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

City Sieging Explored

Recommended Posts

The rules could be updated, things can change, and what worked before might not later. Fantastic. Good to see that no strict play style will be required. Hey.... after all if a rule set isn't liked or fails, they can just opt it out of future rotations right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...I love the whole concept of city sieges...and was hoping to see/read more stuff about that....

 

and we did..sort of...but actually what we got was a video covering part of the combat FAQ...fair enough...

 

here's my thing...part of me is VERY happy at the tidbots of new that were let slipped....we now know building our city involves wall and building

placement...a HUGE sigh of relief here...

 

downside...and I'm only giving my Opinion here.....I think I truly despise the completely artificial bloodstone gimmick... imo it reeks of all I tend not to like..

 

my concern is that this chasing all over for completely artificial "win conditions" will forcivly drag gameplay into just that....games...as opposed to a "warsim"

 

I'll probably just have to get over it.....call me silly...but I just want the Player driven conflict and politics...not game mechanics imposed on a "war"

 

could just be me...

And that's perfectly fine. That's the reason for the different rulesets. I know i'd like to give this a shot, because I like how it could potentially level the playing field in terms of guild size. However, should it turn out to be meh, I'll have no issue switching to a ruleset more to my tastes.

Edited by Raizure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and there's the crux underlying an awesome facet of the Design we've been shown so far...

 

they can always change things up after a horribad Campaign. ..yes?

 

now...I don't think the Bloodstone mechanic is bad...it's actually a pretty good mechanism of scoring for the purposes of achieving a victory condition as it were...a decent way for a Team to show some skills...as well as opening up a myriad of counter play....

 

my thing is not liking the usage of "points" or "score"....that being said I do understand looking at and trying out as many approaches to solving the Riddle as within the Devs collective imaginations.....

 

count me in as still eagerly awaiting further Info...


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exciting update! I appreciate the potential range of strategies and outcomes - could make for a much more interesting and dynamic game. Looking forward to more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...I love the whole concept of city sieges...and was hoping to see/read more stuff about that....

 

and we did..sort of...but actually what we got was a video covering part of the combat FAQ...fair enough...

 

here's my thing...part of me is VERY happy at the tidbots of new that were let slipped....we now know building our city involves wall and building

placement...a HUGE sigh of relief here...

 

downside...and I'm only giving my Opinion here.....I think I truly despise the completely artificial bloodstone gimmick... imo it reeks of all I tend not to like..

 

my concern is that this chasing all over for completely artificial "win conditions" will forcivly drag gameplay into just that....games...as opposed to a "warsim"

 

I'll probably just have to get over it.....call me silly...but I just want the Player driven conflict and politics...not game mechanics imposed on a "war"

 

could just be me...

 

The bloodstone setup is a specific condition, and all campaigns revolve around a specific condition to gain VPs. Bloodstone is a little contrived, yes, but it's purposely contrived to meet the design goal: Allow raiders to win a campaign map that still imparts value upon fortifications.

 

At the end of the day every campaign will have some sort of mechanical "do this to get points" setup. If bloodstone seems too gimmicky, I'd imagine there's also an option that just says "Own territory" but in the end every war has an objective. Sometimes the objective is more realistic, occupy all of the contested area (or most of it) and sometimes it's more gamey (sacrifice bloodstones, hold the magic flag in your shrine, protect the widget of majesty while destroying your opponent's)

 

However, because crowfall's campaign system is founded upon win conditions, there's always going to be one central thing to do that rewards VPs, and the one with the most VPs at the end of it all will win.


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

I love that they have the plans for those guilds that will establish themselves and a plan for the rest of people who may not want to do that. Seems like an awesome game type.


Deadman; FIGHTER OF THE LIFE MAN, ooooAAAAH AHHHHH! CHAMPION OF THE... Oh. That's not how it goes...

http://www.twitch.tv/alt_delete - Alt Delete Gaming: Lose Ctrl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have no beef with bloodstone mechanic itself, I am worried about potential victory point farming between friendly guilds.

 

Then there's that I really don't like raw victory points as a score. Yet I cannot conjure anything better to substitute the whole mechanic with whilst the original intent remains. But I'd want to, I'd love to see campaigns where we just "go to war:" The best guild wins, and the campaign ends and a fresh match starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that bloodstones are just one ruleset with 'go to war' as being another.

 

I expect to see bloodstones more in the faction based campaigns and all out war being the natural state in GvG and 'down'

 

 

Re: Points not so keen on this nomenclature either. Maybe some mystified 'blood gain' or sth along the line sits better with a relative percentage value instead of hard points?

Edited by Angier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to know is how resources fit into this grand scale siege warfare?

 

Most MMO's that I've played that had any sort of siege mechanic failed invariably because resources were effectively infinite.  Players characters usually require nothing to sustain themselves, and thus holding a city or fort by extension doesn't really require anything on the part of the players, besides some static resources for upgrades etc.

 

Which in turn means you can have a near unlimited number of players hold or take a position, and thus siege warfare often becomes little more then who has more players on their side that can fight the longest.  Nothing else matters but player numbers.

 

 

See the thing is about real warfare, is that solders need to eat.  A lot.  And the bigger the army the more food and equipment they need, which means they need supply lines, which in turn requires infrastructure.  Cut off a supply line and you can starve an enemy.  And thus you get a lot of tactics and strategy as a result.

So far we know there will be some sort of equipment decay mechanic, so that will require resources.  There is warmth, whatever that is. 

 

But I wonder if there would be a hunger mechanic, where your character needs to eat regularly to survive.  This would esp play in well with the idea of seasons and The Hunger, where resources become more and more scarce over time.  And so you need to as a guild to plan ahead, collect and store resources early for usage in later seasons.

 

 

Which in turn could lead to conflict, as smaller groups of players might very well starve to death if they can't get resources, which could lead to banditry.

Attacking supply lines, stealing their stuff, etc.

 

It would also keep any guild from getting too big, as they need upkeep in order to maintain such a large number of players.  It's not impossible to manage so many players, but it would require a lot of organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have no beef with bloodstone mechanic itself, I am worried about potential victory point farming between friendly guilds.

 

Then there's that I really don't like raw victory points as a score. Yet I cannot conjure anything better to substitute the whole mechanic with whilst the original intent remains. But I'd want to, I'd love to see campaigns where we just "go to war:" The best guild wins, and the campaign ends and a fresh match starts.

 

 

Define best. Then wait half a second until the skilled guilds start strategising to maximise whatever measure(s) you used in your definition.

 

 

There is no way around this, however victory is determined is de facto a score that you will maximise if you like winning. If people want to get touchey feely about not liking something to be called a score thats a lack of understanding on their part.


David Sirlin's Balancing Multiplayer Games should be mandatory reading for all gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so freaking awesome! I can't stop watching all the youtube videos over and over again when I read a new post about the game, haha!


7vqpSHG.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey gang,

 
Today's update focuses on City Sieging -- a key element of the Crowfall vision.  Building, defending and sieging of fortifications is a primary focus of the Campaign design, and the activity around which most (if not all) the win conditions will be centered. At a high level, this system should allow players to build fortified strongholds dynamically in the world (i.e. dropping castle wall segments, towers, buildings, etc) and then using those fortifications as a combination "home base/staging area" to control the surrounding area and the materials produced there.  
 
This video walks through an example of a City Siege scenario between two guilds... and we've also updated the FAQ a bit, to fix a few errors and clarify the idea a bit. 
 

Apr_7_2015_YoutubeThumb.png

 

A few notes on this scenario:
 
- yes, it's simplified -- and it also covers a lot of ground, quickly!  This is meant to be a companion piece to the Campaign FAQ, so if you have questions, read the FAQ first!
 
- this scenario would be most likely to occur in late Summer or Fall of the Campaign, since the guild in question appears relatively secure in their position and the local points of interest are discovered/well-known.  
 
- the Bloodstones ruleset was created with a secondary purpose: technically, the second guild (Kane's Fist) isn't shown as "owning" a city.  This ruleset would open up the possibility for a landless guild (i.e. a mercenary company, or as we like to call them, a "band of roving thugs") to generate victory points and win the Campaign.  Easy?  No.  Possible?  Maybe!
 
Additionally, remember that this is a high-level description; things like warmth and construction time, placement of siege equipment and material production aren't referenced, to keep the scenario simple.  In actual gameplay, the tactical decisions made by each team prior to the siege would likely provide a huge "swing factor" and dramatically alter the outcome.  
 
Again, this is only an example!  And as the video says, the most important thing to remember is: YOU GUYS will decide if this is a valid scenario/strategy, or not!  These aren't scripted events. Our job is to provide the tools; your job is to figure out how to use them to your advantage.
 
That's it for today! Beginning this week, we will be posting game-related updates on Tuesdays and Fridays with occasional founders/team updates on Wednesdays. So, more to come later this week, and thanks again as always!
cleardot.gif

 

This was beautiful :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess I'll elaborate on my previous statement and try to clear up why it's not just semantics for me.

 

At the beginning they kept bringing up their Uncle Bob Scenario and their plan to fight stagnation and by this, their whole campaign concept. This is why we have campaigns; to not have a dying game, to keep things fresh.

Having campaigns end, just for the sake of having them end is not what this should be about.

And these victory points do exactly that. They replace one flawed mechanic with another one.

 

Let's assume the campaign ends when someone reaches 10 points. Here are a couple scenarios how this might pan out:

 

  • The one they hope how it'll pan out: Wins are being traded, the score is 5:5 in the middle of the campaign, one guild gets the momentum and the campaign ends 10:6. Fits in with their season concept.
  • 5:0 after a few weeks, the losing guild stops logging in, ACE has to manually adjust the campaign and end it. The Victory Points did absolutely nothing to fight stagnation, it did the exact opposite.
  • Campaign ends with 9:10 and both parties are annoyed, because good fights were to be had and the game just tells them, that for whatever reason the campaign is over. Don't forget that this is still a game and we play it to have fun. Us PvP players value a good fight way more than some random ass points or whatever pixels you throw at us for a reward. Take away good fights from us and you will have us leave faster than you might think.

 

A point system is inherently flawed, because it just brings up different issues, that will need fixing as well.

 

 

The process that leads to stagnation in territory control PvP games is not what was at fault. All the fights were fun and that is what we played these games for.

Shadowbane and Darkfall didn't need to give additional incentives for players to want to fight each other. Political agenda developed on their own.

In the video Todd keeps repeating that they give us the tools and the gameplay will emerge out of it.

Why do we need those points then? Let players decide what they want to fight over and don't hold a huge scoreboard over them, which inevitably alters a player's playstyle.

 

 

Think outside the box and don't bring in "hard" victory conditions. Let's go back to the stagnation issue, which means that players are leaving a campaign and leave it to die.

Use exactly that to track a campaigns advancement and its eventual end: Player Numbers!

 

How many people of a certain guild still log in on a weekly basis. How much land does that guild take/lose each week? Is there a correlation between these 2 numbers?

Is a guild mass recruiting? Are a lot of guilds currently allying and a huge world war is about to happen?

Did a new guild just enter the campaign at a later point? Is that guild known to always ally up with another guild that's already in that campaign. Do guilds share a lot of tenants in their EK? Will we see a 90:10 scenario in terms of fighting power?

 

This is how I want to see a campaign's advancement being tracked. Seasons should change according to big events in the campaign and not because Guild A and B jerked each other for Bloodstones aka victory points.

 

 

I don't have high hopes for this atm, because Bloodstones are kinda omnipresent atm. Be it on Kickstarter, this siege concept and so on. They seem to like the idea, but I think it's inherently flawed.

Try it out and keep it in the FvFvF campaigns, but please think about why we PvP guilds kept bashing our heads in for decades. It's not victory points, that much I can tell you. Don't taint the dregs with such a system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ACE want a trophy for their campaign, because it's a part strategy game and the setting is competing like sports.

Otherwise all the analogies used in CF is pointless, because it's like talking about weather instead when discussing hockey,

and it doesn't make sense.  ^_^


MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have high hopes for this atm, because Bloodstones are kinda omnipresent atm. Be it on Kickstarter, this siege concept and so on. They seem to like the idea, but I think it's inherently flawed.

Try it out and keep it in the FvFvF campaigns, but please think about why we PvP guilds kept bashing our heads in for decades. It's not victory points, that much I can tell you. Don't taint the dregs with such a system.

 

- And you need to score a goal or get a point in sports to achieve victory. It's just unusual in mmos to use that term concerning victory conditions. I like the idea, because I enjoy sports and it's a definition factor which decide the outcome of a campaign, and I think it's essential to create a different game mechanic than we are used to in the other games so it feels kind of new and exciting challenge.
 
New York Rangers won the President Trophy in NHL last night, of course, that's a great achievement to be the top of the league, and millions of fans
enjoy it much as I do, but it also reminds us fans that the real trophy is Stanley Cup, of course, which also the hardest to achieve compare to most sports.
I can't explain it better than that, @Freeze.
 
I'm more worried about slow character progression to be honest. I also think they used the EvE online analogy based on slow character progression, unfortunately. I wish that Crowfall was not an mmo at all to be honest - so much boring time sinks instead to create a quick pace progression just like moba.
But I think our combat designer love EvE online character progression and use all the time sink from that game into Crowfall.

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

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...