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 actually totally fine with temporal campaigns IF the EK's are tweaked so that they matter. As the EK's stand right now, I'm pretty much going to ignore them. I was drawn in by the "Play to Crush" motto. I have little interest in building things for the sake of building things and while I understand the Stanley Cup vs the Participation Certificate trophy analogy, I don't care about the Stanley Cup either. Sorry.

 

Here's what would grab my interest though: If the EK's were tied to skill gain, crafting, or the throne war.

 

Also, I would like the other EK's to be discoverable and invadeable with some advantage gained by holding more territory while becoming increasingly difficult to hold. Eve Online has had this model for the last 10 years. Seems like it could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda hoping there will be a campaign thats based on the purge of strat from w3. :) I think that would be fun, Team A is focused on killing as many npc villagers that they can find, Team B tries to save as many people as they can find campaign ends when everyone either escapes or is killed. Killing kids is worth double points :3.


HECIfKy.jpg

 

Sugoi - Student Council President

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short - i prefer dying worlds. It allows for breathers and gives the chance to meet and face new people. 

Like any PvP match - there has to be an end otherwise it can grow stale....

 

I agree (obviously) or it wouldn't have become the foundation of the game.

 

It seems like a number of people are concerned about the Campaigns ending too quickly, or shying away from the temporal nature completely.  I'm trying to address that as much as possible, given that the solution they are asking for ("just make them last forever!") won't actually work.  I like the sudden death idea for that reason, though (in truth) I think once we build the core rulesets, I'm not sure if people would still want to try it.  I'm not convinced it will be necessary.

 

To be clear: the Campaigns are, and will remain, the heart of this game.  

 

Todd

ACE


J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a ruleset be fairly easy to create, though? Just a set of checks and conditions, a bunch of modifiers on top of the base. Maybe a handful of rule-specific art assets, flags to capture or bombs to place or trees to burn. It's my understanding that rulesets are something meant to be created and adjusted on-the-fly.
 

I like the idea of a campaign type that could, in theory, be permanent if the activity levels remain high.

Also this. If everyone's having fun, there's not really any reason to artificially halt it. Say, 60% "Keep going!" from both the winning side and the losing sides, check every two weeks. After 'double overtime', say four, six weeks, start pulling out ways to force an end. Some kind of doomclock to blow up the world, winner take everything. Sudden Death Overtime.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question about Sudden Death. Can new players join the campaign once Sudden Death has started or is it locked to the original group? I think Sudden Death sounds great and for it to work properly you would have to lock the campaigns to the people that originally started it. If you allow people to join as Sudden Death continues it would just create a lopsided affair because people would just keep joining the winning side to keep the Tree of Life.


"But above all do not bind the anus all that there is congenial to your vision of paradise staff" - leonelion

 

Current ignore list because these people have no sense of reality or common sense: sheen, unknownxv, doomgrin, willwill, crowmagnonman, santa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a campaign type that could, in theory, be permanent if the activity levels remain high.

 

I agree; of the two suggested ideas, 'if activity levels remain high' sounds like the most do-able and actually 'continuous' of the ones suggested. The problem with that ruleset is that it kind of has an ambiguous end and could lead to social engineering to keep it going (by asking people to log in once a week or asking new people to join it because they want it to keep going).

 

I like the idea of Sudden Death worlds, but it sounds more complicated to implement and possibly more rage inducing because eventually you might mess up defense and then you can't keep what you were hoping to make permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot properly evaluate how long a campaign should last until we totally understand what the victory means.

 

If the materials exported off of a campaign world have little to no effect on future campaigns, than the worlds should last as long as possible.

 

This is why there are a million threads about making the Eternal Kingdoms more meaningful. (I won't list the ideas as there are many floating around)

 

We were promised more information on what exactly the Eternal Kingdoms are... To me, this conversation should occur after that conversation.

 

However, I imagine after we run through a few campaigns in Alpha, we will have a better handle on how long campaigns should last.

 

I'll admit, the idea of previously exported goods not having an impact on future campaigns is my concern. I understand part of the design / appeal is that players are dropped into the world on (relatively) even ground, but I still feel that there should be some carryover. Whether it is items that you can equip after a certain point (ie: bring your Sword of Mediocrity with you, but you can't use it for 24 hrs (or something)) at least it will give us in-campaign value of participating in campaigns. But, that is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree (obviously) or it wouldn't have become the foundation of the game.

 

It seems like a number of people are concerned about the Campaigns ending too quickly, or shying away from the temporal nature completely.  I'm trying to address that as much as possible, given that the solution they are asking for ("just make them last forever!") won't actually work.  I like the sudden death idea for that reason, though (in truth) I think once we build the core rulesets, I'm not sure if people would still want to try it.  I'm not convinced it will be necessary.

 

To be clear: the Campaigns are, and will remain, the heart of this game.  

 

Todd

ACE

 

I personally think that people are still just confused in general about how temporary worlds ties into the overall "end game". (Myself included.)

But once the alphas and betas start rolling, and people get a chance to experience the idea, more and more might find they prefer it.  :)

 

When I think of Crowfall (or try to explain it to my buddies), I see endless PvP arenas and matches. 

Each with their own rules and unique environments. Winners get bragging rights, equipment and materials.

Thus in my mind, i try to see crowfall as a game that is more focused on the PvP matchs then an MMO "world" in the traditional sense.  :P


Only those who ask questions have all the answers. Thus only the foolish remain silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, the idea of previously exported goods not having an impact on future campaigns is my concern. I understand part of the design / appeal is that players are dropped into the world on (relatively) even ground, but I still feel that there should be some carryover. Whether it is items that you can equip after a certain point (ie: bring your Sword of Mediocrity with you, but you can't use it for 24 hrs (or something)) at least it will give us in-campaign value of participating in campaigns. But, that is just my opinion.

 

I think you get value of resources for campaigns that allow you to take in items and resources. Some will be 'naked' drops in, but if you can bring stuff in you'd want comparable stuff to whatever everyone else is bringing to give you an edge. So you'd need to get resources from another campaign to make the stuff to bring into a different ruleset to get the people who went 'well, I like these rules, but I don't have stuff and I'll just go in anyway'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, the idea of previously exported goods not having an impact on future campaigns is my concern. I understand part of the design / appeal is that players are dropped into the world on (relatively) even ground, but I still feel that there should be some carryover. Whether it is items that you can equip after a certain point (ie: bring your Sword of Mediocrity with you, but you can't use it for 24 hrs (or something)) at least it will give us in-campaign value of participating in campaigns. But, that is just my opinion.

 

This is why I feel it is important to have different Import restrictions on different Campaigns: some people will feel strongly about starting clean, others will feel strongly about carrying over some rewards.

 

I don't have a feeling for the % of players who will fall to one side or the other on that spectrum, but luckily, I don't have to.  We'll watch the Campaigns to see which are more popular, and let the good one multiply and the weak ones die off.  Survival of the fittest.

 

Todd


J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I feel it is important to have different Import restrictions on different Campaigns: some people will feel strongly about starting clean, others will feel strongly about carrying over some rewards.

 

Something I am not sold on is marrying FFA rulesets to "Terminator-style" fresh starts.  I do like that idea on its own as a variant, but for me, FFA rulesets are what I want to play.  I don't want to feel like that means that if I want to make use of the fancy stuff I acquire through victories on the Dregs I'll have to do that in a different (and less "hardcore") ruleset.

 

In a worst case, players who prefer FFA rulesets will be deprived of actually using the "high reward" they can get in the Dregs because those rewards can actually only be used elsewhere.

Edited by jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I feel it is important to have different Import restrictions on different Campaigns: some people will feel strongly about starting clean, others will feel strongly about carrying over some rewards.

 

I don't have a feeling for the % of players who will fall to one side or the other on that spectrum, but luckily, I don't have to.  We'll watch the Campaigns to see which are more popular, and let the good one multiply and the weak ones die off.  Survival of the fittest.

 

Todd

 

I really can't argue with that. It will undoubtedly become more apparent and start to 'click' as the builds start rolling out. Having multiple campaigns with different rulesets will, at the very least, give players a chance to jump into something different than what they are used to, which I think is a great notion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the players here that want a more permanent campaign are afraid of one thing:

 

- a campaign ending, without it actually being over from a player's perspective.

 

Just because some arbitrary win conditions have been met during the winter, doesn't neccesserily mean, that the campaign became stagnant.

You touch on it with your "Overtime" idea.

 

If you can convince us, that you wont reset a campaign just for the sake of resetting, then the cries for something permanent will go quieter and quieter.

 

We just want to actually play it out, till it is really over.

 

The big hurdle will be to track stuff like that. how many people of x guild logged in in the last week. how much hours do participants of the campaign spend on characters in other campaigns in relation to this one. and so on.

 

Here's hopin :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I am not sold on is marrying FFA rulesets to "Terminator-style" fresh starts.  I do like that idea on its own as a variant, but for me, FFA rulesets are what I want to play.  I don't want to feel like that means that if I want to make use of the fancy stuff I acquire through victories on the Dregs I'll have to do that in a different (and less "hardcore") ruleset.

 

Oh, wow -- I need to clarify something.

 

These are all separate design knobs.  They aren't tied together.  We intend to have different rules settings for different Campaigns WITHIN each band. Not all "Dregs" campaigns are going to be the same.  The illustrations were only intended to get example settings that we think will work well together; not to say "every World in this band works exactly like this."

 

 

Again, it's about experimentation.  That's why I am comfortable talking about ideas like the ones that I brought up, above -- the design architecture was specifically created to allow us to try out different options, to see what takes.  

 

Todd


J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ironic statement coming from someone named 'FrozenShadow'. :P

 

I do agree though. Perhaps this could be offset somewhat by allowing Druids to influence the seasons...

 

Not really an opinion on the Overtime concept, but winter has got to be the most bland season and playing in that alone for a long time would get me to quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda hoping there will be a campaign thats based on the purge of strat from w3. :) I think that would be fun, Team A is focused on killing as many npc villagers that they can find, Team B tries to save as many people as they can find campaign ends when everyone either escapes or is killed. Killing kids is worth double points :3.

 

I think the idea of the crows playing in a campaign until the players (accidentally?) kill the entire population of all the non-immortal NPCs in the world is hilarious and would be awesome.

 

Another idea would be where the permanence of the campaign ultimately is the (completely implausible but theoretically achievable) goal for one faction.  For instance as above where order thinks there is something about a world that is worth preserving for as long as possible, but chaos and balance find abhorrent for some reason.  It'd be a less hardcore gamemode.

 

Chaos/balance ends the campaign if they can kill all of the NPCs in the campaign and starts with an export of 100% (or whatever number)

 

As the campaign goes on, order gets an increasing export rate and chaos/balance get a decreasing export rate depending on how long it takes for them to "lose", although winning and losing here is more of a spectrum and less of a clearly assertable fact.  If Chaos/balance's pop gets too low and orders export is too high, you start introducing unique and peculiar rewards, and give order factions the chance to defect (while keeping their export, but capped at a certain number of items) 

 

The game world could basically stay alive in case Uncle Bob actually wanted it to; in that respect the campaign itself would become it's own trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will start by saying THANKS for this topic.. it's a genuine surprise for me to see an 'open discussion' with DEVs about relevant game mechanics.

 

I'll take this chance to talk about the UNCLE BOB analogy again. From the very beginning it seemed clear to me that what you wanted to do was to emulate the Shadowbane experience minus servers stagnation.. that's why I loved the Risk analogy. I partially hated it too, because I didn't understand the necessity of bringing outside mechanisms in order to 'end' the game. In RISK all you have to do is conquer the entire map.. in that sense a game can't last forever and it simpy won't.

 

If Shadowbane had an ending condition like RISK, it wouldn't have suffered from server stagnation in the first place.

 

Example: What if one major alliance (aka the one with more holdings) could at some point ask an oath of allegiance to the alliances on the server with at least one holding? If everyone agrees to it, the former is declared winner and server resets itself. If one alliance doesn't, the others will make sure to take their holding. If many alliances won't swear loyalty, game continues. This is just an idea I wrote a few weeks ago on this forum, and I am sure it isn't perfect (or unexploitable).. but the main idea is: players should decide when the game ends. Not every single player, of course.. but at least the ones with political influence.

 

P.S. As previously discussed: in the case Uncle Bob wouldn't want to win, he could be 'forced to' by a call vote mechanism by other alliances.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

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...