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

Let's Talk About: Campaign Permanence

Recommended Posts

All this Eternal Kingdom's speculating is going to make it that much harder for people to get invested in the campaigns, since they will be seen as a "means to an end" where only the EK matters, rather than important for their own sake. I can see how this could be a good thing in some ways, but it could end up being very destructive to the core game mechanics if not clarified.

I certainly hope so!  My primary thesis is that "important for their own sake" has limitations.  Keep campaigns as the centrally important gameplay & add meta-game aspects in the EK.  I do not see any reason to completely avoid campaigns as a "means to some end."

 

Edit:  The EKs still do not have points of interest (POI), rare resources, mobs, disciplines runes, etc.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with most of your last sentence.  I have no problem with "carebears."  If someone is going to play CF, they are not going to be anti-pvp - the "carebear" playstyles in CF are very different from "carebear" games.  I do not see it as developing a huge feature, however, because (1) import/export and the relationship between campaign/EK is part of the core module and (2) city building and sieging is part of the core module.  

 

I am proposing there is space between EKs that function as an add-on to the central campaign game structure (closer to where I feel CF is right now) and EKs that are identical to the campaigns/campaigns being permanent (closer to where they want to avoid/have learned from experience has limited longevity).  I propose that space includes diversifying the types of EK, possibly by adding EKs with "checkboxes" set to PvP & siege-able (Ren's primary idea as I read it), where exporting has meaning beyond just being able to build, it's being able to capture and claim space on the "meta-game" EKs (i.e. winning campaign grants you rights to particular parcels on those "meta" EKs).

 

Here, Ren's idea does not preclude players who do not want to engage in the PvP on EK style from not doing so.  It is, in a sense, opt-in.  The point is currently the EK system has room to add places for people who want to opt-in.  By making a few, more meaningful EKs that more closely resemble a meta-game.

 

Yep, I agree with all of that. Which means the only things really stopping them from doing that are time/resource commitment, and probably more importantly, if they have any desire to assign any real significance to EKs at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the less competition there is for resources, the less the resources spawn? As more and more players leave a campaign, the resource spawn rate reduces to the point that it's just not worth staying around to gather them.

 

I definitely think that this could be part of a really good solution for the problem.  Basically, when a win condition is met, the winning team has the option to end the campaign (with an export rule of ~40% or whatever is deemed appropriate) or continue to gather crafting materials.  At this point, the losing players also have the opportunity to leave the campaign (with an export rule of ~20%) or continue fighting.  If the winning team decides to continue the campaign, the campaign continues with a new win condition (that would likely end within a week or two) and winter continues.  This time, the winning team would receive the same export percentage as the first time, but the losing teams would only be able to export 15%.  This could continue indefinitely with a 25% reduction in exports for the loser.

 

This allows campaigns to continue if a losing team genuinely believes that they have a chance at victory.  If the losers leave, the number of active players would drop and resource availability would decrease, making the guild that is winning on the server less likely to keep the campaign running.  This solution helps discourage collusion between the victors and the losers as the losers will continue to lose more the longer that they stay around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ren's post does not shift the game, it adds to it.  The campaigns are the central way to impact EKs.  If anything, the only hypothesis that makes sense is that campaigns will be more popular with additions to the meta-game.

 

My argument has nothing to do with guilds building up their advantage.  I do not see any problem with the import rules, in fact I am a huge proponent of them.  I am simply asking for a nuanced view on the purpose of winning a campaign through reasonable additions to how EKs function.

Current content :

5 EK  - 95 C (Primart focus : campaigns)

 

+Rens content :

105 EK - 95 C. (Primary focus : EK)

 

It shifts the game by adding content. Thats what im trying to say.

Guilds will be in warfare to control those keypoints, its very likely they will start ignoring whole building game in campaign worlds and focus on that warfrare for economical advantages. If they become the capital they can simply get going. And they can build a base around the points of interest, a base so powerful that would literally be imposible to conquer. Their economy would rise unmatched.

 

Campaign worlds last long, they can last for months.A guild cannot go to campaigns if they want to conquer EK.. And when you give a human such possibility its highly unlikely they will ignore it. Campaign worlds will lose guild population and its very likely dregs and gods reach will become more popular. 

 

In current state of game ; There are stages.

You start with plenty resources, you try to build, form alliances, start shaping the world.

Next stage where capitals are set, trade routes follow, games of mind and economy.

Later stages, world is dangerous, resources are rare and you need to gather it from other players, betrayals, wars, destruction. A winner rises.And gets his reward.

 

And now you repeat, a whole new world to discover, whole new strategies, plans. mind games. And trophies of your victory will be shown in the eternal kingdoms.It will be a good memory. But not an eternal victory. As there is no fun in being the winner, nor the loser.

 

IF the focus moves into Eternal kingdoms;

Warfare between guilds, one guild emerging victorius, having richer economy. Achieving a level where it becomes unmatched. This may take even a year but it will happen. And what then? Simple warfare opposed to the things listed above.

 

Guilds do not have luxury of going into campaign if they want to secure something in eternal kingdoms. This is the reason eternal kingdoms should not have a focus and be more of a resting place. You can stay there for your time between campaigns, strategize, train, craft. But that is not where the game happens. Eternal Kingdoms are not your meta game, they are your resting place.

Edited by Navhkrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current content :

It shifts the game by adding content. Thats what im trying to say.

Guilds will be in warfare to control those keypoints, its very likely they will start ignoring whole building game in campaign worlds and focus on that warfrare for economical advantages. If they become the capital they can simply get going. And they can build a base around the points of interest, a base so powerful that would literally be imposible to conquer. Their economy would rise unmatched.

 

Campaign worlds last long, they can last for months.A guild cannot go to campaigns if they want to conquer EK.. And when you give a human such possibility its highly unlikely they will ignore it. Campaign worlds will lose guild population and its very likely dregs and gods reach will become more popular.

 

IF the focus moves into Eternal kingdoms;

Warfare between guilds, one guild emerging victorius, having richer economy. Achieving a level where it becomes unmatched. This may take even a year but it will happen. And what then? Simple warfare opposed to the things listed above.

I understand you better now, thanks. I will try to clarify why I do not see a cycle of EK dominance breeding more dominance. The campaigns are where you get all the materials. The ability to build in the EK because you won a campaign does not easily directly affect your success in future campaigns (import rules being key). Of course you have indirect reputation gain that helps you in future campaigns, but there are (1) multiple campaigns and (2) that is a problem with or without added meaning to EKs.

 

I will add in your excellent summary of how the game is set up, you end with "and the winner gets his/her reward." I believe these suggestions are about improving the meaning of that trophy reward. I agree that these types of changes affect the game, so now it's just a question of whether the effects are a good thing. I argue they are by making campaigns more meaningful, not less by improving the meta-game.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you better now, thanks. I will try to clarify why I do not see a cycle of EK dominance breeding more dominance. The campaigns are where you get all the materials. The ability to build in the EK because you won a campaign does not easily directly affect your success in future campaigns (import rules being key). Of course you have indirect reputation gain that helps you in future campaigns, but there are (1) multiple campaigns and (2) that is a problem with or without added meaning to EKs.

 

I will add in your excellent summary of how the game is set up, you end with "and the winner gets his/her reward." I believe these suggestions are about improving the meaning of that trophy reward. I agree that these types of changes affect the game, so now it's just a question of whether the effects are a good thing. I argue they are by making campaigns more meaningful, not less by improving the meta-game.

Thank you, and thank you again for keeping this discussion friendly and well it was fun :P

Its rare to find such good people in internet, im quite impressed by crowfall players

 

 

What im thinking of trophies are more of a visual rewards. Swords, Amulets, unique items. Rewards from gods for winning x amount of campaigns? That kind of stuff. Improving the meta game will add more meaning into campaings yes, but it can have drastic results. Improving the meta game results in making eternal kingdoms "the game" and campaigns "way to gain resource". While without them Eternal kingdoms are the "Resting place " and campaign worlds are "the game".

Edited by Navhkrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because of the import rules. No matter how big your economy is, a guild can only import x value. Even if their economy has 1000x value.

They can't import more stuff, but they could import better stuff. That's the point.

 

Edit: In theory, they could also import more items if they have more members and a larger economy to ensure they're all geared for each campaign.

Edited by Teekey

UkBSCr2.png


CF.GG


Your primary source of Crowfall news, guides, and information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current content :

Guilds do not have luxury of going into campaign if they want to secure something in eternal kingdoms. This is the reason eternal kingdoms should not have a focus and be more of a resting place. You can stay there for your time between campaigns, strategize, train, craft. But that is not where the game happens. Eternal Kingdoms are not your meta game, they are your resting place.

Let me be more nuanced. I see securing something in the EK as being completely contingent on success in campaigns. A guild cannot do anything meaningful in the EK without participating in campaigns. EKs have no POIs, no rare resources, few mobs. Success in the EK does not breed direct further success in the EK, in my vision. Additionally, I would again say I love the idea of making not only building on the EK contingent on participation in campaigns (win more exports plus parcels) but also sieges (or their kin) being contingent on EKs (win a trophy bane scroll).


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen both ends while playing Shadowbane, I can tell you that people that haven't tried it will have a very hard time believing how bad it can turn.

 

Was in 2 guilds that split up and most quit because we got so beat up.

Joined a guild that ended up going from server to server, infiltrating other guilds and destroying them.

That was what it took to "win".

 

I was close to quitting after the second guild died, because I was so tired of finding new people to build something up with.

But, after a few months of winning, it got extreemely boring. We weren't playing the same game as the people we were attacking and our enemies quit.

 

Still, SB is the MMO I remember best. 

And almost all the good memories came from the buildup stages. Even when we infiltrated.

 

I think the only way to show it to the ones that haven't experienced it (and it was not only in SB btw) is to set up these kinds of rulesets.

Let it play out.

Hell, there might emerge something completly different from it if it lasts.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't import more stuff, but they could import better stuff. That's the point.

 

Edit: In theory, they could also import more items if they have more members and a larger economy to ensure they're all geared for each campaign.

If the import amount is defined by "value" instead of "count" they cannot.

 

For the other part they can limit amount of members a guild can have as max. They will need to do that anyways, wouldnt want 1k guildies in one world yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the import amount is defined by "value" instead of "count" they cannot.

This is going to prove highly difficult. From what we've seen of gear, it 's more about specialization than just pure +Gooder stats.

 

Having an entire guild with specialized gear (and fulfilling specific roles) is just going to perform better than those who are wearing whatever they could scrounge together to fill the slots.

Edited by Teekey

UkBSCr2.png


CF.GG


Your primary source of Crowfall news, guides, and information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to prove highly difficult. From what we've seen of gear, it 's more about specialization than just pure +Gooder stats.

 

Having an entire guild with specialized gear (and fulfilling specific roles) is just going to perform better than those who are wearing whatever they could scrounge together to fill the slots.

On top of that, in a player run economy, it is very very hard to put a set value on items


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, here are a few ideas that I have for solving the "Uncle Bob" problem.  

 

1. SUDDEN DEATH

...

 

1. Sounds good until you realize that if Uncle Bob gets on a winning streak he will be unstoppable due to he and his guild/nation having the best gear and most established fortifications. After winning a few times any guild/nation that wins a campaign for the first time will easily be ROFLStomped. Sure eventually there might be a guild/nation that can catch up with the level of gear they have but this can be months down the line. This will also lead to a very small number of elite guilds in the end that pretty much control the flow of campaigns and who wins them.

 

So, here are a few ideas that I have for solving the "Uncle Bob" problem.  

 

...

2. OVERTIME

 

 

2. Using server traffic as an indicator of when to shut a server down.. meh  I dunno doesn't really sound too appealing. Also, people will just sit on a server and farm until they get the best equipment on their characters.. even if they don't get any resources or mats their characters will have the best gear (I'm guessing players will be able to keep at least the gear on their backs).

 

----------------------

 

Maybe the solution (to make campaigns last longer) to this would be to make it so campaigns have a finite number of resources that could be harvested. So eventually when there isn't any more ore or reagents to farm on the map.. you know.. because it's a "dying world" people will drop off and cause the world to collapse (end). 

 

^ That could be a way of limiting people from camping a world just for gear.. this would also be pretty fun if, let's say eventually a ore mine become a magic mine if you dig deep and long enough.

 

This could add to the longevity of a campaign. Make it so mines and resources run out.. make it so eventually a coal mine becomes a diamond mine, etc.

 

----------------------

 

Other than creating campaigns that have a set time to end, giving them a finite amount of resources can also be a method of getting players out of looong lived "dying" worlds.

 

 

If a world doesn't have a time limit or a finite amount of resources I can definitely see people working together to artificially extend the life of a world by exploiting winning conditions. In fact, to be honest, if I'm on a world where this is possible I know that I and a large number of other people would do their very best to make sure NO BODY WINS.. why? Because lulz. 

 

 

Quite honestly the dying worlds concept works perfectly. What will end up as the end-game however will be Eternal Kingdom Battles. That's why I'm a bit concerned about the KickStarter Tax-Free Parcel rewards causing a bit of imbalance (see concerns here: http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3195-eternal-kingdoms-here-is-what-end-game-will-look-like-do-the-kickstarter-rewards-make-crowfall-pay2win/).

 

Consideration on Guild vs Guild / Nation vs. Nation dynamics outside of campaigns really has to be looked at, I think you will find it in Eternal Kingdoms. However, there are problems that stem from the fact that people have exclusive control of their "Personal" Eternal Kingdoms. Perhaps the solution to Eternal Kingdoms and guilds will be to establish Eternal Kingdoms for guilds (ie. "Eternal Guildoms" for example..) where control of the Eternal Guildoms can be split among it's Inner Council/Board and guild members can feel comfortable investing on land that is not the exclusive property of 1 individual. It also helps solve any potential problems with the KickStarter rewards... then again.. people can still bypass "Eternal Guildoms" all together and still use their personal EK as a guild hub (ie KickStarter Land Plot problems still present)..

 

 

To Summarize: I think the best way to avoid Uncle Bob Scenarios where "Uncle Bob" and/or his crew decide when the game is over.. campaigns should have either a time limit or a finite amount of resources/mats that players can collect until the world dies and a winner is declared.

 

I also feel that ultimately "end game" will revolve around Eternal Kingdoms or something similar ie. "Eternal Guildoms" and player organized PvP events between them. In otherwords; Kingdoms Battles are where "it's" gonna be at.

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in tha current state lubber.  Ya greatly overestimate how many of tha pvp guilds care about 1v1 consensual matches.  

 

Naw.. I don't. It wont be as popular in the beginning.. but once campaigns start to get boring it'll be the only thing that's left..

 

I can see EK Battles essentially becoming the "Areas" (WoW reference) or the "Competitive/Tournament" side of Crowfall.


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been vocal about this so its time to put up and get ready to eat crow.

 

This is controversial but I dont see how it can be done without some dev help to make up for the skill difference. I'm not saying to make the losing side win, but to help prop up the losers with small percent adjustments. They might still lose but nudges should help them to better. Yes I can already hear the "hand holding" "not fair" stuff. I agree. I don't like that stuff and Im the stubboren guy that never leaves no matter what. I'm trying to figure out how to get the flip floppers to stick around.

 

Below I've listed a few things that could be used for balance. You would adjust these things to be slightly more difficult for or detrimental to the supremely dominant faction while doing the opposite for the losing factions. With every day/week/month etc these things beging to effect them more making it harder for them to stay overly dominant but making the decline gradual not insta fail. When the losers come back to a point (for ex gain back 1/4 resrouces/land/etc) those adjustments begin to fade off.

 

#1. Battle Fatigue ripped from SWG (dominating can start to wear you out)

#2. Seasons getting more extreme/less extreme as they keep rotating (area specific-the dominate teams main area begins to get very harsh, the losing teams little area begins to become more mild)

#3. Monsters growing stronger/weaker as seasons keep rotating (area specific)

#4. Resources depleating/increasing faster/slower (area specific)

#5. Disease (being dominant takes a lot of energy! Start to get wore out and you might get sick!)

#6. The hunger (whatever the devs want it to do hehe. Story wise it probably gets bored with 1 sided domination as it lacks "fresh food" so it does things bad things. Maybe it just begins to crave the "strong"?

#7. Mercenaries-the last ditch effort (either Devs or Players can pay something to bring in X amount of skilled players/guilds to help even things out)

 

Again I would use the above things as tiny percent differences that slowly increase over time but then begin to fade off as the less dominant side begins to do better for themselves. I suppose the hardest part is nailing down when to start the intervention and when to start removing it. It might be a pain but I think if you take the above, expand on it, and inject it into a 3 way PVP situation it could help keep things from becoming a /quit point. 

 

Yes? No? Maybe?

Edited by Tierless

I role play a wordsmith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1. Battle Fatigue ripped from SWG (dominating can start to wear you out)

#2. Seasons getting more extreme/less extreme as they keep rotating (area specific-the dominate teams main area begins to get very harsh, the losing teams little area begins to become more mild)

#3. Monsters growing stronger/weaker as seasons keep rotating (area specific)

#4. Resources depleating/increasing faster/slower (area specific)

#5. Disease (being dominant takes a lot of energy! Start to get wore out and you might get sick!)

#6. The hunger (whatever the devs want it to do hehe. Story wise it probably gets bored with 1 sided domination as it lacks "fresh food" so it does things bad things. Maybe it just begins to crave the "strong"?

#7. Mercenaries-the last ditch effort (either Devs or Players can pay something to bring in X amount of skilled players/guilds to help even things out)

 

Gonna play Devils Advodate

 

Cons:

1. Split up into small forced and come together in the end.

2. See #1.

3. See #1.

4. See #1.

5. See #1.

6. See #1.

7. Might work.. or people can just work together to bring down the winner..?

 

I did actually read your post.. I just really think people will split up to avoid penalties. It wouldn't be hard to do.


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in tha current state lubber.  Ya greatly overestimate how many of tha pvp guilds care about 1v1 consensual matches.  

 

I think the current system lends itself very well to the idea of having the Eternal Kingdom's be alliance based, rather than just single guilds. The "king" would be an alliance leader, or perhaps an allied council, Arche Duke/Duchess the guild leaders of allied guilds, etc. I think this could be interesting but it would really depend on how much Eternal Kingdoms can be upgraded, and what if any control can be given to make it more of a collaborative effort, rather than a personal one.  It would also be interesting if the matches weren't consensual, but that would be a tricky one to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this doesn't directly contribute to the conversation, but just the simple fact that you can take the base of the game and change the rulesets and win conditions on the fly is the biggest reason I'm such a huge supporter. "So community, what type of rules would you like to see and we'll try it on a world and see if it works?" Just in and of it's self, is such a big ordeal. This game can really accommodate a lot of different gameplay styles, and find new ones.




I'm pretty freakin' hyped.


☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

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...