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

Campaign Permanence – A Framework

Recommended Posts

In the spirit of Todd’s post about permanent campaign rulesets, I’d like to lay out the following system, which I’ve pieced together from others’ ideas and some of my own. This system is about potentially permanent campaigns, how they come about, how they can die, and how they add meaning to the game.

 

I tried to arrange this so that most of the substance is in the overview section. If you feel the need to dive deeper, I fleshed things out a bit in the narrative sections, below. There are some things, however, that need testing, or that could be handled differently in different campaigns, and I tried to point those out as well.

 

Most importantly, I wanted the system to have the following characteristics:

  1. Avoid significant devaluing, overvaluing, or tampering with the EKs.
  2. Create a sense of meaning, through permanent consequences.
  3. Tie the campaigns and EKs together.
  4. Prevent Uncle Bob syndrome.

 

System Overview

  • Eternal Fragments and God Runes

A guild receives special artifacts called “Eternal Fragments” by winning high-risk campaigns. The Eternal Fragments are high-end artifacts, in addition to their special qualities. After enshrining some number of Eternal Fragments (maybe 3) in the EK, the guild receives a “God Rune.” The God Rune is inscribed with clues about a hidden location on a particular campaign world where the guild can use the rune to summon a god. The god will give the guild a mission, making a new win condition open to the guild. If the guild completes its mission, the new win condition is triggered. The Hunger departs from that world, preventing it from dying, but its resources become diminished (like an EK).

  • Captured Worlds

The guild can now control and build upon this “Captured” world in much the same way as the EKs, importing resources from other campaigns, adding artifacts and relics, including additional Eternal Fragments. Also, like public EKs, other players are able to visit and transport goods into the Captured world. For the most part, whatever you can build or take into an EK, you can also build or take into a captured world (and the other way around). Assets within the world are not destroyable/capturable unless the whole world is challenged. PvP cannot be turned off, but it can be tuned down to Faction settings.

  • Benefits of Control

For an EK where the ruling guild has taken control over at least one Captured world, the vassals and tenants of the EK and Captured world(s) may choose buffs from any artifact placed in the EK or Captured world(s) under the guild’s control. Captured worlds also provide various other soft benefits and boosts to the crafter economy. Although never fully safe from PvP, crafters could have a higher chance of success at crafting items while in the captured world, or maybe recipes require fewer resources. If needed to balance the appeal of EKs and Captured worlds, vassals and tenants of the Captured world would be able to get unique buffs, skills, or traits that are specific to the god who is protecting that world. Finally, because they are blessed by a god, GM-type events would occur more frequently in Captured worlds.

  • Expanding an Empire

To capture another world, the guild must win another set of Eternal Fragments and a God Rune. There are a limited number of worlds that can be captured, probably not more than 13 (one for each god). However, at the beginning, the Devs could start with a lower number, allowing for expansion as they saw fit, based on lore and gameplay.

  • Challenging for Control

God Runes can be used to capture a new world or to challenge the rulers of an existing Captured world. If the challengers are able to take or destroy enough assets or points of interest in an existing Captured world, the Hunger will reignite and the seasons will begin to turn again. If neither side has decisive control of the world by the end of winter (maybe a month later), the captured world will be consumed by the Hunger. If the world is destroyed, any remaining buildings will be moved into the current owner’s account bank.

 

 

How does this system accomplish its goals?

 

#1 – Participation is optional.

If you are the type of player who does not care about establishing anything outside of the dying worlds, or if the EK provides you with enough of a reason for you to continue playing, you are not impeded. Building out an EK can provide enough benefits to stay competitive in the campaigns (the 3 buffs), and you can have an economic hub in your EK. EKs can also be made safer that Captured worlds because the PvP switch can be turned fully off, so there are some economic advantages that Captured worlds don’t have. This will provide few (if any) drawbacks to ignoring this system. You only have to play in the Captured worlds if want to.

 

#2 – Strive to defeat the Hunger, and join the metaphorical “game of thrones”

The system allows you to try to create something permanent, and thus your actions can have permanent consequences. If you can keep your world alive forever, you will go down in the annals of the gods. If not, well… history is not kind to losers.

 

#3 – Cross-campaign politics is a thing.

Not only are the Captured worlds meaningful, but the system creates interactions between campaign worlds, so that the events in one can affect another. This means more than just getting a buff. If you don’t want another guild to get a God Rune, or the funds to wage a war against you, then you can join their high-risk campaign, or make third-party deals to thwart their efforts.

 

#4 – The Uncle Bob problem is addressed in a number of ways that disadvantage incumbent powers.

  • It is hard to form an Uncle Bob because capturing a world takes a long, linear time and requires sustained success in “fair fights,” where a potential Uncle Bob cannot leverage his size to his advantage.
  • Even the largest guilds will have to spread themselves thin if they want to hold multiple captured worlds. Funding their defense would require them to split their membership across multiple campaigns simultaneously. On the other hand, a smaller attacker can pick their time of attack, and may be able to devote a greater % of their resources into the fight for any individual Captured world.
  • Capturing worlds depends on the will of the gods. Would gods of different factions choose the same guild or alliance to be their champions? This could be made exceedingly difficult while fitting in with the lore.
  • Stalemates favor the Hunger. If neither side is able to win decisively, then no one is worthy of divine favor. The Captured world will be lost to the ages.
  • Not all worlds can be captured. The Devs can limit the number of these worlds to a reasonable % of the overall number of campaigns. If all other measures fail, and an Uncle Bob does arise, the Devs can keep Uncle Bob in check forever just by not increasing the number of “capturable” worlds.

 

TL;DR – Enabling players to defeat the Hunger and capture a world provides a lore-driven purpose for amassing resources beyond the EKs and allows players’ actions and interactions to have permanent consequences. Further, the problem of Uncle Bob is solved (possibly too well?) through the use and coordination of multiple anti-incumbency techniques.

 

 

Narrative Description and System Details

 

In this portion, I try to convey the issue that this system is intended to address from a particular guild’s perspective. I also get further into the details of the system, and highlight areas that I think could use some experimentation, or where it would be good to have a variety of ways of handling the mechanic to have a diversity of gameplay experiences.

 

 

 

 

I. The Setup

 

It’s launch day and your guild decides to join a campaign world with moderate risk/reward to get your feet wet. So you:

 

1) Have fun

2) Build and defend a fortification

3) Score points toward the win condition

4) Bank resources from the campaign.

 

Your guild does better than expected, you pool your winnings, build a guild keep in the guild leader’s EK, populate it with NPCs, and a few relics. These things let you train skills to a higher level, trade, and maybe provide some buffs. Because you had fun, you want to try your hand at it again. Again you:

 

1) Have fun

2) Build and defend a fortification

3) Score points toward the win condition

4) Bank resources from the campaign.

 

This time you come in first. You are able to upgrade your buildings, expand your EK, build a Reliquary, and place a few relics and mid-tier artifacts that you won or purchased. Your guild now knows it can hold its own, so you decide to join a high-risk campaign. Again you:

 

1) Have fun

2) Build and defend a fortification

3) Score points toward the win condition

4) Bank resources from the campaign.

 

You are on a roll and win this campaign too. In addition to other resources, your guild leader is gifted a special top-tier artifact: an Eternal Fragment—a shard of the world from before the Hunger. It has been forged by the Hunger itself, yet somehow it was not consumed. The Eternal Fragment can only be housed in a Reliquary or religious temple, but they are some of the most powerful of the artifacts, providing high-end buff like opening up discipline-specific skills, customizable buffs, etc.

 

Your guild is in a rhythm, and wins about every third or fourth high-risk campaign it attempts. When things start to get a little stale, you try a different ruleset for the next campaign. Fast forward a year or two, though, and new rulesets just aren’t cutting it. Your guild has almost maxed out its EK, and has won 3 Eternal Fragments. Your membership is mostly intact, even after some harsh losses, but people are starting to look out to the horizon, and play time is decreasing.

 

In spite of flagging interest, the guild manages to win another high-risk campaign. Instead this time you receive a “God Rune” in place of the Eternal Fragment. The rune has some indecipherable symbols on it, as well as a readable inscription. It foretells of a soon-to-be-created campaign world, and a temple that is buried (literally) somewhere in its eastern woods. If the guild can find this place, and bring the God Rune there, they will summon a god.

 

 

II. Playing for Keeps

 

Players who were losing interest are excited with this new, secret mission: find the buried temple, summon a god, win the campaign, and capture the world away from the Hunger. Only your guild knows about this mission. So while other campaign players take traditional paths by capturing strategic points of interest, your guild heads toward the eastern woods, searching for the temple, shovels in hand.

 

Thanks to voxels and procedurally generated worlds, finding the hidden temple is sort of a game in itself. The location will be actually hidden. In other scenarios it could have been buried on a desert island, behind a false wall in the catacombs under a city, or just on top of a remote mountain. Wherever it is, once you find it, you have to get the God Rune there safely.

 

This could be a problem. You may be able to fly under the radar for a while, but if it takes more than a while to find the temple, it will be hard to disguise the fact that an accomplished guild is wandering through the campaign world, uninterested in the normal win conditions. Others will start to catch on to what you are doing. Maybe they want to help, maybe they want to stop you, or maybe they just want to get paid off for keeping their mouths shut. If they also have the requisite number of Eternal Fragments back at their EK’s Reliquary, they may even try to kill you, take the God Rune, and summon the god themselves.

 

Fortunately for your guild, after quite some digging you find the temple, you transport the God Rune, and summon the god. After some pomp and circumstance, the god gives your guild a mission. This mission may be as straight forward as taking over the world in the name of the god, or maybe the god commands you to build a number of massive temples in the god’s honor, enhancing the god’s power on this world.1

 

Whatever the mission is, if you are successful, your guild will trigger an alternate winning condition where the world is not destroyed. Instead, the god will repay you by driving away the Hunger, capturing the world and making it last for as long as you are able to control it. The world is potentially permanent and in your control.

 

This alternate winning condition is not automatic, however. Although it really helps it have a god on your side (a skilled, medium-sized guild should have about roughly even odds against the rest of a moderately populated campaign world), you still have to be successful.

 

Once the other players find out, they may decide to kneel to you, to get something from their embargo. They could also try to join the cause, if that is possible within the mission given by the god. Or maybe this campaign has been underway for a while, and the other players don’t want to settle for the god-appearing bulls***. So they band together to stop you from completing your mission.2

 

 

III. Ruling an Empire

 

For the purposes of this scenario, most of players in the campaign decide kneel, and you quickly mop up the rest. You are now in control of the world, and your god has gone away to fight the Hunger.

 

The effects of the Hunger are not erased and resources are scarce, but you can move and transport goods freely between the Captured world and your EKs. That means you can also import goods and resources in from other campaign worlds.

 

Your guild has control of the Captured world much like it would the EK. The King and Vassals can set taxes, and build upon and/or rent out land; although the Captured world cannot be broken up and spliced back together like the EKs. Asset destruction is off until a challenge is made. Also, the world becomes public. You cannot have a private Captured world. Nor can PvP be turned off; the “lowest” setting that the owners choose is faction based PvP.3

 

You also enjoy certain unique benefits only found in Captured worlds:

  • The vassals and tenants of the EK and Captured world(s) may choose buffs from any artifacts placed in the EK or Captured world(s) under the guild’s control (or within the appropriate chain of fealty, however it works). This does not increase the limit of 3 buffs per character.
  • Crafters from across the game will flock to your Captured world to enjoy the benefits it provides such as higher production success rates and lowered resource requirements. Although they will be forced to deal with a world with PvP, making transactions riskier on average as compared to the EKs which can be PvP free.
  • If this does not attract enough players, then Captured worlds could provide certain natural advantages, like a bonus to skill training speed for any vassal or tenant. There could also be unique buffs, skills, or character traits available to the vassals and tenants of the Captured world, based on which god protects the world. These would have to be carefully chosen not to allow the people to be overpowered. But it can enable them to have unique powers or gifts, or enable them to serve a unique role as part of the group.  For example, there could be a trait that allows humanoid characters to apply both the Vampire and Werewolf Disciplines. If it was a buff, it would have to count as 1 of the 3. If it was a skill, it can be used only for only as long as the character is a vassal or tenant in the Captured world.
  • From time to time, your god returns from the front lines against the Hunger in GM-type events.

 

 

IV. Challenging for Control/Defending your Ground

 

Although the Hunger is in check, this is still a campaign world. Another group of players can challenge the owners for control, and they might reignite the Hunger if they do.

 

To challenge a Captured world, a separate guild or alliance must have a God Rune of their own. They must bring their rune to the same temple in the eastern woods and place it on the altar. The first God Rune crumbles to dust, initiating the challenge. In Shadowbane parlance, the second God Rune is the bane scroll.

 

The world becomes FFA PvP with friendly fire and all the structures in the world become vulnerable. What “vulnerable” actually means will absolutely need testing; but think of it as a modified, scaled-up version of the Bloodstone Tree ruleset, where the defender has to set vulnerability windows for every point of interest or geographic region in the world. Also, any import restrictions that exist for the attackers are lifted, allowing them to bring in resources as needed to fund their attack.

 

Depending on the particular siege and warfare system (which we don’t know too much about) the competition between the defender and challenger will probably have to come down to controlling a certain number of particular points of interest or POI. What the POI are, and how they become what they are, is something else that needs trial and experimentation. Perhaps as part of the mission to capture the world, your god commanded you to build a number of temples in her honor. Those temples could become the POI over which the war will be waged. 

 

If the attackers gain control or destroy 50% of the POI, the god keeping the Hunger at bay will see this as a sign of the defender’s weakness. So the god will abandon the world, allowing the Hunger to return. Once this happens, the world is essentially put on a timer, perhaps a month long. At the end of this timer, the world will be destroyed by the Hunger, just like a normal campaign.

 

However, if the attackers are able to capture or destroy all of the POI—or some large percentage of them depending on how many there are, and whether they all have the same value—then the god will return, and choose the challengers as her new champions. Control over the captured world will change hands, and the Hunger will go away. Similarly, if the defender can reclaim or rebuild the POI, then the god will return control of the world to the incumbent defenders. To prevent the world from being destroyed, either side can decide to yield, surrendering the Captured world to the other side.

 

 

Foot Notes and Other Thoughts

 

1 The Devs can play with different systems here. How will the summoning of a god be announced to other players? How powerful will the god be? What role will the faction and god allegiance systems play in all this? Will players be allowed to choose the god they summon?

 

There is no one right answer to these questions, and it is probably better to leave them open to some extent. Just like the campaigns have different rule sets, these god-summoning events can be treated differently, perhaps even uniquely, to provide for fresh gameplay, but also to avoid past mistakes. Here is an example of just one possibility:

 

Players are able to choose the god the want to summon by making a “sacrifice” tailored to the god’s lore when they place the God Rune. It could be something like X amount of rare resources and/or Y number of thralls (whatever they are), etc. The sacrifice would also be required from any challenger, and would act as a sort of ante, which gets added to a spoils-of-war “pot,” available to whoever overthrows the incumbent power. Over time, the pot would grow as a Captured world continues to successfully fend off challengers. The more successful the defenders are, the “richer” a target they become. If the Captured world is ever destroyed by the Hunger during a challenge, the pot would be taken away by the god (and thus out of the game).

 

This could create some interesting dynamics once the Hunger is retriggered during a challenge. If neither side is able to take decisive control, for example, the defenders or the challengers might decide to negotiate their surrender, instead of allowing the Hunger to destroy the world. This would keep the pot on the table for the next time someone challenged for control of the world. 

 

This could also turn enemies into allies. The attacker and defender have ground each other down to a stalemate. But they want to keep the world alive, and they fear that a 3rd party might come in and take advantage of the defender’s weakened state. So the attacker agrees to surrender its holdings, and together they publically announce a new alliance, with the hope of preventing or at least stalling 3rd parties from challenging the Captured world.

 

2 To make it fair to those who were not interested in playing out these sorts of campaigns, people could be given the chance to kneel soon after a “god-event” like this is announced. They could then exit the campaign with a reduced export penalty. I don’t think this is a great solution though, because you don’t want the population of a world to be significantly drained once the presence of a god-event becomes known.  So it may be better to add an additional benefit for staying with these campaigns, instead of lowering the penalty for leaving them.

 

3 This will likely need to be tested and tweaked.

 

 

Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get a dev to see this this is really impressive but if that were the case there would have to be a discipline that would allow you to find one of these temples with out a map to balance it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I like this.

 

Some behind the scene considerations.

 

Is the cost of creating this system worth it?

There is a reason they are aiming at The Core to begin with. Funds are tighter than in your usual AAA mmo.

This doesn't mean that any mechanic not in the core should go out the window.

But any suggestion need to be weighted against how many people will use it and how often.

If resources are being used and the players go "meh" and ignore it, it's a loss.

 

Next, when you build a sandbox on a limited budget, you usually try to make sure any mechanics can be used in as many places as possible.

We are already seeing this with the EKs and campaigns.

 

I will come back to this thread later :-)


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think players would go "meh" at least not if captured worlds give natural bonuses to economies and character creation, but it they do, then the bonus might have to be reevaluated.

 

Obviously it's not hard to add new artifacts, and the rules that govern a captured world are mostly modeled after the EKs. But, yeah, placing the God Rune and the mission phase is mostly new (so far as we know). The challenge phase could also be new, depending on how they did it. They might be able to scale up the bloodstone rule set without too much of a problem, but it's hard to say without way more info.


The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea a lot. I was thinking in terms of kingdom vs kingdom but this ups the stakes to actual world vs world domination on a whole new level, which is a nice touch and one I hadn't thought of. As far as I know, this has never been done before and would be something completely new to try. It definitely has piqued my interest and I hope the devs will at least consider it. Why be queen of just one kingdom when you can rule an entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "patch of content" to the original idea makes sense and may increase the goal of game core systems as Campaign and EKs, but since the features are still just known on the paper so far and kinda split off, maybe we will see this kind of ideas URGENT TO IMPLEMENTATION during alpha test phase

Edited by Tofyzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the premise here, though I would not have them destroyed by the hunger when "conquered".

 

Instead, I would suggest that they get spawned as you suggest (Eternal Fragments -> God Rune -> Summon a god), and then limit it to 13 in total. Each world gets some boons based on the god it is pledged to to give them a little unique flair, like perhaps a unique discipline? The other advantages you suggest are also good, so increased craft chance, and maybe reduced upkeep costs.

 

Players can then challenge for the world, and take it for themselves. Instead of it falling to the hunger when destroyed, give ownership to the winner.

 

The main change I would propose is that buildings change ownership, but cannot be returned to inventory when the world is taken. Buildings should, however, contribute to the defence of the owner, so to soften the world up for conquest, some destruction is suggested... the more you destroy, the easier it is to conquer, but the less you have when you do take control.

 

These worlds should be expensive to maintain which is the main tool to prevent Uncle Bob. Conquest of worlds is a war of attrition, at a certain point even the largest guilds will likely have to give up control in order to concentrate on campaigns and build their war chests up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players can then challenge for the world, and take it for themselves. Instead of it falling to the hunger when destroyed, give ownership to the winner.

Just a quick reply, and I don't think I was clear on this looking back at it, but if the challenger wins they would get the world. But if it is a stalemate at the end of the challenge phase, then the Hunger does destroy the world.


The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reply, and I don't think I was clear on this looking back at it, but if the challenger wins they would get the world. But if it is a stalemate at the end of the challenge phase, then the Hunger does destroy the world.

 

Over time, this would be quite a few worlds racked up.... all possibly consuming server and network resources.... and pretty sure that they'd be empty.  I definitely, wouldn't want them to be permanently available for the winner to permanently mine resources and embargo them out to the EKs (which should be a 1x thing when the world is destroyed).  

 

So, I'm missing the realistic point of winning worlds and having them be permanent.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over time, this would be quite a few worlds racked up.... all possibly consuming server and network resources.... and pretty sure that they'd be empty.  I definitely, wouldn't want them to be permanently available for the winner to permanently mine resources and embargo them out to the EKs (which should be a 1x thing when the world is destroyed).  

 

So, I'm missing the realistic point of winning worlds and having them be permanent.

 

The amount of captured worlds is limited to at least 13 (amount of gods) but it could just as easily be limited to 1 or 2. I also don't think the captured worlds would produce any material, at least they definitely shouldn't. I think once captured these worlds will be teraformed into EK-like rulesets, and thus outside campaigns would still be needed in order to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the premise here, though I would not have them destroyed by the hunger when "conquered".

 

Instead, I would suggest that they get spawned as you suggest (Eternal Fragments -> God Rune -> Summon a god), and then limit it to 13 in total. Each world gets some boons based on the god it is pledged to to give them a little unique flair, like perhaps a unique discipline? The other advantages you suggest are also good, so increased craft chance, and maybe reduced upkeep costs.

 

Players can then challenge for the world, and take it for themselves. Instead of it falling to the hunger when destroyed, give ownership to the winner.

 

The main change I would propose is that buildings change ownership, but cannot be returned to inventory when the world is taken. Buildings should, however, contribute to the defence of the owner, so to soften the world up for conquest, some destruction is suggested... the more you destroy, the easier it is to conquer, but the less you have when you do take control.

 

These worlds should be expensive to maintain which is the main tool to prevent Uncle Bob. Conquest of worlds is a war of attrition, at a certain point even the largest guilds will likely have to give up control in order to concentrate on campaigns and build their war chests up again.

 

BOON! Damn, I was trying to think of that term for so long, and it just never came. I would go the other way on upkeep costs. I think the taxes actually need to be higher than in the EKs. Like you said, it needs to be expensive to maintain. This would help balance out, more-or-less, the economic benefits, like higher crafting chances, and lowered recipe costs, which I think you need to make the Captured worlds worth the effort. The "real" benefit comes from the boons, like faster skill speed gain or unique runes... things that affect character development, but don't throw the balance of PvP out of whack.

 

For the buildings, I'm not sure I'm fully reading you (I blame my head cold), but I think I agree. I meant to say that buildings are permanent fixtures in a Captured World (CW) once they are built, unless actually destroyed by the owner or a challenger. The only way* it would be returned to inventory is if the world itself was destroyed. So, even if I know the world is going to end, because neither side is strong enough to take the advantage, I still have a vested interest in fighting to keep my property in my hands, or in trying to take over others' property. Is that something like what you were saying?

 

I would think, though, it would come into your account bank as stacks of resources... and probably at some reduced % maybe based on how well you did.

 

*This might be where CWs and EKs diverge, because I'm not sure what happens if, for example, I was your vassal, and you revoked my vassal status. 

 

Over time, this would be quite a few worlds racked up.... all possibly consuming server and network resources.... and pretty sure that they'd be empty.  I definitely, wouldn't want them to be permanently available for the winner to permanently mine resources and embargo them out to the EKs (which should be a 1x thing when the world is destroyed).  

 

So, I'm missing the realistic point of winning worlds and having them be permanent.

 

Pretty much exactly what Mytherceria said. Frankly, I think they could even start with none, and the devs could allow the Eternal Fragments or God Runes to drop only when it made sense. The "spigot" could be turned on and off as needed to keep the items rare (or not), and as they decide to add more worlds. If they wanted fewer worlds, just wait until one is destroyed, and do not bring it back.  If needed, the magical inscriptions on God Runes could have a shelf-life. So that if they aren't used, they become useless.

 

Again, the idea isn't to undercut the normal campaign worlds... they are fully vital to this system, and the game at large. If anything their importance is hightened as a result of making them the fuel for the CWs.  This is just that added icing that makes the cake a cake, but you still need the cake (i.e. normal campaigns) to make a cake too.

 

As for the benefits of CWs. I talked about this is reply to M0rdred. I assume you also read the overview in the OP... but here's what I said in the spoiler tags:

 

  • You also enjoy certain unique benefits only found in Captured worlds:

    • The vassals and tenants of the EK and Captured world(s) may choose buffs from any artifacts placed in the EK or Captured world(s) under the guild’s control (or within the appropriate chain of fealty, however it works). This does not increase the limit of 3 buffs per character.
    • Crafters from across the game will flock to your Captured world to enjoy the benefits it provides such as higher production success rates and lowered resource requirements. Although they will be forced to deal with a world with PvP, making transactions riskier on average as compared to the EKs which can be PvP free.
    • If this does not attract enough players, then Captured worlds could provide certain natural advantages, like a bonus to skill training speed for any vassal or tenant. There could also be unique buffs, skills, or character traits available to the vassals and tenants of the Captured world, based on which god protects the world. These would have to be carefully chosen not to allow the people to be overpowered. But it can enable them to have unique powers or gifts, or enable them to serve a unique role as part of the group.  For example, there could be a trait that allows humanoid characters to apply both the Vampire and Werewolf Disciplines. If it was a buff, it would have to count as 1 of the 3. If it was a skill, it can be used only for only as long as the character is a vassal or tenant in the Captured world.
    • From time to time, your god returns from the front lines against the Hunger in GM-type events.
Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go the other way on upkeep costs. I think the taxes actually need to be higher than in the EKs. Like you said, it needs to be expensive to maintain. This would help balance out, more-or-less, the economic benefits, like higher crafting chances, and lowered recipe costs, which I think you need to make the Captured worlds worth the effort. The "real" benefit comes from the boons, like faster skill speed gain or unique runes... things that affect character development, but don't throw the balance of PvP out of whack.

 

For the buildings, I'm not sure I'm fully reading you (I blame my head cold), but I think I agree. I meant to say that buildings are permanent fixtures in a Captured World (CW) once they are built, unless actually destroyed by the owner or a challenger. The only way* it would be returned to inventory is if the world itself was destroyed. So, even if I know the world is going to end, because neither side is strong enough to take the advantage, I still have a vested interest in fighting to keep my property in my hands, or in trying to take over others' property. Is that something like what you were saying?

 

I would think, though, it would come into your account bank as stacks of resources... and probably at some reduced % maybe based on how well you did.

 

Upkeep; Yeah I kinda flip-flopped on that one. Higher cost I think would be better balanced.

Buildings; Yes, permanent fixtures in the world which change owners when the world does. I'm not sure that I'd have any way of putting them back in the bank though, a faction could conquer the world and then let it fall to the hunger and just bank all the buildings (none of which they actually built).

 

As to vassals... well it's a riskier proposition if you do put buildings down, but then again you could also get some for "free". 

 

And yes, start with 0 of these worlds, and then add them incrementally as server populations can support them upto the maximum which is 13. 

Edited by M0rdred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess I would be surprised if that happened, I mean the "thing to do" with those resources is put them in the EK or towards a CW.  

All the way at the end of the OP, in the footnotes, I added an idea for incentivizing the maintenance of the CWs. This might mitigate the issue.

 

Of course, there are always people who just want to see the world burn... but I am trying to figure out why that shouldn't be allowed either... As long as others have recourse against them, right? Presumably they would in future Campaigns.  These would-be pyros would have a harder time getting allies.  And this isn't the same as some guy burning your city down at 4am; it would take months of coordination and planning in order to pull off by hundreds of people, presumably.

 

I'm not fully sold on what I'm saying either... it's supposed to be a game...

 

One of the "goals" I had in an earlier draft of this was to mitigate the "rage quit" points... I took it out to simplify this post. But maybe this is one of those rage quit points. Whether that's the case, I dunno... maybe people get so used to dying worlds that another world dying isn't all that big a deal... But maybe that just serves as a contrast to the CWs, so it would be even worse. 

Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see this as unnecessary and taking away from the current plans with the EKs... along with relics and artifacts.  It's just over-complicating and will cause additional confusion for players, which are expecting worlds to die with the Hunger than be captured.

 

Besides, it goes against the lore, in that the gods are sending us to these campaign worlds because they are already in a state of dying.  We're going there to extract w/e resources, artifacts, and relics we can before the world is destroyed.  There is nowhere that "capture" fits.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what plans for the EKs you had in mind. They basically play the same role that Trammel did within the overall game... That's the "plan" to the extent I see it, and a lot of the core following of this game will just ignore them.  Eventually, that core following will get bored with trying new campaign rule sets, and they'll start fading away. That's bad for the game as a whole.

 

I'm not exactly the only one to see this as an issue... the overabundance of posts where people are trying to make the EKs into something they're not is proof of that. Instead of making EKs more campaign like, the OP is about how a campaign could become more EK like.

 

As for whether this is overly complicated... I actually kinda agree. But I think there are things that could be edited out to would solve that. For example, you could cut out the whole "summon a god/alternate win condition" part, and you would have pretty much the same system from a functional standpoint. So it could still work as a solution for addressing the issue just the same. I thought the summon a god/alternate win condition was a cool way to tie in the lore, but it's not fundamental.

 

Speaking of the lore, you've lost me there. Lore is, inherently, mutable. It's a story, stories change, and we really don't have much of this story anyway. Even if we did, a good story teller could make this work easily within the lore.

Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what plans for the EKs you had in mind. ...

 

Exactly how they're designing it.  Sure, most players may ignore theirs, outside of artifacts, which they'll keep their EK private anyway.  But, for those that understand the value of EKs, will surely take advantage of them the very second they get into the game.  They will have the public hubs that will be renown throughout CF.  A lot of what you want to turn the campaigns into... will already exist in EKs.

 

...I'm not exactly the only one to see this as an issue... the overabundance of posts where people are trying to make the EKs into something they're not is proof of that. Instead of making EKs more campaign like, the OP is about how a campaign could become more EK like....

 

Those "overabundance" of posts are simply player wishes... and mostly from the PvE crowd, which won't make it into CF.  

 

Anyway, so your solution to people wanting to make EKs like PvE campaigns.... is to flip it and make PvP campaigns more like PvE EKs.  lol

 

Sorry, still not buying it.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking it would be great to have a more consistent amount of enemies to deal with aside from just other players , to contend for various "goals and objectives"

"castle 1 tries to zerg castle 2. hunger group 1 and army of trolls 1 clash in the middle as other enemies pour fourth from under ground , from mines , ships in the sky and in the sea.the rage of battle now turns to eliminating a much more immediate threat  the npc armies fighting both players and between each other.

choices to sneak around and grab the riches laying about the battle field without being detected, fight head on against the incoming armies of monsters, keep attack aim on enemy player, retreat to base or join forces with either player or npc. and risk possibly getting backstabbed at some point during this campaign/mission. risk losing your "base" to unseen enemies coming around opposite areas of the map (essentially sneaking their way to weaken and destroy your base). risk sneaking into enemies base to hijack essential resources without getting killed.

the play outs can essentially be quite large base on whichever decision you make there is always at least one or two or more consequences.

i remember the devs mentioning "high risk = high reward" players with some serious skills could pull off dapping into each of the "risk tables" getting their hands dirty. and if they pull it off without too much setting them back seek the highest reward for accomplishing the full risk set completion for maximum reward and maximum possible bonus towards the end.


"people are stupid , given the proper motivation can be made to believe any lie; either because they want to believe it is true or because they fear it is true" - wizard's first rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly the only one to see this as an issue... the overabundance of posts where people are trying to make the EKs into something they're not is proof of that. Instead of making EKs more campaign like, the OP is about how a campaign could become more EK like.

 

This a really excellent point and now that campaign tournaments are confirmed, perhaps something like this could be worked in. I think just adding on yet another tier of impermanent campaigns for the tournaments would be rather boring. The economists and crafters have their permanent playground in the EKs, so I think something a bit more persistent for the pvp crowd would be much more fun than just another dying world. Hopefully with that stretch goal being reached they will have the funds to play around with campaign tournaments a bit and give us something different and exciting.

Edited by Mytherceria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good ideas here! (: 

 

I'd also like a Win/Loss ruleset (that closes that world) not to be determined by a time limit. So players could potentially fight to save/destroy that world.

 

I'd also like to see some worlds stay around after it's "completed" to play around in the aftermath. That said, I think it would be cool if a world was "shattered" and still playable.

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...