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

Let's Talk About: Campaign Permanence

Recommended Posts

Ok, so first off I didn't read through the whole thread so I'm sorry if something similar has already been said.

 

Anyway, I had two ideas I thought I'd share. The premise for both are more or less the same in that they're both 100% permanent but they'd still have board resetting mechanics.

 

First one. It's pretty simple. The year passes (the seasons that is) and everything plays out normally.

After winter ends the world goes into some sort of ultra winter. Conditions get ultra harsh, resources are basically non-existent and... there's a huge influx in monster numbers. We also get some extra big beasties who start leading packs/hordes/throngs of monsters and going after player settlements and fortifications with a vengeance.

Naturally the bigger territory you have the bigger a target you are meaning you need to decide whether to abandon some outposts and focus manpower and resources to get a much better chance of protecting the more high value towns and castles you have or do you gamble a bit and try to keep it all? 

Smaller guilds would have a higher chance of avoiding the big murder-hordes but even then they'd still be very much affected by all the other factors.

After the ultra-winter (which should not last as long as the normal seasons, maybe a third of that) it goes back to spring and everything starts over again. The board would not be fully reset but the playing field should be levelled enough to even out the odds a bit for everyone.

 

The second one I'm not so sure about but I thought I'd include it anyway. Basically I got the idea from the darkling class from a game called Dokapon Kingdom. Yeah, I know but stay with me.

How it works is basically that if your guild been stuck in last place for ages a evil/demonic force or creature contacts you and offers you a deal. Most, if not all, of yours and your guild's resources, treasure and whatever else in exchange for tremendous, but temporary, demonic powers. During this time you and your guild can't earn or steal any sort of resources or treasure, only destroy it. After the time is up everything goes back to normal, you and your guild go back to your headquarters (was thinking that, if anything, you'd get to keep your capital/headquarters) and that's that. The playing field as been levelled.

There would of course be limits to how often this could happen and restrictions that'd prevent the same guild from getting it over and over.

 

Yeah, that's basically it, my two cents. Let me know what you think :)

Edited by Bombastuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It wouldn't be guild flagged, it would have to be entire faction wide. If your on the chaos side, you all get the % decrease as punishment for being too good lol. Yeah, not fond of that concept but if its only used for extreme cases and only a small, then slowly progressive amount I think it could work.


I role play a wordsmith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be guild flagged, it would have to be entire faction wide. If your on the chaos side, you all get the % decrease as punishment for being too good lol. Yeah, not fond of that concept but if its only used for extreme cases and only a small, then slowly progressive amount I think it could work.

 

Ah you're looking at it from a Faction based camaigns' pov.. meh.. but what'll probably end up happening if it DOES become that much of a challenge the winning faction will just lose certain territories on purpose make sure they are in a good position to take them back later.

 

 

Ok, so first off I didn't read through the whole thread so I'm sorry if something similar has already been said.

 

Anyway, I had two ideas I thought I'd share. The premise for both are more or less the same in that they're both 100% permanent but they'd still have board resetting mechanics.

 

First one. It's pretty simple. The year passes (the seasons that is) and everything plays out normally.

After winter ends the world goes into some sort of ultra winter. Conditions get ultra harsh, resources are basically non-existent and... there's a huge influx in monster numbers. We also get some extra big beasties who start leading packs/hordes/throngs of monsters and going after player settlements and fortification with a vengeance.

Naturally the bigger territory you have the bigger a target you are meaning you need to decide whether to abandon some outposts and focus manpower and resources to get a much better chance of protecting the more high value towns and castles you have or do you gamble a bit and try to keep it all? 

Smaller guilds would have a higher chance of avoiding the big murder-hordes but even then they'd still be very much affected by all the other factors.

After the ultra-winter (which should not last as long as the normal seasons, maybe a third of that) it goes back to spring and everything starts over again. The board would not be fully reset but the playing field should be levelled enough to even out the odds a bit for everyone.

 

The second one I'm not so sure about but I thought I'd include it anyway. Basically I got the idea from the darkling class from a game called Dokapon Kingdom. Yeah, I know but stay with me.

How it works is basically that if your guild been stuck in last place for ages a evil/demonic force or creature contacts you and offers you a deal. Most, if not all, of yours and your guild's resources, treasure and whatever else in exchange for tremendous, but temporary, demonic powers. During this time you and your guild can't earn or steal any sort of resources or treasure, only destroy it. After the time is up everything goes back to normal, you and your guild go back to your headquarters (was thinking that, if anything, you'd get to keep your capital/headquarters) and that's that. The playing field as been levelled.

There would of course be limits to how often this could happen and restrictions that'd prevent the same guild from getting it over and over.

 

Yeah, that's basically it, my two cents. Let me know what you think :)

 

 

With idea #1: What'll probably end up happening if it DOES become that much of a challenge the winning faction will just lose certain territories on purpose make sure they are in a good position to take them back later. That, or they will split up into small forced and come together in the end to avoid the increased challenges.

 

Idea #2: Would be to easily exploitable by fake guilds managed or controlled by the winners.


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

With idea #1: What'll probably end up happening if it DOES become that much of a challenge the winning faction will just lose certain territories on purpose make sure they are in a good position to take them back later. That, or they will split up into small forced and come together in the end to avoid the increased challenges.

 

Idea #2: Would be to easily exploitable by fake guilds managed or controlled by the winners.

 

Abandoning territories and retreating to a more defendable position would still mean that all the stuff they've built and worked on would get wrecked, including any resources they can't bring with them. And since the conditions would be much harsher than normal it'd means they'd have to choose between retreating quickly and safely or taking a much longer time to transport resources and risk a number of dangers in the process. Same thing goes for splitting up into smaller forces.

 

As for the second one. Yeah, I agree. I mentioned that I'm not so sure about the second one and that's because it'd take a lot of work to make it so that it wouldn't be exploited. I just mentioned it because I enjoyed how the mechanic was used in Dokapon and maybe someone else will come up with a genius way to make it work Crowfall :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the very vocal critics of some of the "features" of crowfall, i must admit. Permanence or the lack thereof is my biggest beef with the game. I don't want my world to reset, i want there to be a progression system within besides ganking.  The difference between my 125$ pledge and $425 pledge is the likelihood of a Permanent campaign. If it's going to hinge on hitting a stretch goal..I dunno, 1.3 mil is a little ambitious since the game already funded. From now till 26 days it's going to be a trickle.  I think the 1.3 mil stretch goal is too ambitious

Edited by willwill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah you're looking at it from a Faction based camaigns' pov.. meh.. but what'll probably end up happening if it DOES become that much of a challenge the winning faction will just lose certain territories on purpose make sure they are in a good position to take them back later.

 

 

 

 

With idea #1: What'll probably end up happening if it DOES become that much of a challenge the winning faction will just lose certain territories on purpose make sure they are in a good position to take them back later. That, or they will split up into small forced and come together in the end to avoid the increased challenges.

 

Idea #2: Would be to easily exploitable by fake guilds managed or controlled by the winners.

But if they lose them one of the other factions gains them and can become stronger with their acquisition. That would be a helluva risk.


I role play a wordsmith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept, but I am curious, how do you view EvE online fitting into your theory of stagnation? It doesn't seem like EvE is stagnating. It's slow but steady growth, definitely not deserted. Even in a permanent server, people keep fighting for control over the same territories. There are some timelapse maps online that showcase how radically control has shifted over the years. Never ends. 


The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.

- Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept, but I am curious, how do you view EvE online fitting into your theory of stagnation? It doesn't seem like EvE is stagnating. It's slow but steady growth, definitely not deserted. Even in a permanent server, people keep fighting for control over the same territories. There are some timelapse maps online that showcase how radically control has shifted over the years. Never ends. 

EVE has many tricks that other games never figured out. Their universe being nearly endless is one of them. In a space that big even with one large guild controlling a lot of it their is room for people to feel unaffected. Call them rural PVPers if you will. Far enough removed to avoid most of the reach of the controlling factors.


I role play a wordsmith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see Zyerne's suggestion on campaign permadeath restated yet so,

 

"On your 10th (or whatever number they decide) kill you've 'Won' and can now export as a winner, so there can be lots of winners on such a server, though obviously much less than losers.

 

Then if you wish not to export then you get another 'Win' and export chance with each kill after that, death before you get another kill would mean you die and get the lose condition+world ban.

 

 

So someone just joins the world and hides in a cave? Sure he'll stay alive but he'll never win, at best he might be the very last or last few alive and no longer even have enough players to gain a 'Win' condition for lack of kill targets.

 

No forced check-in or anything, you don't log in and you'll never meet the win condition, just like any other world.

 

 

Also the worries that a permadeath world is silly and the devs should cater to a bigger crowd holds no water when those other people can just as easily not join and  pick a different world. You don't suddenly hurt a person that doesn't want permadeath by there being a world for those that enjoy it."


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of these suggestions feel to me as extremely artificial, non immersive and "tacked on" - they make the game seem even more like a temporary FPS with restrictions than before.


Crazy Talk co-co-co-gl

Guardians of Moonforest fangirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SUDDEN DEATH

 

This idea TECHNICALLY could allow a Campaign World to last forever, though it's left up to the players to make it happen.  I'm going to create a VERY simple ruleset, as an example.  If we like the model, we'll come up with actual rules to replace these.

 

For illustrative purposes, let's say:

 

Campaign World A ends with Team 1 winning.  

Campaign World B ends with Team 2 winning.

 

The two campaigns are not related, but had similar rulesets and players populations.

 

Everyone on Each of these Worlds is given a chance to leave, and take their winnings with them (i.e. give them an optional exit point).

 

If enough players on World A and World B want to stick around, a new Campaign starts: SUDDEN DEATH between these worlds.

 

Portals can now be opened between the two Worlds.  Meaning: players can A can travel to B, and vice versa.

 

Some object (for fun, let's call it a Tree of Life) spawns on ONE of the two World.

 

The win condition is: someone has to plant the Tree of Life on their World and protect it for 1 week's time.

 

Whichever World does that, is given a 2 week stay of execution, before it is paired with another World © for another round of Sudden Death.

 

The implications of this system are: a Campaign World COULD last forever, but only if the team is good enough to defend it, forever.

 

 

 

Todd

ACE

 

 

EDIT: if I didn't make it clear -- this is a discussion about FUTURE stretch goals!  We won't consider doing any of this stuff until AFTER we have fulfilled the base vision of the game, as explained in the KS video and page.

Thanks for the topic Todd,

 

I think when you dropped the campaign reveal on us I was probably one of the very first persons to "complain" about the reset mechanic. ( That was my initial reaction, doesn't reflect my current thoughts). I was pretty adamant that we see a campaign that NEVER reset ALA Shadowbane, or if it did, let it happen in a natural way is what I believe I said.

 

The more I thought about this over time the more I started to see I think you might be right on this, especially to avoid the eventual stagnation. I think in campaigns we will still see some kind of stagnation though just on a much much smaller scale. There will be a middle point where players figure out they are in a loosing battle, hopefully the "loosing" rewards are enough to entice players to stick it out though.

 

Now the part I quoted, this is a amazing idea instead of a having a campaign that never ends. I never thought of this and I think it would work amazing to allow a campaign to continue on if it can. I think what would eventually happen is other loosing campaigns would ban together eventually in a single campaign to "dethrown" BOB. Would work amazing I think, I realize it would probably take a quite a bit more resources to make this happen and probably wouldn't see it at initial launch but would love to see it something to work towards eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I've read a fair number of posts about the temporal nature of Campaigns -- meaning, the fact that Campaigns don't last forever.  

 

Hi Todd!

 

Honestly, I think the reason you have so many threads about campaign permanence is that most people are really uncertain about what Eternal Kingdoms are and your vision for them. We understand player housing, social hub and trading havens... but when will we even get a chance to really BE there?

 

Since it sounds like our characters will be locked into place during the campaign, and we will not emerge (defeated or victorious) for quite some time, once we are out of a campaign, what real incentive to we have for hanging out in our Eternal Kingdoms rather than just running right back into another campaign? If I understand it correctly, the Eternal Kingdoms are really just our spot to hang out, which we are barred from for weeks/months depending on our campaign.

 

Help the player base understand the world of permanence you have already established for them and then I feel like you will see less desire to have permanent campaigns. Help them understand why these Eternal Kingdoms are worth spending time in rather that just running back once more into the fray to do it all over again, so that they don't feel they need persistent campaigns. I feel like a lot of information is still to come over the course of the Kickstarter (hey, you have to continue to generate hype as this thing continues), and I also feel like this is what many people want to know... other than how import/export works and how that relates to your Eternal Kingdom as well. Please, if you could, provide the player base a reason to care about these Eternal Kingdoms so that we can care about the campaign reward system of exporting goods so that we can understand the point of it all... besides the obvious playing to crush!

 

Out of everything I read, this is what I see being asked for the most! Thank you for your time on this thread and thank you for looking to your community for ideas!

Edited by Adall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give any possibility of a way around impermanence, some groups will collude to do their best to keep it that way. Please don't back down on this. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

 

Sure, we could run a few trial servers and watch them fail. Then you'll have to go in and forcibly shut them down, which will create hard feelings.

 

It's better to just not create the situation to begin with.

 

But, hey, your game, and experimentation is at its core.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept, but I am curious, how do you view EvE online fitting into your theory of stagnation? It doesn't seem like EvE is stagnating. It's slow but steady growth, definitely not deserted. Even in a permanent server, people keep fighting for control over the same territories. There are some timelapse maps online that showcase how radically control has shifted over the years. Never ends. 

 

Eve's territory is extremely stagnant at the moment, and the developers are actually in the middle of redesigning (yet again) the territory system (Sovereignty).

 

Those Alliance maps are misleading. This is really this. CFC, N3, and the Russians are really the only major players. There are a few anomalies with Providence and HERO, but the star systems they hold are poor, and they'd lose a war if any of the big three wanted those regions.

 

Eve keeps people occupied because there are things other than territory conquest. People in wormholes want to be marauding bullies (and be stinking rich); people in low-sec like solo-esque PvP; and there are all the high-sec mission runners and industrialists and traders. Miners and suicide gankers. There are people running courier services, and casinos, and scams. Eve isn't a game with a defined path, so when one system gets a little stale, there are quite a few others to keep things interesting.

Edited by motstandet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eve's territory is extremely stagnant at the moment, and the developers are actually in the middle of redesigning (yet again) the territory system (Sovereignty).

 

Those Alliance maps are misleading. This is really this. CFC, N3, and the Russians are really the only major players. There are a few anomalies with Providence and HERO, but the star systems they hold are poor, and they'd lose a war if any of the big three wanted those regions.

 

Eve keeps people occupied because there are things other than territory conquest. People in wormholes want to be marauding bullies (and be stinking rich); people in low-sec like solo-esque PvP; and there are all the high-sec mission runners and industrialists and traders. Miners and suicide gankers. There are people running courier services, and casinos, and scams. Eve isn't a game with a defined path, so when one system gets a little stale, their are quite a few others to keep things interesting.

 

Oh very well done. Sadly, I haven't played in years, but apparently only the names have changed.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just posting to say that I think JTodd is actually correct--campaign restarts/victory conditions are necessary.  The debate over essentially cyclical servers resets was had at length toward the end of Shadowbane and during the SBEmu.  Generally, the first month of land rush is a blast, server matures, months 2-4 are a server war and then there was a population fall off around the 4-5th month of the server, followed by a long trailing off period.  

 

EVE is a very different beast.  The scale of everything is different. The purpose of strategic ("siege") combat is different.  In EVE a group of 5-50 players might PvP for fun; everything above that, up to many thousand player alliance blocs fight for strategic economic gain...to increase their ingame income and thus strategic advantage in the next conflict. 

 

Even in Shadowbane, the struggle for resources wasn't that big.  It was mostly political, with strategic overtones.  Crowfall is closer to SB than EVE... resources wont carry over to campaigns and the EK (for Dregs/Shadow players) is just a glorified chat room.  We will need something like a reset to shake things up and get that excitement back in.

 

If Ran's "Grand Kingdom" EK system is implemented the game looks more like EVE.  You fight to gain resources to enhance your long term strategic advantage (in this case holding the Grand Kingdom and bragging rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just posting to say that I think JTodd is actually correct--campaign restarts/victory conditions are necessary.  The debate over essentially cyclical servers resets was had at length toward the end of Shadowbane and during the SBEmu.  Generally, the first month of land rush is a blast, server matures, months 2-4 are a server war and then there was a population fall off around the 4-5th month of the server, followed by a long trailing off period.  

 

EVE is a very different beast.  The scale of everything is different. The purpose of strategic ("siege") combat is different.  In EVE a group of 5-50 players might PvP for fun; everything above that, up to many thousand player alliance blocs fight for strategic economic gain...to increase their ingame income and thus strategic advantage in the next conflict. 

 

Even in Shadowbane, the struggle for resources wasn't that big.  It was mostly political, with strategic overtones.  Crowfall is closer to SB than EVE... resources wont carry over to campaigns and the EK (for Dregs/Shadow players) is just a glorified chat room.  We will need something like a reset to shake things up and get that excitement back in.

 

If Ran's "Grand Kingdom" EK system is implemented the game looks more like EVE.  You fight to gain resources to enhance your long term strategic advantage (in this case holding the Grand Kingdom and bragging rights).

Honestly, if people read your section on Winterblades SB history, it will show this exact point with how things played out for you guys. ( I read it the other day). I felt it showed perfectly how resets are and will be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the risk Analogy

10 Years later even Uncle Bob is unhappy.

So what does he do?

Self-destructs and starts a new world on his own volition.

*boom* mind blown.


#CrowFallBata


~Sweet Sensations~


puppy punch Count: 28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTC,

 

Please read taroskin's post...

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3325-the-issue-is-not-campaign-permanence-we-need-an-iron-throne/

 

It mostly echos what Ren's ideas address.  It is also verbatim my thoughts as well and really gets to the core of the issue people have with the non-permanence of campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give any possibility of a way around impermanence, some groups will collude to do their best to keep it that way. Please don't back down on this. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

 

Sure, we could run a few trial servers and watch them fail. Then you'll have to go in and forcibly shut them down, which will create hard feelings.

 

It's better to just not create the situation to begin with.

 

But, hey, your game, and experimentation is at its core.

They can only take what they are given. If we are confident it will fail, then why not let that failure be exposed?

 

TBH I haven't seen anyone logically say my suggested methods would not work. I was hoping someone would TBH. That or improve upon them.

 

Its no secret I'd like a continuous server. Or at least I thought I did. It all depends on how the entire game works from EK to PVP games. I'm open minded about it. I really like the evolution concept Todd talked about with "bad" things happening and players talking about it like "oh ma remember 10 campagins ago when magic was way too OP". One of my favorite things about MMOs is that they live, and evolve. If the reset prevents the death part I'm all for it. I guess right now I'd like to see both methods and see how they shake out. /shrug


I role play a wordsmith.

 

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...