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

Ever since Dreggs conquest became only top 3


Recommended Posts

On 3/28/2021 at 7:31 PM, soulein said:

I think we need to re-think what campaigns are at their core. Treating them like extended multiplayer strategy game matches isn't working out, mainly because of the pairing with an MMO style progression system and the time/investment required with it. Normally, in a strategy game, there isn't a whole lot of risk/reward involved beyond a few hours of time played. In this strange abomination which is half strategy game and half MMO, we the players (and the guilds we are in) are stuck with a whole host of misaligned incentives as a result. 

I propose that we think of Campaigns in the same way that Vikings or Crusader Knights saw their "campaigns" - as windows of opportunity for advancement and enrichment. Re-work the Divine Favor and reward system to operate as a set of individualized objectives for players, factions and guilds which are completely independent from any sort of "campaign victory" or scoreboard. In this scenario, you the player and your guild are trying to fulfill certain objectives which will put you at odds with competing players and guilds. You may form alliances with others to cooperatively complete these goals, but the nature of the goals themselves may also bring you into conflict with others.

Detaching Divine Favor and Rewards from a counterproductive scoring system would solve a lot of issues attached to scoring, big guilds vs. small guilds, and morale/burnout complications. When entering a campaign a guild would receive specific divine favor cards as the beginning of every season depending on their chosen god. Certain gods would yield different "missions" which conform to a specific playstyle, adding some more character and impact to the Lore. Each season would yield an additional set of missions or goals like:

Personal/Player Goals:

Sacrifice x50 Enbarri Artifacts to (insert god). 

Capture x20 outposts. 

Kill x5 Heralds or Ancients. 
 

Harvest x20 Diamonds

Guild Goals/Faction:

Control a Small Keep, Large Keep or Castle when the season ends.

Build x3 Statues of (insert god).

Destroy an enemy Tree of Life.

Build a city up to Rank 10.

Upon completion of these per-season goals, rewards would be unlocked based on how many of the objectives a guild or player was able to complete. Completing all of the goals in a season would yield the full reward but it wouldn't be accessible until the end of the campaign. Keeping this on a per-season basis means that there's a constant flux in objectives and player motivation. It also incentivizes players to keep playing actively right up until the end of the campaign. The nature of these goals (which aren't too different from current Divine Favor cards) would also generate a lot of pvp conflict in the open world and give people the carrot they need to play objectives or farm war tribes. 

I think this solution will help retain players who come to the game, give them a reason to seek out the Campaign worlds and still provide a ton of room for us to mercilessly slaughter each other over pixels. Yes, no one will be "the winner", but I think that having "a winner" is at cross purposes with having a sustainable community and persistent game world. Having a defined winner works really well when you can reset the board quickly and the time and energy spent in winning (or worse- almost winning) isn't completely prohibitive. Instead, create a sustainable world with a sustainable population of players (who are playing an MMO, afterall) that can generate the kind of fun open world pvp combat that Crowfall does better than anyone.

 

While I way not agree with everything the core sentiment illustrates the exact point I was trying to make.

When you contextualize the entire point of the game to the end user as "win the campaign" and then design campaigns that are unwinnable for the majority of your players consistantly and over multiple campaigns is it any wonder players get frustrated with their inability to win?

When those that are capable of competing in that arena have their agency stripped from them by vulnerability windows and a systemic push to attack everything they possibly can is it any wonder they get bored after a while?

This isn't a problem in other games that *also* have "top of the heap" mechanics that only a limited number of player can control BECAUSE those games don't of our of their way to beat the player over the head with the expectation that every single player should be primarily concerned with winning them or that those at the top of the heap are literally expected to own the majority of everything that exists in order to win

Crowfall does this by default. It ranks every single guild on the server, tells them that there is one and only one primary competition, and tells them they lost unless they are the winner of only that objective. And there can only be one winner. One.

No matter how you spin it, this absolutely effects player perspective and expectations. No matter how many pity prizes you hand out, if you tell people they're here to win conquest and they can't win conquest they're not going to stick around, and it takes a LOT to even compete in that arena, let alone win. If you tell people that to win conquest they have to stomp every small guild before their main rivals stomp them first, they're going to do exactly that.

This is a matter of perception far more than it is a matter of mechanics, but that perception matters. If you look at an EVE or a Shadowbane there are undoubtedly organizations that have "won" the game in a sense. The difference is that there is both enough space for everyone else to carve out lesser but still contextually important personal feifdoms and rivalries, and that doing so is inherently rewarding even if you're not at or near the top of the pile. These are vast enough worlds to literally place certain territories or potential threats so far beneath the notice of the top of the pile that even the smallest of guilds can engage with the fullness of the territory ownership and management systems and play the entire game.

By merely having such compact campaigns and calling someone a winner, you drastically shift player expectations and behaviors. By building a system in which "attack everything and win the most fights" is the win condition you create a game in which everyone is encouraged to take stuff even if it has no other contextual use to them, regardless of how much of a threat its current owner poses. The fact that a handful of alliances this small are even capable of gobbling up an entire server's worth of territory is quite frankly embarrassing for a game about territory control.

Crowfall's conquest scoring system isn't a throne war. It's hungry hungry hippos. Its only objective is gobbling up POIs with no concern for their cost of maintainence or location until there is nothing left to gobble up. There is no strategy other than "take thing and take more thing until no more things" and when that is no longer possible it simply becomes vuln window whack a mole.

There is no sense of territory to control, and there are no meaningful choices to make. All the keeps I have ever owned or been allied to are functionally identical and strategically null unless they themselves are the current target of a siege window. Rez outposts have greater strategic impact than keeps. Other outposts are a joke. Forts are the closest thing to strategic resources that exist, due to the different loot types, but again this is still secondary to the "just take all the things because it costs nothing and takes no time to get to" design of the conquest system and maps. You won't skip the metal fort just because you don't need metal and there is a better target. You'll take it anyway because your conquest point counter wants more numbers and the vuln window is open.

The conquest game IS the game, and it is simply not a very good game even when you're on a winning team. There are no war table meetings about what to attack and when and how much it is going to cost and what the principal risks and costs are. There are no principal risks and not meaningful costs so everyone simply attacks everything they can. There are no consequences for failing to attack something. There is no functional possibility of spreading yourself too thin. It is stupid and brainless and cloaks itself in city upgrade grind and timers and pretends these are strategy.

Aside from the problems presented by creating a game that is only playable by server crushing alliances, the core of the game that IS on offer to only those alliances simply isn't very much fun for the people in them. The fights blend together, there is no sense of ownership, no sense of territory, no sense of risk and reward decision making. There are no meaningful choices. Just a bunch of alliances conquering more stuff than they need because the game requires them to do so only to be rewarded with a few weeks of vuln window whack a mole.

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
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think we need to re-think what campaigns are at their core. Treating them like extended multiplayer strategy game matches isn't working out, mainly because of the pairing with an MMO style progressi

Many ppl alerted devs that the  per member cards were better and they had to make more obj for small or mid size guild, they clearly listen the other camp (zerg camp and shadowbane's fanboy). Now w

im just gonna say having a blast on euro server since the lower population zergs arnt realy a thing and the fights have been much more enjoyable usualy with less than 10 people a side anything above a

20 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

When you contextualize the entire point of the game to the end user as "win the campaign" and then design campaigns that are unwinnable for the majority of your players consistantly and over multiple campaigns is it any wonder players get frustrated with their inability to win?

We could argue that any guild could win some divine favor ... But :
- many cards are easier for people already winning in conquest ( keep / fort related )
- many cards will allow other guild to take more reward : all cards with "50% top guild"
, if you know you wont get reward ( because you will be top bottom ) you have to avoid this cards ! To not give more reward to other guilds.
- we dont know the cards on advance BUT conquest winner know their point and the rules.
- all cards with "outpost at the end" make just people mad because you have to show up 2/3 hours before the end and it's hard at 8am ...

In my guild we started by playing divine favor, but it was too frustrating and we will never play them again in those condition as we were not able to get much point on the second half... Hopefully we could grab a keep and make some conquest point, making the guild in the right track for the third place. People in long break shows up, had fun. But without this top 3 my guild will be an empty spot.

So yes, maybe without conquest the game was loosing some people that enjoy crushing games in big alliance but now, only those people get some reward (i dont know if they had fun). Driving out all others players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that you can math you whole guild out of participating in most campaigns if you don't thrive in the first few days.

The keep loss (or something) penalties need to come back, or playing to the bitter end is pointless unless your math shows there's any chance.

This will only be exacerbated by multiple simultaneous campaigns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 5:36 AM, PopeUrban said:

While I way not agree with everything the core sentiment illustrates the exact point I was trying to make.

When you contextualize the entire point of the game to the end user as "win the campaign" and then design campaigns that are unwinnable for the majority of your players consistantly and over multiple campaigns is it any wonder players get frustrated with their inability to win?

When those that are capable of competing in that arena have their agency stripped from them by vulnerability windows and a systemic push to attack everything they possibly can is it any wonder they get bored after a while?

This isn't a problem in other games that *also* have "top of the heap" mechanics that only a limited number of player can control BECAUSE those games don't of our of their way to beat the player over the head with the expectation that every single player should be primarily concerned with winning them or that those at the top of the heap are literally expected to own the majority of everything that exists in order to win

Crowfall does this by default. It ranks every single guild on the server, tells them that there is one and only one primary competition, and tells them they lost unless they are the winner of only that objective. And there can only be one winner. One.

No matter how you spin it, this absolutely effects player perspective and expectations. No matter how many pity prizes you hand out, if you tell people they're here to win conquest and they can't win conquest they're not going to stick around, and it takes a LOT to even compete in that arena, let alone win. If you tell people that to win conquest they have to stomp every small guild before their main rivals stomp them first, they're going to do exactly that.

This is a matter of perception far more than it is a matter of mechanics, but that perception matters. If you look at an EVE or a Shadowbane there are undoubtedly organizations that have "won" the game in a sense. The difference is that there is both enough space for everyone else to carve out lesser but still contextually important personal feifdoms and rivalries, and that doing so is inherently rewarding even if you're not at or near the top of the pile. These are vast enough worlds to literally place certain territories or potential threats so far beneath the notice of the top of the pile that even the smallest of guilds can engage with the fullness of the territory ownership and management systems and play the entire game.

By merely having such compact campaigns and calling someone a winner, you drastically shift player expectations and behaviors. By building a system in which "attack everything and win the most fights" is the win condition you create a game in which everyone is encouraged to take stuff even if it has no other contextual use to them, regardless of how much of a threat its current owner poses. The fact that a handful of alliances this small are even capable of gobbling up an entire server's worth of territory is quite frankly embarrassing for a game about territory control.

Crowfall's conquest scoring system isn't a throne war. It's hungry hungry hippos. Its only objective is gobbling up POIs with no concern for their cost of maintainence or location until there is nothing left to gobble up. There is no strategy other than "take thing and take more thing until no more things" and when that is no longer possible it simply becomes vuln window whack a mole.

There is no sense of territory to control, and there are no meaningful choices to make. All the keeps I have ever owned or been allied to are functionally identical and strategically null unless they themselves are the current target of a siege window. Rez outposts have greater strategic impact than keeps. Other outposts are a joke. Forts are the closest thing to strategic resources that exist, due to the different loot types, but again this is still secondary to the "just take all the things because it costs nothing and takes no time to get to" design of the conquest system and maps. You won't skip the metal fort just because you don't need metal and there is a better target. You'll take it anyway because your conquest point counter wants more numbers and the vuln window is open.

The conquest game IS the game, and it is simply not a very good game even when you're on a winning team. There are no war table meetings about what to attack and when and how much it is going to cost and what the principal risks and costs are. There are no principal risks and not meaningful costs so everyone simply attacks everything they can. There are no consequences for failing to attack something. There is no functional possibility of spreading yourself too thin. It is stupid and brainless and cloaks itself in city upgrade grind and timers and pretends these are strategy.

Aside from the problems presented by creating a game that is only playable by server crushing alliances, the core of the game that IS on offer to only those alliances simply isn't very much fun for the people in them. The fights blend together, there is no sense of ownership, no sense of territory, no sense of risk and reward decision making. There are no meaningful choices. Just a bunch of alliances conquering more stuff than they need because the game requires them to do so only to be rewarded with a few weeks of vuln window whack a mole.

This is really well said, I hope @jtoddcoleman takes note.

Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to create a world where people aren't encouraged to form huge zergs, then Tie the rewards to the amount of people.  In Shadowbane, if your were in a 100 man guild, you won the same amount of rewards that a 10 man guild could win.  You need to basically make it feel like, "well if we win with the zerg, we basically win nothing".  Make it so rewards spread amongst 100 people are basically meaningless, but spread between 10 are worth it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 8:32 AM, mandalore said:

Isn’t the whole point of the game as intended by the devs to raise or join an army to dominate the map?  

I would argue the whole point of any game from the dev's perspective is (or should be) to create a sustainable game resulting in a sustainable business model.   To do this you need to retain players and right now, IMO, the current content has zero chance of doing that.   Other games have shown that to keep players long term you need persistent territory allowing even small guilds to progress over time and a map large enough to naturally gate the absolute dominance of zergs.   The current maps, the limited victory conditions that are realistically attainable by small guilds, and largely useless EKs which account for the only real territorial persistence in the game, provide zero incentive for small guilds to endure the grind necessary to accomplish anything in this game.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish there were some anti zerg mechanics, at least in GW2, you could have a small group build defensive siege equipment and it would give the zerg pause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they need thresholds on the rewards based on alliance size (Rewards should be score by alliance imo aswell for conquest and reward goes to the leader of that alliance and they can split up the winnings with other guilds or keep it themselfs)
Best reward (So current 1st place) goes to alliance size 100+ (Numbers can vary this is just an example) active members who entered the campaign.
2nd best reward (Current 2nd place reward) goes to winner of alliance between 50-100 players in the campaign
3rd highest reward goes to winner of alliances with less than 50 players

This way all guild/alliance sizes have a way to compete for conquests wins.

Also when a keep/castle changes hands all building should be destroyed or disabled and require resources to repair/rebuild them, this is to stop the incentive of big guild taking a built up smaller guild stuff just to take there conquest point generation and this should help to a degree for smaller guilds to hold keeps and not just get attacked by larger guild to take there point generation for conquest.

Veeshan Midst of UXA

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

I think they need thresholds on the rewards based on alliance size (Rewards should be score by alliance imo aswell for conquest and reward goes to the leader of that alliance and they can split up the winnings with other guilds or keep it themselfs)
Best reward (So current 1st place) goes to alliance size 100+ (Numbers can vary this is just an example) active members who entered the campaign.
2nd best reward (Current 2nd place reward) goes to winner of alliance between 50-100 players in the campaign
3rd highest reward goes to winner of alliances with less than 50 players

This way all guild/alliance sizes have a way to compete for conquests wins.

Also when a keep/castle changes hands all building should be destroyed or disabled and require resources to repair/rebuild them, this is to stop the incentive of big guild taking a built up smaller guild stuff just to take there conquest point generation and this should help to a degree for smaller guilds to hold keeps and not just get attacked by larger guild to take there point generation for conquest.

You do realize a big enough guild/alliance can game the system you outlined to get all three right? 

The best way to protect smaller guilds who take a keep is either to incentivize going after bigger fish in some way, making certain holdings irrelevant to conquest, or making it prohibitively expensive to maintain numerous holdings with some form of upkeep (likely has to be scalar in cost as you own more, otherwise a guild that's determined can meet the cost).

Practically, no large guild is going to need the buildings in a smaller guild's keep - that's not why they're taking it.  They're likely not even taking it FROM the small guild so much as taking it for reasons that Pope laid out above - in the current conquest where holding the most things have value- you need more things than the other guilds in competition.

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

You do realize a big enough guild/alliance can game the system you outlined to get all three right? 

The best way to protect smaller guilds who take a keep is either to incentivize going after bigger fish in some way, making certain holdings irrelevant to conquest, or making it prohibitively expensive to maintain numerous holdings with some form of upkeep (likely has to be scalar in cost as you own more, otherwise a guild that's determined can meet the cost).

Practically, no large guild is going to need the buildings in a smaller guild's keep - that's not why they're taking it.  They're likely not even taking it FROM the small guild so much as taking it for reasons that Pope laid out above - in the current conquest where holding the most things have value- you need more things than the other guilds in competition.

you do know i said alliances size not guild size the fact that it guild base is silly right now and u know large guild like to take small guild keeps to obtain a fully build bell tower for conquest points or R3 building for cards, now if they all go poof or disabled it not as appetising for them since they would then need to rebuild them.

If big alliances wanna split there forces in to multiple alliances to be able to get all 3 well thats fine cause 1 the guards will attack them if they try and defend, 2 friendly fire would now also be a thing if they split forces to compete for them all and 3 it makes it harder for them to compete for large prizes since they split there forces into multiple factions.
 

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, veeshan said:

you do know i said alliances size not guild size the fact that it guild base is silly right now and u know large guild like to take small guild keeps to obtain a fully build bell tower for conquest points or R3 building for cards, now if they all go poof or disabled it not as appetising for them since they would then need to rebuild them.

If big alliances wanna split there forces in to multiple alliances to be able to get all 3 well thats fine cause 1 the guards will attack them if they try and defend, 2 friendly fire would now also be a thing if they split forces to compete for them all and 3 it makes it harder for them to compete for large prizes since they split there forces into multiple factions.
 

Large guilds have plenty of their own mats to build bell towers.  Again, they don't need anything - just the Keep for points.

Friendly fire is definitely a deterrent, but if yr a legit small alliance and a much larger alliance has a shell 'small' alliance playing - the legit guild still has very little chance of winning.

Face it, as designed, there is no chance given to smaller groups/guilds/alliances, because you cannot force people to compete.

So a larger Alliance becomes six smaller ones and needs to expend slightly more effort... doesn't help a 12 man guild compete.

Edited by Van_Zant
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 8:51 PM, Nyurt said:

I gave it a chance. It sucks. I might be a minority but damn i used to lose so much sleep competing in campaign. Now i'm just struggling to convince myself to even log in to dreggs. GJ I guess. 

i feel you, ive been playing for a week now, and im so mad and fustrated. the game sucks so much.  Me and my buddys have got help from other players explaining the game to us, and after a week of playing we are still lost, everything is dregs dregs and dregs, but as an pve farming player, you cant go to dregs all the time.. this game is so bad i wont even play it if they paid me 1000000$ to play. 

Edited by Firehawkdk
miss spell
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 8:30 PM, McTan said:

Yes, the voices asking for conquest to reign supreme were almost entirely in the biggest alliances, mine included. I think creating something that small groups could win conflicted with a vision of throne war. I hope that we get a dregs that is no import, strict guild size limits, and full on per-member cards.

I think a lot of people were lead to believe that the game could sustain multiple campaigns with varying rule sets, while the reality is we're lucky to probably get more than 3. Another game recently experienced the unfortunately results of splitting your community up and the fall out that resulted. CF has to be very careful with splitting up the community too much.

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...