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

Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas


Recommended Posts

Hey all! I'd like to enlist your feedback and thoughts for small and medium scale PvP.   Give this some good thought before posting, and don't crap on others feedback (move discussions out of this thread).  What's your thoughts, ideas and suggestions for helping out those small and mid size guilds to competing with others.     If you like an idea posted use that ❤️ emote! 




ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.  [Rules of Conduct]

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou are crunchy and go well with ketchup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So first off let me start this off with Hellgates... But a Crowfall twist 6v6... MURDER CIRCLES or something


But there could also be PVP ranks/titles... it should reset after every dregs, it should also scale so if its a 1v1 its 100% of the exp. But if its 10v2... then you should only get a percentage of that exp. So in the 10v2 case it should be 1/10th of that for the people dying the 2 people in that case...


Also something that could help is allowing for grouping with someone outside of your guild/alliance.


Being allowed to duel would also be nice.


Arena's (with elo/titles that also reset)


Unfortunately, it would take a lot of thought in creating something that is OPEN WORLD small/medium scale because it will just get zerged down if its there. So for the most part it seems like the quick and simple way would be to create instance combat but in order to get to it, it should be located through portals in the open world. So the group still needs to go out and search for it and play in the world. (IT SHOULD NOT BE AN NPC THAT YOU QUE IN A SAFE ZONE THUS REMOVING THAT GROUP FROM THE WORLD)


Also making sure that fights count towards the actual conquest numbers. It shouldn't be just siege window stuff and outpost but the random fight when you find someone else making the fights mean more.

Edited by Sirktivo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please spool up a copy of the current dregs map, cap guild participation at 24, and disable alliances. Run it in parallel with the current dregs campaign.

Note: You'll be tempted to keep alliances enabled and the guild cap at 50. Don't. The inclusion of a ruleset that is as biased to small guilds as the current is to large guilds is immediately necessary to bring players back and to buy time to arrive at a more balanced approach.

Potential Benefits:

  1. It demonstrates a commitment to a large portion of the player base and immediately follows through on verbal statements of priority:

    Following the recent live stream, there was no immediate commitment to improve quality of life for small and medium sized guilds. However, it was verbally recognized by Gordon as an immediate priority with a verbal commitment hungerdome was now moved up in priority to mid-term. This would provide immediate relief, use tools current in place, and provides recognition to players’ concerns.
  2. It’s inclusive:

    Assuming this dregs is run in parallel with the current dregs, all size of guilds will benefit. Small and medium sized guilds will be more competitive in all aspects of the game from rewards to personal progression to durability hits. Large guilds can engage with the percentage of individuals that crave additional risk and those that don’t, can remain in the current dregs. As they will have the resources to commit to both, they will receive more rewards than they otherwise would have gotten from only one campaign. It’s another way for them to flex their strength.
  3. It uses the tools at hand:

    Part of point one, it deserves its own. Most current suggestions to provide content and relief for smaller guilds will require significant cost of design, development, and test. An example is Zybak’s recently advocating for limited use of instancing to provide content for smaller guilds and a recent reprioritization of hungerdome. These are great suggestions, but too costly and slow and will likely require a population number that is currently not present. I would personally LOVE an arena with associated ELO, but it’s just too expensive to do right now.

    We already have tools to help address this issue. We just need a dregs with an alternative ruleset.
  4. It will increase engagement:

    There will be smaller fights, but more of them and more engagements with the systems designed to promote conflict in the game. Small and medium size guild excitement would be sky high and we could see the return of individuals and content creators that left because of the current struggles. More conflict means more opportunities for the emergence of new content creators generating excitement for the game, free marketing, and bringing new people into the game.

    You may want to decrease the size of the map. Don’t. Just because smaller guild sizes will be present does not equate to need for less room. There will frequent engagements with the size as is.
  5. There will be more competition:

    With more guilds participating, there will be more competition for rewards. That means increased engagement, more players optimizing personal and group compositions, and more community involvement as we poorly made dergs talk, theory craft, and define the meta. The stakes will be higher and that’s a good thing.
  6. It will help bring into focus the areas that need attention:

    A positive and a negative, but I think there is more positive. As an example, as engagement sizes decrease, class balance is going to come more into focus. For this perspective, we’ll have way more intelligence about what is working and what is not. We already know there are issues with class balance either through the class itself or systems such as armor pen and PDM. With more frequent engagements, the player base will provide way more free testing, feedback, and discussion. It will bring into focus areas of the game that are problematic and help prioritize work into what will provide the most benefit.
  7. It mitigates the implicit bias in design:

    As the game has matured, systems have come into focus that have shown how skewed they are against small and medium sized guilds given the rulesets that have been available so far. I’m not talking about the ability to compete in conquest. Durability, buffs, and access to farming experience and resources are three quick examples. I’m not saying anyone has it out for small guilds, it’s just become abundantly clear that to accomplish goals you are heavily incentivized to join a larger and larger group. That has shown to lower engagement and lead to a risk-adverse style of play where very little is risked but everything has gained.

    While I’m implying it’s a bad thing, I’m not even sure it is from a particular perspective. However, it is a bad thing from the perspective of a large portion of the player base who want to engage in the game and its systems in the way of their choosing and in the way that is consistent with the sandbox Crowfall is. Their perspective is no more right or wrong than anyone else’s. Providing this ruleset will immediately provide a more normalized environment for these groups.
  8. It gives you some breathing room:

    I’m taking off my Karen wig and picking up the olive branch. This ruleset addresses what I believe to be the single largest community concern and point of contention in a way that is elegant enough to hopefully allow the organic evolution of the game. A lot of these concerns don’t need a sledgehammer, and in turn, tons and tons of work and rework. This ruleset would address the complaints by a large portion of the community and generate a huge amount of goodwill and patience as other areas are addressed.

    We know there is a huge list of to do’s as is apparent by the recent addition of design reviews. They are all great and needed, but this relief is needed immediately to allow a large portion of the community to engage with the game in the way they envisioned.

    Implement this ruleset and give yourself some breathing room to address what is currently in design review and the root cause of some of the things listed here and in other places. It’s not perfect, but it will make the game bearable for a potion of the community that feels more alienated with each passing day.

    To beat the horse a bit more, we know you don’t have it out for us, and we are more than willing to wait for things as they come online. Help us help you.

Potential Cons:

  1. This may all be wrong:

    There is the possibility that you implement this map and ruleset and engagement is low and people have problems finding fights and no problems grinding and getting resources with no conflict. However, the potential benefits eclipse this risk by such a margin that I’m confused and disappointed it hasn’t already happened.
  2. It exposes handshake sieges:

    I want to be positive, but this point needs to be mentioned. First, if nothing else, I hope this post demonstrates that this ruleset should be a perfectly legitimate ruleset available for campaigns. If you agree with that statement, it doesn’t take long to understand the problem that handshake sieges introduce. With more, but smaller guilds, a small number of guilds will be able to own a keep, but you would likely have more guilds that show up to contest a keep when it is venerable with only one coming out on top. Sounds like fun, but with handshake sieges as presented, this storytelling will never take place.

    I don’t know if it is possible to make this a switch that can be part of the ruleset, or to change directions, or address this concern through design, but it’s clear the playstyle handshake sieges disproportionately benefit in its current stated form. While I have this in the negative section, the positive is we as a player base can provide more intelligence about if we have this ruleset. Reserve spots for attackers and defenders, but with the leftover, allow for third party engagement.
  3. It’s still exploitable:

    Large guilds will still be able to ensure they are always at the max cap for the ruleset by having people lock and unlock and there won’t be enough keeps and there is the stuff I’m not thinking about. However, that is still preferable to what we have now and if you have the personnel to accomplish that, I’m not opposed.
  4. It splits the player base:

    This ruleset might be popular and there will be many different guilds participating, while small guild involvement in the larger dregs will all but disappear. It likely won’t be good for the health of the current dregs, but it’s moving in that direction regardless of the creation of this ruleset.

    The natural evolution, due to small guilds quitting, or joining larger and larger guilds, is the same outcome. This rips off the band-aid and faces the problem head on. It has to be addressed because we are inevitably going to end up at the same destination soon. Let the two environments compete and see what works best. If one works, we know what direction the game should head, if both work then we have two rulesets that satisfy a larger proportion of the player base.

You thought ahead. The tools are in place. Trust the system and flip the switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, unfortunately numbers will always be an issue. Pulling a 4v6, a 6v9, etc. feels great, but nothing stops the enemy from just bringing up even more next time. It is a show stopper.

Alliance/Guild zone caps seems to me the easiest way to avoid that. Just have some 1 party zones, 2 party zones, unlimited zones.

Hellgates like content would be great but that requires more work. Should be the next step. We need something asap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, zerg busting mechanics are needed to allow medium groups have fun. Raise group size, up/remove aoe caps, FF outside of groups, etc.

As for small scale content, there need to be one time events on a rotating timetable that would entice small groups. Things like a special chest spawning on the hour, a king mob that drops guaranteed loot, or other things to that effect. I have loved the hot zones, the guaranteed pvp has been wonderful. Hellgates like the one sirk posted above were one of albion's saving graces. High risk, high skill instanced pvp that gave good rewards kept people engaged for months on end doing just the hellgates. This a tech constraint though as we have yet to see instancing like hellgates would require. If the devs can come up with the tech it would be absolutely amazing and a cornerstone of the Crowfall experience.

Medium scale content is much trickier imo, as you dont want zergs to contest the events at every turn, but also want the rewards to be enticing enough for 10-20 man groups. Albion had instanced 20v20 city battles which were a ton of fun, but again that would require instanced PvP tech that hasnt been shown in game yet. I think one of the options is to timegate medium scale activities to force PvP that have already been established. Heralds, Daemons, etc. could spawn and despawn on a fixed timer to force people to engage in that activity during a short window and guarantee risk that has otherwise not been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remove Area of Effect Damage Caps.

Shrink Gear Stats Disparity Gap.

Make a FvF zone with a planetside 2 grid layout where each faction has its own border containing its spawns and captures that must connect as a unified territory to the main hub so the faction can push the warfront on many fronts in a conquest style.

This map layout would singlehandedly save crowfall from sinking.



Edited by Jubileet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

• Add friendly fire so people aren't just grouping up into balls of death: make their decisions matter.

• Incentivise the top guilds to take outposts from the other top guilds. When one of the top guilds loses their spot, they don't go take outposts from whomever knocked them down, they go take outposts from the smaller guilds.

• Force increased durability damage to equipment if you're 2 levels higher than your target. Make the durability curse persist until they die and make it stack.

• Make it easier for guild leaders to form groups by receiving GUI feedback about when members log in and log off. Indicate which zones members are in.

• Fix the combat targeting system: sometimes my attacks don't land on who I am targeting. If I am looking at a player who is almost dead and I have visual confirmation of this because their name and health bar are displayed at the top of my screen, but the damage I am dealing doesn't apply to them but instead applies to someone standing behind them who I am NOT targeting, then the combat becomes unfun because the GUI is wrong about which player is being targeted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the que in game system working, Set up 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, player team groups (If possible) 7 teams of 6
Hunger Dome Type Center point spawner (Tower, enchanted Obelisk, Statue, whatever)
This spreads a dome over a parcel that is collapsing like the normal mechanic. 
Over this area, named mobs spawn, rewards and chests spawn as well. 
Any outside of the match cant enter into the dome without a massive damage debuff/death.
Randomly spawn the Hunger even into game world zones, then move groups to starting points there
(If need be have parcels built to accommodate, if required, but if yall could get it working over wartribe areas so much the better)
When the match is over the spawner is destroyed and people need to make their way back home/reque for another match.

Use the murder system if able, fill in gaps with randos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nibOZh2.pngONE Global Campaign "Total Conquest".

1) Choose character

2) Enter "Total Conquest" campaign

3) Start inside one of three temples based on your chosen faction, or guilds chosen faction.

4) New Player Experience hosted inside each temple, have portals around the "TREE OF LIFE" area that teleport to existing NPE zones/flowchart/quest chain.

5) Reduce size of "temple zones" back to old smaller version and add a "FREE CITY" zone that has a portal connection from each temple back and forth for PLAYER TRADE AND VENDORS.  (Isolate items 4 and 5 if ACE would feel the load would be too much on one server, you all know the framework best).

6) 4 "adventure zones" formed as an "inner ring" around the 3 "temple zones", that operate under the current "SHADOWS" campaign ruleset FvFvF.  (One KEEP per zone, 3 FORTS per zone (these adventure zone keeps would act as a respawn point with a bank chest and killable guards, upgrades to these forts would post archers on walls and more mages inside patrolling, upgrades to war table in a fort can fortify walls and at maximum level would require siege to break a gap in the wall).  Reduce # of "respawn shrines" down to 3 per zone since the forts now also allow for respawning.  These new fort styles do not "go live", they are always live and they will produce resources constantly that trickle into the chests for each faction.

7) 12 "conquest zones" formed as an "outer ring" around the 3 "adventure zones", that operate under the current "DREGS" campaign ruleset GvGvnon-guilded.  Change to ONE fort per zone in the "Dregs" rulesets to match that of point 6 above.  Double resource output from pig caravans.  Remove excess forts down to 1.  Add 2nd small KEEP to each zone, so that there are 3 total keeps per zone.  During "SIEGE" windows and 30 minutes prior to "SIEGE" windows in these zones, restrict player numbers by capping PER ALLIANCE to 100 (if the current max is 250.  If the current max is 200, then cap it at 80).  If an alliance has MORE than 100 in a zone when a siege starts, then all players of that alliance GREATER than 100, based upon time entered zone with a first in last out priority will be PORTED to their respective TEMPLE ZONE.  If a player attempts to enter while a siege is active and their faction is at 100 player cap, they will enter an alliance que and a "shared que", both will consider total time in que and percentage of existing alliance already in zone, and use a weighted factor in an attempt to establish a balance when possible, but also affording defenders a small point preference to get into zone and reach their % cap at a fast rate when multiple alliances are queued together.  ALL KEEPS in a zone "GO LIVE" at the same time/night and rotate on a 3-0-3 day cycle per zone.

What do these changes actually do?  

Consolidates the stream of players from NPE, to initial combat, to meeting other players, to forming alliances, forming friendships, having access to guilds prior to actually JOINING a guild, and through this act of consolidation provides all existing types of players and campaign rulesets into ONE shareable accessible world.  The farther OUT from the temple one travels, the more complex and dangerous the world becomes.  Perhaps even one day, have a "ring" outside of dregs where it is "Outlaw//NoMansLand" no alliances outside of your group, free for all pvp.

😎 Don't Die, just win.

Edited by Scarr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jubileet said:

Remove Area of Effect Damage Caps.

Shrink Gear Stats Disparity Gap.

Make a FvF zone with a planetside 2 grid layout where each faction has its own border containing its spawns and captures push the warfront on many fronts. This map layout would singlehandedly save crowfall from sinking.

You should split these up into three separate suggestions. It creates three posts, but would allow everyone to ❤️ them individually in the event they disagree with one. Same with @Retchet

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1.  Have the smaller forts/towers have "lower tier buffs" such as 10% alliance/realm crafting drop rate, 5% gold drop etc.  This will give incentive to ANY small tower/fort for small groups to actually obtain feel accomplishment.  OPEN UP THE PVP/SIEGING 24/7 ON ALL FRONTS/MAPS.

2.  The larger keeps hold the best surrounding area/mobs with the best buffs for realm/guild/faction OPEN UP THE PVP SIEGING 24/7 ON ALL FRONTS MAPS.  

If you just do this, it will constantly force the LARGER zergs to always support/defend the larger better buffs/keeps rather than zerging around the map with closed windows.

Your issue is THE TIMERS, THE LOCKED TIMERS.  If you remove these, it will force fights 24/7 randomly but each small OR large group will feel it worthwhile to defend or attack in different areas with different needs.  Put a npc/boss inside that flips the tower/keep/fort no different than DAOC.

This PVE is terrible.  Until you get more time/resources to actually get some stuff moving on that end.  FOCUS ON THE NON STOP 24/7 PVP FIGHTS, LET THE PLAYERS DICTATE THE ACTION,  NOT YOU, YOUR TIMERS, OR YOUR SYSTEM. THE PLAYERS.

Edited by Wrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple changes
More Simultaneous Forts/Keeps
Details:  Allow more times of day that forts can be attacked, and have more forts/keeps active at the same time. 
Rationale: By forcing guilds to split their resources between multiple points instead of being able to focus large numbers on 1-2 positions, you open up more objectives for smaller scale guilds and incentivise big guilds into splitting up to get more objectives and hence becoming more managable group sizes.

Remove the 'fast respawn' mechanic
Details: Currently, if you kill all mobs in an area quickly enough, they will start to respawn faster over time, remove this and keep a standard respawn time across all areas at all times (outside of hotzone perhaps)
Rationale: All this mechanic allows is for large guilds to farm a small area efficiently, a large guild can farm a hotzone relatively easily and force far more resources out of it compared to a smaller group. All this does is incentivise large groups to stick together to farm, and hence become harder targets for small groups to engage or deal with at all. A large group should need to make a choice between harvesting efficiency or safety, they shouldn't be able to have both. Forcing these groups to split up means smaller groups have more options for ganking.

Significantly increase AoE caps (10+)
Details: All damaging aoe abilities, not CC based, would have a cap far larger than the healing cap. This wouldn't include any CC abilities, in particular any pull abilities.
Rationale: A large group can blob up and effectively spread damage done against them to a level that it's largely ineffective against any group that isn't of a similar size. When the counter to AoE damage is to group up even harder, you know something is incredibly wrong. AoE should be the counter to large groups, or people who stand on top of one another. This also helps with the targeting system that frequently targets the wrong mob in clustered areas, which renders certain classes ineffective in larger scale. By forcing groups to spread out single target damage and CC has more of a place in picking off stragglers or people out of position, and AoE punishes at choke points or against enemies that group up, providing a much better balance to PvP. This allows small groups to at least have a chance against larger groups which are currently essentially immune when blobbing up.

Stop members of alliance from capturing from one another
Details: If one member of the alliance starts the capture, other members of the alliance assist with this capture, rather than competing for it. If two guilds start capturing with members on the same point, whoever has the most numbers on it will 'start' the capture and others will assist their capture.
Rationale: Small guilds allying with large guilds often have their hard earned captures taken by their would be allies, and stopping this from happening allows for more incentives for these small guilds to capture things for themselves rather than feeling as if it's a waste of time for them and just merging in with larger guilds.

Remove alliance guild cap
Details: Remove the max number of guilds inside an alliance, and replace with a more robust alliance member cap.
Rationale: 5 small guilds allying together will rarely match 5 larger guilds allied to one another, but 15 small guilds have a far better chance of evening the odds and being able to do more. In addition, having a better alliance member cap (not just X members, but Y members in a zone at once for example).

Alternative alliance member cap
Details: Instead of just having a hard 'X members in alliance' or 'Y members in Z zone', simply scale stats for members of an alliance in a zone that is overpopulated by them. I.e. if the soft cap is 20, members health/damage/healing stats start being lowered for each member past 20 in the zone at a time. Obviously this would change depending on what events are on at a time, for example it would likely be much higher during a keep siege timer. This doesn't have to just be combat stats but could also apply to gathering.
Rationale: While not a hard cap which some players consider unfair, it simply adds another incentive for splitting up and being in different areas to cover more ground rather than clumping into an unkillable death ball which is rarely fun for anyone (except sadists I suppose). This might 

Add 'crafting stamina'
Details: Limit accounts to 'X amount of crafts in Y period of time' based around the current balance of the ecomomy (it can change until the economy is well balanced).
Rationale: Forcing people to utilise a range of crafters both means that low level crafters have more of a role, to revitalise the economy by stopping large guilds from funneling all of their resources into one crafter that makes everyone incredibly powerful stuff. Currently there's no real downside to funneling mats into one crafter, and many guilds had damn near max tier crafters after the first few days alone, with the deciding factor being largely size of guild (in addition to beta knowledge, but that's a separate issue). Currently, being a top tier crafter can make a lot of money - but anything under that will make you essentially nothing because a top tier crafter can pump out essentially unlimited weapons.

Disallow people logging in while inside a pvp area
Details: If a character tries to log in onto a character who logged off in a pvp zone, they are ported back to temple, unless recently logged off in that spot (so people can duck out quickly but not for long)
Rationale: Many big guilds increase their breath of force by having characters logged off near key locations that allow them to quickly apply force to multiple areas of the map with fewer characters than they should require. By removing this mechanic, they would have to split their forces up to cover the same territory, and/or align with smaller guilds.

Remove death durability loss, add higher durability loss from item use
Details: Item durability loss from use should be approximately 5x as high, but remove death durability loss.
Rationale: Largely, this mechanic incentivises grouping up into large groups to go around and pvp or pve as you have very little cost for doing so, and it heavily reduces risk at the same time. This means that in large groups, harvesting enchants/jewelry are orders of magnitude more efficient, as is the top tier gear, allowing those on top already to remain on top with relative ease. There are already enough penalties on death which affect small groups far more than large ones, to add insult to injury and cause an additional snowball mechanic.

Increasing drop rate of disciplines for lower level gatherers
Details: If wearing a low level discipline, increase the drop rate of disciplines. I.e. white mining disc would drop a lot of mining disciplines from nodes compared to legendary. Alternatively, make purple level discipline the starting level for all harvesting discs.
Rationale: The initial grind to purple harvesting disc is cancerous, and leaves a lot of new players demotivated. By either removing this entirely by starting gatherers on purple disc (which really is where the gathering starts), or making it a far simpler 'tutorial like' system to grind to purple will help players get up to speed quickly. Large guilds can far more readily hand out disciplines to new members and boost them to purple fast and get them into the game, but small guilds are often still boosting their crafts and hence have no excess resources of these types for new members.

Complex Changes
Tarkov Style Resource Gathering
Details: Instead of forcing players to gather in the same world that massive zergs roam around in, create super short campaigns specifically centered around resource gathering and small scale pvp. These campaigns would that run for 1-2 hours, where players can queue for in small groups (potentially using hunger dome mechanics already in place). Inside, players would compete for finite resources against other small groups, requiring an 'extraction' similar to tarkov in order to bank resources. This gathering could be either a replacement for standard world gathering or in conjunction. Members of the same alliance in different groups wouldn't be able to get into the same resource campaign.
Rationale: Gathering in a large group is currently far better for many reasons, safety being likely the key reason. By forcing more even numbers and removing the possibility of being over-run by a zerg this would create high qualtiy pvp content and make the resouce grind far more even between large vs small groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do some event or type of campaign that the only allies that the player will have are the members who are in a group with him, any other player outside the group becomes an enemy.

groups of 5 to 10 players

place the smallest and most dynamic goals and individual player scores.

groups can be formed in temples

Edited by FARNUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create a 6v6 type of environment, weather it be campaign or a hunger dome type battleground.

Alot of pvp happens in the skirmish level all the time outside of the siege timers. You can create a 6v6 arena system or a king of the hill type of instance with value or points and progression for small scale pvp.

Another idea is just create better character customization that can only be rewarded from killing players, which if you provide a carrot on the stick or an evironment for someone solo or a group of buddies a reason to try to pvp outside of the siege timers, you will have created small scale pvp naturally in people want to log on and pvp for something other then throne conquest.


Dark Age of Camelot is a good structure to look at for good well rounded pvp. It had zergs, solo game, small man game, and the 8v8 game. In 8v8 you gotta depend on your team just as much or more as if you gotta depend on your own strengths. Look to that game for inspiration to help make the smaller scale players happy and playing.

Small scale in any way would be very welcomed but only openworld pvp is going to keep people addicted from the lack of predictability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a simpler, though maybe more mundane, ask: consider re-using the tools the game has with tried-and-true gameplay modes.

King-of-the-Hill Zones:

  • Zone has caps on number of players per alliance (1-3 groups), and will inevitably need a total player cap that fits the map size.
    • I wonder if it is possible to kick-off additional events in other zones based on how populated one of these (or a set of these) zones becomes?
  • Zone consists of 1-3 forts and 3-5 outposts.
    • Zones targeting more medium-scale engagements could have a mini-keep, or new objective that sits somewhere between a fort and a small keep.
  • Neutral respawn outposts should be located on the edges of the map with a relatively large radius no-pvp zone around them so groups can respawn and reposition without being spawn camped.
  • PvP Objectives become active once per ~30 minutes with a ~15 minute active window.
    • Frequency should be high during high population times.
  • Alliance that accrues the most capture time within the ~15 minutes is awarded a conquest bump, locks the objectives for ~15 minutes, and is given a Friendly Territory buff while in zone that increases harvesting: all, critical harvest: all, and critical harvest amount: all, in addition to increased XP gain, and gold and dust drop rates.
    • Zone is still open to all alliances during locked period, so farming can be harassed
    • Rewards should be comparable to but less than a demon run. This can be tuned by availability of resource nodes, motherlodes, and node ranks.
    • Alternatively, objectives could remain active 24/7 while providing buffs in a radius around them when captured.
    • The lockout period and a loot-box payout could also occur when one alliance manages to hold all objectives for a period of time.
  • There need to be multiple zones per campaign map with staggered active windows. Number of active zones, and frequency of events should probably scale with time of day and/or concurrent player count.
  • Critical to this is designing maps, and parcels to create interesting spaces for engagements to occur. It should be interesting to see what the parcel designers can come up with.


  • Provides a focus point for small/medium size groups that does not simply become an arms-race to see who can bring more friends.
  • Provides a primarily PvP focused event with rewards that support the economy of the winning side, appealing to PvP, harvesting, and crafting minded individuals alike.
  • Being an event on a schedule provides a clear indication of go here at this time to fight people in groups of this size. This is a tested mechanic from previous MMOs that drives consistent engagement.
  • Leverages a tried-and-true game mode, using assets Crowfall has already invested in.
  • Makes me nostalgic for Caledonia and the DAoC lowby battlegrounds.


  • It is possible to imagine these events happening within a current campaign map, and I do think grouping forts and outposts into rotating siege schedule events as a kind of super-parcel would be an improvement. However, I don't think you can have small/medium-scale objectives that exist next to large-scale objectives within the same zones without everything effectively becoming a large-scale objective. Without a bound on the size of group that can be present, it creates an arms-race scenario.
  • Doesn't this just obsolete hot-zones and open world objectives? Maybe a little, but it should be possible to scale rewards appropriately with the risk, and/or add other features to the open world objectives to be more in line with the large-scale conflict zones they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestions are more geared for organically growing the player base. I'm sort of newish (I have about 1 month play time into the game) and I can see the sheer cliff challenge apparent in this game for new players. If you don't attract and retain new players, you don't have a game.

First, merge FvF in Shadows as-is (same rules etc but expand the zone connections like what happened with new Dregs)

Second (easier said than done), create new Shadows system with a sort of progression system:

  • Imports and Exports are locked (some exceptions below).
    • Create reward system based off kills/assists. These can be exported out to your world bank (nothing too crazy, something like mounts or rings).
    • Campaign rewards can also be exported out. Again, nothing too crazy. Maybe random higher tier disc which can be used for next campaign or exported into another server (say the "final" campaign rewards legendary discs which can be exported out)
  • During the first campaign, discs are restricted to common only. This locks everyone to level 30 and with base harvesting/major/minor discs. Subsequent campaigns will increase quality cap (green for second campaign, blue for next, etc).
  • Guilds are capped at 12 and can increase to 24 in later campaigns. Alliances are not allowed (but could be unlocked later?)
  • PvE loot/chest/gold/exp drops will need to be tweaked (lowered) for a smoother/longer leveling curve
  • PvP loot for majority of the campaign is 100% gold only. Latter, say, third of the campaign is full loot.
    • Create new location-specific buffs where if you're harvesting the same area for long periods of time, drop quality and rates increase. If you recall or leave the immediate area, this buff never manifests (or you just lose the buff if you had it).
  • New campaign map has much broader hot zones and has outposts only. Forts are added in later campaigns, and the "final" campaign with have keeps (maybe with alliances).
    • Points do not accumulate during off-hours (defined as say 2 standard deviations from peak population load) - this is to prevent off-hour uncontested cheese caps
    • Replace point rewards at top of the hour with different metrics (reward when you lose it based on how long you held it, and/or top of the hour if you held it the full hour). Killing people around the outpost you hold increases rewards.
  • Tweak the schedule so events happen Friday & Saturday nights only. Rest of the week is just free-for-all and more hot zones
    • Cater the weekend schedule so the hot zones (and seasonal quests) are dropping specific things with crafting in mind. Like mats for uncommon vessels spread over 2-4 weekends. Make sure Crowfall as a company is streaming and explaining why these drops are these drops (tell people "you're going to need to fight this weekend if you want materials to build a fort next campaign").
  • Create a "streamer mode" that automatically blocks your name/crest, party members, and zone information. Give rewards to streamers based on amount of time streamed.
  • This new Shadows start has to coincide with an advertising/media campaign blitz to get new players to pick up the game. The idea is to get people who might not have the stomach for full on PvP (partial/full loot penalties) and sort of slowly increase the challenge, rewards, and penalties over time while attempting to train/retain a new player base.

Right now it seems like the people who have been around the longest (since alpha, etc) have such an incredible advantage over anybody starting new, that it's detrimental to attracting more people. Nobody wants to start learning a game and get rolled by 50 people, or get camped by a solo/small-band lvl 35(s) with legendary discs/gear. And it seems like there was a rush to the game to where it is now (by catering to the hardcore player base) that new players are effectively held in spite (learn the game or get out).

The idea is "new Shadows" becomes a training ground for people to get into Dregs, but very slowly (like over ~4-5 campaigns), with it resetting to square one at the end so a new batch of players can get into it again (coinciding with another media blitz). It's an attempt to cast a wider net of people to hopefully get into Dregs with a little leg up than what's available now.


edit- none of this is gospel. Numbers can be fudged/tweaked, ideas can be added or scrapped (for obvious/glaring balance reasons)

Edited by shubhat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess handshakes are not coming.. so..

Eliminate alliances,
Guild Cap at 100 (I know people will just form second nations, but Friendly Fire),
Allow forts to contain banks and limited buildings (EG skinner/quarrygravedigging stations, shrines etc).

Expand the number of forts, same siege rules as keeps. (see smaller guilds getting engaged, obtaining ownership)
Make outposts the target aquisition, no back capping, 3 hour windows.

Chests at every outpost that would generate resources, not throw away gear (if possible make resource selectable (ore/wood/stone/leather))

Eliminate banks from respawn outposts. 

More Camps


Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Remove the cap on the number of guilds that can be in an alliance
  • Retain the cap on the number of players that can be in an alliance

This will allow "alliances of small guilds" to form up. Right now alliances don't want a 10 member guild clogging up a space, but that 10 member guild probably doesn't want to simply merge, either, leaving no [fun] place for small guilds in Dregs.


  • Implement population zone caps by faction
  • Each faction can have [total capacity / 3] players. e.g. if popcap is 300 for the zone then max any faction can have is 100 people.
  • No faction can have more than 2x any other faction in a zone, however the minimum is 20 people.

e.g. no Moon or Earth are in the zone. Sun is capped at 20 people.
5 Moon enter the zone. Sun is still capped at 20 people.
20 total Moon are in the zone. Sun (and Earth) are now capped at 40 people.
10 Earth enter the zone along with the 20 Moon still there. Sun (and earth) are still capped at 40.

There's some room to fiddle with those numbers but you get the idea. Not only is there an upper limit preventing zone blockouts by one faction but it also means you won't have a lot of 60v10 Keep fights.

Edited by Slamz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...