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

The Issue Is Not Campaign Permanence: We Need An Iron Throne

Recommended Posts

I do agree with all of this and it would be nice to "convince" them but even if we could beg and plead and eventually win them over, since it wasn't their vision to begin with, they would essentially need to start over, and with that means finances would need to be redistributed to cover that cost. I guess it could be a stretch goal if there was enough demand, but even then it would most likely only come after all the other stretch goals that have already been mapped out. I am not saying give up, I am just saying this part of it might not turn into *the* ideal game we want, but it will still be a great game where we can have fun and hopefully kick some bottom in the campaigns. 

 

I don't think think the overall goal of "provide a way to measure success vs each other" is an overhaul-level task. It does require the team to decide it matter sto do this, but solutions can range from lightweight (ranking and leaderboards) to heavyweight (EK sieges). The more heavyweight, the more resource allocation that feature gets over others in terms of developer time.

 

Though it does mean if we suggest a range of suggestions, both light and heavy, it's more likely to find a right-size fit to be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of different ways to handle this (depending on the overall goals), but I do believe the serious guilds of the world (The LotD's, etc) will want measuring sticks at least.

 

Considering the players are fighting and picking apart the Dying Worlds on behalf of the gods who chose them to be their immortal champions, its really not even outside the scope of the lore for there to be some sort of competition between players outside of the Dying Worlds.

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

There is a problem with permanence in EK. Question is how do you balance competition in the fight for the Iron Throne if a big guild alliance band together to grab the iron throne. I remember in gw2 a bunch of us, oceanic guilds formed an alliance in HOD and pretty much dominated the server WvW for awhile. After awhile the alliance got bored and disbanded and now in the 2nd year of gw2 3 servers pretty much dominates 1,2 and 3 constantly(bg, jq and tc).

 

@op your argument is that the competitive pvper needs a tangible reward for their efforts.

 

The problem is 1) How do you balance competition? 2) how do you prevent intentional flipping to get the tangible rewards, an example is emperor flipping and farming in low population campaigns in TESO.

 

The guild vs guild ruleset might be what guild vs guild look for but same problem arise how the u balance the alliances?

 

The simple idea or vision of Crowfall with the reset helps in this sense as the losing alliance will than realize their mistakes and will have better planning and stronger alliance going into the next campaign.

 

Just remember in a game no one likes to lose but there is alway a winner and a loser in a game.

 

Last point, the op is suggesting something closer to arena type campaigns which can be balance towards more tangible rewards for those guilds more inclined towards bigger epeen and bragging rights. But, the first step needs to be taken first, which is for the game to be release since kickstarter's goal has already been reached.

Edited by huangye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. These individual campaigns should affect the game in a meaningful way, especially according to the lore established so far. Though the campaigns are randomly generated they are still "worlds", either being destroyed over our war or being saved.  Fighting over resources on each planet need to matter or players will simply see them as nothing more than an arena and they will have no real connection to the "world" of the game. I'm sure having some sort of campaign log or timeline isn't something that is very likely but being able to have some sort of record of what occurs after each campaign is surely needed.  After months or years we would be able to see the state of our world and look at these campaigns as key events in our history.  Knowing what battles we participated in would allow us to reminisce about our great battles.  Chaos, Order, and Balance are paving their own path within the world of Crowfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the OP's sentiments.  Right now "something" seems missing from the design and that something is a feeling of risk.  Right now, the only apparent bad outcome to losing is that your EK will look like a rattrap compared to your neighbors.  Sort of like suburban home owners comparing who's lawn is greener.

 

Here is an idea

 

THRONE WORLD

They add a second permanent world.  Let's call it Throne World.  Throne World is massive and seamless.  Access to that world comes with credits you only earn by completing campaigns.  Winners get more, losers less, but everyone who finishes a campaign gets something, so that over time even if you don't win you can save your credits to get access to the Throne World.  

 

Campaign Credits Can Be Spent to:

 

1.  Build Portals and Keystones - to construct a basic portal in EK that allows your guild to enter and leave the Throne World; this portal allows the placing of a keystone somewhere within the Throne World that functions as your base as well - like the Tree of Life in Shadowbane.  The portals and keystones are destructible (see below).

 

2.   Purchase a Crowstone (or whatever we call it) which functions like Shadowbane bane stones did.  It allows you to attack and destroy another guilds keystone, which also destroys the associated portal, thus banishing them from the Throne World until they can purchase and place another

 

3.  Since the Throne World doesn't end, victory doesn't mean wiping everyone else out, it means dominating a majority of special locations.  Holding these allows the owner to claim the Throne.  Various rewards can flow from this - they could mainly be cosmetic and for bragging rights, or could be something else like unlocking a unique race only that guild can access...like Archons or Demons.  The benefits are lost if the Throne conditions are met by someone else.

 

Hence, you have your permanent world with meaning.  There is only one Throne World.  Access to that world comes from using credits earned by finishing campaigns.  There is risk, since if you lose a siege on Throne World, all the campaign credits you spent to get into the world and place your keystone are gone too - you need to go back and earn more by finishing campaigns.

Edited by cemya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most played games online anyone? I don't think many match the criteria.

 

People come back and play them for the game, not to increase their hold on the game.

 

Either way, you want neutrality to prevent Uncle Tom but you want Uncle Tom to lie and say he doesn't have you beat already 0.o ?

 

also a lot of comparing to SB, the game now can get stagnant in no time, what's the point?

 

I think it will work as designed :D

 

how about character kiosk for selling trading for increased economy, and include the arcane creation with it maybe?  adds a lot of value down the road to the new and current player base. (i'm sure it's posted somewhere...)

 

too much wanting to change instead of work with what you have. ?

 

the goal of the game is not to run people off the server with your 'awesome' pvp skills or overwhelming numbers to control everything lol GAME ON

 

it is already stated rewards are given to the campaign victors, enjoy it. you're not content with months of campaigning to win!?? then this game may not be for you B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the Throne concept is it creates a choice for the players, do they spend resources on the throne or resources making themselves stronger/cooler/better? And it basically boils down to the following choice:

 

Does the throne give me more tangible rewards than spending X resources on something else?

 

If Yes Spend on throne to that value, then spend it on something else.

 

Also if the throne has any effect on the game world how does the throne not create a gap where someone takes it then uses it's benefits to hold it? If it's just Cosmetic then why not just have that cosmetic effect be part of player progression or EK progression? Just cool things you buy/make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TL;DR: The issue with Campaigns and the design shown to us is NOT Campaign permanence. It's the feeling that success within the Campaigns has no effect on the world. There is no persistence, no measure of success, no persisting political intrigue and no fueling of wars. There is no meaning. We need a PvP/Competitive mechanic or a mechanic that measures success from the Campaigns to exist within the persistent world of the Eternal Kingdoms so that the Campaigns, and thus success in the campaigns, have meaning and importance. Without this we are just fighting an eternal war for the next cosmetic magical rainbow carp to hang in our castle. And that just won't do. We are JUST FINE with the campaigns being temporary. We ARE NOT just fine with them heaving nearly no meaning.

I and I'm sure many others who like the dev's vision of the game are fine with what they have released so far. Stop trying to act like you speak on everyone's behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of Ascendants someone came up with.

 

An actual physical throne world outside of campaigns feels pointless to me. If I want to prove my worth, I'll win a campaign, I don't need some additional 'permanent' campaign whose ownership flip-flops between whoever can rally more forces this week. That and who is going to actually go there other than your guild and people looking to take it over? It seems difficult to flaunt... and what is it going to offer you that doesn't then make campaigns themselves redundant?

 

What if the top guild/s get to decide the rules of campaign worlds? Maybe they can decide which rare environmental features (monsters or resources) are present in the world? And they get a temple/castle spawned in that world when it starts, which contains statues of the leader and top ranking officers?

 

On an individual level, everything is about shiny hats. Your Challenger rank in LoL might as well be a shiny hat... The point is that it's something visible to other players. They'll see it and be in awe of you. And it feels awesome for you too.

 

The game Dofus did this in PvE by giving level 100+ players an 'aura' animation, and an upgraded aura at the level cap of 200, and did this in PvP by giving you wings above your name. Bigger, cooler wings = better at pvp.

 

I like the Ascendant idea because it is individual. Ascendants could be marked by cool aura animations, and/or maybe some (depending on the char's god) flourishes on their character model, like uncharacteristically large and detailed wings, or flowers in your hair. Things that anyone would see when they meet you in game. Another idea I have for Ascendants would be an echoing voice, by which I mean they would have the ability to send global messages (to everyone in the same campaign that is) that show up in a different colour. So you know a demi-god is here in the world with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I can see the problem with op suggestion.  You will be creating an "uncle Bob" (a uncle bob guild) and this is not what they want.  I am coming from Black Gold, the Uncle Bob scenario is in full existence in that game. 

 

Our guild KoS had dominated the game since Alpha.  In the beginning, we had a blast and pvp was rampant and fun.  Fast forward to today, we still dominate and most of everyone has quit the game.  I still play it because I dominate a leader board.  I hate the day I decided to get on that leader board.  I would have quit months ago if I wasn't on that leader board.  I am one player and a game needs more then just me.  The same thing will happen in Crowfall, if the game becomes about a small group of players.  We need a lot of players form all types of play styles, Yes, this includes casual and hardcore pvpers as well as casual and hardcore pver's.  Each group of people needs to feel as important as the other regardless of playstyle.

 

Back to this game,  The vision, I believe they have,  is to not have the game be essentially another uncle BoB via a guild of uncle Bobs.  I do agree though, there seems to be some sort of disconnect between campaigns and EK's.  I am not necessarily sure this disconnect is due to the lack of pvp guild ladder boards though.  I would like to see some sort of resources, Basic hides or entry low level ore to use in low level crafting available to farm in UK's.  I feel EK's could be a place for the casual gamer to get basic materials that don't want or need to delve into the fray of campaigns while still being useful support for a guild.  Maybe even add some pve into EK's with low level rewards.  Give players a choice on how they want to play their game.  Isn't this what this game is about with all of the rings?

 

So, to sum it up.  Make ek's more useful but find some way to make campaigns integrate into the game without creating an "uncle Bob" or a guild of them.  Maybe   The better your EK maybe you get some sort of reward in the campaigns.  This has to be based on all the players usefulness not just the ones who can twitch better in pvp.  I know we have a portion of our guild who are casual players that feel useless in pvp.  If you make them feel more important then they really are, they will feel needed and back the guild/game 100%.  Crowfall needs to stay focused on the big picture and realize they have an opportunity to marry the casual non pvper into a pvp game and have them coexist effectively.

 

We need Ek's to integrate and be as important as the campaigns.  Find a way to make this happen without making an uncle BoB scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thrown my support to every thread that comes up with ideas to make EK more than just a lobby.

But then I got to thinking, maybe EK does need to be JUST a lobby.

 

We dont need our attention on too many fronts.  For instance:

 

Say guild A is winning a lucrative campaign.  Guild B really wants to win this one because they want the resources.  Guild B sux enough that they can not defeat guild A.  So they ally with guild C by greasing a palm or two.  Guild C announces they are going to attack guild A's EK.  Guild A opts out of the campaign to defend their EK.  Sucky guild B wins the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we've already got visual representations of past victories; The EK's trophy room thing.
My point is that I don't want that. I don't care about that. Maybe you care about some pixels on a screen telling everyone how good you are, but I'd rather have actual power. Asthetics and cosmetics mean bugger-all.


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

well, I can see the problem with op suggestion.  You will be creating an "uncle Bob" (a uncle bob guild) and this is not what they want.  I am coming from Black Gold, the Uncle Bob scenario is in full existence in that game. 

 

This is why the fealty/god system can work well here.  If one god becomes too powerful- meaning an Uncle Bob is created- then through lore-driven mechanics, devs could give boosts/incentives to balance things out.  Let's assume the followers of Kane are wreaking havoc on Gaea's kingdom.  Other gods of Balance lend their support via mechanics like extra powers, special gear, hardened siege equipment, special resource nodes, a supply of god-given thrall stones, and/or more.

 

Your first thought would be "that makes PvP less about skill" and you'd be somewhat correct first glance because the zerg and alliances are very real problems that can kill entire servers in games.  We've all seen that happen before.  The only proposed solutions we're aware of to this problem is the concept of friendly fire coupled with Tera-like combat (ie, non-tabbed targeting).  These mechanics don't stop the zerg, but makes it less "zerg-like" because there is only so much free space around a character that you can attack without hitting your fellow zerglings/alliance members. Ranged DPS in the back will be screwed because their AOEs and single target attacks will be blocked by LOS due to the zerglings/alliance members being in the way.

 

Because of that, PvP "skill" still plays a role and shouldn't affect this outcome if combat is built properly.  I discuss balance of PvP and crafting a bit in another thread.  Balance of systems and PvP skill need to be paramount.  And in CF lore, if one god becomes too powerful, other gods will naturally work together to stave off defeat/death.  The EK's, campaigns, and game itself will evolve as the story unfolds.  Even if Uncle Bob is awesome enough to face every other god banding together against them, lore can always fix that.  Plus, this creates a real player-driven game where the lore and game's future is based on real player outcomes.  There is no lore-based PvE raid boss to kill and further a story like WoW, just player driven kingdoms, worlds controlled by the gods, and an unquenchable Hunger.  

 

This doesn't cover how to make EK's actually worthwhile. Those details are best found in Ren's post and elsewhere in this thread :)


Gaunsaku

Elder, Lords of the Dead

lotd.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN order to hold or challenge for the Throne, you MUST conquer campaigns. That can be the trigger to keep a guild from holding the keys to the kingdom, and give other guilds a shot at the throne)

 

For example, XYZ guild has climbed to the pinnacle of power in the EK by campaign wins. They in turn build the Iron Throne (a unique build-able crafting recipe only granted with X campaign points achieved by winning campaigns) Only one version of the recipe can be present at any time.

 

In turn, ABC guild has achieved enough campaign points to challenge for the throne, at which point an auto timer is triggered that opens up a siege in the EK for the castle XYZ has the throne in. As others have said, even though you may be on a campaign, you have alt characters you will be constantly growing, so defending shouldn't be an issue. This way, no one guild can hold the throne and be stagnant. Other guilds earn the right to challenge for the throne by earning campaign points. The siege is not optional, and the defender of the throne must fight off the challengers or lose the throne. If ABC guild beats XYZ guild (the former holder of the throne), then ABC earns the crafting recipe and builds the throne to hold until the next guild earns the right to challenge. Also, to prevent one guild from benefiting from the lack of a true challenger, if they don't "maintain" a certain level of campaign points, their throne claim can become vulnerable, and at which point, a second tier of campaign points can trigger an auto siege unlock (if that makes sense)

 

As well, there can be a mechanic to form alliances, hire merc guilds to help in the fight, etc...

 

This would give the EK a broader meaning, rather than just a trophy case, force guilds to constantly campaign, which prevent them from growing stagnant, and offer a constant campaign in the EK. In the log run, while the decaying campaigns are great for short term gains, everyone wants a chance at a permanent goal.

 

So in recap:

 

1. Earn Campaign points to achieve the level needed to get the throne recipe and build iron throne.

 

2. As a challenging guild, earn campaign points to trigger a siege that must be accepted by holder of throne (winner either keeps or takes the throne)

 

3. Maintain campaign points or you open up your castle to anyone to siege your throne.(or maybe a reduced level of points needed to siege)

 

Lastly, to a lesser degree, earning Campaign points can earn you the right to siege other guilds castles (Not as part of the vie for the throne), but that part needs further thought and discussion...

Edited by Kell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So in recap:

 

1. Earn Campaign points to achieve the level needed to get the throne recipe and build iron throne.

 

2. As a challenging guild, earn campaign points to trigger a siege that must be accepted by holder of throne (winner either keeps or takes the throne)

 

3. Maintain campaign points or you open up your castle to anyone to siege your throne.(or maybe a reduced level of points needed to siege)

 

Lastly, to a lesser degree, earning Campaign points can earn you the right to siege other guilds castles (Not as part of the vie for the throne), but that part needs further thought and discussion...

1.  in order for this system to work it would have to have the points decay,  In order to maintain you power you would have to repeatedly win campaigns.

 

2.  I think you are saying the holder of the throne cannot refuse a challenge?

 

3.  This makes fighting in the EK's I don't think this is a good idea.  With housing and everything else, lag will be full force.  I believe the uk's are all 1 persistent world and if  you add to much with the data, the  lag will make that zone a unplayable lag fest.  If is not 1 persistent large world, then we have an instanced game totally,  instead of just campaigns, NO Thanks to that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  in order for this system to work it would have to have the points decay,  In order to maintain you power you would have to repeatedly win campaigns.

 

2.  I think you are saying the holder of the throne cannot refuse a challenge?

 

3.  This makes fighting in the EK's I don't think this is a good idea.  With housing and everything else, lag will be full force.  I believe the uk's are all 1 persistent world and if  you add to much with the data, the  lag will make that zone a unplayable lag fest.  If is not 1 persistent large world, then we have an instanced game totally,  instead of just campaigns, NO Thanks to that....

 

 

 

To answer your points:

 

1. Yes, points decay (Thanks for helping me clarify... ;))

 

2. Challenges can't be refused if the challenger has achieved a certain level of points. As well, if you don't maintain points, then you open yourself up to any siege challenge (see point 1 in decaying points)

 

3. The siege could be instanced (in fact it would probably have to be so that interlopers couldn't interfere) I'm NOT advocating open fighting in the EK. I am only offering a suggestion to give the EK a broader relevance. Obviously, the mechanics need to be figured out by ACE, as no one wants the EK to be lag hell.

 

In fact, there could be a place holder of the throne castle in the EK, but unlocking the throne puts you in an instance that is siegable (again, just random brainstorming)

 

I think the key to any sort of sieging in the EK is going to have to be very controlled and managable, it can't be a free for all based on the points you brought up. (Lag, confusion, etc...)

Edited by Kell

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...