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

How Many Winners Can There Be? (Can Multiple Sides Win?)

Recommended Posts

iox4R6x.jpg

 

 

 

There are 6-12 multiple sides, but how many of those can actually 'win'?

 

I heard the term 'kneel' appear. How does that work?

 

What determines a 'loss'?

Edited by ZtyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if winning is determined by who survives? Survival and keeping your castle could be a way to determine victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess only one faction would win... Would be kinda pointless to have a 12 faction war where 6-7 factions can win.

Everyone wins!  No hard feelings!


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

What if winning is determined by who survives? Survival and keeping your castle could be a way to determine victory.

That actually sounds pretty interesting.

 

Have a type of world where the primary goal is not to defeat one another but simply to survive, alone or with allies.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That actually sounds pretty interesting.

 

Have a type of world where the primary goal is not to defeat one another but simply to survive, alone or with allies.

 

Nothing sounds more exiting to me than 200 players hiding from eachother for 6 months -.- 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing sounds more exiting to me than 200 players hiding from eachother for 6 months -.- 

Well, there would be many other things to do.

Like the Hunger trying to slay the heroes of the gods in an attempt to overthrow them at last.

 

Would be pretty boring if people just hid.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing sounds more exiting to me than 200 players hiding from eachother for 6 months -.- 

 

There is still an incentive to attack to make sure that your rivals do not survive. So your scenario would never happen in reality.

Edited by ZtyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still an incentive to attack to make sure that your rivals do not survive. So your scenario would never happen in reality.

 

No, if the game rewards all survivors then there is no incentive to reduce the number of survivors and strong incentive not to risk your own survival. I gain nothing by killing others and can lose much by trying.

 

An "all survivors win" ruleset would absolutely turn into "200 people hiding from each other". Which is why it's a horrible idea.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still an incentive to attack to make sure that your rivals do not survive. So your scenario would never happen in reality.

 

remember SUN self-sieging for months on end?

 

People will avoid fighting ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there are a number of options with the win conditions and it's likely that we'll see a wide range of what constitutes a win and how many winners there actually are in a campaign.

 

Dregs FFA Full loot ruleset might have a campaign where there can only be one actual winner - the last person standing.  It might have a ruleset where whoever holds the most territory wins and others "kneel" (agree to be vassals- noncompeting and helping to fight - followers) and get more export rights than those that lose.

 

Faction ruleset might have whatever faction holds the most territory wins or kills the most ogres or crafts the most goods while simultaneously destroying the most strongholds etc.

 

Regardless of how many factions are playing or how many people are playing, there will probably be only one faction or person winning.  The Dregs will be the toughest ruleset to win in but the rewards will also be the best there.


pixS8Wt.jpg


The Chronicles of Crowfall           The Free Lands of Azure            RIP Doc Gonzo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if the game rewards all survivors then there is no incentive to reduce the number of survivors and strong incentive not to risk your own survival. I gain nothing by killing others and can lose much by trying.

 

An "all survivors win" ruleset would absolutely turn into "200 people hiding from each other". Which is why it's a horrible idea.

 

The incentive is to stay ahead of your rivals and decrease the amount of resources that they can export. Also, you don't risk anything by attacking except expendable gear/durability on your gear. You might actually have fun PvPing. You just need to attack when you are not vulnerable/being sieged yourself.

 

Furthermore, what if you gain resources for attacking and defeating your enemy?

 

Then suddenly you have a multi-faceted strategic game where you have to decide to play conservatively or take risks. Risk vs. reward. To me that seems to be the game that we're waiting for.

 

 

I think that there are a number of options with the win conditions and it's likely that we'll see a wide range of what constitutes a win and how many winners there actually are in a campaign.

 

Dregs FFA Full loot ruleset might have a campaign where there can only be one actual winner - the last person standing.  It might have a ruleset where whoever holds the most territory wins and others "kneel" (agree to be vassals- noncompeting and helping to fight - followers) and get more export rights than those that lose.

 

Faction ruleset might have whatever faction holds the most territory wins or kills the most ogres or crafts the most goods while simultaneously destroying the most strongholds etc.

 

Regardless of how many factions are playing or how many people are playing, there will probably be only one faction or person winning.  The Dregs will be the toughest ruleset to win in but the rewards will also be the best there.

 
VvErW7Z.jpg
 
 
Yes, well. That's why I asked this question. We need the developers to answer what kind of victory conditions they have in mind.
 
Edited by ZtyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of the interviews on last kickerstarter day Todd Coleman mentioned some things that were relevant to this:

 

He specifically stated that the the three faction campaign had only winners and losers. No second place.

 

Furthermore the kneel option was available in some campaigns which would give a level between winning and losing. This option was *not* permanent within the campaign and could be retracted to betray your overlord. Kneeling is swearing your factions loyalty to another faction. So in a guild vs guild sense smaller guilds could team up. Or perhaps in a FFA campaign players may all swear to one player.

 

How a winner is determined is based on the campaign. One victory condition mentioned was acquiring the most of certain resources (gold, iron, etc) and a special resources known as bloodstone was specifically mentioned. Speculation: Most likely survival based campaign would also be based on such other victory conditions. So that if you were still alive, but just hid offline and never amassed bloodstone/iron/victory points then you are just as much a loser as the ones who died. You could decide to wait a week or two into the campaign offline to let the population die down, but then everyone still alive is that much ahead of you in gear and score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIn Conditions:

 

-kill everyone (the top 100 or so will get loot, based on their ranking)

-get most points (the top faction with the most points will win, how to gain points? Kill Enemy faction people or donate ressources to your god's faction)

-Survive (Add a high warmth drain mechanic and make people fight for food and resources. They can't just hide, as that would kill them slowly. Last 100 or so getting the load the could carry to the "transport shrine". Which is a big meaty death trap, full with ambushed and heavily guarded by everyone.)

 

I can think of many more.

Simply said.

For each possible style, theres a way to determine who wins. How he wins. And why he wins.

Even for "survive 2 months" would work well.

 

Remember there's mechanics here that will make hiding somewhere useless:

-winter

-warmth

-food

-ressources need to get shipped to that one point.

 

I would play on a survive world.

I think that might be the most bloody one of them all.

As backstabbing your ally .. could net you in a day or two more. You will be constantly watching your back.

While freezing slowly to death or either battling in a huge group to survive, just another day.

 

Maybe each day you survive you will be able to get more of the things you stored up in that "shrine bag", but the game will oly end when the numbers are reduced to a certain amount!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that you have a winner, you have those that kneeled to the winner and share a bit of the spoils (if allowed in that ruleset) and you have the rest (losers). That one winner could be a faction, a guild, an individual, etc. depending on the ruleset. Winners will not only need to be good at combat, but also leadership, as people won't kneel to a unpleasant person (or will kneel but stab him in the back later). This could, again could, create a system where the best combat players aren't necessarily the winners, but, instead, the folks who can actually lead are the consistent winners.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that you have a winner, you have those that kneeled to the winner and share a bit of the spoils (if allowed in that ruleset) and you have the rest (losers). That one winner could be a faction, a guild, an individual, etc. depending on the ruleset. Winners will not only need to be good at combat, but also leadership, as people won't kneel to a unpleasant person (or will kneel but stab him in the back later). This could, again could, create a system where the best combat players aren't necessarily the winners, but, instead, the folks who can actually lead are the consistent winners.

The kneeling part sounds quite intriguing.

Though I wonder what purpose it would have for the losing party not to kneel.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIn Conditions:

 

-kill everyone (the top 100 or so will get loot, based on their ranking)

-get most points (the top faction with the most points will win, how to gain points? Kill Enemy faction people or donate ressources to your god's faction)

-Survive (Add a high warmth drain mechanic and make people fight for food and resources. They can't just hide, as that would kill them slowly. Last 100 or so getting the load the could carry to the "transport shrine". Which is a big meaty death trap, full with ambushed and heavily guarded by everyone.)

 

I can think of many more.

Simply said.

For each possible style, theres a way to determine who wins. How he wins. And why he wins.

Even for "survive 2 months" would work well.

 

Remember there's mechanics here that will make hiding somewhere useless:

-winter

-warmth

-food

-ressources need to get shipped to that one point.

 

I would play on a survive world.

I think that might be the most bloody one of them all.

As backstabbing your ally .. could net you in a day or two more. You will be constantly watching your back.

While freezing slowly to death or either battling in a huge group to survive, just another day.

 

Maybe each day you survive you will be able to get more of the things you stored up in that "shrine bag", but the game will oly end when the numbers are reduced to a certain amount!

Kill rankings can be exploited by killing alts or friends.

 

Points rankings can also be exploited.

 

Donating resources into an NPC void? A God? OVER MY DEAD BODY. Why would I waste my time to gather resources and then give them back to the game? >.< The resources must belong to me until they don't anymore.

 

Drain mechanic cant work because some people will be offline and you cant punish for being offline except their castle might get sieged.

 

The big meaty death trap as u call it is a bad solution because it will favour the zerg and it will be random who wins because its a big huge battle. Its not fun to put everyone in a cage and watch who wins. You need to put everyone on a battlefield and see who wins instead. The cage is too chaotic. There has to be room for strategic maneuvers, pushing ahead, pulling back, defending your castle. That kind of thing. Not the meaty death trap u talked about. That will quickly drive people to quit the game.

 

Backstabbing ur allies is not a solution. If u kneel and then backstab. Thats going to categorize your guild as untrustworthy in most cases. And generally, backstabbing is not a satisfying thing to do. I can understand pragmatic political play where u have to do what is best for ur guild, but that can be done without backstabbing.

 

 

The kneeling part sounds quite intriguing.

Though I wonder what purpose it would have for the losing party not to kneel.

 
I would not allow my enemies to kneel before me if I can win without their support. Why be nice to your enemy after you have defeated him? He will just crush you at the first chance for revenge that he gets.
Edited by ZtyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the losing party would like to kneel in most or all cases. The question is, why would the proposed victor accept the kneel?


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not allow my enemies to kneel before me if I can win without their support. Why be nice to your enemy after you have defeated him? He will just crush you at the first chance for revenge that he gets.

 

Ah, yeah.

Wasn't thinking about the accepting of a kneel.

 

Good point.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kill rankings can be exploited by killing alts or friends.

 

 
Pretty much every system has a method of being gamed if you have multiple accounts you are willing to use available to multiple factions. Ways to mitigate this include: kills are diminished per account (not character) killed. So if you kill one of bob's characters, your reward is reduced every additional time (to the point of being worthless). Also obvious exploitation would be actionable. Logs are kept of everything.
 
Points rankings can also be exploited.

 

 
Again, every system can be gamed, however without knowing the actual system you are just writing this off as "there is probably a way around it so why bother" if thats your mindset, then don't bother.
 
Donating resources into an NPC void? A God? OVER MY DEAD BODY. Why would I waste my time to gather resources and then give them back to the game? >.< The resources must belong to me until they don't anymore.
This is already a confirmed victory condition for some campaigns. You will have to bring comfort to yourself however possible. Maybe you should avoid those campaigns.
 
Drain mechanic cant work because some people will be offline and you cant punish for being offline except their castle might get sieged.

 

You absolutely can and DO punish players for being offline in many many games. Pretty much every MMO has some aspect of: Daily rewards, quests, conversion, lockout timers. These mean if you miss a day or week or whatever the cooldown duration is, you can NEVER make it up. The purpose of these is to encourage players to log in every day to maintain populations when content has stagnated. This is in addition to the fact you have lost the opportunity to acquire resources in this time.
 
Backstabbing ur allies is not a solution. If u kneel and then backstab. Thats going to categorize your guild as untrustworthy in most cases. And generally, backstabbing is not a satisfying thing to do. I can understand pragmatic political play where u have to do what is best for ur guild, but that can be done without backstabbing.

 

There is a sucker born every minute. You can choose never to betray or never trust someone who has betrayed anyone before. But the difference between traitors and heroes is who's side you are on. George Washington was a traitor, but he was still fairly popular for those that he defected TO. Also you are out of hand discounting the long con. Your guild sells itself every campaign for a year and almost guarantees victory. So much so that other guilds rely on you as much as themselves. Then when a big campaign comes, you decide that: Nope, this time its for me.

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...