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

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


taroskin

Recommended Posts

I think the fealty system has zero to do with guilds or their system..  The more I read on the fealty system, the more I realize there is a system in place already.

 

Read here http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/20/crowfall-teases-fealty-system-ad-disad-mechanics/

 

Which I think is a HUGE mistake. They should be the same system.

 

Of course, this would require a fundamental shift in how personal plots tie in to the Fealty plot.

Edited by Teekey

UkBSCr2.png


CF.GG


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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First off Taroskin, excellent job voicing / summarizing what some of us feel is missing in the game vision as explained to date, and qualifying (not quantifying) that missing element to provide a larger sense of context in this "Throne War Simulator."  I had to restrain myself from liking more of your posts - I feel you are exactly on point and most eloquent in your arguments.

 

As the forums are our connection to the Dev team, and the conversation is two way, this is the means in which those of us who share this thought can express the feeling that something appears to us to be lacking.  And attempt to improve the game we all want to enjoy.  I'm quite certain there are those who are perfectly happy with what they currently understand of the campaigns and the EK.  Nothing being discussed here, if designed and implemented carefully, should negatively impact that level of participation in the game.

 

Thank you very much, and I agree entirely. It's important to bring things like this up and give feedback before they become tangible problems. :)

 

 

 

The highly competitive and most serious MMO players that are part of long lasting organizations (like LotD as you mention) want to have a venue to play the highest caliber opponents and be recognized for success, without spoiling it for the kids kicking around a ball in their backyard.  But you can't force everyone into that backyard.

 

This is entirely it. Spot on!

 

 

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.

 

Agreed in that this issue probably wouldn't take that much to solve, at least in terms of staying true to their design goals/vision and not really having much consequence in the way of any other mechanics. It really is just a mechanic to reward success and give players meaningful goals and a way to tangibly compare their success to others, with a meta-game type system defining that, in order to drive politics, rivalry and motivate everyone to do better and continually get involved in the campaigns.

 

Really, if you read the initial statement that the team set out for the game, we're actually just asking for what was advertised there in a more concrete manner. I added that to my post but you can also see it below. We just want the PvP to be tied to a mechanic that gives it more meaning, tangible results and a system that allows players to compare guilds'/players successes.

 

T8WB9Me.jpg

Crazy Talk co-co-co-gl

Guardians of Moonforest fangirl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I very much like the idea of meaningful, persistent character progression as a result of campaign outcomes. My gaming hindbrain says that of course the resources I bring out of a campaign should in some way make me better or more powerful in a lasting way.

 

On the other hand, though, as soon as you do that Uncle Bob is back in the game. If campaign victories lead to EK character power increases then eventually some group or group of groups will "win" EKs, eternally. If the whole idea of the Crowfall design is to get away from the trap of server stagnation then EKs cannot be in competition because that competition inevitably will turn into stasis.

 

So character power is out as a lasting benefit of campaign success. However, cosmetic improvements are very much a different story. If I successfully bring home enough resources to build and maintain a griffon hatchery, then perhaps I'd be able to select a griffon mount instead of a horse- same acquisition process and same mechanical stats, but a visual difference that says "this guy has accomplished something significant". Or if my EK has a fully upgraded summoning circle, maybe my pet can have a unique demonic appearance which isn't available to anyone who hasn't built the same infrastructure.

Edited by Jihan

Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation.  We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...) Otherwise, we've just moved the Uncle Bob problem -- the 'slippery slope' positive/negative feedback reinforcement loop -- out of the Campaign and into the EK, which would actually be worse. We'd be trading server stagnation in for game-service stagnation.  UGH.  

 

Seasons could work; we'd just have to limit the rewards in time and effect.  It's a bit tricky, given that all Campaigns aren't created equally or sync'd to a common cadence (start and stop times will rarely match up)... but it's doable.

 

Todd

ACE

 

 

J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many campaigns do you guys think will be running concurrently? Is there some sort of 'start condition' where the game only starts if X number of people load in? What happens if just 9 people decide to do X campaign?

eEvERiW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is the point of the campaign rewards?  I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just having trouble wrapping my old man brain around the absence of persistence.  I have little interest in building an EK trophy room as I currently envision it, although maybe that will change once I actually see how it works.  But if I don't develop that interest, is there any meaning or value to what I bring back from a campaign, win or lose?

 

I also continue to wonder if when ending one campaign and starting another, will I really have that same "rush" that I had in Shadowbane for example when the Corruption server opened, knowing that the campaign could end in a couple of months.  Time will tell I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is the point of the campaign rewards?  I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just having trouble wrapping my old man brain around the absence of persistence.  I have little interest in building an EK trophy room as I currently envision it, although maybe that will change once I actually see how it works.  But if I don't develop that interest, is there any meaning or value to what I bring back from a campaign, win or lose?

 

I also continue to wonder if when ending one campaign and starting another, will I really have that same "rush" that I had in Shadowbane for example when the Corruption server opened, knowing that the campaign could end in a couple of months.  Time will tell I guess...

 

 

This is also a primary concern of mine, though if they can unleash a few more details regarding it... it would definitely help build a better picture.

 

I really would not like the EK system to be, or become, what World of Warcraft's garrisons are right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be neat if the rewards ended up granting you like....character mods that ended up capping.

 

So maybe a trinket that gives you 3% attack speed and the max bonus attack speed you could have is 10%. 

 

You can take 10 trinkets into battle with you. (These are always on your character) You can mix and match your trinkets. They're visually on you so people go "ZOMG LOOK AT HIS STUFF'; and they don't destroy the game.

 

I would play in the campaigns for that... especially if you knew the rewards before hand and could trade them with others.

 

The 1 week campaigns might give you 1-2% trinkets; the 2 month campaigns might give you 5% in a character mod trinkets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation.  We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...)

 

OK how about this:

 

Option 1 ) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs built a bunch of cosmetic stuff for your personal enjoyment.

 

Option 2) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs burn it on a fight with your neighbors for some cosmetic but prestigious place to sit down (lets call it a Throne) that has zero benefit to the next campaign.

 

I believe the second option is the sort of overarching "endgame" that Taroskin, myself, and many others are looking for, without creating an Uncle Bob.  And without diminishing the Campaigns, but instead making their results meaningful (some of us will really really want the stuff to bring back).

Edited by ren

rSHxVEY.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation.  We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...) Otherwise, we've just moved the Uncle Bob problem -- the 'slippery slope' positive/negative feedback reinforcement loop -- out of the Campaign and into the EK, which would actually be worse. We'd be trading server stagnation in for game-service stagnation.  UGH.  

 

Seasons could work; we'd just have to limit the rewards in time and effect.  It's a bit tricky, given that all Campaigns aren't created equally or sync'd to a common cadence (start and stop times will rarely match up)... but it's doable.

 

Todd

ACE

 

I dislike the idea of each individual campaigns giving significant rewards by themselves. I like the idea of having an overarching kingdom vs kingdom battle (within a specific campaign designiated for them, not between the individual instanced EKs) giving the real rewards. It fits with the idea of having a real "championship" at the end of the season (campaign).  Ren's vision for a competetive EK, and Cemya's "Throne World" would do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation.  We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...) Otherwise, we've just moved the Uncle Bob problem -- the 'slippery slope' positive/negative feedback reinforcement loop -- out of the Campaign and into the EK, which would actually be worse. We'd be trading server stagnation in for game-service stagnation.  UGH.  

 

Seasons could work; we'd just have to limit the rewards in time and effect.  It's a bit tricky, given that all Campaigns aren't created equally or sync'd to a common cadence (start and stop times will rarely match up)... but it's doable.

 

Todd

ACE

Also need to make sure the rewards are not too insignificant otherwise players will feel like no progress is being made. The thrill of a new map, new Campaign can only last so long IMO, and players will need to know that what they do in a Campaign has some tangible effect going forward.

 

With Import rules isn't that what keeps the Uncle Bob situation from happening? I mean yeah if you can bring in some resources or a shiny new Helm you got in the last Campaign, then so can everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation. We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...) Otherwise, we've just moved the Uncle Bob problem -- the 'slippery slope' positive/negative feedback reinforcement loop -- out of the Campaign and into the EK, which would actually be worse. We'd be trading server stagnation in for game-service stagnation. UGH.

 

Seasons could work; we'd just have to limit the rewards in time and effect. It's a bit tricky, given that all Campaigns aren't created equally or sync'd to a common cadence (start and stop times will rarely match up)... but it's doable.

 

Todd

ACE

If your design decisions are to essentially make losing not risky because winning has no real reward, I think you could be trading the server stagnation for one campaign playability. I know a lot of people will want to play for the simple act of winning, and great games like League of Legends and Halo have no real purpose other than the game themselves, but they also don't require as much time and effort to play to their fullest and be competitive.

 

I argue that simply grafting that campaign structure onto long, in-depth, MMORPG simulated worlds does not work. I applaud you all for your foresight to try something new, and I think campaign impermanence has been begging to be tried, I just want to underscore the ways I see the meta-game as extremely important to the longevity of Crowfall. Yes, Shadowbane servers (and all other true MMOs) stagnate, but using a server wipe and reset after the stagnation is very different than implementing a time-sensitive structure to the servers. The meta-game had been played in Shadowbane - the server had devolved to two-sidedness and it eventually fizzled out or went out with a bang. The politicking, the realization that we were all engaged in a true MMORPG happened, and we played the game until it ended. We are trading the question of "Do I want to rebuild what I lost" with "Do I want to restart even though I won." I think we found that after enough time and investment, the answer to the former question was often a resounding no, and with a lot of time and investment, I suggest the answer to the latter question will also be no.

 

All that said, I think there is space to replace the risk of losing with the notion of lesser reward and you are aiming at that, as far as I can tell, with export rules. I think the eternal kingdoms, with some added importance, make the campaigns much more exciting than they already are and will keep people coming back by providing more purpose to the export reward. If you make the game too impermanent, we might end up seeing some of the same game-level cyclical population decreases, but with the campaign winners bowing out becoming the first population blow, instead of the city losers in Shadowbane. I will say that my guild lost, and lost heavily, in early Shadowbane death server, but played Shadowbane for years regardless and it is the game with which I think we felt most at home.

Edited by mctan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent OP that summarises my issues with this game and provides a solution that I never thought of. I really hope ACE incorporates something like this. People need some sort of meaningful permanence to anchor themselves to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest problem is that everybody gets their own little kingdom. It's silly. I thought the EK was just going to be a campaign map that lasts forever, not "You get a kingdom! And you get a kingdom! You, you, and you get your very own kingdom!"

 

I get that they were trying to combat the issue with the top guilds at launch splitting up the world and then basically holding onto it forever, but that's kind of the point. Land, and what you do with it, means literally nothing when every player has their phased kingdom. If they decide to keep everything phased, I won't be buying the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK how about this:

 

Option 1 ) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs built a bunch of cosmetic stuff for your personal enjoyment.

 

Option 2) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs burn it on a fight with your neighbors for some cosmetic but prestigious place to sit down (lets call it a Throne) that has zero benefit to the next campaign.

 

I believe the second option is the sort of overarching "endgame" that Taroskin, myself, and many others are looking for, without creating an Uncle Bob.  And without diminishing the Campaigns, but instead making their results meaningful (some of us will really really want the stuff to bring back).

 

I will add, that another way to tackle this, or in conjunction with this, is to establish a universal prestige calculator that took into consideration success of individuals and guilds within a game.  W

 

1. What competition were present in the campaign

2. Campaign difficulty (rulesets)

3. Win/Loss (were they on the winning side or not)

4. Campaign accomplishments (did they capture castles, hold their fortress, ect)

5. How many resources they pulled out of a campaign

 

Start everyone at 0, allow time to generate prestige levels and as guilds join campaigns and win/lose.  Once the initial levels are present, the collective prestige level associated with each community would factor into a prestige level for each campaign that way competitive guilds and players knew where to go for GOOD fights, and who was dodging good fights in order to build up their EK without facing any quality competition.

 

Communities care about these sorts of benchmarks, and without any in game way to determine who is in the top echelon, it devalues the PvP and it makes entering campaigns hit or miss in terms of having a fun competitive fight.  Otherwise, you'll have a guild join a fight with some friends and find themselves owning the whole board of Risk with no one left to fight.

 

This is an important topic for us and one of the key points that veteran communities point to as a failure in past ventures because they undervalued the importance of a game mechanic that identified quality match ups/competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK how about this:

 

Option 1 ) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs built a bunch of cosmetic stuff for your personal enjoyment.

 

Option 2) Win resources in campaign, bring it home to your EK, regear for the next campaign, and with any left overs burn it on a fight with your neighbors for some cosmetic but prestigious place to sit down (lets call it a Throne) that has zero benefit to the next campaign.

 

I believe the second option is the sort of overarching "endgame" that Taroskin, myself, and many others are looking for, without creating an Uncle Bob.  And without diminishing the Campaigns, but instead making their results meaningful (some of us will really really want the stuff to bring back).

I suggest that a compromise can also be struck by making the prestigious place to sit down earnable via multiple campaigns, rather than simply fought over. This is closer to the meta-game I can see within the scope of EKs as they exist. I would be up for your second option, but understand the reasons for avoiding making the EKs that kind of focus.

 

As for arguments about the purpose of a Stanley cup, thank you for sparking more existential thoughts for me. The place sports seasons analogies fall flat for me with this game is that the sports season is self-contained by nature; there is no meta-hockey game. MMORPGs, on the other hand, thrive on the existence of primary and secondary purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to have rewards for Campaign participation.  We just can't let those rewards grant significant in-game benefits that could be carried over into the next Campaign (and the next, and the next...) Otherwise, we've just moved the Uncle Bob problem -- the 'slippery slope' positive/negative feedback reinforcement loop -- out of the Campaign and into the EK, which would actually be worse. We'd be trading server stagnation in for game-service stagnation.  UGH.  

 

Seasons could work; we'd just have to limit the rewards in time and effect.  It's a bit tricky, given that all Campaigns aren't created equally or sync'd to a common cadence (start and stop times will rarely match up)... but it's doable.

 

Todd

ACE

 

Yes, indeed. However we're not all asking for significant ingame benefits. Far from it. The point being illustrated is that there doesn't seem to be a "success mechanic" within the EK that VERY CLEARLY shows who or which guilds are so successful in the Campaigns. We're asking for a tangible mechanic that rewards you for success within the campaigns, that other people can clearly see and covet, in order to drive politics, rivalry and motivation. There must be clear progression within the EK in terms of success, because you have removed all sense of persistent progression by making campaigns temporary. There is no mechanic that has anchored success to progress in a way that is easily identifiable that has yet been revealed.

 

For example: When I own the most Keeps in DAoC, I gain access to an area of the game no one else has access to. When I press "m" in Shadowbane to look at cities, I can clearly see who owns all of the realms and thus who the big dogs are. When I look at a profile in League of Legends I can clearly see their league and thus have an idea of their capability. In another game, if I'm the most successful nation I can set the "laws" for my Faction, and people can see in their UI that my nation is in political power over the Faction.

 

What we want is: When I do [XXXXXXX] (Open a map, see the most successful Eternal Kingdoms? Open a Fealty System, see the most successful Guilds or Individuals? so on and so forth) I can clearly see who has been the most successful in campaigns and they have x unique benefit due to this (not massive, maybe not even a benefit while in campaigns, maybe they're just named champions of their particular god, maybe just unique skin for their Archetype, maybe change the Border of their nameplate to a different metal/colour, maybe change their heraldry outline.. etc).

 

Hell, maybe there's a campaign that only guilds and individuals that have been successful or won previous campaigns can compete in, and it's short but provides massive bragging rights, unique benefits, titles, skins, changes their guild heraldry outline (like League of Legends outlines on loading screens) or changes their buildings skins in Campaigns, etc.

 

Without those things the success in Campaigns will have no weight to competitive guilds who see no value in the cosmetic kingdoms. When success has no weight or gratification to some players, and with no discernable mechanic to compare success between groups of players, the meaning of Campaigns and the PvP metagame will suffer drastically.

Edited by taroskin

Crazy Talk co-co-co-gl

Guardians of Moonforest fangirl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for arguments about the purpose of a Stanley cup, thank you for sparking more existential thoughts for me. The place sports seasons analogies fall flat for me with this game is that the sports season is self-contained by nature; there is no meta-hockey game. MMORPGs, on the other hand, thrive on the existence of primary and secondary purposes.

 

The coolness about the Stanley Cup is that it is representative of the entire NHL history right there in a single trophy.  It is expandable, with a new ring added to the bottom when there is no room to engrave another name (will it someday be too heavy to hoist above the head?!?).  When you pick it up, you are holding the same trophy that hockey legends held before you.

 

And next year you have to give it back and earn it all over again.  I find that profound!  This is much different than everyone on the team getting a Superbowl ring for a private collection.

rSHxVEY.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed. However we're not all asking for significant ingame benefits. Far from it. The point being illustrated is that there doesn't seem to be a "success mechanic" within the EK that VERY CLEARLY shows who or which guilds are so successful in the Campaigns. We're asking for a tangible mechanic that rewards you for success within the campaigns, that other people can clearly see and covet, in order to drive politics, rivalry and motivation. There must be clear progression within the EK in terms of success, because you have removed all sense of persistent progression by making campaigns temporary. There is no mechanic that has anchored success to progress in a way that is easily identifiable that has yet been revealed.

 

For example: When I own the most Keeps in DAoC, I gain access to an area of the game no one else has access to. When I press "m" in Shadowbane to look at cities, I can clearly see who owns all of the realms and thus who the big dogs are. When I look at a profile in League of Legends I can clearly see their league and thus have an idea of their capability. In another game, if I'm the most successful nation I can set the "laws" for my Faction, and people can see in their UI that my nation is in political power over the Faction.

 

What we want is: When I do [XXXXXXX] (Open a map, see the most successful Eternal Kingdoms? Open a Fealty System, see the most successful Guilds or Individuals? so on and so forth) I can clearly see who has been the most successful in campaigns and they have x unique benefit due to this (not massive, maybe not even a benefit while in campaigns, maybe they're just named champions of their particular god, etc).

 

Without those things the success in Campaigns will have no weight to competitive guilds who see no value in the cosmetic kingdoms. When success has no weight or gratification to some players, and with no discernable mechanic to compare success between groups of players, the meaning of Campaigns and the PvP metagame will suffer drastically.

Man, oh man, the politics that would come from seeing one character's name instead of a guild name. You got me excited about the possibilities of the fealty tree. Edited by mctan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...