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

How Happy Is Uncle Bob?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Each campaign will require a timer no matter what the winning condition is.

 

Campaigns that do not have a campaign timer will be exploited by trolls and Uncle Bobs who can decide when the winning condition is met and force everyone to keep playing.

 

The only way campaigns without timers will work are if you make it so each campaign world has a finite amount of resource that can be harvested. In-fact, every campaign should have a finite amount of resources.. hence the whole dying worlds thing... it'll also create PvP and an incentive to get everything fast and move on.


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each campaign will require a timer no matter what the winning condition is.

 

Campaigns that do not have a campaign timer will be exploited by trolls and Uncle Bobs who can decide when the winning condition is met and force everyone to keep playing.

 

??? This doesn't make any sense, it's not like you can keep the whole server from meeting the winning condition. If that was the case, the winning condition was badly planned in the first place. Also, DEVs could always step in and resolve the situation.

 

The only way campaigns without timers will work are if you make it so each campaign world has a finite amount of resource that can be harvested. In-fact, every campaign should have a finite amount of resources.. hence the whole dying worlds thing... it'll also create PvP and an incentive to get everything fast and move on.

 

Again, untrue. Worlds with finite amount of resources are awful.. I would suggest you to try H1Z1 but they've changed the spawning system 2 months ago. Basically fat nerds or school kids found all the resources (ammos and weapons in that case) and stashed them somewhere. Nobody could ever challenge them without weapons. It's unbalanced on many levels.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? This doesn't make sense, it's not like you can keep the whole server from meeting the winning condition. If that was the case, the winning condition was badly planned in the first place. Also, DEVs could always step in and resolve the situation.

 

If the winning condition is controlling a certain percentage of the map (as already stated) this can be and WILL BE easily exploitable. lol 

Same for most other campaigns u can think of.

 

Also, "DEVs could always step in and resolve the situation" WTF??!?!?!?!?!? This isn't an exploit it's apart of he game, how could you even suggest that devs should decide who wins and who doesn't. 

 

Anyway, Todd already said if people find an funny way to dominate their opponent or way to manipulate the winning conditions it will be allowed to be played out and patched afterwards. 

 

Wow... I really hope we don't get a ton of Warcraft players that expect the Devs to nerf anything they can't control/do. Remember what you're suggesting admins "nerf" are real people with the same opportunity as everyone else on the server not a instance full of mobs.

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the winning condition is controlling a certain percentage of the map (as already stated) this can be and WILL BE easily exploitable. lol 

Same for most other campaigns u can think of.

 

Same for most campaigns "u can think of"... let others people think then.

 

Also, "DEVs could always step in and resolve the situation" WTF??!?!?!?!?!? This isn't an exploit it's apart of he game, how could you even suggest that devs should decide who wins and who doesn't. Anyway, Todd already said if people find an funny way to dominate their opponent or way to manipulate the winning conditions it will be allowed to be played out and patched afterwards.

 

He also said that game-breaking bugs and exploits won't be tolerated. Do you think that *hacking* should be acceptable? Where do you draw the line?

If there is a server completely dominated for months by one alliance that is unable to achieve the last point it needs in order to win (because of an exploit someone has found or whatever) I surely think that the devs have to intervene in order to fix it.. depending on the abuse.

 

In DF there was an alliance that abused the siege mechanism in order to maintain their cities. Basically they sieged their own city with an alt-guild when they feared someone else would siege them or just to enjoy the periods of invulnerability that followed.

That's an abuse I can't tolerate.. to make an example.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same for most campaigns "u can think of"... let others people think then.

 

 

He also said that game-breaking bugs and exploits won't be tolerated. Do you think that *hacking* should be acceptable? Where do you draw the line?

If there is a server completely dominated for months by one alliance that is unable to achieve the last point it needs in order to win (because of an exploit someone has found or whatever) I surely think that the devs have to intervene in order to fix it.. depending on the abuse.

 

In DF there was an alliance that abused the siege mechanism in order to maintain their cities. Basically they sieged their own city with an alt-guild when they feared someone else would siege them or just to enjoy the periods of invulnerability that followed.

That's an abuse I can't tolerate.. to make an example.

 

....... who said I wasn't letting people "think" lol..................................................................................................................

 

 

obviously I'm not talking about hacks or exploiting bugs.. with those I'd expect server/campaign rollbacks like we saw in SB. No s### exploiting bugs should be fixed, but if people figured out a clever build or siege strategy they wont be stopped, so Todd says. 

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....... who said I wasn't letting people "think" lol..................................................................................................................

 

You did: "Each campaign will require a timer no matter what the winning condition is."

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the end result of the entire campaign system is that Uncle Bob is an intended and expected player. Attempting to deny that Uncle Bob exists in your MMO is like designing a car with no wipers. It's going to rain eventually. Your car should be equipped to function in a downpour.

 

There are a lot of systems in play that aren't fully fleshed out in the design stage. Ideally in scenario 1 everyone that has effectively "given up" because uncle bob has won have the ability to officially resign the campaign, kneel if it's gone on for sufficient length to pull a few of their rewards (if they care about such things) or fight to the bitter end to force uncle bob to be bored for three more months out of spite.

 

In the second scenario,  I'd assume the ticking clock is more a soft gate than a hard one. After two weeks of winter the game may simply enforce an undeniable endgame that will inevitably result in a victor. Something like "and then all the resources stopped spawning" or "and then all the bloodstone trees died and left ten stones" and so on. Not "And mid fight it said GAME OVER" and you were disgruntled.

 

Honestly, no matter who you are both scenarios are going to happen. Every player is not a special snowflake that's going to always end up with the most satisfying early, mid, and end game.

 

The only skill required to win any game is to make all the other teams lose. This means that half or more of all players in any game ever played will lose. Mathematics demands that people shouldn't play any game they are not fully prepared to lose in the worst possible way. I like to call this PopeUrban's first law of shut up and take it like a man.

 

The point of campaigns isn't to prevent people from getting insulted about an unfair fight. It's to prepare a clean slate so that mistakes can be used as tools rather than tombstones. People are going to get insulted no matter what, according to my own rigorous mathematical analysis.

Edited by PopeUrban

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

...The point of campaigns isn't to prevent people from getting insulted about an unfair fight. It's to prepare a clean slate so that mistakes can be used as tools rather than tombstones. People are going to get insulted no matter what, according to my own rigorous mathematical analysis.

 

^^ Pretty much this.  It's even a silly line of thinking.  We're not in kindergarten where schools have all the kids winners, which unfortunately encourages this flawed way of thinking.  If you don't like losing, don't play CF.  Even Uncle Bob guilds/alliances will lose CWs.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't twist my words... I don't want Campaigns where everyone wins, I want campaigns where we have a clear winner and that the losers aren't bound to suffer for months because of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing doesn't = hopelessness or a lack of fun. I've played plenty of FPS deathmatches in which my team might have lost 10 games in a row, but we had a chance every time, and the score was pretty close. Okay, they hit 25 before we did, but we made 'em fight for it. Now, I get that in Crowfall, there's more on the line for a win (embargo resources), but, there will also be various campaign types with various embargo rulesets. If you don't have enough fun just playing through a campaign, win-or-lose, then join the one in which losers get like 50% of their embargo vaults. Boom. You still never fully "lose," in terms of your goal of embargo resources. If you feel up to it, play in the worlds with 20% loser embargo, or 0%.

 

But, I just... if the other team is beating you by 10% of the total score, then play harder. *shrug*. Getting to that victory (or loss) is half the fun. Otherwise, they wouldn't be multi-month-friggin'-length campaigns! They'd be like, an hour.

 

Each campaign will require a timer no matter what the winning condition is.

 

Campaigns that do not have a campaign timer will be exploited by trolls and Uncle Bobs who can decide when the winning condition is met and force everyone to keep playing.

 

The only way campaigns without timers will work are if you make it so each campaign world has a finite amount of resource that can be harvested. In-fact, every campaign should have a finite amount of resources.. hence the whole dying worlds thing... it'll also create PvP and an incentive to get everything fast and move on.

I mostly agree. There's pretty much no reason not to have a timer, in the event that one is necessary. If 95% of campaigns meet their end before the timer does, then so be it. But, unless the goal is something you can easily do no matter what, it's possible for it to become all but impossible for one side, while the other side decides to drag things out, because humans. Will it be rare? Probably. But, you might as well have a score end AND a timer end, just in case. It's not like the timer's going to be hit unless it's needed. "Guys, we needed 7 more months to beat this!". Then who the hell picked the score goal anyway? What is it... harvest 7 campaign worlds worth of trees? Kill the enemy 7,000,000 times? o_O

 

But, yeah... timers were the entire point of the Uncle Bob analogy. If you didn't have a time, Uncle Bob could dominate everyone else forever. It was more talking about why they couldn't simply have a typical, persistent MMO world in which all this conflict takes place, and are doing temporary campaign worlds instead. But, either way, the point was that Uncle Bob, whenever he takes rule, can never rule for long, because time/resets.


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...