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

A Few Permanent Worlds

Recommended Posts

I'd much prefer large persistent worlds where players can purchase a plot of land, similar to how landmark currently works only with much MUCH larger biomes.

I'm still not sure how I feel about the current EK idea, especially if you move between them using some kind of lobby menu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PopeUrban, I'll give you +1 for presentation and a nice story.  

 

I still stand by... let's get the core of the game developed and released as planned, then we can circle back on additional rulesets such as these.  I'm sure further ideas and fine-tuning of possible semi-permanent campaigns will be revealed after we see how the current vision of campaigns and EKs unfold and are experienced.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PopeUrban, I'll give you +1 for presentation and a nice story.  

 

I still stand by... let's get the core of the game developed and released as planned, then we can circle back on additional rulesets such as these.  I'm sure further ideas and fine-tuning of possible semi-permanent campaigns will be revealed after we see how the current vision of campaigns and EKs unfold and are experienced.

 

I think that is where I am as well.  I suspect ACE remains open to other solutions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is that the advantage doesn't really matter. You're not required to compete to gain such a world. If you want one of your own, go win a campaign. The idea that any campaign winner can opt in to this system dictates an immediate need to win more campaigns by default, as there will be less resources stockpiling in EKs as a whole.

 

At this point the world is essentially just a giant resource sink, and if anything adds value to EK resources and increases scarcity while simultaneously making exporting from campaigns more rewarding because of it.

 

I am just not entirely comfortable with opening up the opportunity for those with more stockpiled EK resources having more "control" in this life-support world. In this scenario, just buying the resources would be the most important, but if those resources needed to come directly from winning a campaign and not from buying them it would make winning a campaign essential for those that don't want to spend resources on an EK. There are already enough reasons to take resources back to the EK. I would like to see a choice of either bringing your embargo back to your EK or to the world you have "captured" (Virt's idea) or a specific campaign world you are just simply trying to keep alive for whatever reason. I would prefer the EKs to be irrelevant in this system as I see them as pretty complete and awesome as they are and they don't need any extra help, but that is just my personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just not entirely comfortable with opening up the opportunity for those with more stockpiled EK resources having more "control" in this life-support world. In this scenario, just buying the resources would be the most important, but if those resources needed to come directly from winning a campaign and not from buying them it would make winning a campaign essential for those that don't want to spend resources on an EK. There are already enough reasons to take resources back to the EK. I would like to see a choice of either bringing your embargo back to your EK or to the world you have "captured" (Virt's idea) or a specific campaign world you are just simply trying to keep alive for whatever reason. I would prefer the EKs to be irrelevant in this system as I see them as pretty complete and awesome as they are and they don't need any extra help, but that is just my personal preference.

 

Right, the thing I see here is that your EK bypass setup actively hurts the EKs rather than helps them. My ideal is simply increasing value of resources across the board by creating another end to the spectrum.

 

The current system is

 

Campaign <> EK

 

the proposed is

 

Campgain <> EK > Godless World

 

This rounds out the curve, placing the EKs firmly in the middle of a system with generation on one end, and destruction on the other, which reinforces the idea that EKs are a trade hub that bridges the gap between, but are still completely optional.

 

"Rich" guilds are already going to have limited power projection, and this ideal doesn't change that, but when you're looking at a play space that does nothing but consume resources, you need a way to introduce resources in to that space to make it compelling. The EKs aren't designed to be compelling centers of play, so it doesn't much matter that they don't generate anything. For a Godless world, however, you're in a full pvp ruleset which means players need to have the ability to carry something for which they can be killed. The best way to do that is just allow people to cart stuff in, but not out, and it doesn't much matter where they get it from because in the end all resources are generated within a campaign somewhere.

 

If some rich guild wants to overcommit resources in to a black hole with no functional interaction with the rest of the game, I don't see a problem with that. It simply reduces their impact everywhere else in the game where that advantage CAN prevent people from acquiring comparable wealth. if they overcommit with the specific intent of shutting down an enemy world, that's also great. Those resources are on a one way trip to oblivion, and the closure of that world pushes everyone involved back in to more campaigns, either more more mats or another world to try and maintain.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the thing I see here is that your EK bypass setup actively hurts the EKs rather than helps them. My ideal is simply increasing value of resources across the board by creating another end to the spectrum.

 

The current system is

 

Campaign <> EK

 

the proposed is

 

Campgain <> EK > Godless World

 

This rounds out the curve, placing the EKs firmly in the middle of a system with generation on one end, and destruction on the other, which reinforces the idea that EKs are a trade hub that bridges the gap between, but are still completely optional.

 

"Rich" guilds are already going to have limited power projection, and this ideal doesn't change that, but when you're looking at a play space that does nothing but consume resources, you need a way to introduce resources in to that space to make it compelling. The EKs aren't designed to be compelling centers of play, so it doesn't much matter that they don't generate anything. For a Godless world, however, you're in a full pvp ruleset which means players need to have the ability to carry something for which they can be killed. The best way to do that is just allow people to cart stuff in, but not out, and it doesn't much matter where they get it from because in the end all resources are generated within a campaign somewhere.

 

If some rich guild wants to overcommit resources in to a black hole with no functional interaction with the rest of the game, I don't see a problem with that. It simply reduces their impact everywhere else in the game where that advantage CAN prevent people from acquiring comparable wealth. if they overcommit with the specific intent of shutting down an enemy world, that's also great. Those resources are on a one way trip to oblivion, and the closure of that world pushes everyone involved back in to more campaigns, either more more mats or another world to try and maintain.

 

Those are all really great points. It might favor whatever guild was the richest but that could be fun in its own way. I do see how choosing not to bring materials into the EK could maybe disrupt that system, as it could mean that people who just want to build stuff might not have access to enough materials. I think this touches on how materials will be obtained and used, which is a whole new exciting conversation. So maybe possibilities and I can't help but dream about them, even if they don't ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to have the ability to claim a world against the gods wishes, I would suspect that they send down/resurrect titans of mass destruction... which will be your final boss.  I mean, if you're going to bring lore into play, you force a major PvE event... although, I suppose the devs or GMs could become the titans ordained by the gods.

 

The other option, is that the gods slowly buff those invading the conquered world as their new champions in order to destroy it.  That would bring PvP back to the world as there is a bonus PvP value to it.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to have the ability to claim a world against the gods wishes, I would suspect that they send down/resurrect titans of mass destruction... which will be your final boss.  I mean, if you're going to bring lore into play, you force a major PvE event... although, I suppose the devs or GMs could become the titans ordained by the gods.

 

The other option, is that the gods slowly buff those invading the conquered world as their new champions in order to destroy it.  That would bring PvP back to the world as there is a bonus PvP value to it.

 

I really sort of hate the idea of a PvE "end boss" event. Not in general, just in this particular game. My thinking is that the constant strain of simply feeding the tower and the reward of the world not ending is enough push and pull to keep the whole thing afloat. The above mentioned reasoning for letting all players, friend and foe, import anything they want should keep it interesting enough, as unlike an Ek you can not simply lock people out of this world. At some point you're going to upset someone in a campaign, or on the forums, or whatever.

 

This creates an alternate "what do I do with my mats?" endgame for people not interested in tournaments or even interested in stockpiling, and it creates an alternate "what do i do between campaigns?" for people that just want to raid poorly made socks.

 

I don't see it supplanting the EKs, as the very nature of the place makes it bad as a trade hub or purely social space, and the impossibility of winning and the massive material imbalances keep it from sompeting with the campaigns for a level playing field.

 

Most notably, it's designed to end when it becomes obsolete. if uncle bob walks in and decimates your world, it ends. if Uncle bob has a world and nobody wants to fight there because he's so implacable, he gets bored, leaves, and the world ends.

 

I guess that's why I see it fitting the rest of the system, because it only exists as long as it is relevant for fun play.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately this sounds like a lot of dev work for a minimal amount of gameplay that can't already be had through EKs and Campaign Worlds.

Perhaps try to re-imagine this in the context of a Campaign World? They've already said that they will try out a variety of rule variations in Campaign worlds. One of their strengths is that if the rules aren't fun they just kill the world and start one with different rules. 

CopperStall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easy way to accomplish this would just have a server with a really hard win condition, instead of a timer. Then the players could have it go on for as long as they want.


CF_Karg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately this sounds like a lot of dev work for a minimal amount of gameplay that can't already be had through EKs and Campaign Worlds.

Perhaps try to re-imagine this in the context of a Campaign World? They've already said that they will try out a variety of rule variations in Campaign worlds. One of their strengths is that if the rules aren't fun they just kill the world and start one with different rules. 

CopperStall

 

If you're referring to PopeUrban's idea, I do believe he was suggesting a campaign world just with different rulesets. If the rulesets are easy to change, something like this world be pretty easy to achieve. I think it's just switching from a win timer to a destruction timer - continue to feed the hunger and push it back, or fail and the world is consumed. This would probably not start until the campaign world was already won, as it would only switch over to this "life-support" world as long as the winners had a desire to continue to feed the hunger. There would be no additional "winning" at this point, just the satisfaction of keeping the world alive for as long as possible and not losing it to the hunger, or other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to PopeUrban's idea, I do believe he was suggesting a campaign world just with different rulesets. If the rulesets are easy to change, something like this world be pretty easy to achieve. I think it's just switching from a win timer to a destruction timer - continue to feed the hunger and push it back, or fail and the world is consumed. This would probably not start until the campaign world was already won, as it would only switch over to this "life-support" world as long as the winners had a desire to continue to feed the hunger. There would be no additional "winning" at this point, just the satisfaction of keeping the world alive for as long as possible and not losing it to the hunger, or other players.

 

Pretty much this. It's already a campaign world, it just has a little number shuffling. no art intensive raid bosses or new gameplay features except maybe some alternate "infected" art for the IO tower, if that. It's not actually that dissimilar from a standard dregs world.

 

It seemed a pretty easy way to address the desiresome players have for optional permanent world, or to answer the question "what do I do with my EK resources if I only play non-import campaigns?" in a way that doesn't actively disrupt the rest of the game, and includes the least possible amount of development effort by just taking a campaign world and tweaking the rules a bit.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pope, ya be a crazy lubber, in a mad genius sort o' way.

I'm not sure I'm getting the full extent of the idea... What would you do in this overtime world? Is it basically the same rule set as before, and as long as you can safely deposit enough resources from other campaigns into some trash bin to "feed the hunger," then the world stays around?

 

If I am understanding it right, I do think there is an issue with the incentive. I'm not sure where the extra meaning/fun is. The point of the dying CW is to win and bring back resources to the EK, and get some nice trophies and bragging rights... the point of the life-support CW is...? The only unique reason* that I see for a guild to keep a world alive is to create resource scarcity. But artificial scarcity is only a benefit to the already-rich. It gives them the tools to artificially set prices, potentially controlling the market at will. In a crude way, it is like what OPEC does with oil (pardon the pun).

Basically I think this is an Uncle Bob magnet... although the level of attraction may be weak, if a guild does manage to be among the first to climb the hill, they will be able to lock in their economic advantage through market manipulation.

Maybe if you made it possible for one group to control only one type of resource... and there were 10-15 important commodity resources... but then you've just traded an economic tyrant for an a cartel/oligopoly of sorts—in both cases there is little economic mobility.

I like the mechanism, though, of using the Hunger as a resource sync and, in turn, an anti-Uncle Bob measure... The benefit that comes from it has to be capped somehow, with fast diminishing ROI for feeding the Hunger at greater volume. It sounded like you were kinda heading in that direction, but I wasn't sure.

--
Another issue is that it feels like this is just magnifying the benefits and incentives for those who are already served well by the EKs and the economic game, instead of creating new benefits and incentives for those more interested in conquest/territorial control and PvP dominance.** This later crowd is where we have the bigger issue of meaning, and why I think people are pitching various forms of (potentially) permanent worlds. So I think more has to be done to redirect the benefits to this group of players, even though it would increase the complexity of the system.

 

*By "unique" I mean something that is not already provided, to a similar extent, by the dying CWs.

 

**While I think there is overlap, I think conquest/territorial control and PvP dominance are different objectives. The latter is pretty much served by the tournament system proposed by ArtCraft. But ArtCraft keeps saying this is a cross between EVE and Game of Thrones, and I don't see how the conquest or political itch gets scratched by tournaments alone.


The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm you guys do realize JTodd literally started a thread YESTERDAY about making worlds persistent in a fashion consistent to the Crowfall vision and that if he can find a feasible way of doing it he will... Please stop spouting "This isnt the way its gonna be"... We are in PRE-alpha, EVERYTHING is changing right now... Please stop trying to say you know more then the cofounder of ACE :D

Where? I haven't found it and would very much like to see this. Link please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The persistent world will become stagnant and dead after a while. It would become a waste of manpower to keep it up.

 

Trust me on this.

 

The creators already know and have shunned your idea =P

Edited by tenshijin

ezgzn8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be really interesting to attempt to establish some permanent worlds where factions fight over the lands :) I love the campaign ideas where the worlds last a set amount of time but have you considered trying to make a few worlds that players can fight over like in EVE :P? I will definitely be playing the set time worlds more but it would add some Variation:)

 

Just allow pvp in your EK... Other than that the system isn't set up to make this work well. Plus the problem with that has been explained multiple times. BTW I don't like eve specifically because there are just a few huge clans that wreck everyone's day with thousands of real dollars influencing what people do... I just find it frustrating (I will admit however that I am biased against subscription based games).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The persistent world will become stagnant and dead after a while. It would become a waste of manpower to keep it up.

 

Trust me on this.

 

The creators already know and have shunned your idea =P

 

That's kind of the point. When it becomes stagnant, it dies. Its only function is literally to persist for as long as it remains interesting. When it becomes a waste of manpower, not fun, etc. you stop feeding it, and if nobody else does, it absolutely should stop existing so everyone can move on to something more fun and interesting.

 

As for the poster looking for the "carrot" to incentivize people keeping up such a world, it's simple: There is no carrot. The world is the reward. The entire idea is to give people who are asking "WHY CAN I NOT HAVE A PERMANENT THING?" A way to have it. You want to keep a world alive, okay, take responsibility for it.

 

Simple.

 

Personally I don't really care for the idea of a persistant world, I think the EKs give me anything I could possibly desire for that purpose (just housing and a trophy room basically) I can't see many ways to implement that kind of idea in a way that doesn't completely disrupt the rest of the game. Crowfall is pretty clear on this in terms of separation. Campaigns are the source of materials. EKs are the endpoint of materials through land and building upkeeps, but that endpoint has little value to people not interested in growing an EK. People whoe may normally raid PvP Eks are less likely to do so because the owner can simply lock them out any time he's losing. They don't have an achievable goal.

 

The logical ideal is that there should be an anti-campaign of sorts. This gives people not interested in growing an EK something to spend those campaign win resources on. Namely, More PvP. More specifically, an attempt to enforce their philosophy on people who are trying to do the exact opposite.

 

My specific idea was "Here's a campaign that only consumes, and never generates."

 

It's a place where resources go to die, and people can place as much or as little importance on it as they want without custard up the Campaigns or EKs for people who aren't at all interested in that sort of permanence.

 

It shouldn't incentivize people to not do campaigns, and it shouldn't have some reward scheme that makes it a replacement for them because that would in fact kill campaigns. It simply creates that thing people seem to want, a "real throne endgame thing" that doesn't create a situation where uncle bob actually has the ability to piss all over people just trying to get started. People starting out will still be playing campaigns. Bored, rich, fatcats have an additional layer of play if they so choose that benefits both the campaign and EK systems by making them both more effective cogs in the same machine designed explicitly to limit the advantage of those "at the top" and make the contributions of those "at the bottom" more valuable.

 

By default, every campaign would pay out a throne in this manner. It would then fall to the owner of that throne if they want to keep it or not. Do you care about making a kingdom and ruling a world, or not? if you do, put your money where your mouth is, feed the world, and keep it alive.

 

If you don't, go play more campaigns.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the regular campaigns have to remain the fuel source for the rest of the game. But if it's too hard to practically maintain, or if the new (potentially) permanent worlds don't appear to offer enough in comparison to their cost, then we're probably better off with things as they are.

 

The problem with potential permanence is that, while I think it can indirectly create a lot of unique, meaningful, and novel gameplay... and so it is a great benefit, it makes for a poor "carrot." Most people are naturally risk adverse—they go for the small, tangible benefit over large, intangible benefit. So I think you need to have those smaller, but simple and understandable, benefits to act as the carrot.

 

So I think there does have to be some other form of carrot, but I agree that it cannot be in the form of resources, or at least any direct economic benefit has to be vastly outweighed by the costs.

 

These could take the form of character development (e.g. unique discipline runes, relics, and artifacts), economic incentives (e.g. increased chance of crafting success or reduced recipe cost), or just unique forms of gameplay, but I think you have to add something else just to make the worlds "populate-able." If they die thereafter, that's just the system working.

Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

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...