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

City Sieging Explored

Recommended Posts

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.

 

While I am not going to state exactly what freeze described above (as he pretty much covered the points on the flaws of point-based systems) you do realize that when that maximization comes. We'll do pretty damn annoying things that people would inherently consider cheating.

Example scenario: 30 guilds join a campaign. Within these 3 guilds are SD, TSP & W. SD, TSP & W want to have a three-way ultimate showdown between each other, but the 27 guilds are pretty much of annoyance to make that happen. SD, TSP & W trade victory points until we are ahead of 100 points to all other 27 guilds. The 27 guilds have no idea that the three have somehow exploited the system via friendly trades, ensuring that only the 3 guilds can compete for victory within the campaign. This leaves the 27 guilds with two potential scenarios: A. Quit the campaign they can no longer win, B. do friendly trades themselves. In either case the original intent of the campaign is ruined by exploitation of the point system.

 

We still have two years to figure out a way to give players proper tools to determine who has won and who has lost. We don't need hard coded scoreboard for that.

Edited by nehemia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that the Bloodstones concept create diversity needed in a campaign, because like Shadowbane not all players and guilds owns a city -
so I enjoy the idea to be honest.
It also create additional strategies for sure, because if we feel that we've more than enough defenders in a siege - you can send an ally guild
to score a victory point with the bloodstones concept.
If we don't care about the city - we could send all our allies to crush that ambush party to certainly score, but we will lose a city
based on that decision, and decisions in a 'true' pvp game matters.
It may not be worth it to lose a strategic city on the map with the benefits that involves for instance, but that's the beauty of the system which
players need to carefully weight throughout the campaign.
 

I don't like the 'capture the flag' comparison @JTodd mentioned in that movie, because it's not a typical capture the flag event in my opinion like in Battlefield 4.


MQfHl7c.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think most Shadowbane players want some kind of system related to sieges in general - otherwise

you can remove it completely in my opinion. And it should be possible to attack other player cities without any limitations, and let the players create alliances to cover most of the time zones to protect your empire in Crowfall.


MQfHl7c.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeze, as always - spot-on. Kudos.

 

Actually guild treaties described this way are very off-putting. And these moments concern me most.

 

  • 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.

 

Yes, that the first one. Everyone has been talking so much about 'Uncle Bob' and how to prevent it. Here it is. ^^ People do not like to lose. I met a ton of folk in PvP matches who said at some point: 'why bother?' Exactly. But matches I mentioned is about 10-15 minutes. Here is campaign that could last for a few months. How is it better then 'Uncle Bob' situation?

 

  • 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 bottom 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.

 

I've been circling around idea of campaigns for some time and this one most sad. Good campaign ends. Where there were enough good fights, worthy adversaries and general fun. Bam - world is gone. I do not like it. Often so much effort put into building right atmosphere in game, so much time spent on communications, connections established and one day - oops. You no longer have your playfield. Square one, ha-ha. Grats. Do it one more time.

 

There are a lot of SWG and Shadowbane veterans around here. Back in the day I asked myself question: why everyone who loved this game do not return into EMUs? After all there are same rulesets in some of them. And beyond obvious reasons like 'people change', 'not that time' and 'now they look ugly' :) there is one that I think that makes most interesting people never to look back: rebuilding something lost. All drama and trauma aside doing something big like building cities and logistics again just has no appeal.

 

And campaign resets every time, so even if you win you'll forfeit everything you built in that place. Yeah, you still have EK, but... Not the same. 

 

I do not know, maybe I just don't see picture right or overthink it but truth is there might be situation where no one will try to built anything. Will be just bands of mercenaries, which is fine with me but changes tone of game from titles with persistent worlds so profoundly that phrase 'game is not for everyone' became either all too literal or sarcastic. I think balancing effort of building something in campaign and still disregard it as means to victory will be most difficult task.

Edited by rolan storm

oaOnsEV.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am not going to state exactly what freeze described above (as he pretty much covered the points on the flaws of point-based systems) you do realize that when that maximization comes. We'll do pretty damn annoying things that people would inherently consider cheating.

Example scenario: 30 guilds join a campaign. Within these 3 guilds are SD, TSP & W. SD, TSP & W want to have a three-way ultimate showdown between each other, but the 27 guilds are pretty much of annoyance to make that happen. SD, TSP & W trade victory points until we are ahead of 100 points to all other 27 guilds. The 27 guilds have no idea that the three have somehow exploited the system via friendly trades, ensuring that only the 3 guilds can compete for victory within the campaign. This leaves the 27 guilds with two potential scenarios: A. Quit the campaign they can no longer win, B. do friendly trades themselves. In either case the original intent of the campaign is ruined by exploitation of the point system.

 

We still have two years to figure out a way to give players proper tools to determine who has won and who has lost. We don't need hard coded scoreboard for that.

Well if those 27 other guilds are not smart enough to figure that out then they kind of deserve to lose. I also think its safe to assume that ACE runs these scenarios in their heads as well and will be designing such rulesets with that in mind. A big selling point of the game the Devs have been saying is about politics and betrayal, so can argue your situation there is emergent gameplay and a desired effect not a game breaking exploit.

 

This is also just one of many rulesets likely to be had in the game so if having points or a scoreboard offends so much then can simply play on ones with a different win condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question in a scenario like this spawn camp could be a pretty big issue especially if all your gear is dropped with highly geared players destroying fresh spawns and keeping them from rejoining a battle will this be addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 bottom 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.

Couple more:

 

* 2-3 large guilds get together and start taking turns going 10:0 in quickest possible time. Anyone else who shows up gets steamrolled by combined effort until they log off. Soon everyone else learns not to bother with campaigns with these guilds present, and they quickly farm maximum possible relic bonuses, EKs, and gear.

* Guild with 9:0 points doesn't end it, instead they keep doing what amounts to res-killing of everyone else in the campaign.

* A guild, that doesn't care about points, but dominant, keep rolling everyone preventing all points.

* Guild with a bunch of 24/7 players optimize "low contest" off-hour times to harvest point, while losing every prime time-fight manages to reach 10 points first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Guild with a bunch of 24/7 players optimize "low contest" off-hour times to harvest point, while losing every prime time-fight manages to reach 10 points first.

 

This is particularly important to address. It also begs the question of how guilds/factions/kingdoms can even hold territory without constant, overlapping activity from its members. I'm assuming that's what the devs were trying to address with the: "for the next two hours, the city can be attacked", but there are still problems with times. What if a guild/individual cannot be active during those times?

 

This is a problem with all MMOs (if you can call it a problem), but it seems especially problematic concerning the game's concept.

I can't think of any solution that wouldn't restrict campaigns to specific time-zones, and even then it won't fix anything. I'm curious as to how the devs will address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbie here. I love the concept and like what I see. On the topic of "guild collusion", I see two potential solutions. I'm sure there are many more.

 

1) Devs are watching the campaign and can implement game events (meteor strike, anyone?) as "punishment" for collusion.

 

2) Things are allowed to proceed, but the rules are modified in future campaigns so that the collusion strategies only work ONCE.

 

And I just thought of another one. In the "3 vs 27" scenario, implement a temple or convocation area where a majority (2/3? 3/4?) of guild leaders can call down a punishment (debuff) on a group that is not playing "in-character". The gods (devs) make the judgement call as to whether the punishment is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

 

Ewww. Winning by getting bored more slowly than the other guy does not make for a fun game. All you have there is a score 'number of not bored yet people'.

 

I get what you mean, it would be nice for the worlds to only end when one group defeats all enemies. Player numbers just isn't the way to measure defeat. Percentage of PoIs controlled would be better.

 

There should definitely be a hard win condition too. An objective standard that noone can argue with. Anything with Dev input or based on non-public stats will just be unsatisfying. I can hear cries of 'you only won because..'/'we should've been the winner but...' already. This is why I am sympathetic to the enforced time limit. The ticking clock means the devs will never have to step in and annoint a winner because the campaign stagnated and one team got bored.

 

While I am not going to state exactly what freeze described above (as he pretty much covered the points on the flaws of point-based systems) you do realize that when that maximization comes. We'll do pretty damn annoying things that people would inherently consider cheating.

 

Of course. Anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't seen a game getting played before. There are bound to be people who take it so far that they avoid gud fites and just split into two guilds for win trading. Stopping that is hard mode for game design.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewww. Winning by getting bored more slowly than the other guy does not make for a fun game. All you have there is a score 'number of not bored yet people'.

 

I get what you mean, it would be nice for the worlds to only end when one group defeats all enemies. Player numbers just isn't the way to measure defeat. Percentage of PoIs controlled would be better.

 

There should definitely be a hard win condition too. An objective standard that noone can argue with. Anything with Dev input or based on non-public stats will just be unsatisfying. I can hear cries of 'you only won because..'/'we should've been the winner but...' already. This is why I am sympathetic to the enforced time limit. The ticking clock means the devs will never have to step in and annoint a winner because the campaign stagnated and one team got bored.

 

I really can't disagree more, sorry :)

 

I don't want campaigns to feel like large arenas, with time limits, score boards and whatnot. F that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think most Shadowbane players want some kind of system related to sieges in general - otherwise

you can remove it completely in my opinion. And it should be possible to attack other player cities without any limitations, and let the players create alliances to cover most of the time zones to protect your empire in Crowfall.

 

disagree on the 'attack cities without limitations' bit. one of the lessons learned from early sb was that 'ninja wall wrecking' was generally bad. The system they ended up with (with siege window hand-offs), did a munch better job of focusing the activity and making things less of a job.

 

the mandate for '24x7' coverage alliances (ie. gw2) is pretty crappy design imo, as 'winning' revolves more around who has the most people on in the least populated period than who is actually 'better'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't disagree more, sorry :)

 

I don't want campaigns to feel like large arenas, with time limits, score boards and whatnot. F that!

I think they can and will make it so its not gamey so to speak but yes the game is pretty much based on conquering your enemy and the world dying. There just needs to be a hard win condition to declare a winner, give rewards and move on to the next. The stagnation is what they are trying to avoid all together, not get close to it and end it when it gets too bad.

 

Just saying arbitrarily well we're bored lets end it, i guess you won lets go to the next. That sounds incredibly boring. All that is doing pretty much is not getting rid of the Uncle Bob situation which is their point, thats just ending the game when you get tired of Uncle bob who will still exist in that kind of system.

 

Besides, they have talked about some kind of "overtime" ruleset that extends the time like you want so maybe those rulesets will be more to your liking. Can read about it here http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3258-lets-talk-about-campaign-permanence/?p=80308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disagree on the 'attack cities without limitations' bit. one of the lessons learned from early sb was that 'ninja wall wrecking' was generally bad. The system they ended up with (with siege window hand-offs), did a munch better job of focusing the activity and making things less of a job.

 

the mandate for '24x7' coverage alliances (ie. gw2) is pretty crappy design imo, as 'winning' revolves more around who has the most people on in the least populated period than who is actually 'better'.

 

I agree with the 24/7 vulnerability. It's just utterly stupid. We're playing a game here, yet we will still have to read the cries for realism in that department. Usually from players that have never experienced any siege warfare/territory control in a game.

 

But tbh I think that WoO for cities is equally stupid. Hear me out there for a second:

What they need to achieve with city building, is that players on the one hand care enough for their pixels that they are willing to defend it no matter what, but at the same time, make a loss of it bearable, so we don't have players quitting in droves when losing something.

 

A, let's say, 2 hour vulnerability window, every evening, of your city will make this an incredible chore. Sitting around, waiting for someone to attack... every day... for weeks... all campaign long... for maybe 3-4 actual worthwhile fights. For battles that might actually be called sieges? unlikely....

"Trolololol, took you too long to bring that siege engine, the WoO closed, go home!"

But more importantly it's the boredom that will make this a really annoying mechanic.

It's different for PoI. These should frequently change hands. On a daily basis if need be. But cities und sieges should be something that stands out. They should feel like something special and sacking a town shouldn't be something occuring 5 times a week. But that might be just me.

 

I think Darkfall found a nice balance here. It had 24/7 asset "disabling". Someone could come to your city at any time and disable houses (reducing the bind capacity of the city) or disable your bank and so on. But stuff wasn't destroyed. The owners could repair it, they didn't have to rebuild. Only during sieges you could actually fully destroy buildings.

But it also took a long time. Disabling a whole city would take hours. And it also wasn't cheap. Siege equipment like cannons and warhulks weren't so readily available until later on in the game's life.

But you still had to ability to prep a city before a siege. Back and forth between attackers and defenders before the siege went live.

 

Making sieges special is what it should be all about. Not just skirmishes, but actually battles that people look forward to for days. Where actual planning goes into the fights and not just scouting on which day of the week they have the least amount of people online.

 

 

I think they can and will make it so its not gamey so to speak but yes the game is pretty much based on conquering your enemy and the world dying. There just needs to be a hard win condition to declare a winner, give rewards and move on to the next. The stagnation is what they are trying to avoid all together, not get close to it and end it when it gets too bad.

 

Just saying arbitrarily well we're bored lets end it, i guess you won lets go to the next. That sounds incredibly boring. All that is doing pretty much is not getting rid of the Uncle Bob situation which is their point, thats just ending the game when you get tired of Uncle bob who will still exist in that kind of system.

 

Besides, they have talked about some kind of "overtime" ruleset that extends the time like you want so maybe those rulesets will be more to your liking. Can read about it here http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3258-lets-talk-about-campaign-permanence/?p=80308

 

 

So many threads keep popping up about permanent campaigns and whatnot. And they're all more or less worried about the exact same thing: That it all feels like an arena and resetting will feel unnatural.

 

these Uncle Bob scenarios will happen with clear winning conditions as well. I already gave an example in one of my previous posts. They CANNOT avoid it. It's impossible. Yet they can link the victory conditions to it and at the same time avoid the other problems that occur with "hard" win conditions.

Campaigns will become stagnant, people will quit midway through them. Forcing players to grind out the rest of the victory points is just bad. They did nothing about it with their whole campaign concept, they just gave people another excuse to abandon a losing fight.

 

They always talk about just giving us the tools and let the gameplay emerge from it. A living and breathing world where politics matter...

ya I haven't seen anyone in Game of Thrones play with a scoreboard... or EVE for that matter...

 

Victory points are a lazy design, that, in the end, won't achieve what they initially intended with their campaign system.

Edited by freeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions for these design thoughts from my perspective;

How long does it take to destroy a city?

How quickly can players move the bloodstone around?

How quickly can players return to the city? (Can I leave an alt parked in the city ready to log on and defend?)

Can I just grab the stone and hide in a remote corner of the world with one person? That way nobody gets the points, and I can defend the city freely.

Edited by Narya Elentari

Kyrre Ebonlore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So many threads keep popping up about permanent campaigns and whatnot. And they're all more or less worried about the exact same thing: That it all feels like an arena and resetting will feel unnatural.

 

these Uncle Bob scenarios will happen with clear winning conditions as well. I already gave an example in one of my previous posts. They CANNOT avoid it. It's impossible. Yet they can link the victory conditions to it and at the same time avoid the other problems that occur with "hard" win conditions.

Campaigns will become stagnant, people will quit midway through them. Forcing players to grind out the rest of the victory points is just bad. They did nothing about it with their whole campaign concept, they just gave people another excuse to abandon a losing fight.

 

They always talk about just giving us the tools and let the gameplay emerge from it. A living and breathing world where politics matter...

ya I haven't seen anyone in Game of Thrones play with a scoreboard... or EVE for that matter...

 

Victory points are a lazy design, that, in the end, won't achieve what they initially intended with their campaign system.

 

Well then I have to ask, why are you here as it sounds like you don't even believe in the concept of the game. Wanting some things to be tweaked is one thing but from the sound of it you pretty much want the whole design concept of the game to be changed. I also don't think anyone can really speak intelligently on how it feels until we see it up and running and people playing the game. You also keep bring up "scoreboard" as if while we are in game there will be some kind of box on our screen flashing with numbers or popup messages while we play. Its likely that if you want you can ignore the numbers and just play but if you want to look up the progress to the win conditions you can.

 

If people know where the end point is, if they know what the goal is then they will play to that end, it won't get stagnant because you know that there is in fact an end and you can see it coming. When its long and drawn out and you're just waiting for it to end arbitrarily is when the stagnation comes in.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then I have to ask, why are you here as it sounds like you don't even believe in the concept of the game. Wanting some things to be tweaked is one thing but from the sound of it you pretty much want the whole design concept of the game to be changed. I also don't think anyone can really speak intelligently on how it feels until we see it up and running and people playing the game. You also keep bring up "scoreboard" as if while we are in game there will be some kind of box on our screen flashing with numbers or popup messages while we play. Its likely that if you want you can ignore the numbers and just play but if you want to look up the progress to the win conditions you can.

 

If people know where the end point is, if they know what the goal is then they will play to that end, it won't get stagnant because you know that there is in fact an end and you can see it coming. When its long and drawn out and you're just waiting for it to end arbitrarily is when the stagnation comes in.

 

really... you ask me why I'm here... geezus...

 

They have the guy on the team (Thomas Sitch) that made the city building and siege system of SB. I trust that he can come up with something suitable. There is no absolutely no doubt in my mind!

 

For your statement of "it needs to be played, for us to see how it is"... I don't buy into that premise...

If something looks like sheet, smells like sheet, I certainly don't have to taste it to make sure that it actually is sheet.

 

 

For the rest, the scoreboard, the stagnation, I already explained all that. You either re-read my posts and address it properly or we're done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really... you ask me why I'm here... geezus...

 

They have the guy on the team (Thomas Sitch) that made the city building and siege system of SB. I trust that he can come up with something suitable. There is no absolutely no doubt in my mind!

 

For your statement of "it needs to be played, for us to see how it is"... I don't buy into that premise...

If something looks like sheet, smells like sheet, I certainly don't have to taste it to make sure that it actually is sheet.

 

 

For the rest, the scoreboard, the stagnation, I already explained all that. You either re-read my posts and address it properly or we're done here.

Its like saying you can tell how that brand new car rides just by looking at it and reading some specs, no not really can guess and hope but won't know for sure until you get behind the wheel. This is an MMO video game we are talking about here, so no you really can't know how it feels until its played.

 

I am addressing it, which is why I'm posting and quoting..., so relax tough guy. We simply disagree no need for agro mode. I could say the same. I've been here since page 2 discussing this with others as well, can go and re-read my posts. So if just going to dismiss counters then yes we are done here.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like saying you can tell how that brand new car rides just by looking at it and reading some specs, no not really can guess and hope but won't know for sure until you get behind the wheel. This is an MMO video game we are talking about here, so no you really can't know how it feels until its played.

 

I am addressing it, which is why I'm posting and quoting..., so relax tough guy. We simply disagree no need for agro mode. I could say the same. I've been here since page 2 discussing this with others as well, can go and re-read my posts. So if just going to dismiss counters then yes we are done here.

 

If you've driven enough cars, then yes, you don't need to drive every single car out there to tell, that some of them are just inferior.

 

And it's been proven by many many games that having stats and scoreboards DO alter a person's playstyle. It's been talked about on this forum ad infinitum.

 

Don't act like I'm mean to you, when you bring absolutely nothing new to the table but repeat the same stuff over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewww. Winning by getting bored more slowly than the other guy does not make for a fun game. All you have there is a score 'number of not bored yet people'.

 

I get what you mean, it would be nice for the worlds to only end when one group defeats all enemies. Player numbers just isn't the way to measure defeat. Percentage of PoIs controlled would be better.

 

There should definitely be a hard win condition too. An objective standard that noone can argue with. Anything with Dev input or based on non-public stats will just be unsatisfying. I can hear cries of 'you only won because..'/'we should've been the winner but...' already. This is why I am sympathetic to the enforced time limit. The ticking clock means the devs will never have to step in and annoint a winner because the campaign stagnated and one team got bored.

 

Well I think the thing that will make ACE and this game stand out above the rest is that the game isn't set in stone at launch or any time really. Meaning if certain rulesets don't really work and are not very popular they can scrap or just make less Campaigns with that ruleset in favor of ones that are more liked. ACE being open to trying different things is huge.

 

But yeah I can see where there are at least a few groups forming here, with players who like to have set goals and can track the progress to the end of the Campaign and others who want a sort of more open concept. However still whether we call them hard win conditions or soft win conditions, we should all at least agree there needs to be conditions ns which the Campaign ends so it doesn't suffer from stagnation and Uncle Bob syndrome.

Edited by pang

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...