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

How Happy Is Uncle Bob?

Recommended Posts

I was actually under the impression that most campaign would not have a fixed time limit, but rather a victory threshold which they anticipate will typically take about X months for the first guild to reach- i.e. a certain amount of Bloodstone points, controlled POI count, etc depending on the specific ruleset of that campaign. If that is indeed the case, then this concern is ill founded; by the time anyone settles into a truly dominant position they'll have crossed the victory threshold and triggered the C4 charges to go off. If that happens 3 months into a "6 month campaign" then that one just ends earlier than expected.


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

Uncle Bob is not about the domination but about skewing the game in one direction without a chance of recovery. THAT is what the reset is for. Not keeping a faction from dominating (which could be in itself one of several possible win conditions) during a campaign.

 

And regarding #2: If one faction wins by just a slight margin this means the final combat must have been pretty close and thus pretty unnerving. It's not like the end of a campaign comes all of a sudden. The progress of consumption by the hunger is a clear indicator about how much time might be left to turn the table around. And if time might be running out this still means that the factions that lost by a small margin can brag about what could've happened if the winning faction hasn't been saved by time alone ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that makes Crowfall unique is that not everyone wins.

I've seen a lot of posts on these boards with folks extolling the virtues of not being attached to pixels and I think that not only are people not going to win but in the FFA PvP Full Loot rules people might walk away from a campaign with nothing after months of play.

 

I kinda figured that out pre-kickstarter and this lil squishycore snackcake is used to the idea now.   I may play for months and the only thing I have to show for it will be some fantastic memories of a lucky blow that won a duel or the time I discovered a resource POI that no one had found yet or just the sheer fun of exploring or the time spent with my guildies as we got our first stronghold up or the time I laid waste to an entire platoon of enemy soldiers with just my wits and a slingshot.  OK the last one might not happen.

 

The only lasting thing that is guaranteed in a Crowfall campaign is the fun. The momentary triumphs, the success of a plan, the stop and stare out over the landscape and live in another world for a bit moments.   Anything above and beyond that will be wonderful and I'll happily take it but I'm not expecting from Crowfall anything but the experience of wandering and playing in the worlds right now. 

Perhaps when we get into Beta there will be enough info and experiences to know if it's more than that but for now that's the only info I have to go on. Nothing is guaranteed to a player but access to these worlds.  What you get from them will be up to you.

.


pixS8Wt.jpg


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I explained my point clearly, by the replies I'm seeing. Either that or I'm missing something...

 

In the first situation, it is when one person dominates beyond repair. It's referring to the same situation in which the devs felt the need to introduce the reset mechanism and dying worlds. Not when someone is big, but we can still make alliances or use attrition warfare to take them down.

 

In the second situation, I think you guys understood it. I just hope it doesn't come down to a clock management strategy... I wanna win my wars, not get a small lead when the time expires...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right that the majority of campaigns will end with someone being upset, but that's just how games work. 

 

It's not that this is how games work - it's that this is how people work (some of them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually under the impression that most campaign would not have a fixed time limit, but rather a victory threshold which they anticipate will typically take about X months for the first guild to reach- i.e. a certain amount of Bloodstone points, controlled POI count, etc depending on the specific ruleset of that campaign. If that is indeed the case, then this concern is ill founded; by the time anyone settles into a truly dominant position they'll have crossed the victory threshold and triggered the C4 charges to go off. If that happens 3 months into a "6 month campaign" then that one just ends earlier than expected.

This is what i thought I saw somewhere in one of Todd's Video's (Maybe a podcast)

 

I think maybe several scenarios have been thrown around, but nothing defined yet.

Edited by Kell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i thought I saw somewhere in one of Todd's Video's (Maybe a podcast)

 

I think maybe several scenarios have been thrown around, but nothing defined yet.

 

Pretty much this.  I think a lot of people on these forums get the impression the campaigns are all time based simply because a lot of people on these forums tend to use time in their examples of how long a campaign will last.  But those that use time in their examples aren't necessarily saying the campaign had a fixed time till it ended.  It's just whatever happens to be the win condition should take between 1-6 months.

 

My understanding is this.. they've given very few examples of win conditions for campaigns.  But there will be multiple win conditions and we'll be trying a lot of them out during alpha / beta to see what works.  They've mentioned time could be one way but nowhere have they said that time is the only or main way.

 

If I had to guess, I would actually expect that if time is used it's going to be more of a limit type thing so players know that if they join a certain campaign it won't last longer then a certain amount of time but depending on the win conditions it can be over much sooner.

 

 

When I see threads like these and some of the responses, it really makes me curious about who's played a PvP MMO with territory control / player politics.  Not that it's a bad thing if they / you haven't, but I kind of have the impression that those that have played one complain less or have less fear of these sorts of things happening.  That might just be me though.  But one thing people really need to realize... GW2 is a horrible example to use when comparing things to Crowfall.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that makes Crowfall unique is that not everyone wins.

 

I've seen a lot of posts on these boards with folks extolling the virtues of not being attached to pixels and I think that not only are people not going to win but in the FFA PvP Full Loot rules people might walk away from a campaign with nothing after months of play.

 

I kinda figured that out pre-kickstarter and this lil squishycore snackcake is used to the idea now.   I may play for months and the only thing I have to show for it will be some fantastic memories of a lucky blow that won a duel or the time I discovered a resource POI that no one had found yet or just the sheer fun of exploring or the time spent with my guildies as we got our first stronghold up or the time I laid waste to an entire platoon of enemy soldiers with just my wits and a slingshot.  OK the last one might not happen.

 

The only lasting thing that is guaranteed in a Crowfall campaign is the fun. The momentary triumphs, the success of a plan, the stop and stare out over the landscape and live in another world for a bit moments.   Anything above and beyond that will be wonderful and I'll happily take it but I'm not expecting from Crowfall anything but the experience of wandering and playing in the worlds right now. 

 

Perhaps when we get into Beta there will be enough info and experiences to know if it's more than that but for now that's the only info I have to go on. Nothing is guaranteed to a player but access to these worlds.  What you get from them will be up to you.

.

 

 

 

Finally, some gonzo gets it. It only took 1160 posts to get there, but I'm glad you finally understand. I hope others do too because I know you'll enjoy the game given for what's given without needing to change it. No handholding and no guiding is such a foreign concept in MMOs today so it's hard for people to understand. Most of us sound elitist, I'm sure, because we have played a game like this. None of us are wanting to keep new blood out, really. We just know what this game will bring and how much better it is than the constant quests and arrow pointing. With MMOs now, player interaction is artificial and limited by the mechanics and the course the game puts you through. We don't want it to change, but I know that we need players new to the genre. I just hope people come to the same understanding as you and hold off until it's presented.

 

Even if you leave with nothing item-wise or even less than what you came in with, you'll still come out with something even better than any purple item or raid boss kill...a story of what you've done and what you've created. How you shaped the world/campaign and the big (and small) victories. Even if you get your skull smashed in 20 times, that one time you overcame the impossible will stick with you, it will make you want to keep trying, to get better, and eventually be the one holding your own. Hell, someday 10 years from now we might be posting on a forum about our CF experiences and remember Oridi giving us a run for our money in a castle siege.


☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The uncle Bob analogy has never made sense because it doesn't scale up to MMOs.

 

In a strategy game there are a limited number of players, whereas in an MMO uncle Bob can always bring his 500 friends with him regardless of a reset.

 

I agree that the time limit is a big issue. Should a campaign just have a time limit with whoever has the most points wins (sports)? Or should there be a win condition that ends the campaign (RTS, board games, Mobas)?

 

I personally think the time limit method hasn't worked out that well in GW2 and ESO since people on the losing side just give up or switch teams. But of course the victory condition that ends a campaign could likely be abused by mega-alliances.

I agree with you most times. One time I dont agree though is in EVE online. My god, when BoB was entrenched i thought i'd never see them topple. They were just   replaced with Goons and now it's a coalition of like 40k members dominating everyone its really really boring now.


Xfj4obT.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I explained my point clearly, by the replies I'm seeing. Either that or I'm missing something...

 

In the first situation, it is when one person dominates beyond repair. It's referring to the same situation in which the devs felt the need to introduce the reset mechanism and dying worlds. Not when someone is big, but we can still make alliances or use attrition warfare to take them down.

 

In the second situation, I think you guys understood it. I just hope it doesn't come down to a clock management strategy... I wanna win my wars, not get a small lead when the time expires...

 

The first situation you just try to make their time winning as miserable as you can, imo.  Victory-condition-dependent campaigns will most likely have a fixed mechanical shortest-possible time due to rate of bloodstones, for example in that campaign type.  You could have 3 months of...

 

Gank small groups and evac before they can bring numbers to retaliate, rinse and repeat as often as you can for as long as you can.  Try and do it to the same couple of players if you can.  

 

Harass them on the boards daily(without breaking ToS, of course).  

 

Try to bleed them of members through recruitment with how much fun you're having making their guild miserable (realistically, they won't hop ship in the middle of the campaign, nor should you want them to...let them bring their winnings to you).  

 

Sow discontent among the member base.  

 

With the exception of a few guilds, multiple points of pressure can make the whole thing fall apart.  It won't matter for that campaign, but it will make the next a more even playing field for everyone with the added benefit of providing a functional purpose to that particular play style, which some people happen to enjoy.  

Edited by gharvi

 

Er, what's "edging"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you most times. One time I dont agree though is in EVE online. My god, when BoB was entrenched i thought i'd never see them topple. They were just   replaced with Goons and now it's a coalition of like 40k members dominating everyone its really really boring now.

 

Yea, guess EvE is subject to server stagnation. The universe is huge, and people have already won, it just took a decade.


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

Yea, guess EvE is subject to server stagnation. The universe is huge, and people have already won, it just took a decade.

 

The one thing they had right though, was to keep it all on one server. It would of died a long time ago if they hadn't.


☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the idea that a time based end would be kind of boring...

 

I want a sort of world ending event to be possible though...like birds come out of the trees and they're all evil and they peck everyone to death, and there is no "Warning Players 5min until world ends" its just you have as long as you can until the birds gnaw you out of existence on that world.

 

So maybe the campaigns done, and its really game over, but instead of turning the server off and booting everyone, we get a who's last standing mini game to celebrate the end of the world/campaign..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this drama over Uncle Bob... and you're totally ignoring Uncle Harry, Cousin Joe, and Aunt Lucy.

 

Crowfall is not about Uncle Bob... it's about establishing something new for the next generation of PvP sandbox gaming.  Uncle Bob will be disappointed that he's history.


> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, campaings will have different risk vs rewards models. There are two sided campaigns where everyone gets something but the winner gets more. Another campaign could be the "highlander model" where only one gets all and everyone else gets nothing ala battle royale.

 

Whats not clear to me is what is stopping me from jumping to another campaign when it's clear I do not win ? Will there be limited number of campaigns ? Could this result in campaingworlds deserted by all but winners ? It seems for me at least kinda boring and wasteful to have campaigns deserted by everyone but winners.

 

I'm just speculating bud daily rewards for fighting a dominating part could perhaps be one way to keep people in the game, also when they are loosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start this thread by explaining two situations. For example purposes, I'll be thinking about "The Infected" Campaign.

 

1. Uncle Bob is Happy, and no one else is

 

Pretty much the original Uncle Bob story, he's dominating and no one else is having fun. The twist is that this is the Uncle Bob of Uncle Bobs. He joined a 6-month campaign and is dominating by the 3rd month. No one else is having fun, and everyone is stuck in that campaign for 3 more months.

 

2. Everyone is happy, until the game ends and everyone is frustrated

 

You have 3 or 4 factions at the top of their game, and 3 others are still in the game, trying to toss a Hail Mary and get back in the lead. Winter comes, war erupts everywhere, no faction gets a substantial lead, and the intrigue and combat and everything we love about the campaigns are more present than ever. Then time runs out, some faction wins by the smallest of margins and everyone leaves the campaign wanting more.

 

 

Now, I have a feeling that, in lesser magnitudes, every campaign will be either situation 1 or 2. I can't see how we can precise the specific ammount of time necessary for the point when fighting against the Uncle Bobs is no longer fun, or possible (which is the perfect time to reset the world)

 

So my actual question is: How can we measure the perfect ammount of a campaign's time? How do we know that our campaign will be fun all the way up to the established time limit and not a day over it? Shouldn't the time necessary for every season change and resetting the world be based by in-campaign achievements?

 

  I think with the resets in place Uncle Bob will not be able to maintain the 500 strong. There might be a few guilds that could pull this off without the backstabbing breaking them apart. Like I said before I truly believe there will be a player run website that you can check to see what guild are where so you know which campaigns to avoid.

 

  I feel that if you start adding achievement based victory condition's then everyone will give up when someone pulls ahead, just like it does in civ. Achievement based victory conditions quickly define who is wining and tend to cause people to join the band wagon and we would see more zergs.  Given time and greed players will plan and plot waiting to over throw the current leaders, most everyone wants to be king someday. I hate that we will have a know static time limit, I would rather have a rough estimate say like a 3 to 6 month campaign. Maybe we could figure out the total length if we a pay attention to the length of the seasons.  I agree that this will be tough to balance for if its to short then we will not have enough time to see politics to play out. Whereas if its to long we will run into stagnation. I think this is what beta is for and by the end of it Artcraft will understand what's popular and given the nature of the reset can always adjust as needed.

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...