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

Crowdsourcing A Suggestion: Campaign Ideas...

Recommended Posts

 

we all wanted the EKs to be the "Shadowbane layer" ...just so we could bathe in the tears after burning down trophy filled castles

 

that Dream is squished....but dare we try for another?

 

of course we do....we're SBers, hopelessly Nostalgic hard core cereal killers in pixels...it who we are, ffs....

 

sooOOooOOOooo how?

 

here's my Thinking....we take this Thread and brainstorm/argue/cajole/wheedle/rant/quibble/rage/discuss our Ideas here until we have a solid consensus as to what Campaign Rules we think would be happy making for us...

 

obviously, the ones we are supposed to be drawn to are Dregs (UO kind of) and the GvG (a win condition SB sort of)

 

now, my initial proposal...

 

No time limit..."win condition" is actually the point of Server "stagnation".... the Trick, how to determine it?

 

there's one for Discussion...

 

60/40 Escrow - my thinking is that everyone there from beginning to end of the Campaign with the same toon gets 60% of their Escrow on the Reset....all others get 40%.... Thoughts?

 

besides the normally generated Points of Interest, areas of the Map are enabled to let Players plant and Build Cities/Keeps/Forts

 

what we need here are the details of how to build/maintain/upgrade said Facilities....as well as to how they get torn down...the same as normal i would suspect, but i'd like to add something like the Bane Window/timer functions as well...hey, it worked...

 

a System to stave off Winter.... some mechanic of sacrifice/farming/bounty numbers on Mobs/a combination/anything else? that would serve to keep the Hunger at bay....possibly indefinitely...if Winter comes, the Server resets...

 

that's some basics.....i figured this was the place to talk about it, since after you degenerate and irascible custards get done wrangling....we should have a good Idea to put in the dreaded Suggestion Box....and who knows?

 

it could Happen....

 
 

FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and for most if this is going to be a Bane like thing in the EK….it has to be and option that can be turned off and on like the PvP on and off, and who can come in to someone’s EK and controlling the taxes. Now why would we…or what would be the reward…..I will have to think some more on that….ouch ouch ok no more thinking for me.

Edited by thorbeinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

no , sorry if i wasn't clear...this is NOT for the EKs

 

this is an Idea for a full Campaign Ruleset....

 

why not?

 

JTC had said in an Interview that part of the problem with SB was the stagnation that happened on many of the Launch servers...now, in part, i think it was due to beta Guild advantages that might have been avoidable but there were not given any Time and as we all know, had to launch way too early...

 

now the EK idea is to give folks their own "space"...and lil pocket Dimension of their own, as safe as they want to make it...

 

ok, fair enough...it's a Feature and as much as i'd rilly rilly like to be able to burn it down, i get it

 

so...i'm trying to figure how to set up a Campaign rule system that would suit the SB proclivities and happy making with what they have shown us they can do already....

 

hence my prior Suggestions....i think it may hinge on how to stave off the Hunger, get that right.....and why not a persistent Campaign, for as long as you can keep Winter at bay actively by Player actions and decisions...

 

i can Dream, can't i?


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a Shadowbane-esque ruleset, the only thing you'd need is an indefinite (or player-controlled) duration. With that said, you could use the game masters and the Hunger as a 'shake up' force, disrupting sufficiently large power blocs.

Or you might not even need that; The nature of resource exporting, of the escrow vaults, is that stuff that goes in doesn't come out until the world ends. That means that a sufficiently dominant force will have an incentive to maintain that dominance (ie farm resources), then end the game to get their points once a sufficient total is reached. After all, even if resources are harvested and stored, they're still nothing until the end of the campaign. Even so, that excludes player goodwill, sportsmanship and the like - The ability to say "Alright, we won, give us a week to farm points and we'll start again".


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
 

and that's just one source of Politics for such a Ruleset....as we are all very well Aware, eh?

 

that's the gist of it, i'm trying to figure out how best to put as much of the tasty Meat as possible on our Bone here...and if i can wrap it in some Bacon?

 

damn...sammich time....


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me spitball a few win conditions and poke holes in them.

1) Territory control - Game ends when one guild controls 60% of the land for a period of time.
Dirt simple, a direct answer to the Uncle Bob problem. If the server stagnates, blow it up. The only problem I could see with this is line-toeing; If the win condition is 60% for two weeks, hover your empire at 59% for 13 days.

2) Resource cap - Game ends when any export vault has 1,000,000 resources
Something of a soft-time cap; Set an arbitrarily high resource total, game ends shortly after that's reached. This would probably be much more short term and much more prone to sudden death situations; I could amass a billion points and then end the game at will.
 

3) Periodic Interval - An Event happens every two weeks. If the event is failed, the game ends.
This ties in with Doc Gonzo's idea of staving off the hunger. Every so often, some world boss must be slain, some ritual must be performed or some other event that forces people together. Failing the event means the game ends. More likely, failing the event adds to a "Doomsday Clock", which ends the game once a set value is reached (ie successive failures).
 

4) National Consensus - The game ends when the majority of land-owning guild leaders agree upon it. A 'soft' sort of this may happen on any non-temporal win condition.
This is more of a UN approach; The big importants get together every so often and cast a vote. Yes to continue, no to endgame. This would probably happen in some form on any of these conditions; This is more of an official acknowledgement of the metagame.

5) Moderator Consensus - The game ends when the Game Master thinks the game is over.
This is a hands-on approach from the Game Masters, who I'm assuming are going to be closer to old-school Game Masters rather than traditional MMO moderators. Essentially, once someone(s) of sufficient out-of-game authority decides it's over, events are set into play and the server explodes in two weeks.
 

6) The 'I Win' button - The game ends when a guild initiates and successfully completes a specific event.
A variation on the Periodic Interval event system; Instead of successive failures ending the game, successive successes will end the game. If you pull Excalibur from the stone, slay the Arch-Lich Jamhorn Glittergold (and destroy his phylacteries), win a contest of strength against Chuck Norris, and sit on He-Man's throne, you win the game. Events like this could be unlocked through conditions similar to the above; notably territory control, flat time-based and resource expenditure.

Edited by Psyentific

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
 

nice...

 

1. i tend to agree with your thinking here that having that kind of solid "win" sets the table for being bent until semi-exploitable....not an optimal, imo

 

2. just a simple race? not enduring enough...maybe for a more "crafter" oriented Campaign it could work well...

 

3. yeah...the more and more i ponder this one, the more i am really Liking basing the Campaign around staving off the Hunger until Winter comes as being the baseline metric for our "win condition".... what's everyone else think?

 

4. not bad, a purely Political solution... well worth Discussion, imo

 

5. hate it

 

6. seems like another short term Campaign here, not an extended one that feels more "permanent" and thus "meaningful".... a good one tho, some epic Chain of Events signalling Ragnarok....

 

good to read moar Thinking on it all...


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well really the only difference between the Doom Counter (#3) and the Ascent to Godhood (#6) is additive vs subtractive. "You must not fail ten events" vs "You must win ten events". How that plays out, however, might be pretty different. An Ascent to Godhood will always have the players working against each other; We can't let QFT win. Doesn't matter if it's a world boss, king of the hill, whatever, the players will always be in direct competition.

In a Doom Counter scenario on the other hand, it might be advantageous for a dominant faction to allow the doom counter to increase, ending the game while they're ahead for the maximum amount of points. So QFT is ahead, the Underdog Coalition tries to kill the Omega Hydra to get more time to get in the lead, but QFT sees this and comes to crash their party. The Underdogs die, the Hydra lives, and QFT comes one step closer to ultimate victory.

Edited by Psyentific

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

For a Shadowbane-esque ruleset, the only thing you'd need is an indefinite (or player-controlled) duration. With that said, you could use the game masters and the Hunger as a 'shake up' force, disrupting sufficiently large power blocs.

 

Or you might not even need that; The nature of resource exporting, of the escrow vaults, is that stuff that goes in doesn't come out until the world ends. That means that a sufficiently dominant force will have an incentive to maintain that dominance (ie farm resources), then end the game to get their points once a sufficient total is reached. After all, even if resources are harvested and stored, they're still nothing until the end of the campaign. Even so, that excludes player goodwill, sportsmanship and the like - The ability to say "Alright, we won, give us a week to farm points and we'll start again".

That's the biggest difference between a SB server and a CF campaign, but to remain within the design parameters, the seasons must change. So, once you agree on Loot, Import and Export rules in your GvG Shadow World, What player-determined triggers will cause the seasons to change?

  • Spring => Summer when 90% of the continent is filled-in for someone's map. (Yes, I said it before, but I like it)
  • Fortifications reach a preset level
  • Resources reach a preset level of exploitation
  • A single guild and its vassals own a preset percentage of POI's
  • Server population drops to a preset level (to prevent "ghost servers")
  • Resource cap - Game ends when any export vault has 1,000,000 resources

    Something of a soft-time cap; Set an arbitrarily high resource total, game ends shortly after that's reached. This would probably be much more short term and much more prone to sudden death situations; I could amass a billion points and then end the game at will.

  • Periodic Interval - An Event happens every two weeks. If the event is failed, the game ends.

    This ties in with Doc Gonzo's idea of staving off the hunger. Every so often, some world boss must be slain, some ritual must be performed or some other event that forces people together. Failing the event means the game ends. More likely, failing the event adds to a "Doomsday Clock", which ends the game once a set value is reached (ie successive failures).

  • National Consensus - The game ends when the majority of land-owning guild leaders agree upon it. A 'soft' sort of this may happen on any non-temporal win condition.

  • This is more of a UN approach; The big importants get together every so often and cast a vote. Yes to continue, no to endgame. This would probably happen in some form on any of these conditions; This is more of an official acknowledgement of the metagame.

  • Moderator Consensus - The game ends when the Game Master thinks the game is over.

    This is a hands-on approach from the Game Masters, who I'm assuming are going to be closer to old-school Game Masters rather than traditional MMO moderators. Essentially, once someone(s) of sufficient out-of-game authority decides it's over, events are set into play and the server explodes in two weeks.

  • The 'I Win' button - The game ends when a guild initiates and successfully completes a specific event. A variation on the Periodic Interval event system; Instead of successive failures ending the game, successive successes will end the game. If you pull Excalibur from the stone, slay the Arch-Lich Jamhorn Glittergold (and destroy his phylacteries), win a contest of strength against Chuck Norris, and sit on He-Man's throne, you win the game. Events like this could be unlocked through conditions similar to the above; notably territory control, flat time-based and resource expenditure.

 

There should be multiple possible season triggers to cover different concerns.

 

Since you want a long campaign, I think 3 days to a week before season change after each trigger is engaged is reasonable.


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general theme for seasons follows the classic 4X formula; explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. In Spring, we explore. Come Summer, we plop down fortresses and mines in the places we've explored. In Fall, we start exploiting those resources to enable the full-scale wars of Winter.

Edit: Hey, this is in Shadowbane, not Suggestions! Doc you sneaky little monkey!

Edited by Psyentific

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
 

ummm...by long, i mean 6 months to a year....

 

longer, if the Players can stave off Winter, this is the crucial part of it right now, and i don't know enough to speculate too deeply

 

it's the gradual, and inexorable approach of that Winter....to hold it at bay by the actions of the Players seems key to me, both to determining the "win" and for the Politics of the Competition.... at times having to almost work together, then going back at each other's throats makes for a vibrant Campaign....

 

it's basically the Story of Mourning when you think about it...all the pressures that Stagnated the other Launch servers were kept at bay on Mourning, until the final ReBoot that was Winter...

 

forgive me, the sheer Poetry makes the Irish in me giddy


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drink some whiskey, I heard that's supposed to calm Irishmen down. Or rile them up, not sure. Just don't get too excited or the English will come and oppress you again.

Anyway, you're arguing for an endless (or at least prolonged) autumn? Not too sure how that would work with regards to endgame; as I understand, the design is that the game ends at the end of Winter. What I'd say is that seasons progress normally or conditionally until Winter, then in winter the endgame and win conditions are enabled. So, players can choose to prolong winter indefinitely.

Edited by Psyentific

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

 

OK I see where you’re going with this…. Under the rule set of a campaign, the game proceeds throw the seasons, but winter will never end.  Players should and will bane/attack each other’s keeps and cities. But once winter starts the undead hunger filled walking corpses will start to attack player’s cities.

 A few small groups at first next to the city walls, nothing that could not be handy by one or two players.  As the winter go on, players will be attacking or helping to keep cities from falling.

This campaign will end when the last city falls. By the hands of the players or the hungry hordes that now cover the world that is begging to be put out of its misery.  The percent of loot will be based on how long you last…..or your guild or whatever ring you happen to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much closer...

 

i'm going even deeper into it...hold onto Spring as long as you are able....fight against the Hunger for every last day of Summer you can...

 

in the Fall, the Alliances start to form against the Winter...to hold it back to the last man...

 

hell...scale the Escrow directly to how long the toon is in the Campaign...if you go from start to reset, you get like 80% or more, scale it down for less time in the Campaign (i mean just the duration of the server time the toon is committed, not actual hours Played, same kind of theory as the passive skill gain, but for loot)

 

liking this one more and moar...


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK I see where you’re going with this…. Under the rule set of a campaign, the game proceeds throw the seasons, but winter will never end.  Players should and will bane/attack each other’s keeps and cities. But once winter starts the undead hunger filled walking corpses will start to attack player’s cities.

 A few small groups at first next to the city walls, nothing that could not be handy by one or two players.  As the winter go on, players will be attacking or helping to keep cities from falling.

This campaign will end when the last city falls. By the hands of the players or the hungry hordes that now cover the world that is begging to be put out of its misery.  The percent of loot will be based on how long you last…..or your guild or whatever ring you happen to be in.

Oh man, that's baller as hell!


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

much closer...

 

i'm going even deeper into it...hold onto Spring as long as you are able....fight against the Hunger for every last day of Summer you can...

 

in the Fall, the Alliances start to form against the Winter...to hold it back to the last man...

 

hell...scale the Escrow directly to how long the toon is in the Campaign...if you go from start to reset, you get like 80% or more, scale it down for less time in the Campaign (i mean just the duration of the server time the toon is committed, not actual hours Played, same kind of theory as the passive skill gain, but for loot)

 

liking this one more and moar...

yup after i posted and read it again I was thinking the same......can you see of all the old guild/alliance fights happening....hehehe its all playing in my head right now.

Edited by thorbeinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

we all wanted the EKs to be the "Shadowbane layer" ...just so we could bathe in the tears after burning down trophy filled castles

 

that Dream is squished....but dare we try for another?

 

of course we do....we're SBers, hopelessly Nostalgic hard core cereal killers in pixels...it who we are, ffs....

 

sooOOooOOOooo how?

 

here's my Thinking....we take this Thread and brainstorm/argue/cajole/wheedle/rant/quibble/rage/discuss our Ideas here until we have a solid consensus as to what Campaign Rules we think would be happy making for us...

 

obviously, the ones we are supposed to be drawn to are Dregs (UO kind of) and the GvG (a win condition SB sort of)

 

now, my initial proposal...

 

No time limit..."win condition" is actually the point of Server "stagnation".... the Trick, how to determine it?

 

there's one for Discussion...

 

60/40 Escrow - my thinking is that everyone there from beginning to end of the Campaign with the same toon gets 60% of their Escrow on the Reset....all others get 40%.... Thoughts?

 

besides the normally generated Points of Interest, areas of the Map are enabled to let Players plant and Build Cities/Keeps/Forts

 

what we need here are the details of how to build/maintain/upgrade said Facilities....as well as to how they get torn down...the same as normal i would suspect, but i'd like to add something like the Bane Window/timer functions as well...hey, it worked...

 

a System to stave off Winter.... some mechanic of sacrifice/farming/bounty numbers on Mobs/a combination/anything else? that would serve to keep the Hunger at bay....possibly indefinitely...if Winter comes, the Server resets...

 

that's some basics.....i figured this was the place to talk about it, since after you degenerate and irascible custards get done wrangling....we should have a good Idea to put in the dreaded Suggestion Box....and who knows?

 

it could Happen....

 

 

 

 

That is an interesting idea.   a few things

 

The increased Escrow:  Is this purely to reward player participation?   If so, then it's an interesting thought, but by limiting this "reward" to those who are there at server start. we are limiting overall player participation to those who are in at day 1.   I like the idea, but think it needs tweaking.   Perhaps a sliding scale of sorts. The longer you are active on that server, the more escrow you aquire.    Having said that, I almost think that the idea and ruleset should be strong enough on it's own merits, without adding extra reward beyond the extra accumulation that would naturally occur, given a potentially indefinite server lifecycle. 

 

 

How? What? Where?   Questions about the core mechanics behind season changes.

 

Until we know what the mechanics are behind the season change, then we really have no way to propose a realistic server ruleset.

 

If they are using a timer based approach to the season change, then differing rulesets are going to be limited in scope.   Sure, they might increase the time between season changes but that would prevent them from letting ingame events trigger season change.  

 

Does anybody care to share how the DevTeam intends to initiate this core mechanic of their game?

Edited by Kirel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Does anybody care to share how the DevTeam intends to initiate this core mechanic of their game?

 

would that they do...it's some of the stuff i'm VERY curious about, for obvious reasons...

 

yes...it all hinges on how they plan on timing Season change, that's my proposal....that the "win" timer be extended via the Players being able to fight back the Hunger...yeah i know, the weak point is we know next to nothing about exactly that...but that's part of my reason for putting this out here...to hash it out, so that when it's solid and thoughtful....

 

THEN i can annoy the hell out of folks by putting it in the Suggestion Box and getting on mah Soapbox...it'll be worth it, imo

 

who better to argue/hammer out all the flaws and such than this bunch of miscreants?


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion guys!

 

If you went with the Doom Counter (which I think is the best one so far), then that could innately tie into the seasons too.

 

0-2 : Spring

3-5 : Summer

6-8 : Autumn

9-10 : Winter

11 : Game Over

 

You can modify this easily by stretching or condensing seasons. Want a long autumn? Fine, add more "counters" to it. 

 

As to rewards, tie that to hours active on a sliding scale, done by percentage.

Top 5% most active = 80%

6-39% most active = 50%

40-80% most active = 25%

81-100 = 5%

 

One downside though, is you could get a lot of AFKers racking up the hours... so maybe it should be done by hours ALIVE, with hours DEAD actually counting against your score (ie, afk and die over night, and you're down 8 hours)? Bearing in mind that if you just sit AFK in the city, you're not getting stuff into your Embargo anyway, so even if you are reaching the higher echelons you still can't send much through. 

Edited by M0rdred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some good ideas here, and feel that getting what we want is probably going to be fairly easy. They have come up with worlds that end in the first place to address the server/game stagnation issue that JTC recognizes. If the world we SBers all choose to play on together does not become stagnant, I'm sure they would be perfectly fine with staying up indefinitely.

 

I think the problem is indeed the right ruleset. One which cannot be exploited by Uncle Bob to ether end the world 'too soon;, or prevent it from ending indefinitely. Since winning actually matters, as it determines what or even if you get to take loot out of the campaign, any ruleset which is based on the actions of a single group will be problematic. They will simply trigger the scenario end as soon as they are in a winning position. Whatever system is come up with, it has to be sure to address this issue.

 

With that in mind, I think the trigger needs to be something that is a direct and as 'immune to manipulation as possible' metric that tracks actual stagnation, which means stagnation needs to be defined. A campaign in which one power owns 60, 75 even 90% of the map may not necessarily be a stagnant one, if everyone else is actively fighting to take their territory. Some of the most memorable periods and most fun battles occurred in SB on servers meeting those criteria. The key I think will be the measure of activity, and perhaps having it be measured passively and not a question of detecting a specific player action.

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...