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

EK in one hand, DW in the other. Put yer hands together!

Recommended Posts

It seems to me that the gap between the EK and the Campaigns is too big. Artificially 'gimping' one system to "encourage" people to use another one is a cheap move, especially when the gimped system has an incredible amount of potential for long-term player retention and interaction.

 

Why not mesh these two systems more closely?

 

TL;DR - Expose *participating* EK directly to campaigns, seamlessly if possible, allowing them to become a part of the PvP action, and make them relatively useful to groups. To get into a campaign, you must use a participating EK as your gateway. You 'embargo' via this EK as well.

 

The setup I am picturing is like this: The entryway into a Campaign is *through* an EK. The Monarch of an EK chooses to "declare" their EK's desire to participate in 'X' number of campaigns (number based on some criteria like EK population, cell unlocks, whatever). Preferably it would be a 'seamless' link, where people "in" the EK could look through the 'haze' and see the actual Dying World they are linked to, but that might be technologically impossible. GW2 portals also come to mind, but whatever. People in the EK use whatever transportation method to travel to and from the Campaign once the campaign launches.  This would probably mean that people (accounts) would be required to officially 'declare' one EK to represent them in the Campaign system (they could still live in multiple EK, but their "vote" for campaigns is loaned to their "home" EK). Each campaign map would have a set number of "sockets", based on whatever ruleset or game style. Each EK will plug into one of these 'sockets'. The map entry point into the Campaign from the EK, the portals or whatever, would be random, allowing a little bit of RNG to the game.

 

Each EK "declared" to any specific campaign takes up a certain number of 'slots' that particular campaign can fill. How this is determined would need to be figured out. Once a certain percentage of it's slots  have been officially 'declared', the declared EK are all "linked" to it and the campaign launches, activating the portal. An EK  and it's "home members" can only be "linked" to a single campaign at a time, so any other campaigns left that the Monarch had "declared" an interest in joining will get cleared when one of them get's enough total 'declarations' and launches. It provides an interesting way to keep the "fun" rulesets active, and weed out the ones we don't like as much. Also a strategic or even tactical choice by the Monarch.

 

Fake numbers: A single campaign can hold about 2,000 players. The Campaign has 100 total slots to fill. When 60% of the slots are filled (declared), the game launches and locks in those 60% EK's. At 100% participation there are 100 EK's linked to the Dying World. 75 of those declared EK have the minimum (5) to 10 registered accounts who call it "home". 20 of the linked EK have between 11 and 50 player accounts who have declared it their "home". And the last 5 EK each have between 51 and 100 accounts. The maximum potential population is 500+1000+750=2,250.
Actual average population in prime times is about 1,500 or so.

 

By linking your EK to a Dying World, you are declaring your EK as an open-PvP territory subject to the same rules as the DW. Your link to the DW also enables 2-way travel through the 'portal' (or however the EK is connected to the DW), so 'enemy' players can invade. The ability to burn and sack an EK I leave to future discussions. I'd like it to be possible, but believe there should be optional defenses even tiny EK could put in place to discourage large EK from hopping between small EK and just burning them all down. The choice should be to enable these strong defenses and in return have your ability to Embargo less, or to have your link to the DW suffer 'blackouts' where you can't enter... whatever. Or you could throw open your EK and get maximum benefits possible in that DW. Another strategic decision.

 

In all, I'd like to try and merge the best of both the campaigns and the EK, while providing a dynamic link between the two. This sort of setup would continue to allow people to have fully private EK with no pvp (not linked to a campaign), but also allow those who want a dynamic and useful EK to also engage directly with the Dying Worlds. It also allows us to participate in both worlds simultaneously.

 

It even meshes pretty well with the Lore. All EK are already their own little worlds, so there is no lore-breaking reason why they can't just link directly to a Dying World. It might also settle some of the ambiguities people have about how EK and DW will mesh and interact with each other.

 

Then, when the Hunger takes over the DW, the EK's are 'disconnected', and are available to hook into another DW and strip it of resources before it too is destroyed. I can already see the super cool light-shows at the start and end of a campaign. Especially for those who are near the portals to witness the final death of the Dying World through their window to it.

 

This idea could easily have taken up 3 threads of it's own. It's a lot of stuff, to be sure. Not really too drastic of a change in how things are already planned out, but enough to be a big topic. I purposely left out several paragraphs of my own thoughts (mostly because I'm supposed to be working right now, lol...), so, thoughts are welcome!


eEvERiW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTodd already answered this, not sure why you think we needed yet another EK thread. 

 

The "gap" is more conceptual than a technical or design challenge.  When comparing the user flow diagrams for both EK and Campaigns, there is still a huge degree of overlap in terms of system and content reuse (I'm guessing 90% or more?)

 

They are two indpendent game loops, built from the same base, with a simple interface layer (character transfer and import/export of items and materials) connecting them. 

 

Todd

ACE

 

There is no gap, its just perception, the systems are connected.

 

You know at some point just have to realize that one just doesn't like the EK and move on. You're just not going to get your own special EK world that you want. It is what it is and thats it. Like it or leave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seem like very complex idea for game with main goal of killing elf.

You summarized all I had to say in one sentence.

 

We have a 15 pages long thread in which the OP posted asking this same question and was replied by Todd... as quoted above by pang.

 

At this point, you are not going to get a definitive answer from the devs, it's pointless pushing for it. No one is going to come here and answer to all of your concerns. You have to take comfort on the fact that they are aware of the potential problems of suply and demand, and they have possible fixes in mind if any happens to render the EKs useless. We need more info to dig deeper, but the system isn't ready yet.

Edited by LGAllastair

KjUVOZg.png


Guild Leader/ High Elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to understand what you're suggesting. Make a better TL;DR version please. :)

Basically, you're now forced to join/use/run an EK world if you want to join a Campaign.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of you guys remember Ravenloft? That's kinda the picture I had in mind. Different world coming into contact with each other for a time, then drifting apart again. Each world ruled by it's own Lord, with people who stumble in or are drawn there, living regular lives, dealing with the oddities. That was a cool game system.


eEvERiW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of you guys remember Ravenloft? That's kinda the picture I had in mind. Different world coming into contact with each other for a time, then drifting apart again. Each world ruled by it's own Lord, with people who stumble in or are drawn there, living regular lives, dealing with the oddities. That was a cool game system.

good idea lets just play tabletop instead

(づ ˘ ³˘)づ

Hug it Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr connect the uncle bob EK's to the campaigns, letting uncle bob have more influence in PVP, thus getting more resources and completing the cycle of life.

Would basically make campaigns like scenarios on warhammer online, completely negating the concept of temporary worlds to keep one group of players from seizing control.


☆ 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 played Ravenloft, it is a cool set for medieval fantasy horror. I don't think it works so much in an MMO though, and Crowfall doesn't even have an horror theme.


KjUVOZg.png


Guild Leader/ High Elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After actually reading through your post, here are some issues.

 

1. EK's declaring for campaigns is a bad idea, which you've already listed.  Where do you call home?  What happens if your guild is currently in an EK in an alliance and that EK declares for a campaign and then kicks that guild out of their EK before the campaign launches, or after the campaign launches?

 

2. How are "slots" per EK determined?  What if an EK (social and economic hub) has a few thousand people who call it home... they'd be limited by your idea to how big they can grow and that would cause the EK to simply not declare for campaigns anymore.  This leads to #3.

 

3. Smurf EK's.  Your idea would strongly encourage smurf EK's as the best set up for having an awesome EK with absolutely ZERO risk.  The system has a plethera of faults that would be easily gamed by an even half coordinated community.

 

4. Sieging EK's?  You're eliminating the value of dying worlds by even considering the potential loss of EK's.  EK's have ZERO RISK, that way people always have a safe place to return to regardless of how badly they were beaten in a campaign.

 

5. EK's could coordinate fairly easily to keep out anyone else who wanted to join by simply capping the campaign player size.  It only takes 4-5 coordinated communities/alliances to accomplish this.

 

6. Lastly, what benefit is there to anyone to open up EK's to the same rulesets as in the Campaigns?  Already an EK king can set the ruleset to pvp and maybe even full loot.  Why add in risk with no real reward?  You'd be taking pvp away from the campaigns and centering it onto defense.  I'll point back to my statement about this system being easily gamed to ensure people never risk anything.

 

Your ideas are well thought out, but just not suitable for the direction that CF is already headed.  Maybe you should look into Camelot Unchained, they seem to have a system far more in line with what you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting idea for a different game. We already know that the devs have clear ideas about Crowfall's design which this proposal is not compatible with.


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

hey guys let me fill in every future EK thread for you

 

:( I don't like EKs

:) I do

:( they'll never work

:) they will

:( but what if...

Mod: we got that covered

:( but but but

 

yw hth

Its like I'm looking at the past and future at the same time


gtlLXYT.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Largest problem with this (and the last) Idea.

 

If you had to declare your EK to do a campaign, the user specified Ek rules wouldn't matter. They'd be permanent PvP zones, wheras the entire point of EKs is to have one single "quiet place" where the owner determines the rules.

 

I love PvP. There will be no PvP in my EK outside of an areas specifically set aside for it. I like having some form of player housing that's actually safe to AFK in. It allows me to build AFK bars where the entire guild can AFK on bar stools and I can walk in there at off hours and look at all the drunks. This isn't a thing I can (or should) be able to do in open world PvP situations, and not something I'd want to because it would be a waste of time.

 

The fact that I can actually do that is literally what makes EKs different from campaigns.

 

EKs are not intended to be fought over. That is literally what makes them different than campaigns, why everyone gets the option of owning one, and why the owner is allowed so much control over it. EKs are intended to be an optional system, as stated multiple times by ACE.

 

If you want a fight, go join a campaign like a reasonable person and fight there, on equal footing, because it's specifically designed to give you a fair shot at winning.


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

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...