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

Armageddon Ruleset

Recommended Posts

Just throwing this out there...

 

I guess you could call this the 'everything matters' ruleset.

 

1. Very short campaign window (30 days max...make sense in a minute)

2. No woo's on anything

3. 24x7 vulnerability on all assets (no protection slots)

4.+200% resource production

5. +100% embargo

6. Full loot/full equipment drop on death

7. Permadeath*

 

* by selecting an Armageddon event, you would generate an extra char slot tied to the campaign window. Character would spawn with full allocation of points, although would not have any discs/thralls...upon death or successful completion of campaign character slot goes poof.

 

or you could go more hardcore and delete the *

 

at the very least it would be an interesting social experiment to see how players actually behaved when there are no second chances.

 

And yes, this is somewhat tongue and cheek...giving the nod to our 24x7 hard core always contingent. HC4L B!tch3$

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give that a try, without the *. And you should be able to bring in whatever gear you have. Kind of gives a logical end point to that endless quest for better gear.

Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give that a try, without the *. And you should be able to bring in whatever gear you have. Kind of gives a logical end point to that endless quest for better gear.

 

hehe, the tears would be epic...maxed out toon, maxed out gear...poofed because you lagged :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe, the tears would be epic...maxed out toon, maxed out gear...poofed because you lagged :P

I dont think there will be too much pvp, everybody will sit in a fort mining x2 resources from safety. And as soon a fight somehow breaks out and one side starts losing they will kneel.

 

I think number of actual toons killed will be minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think there will be too much pvp, everybody will sit in a fort mining x2 resources from safety. And as soon a fight somehow breaks out and one side starts losing they will kneel.

 

I think number of actual toons killed will be minimal.

 

i do think that everyone would be very risk averse and the political landscape would zerg up very rapidly.

 

However i think lots of toons would die...someone has to win. Resources have to be fought over...perhaps while your 'mine' with 200% effiicency, there are like 50% fewer spawn points. The whole savanna waterhole concept...you have to get there, but watch out for the crocs :P

 

i still think that you'd see a much reduced level of conflict...however i think that when it occurred it would be very large in scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have a permadeath campaign without actual character deletion; Crows are immortal after all. You're just ejected from that campaign when you die, and cannot rejoin it.


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

Could be very fun to try out... Once. However, I am on the same page with rajah. I think many people will try to exploit the crap out of this campaign mode by avoiding PvP at all cost. Also, you know... You don't *need* to PvP in this game so I can imagine large groups will band together only to harvest and export materials.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That creates an interesting feedback loop though- the more PVP-averse the campaign population is overall, the more opportunity there is for predators to make a killing by making a killing.


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

That creates an interesting feedback loop though- the more PVP-averse the campaign population is overall, the more opportunity there is for predators to make a killing by making a killing.

 

Interesting thought. However, the exploiters (if there are any) don't need to be PvP-averse. They just need to band together and agree to exploit the crap out of such a campaign. If there are some predators I am sure they would be zerged out of the campaign in seconds. I can see such a rule set kinda working combined with a "last man standing" rule though. The winner takes it all. The highest risk, the highest reward. But I personally doubt that it would be great fun to play that though. It would be a waste of time for 99.9% of the players.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That creates an interesting feedback loop though- the more PVP-averse the campaign population is overall, the more opportunity there is for predators to make a killing by making a killing.

 

yeah...something like ability to embargo gear, not just resources...to pull the game of thrones reference...pay the iron price.

 

i have a feeling that the dynamic would start with low level skirmishes...

with no one really looking to commit, then as the sides solidified those skirmishes would become more intense (assuming a very rapid start of winter and resource nodes diminish).

this would be followed by another short period of more or less calm as everyone stares at each other until someone finally says fuggit i want your stuff and then all hell breaks loose (Armageddon) and massive casualties ensue.

the remaining survivors would quickly look to solidify gains and losses, potential for major politics as alliances shifted.

 

 

I think it would be important to have a definitive 'win condition' to prevent the turtle complex...possible based upon territory control (ie. civ conquest victory), such that it forces agressive behavior...and if no one achieves it, no one wins. Perhaps there is a secondary condition that rewards the 'losers' if they prevent 'the point leader' from achieving the victory condition. So kind of like craps...you can play to win, or you can win by...not winning. both conditions make it in someone best interest to do something, or work to prevent them from doing it. Sandbagging in either case means you get nada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Campaign ends when there's only one guild left.

 

If the campaign clock runs out before a winner is declared, nobody wins.


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

It will only take a single hacker (e.g. speed, combat from under the world, wall hacks, teleporting, etc...) to kill everyone and nuke this ruleset idea.  

 

Otherwise, I like it.  

 

Also, I'd recommend disabling the summoning circles and have the 100% embargo only be whatever you're carrying at the end.  Perhaps, increase player carrying capacity by 200%.  

 

If characters haven't logged in and played for 2 hours within a 24 hour window, their inventory items start taking durability loss every hour in order to prevent players from filling their inventory and then logging out for the duration of the CW.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will only take a single hacker (e.g. speed, combat from under the world, wall hacks, teleporting, etc...) to kill everyone and nuke this ruleset idea.  

 

Otherwise, I like it.  

 

Also, I'd recommend disabling the summoning circles and have the 100% embargo only be whatever you're carrying at the end.  Perhaps, increase player carrying capacity by 200%.  

 

If characters haven't logged in and played for 2 hours within a 24 hour window, their inventory items start taking durability loss every hour in order to prevent players from filling their inventory and then logging out for the duration of the CW.

So people with jobs are constantly loosing their inventory? Yeah no.

 

 

As for the fighting...yeah that will be problematic. In such a campaign you need some rules to keep it interesting. The fact that only one guild can win, and the removal of the fealty system or this campaign to enforce the "only one guild can win" rule. No one can join guilds while inside of this campaign (account locking). Basically, if a guild joins this campaign they cannot add members to their guild till it's completion, or...if the guild joins a campaign, those who are added after that date cannot join that particular campaign. Essentially, the campaign locks people into their guild affiliation, no fluid allegiances. You join on your chosen side and are stuck there till completion, no quick way of winning, no kneeling, you fight to win till you die.

 

Without such draconian rules you will end up with most of the population all kneeled so they can just exploit the resources.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

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...