAoC, WAR, Albion Online. I've played several other games with PVP focused rewards that also worked but can't remember them specifically enough to say why they worked.

Quote

What specific mechanics are used to accomplish this?

  • Skull loses value the more they are killed in a given period.
  • Value based on player activity or "rank" (lvl 1 poor vessel <<<< legendary vessel that has turned in 1000 skulls)
  • Value based on if they were solo/grouped, how many attackers they had or were in the area.
  • Skulls are character bound.
  • Value based on if two players have defeated each other in a period and how often they have turned in each others skulls.
  • More dangerous a map, more players are worth. Can't farm in EK, GR, Infected.
  • Enemy can't be in the same guild/alliance on any character on the accounts. Along with limits on when they left the same guilds.

Other games use such things, I'm not creative enough to think them up myself.

Edited by APE

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, APE said:
  • Skull loses value the more they are killed in a given period.
  • Value based on player activity or "rank" (lvl 1 poor vessel <<<< legendary vessel that has turned in 1000 skulls)
  • Value based on if they were solo/grouped, how many attackers they had or were in the area.
  • Skulls are character bound.
  • Value based on if two players have defeated each other in a period and how often they have turned in each others skulls.

Other games use such things, I'm not creative enough to think them up myself.

None of those look like like they would solve the problem to me. If we can't think of fixes that would work well, it is reasonable to say, "I'm not saying it can't be solved, but it's not easily solved." Which is what I said.

  • If skulls are only worth full value once every 24 hours, that is how often people will farm alts or trade kills. It would be difficult for a normal player playing the game normally to get as many kills per day as someone abusing the system.
  • If a legendary vessel that has turned in 1000 skulls is the most efficient kill, then people will manufacture alts like that to farm.
  • Calculating the number of "attackers" in an open world sandbox is difficult. Abusers will work around group/guild restrictions as needed. With this kind of mechanic, they might even maximize returns by solo-killing grouped alts.
  • I'm not seeing how character-bound skulls would inhibit farming of alts.
  • Comparing the attacker and the defender is difficult in an open world with a mix of groups, guilds, and unaffiliated characters fighting in a free-for-all.

 

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

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

None of those look like like they would solve the problem to me. If we can't think of fixes that would work well, it is reasonable to say, "I'm not saying it can't be solved, but it's not easily solved." Which is what I said.

I just listed what I believe could work well. Such things have and do work well in other games with similar design goals. It definitely isn't easy, especially for this team. There also isn't a perfect system that will have zero flaws, but that doesn't mean a model can't work well enough.

Quote
  • If skulls are only worth full value once every 24 hours, that is how often people will farm alts or trade kills. It would be difficult for a normal player playing the game normally to get as many kills per day as someone abusing the system.

This is based on what?

How many kills would a "normal" player get in a day?

How many alts does the average player have access to?

How many X is an alt worth vs a real player?

How is a player/guild abusing alt farming while still playing the actual game?

What % of the population wants to cheat themselves out of playing and has that much time to log in/out alts?

Where do you see a player/guild logging in their alt army to farm without interference?

Quote
  • If a legendary vessel that has turned in 1000 skulls is the most efficient kill, then people will manufacture alts like that to farm.

How do you manufacture that efficiently? Unless someone has access to a large amount of accounts and endless play time, not sure how this would work out. If my suggested checks were in place, I'd praise an individual that managed to get an alt army to a high point. That is some serious dedication and waste of time.

Quote
  • Calculating the number of "attackers" in an open world sandbox is difficult. Abusers will work around group/guild restrictions as needed. With this kind of mechanic, they might even maximize returns by solo-killing grouped alts.

See Albion. 

Quote
  • I'm not seeing how character-bound skulls would inhibit farming of alts.

It doesn't inhibit it, but its stops 10 alts farming one another and feeding a main account. If someone wants to "level" 50 alts across numerous accounts, that is a lot of exciting time ahead for them?

Quote
  • Comparing the attacker and the defender is difficult in an open world with a mix of groups, guilds, and unaffiliated characters fighting in a free-for-all.

When it comes to fighting over a POI, it is rather easy to label attacker and defender. Although I'm not sure what your point is with this one.

If you manufacture the worst case scenario where ACE is clueless and makes it far more rewarding to farm alts then play the game, then sure it is a problem. No idea if they could do otherwise, but I've seen devs capable of creating a working game model where players actually want to play the game more then exploit flaws which usually get caught/fixed anyway.

Edited by APE

 


 

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

This is based on what?

Reality.

It is hard to imagine any scenario where you can get legitimate kills faster in the open world than you can farming alts or trading kills.

18 minutes ago, APE said:

When it comes to fighting over a POI, it is rather easy to label attacker and defender. Although I'm not sure what your point is with this one.

Lets say there are 3 guilds at a POI. They all do some damage to each other. But two of the guilds are working together to help each other. How does the game know that there are actually 2 attackers and one defender in this case.

18 minutes ago, APE said:

If you manufacture the worst case scenario where ACE is clueless and makes it far more rewarding to farm alts then play the game, then sure it is a problem. No idea if they could do otherwise, but I've seen devs capable of creating a working game model where players actually want to play the game more then exploit flaws which usually get caught/fixed anyway.

All I have to go on is the suggestion made in this thread. I'm not manufacturing a worst case scenario, I'm talking about the obvious flaws of such a system that would need to be solved. Sure, some sort of clever mechanic may be possible. I don't know what that mechanic looks like, or how realistic it is as something extra to design before the launch of Crowfall.

If you want to just wave your hands and suggest ACE should come up with a great system that is not easily exploited, sure, sounds good to me. But my feedback for this thread is that it is not easy to design a system that rewards PvP as suggested by the OP without creating incentives for abusive play.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

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

Lets say there are 3 guilds at a POI. They all do some damage to each other. But two of the guilds are working together to help each other. How does the game know that there are actually 2 attackers and one defender in this case?

If a guild owned a POI and the other two didn't, wouldn't that be fairly easy to determine who is an attacker/defender? I'm not sure the point?

Only 1 skull is going to drop from a given player. The player that picks it up would get whatever value that player is worth based on whatever factors involved.

If a player is worth 20 "points" then the skull is worth 20 points to whoever grabs and turns it in. If the one turning it in already turned in the same players skull in the last 30 min, maybe it is worth 8 points, last 10 min, 0.5 point. If the player died solo against a group of 5, maybe that 20 points is cut down to 4 points total and then minus whatever other factors.

The goal would be to have "points" based on risk/reward. So a blob of 100 players mowing down groups of 5 wouldn't be earning much if anything. If it was 30 v 50, the group of 50 would have higher value on their skulls then the 30.

I'm not a game designer so no idea how such things work, but I've seen games which such things in place. It's a lot of backend math at work that might drop this game's FPS down to 1. 😔

I wouldn't want skull "farming" to be yet another grind, but rather a system in place to reward PVP activities over time. As in, progression which this game seems yet to know what it wants to do. Not I'm going to go out and defeat 50 individuals (or farm a bunch of alts) and be max rank in a day.

Would expect ACE to set an average expectation for progress (say 2 years to max "rank") and take notice if someone gets there in a week. When it comes to turning in skulls for particular rewards, keep it not game impacting so exploiting isn't even an issue (cosmetics, titles, EK fluff). Any special discs, powers, passives, talents would be more long term goals and not game breaking.

Even with flaws, I'd rather have some system then no system. This game is too barebones across the board.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, APE said:

If a guild owned a POI and the other two didn't, wouldn't that be fairly easy to determine who is an attacker/defender? I'm not sure the point?

Fights at POIs are not always so simple. What if there are 3 guilds at the POI, but none owns the POI? What if 1 guild owns the POI, 1 guild is helping them, and another guild is attacking?

Open world pvp is just not as simple to deal with as matchmaking battlegrounds, faction pvp, etc. Determining who is on which side in a given fight is not easy for a person, let alone a computer-based heuristic.

IhhQKY6.gif

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...