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

Feedback: Small / Mid scale PVP Ideas


Recommended Posts

Expanded fort system where they are more than a resource pinata for keeps would be a good start. Maybe make outposts the resource source instead, so they are more than just a point take & hold.

That way the smaller guilds would have a reason to bother with them, but for larger guilds having the extra siege window for 1-2 building slots may be worthless, so the small guilds do not get zerged because someone wanted timber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the game should only focus  on small / mid scale pvp. The game is just not built for large scale. Zones cap out at 250 players and guilds are allowed to have double that number? That just doesn't make sense. The total members of an guild alliance should be 250 cap. Not 500, or else the servers are probably going to keep on crashing whenever the top guild clash during siege times. I cool idea for small / mid size pvp would honestly have to be handshake duels. For example, challenge another guild to a 3v3 or 5v5 and you're allowed to stake money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just balance the damage output and stat disparity between players, nobody should be hiting for 50% of someones HP pool while also being un-killable it's better for me to just /sit and get the fight overwith so I can respawn and go somewhere else against certain classes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a big long look at Dark age of Camelot and see why they were no.1 pvp gane for a very long time. Titles, Realm ranks, never ending keep takes, no aoe caps, group based only healing apart from single target healing, the list goes on. 

If you want something newish, add a territorial system that is similar to planetside 2 but where guilds need to pay to enter, once all their territory has been wiped out they are out. Allow guilds to upgrade towers and parcels so they become tougher to capture, have a no capture window to stop night capping, no alliances and a small guild limit. 

Albion online hellgates is another good option but all this requires work and time and I personally don't think think this game has time on their side.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what most people want really is this: make a Q3 mod geared towards 6v6 tournaments. Make it so even the losing team gets an awesome animation / text making them almost think they won. Give 10 points the winner, 9.5 to the loser. Sell cosmetics. Open your wallet and enjoy the money. A couple years later, get a deal with Tencent and make a version for the Chinese market where you sell overpowered bonus for lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enable guild leaders and guild officers the ability to set waypoints and markers on the map for both guild members and alliance members to see.

Enable guild leaders and officers to generate "alert dialog boxes" similar to the server shutdown messages.

Enable guild leaders and officers to create "quests" or "missions" for players in their guild. These could be rudimentary at first, such as "Bring 10 cutting grit to <player>"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what the thrust of the OP is; new content targeted at smaller group sizes or changes to existing content to put smaller groups on more even footing. Towards the latter, a somewhat drastic suggestion targeted at improving TTK in large scale fights and reducing the need to blob up, thus giving smaller groups more opportunity to outplay larger groups, is to change the nature of direct damage GTAoE abilities and fields to be affected by LoS obstruction or to apply their damage differently. This is an alternative to raising AoE caps which has impacts on server performance and does not necessarily accomplish its stated goal of making smaller groups more effective.

Gordon seems to recognize this issue in the recent interview:


Crowfall’s unique advantage in this area is that our players do not have the ability to lock on a target. Crowfall combatants are forced to aim at and target an enemy (except with respect to AoE attacks). Since players have to aim, it is extremely hard for 10 people to focus fire on, for example, the Healer in the back of the group, or someone specific who is tightly surrounded by their team. That being said, we are looking at how to build more value and investment in tactical combat in both large and medium-to-small battles based on the vision of Crowfall, PvP your way, every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be a lowering of the damage on some classes. There are a lot of times when someone will be murdered in a split second and it's impossible to heal or even react to the damage done as a healer. Plus there are classes with too much sub substain with a few people on them and Yet thet can do good damage. Barbarian, warden to name a few. 

Quite a few healing classes don't heal for enough. Ice caller and inquisitor don't have enough large healing spells to counter the high burst damage. Earth keepers and arbiter seem to be the only ones to barely hold up in these fights. 

I'd also like to see rewards for killing people besides the loot dropped if any. Dark age of Camelots realm ranks would do well in this game. You could give points per person killed and divided up between group members. Thus every so many points give rank 1,2,3 etc until 100. On a large scale that would take years of pvp to earn rank 100. You could give extra attribute points and unique class spells that cost points or you need to be a certain rank to obtain.

Some of the passives/abilities after your sub class need buffs or completely get changed. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vision for Crowfall is wrong by ArtCraft:

You sell it as a War throne game, as if there is a throne that rule it all and we have to fight for it. No, we are fighting the Hunger. The whole premise here is wrong.

Outside this background, what we really have here?
- Players that like to play for win (that means winning dregs by 1st place at dregs);

- Players that like pvp and dont bother playing for winning, but playing for fighting;

- Casual players that like a bit of farming, crafting, PVE and of course PVP too.

On the current state, this game just have room for the 1st group: players that play to win. Crowfall is also almost loosing his apeal for this kind of player, cause, there is no much competition, just the same 300 - 400 heads fighting in 2 alliances. And the numbers are shrinking everyday.

Anyone outside one of the big alliances in each timezone has no chance. They get zerged all day. There is no much objective for them, they cant take part on the main features of the game: fort and keep sieges (they are related to the premise of the game: fighting for a throne, be the best). They cant find much random pvp also, since there isnt anyone farming, there isnt much people roaming outside sieges windows. Those players have quit the game and they will continue to do so.

The casual players are on a even worse situation: they cant farm (they will get ganked by the other two kinds of players), they cant participate in almost nothing inside dregs, once they raise their crafters, they have nothing to do. The also cant be a trader in this game, since the commerce is linked to the extremely inefficient Eternal Kingdom feature. They also lost their apeal for this game.

That said, increasing hotzones, increasing raid bosses and any other changes related to the current desing of the game WONT CHANGE ITS STATUS: its a game made for ZERGS.
Dont know if you have noticed but, Zergs x Zergs fights ARE NOT YOUR BEST CONTENT. Your server cant even handle it. The best fun we have in crowfall are in mid to small scale pvps. This is where your classes balance works better (you have more viable classes in those fights), this is where different party compositions can be sucessfull.

So my point is: want improve Small scale / mid scale battles? Change the focus of the game to them:
- Turn on FF outside partys (this will make the game harder strategically and more tactical too, a great improvement for the pvp overall);
- Decrease BY A LOT, the alliance cap and guild cap. This game needs several sides to be fighting for its objectives, that way we will have much more small to mid pvp, not that boring ZxZ fights.
- Make hotzones and other point of interest more MANDATORY for those who wanna get better equipments. There is soo much great places for farming that loosing a hotzone has 0 impact on you and your clan. Nobody needs to farm in a hotzone. This problem is also related to the unbalance between resouce gatthering and resources usage during a campaign.

But the game wont survive only with those changes, it needs the casual players too:
- Rework all the EK feature. It should be a guild realm to be sieged by others guild. A paralel feature outside guild x guild and shadow campaign.
- Rework the commerce on this game. NPCs cant stay outside temples, we should not need to run 5 minutes to search for vendors that we even dont know if they have something to sell. Vendors should stay on a easy acess, inside temples, all over the place. Better would be an auctioneer system.
- Create some objectives for people to log in everyday and so something usefull. Daily quests? maybe...but better would be interesting events that are really meaningfull for players and that aren´t only for zergs. 

Going outside of the current topic, i would say that ArtCraft has mislead its own idea about the game:

We were told that we would have unique experience each campaign, with different ruleset and etc. Where is that? Every Dregs is the same SINCE BETA. Same rules, same dynamic and same 2 alliances fighting on the 1st week, and then one of them just give up and the rest of the campaign is just a poorly made dergsshow.

I can see Crowfall working better if it makes the Dregs a really unique experience and apart of the rest of the game:
-  Each dregs = full wipe, like Rust. With difference ruleset EVERY DREGS. No import, no exports.
- Shadows and Eternal Kingdoms be the persistent worlds in Crowfall. Revamp the EK feature so it can be just the guild houses and a place for GvG battles.

Thats it for now. Some of the oldest players have said many of those ideas before. We have been saying that the game should not be that focused on zergs for a while. We have been saying lot of things, we know that Tiggs read them, but do the devs listen to what she says to them about the Forum feedback? Maybe not.

Your game is dieing, time to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Removing alliances will not work, you soft align with them. Which can be just as effective as being aligned if not more. (unless you can get guild leaders to agree to some arrangement not to nutcup the game)

2. Smaller scaled battles might improve gaming experience, with the current limits in coding, server crashes.

3. Reducing guilds to a 50, might help bring people to the game.

4. Crafting/Eco system, has to align to the reduced numbers, gear drops etc to complete.

5. Farming is boring, and rewards seem to only help the top zerg guilds.

6. Zone capping to win fights is just wrong, using gates to block each other from sieges is wrong.

7. Forts/outposts are just a horrible meta game play. Some of the best fights happen there, but its the same fight over and over... Hit W and push out. There is no small scaled siege involved and nobody cares to upgrade them.

8. Camping out with alts at outposts to regain them, as soon as they are taken is wrong. Top points last seasons has shown this. People did call them out for it.


Personally i am bored with the game play, but not bored with the small scale fights. Part of the reason is the recommended computer specs do not align with the large scale fights. Lag/fps with 200 players is just horrible. This is following the games recommended specs.



Edited by Bronz
Forgot to add,.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my idea is actually one I saw suggested a while back on the forums and should be possible with the current technology that you have at your disposal. 


First and foremost: Make all the keeps and forts that an alliance captures to go up/attackable at the same time. This means that if a alliance wants to hold more than 1 keep or fort they have to commit people to defending all their territory at the same time. So based upon what timezone the 1st captured keep is. All subsequent keeps/forts that the alliance captures will also flip to that time zone. 

This forces larger alliances to spread forces but also allows smaller guilds to challenge them for their territory. There becomes a real cost to over capturing territory.

Secondly: Lower guilds to 50 players per guild and 2 guilds per alliances. This places an upper limit to what an alliance can realistically capture. and if informal alliances want to be made between alliances that's still content because informal alliances are often broken over bs. But because a guild often doesnt have all players online at any given time. The ability to muster up 50 players means that you actually have a decent defense force. 

Now some people may say well large guilds will "Go around this" but limit campaign rewards to individuals of alliances that hold territory So any guilds that team up without holding territory get nothing. 

Then for FvF. Remove guild tags in FvF. Put a campaign long faction lock, this means that mid/campaign you can't swap sides. Make the FVF server mirror something similar to the original skypoint but bigger. Or make there be 2-3 interconnected skypoints with higher level nodes /rewards that match dregs level nodes.  This gives a place where you can still get end game mats etc but instead of fighting for a guild you fight for your faction. rewards would scale based upon individual faction points. You gain faction points by killing enemy faction members. 


Centralize the supply pig loading location and decentralize the location to turn in/process the mats. So essentially reverse the location on them so people fight to get the pigs and get them to safety rather than fight with pigs to turn them in. 

I'd think that these changes would provide more small scale especially for the solo players that like to just pick up and play without much of the commitment of joining a large guild for timers etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Territory Control.  This requires code changes, I know, but it's what you should have been aiming for from the start.

You can only capture outposts / POIs that are adjacent to others you own.  Your guild/faction gets a harvesting buff in the territory they own, and conquest points for holding more territory.   Forts are capturable 24/7 but produce materials slowly in off hours and faster in peak hours in the zone's prime time.

So at the start of campaigns, guilds claim keeps.  They can capture the outposts around those, expanding outwards.  They will meet up with other guilds doing the same, and you have a battle front with those outposts.   You can trigger a handshake siege if you have an outpost adjacent to an enemy keep.

This requires bigger maps with multiple keeps on each map and lots of outposts to fight over.  If it were me, I would instance keep sieges - create a copy of the keep parcel and fight there.    Have a construct-able siege tent that acts as a respawn point for the attackers, that the defenders can attack.  You had most of this tech in siege perilous five years ago.

Make outposts take longer to capture but still be doable with small groups - maybe you have to deal with multiple waves of guards, or the guards have significantly bigger health pools.

Also, bring back Hunger Dome.  Have the circle at the end stop at 10m diameter.

And FFS fix class balance and discipline balance.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zone cap partitions as a knob for engagement size:

  • Create an array of zones targeted at different scales of engagement
    • Small scale zones: smaller, side zones with several outposts, and a fort. Small, limited gathering and PvE camps. 1-2 groups limit per alliance.
    • Medium scale zones: basically equivalent to current adventure zones with forts, 5-7 groups (30-48 players) limit per alliance.
    • Siege zones: Keeps only, access to opposing alliances/factions is restricted to handshake siege periods. Zone caps during siege times set by keep size: 48-120 players per side. Multiple entry/exit gates. Function like a temple zone for the owning faction outside of siege windows

Increase availability of objectives and focus conflict to specific areas at specific times:

  • Make Forts active much more regularly; a given fort should be available once every few hours.
  • Increase upper limit on fort defenses to include lowish health, siege-only walls (Perhaps still allow doors to be attacked down by players, though?)
    • Small scale siege gameplay is missing currently.
    • Increase in capture difficulty offsets increased availability
  • Group several outposts with a fort into a siege schedule objective. Rotate groups within a given map so that one group is always available per map, and any one group is available at a relatively high frequency (few hours).

Rework rewards for PvP objectives:

  • Remove building materials from forts.
    • Consider replacing with harvesting buffs, XP buffs, Gold/Dust drop buffs within a radius around the objective
    • Alternatively or in addition to the first bullet, add additional services at forts: a respawn, a building plot, crafting tables, some small, limited version of what is available to a keep.
  • Give outposts harvesting buffs, XP buffs, Gold/Dust drop buffs within a radius around the objective.
    • Encourage players to stay near the objectives to reap benefits.
  • Remove pack pigs, and replace pack pig spawns with a group-boss level outpost-like objective.
    • Consider awarding conquest for these outposts
    • Add faction-locked harvesting nodes that produce building materials
    • Apply stealth blockers and mounted speed debuffs to players carrying building materials. Visual indicator, e.g. backpack, on player model would be a bonus.
    • Indicate on map when nodes are available and change the indicator to show when nodes are actively being harvested
Edited by Pystkeebler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all , only a short notice because my english is not that good , make the shadow campagne a place for small scale pvp , more smaller keeps , the reward system should be changed , more rewards for the players of a faction , examples : the best crafter , the best farmer , the best in pvp , the best in pve of each faction get special rewards , for small pvp content the times of the hot zones should be more often , now sometimes you have to wait more than one day , and the guild member cap for the zones should be capped to give the smaller guilds a fair chance to fight for the faction and the rewards , also rewards should not be given in gold , rather in materials : gems , minerals , ore , wood ,stone and some things for the EK , more keeps means also the siege window opens up every second day , so the faction can deceit to build it up or not , bring the material to rank 9 , 1 short of the dreghs campagne , I am not at all satisfied with the drehgs campagne but that is another story , so players post what you think about it I am looking forward to it ! 


                                                                                                 PRAISE THE SUN


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larger maps with more, smaller keeps and forts. 


Edit:  Requiring that the next keep/fort/castle your guild takes be sharing a border with a one you already own. The first one can be anywhere. 

Edit 2: Limiting guilds to one keep respawn statue in a zone might be necessary as well. The world respawns should still be fair game for everyone. 

Edited by Solstar
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...