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

City Sieging Explored

Recommended Posts

Makes me wonder if escorting a Bloodstone with a caravan will also be combined with a caravan full of materials for the embargo.  Hmmm.  


yTzeAMV.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you would mean by no victory points. Even on the Dregs there will need to be win conditions so not sure what it matters what the actual mechanic is to determine the winner. Call it victory points, cal it win conditions met or w/e its all the same really.

 

It's not the same. From Strategy FAQ:

 

5. Can you describe the Victory Condition rules for a given Campaign?

Sure. Let’s assume that we join a Campaign on the “Infected” Worlds. That means this is a Faction-based Campaign; i.e. the players are broken up into three teams: Order, Balance and Chaos.

Each Campaign has a duration, let’s say its 3 months.

The goal of the ORDER faction is to amass the most Victory Points before the World expires.

The goal of the CHAOS faction is the same.

BALANCE doesn’t gain victory points in this system, however. The goal of the BALANCE faction is to try and end the Campaign with ORDER and CHAOS having roughly the same number of Victory Points; i.e. no clear winner between the other two.

In other words:

If Order ends the game with 400 points and Chaos with 100, Order wins.

If Chaos ends the game with 400 points and Order with 100, Chaos wins.

If Order ends the game with 270 points and Chaos with 230 points – i.e. Order was ahead, but it wasn’t a decisive victory – then Balance wins.

In other words, to win this Campaign, the players in the Balance Faction will have to be alternately changing sides, to try and keep either of the other two Factions from pulling too far ahead. If the difference between Order and Chaos at the end of the match is less than 30% of the total, Balance wins.

 

Sure, I can stand victory points in pre-defined (and huge) factions rulesets. But this ain't Game of Thrones.

Lannisters would have won Westeros long before the story reached an end.. and as sneaky_squirrel said, points kills emergent gameplay.

 

What I wish for the Dregs, is something like this:

 

I'll take this chance to talk about the UNCLE BOB analogy again. From the very beginning it seemed clear to me that what you wanted to do was to emulate the Shadowbane experience minus servers stagnation.. that's why I loved the Risk analogy. I partially hated it too, because I didn't understand the necessity of bringing outside mechanisms in order to 'end' the game. In RISK all you have to do is conquer the entire map.. in that sense a game can't last forever and it simpy won't.

 

If Shadowbane had an ending condition like RISK, it wouldn't have suffered from server stagnation in the first place.

 

Example: What if one major alliance (aka the one with more holdings) could at some point ask an oath of allegiance to the alliances on the server with at least one holding? If everyone agrees to it, the former is declared winner and server resets itself. If one alliance doesn't, the others will make sure to take their holding. If many alliances won't swear loyalty, game continues. This is just an idea I wrote a few weeks ago on this forum, and I am sure it isn't perfect (or unexploitable).. but the main idea is: players should decide when the game ends. Not every single player, of course.. but at least the ones with political influence.

 

P.S. As previously discussed: in the case Uncle Bob wouldn't want to win, he could be 'forced to' by a call vote mechanism by other alliances.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3258-lets-talk-about-campaign-permanence/?p=80493

 

What happens when you introduce victory points in Risk?

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Strategy FAQ:

 

 

Sure, I can stand victory points in pre-defined (and huge) factions rulesets. But this ain't Game of Thrones.

Lannisters would have won Westeros long before the story reached an end.. and as sneaky_squirrel said, they kills emergent gameplay.

 

What I wish for the Dregs, is something like this:

 

 

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3258-lets-talk-about-campaign-permanence/?p=80493

 

ya, I wish that their win conditions actually work for what they initially advertised: to fight stagnation.

 

As long as there is a fight to be had, as long as players still want to battle it out, campaigns shouldn't end.

Imaginary Victory Points certainly don't fit in this concept if you asked me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey gang,

 
Today's update focuses on City Sieging ...

 

What would be the potential risk/resources involved in this scenario?

 

The guild with the city is risking their entire city - which i assume they've spent days or weeks building, if they lose, it's gone forever and they have nothing.    MASSIVE risk.

 

So what is guild 2 risking?  It seems that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.   Furthermore, guild 1 can't even take revenge on them, because they have no city or anything of value.     Not risking anything makes for bad world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update.  For those with furrowed brow about the bloodstone campaigns and victory points, remember there are a lot of different rulesets now. 

 

I can imagine a Dregs campaign set to "one winner" and literally the last player left standing wins.   If you die, you get bounced off the planet and go out with nothing.

Spring starts with 500 players on the planet and by the time Winter comes there are 20 left.  A week later 10 and then down to 3 as the top 3 survivalists stalk each other, relentless.  One goes down (pit trap!) and the last 2 have an epic fight set on the ruins of a castle no one had time to rebuild.  You want a point free, winner takes all system - there ya go.  It's possible within the structure CF is building.

 

 

There will be a lot of different campaigns and my suggestion is that if you're concerned about the win conditions you start brainstorming win conditions you'd like to see and post them.  There's a thread somewhere about it.  The bloodstone campaign is one of a gazillion options and the only limit to the win conditions is the creativity of the devs.  I think we'll be fine.


pixS8Wt.jpg


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^

 

The year is 2134, average planet temperature is 98° farheneit and there are still people that think Dregs is a solo ruleset.

 

...

 

Dregs is GvG with friendlyfire active even for guild members (or at least, unchanged).

This was confirmed by Todd in several interviews and on Shadowbane subforum.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya, I wish that their win conditions actually work for what they initially advertised: to fight stagnation.

 

As long as there is a fight to be had, as long as players still want to battle it out, campaigns shouldn't end.

Imaginary Victory Points certainly don't fit in this concept if you asked me.

eh, just sounds like semantics to me. Players ARE the ones who determine the winner regardless of what the win conditions are.  You don't want something thats called a victory point that is gained by players playing and defeating their foes and conquering land/objectives but you're ok with the player deciding when it ends. Seems far more arbitrary to me to just leave it to saying ok well Ive had enough lets end it now and start over than it does actually having a set goal to reach and claiming victory.

 

The concept of the game is to win the Campaigns and reap the rewards of doing so yes achieving a win condition does fit the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, just sounds like semantics to me. Players ARE the ones who determine the winner regardless of what the win conditions are.  You don't want something thats called a victory point that is gained by players playing and defeating their foes and conquering land/objectives but you're ok with the player deciding when it ends. Seems far more arbitrary to me to just leave it to saying ok well Ive had enough lets end it now and start over than it does actually having a set goal to reach and claiming victory.

 

The concept of the game is to win the Campaigns and reap the rewards of doing so yes achieving a win condition does fit the concept.

 

What I'm saying is, that the game needs to track different things, rather than "Victory Points".

I'm not saying that players can press a button and then they end the campaign out of a whim, just because it was left to them.

 

 

What I want, is that these campaigns feel as organic as possible. Let actual player conflicts (in the game or out of the game) be the driving force for actions in the game, and not some arbitrary point system, where people chase the next number.

 

Let "fun" decide their actions and not the luring thought in the back of their heads, that they need to increase the counter for whatever point system this type of campaign presented them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let actual player conflicts (in the game or out of the game) be the driving force for actions in the game, and not some arbitrary point system, where people chase the next number.

 

Couldn't find the words,but my thoughts pretty much.

Maybe it is a little like damage meters where that becomes the driving force?all about numbers going up /down...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update Todd!

 

I'm curious if the Bloodstone ruleset edges out smaller player groups. Say I'm not part of a larger guild, but choose to join the Campaign anyways. Is there a niche for me? Or would I have to choose a side early on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea behind the Bloodstone system. So maybe you have to get the Bloodstone to a specific location and then it actually takes time say, 5 or 10 minutes to sacrifice it. This could draw in other players or NPC creatures to attack your location. If you're able to defend it, you get the points. If not, someone else gets the points.

 

In order for their to be a win condition, there needs to be a point system of some sort. It just depends on how it is displayed. If you base it on territory conquest, then every time you conquer a territory a counter would go up. If you lose a territory the counter goes down. Who ever has the most territories at the end wins.

 

I feel like the Bloodstone rule set would work best if either A) the Bloodstones are finite when the world is created, meaning once they all have been found and sacrificed the campaign ends or B ) the Bloodstones are crafted somehow with higher tiered resources and highly skilled crafters. Maybe it could take multiple crafters.

 

*Edited: Apparently if you put a 'B' next to a ')' it creates a cool guy smiley. Ha!

Edited by Xerullian

"To live, will be an awfully big adventure"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is, that the game needs to track different things, rather than "Victory Points".

I'm not saying that players can press a button and then they end the campaign out of a whim, just because it was left to them.

 

 

What I want, is that these campaigns feel as organic as possible. Let actual player conflicts (in the game or out of the game) be the driving force for actions in the game, and not some arbitrary point system, where people chase the next number.

 

Let "fun" decide their actions and not the luring thought in the back of their heads, that they need to increase the counter for whatever point system this type of campaign presented them.

So you don't want to see the scoreboard. Thats fine, but the scoreboard does have to exist. The Campaign does have to end at some point and that is done by the players accumulating or reaching what ever mechanic is used to determine the winner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't want to see the scoreboard. Thats fine, but the scoreboard does have to exist. The Campaign does have to end at some point and that is done by the players accumulating or reaching what ever mechanic is used to determine the winner. 

 

There's a whole lot of difference between "accumulating" and "reaching", that's all we're saying.

Victory points as described in the Bloodstone FAQ are meant to be accumulated.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be cool if the bloodstone counts were confidential to the guild, maybe even to officers.

This would create some protected information that would be politically significant. I wouldn't want a scoreboard until the end of the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wanna be down on an early concept but...hurm, that seemed a bit...meh to me. I'm more into a world of PVP with many varities of PVP to take part in, this sounded more like a PVP instance concept similar to PVP in WOW. I hope Crowfall will be bigger and deeper than this sort of thing. I'm not mad or upset as I know this is just one early idea, so I'll wait and see what else and what more is in store before being worried.

 

My issue is I can do similar in many MMOs and non MMOs. MMOs need to play to their strengths. What makes MMOs special are their large shared living worlds. The social aspects. The consequences. All of this sounded very mini gameish, almost "small" to me. Maybe I'm not understanding it. How long would that process take? How much distance is being covered/how big is that map? If its 3 months of fighting (or even a few days) to accomplish all that then I'm not worried. If that was a few hours I'm feelin a bit deflated because I can already scratch that itch. I came here to stratch a new/different on hehe.

 

So I guess what I come down to was the scale of all of that. If the majority of your guildmates are hauling that thing and literally hours of travel away from that city when it gets attacked, then HELL YEAH! That would be epic. That version I would be very excited about. Spending days on the road, hauling this thing, worrying about the exposed city, thats an adventure, a journey! If my guild gets in vent and says "enemies here" and I can zip back in 5 minutes I think the concept falls apart.

Edited by Tierless

I role play a wordsmith.

 

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...