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

Let's Talk About: Campaign Permanence

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in the overtime concept because there's nothing like real data, but I'm concerned that it would simply encourage the dominant faction to try to get as many players as possible to stay logged in at all hours. This might not work, but with enough alliances it might.

 

I think the idea would be strengthened by giving the players a goal, much like in the Sudden Death scenario. Imagine each world has a Worldstone, holding the world together. The players cannot destroy it, but once the Hunger gets strong enough (in winter), it will spawn Siege Beasts which will slowly destroy the Worldstone (and attack player-built structures). An active population will be required to defend the stone, and to defend cities. The greatest burden will be on the dominant faction, as they have the most structures and the most to lose if the stone is destroyed. If the world does end, it goes out with a memorable Armegeddon-style event as everything gets overrun. If the players hang on, they do so while defending against swarms of fearsome beasts rather than twiddling their thumbs.

 

Leadpipe

How isn't this PvE?


y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How isn't this PvE?

If course it is PvE. There are already monsters in the game; it already has PvE. It simply has PVP at the same time and this concept is no different. If you want to kill people while they are trying to save the world, go right ahead. However, PVP scenarios around ending (or not ending)the campaign are far easier to manipulate through player collusion. Having the game trying to end the world means there will always be actual effort involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit the Throne World idea is intriguing, but it seems silly to me to heavily modify the vision of the game before it has even been alpha tested.

 

People keep referencing a need for a meta game,but I think they're overlooking the kind of political/economic meta game that will likely emerge from the system as proposed. There's nothing to stop guilds from paying off other guilds in resources in the EK or in future campaigns to support them or throw the campaign. Permanent territorial control is not necessary for this type of meta game.

 

Players will plot, scheme, negotiate, bribe, spy, and betray to win if it is necessary.

 

That said, I am not against the Throne World idea, but I think it would be a shame to at least try the core vision.

Edited by Joziah09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the thought here isn't an endless campaign, but perhaps a campaign without a set time to end. Obviously you need incentives for people to keep playing, as well as a way in and out of the campaign. Here's a suggestion:

 

Winning condition: Conquer 60-80% of the map (Not sure what number is optimal here, but it's in that range)

Losing condition: Lose all headquarters or die 3 times (or 5, or a different number)

Number of Factions: 12 (can also be a different number, but 12 allows for a lot of political maneauvering)

 

Games would revolve around headquarters. Each faction starts the game with a HQ, and each HQ has an active protection that prevents fighting around it (or prevents their faction members from taking damage). To take over a headquarter, you need to declare an attack.

Declaring an attack: Any faction can declare against any headquarters. After a set ammount of time (hours), that headquarters protection will be disabled, and the attacking faction may siege the stronghold to possibly take over the building. This serves two purposes:

- You can't midnight surprise attack people. This would destroy the game mode, as no one is going to patrol an area 24/7, people need to sleep

- You have time to rally your troops, and prepare for war

 

As the game progresses, more factions are taken, and alliances are made and broken, the powerful faction might be targeted by the smaller ones, and a new leader emerges every month. Strategies regarding resources, number of soldiers, alliances and Hunger control are paramount to this mode.

 

 

Well, ok, there's a huge flaw in this plan... People are gonna die, and entire factions are gonna lose out of the server. In the end it's gonna be a glorified 1v1...

- Here's where we discover the main idea of the concept, people need to be able to rejoin the campaign, or completely new players need to be able to jump in at any point of the game.

 

How is that done?

- First, let's imagine the campaign supports 1200 people (I really have no idea on this number). The Campaign starts with a full 1200 roster, divided evenly into the factions. As people die, factions lose, players quit, or afk from the campaign, new slots are open for new or rejoining players, keeping the campaign with fresh people, interested in the game, always bringing some new perspectives into play.

 

The catch is, people don't rejoin whatever faction lost people. People join evenly among every still standing faction. So if you risked everything to conquer a stronghold, and lost 40 good men in the battle, they will all be spread out among everyone. You lose 40 and get back 3 or 4. This allows for a need for clever strategizing inside the game, how you proceed into dominating 60-80% of the map is tricky, you need to stay alive, but you need to expand, you need to find more resources, and so does 11 other factions.

 

Why would people play this?

- This mode would be closer to a game of thrones feel. You win or you die. Political and economical structures would be valued over straight up PvP.

 

Why would this last?

- As long as the game is interesting, people will play it. And new players joining in will ensure it stays interesting. It will no longer be interesting when one faction starts dominating everything and the others can't do anything about it. A 5-faction stand against one big tyrant is cool as long as the 5-faction stand has a chance. When the "Uncle Bob" gets way too big, it's time to reward the man and start a new one.

 

Well, that ain't really permanent then, is it?

- As I said in the beggining, it's not an endless campaign. Although depending on how good the politicians are, one campaign could last for a very long time.

 

What about seasons?

- Seasons are what they are, after winter, comes spring. And seasons allow for a very interesting strategy problem: Would you help fight the Hunger or do you seize the opportunity that the NPCs are giving and declare an attack? Winter is coming, friends, and the Seven Kingdoms aren't too keen on helping the Night's Watch.

 

What if people stop wanting to rejoin?

- This would be an issue. But it's solvable, you can start a 1-month endgame situation whenever the influx of people is lower than the mortality. After 1 month, whoever detains most lands wins the game.

 

Why can't people respawn forever?

- Having a limited number of "lives" allows for more strategic decisions. If I can just throw bodies at my enemies without consequence, then it would just be a full PvP server, and strongholds would declare attacks nonstop, whenever they could. Another factor is that the rotation of people allows for a faction that strategized well not to lose its troops be rewarded with superior numbers. Alternatively, the reward for the factions that are focused in fighting would dominate POIs and have better resources and strategic locations to pick their fights.

Edited by Cocteau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone WANTS an unlimited campaign world badly enough, pay for the Bloodstone supporters package and see if they'll let you set that as a rule for it?

 

"Manipulate the rules and name your own time-limited campaign (Subject to approval from ArtCraft)."


Press to test...

*click*

Release to detonate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the thought here isn't an endless campaign, but perhaps a campaign without a set time to end. Obviously you need incentives for people to keep playing, as well as a way in and out of the campaign. Here's a suggestion:

 

Winning condition: Conquer 60-80% of the map (Not sure what number is optimal here, but it's in that range)

Losing condition: Lose all headquarters or die 3 times (or 5, or a different number)

Number of Factions: 12 (can also be a different number, but 12 allows for a lot of political maneauvering)

 

Games would revolve around headquarters. Each faction starts the game with a HQ, and each HQ has an active protection that prevents fighting around it (or prevents their faction members from taking damage). To take over a headquarter, you need to declare an attack.

Declaring an attack: Any faction can declare against any headquarters. After a set ammount of time (hours), that headquarters protection will be disabled, and the attacking faction may siege the stronghold to possibly take over the building. This serves two purposes:

- You can't midnight surprise attack people. This would destroy the game mode, as no one is going to patrol an area 24/7, people need to sleep

- You have time to rally your troops, and prepare for war

 

As the game progresses, more factions are taken, and alliances are made and broken, the powerful faction might be targeted by the smaller ones, and a new leader emerges every month. Strategies regarding resources, number of soldiers, alliances and Hunger control are paramount to this mode.

 

 

Well, ok, there's a huge flaw in this plan... People are gonna die, and entire factions are gonna lose out of the server. In the end it's gonna be a glorified 1v1...

- Here's where we discover the main idea of the concept, people need to be able to rejoin the campaign, or completely new players need to be able to jump in at any point of the game.

 

How is that done?

- First, let's imagine the campaign supports 1200 people (I really have no idea on this number). The Campaign starts with a full 1200 roster, divided evenly into the factions. As people die, factions lose, players quit, or afk from the campaign, new slots are open for new or rejoining players, keeping the campaign with fresh people, interested in the game, always bringing some new perspectives into play.

 

The catch is, people don't rejoin whatever faction lost people. People join evenly among every still standing faction. So if you risked everything to conquer a stronghold, and lost 40 good men in the battle, they will all be spread out among everyone. You lose 40 and get back 3 or 4. This allows for a need for clever strategizing inside the game, how you proceed into dominating 60-80% of the map is tricky, you need to stay alive, but you need to expand, you need to find more resources, and so does 11 other factions.

 

Why would people play this?

- This mode would be closer to a game of thrones feel. You win or you die. Political and economical structures would be valued over straight up PvP.

 

Why would this last?

- As long as the game is interesting, people will play it. And new players joining in will ensure it stays interesting. It will no longer be interesting when one faction starts dominating everything and the others can't do anything about it. A 5-faction stand against one big tyrant is cool as long as the 5-faction stand has a chance. When the "Uncle Bob" gets way too big, it's time to reward the man and start a new one.

 

Well, that ain't really permanent then, is it?

- As I said in the beggining, it's not an endless campaign. Although depending on how good the politicians are, one campaign could last for a very long time.

 

What about seasons?

- Seasons are what they are, after winter, comes spring. And seasons allow for a very interesting strategy problem: Would you help fight the Hunger or do you seize the opportunity that the NPCs are giving and declare an attack? Winter is coming, friends, and the Seven Kingdoms aren't too keen on helping the Night's Watch.

 

What if people stop wanting to rejoin?

- This would be an issue. But it's solvable, you can start a 1-month endgame situation whenever the influx of people is lower than the mortality. After 1 month, whoever detains most lands wins the game.

 

Why can't people respawn forever?

- Having a limited number of "lives" allows for more strategic decisions. If I can just throw bodies at my enemies without consequence, then it would just be a full PvP server, and strongholds would declare attacks nonstop, whenever they could. Another factor is that the rotation of people allows for a faction that strategized well not to lose its troops be rewarded with superior numbers. Alternatively, the reward for the factions that are focused in fighting would dominate POIs and have better resources and strategic locations to pick their fights.

 

Won't everyone end up on the same team?

 

If A loses minimal players, while B & C take losses, then those losses will be distributed to A, B, and C. Eventually A will grow larger and larger to a point where it's nearly impossible to win against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually one side will be larger, sure. But then everyone else will fight the larger foe, for he's a big threat to winning the game. To put it in your terms, when A gets big, D, E and F gang up against it.

 

Your situation is just like a game of Risk with 3 players. If two of them fight each other, the 3rd guy will win the game, for he's conquering his objectives unopposed.

 

When you consider 12 factions, every action you take is being watched by 11 entire factions. The dilemma that is imposed to every faction is:

- Is it worth to be aggressive and try to control more strongholds and/or resources

- Or is it better to play it safe and get a number superiority before engaging in combat

 

This sort of strategy is what would allow for a complex game, where every action done by every player matters, every resource, every kill, every death is meaningful. And that's the sort of game that I can see lasting long and still be a fun, interesting game to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the thought here isn't an endless campaign, but perhaps a campaign without a set time to end. Obviously you need incentives for people to keep playing, as well as a way in and out of the campaign. Here's a suggestion:

 

Winning condition: Conquer 60-80% of the map (Not sure what number is optimal here, but it's in that range)

Losing condition: Lose all headquarters or die 3 times (or 5, or a different number)

Number of Factions: 12 (can also be a different number, but 12 allows for a lot of political maneauvering)

 

Games would revolve around headquarters. Each faction starts the game with a HQ, and each HQ has an active protection that prevents fighting around it (or prevents their faction members from taking damage). To take over a headquarter, you need to declare an attack.

Declaring an attack: Any faction can declare against any headquarters. After a set ammount of time (hours), that headquarters protection will be disabled, and the attacking faction may siege the stronghold to possibly take over the building. This serves two purposes:

- You can't midnight surprise attack people. This would destroy the game mode, as no one is going to patrol an area 24/7, people need to sleep

- You have time to rally your troops, and prepare for war

 

As the game progresses, more factions are taken, and alliances are made and broken, the powerful faction might be targeted by the smaller ones, and a new leader emerges every month. Strategies regarding resources, number of soldiers, alliances and Hunger control are paramount to this mode.

 

 

Well, ok, there's a huge flaw in this plan... People are gonna die, and entire factions are gonna lose out of the server. In the end it's gonna be a glorified 1v1...

- Here's where we discover the main idea of the concept, people need to be able to rejoin the campaign, or completely new players need to be able to jump in at any point of the game.

 

How is that done?

- First, let's imagine the campaign supports 1200 people (I really have no idea on this number). The Campaign starts with a full 1200 roster, divided evenly into the factions. As people die, factions lose, players quit, or afk from the campaign, new slots are open for new or rejoining players, keeping the campaign with fresh people, interested in the game, always bringing some new perspectives into play.

 

The catch is, people don't rejoin whatever faction lost people. People join evenly among every still standing faction. So if you risked everything to conquer a stronghold, and lost 40 good men in the battle, they will all be spread out among everyone. You lose 40 and get back 3 or 4. This allows for a need for clever strategizing inside the game, how you proceed into dominating 60-80% of the map is tricky, you need to stay alive, but you need to expand, you need to find more resources, and so does 11 other factions.

 

Why would people play this?

- This mode would be closer to a game of thrones feel. You win or you die. Political and economical structures would be valued over straight up PvP.

 

Why would this last?

- As long as the game is interesting, people will play it. And new players joining in will ensure it stays interesting. It will no longer be interesting when one faction starts dominating everything and the others can't do anything about it. A 5-faction stand against one big tyrant is cool as long as the 5-faction stand has a chance. When the "Uncle Bob" gets way too big, it's time to reward the man and start a new one.

 

Well, that ain't really permanent then, is it?

- As I said in the beggining, it's not an endless campaign. Although depending on how good the politicians are, one campaign could last for a very long time.

 

What about seasons?

- Seasons are what they are, after winter, comes spring. And seasons allow for a very interesting strategy problem: Would you help fight the Hunger or do you seize the opportunity that the NPCs are giving and declare an attack? Winter is coming, friends, and the Seven Kingdoms aren't too keen on helping the Night's Watch.

 

What if people stop wanting to rejoin?

- This would be an issue. But it's solvable, you can start a 1-month endgame situation whenever the influx of people is lower than the mortality. After 1 month, whoever detains most lands wins the game.

 

Why can't people respawn forever?

- Having a limited number of "lives" allows for more strategic decisions. If I can just throw bodies at my enemies without consequence, then it would just be a full PvP server, and strongholds would declare attacks nonstop, whenever they could. Another factor is that the rotation of people allows for a faction that strategized well not to lose its troops be rewarded with superior numbers. Alternatively, the reward for the factions that are focused in fighting would dominate POIs and have better resources and strategic locations to pick their fights.

This adds too much restrictions for a hardcore game, declaring attack , having set spawn location and headquarters , also the way you made seasons work destroys the idea of current seasons. Where it gets more difficult as winter comes, common idealogy of the humans on winter will be to win the campaign as soon as they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually one side will be larger, sure. But then everyone else will fight the larger foe, for he's a big threat to winning the game. To put it in your terms, when A gets big, D, E and F gang up against it.

 

Your situation is just like a game of Risk with 3 players. If two of them fight each other, the 3rd guy will win the game, for he's conquering his objectives unopposed.

 

When you consider 12 factions, every action you take is being watched by 11 entire factions. The dilemma that is imposed to every faction is:

- Is it worth to be aggressive and try to control more strongholds and/or resources

- Or is it better to play it safe and get a number superiority before engaging in combat

 

This sort of strategy is what would allow for a complex game, where every action done by every player matters, every resource, every kill, every death is meaningful. And that's the sort of game that I can see lasting long and still be a fun, interesting game to play.

 

Why fight a losing war when you can just kill yourself repeatedly until you end up on Team A?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of its length I didn't post my idea here, but it's a pseudo-permanent campaign idea tied into the lore around God's Reach.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/6046-a-lore-based-mechanism-of-pseudo-campaign-permenance/

 

I think it fits within the existing game structure, would be feasible to implement, and would provide a layer of meta-gaming for those who think such is needed.

Edited by Gilgamer

Luke I am your Uncle... Bob.  What, my sister Padmè never mentioned me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me first address your points:

 

Restrictions

- Yes, the rules can be restrictive, but there is no way to implement a complex political or economic system which allows a campaign to be worthwhile without restrictions. There is still open combat over POIs, and the simple fact of finding someone from a faction at war and killing them is important for your team. Not to mention intercepting resources.

 

Seasons

- If there is no time limit, there is no way to divide the game time into 4 seasons. So we either keep the game at winter, whenever it arrives, or cycle back to spring. I like the cycling idea better because it can allow for an "endure the winter" philosophy. Permanent winter would end the campaign more quickly, but the idea was to make a campaign last longer, right?

 

Dying for reassignment

- I don't really understand why people would do this, but if it's an issue, it's also easily solvable. Here are two quick fixes I can think off the bat:

-- If you rejoin, you'll get a lesser reward at the end of the campaign that becomes lesser and lesser with the ammount of times you rejoin

-- You have a limit of times you can rejoin

 

Now, I don't know, my idea might have been a bad one, but it was aimed for a long-lasting campaign. Most of the arguments brought here defend a quicker campaign, and for that you already have 4 options. But I can take a hint, I guess...

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...