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

Allowing People To Pick Campaigns Vs. Not Handing The Game To Zergs On A Silver Platter

Recommended Posts

All you do is prevent pre-made alliances.

Nothing can be done about the same once people are actually in the campaign.

 

 

If people don't want to fight and rather hold hands and caress each other's nuts, then there is nothing you can do about it.

No ingame mechanic will stop them.

but this is how most people play, at least thats how it was in SB Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, read my post above.  Sadly these very large guilds turn the servers into PvE games, which I don't think is how Crowfall is "meant" to be played :(

I just don't see that happening. I mean what PvE are they going to do... The point of the game is PvP and "play to crush" I just don't see it possible that large amount of player just stop fighting and do what again? Hold hands and sing campfire songs? Yeah don't think so.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you win whatever PvP you are referring to in GW2? I'm not familiar.

 

Keep in mind that numbers in Crowfall might win you head on battles, but the win condition in Crowfall isn't about fighting or even holding territory. You have to deliver Bloodstones. A large guild will likely want to deliver multiple stones from multiple trees. So now they are already segregated and more easily attacked by smaller groups.

 

Large guilds also tend to rely on overwhelming their opponents rather than strong individual skill. Figure out how to divide and conquer. I don't think large member guilds will be unassailable in Campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a lot of the posts here recently (since KickStarter started) have been about limiting game mechanics.

 

Look guys.  The games that this game was formed from and took inspiration from is a PLAYER driven game/games. 

 

If you want mechanics to limit, protect, or aid with anything I would suggest you go back to playing whatever cookie cutter BS that is it you have been playing. 

 

The reason this game is being made the way it is, is because there is a rather large community of ppl who don't want their hands to held.  They don't want a "antigreifing" mechanic.  We want friendly fire.  We want zerg (if only cuz it shouldn't be limited).

 

Stop trying to make a game with the same mechanics that literally every other game out there has.  We have all been down that road.  That is why we (and you) are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the Titan Alliance, composed of many guilds across 24 timezones, dominated in GW2 for something like 35 matches before they quit the game of boredom from so much PvE.   One of their opponents was Ruin, but Ruin got stomped partly because they were outnumbered.

Ruin decided to join with the guilds that formed the Titan Alliance for Elder Scrolls, where the alliance again dominated multiple servers.

I think Ruin has something like 8000 members.

 

Now, the kickstarter for Crowfall has like 13,000 backers.  If one single guild of the alliance is well over half of the entire population of Crowfall, so the entire alliance would dwarf all the guilds in the kickstarter.

 

Aight. Are you sure this is a moot issue?

 

You're way exaggerating to a panic for a condition that most likely won't exist in Crowfall based on MMO design.  IF the large alliance guilds were actually interested in CF, you'd see 3-5x (or more) in the number of pledges.  Second, a structured territorial control swap PvPvE based on points-over-time mechanic on maps that never change is completely different than how the PvP sandbox with dying worlds will work in CF.  The length of compaigns alone will deter most of this (talking months vs 1 week).

 

There are far more players (and backers) more interested in competitive PvP than there are in dominating the campaigns.  Alliances like Titan don't last long in MMOs.  Same with guilds like Goon and 4Chan.  Their immaturity level, lack of an attention span, lack of patience, lack of leadership, etc... really don't impact an MMO as much, because they're so short lived in contrast to the life of the MMO.

 

Besides, if you find your character mixed into their zerg wave at release, that's why you have alts... go find another campaign.

 

On the positive side, ACE would stand to make a sizable $ boost from these zerg alliances up-front, which would only help CF... long after those players have moved on.


> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you win whatever PvP you are referring to in GW2? I'm not familiar.

 

Keep in mind that numbers in Crowfall might win you head on battles, but the win condition in Crowfall isn't about fighting or even holding territory. You have to deliver Bloodstones. A large guild will likely want to deliver multiple stones from multiple trees. So now they are already segregated and more easily attacked by smaller groups.

 

Large guilds also tend to rely on overwhelming their opponents rather than strong individual skill. Figure out how to divide and conquer. I don't think large member guilds will be unassailable in Campaigns.

Actually, Bloodstones are just one type of possible win conditions for a campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but this is how most people play, at least thats how it was in SB

 

yes I know.

 

I've seen it plenty of times.

Like at the beginning of Darkfall. I just couldn't believe that people who call themselves PvPers would nutcup to such an extent.

The first 2 months were shocking to me.

Eventually we had to ally up as well. But I must say, UDL's, TSP's, UN's, VAMP's etc balls.. all were very nice, nothing to complain there. :lol:

 

It's just that there is no way to stop it. And people, who think that it wont be abused, are delusional.

it will be especially bad at the beginning when the wannabe guilds are omnipresent in the campaigns and when they claim they play the "political game" and how "tactical" their approach is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, going to other campaigns doesn't fix this. In Elder Scrolls, after they had ruined their main home server, the alliance went from server to server doing the same thing.  Shortly after, the PvP population collapsed.  The game went free to play.

 

Impliying that one thing lead to the other is very misleading, but perhaps you actually believe that or have some evidence to present?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, I think you're asking for the developer to defend against human nature and not trust that human nature will self resolve the issues you spoke of.

 

Zergs are going to happen and the only way to stop them (systemically) is to go against the sandbox element of the game. There is always going to be "large zergs" thanks to streamers, fans, "unofficial server" groups, and people who have mob mentality. I'd rather have this than be told by the game who I can and can't play with/for.

 

The best thing to do to circumvent this, is to assure that this game will indeed be a game that relies on a certain level of skill and intelligence to allow smaller groups to outthink and out maneuver larger groups. Gear check/level check games allow players who don't know how to play to have an advantage over people who they shouldn't. THIS is what ruins games IMO. The game shouldn't pick the winners.

 

If Crowfall is a game where if you're good at understanding the combat mechanics you can win, those who can't fight will lose (as they should). They will be forced to do other things to help their side.

 

Another thing we must take into consideration is that large zerg guilds begin to taper off after the initial push of a release. Why? Huge guilds mostly benefit the people at the top. When the middle/lower class of these zergs get tired of not mattering, dying first all the time, or not being in a reasonable spot in line for resources and loot they will become disgruntled and leave and form their own groups.

 

Crowfall will REALLY benefit by having an alliance interface so officers can instantly inform their guilds of who is enemy, and who is ally and who is neither. If they get something like this and the combat right, Crowfall will be epic.

 

Let the players decide the direction.  You'd be surprised at the amount of intriguing stories that can happen. I don't understand why the drama is loved on shows like Game of Thrones but not wanted in games.

 

Everybody wants to be a Stark until they're actually a Stark.  <_<

 

***EDIT***

I was just thinking a cool combat mechanic that could work. It is something similar to the "Revenge Meter" that is present in many fighting games. The more people you're attacked by in a span of time the more heat gets built up. After the meter fills up a character now has "Gods Favor" and is granted with a big boost in offense/defense stats that allows them to take on more players at once.

 

This mechanic could potentially discourage mass face rolling in combat.

Edited by 8olphCaesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think every player on a single shard could form a mega alliance thus breaking the game, you're delusional.

"Some games have aliances with thousands of people in it... so it's possible one alliance could fill up an entire shard here", that's just bad reasoning.

It's like saying United States should have not built the grand canyon skywalk because at some point the entire human population could decide to walk on it in order to break it.

 

Most of us here are more excited about not letting someone else win rather than winning themselves.

If you were to form a mega alliance, rest assured LOTS of players would try to stop you.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we don't even know a lot about the warmth and hunger mechanics. I thought they were kind of pushing for smaller guilds to be able to compete? What if the hunger and warmth mechanics make it impossible to field an army over 100? What if all PvP zerg-like (and even just larger group PvP) tactics are going to get thrown on their head due to some unique mechanics in Crowfall and upkeeping your army?

 

What if the game is more about romping around with your tight knit group of 20-30 players and engaging in more interactions with multiple other groups, than it always just being 1 side versus another? Especially in the more harsh rule sets, there is going to be A LOT more going on as there are going to be hundreds of groups of players roaming around, all after the objectives.

 

I think things could get pretty interesting. They have talked about building your team for the campaigns and that bringing too many Centaurs could hurt you in the long run (as they require more food/warmth/whatever than other races). If it is going to come down to small choices like this, I can most definitely see some of these mechanics dividing forces in order to survive. That is where it is going to get interesting.

 

Let the speculation continue ...


Vidrak - Member of


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you win whatever PvP you are referring to in GW2? I'm not familiar.

 

 

GW2 WvWvW was based on week long campaigns over 4 "battlegrounds" each comprised of supply camps, towers and keeps. Each of those camps, towers and keeps were worth increasing points with camps being the lowest to keeps being the highest (Exception being the one "castle" in the one Battleground, Stonemist). The points were counted every 15 mins and you would see a countdown from 15:00 to 0:00 which was called "The Tick". So at the end of the week the server that had the most points would "Win". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large organized alliances will dominate, I dont understand why a small 15 man guild is gonna be the most dominating force or some tiny group of roamers winning the campaign. You gotta team up and come up with tactics against your enemy. Im not talking about zerging now. But rather working together with various guild groups to get things done. Early pre-made alliances will dominate till others get some common sense and decide to do something about it by banding together against uncle bob or playing the game of thrones and destroying them from the inside.

 

 

GW2 WvWvW was based on week long campaigns over 4 "battlegrounds" each comprised of supply camps, towers and keeps. Each of those camps, towers and keeps were worth increasing points with camps being the lowest to keeps being the highest (Exception being the one "castle" in the one Battleground, Stonemist). The points were counted every 15 mins and you would see a countdown from 15:00 to 0:00 which was called "The Tick". So at the end of the week the server that had the most points would "Win". 

 

I loved playing GW2's WvW but its point system was pretty bad imo. It just further emphasized coverage = Win, so people would avoid fights often and just flip towers and keeps over and over again till thar oceanic/sea/eu force just trained around in a massive ball with out contest. Its one thing to create alliances and work together but its a whole other thing to win simply because you got bigger zergs running around at 3am-3pm

Edited by krevra

krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is the issue. People want to play with their friends and they don't want to be stuck in campaigns with rulesets they don't like. You need to give people some choice in what kind of campaign they end up in and who they end up there with for the game to succeed.

 

But if you do that I foree a big problem with major alliances forming and always joining the same campaigns together. For instance if the general campaign is 2000 people I could see a few larger groups getting together and saying "Let's all join this campaign, work together, and split the loot back in the EK when we're done." Or even creating deals where they alternate who wins if there are substantial untraceable rewards.

 

The issue being if they get say 75% of the active population already agreed to work together before the game starts then that won't be very fun for the 25% left out of this deal, or even anyone in the 75% that cares to challenge themselves.

 

I've heard through the grapevine there are even some major groups active on these forums discussing doing this very thing, and while a single alliance can't do this to all servers many alliances copying the original can.

 

So if this does become a major problem how could it be solved?

 

Your speculation only works on the assumption that people will care about the loot they can take back. A really good way to prevent this, is to find groups of people who don't see EKs as being any type of "end game" and won't throw matches because of an erroneous belief that the EKs are more important than the campaigns. This might be a lot more difficult now with the introduction of Artifacts and Relics, as it is going to sway a lot of people into believing that EKs are end game.

 

If the player base that is willing to ignore the EKs for the sake of a competitive campaign is a small minority, and all we have are individuals and guilds intent on using the campaigns to further their own agenda in their EKs, then yes, we will have a major problem and it has a potential to destroy the entire foundation of the game. Hopefully this doesn't happen and enough people can agree to value the campaigns for what they are, and play them as they were meant to be played, and not make the EKs the entire point of the game. 

Edited by Mytherceria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your speculation only works on the assumption that people will care about the loot they can take back. A really good way to prevent this, is to find groups of people who don't see EKs as being any type of "end game" and won't throw matches because of an erroneous belief that the EKs are more important than the campaigns. This might be a lot more difficult now with the introduction of Artifacts and Relics, as it is going to sway a lot of people into believing that EKs are end game.

 

If the player base that is willing to ignore the EKs for the sake of a competitive campaign is a small minority, and all we have are individuals and guilds intent on using the campaigns to further their own agenda in their EKs, then yes, we will have a major problem and it has a potential to destroy the entire foundation of the game. Hopefully this doesn't happen and enough people can agree to value the campaigns for what they are, and play them as they were meant to be played, and not make the EKs the entire point of the game. 

For weeks now people have been debating the usefulness of the EK.  Is it fluff , is it not, what good is it?  ACE has found a perfect way to tie the EK directly into the campaigns.  Now no one can deny or debate their usefulness.  But , as started before, The campaigns are the heart of the game.  This actually completely the cycle w/o a break.  Win in the Campaign World, go back to the EK, deliver your mats to your crafters , have them build the structure needed and head back for more fights. With this new revelation I can see no reason why anyone ( group/ guild team ) would want to do anything but WIN.   I now hear the same people that wanted the EK's to be valuable not happy.  Perhaps they are not happy because the EK's are not valuable in the way they wanted them to be.  

Edited by ellie

Maybe it not about the happy ending. Maybe it's about the story.

RIP Doc Gonzo "to anyone...speak your mind...defend your position...be prepared for an Argument and enjoy the process of the discussion...that's all part of any good Forum experience"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For weeks now people have been debating the usefulness of the EK.  Is it fluff , is it not, what good is it?  ACE has found a perfect way to tie the EK directly into the campaigns.  Now no one can deny or debate their usefulness.  But , as started before, The campaigns are the heart of the game.  This actually completely the cycle w/o a break.  Win in the Campaign World, go back to the EK, deliver your mats to your crafters , have them build the structure needed and head back for more fights. With this new revelation I can see no reason why anyone ( group/ guild team ) would want to do anything but WIN.   I now hear the same people that wanted the EK's to be valuable not happy.  Perhaps they are not happy because the EK's are not valuable in the way they wanted them to be.  

 

I am not sure it's a perfect way at all, and it seems very contradictory to the idea that campaigns are the heart of the game. If people believe their EKs are more important than the campaigns, they will do things that OP is concerned about in order to make their belief a reality. I am just wondering how many will do this, and where will the player base split on this belief. Will there be enough people left who are willing to play in the campaigns without overvaluing the EKs, or will it turn into something else that we have not entirely foreseen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great to assume I'm not a PvPer who plays PvP games and knows PvP mentality. Great and entitely ****ing wrong.

 

It's precisely because I do play so many PvP titles that I see this as a serious potential problem.

 

It is not the nature of PvPer to see a way to secure victory and then sit back and say "That wouldn't be fair so I don't think I'll do that." It is in the nature PvPers to Play To Crush. You shouldn't expect PvPers not to engage I'm the type of behavior the very premise of this game is being sold on. If we see an opportunity to achieve victory we will seize it and milk it for all it's worth. "Honor" is a word used by losers to justify their loss and make their inability to think outside the box seem like a virtue.

 

That is exactly why the developers need to be prepared for when we inevitably seize upon these kind of advantages. It is their job to ensure the game remains fun and competitive.

 

I'm not saying we need to implement anything before this proves itself to be a problem. I'm not saying we nessicarily need to punish or implement limits to solve this problem. Incentives for groups that consistently win campaigns to seek out campaigns with other top dog groups may actually be the best place to look for solutions.

 

I'm saying I feel like there is a high enough chance it will become an issue that it would be wise to have a few ideas ready for dealing with it. Leaving things like this until last minute is how you get ****y poorly thought out band-aid fixes.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems very contradictory to the idea that campaigns are the heart of the game.

 

How so?  If you earn them in the campaigns and use the bonuses in the campaigns, wouldn't the campaigns remain the heart of the game?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure it's a perfect way at all, and it seems very contradictory to the idea that campaigns are the heart of the game. If people believe their EKs are more important than the campaigns, they will do things that OP is concerned about in order to make their belief a reality. I am just wondering how many will do this, and where will the player base split on this belief. Will there be enough people left who are willing to play in the campaigns without overvaluing the EKs, or will it turn into something else that we have not entirely foreseen?

The Campaigns themselves will give the EK value and in turn make the Campaign that much more valuable.  Hey, I am NOT an EK lover, you have seen my prior posts, but this is a way to encourage PvP , not to discourage it.   

Edited by ellie

Maybe it not about the happy ending. Maybe it's about the story.

RIP Doc Gonzo "to anyone...speak your mind...defend your position...be prepared for an Argument and enjoy the process of the discussion...that's all part of any good Forum experience"

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...