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

City Sieging Explored

Recommended Posts

Then we have that in common, as I am also at a loss for responses to your oversimplification of my points down to binary "this will/won't happen, because this one thing."

 

Consider the factors I'm pointing out, or don't. I'm just posting them. What you do with them is clearly up to you.

 

For what it's worth, I don't see what "we should all just believe that this is going to happen" really does for the design brainstorming of the game, as, by your logic, we either have to get rid of PvP, or deal with campaigns that are going to end every time someone gets a few Victory Points, or sieges a settlement, etc.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure... we all know noone quits when on the losing team in FPS games... matches never end 20 vs 11.... servers never suddenly die when there's "team stacking"

People never afk on the fountain in LoL... noone ever rage quits in MOBAs

 

 

 

 

This. I even expect a significant number of people will put a character into several campaigns and focus on one where their side gets an early lead.

 

ACE can tweak RvR to encourage the fight to stay even. The other three rulesets are going to get wildly unbalanced. Its really up to the playerbase to actually play hardball instead of just quitting


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's also why I think it would be best to make sure 99.9% of your ultimate gains don't hinge upon one thing (who won and who lost). But, it's difficult to compare it to other games in which one side can easily bask in the Pool of Advantage when Crowfall's being designed specifically so that it's much easier for the advantage to shift between teams.

 

Even with just what we DO know thus far, it seems significantly more difficult for one side to simply guarantee an advantage throughout a whole campaign. And there's plenty we don't even know yet.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ "People" will quit, yes. Then probably the game. If they lose their many months' of work, then the campaign was close to over anyway. The closer it is to the end of the campaign, the less worrisome it is if everyone quits. But even then... why would you play for 2 months and 5 days, then voluntarily forfeit all of your Embargo by quitting? Your Embargo was perfectly safe. Sure, you were only gonna get 40% of it instead of 100% for losing, but now you get 0, AND have to start over in a new campaign or just quit playing the game all-together.

 

You're misunderstanding. I'm not telling you what no one will do. I'm telling you other ways people will think, as well.

 

And I apologize for talking about this without any experience. I wasn't aware that only people who had already played Crowfall were allowed to discuss possible player behaviors in campaigns, nor was I aware you were among those who had already played it.

Embargo means nothing to dregs only players. Crowfall is born from the desire of countering server stagnation, you guys should listen carefully to what old shadowbane and darkfall players have to say, they're the only one who experienced a server like Dregs and a game like Crowfall in general.

Victory points as an accumulating resource is the death of Risk.

 

@pang: we know this won't be the only mechanic out there, but as you can see many here think it might as well be.

It's better to say things out loud now before it's too late.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ "People" will quit, yes. Then probably the game. If they lose their many months' of work, then the campaign was close to over anyway. The closer it is to the end of the campaign, the less worrisome it is if everyone quits. But even then... why would you play for 2 months and 5 days, then voluntarily forfeit all of your Embargo by quitting? Your Embargo was perfectly safe. Sure, you were only gonna get 40% of it instead of 100% for losing, but now you get 0, AND have to start over in a new campaign or just quit playing the game all-together.

 

You're misunderstanding. I'm not telling you what no one will do. I'm telling you other ways people will think, as well.

 

And I apologize for talking about this without any experience. I wasn't aware that only people who had already played Crowfall were allowed to discuss possible player behaviors in campaigns, nor was I aware you were among those who had already played it.

 

 

You will know what is the feelings to lose everything that you created in weeks of hard works with your friends only when it will happen . It is a crucial point of the gaming life of someone and not only for that game. When this will happen (and you must be sure that eventually it will if Crowfall will have some parts of what was Shadowbane) you will see your guild in great danger, many ppl will quit and will never play again that game and any other game where that kind of risk is possible, many other will leave your guild to join a bigger one to avoid part of the risk but some other will stay and help to rebuild. The only ones losing something in this situation are the people that quit. One of the best aspect of this kind of game is the risk to loose your pixels so you need to think a lot before doing everything, even write a post on the forum of the game because that can lead to have your city burned down (happened many time on Shadowbane)

I'm completely sure that none of the players of Shadowbane will quit after they will loose their pixels but also i'm sure that we will see many of the other players leaving the game after it, if you think that this will not happen it is because you never played a game like Shadowbane 

Edited by cappaspada

Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will know what is the feelings to lose everything that you created in weeks of hard works with your friends only when it will happen . It is a crucial point of the gaming life of someone and not only for that game. When this will happen (and you must be sure that eventually it will if Crowfall will have some parts of what was Shadowbane) you will see your guild in great danger, many ppl will quit and will never play again that game and any other game where that kind of risk is possible, many other will leave your guild to join a bigger one to avoid part of the risk but some other will stay and help to rebuild. The only ones losing something in this situation are the people that quit. One of the best aspect of this kind of game is the risk to loose your pixels so you need to think a lot before doing everything, even write a post on the forum of the game because that can lead to have your city burned down (happened many time on Shadowbane)

I'm completely sure that none of the players of Shadowbane will quit after they will loose their pixels but also i'm sure that we will see many of the other players leaving the game after it, if you think that this will not happen it is because you never played a game like Shadowbane 

 

People will always quit though, for various reasons. My point was you shouldn't really let that dictate how the game is made. Also if they're that type of player then perhaps they shouldn't have been playing the game in the first place. The thing that Crowfall has going for it though is having other rulesets to play on if you find one is too hardcore or strict for your play style. Instead of quiting the game outright, perhaps they will simply try another ruleset. So likely after a while those players will know not to play on Dreggs for example. Sure the first few times through the Campaigns might be a bit rough, but after people settle in and find their niche in the game I don't think it'll be as big of an issue or certainly not a game breaking one.

 

 

Embargo means nothing to dregs only players. Crowfall is born from the desire of countering server stagnation, you guys should listen carefully to what old shadowbane and darkfall players have to say, they're the only one who experienced a server like Dregs and a game like Crowfall in general.

Victory points as an accumulating resource is the death of Risk.

 

@pang: we know this won't be the only mechanic out there, but as you can see many here think it might as well be.

It's better to say things out loud now before it's too late.

 

Yeah I'm certainly not saying the SBrs are wrong on this, I'm simply saying there is and should be other options as well. From my play experience I prefer having set goals and being able to track the progress to the win conditions. To me its not a grind because its simply playing the game. You play, you achieve objectives, conquer and win. Might be easier to understand if could hear what win conditions would be like if they are not number or goal based as I haven't really seen it explained anywhere. Have only seen it said why set goals and numbers based is bad. Under what conditions is a victor determined and the Campaign ends in your preferred SB or Dregs style method?

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will always quit though, for various reasons. My point was you shouldn't really let that dictate how the game is made.

 

I think we can all agree that Crowfall is born out of Todd's desire to end server stagnation on high-end PVP games (UO pre-RE, SB, DF, etc).

Ergo they already let players-that-quit-after-they-lose-a-lot dictate how the game is made.

And that's fine, if it doesn't compromise what made the game enjoyable in the first place.

 

Yeah I'm certainly not saying the SBrs are wrong on this, I'm simply saying there is and should be other options as well. From my play experience I prefer having set goals and being able to track the progress to the win conditions. To me its not a grind because its simply playing the game. You play, you achieve objectives, conquer and win. Might be easier to understand if could hear what win conditions would be like if they are not number or goal based as I haven't really seen it explained anywhere. Have only seen it said why set goals and numbers based is bad. Under what conditions is a victor determined and the Campaign ends in your preferred SB or Dregs style method?

 

Here:

 

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

 

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.

 

Again this is just a suggestion, I am not designing Crowfall and so I haven't really given it much thought.. perhaps the concept is flawed somewhere.

But I am sure it's doable in some form.

 

One could argue that holding a city is like having "one victory point", and that my winning condition just requires an alliance to reach 50 victory points in a map with 50 total holdings. That also means, however, that an alliance can always steal points from another, and the time it takes to do so can be relatively low. Basically there needs to be a chance to defeat a declining alliance at any time, without the ghost of previously accumulated points. And that also excludes the possibility of ending the game before a clear winner arises.. if alliances are still fighting to win, there shouldn't be a reason to end the fun.

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design the game around that idea yes, I just meant that during development and after launch they shouldn't try to change the game based on whiners rage quiting.

 

And your idea sounds like it could work I wouldn't have an issue trying a Campaign with that ruleset.

 

The thing that drew me to this game was that fact that there are different rulesets and players can find their niche playstyle or a ruleset thats closest to it. Hopefully they have enough to satisfy most of our (PvP)play styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.. and since we are talking about it, I will also add that victory points based on bloodstones ARE a great idea for RvRvR servers.

 

In those kind of rulesets you always have a decent number of players in every "Reign" by design, thus one can never truly defeat the other two** (in terms of complete territory control for example). So it makes perfect sense to have a pre-definite amount of points to reach and different ways to gain them based on sieging etc, otherwise it would just be Planetside with a never-ending war going on.

 

**and that's why I hate pre-definite factions. :P

Edited by fenrisddevil

y9tj8G5.png

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'.

 

- Yes, of course. it's about how much realism ACE want in their game setting, but my post was more directed to people who're against 'new' suggestions like the 'Blood stones' system. Because it's something 'new', and some people are too eager to jump to the conclusion; that the system is easy to exploit and pointless.

However, I would rather test the system out properly in-game in alpha before I utter my opinion about it which was my point of previous post.

Edited by mythx

MQfHl7c.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point concerned me...

The fact that a keep could be destroyed very quickly?

If the Keeps can be destroyed so quickly the whole fun of siege would be gone....

The Destruction of the walls should look realistic and not "hit them ones and destroy them all"

 

any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point concerned me...

The fact that a keep could be destroyed very quickly?

If the Keeps can be destroyed so quickly the whole fun of siege would be gone....

The Destruction of the walls should look realistic and not "hit them ones and destroy them all"

 

any comments?

 

You mean the footage of a knight charging through the stone wall like it was paper? Yea that's alpha footage to demonstrate voxel tech.


The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, i think there is a bit too much concern on the point conditions out there.

 

Question for the SB types...what is the fastest you've seen a server get conquered?

 

i would almost discount the initial treachery/war/whatever servers as i wouldn't really call those competitive (you can go down to read the treachery thread in the sb forum for some history). 

 

The example I would note as being one likely to play out in the dregs would be Saedron...the last 'new' sb server.

 

The server started off with what, i'd say 4? 5? major guilds.

 

first war was fought in weeks 2-4, maybe 5. Winner of that fight then turned its attention the the next group...another 2 weeks.

 

no points, no victory conditions, just playing to win.

 

time from start to 'win', maybe 2 months.

 

Isn't that about what we're looking for? 

 

--------------------------

The thing they'll need to do is just quantify what 'winning is'.

 

I think one way to do that would be to make the 'winner's stuff' worth more.

 

given their tree mechanic, the amount of 'stuff' it drops/gives is determined by that faction/nation/guild's rank in the whole victory ladder.

Also, when you lose 'stuff', it doesn't just give points to someone else, it subtracts a percentage of that from the 'losers' total.

this would provide incentive for guilds to unite against a common enemy to prevent them from winning...thus prolonging the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have all the bloodstones you want darling..

Here,have em,have em all!!..
 
oh!?
Not feeling well ,are we?
Why don't you lie down for a bit? there there...
tumblr_nhtuolczf31sgmdkfo1_540.jpg
Muhahahaaaa!!!!  wonderful..Just have a few more bloodstones,that will do the trick..
See...
Things will all be for the better..when you're dead  :lol:
 
Actually I think being able to give corrupted bloodstones as a gift would make things so much more interesting...
Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the "victory points, BAD!" sentiments. How do you determine who wins without measuring something that essentially functions as a score (without all the rulesets just being "the last person alive, wins")?


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the "victory points, BAD!" sentiments. How do you determine who wins without measuring something that essentially functions as a score (without all the rulesets just being "the last person alive, wins")?

 

because people hate losing, and typically don't like being there for a loss.

 

i watched an opponent in sb go from 7 groups to 2, and abandon their tree after 3 failed rushes to dislodge us from our attack position. We hadn't even breached the city and they gave it up. I've seen a guild i was  in disintigrate from 50+ to 10 after their (only) city was lost. They just gave up. I guess they don't feel 'they' personnally lost if they werent there when the nail was driven into the coffin.

 

it's why in game shows (jeopardy) the first round is almost pointless, because it's possible to win the whole thing int he second. or the awesome wheel of fortune, the numbers toward the end of the show always are such that it could potentially allow the person winnign that round to win the whole thing.

 

If they have points, the point system needs to increase each 'season' relative to the previous season's leader. if the point delta isnt that much, no need to increase that much...if it's out of control...well, there still needs to either a) be hope or B) it needs to be put out of it's misery quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the "victory points, BAD!" sentiments. How do you determine who wins without measuring something that essentially functions as a score (without all the rulesets just being "the last person alive, wins")?

Have you read my posts at all?


y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have. Shy of the "everyone votes on when this ends" suggestion (which is fine, I suppose, as one option for a campaign ruleset), I don't see anything else that isn't a measurement of score. And, I realize that there's a difference between point accumulation and other types of score, but point-accumulation need not be the basis for all rulesets. So, I fail to see why point accumulation is inherently bad.

 

People have brought up plenty of perfectly valid concerns and points, but have then irrationally decided that they're all going to lead to one result, definitely, even though that result is based on a lot more than just "is there an accumulated point system? Then BAD THINGS!"


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

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...