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

Why build in someone else's Kingdom?

Recommended Posts

If every account has a Kingdom why would I go build in someone else's? People will be people, and everyone wants to be Monarch. It seems that in order to make building Eternal Kingdoms a successful social and co-operative part of the game there needs to be good incentives to build together. Simply making buildings so expensive they require multiple people to gather goods seems like a bit of a cop out. Do the Dev's have any official answers to this, or what are others speculating?

 

I can see that in the early phases of the game some guilds might team up to get all of the crafting/utility buildings in one kingdom faster, but as the game ages everyone will want to build up their own Kingdom.

 

There are good reasons to visit other people's kingdoms for trade, but that isn't really the point in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has been asked and answered multiple times, last one was 4 days ago.

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/6493-why-build-on-another-monarchs-kingdom/?hl=why+build

 

I'll ask the reverse, why wouldn't you want to build in someone else's EK or what's your incentive for playing alone?

 

Being the Monarch of an empty EK doesn't sound very interesting to me. I have little to zero intention of building up mine at the start or overtime unless I receive a direct benefit that I can't find just as easy or easier somewhere else. I'll be more than happy to move everything I received from my KS pledge along with anything else I buy/earn to my guild's EK or wherever works for me.

 

I'm not even a social person really, but if I had the choice of something rather personal like training in my own EK or one with hundreds/thousands running around, I'd take the busy one. It's nice to know I'm actually playing an mmo and not a single player game sometimes.

Edited by allein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every account has a Kingdom why would I go build in someone else's? People will be people, and everyone wants to be Monarch. It seems that in order to make building Eternal Kingdoms a successful social and co-operative part of the game there needs to be good incentives to build together. Simply making buildings so expensive they require multiple people to gather goods seems like a bit of a cop out. Do the Dev's have any official answers to this, or what are others speculating?

 

I can see that in the early phases of the game some guilds might team up to get all of the crafting/utility buildings in one kingdom faster, but as the game ages everyone will want to build up their own Kingdom.

 

There are good reasons to visit other people's kingdoms for trade, but that isn't really the point in question.

They are expecting 98% of the kingdoms to stay at  the initial size and for a few EKs to grow big and dominating.

If that is the expectation, then we can assume they are designing the system like that.

 

Expensive is an odd one, because things are only expensive if you cannot afford them, right?

They are designing the EKs to be dependent on the campaigns. The only ones that will be able to build anything, is the ones that take soemthing out of the campiagns.

Winnners take most and so we have to balance the cost of building up a kingdom, to how much the winners can take out.

If we don't do this, then the winners of the campaigns will end up with way too many resources and nothing to spend them on.

 

On top of that, there will be upkeep for buildings and relics (they have to be recharged to keep working). This means, that while you might not have to WIN every campaign, we can safely assume that you will have to bring out something to pay the upkeep.

The more you have, the bigger the upkeep. So if you have a big EK, you will have to have many people bring a little or you have to bring a lot yourself (aka winning constantly,as seen above).

 

Crowfall is not your typical MMO in many ways.

One of the most important ones (for this discussion) is that NOT EVERYONE CAN WIN,

Sure, this seem obvious. We remember being told this from we were children and started to play games with your family. Pretty basic lesson.

However, most do not understand this concept in MMOs anymore, because we have ALL been winners for so long. Think about it. Everyone have had the option to get as much as anyone else.

When they say not everyone can be a winner, it really reflects on many parts of the game.

It means that you will not be able to do much in your EK unless you win. 

 

Now, we CAN lose and still bring out something.

This is where building in others Kingdoms come in.

If you are not winning, but still taking out something, then you won't be able to build up a whole kingdom by yourself.

But if you and a buddy come together (he doesn't win much either) you might be able to build up a small area. Hell, you might have to bring a couple of other friends, just to build up a fort. This depends on how much you can get to take out.

Add another group of friends to this and you get a few EK areas build up. And another group of friends... etc.

Now, we are starting to see the system they have presented to us already.

 

You COULD just stay with your buddies and build in one little (tiny) kingdom, but it will stay tiny then (unless you are all constantly winning of course)

You might be able to get everything out of the EKs that you want.

 

ALL THIS DOES NOT MATTER THOUGH.

 

Because here is the fun part.

 

THE EKS ARE BEING DESIGNED TO MAINLY BE A SOCIAL BIND FOR THE GAME.

 

Which means, there is very little reason to even build in the EKs at all, if you are going for advantages and bonuses.

 

The main reason you will want to build in others EKs is if you value the social aspects of the game.

This is probably also the most important advantage you can get in this game.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus this thread just happened.

 

jesus works in mysterious ways

 

Maybe if you take every 5th letter from the OP of all these threads the secrets of the universe will reveal themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cirolle I would like to stress the non-winning part. I think of it (perhaps wrongly) like H1Z1 Battle Royale, where you start with 150 people and when you die, you drop off. Only one can really win in the traditional sense, meaning that you don't regularly win, but it can still be rewarding and enjoyable.

 

Crowfall seems to be similar in a way. If you ignore the 3-faction campaigns, all other campaigns will have anything from 6 factions to FFA. Out of those 6+ factions, only one can win, although everyone can be rewarded, just less than the winner. I think this will lead to the dynamic that you might not need to win at all to build and even sustain a kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cirolle I would like to stress the non-winning part. I think of it (perhaps wrongly) like H1Z1 Battle Royale, where you start with 150 people and when you die, you drop off. Only one can really win in the traditional sense, meaning that you don't regularly win, but it can still be rewarding and enjoyable.

 

Crowfall seems to be similar in a way. If you ignore the 3-faction campaigns, all other campaigns will have anything from 6 factions to FFA. Out of those 6+ factions, only one can win, although everyone can be rewarded, just less than the winner. I think this will lead to the dynamic that you might not need to win at all to build and even sustain a kingdom.

That was part of my point.

They can (and I very much think they will) create the system in a way that only people that win constantly will be able to keep an EK of any size other than the initial.

The rest that gets rewards CAN build, but they do not have to be able to build and maintain a kingdom.

 

You could have the people that sometimes win, these could be the ones that have several areas in an EK, but still not own the kingdom.

And you could have to people that rarely win, that can sustain several buildings.

AND you can have people that that never win, that can only sustain a single building.

 

A lesser reward is still a reward, right?

There is NO reason that everyone should be able to build at the same levels in the EKs.

There are plenty of reasons why they shouldn't be able to.

Edited by Cirolle

 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That was part of my point.

They can (and I very much think they will) creat the system so in a way that only people that win constantly will be able to keep an EK of any size other than the initial.

The rest that gets rewards CAN build, but they do not have to be able to build and maintain a kingdom.

 

You could have the people that sometimes win, these could be the ones that have several areas in an EK, but still not own the kingdom.

And you could have to people that rarely win, that can sustain several buildings.

AND you can have people that that never win, that can only sustain a single building.

 

A lesser reward is still a reward, right?

There is NO reason that everyone should be able to build at the same levels in the EKs.

There are plenty of reasons why they shouldn't be able to.

 

 

 

>People that never win, can only sustain a single building.

 

The word single being arbitrary, I still thin it will be possible to sustain medium developed solo kingdom even if you never win. In fact I don't think winning is that important, it is about how much you were able to advance within the campaign before losing.

 

In my case, I am pretty much not at all interested in the 3-faction campaigns, I might not win a campaigns ever. With a 1 - 16.6% winrate, and 3-6 months per campaigns, on average I will win one campaign per 54 months. Hopefully, even with such a rate, I will still be able to progress my EK nicely.

Edited by Kalsomir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

 

 

>People that never win, can only sustain a single building.

 

The word single being arbitrary, I still thin it will be possible to sustain medium developed solo kingdom even if you never win. In fact I don't think winning is that important, it is about how much you were able to advance within the campaign before losing.

 

In my case, I am pretty much not at all interested in the 3-faction campaigns, I might not win a campaigns ever. With a 1 - 16.6% winrate, and 3-6 months per campaigns, on average I will win one campaign per 54 months. Hopefully, even with such a rate, I will still be able to progress my EK nicely.

 

Why though?

 

Why should everyone be able to progress AND maintain any size of kingdom?

If the EKs are mainly there to provide social bonds, then it would only make sense to build the system to sustain this.

 

You have to look at the possible lowest AND the possible highest and then build the expenses for EKs after that.

 

If you let the lowest (which I expect is pretty close to your example) to be able to sustain much more than the lowest thing in the EKs (a single building), you will have no reason to build with others, making the social aspect (the main reason for the EKs) worthless.

You will also make any kind of upkeep pretty pointless for the ones in the highest end, creating a bigger and bigger stash of "stuff" that just lays around.

This in turn will make winning even more pointless than it already is.

 

When Todd says that he expects 98% of all EKs to be the smallest size and pretty empty, I think it is because they are designing the system to be supported by people coming together.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though?

 

Why should everyone be able to progress AND maintain any size of kingdom?

If the EKs are mainly there to provide social bonds, then it would only make sense to build the system to sustain this.

 

You have to look at the possible lowest AND the possible highest and then build the expenses for EKs after that.

 

If you let the lowest (which I expect is pretty close to your example) to be able to sustain much more than the lowest thing in the EKs (a single building), you will have no reason to build with others, making the social aspect (the main reason for the EKs) worthless.

You will also make any kind of upkeep pretty pointless for the ones in the highest end, creating a bigger and bigger stash of "stuff" that just lays around.

This in turn will make winning even more pointless than it already is.

 

When Todd says that he expects 98% of all EKs to be the smallest size and pretty empty, I think it is because they are designing the system to be supported by people coming together.

 

The lowest are those who lose early on in the campaign and were not able to get anything. They won't be able to buildings or sustain anything.

 

You can lose and gain nothing, you can lose and gain a lot, you can win and gain not much, or you can win and gain more than a lot.

 

Like I said, what matters is how much you were able to acquire before you lose, since it is unlikely you will actually win, unless you play the 3-faction campaigns. There will still be winners and they will be the ones able to build the very best.

 

In no way does this mean that you have have no reason to build with others, making the social aspect worthless, upkeep pointless or winning pointless. In fact, quite the opposite. 

Edited by Kalsomir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every account has a Kingdom why would I go build in someone else's? People will be people, and everyone wants to be Monarch. It seems that in order to make building Eternal Kingdoms a successful social and co-operative part of the game there needs to be good incentives to build together. Simply making buildings so expensive they require multiple people to gather goods seems like a bit of a cop out. Do the Dev's have any official answers to this, or what are others speculating?

 

I can see that in the early phases of the game some guilds might team up to get all of the crafting/utility buildings in one kingdom faster, but as the game ages everyone will want to build up their own Kingdom.

 

There are good reasons to visit other people's kingdoms for trade, but that isn't really the point in question.

I think most people are going to ask the complete opposite question; why would I build in my own EK when I can build one up with my guild mates?

 

I know I sure as hell ain't touching my EK, I'll be too busy stomping folks in campaigns either way.


Member of The BlackHand Order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lowest are those who lose early on in the campaign and were not able to get anything. They won't be able to buildings or sustain anything.

 

You can lose and gain nothing, you can lose and gain a lot, you can win and gain not much, or you can win and gain more than a lot.

 

Like I said, what matters is how much you were able to acquire before you lose, since it is unlikely you will actually win, unless you play the 3-faction campaigns. There will still be winners and they will be the ones able to build the very best.

 

In no way does this mean that you have have no reason to build with others, making the social aspect worthless, upkeep pointless or winning pointless. In fact, quite the opposite. 

I excluded the group of people that doesn't get anything on purpose.

They are not a factor in building in the EKs in any way. They can't

So, the lowest possible, when it comes to the EKs, will be the people that get enough out to build and maintain a single house.

 

You seem to agree that there will be a scale like I said.

My point was, that if you set the scale with the lowest point (the ones that can actually build ANYTHING) high enough to sustain a small kingdom even, then I think you already started too high.

Because the difference between the ones that constantly take out very little and the ones that constantly take out a lot (arbitrary words on purpose) seem to be pretty great. Up to 5 times in difference.

 

When you multiply that by any number, from guilds building together, your numbers start to add up pretty fast.

 

One person doing poorly being able to to sustain a small kingdom alone, multiplied with 50 people (a guild) doing great is.. well a lot since we have no real numbers.

 

There would be a link in the fealty system missing, the tenants.

If they create the system with tenants in mind, then I would assume that these are the people we can expect to see in the very bottom of the export game.

 

Just to make it clear, I am in no way arguing from what I personally want from my EK or what I think others SHOULD want.

I am only arguing from the information we have gotten so far, and the possible way a system could be build based on that.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Campaigns sound really fun. EKs... eh I might do something on my free parcels.

 

So if I do well in the campaigns I'll have a ton of extra resources that I'll be too busy playing more campaigns to spend on CrowSims Online.

 

Someone like me could potentially use such a scenario to exchange resources with people who aren't succesful in campaigns, but want a shiny virtual kingdom, for real world money.

 

Whether or not it's allowed I guarantee it will happen.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Campaigns sound really fun. EKs... eh I might do something on my free parcels.

 

So if I do well in the campaigns I'll have a ton of extra resources that I'll be too busy playing more campaigns to spend on CrowSims Online.

 

Someone like me could potentially use such a scenario to exchange resources with people who aren't succesful in campaigns, but want a shiny virtual kingdom, for real world money.

 

Whether or not it's allowed I guarantee it will happen.

Sadly, you never win

 

:D

 

I believe that it will be allowed by exchanging VIP.

Will it be allowed to sell resources and VIP?

They should set up a system and take a cut if they allow it.

Edited by Cirolle

 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

I can't quite follow your line of reasoning in this reply, apologies.

 

I simply argued that it is possible to maintain something even if you constantly lose. Even if you lose you can bring out a lot of materials, possibly more than someone who wins. I argued that the majority of the population, who will not win, because only a minute fraction of the players are declared winners, will still be able to get something out of it. For them, the majority, it then becomes not the question 'can I win?', but 'how well can I do?'.

 

The answers to the question 'how much will you be able to maintain if you lose, but did reasonable well?' no one knows and we can only speculate on that. 

Edited by Kalsomir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quite follow your line of reasoning in this reply, apologies.

 

I simply argued that it is possible to maintain something even if you constantly lose. Even if you lose you can bring out a lot of materials, possibly more than someone who wins. I argued that the majority of the population, who will not win, because only a minute fraction of the players are declared winners, will still be able to get something out of it. For them, the majority, it then becomes not the question 'can I win?', but 'how well can I do?'.

 

The answers to the question 'how much will you be able to maintain if you lose, but did reasonable well?' no one knows and we can only speculate on that.

Ah I see.

 

Last part is what I think is important for the thread though.

We can speculate from the information we have been given though.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know why I wouldn't build in someone else's EK.

 

Befriend a group with a large playercount and lots of resources -> I get to use my own resources/sell them for personal gain, and use other people's infrastructure

Build my own EK -> I spend every last resource I earn trying to build and maintain my own infrastructure before I can even think about capitalizing on any resources I bring back

 

Speculation, yeah, but... assuming that is how it works, I don't think the average person will want their own EK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the majority of the people care much about maintaining their own Eternal Kingdoms. If you look at guilds in other games, how many people are willing to be the lead the guild and take on that much responsibilities? Usually there are only a few, and I think that it would be the same for EKs.

 

I am not going to worry about maintaining my own and just join a big EK :P.

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...