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

The greater strategic flow of campaigns

Recommended Posts

With all the information this site provides, I'm having trouble finding much on how campaigns actually flow.

 

What would the win conditions be?

 

Would they involve overall territorial control or the capture of a particular structure?

 

am I correct in thinking that certain structures will be player crafted?

 

How do we know campaigns won't turn into big zergfests with way too many players crowding specific areas Planetside 2 style? (Odd/ bad example I know)


19.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win conditions will vary between campaign worlds.  They haven't given us specific details.  Some campaigns may end at a scheduled time, and whoever has scored the most "victory points" will win (how you accumulate victory points can vary).  For others there may be conditions that trigger the end of the campaign.  Territorial control and capture of specific structures are both possible victory conditions. They want to avoid stagnation and plan to experiment to see what works.

 

Players will certainly craft structures in the campaign worlds, but they haven't said exactly how that will work.  They have talked about finding ruins and upgrading them, but I suspect we may also be able to build our own from the ground up.

 

As far as avoiding zergs, there are few things that might help.  Friendly fire mechanics and collision between players can make mindless blobs of people ineffective. A lack of fire-hose healing and skill-based combat may deter zergs a bit. Limited spoils for the victors can make people split up to avoid sharing with plebs.  There may also be limits on how many people can enter a campaign, although they haven't said a lot about that.  Getting rid of zergs is hard though, so we shall see.

 

Also see:  FAQ: Strategy, FAQ: Campaign, and FAQ: Campaign Modules.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as avoiding zergs, there are few things that might help.  Friendly fire mechanics and collision between players can make mindless blobs of people ineffective. A lack of fire-hose healing and skill-based combat may deter zergs a bit. Limited spoils for the victors can make people split up to avoid sharing with plebs.  There may also be limits on how many people can enter a campaign, although they haven't said a lot about that.  Getting rid of zergs is hard though, so we shall see.

 

Also see:  FAQ: Strategy, FAQ: Campaign, and FAQ: Campaign Modules.

I seriously doubt they can fix the zerg issue.  The biggest zerg will win.  It is what plagues modern games and make skill kinda pointless.  In other games a small group of hardcore players could overcome a zerg by level curve and or gear curve.  They have virtually a flat skill and gear progression in this game.  Hence, the end result is this will be a zerg fest dream game.  

 

150 vs 50 who cares if you take out 50 of your own players while killing thier 50.  People with their grand belief  that they can limit zergs or make them less appealing will be disappointed under anything I currently see proposed............Besides in the softer rulesets, friendly fire will be turned off.

 

So, we will see what gand ideas crowfall can come up with to limit zergs.  My prediction is "Uncle BoB" has just been shifted from the hardcore leveling dedicated players to the casual zerg....I guess it is possible to have a hardcore zerg, but most players are not hardcore players.  This is why in the KoS  recruitment process for Crowfall, we are welcoming casual players with open arms, something we normally do not do......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> hardcore leveling dedicated players

 

I'm not sure I'd define "hardcore" by your willingness to bot for XP 24x7. Game advantage via grinding mobs doesn't seem like it's any better a mechanic than game advantage via recruiting noobs.

 

In my ideal game, skilled players would be able to overcome superior number by creative use of unconventional force multipliers. That has nothing to do with being "leveling dedicated" though.


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

You combat zerging by designing combat mechanics that reward preparation and complex coordination over mass button mashing.

 

When combat is the mere sum of individual actors enacting their individual abilities against a common enemy, you get a bland, mediocre game.

 

When collaborators are incentivized to plan their activities in advance, engage in time- and/or resource-intensive preparation for combat, and coordinate the use of abilities that interact with each other, the effectiveness of zerging all but disappears. You get a game with the opportunity for player skill, evolving combat tactics, and dynamic battles.


I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt they can fix the zerg issue.  The biggest zerg will win.  It is what plagues modern games and make skill kinda pointless.  In other games a small group of hardcore players could overcome a zerg by level curve and or gear curve.  They have virtually a flat skill and gear progression in this game.  Hence, the end result is this will be a zerg fest dream game.  

 

150 vs 50 who cares if you take out 50 of your own players while killing thier 50.  People with their grand belief  that they can limit zergs or make them less appealing will be disappointed under anything I currently see proposed............Besides in the softer rulesets, friendly fire will be turned off.

 

So, we will see what gand ideas crowfall can come up with to limit zergs.  My prediction is "Uncle BoB" has just been shifted from the hardcore leveling dedicated players to the casual zerg....I guess it is possible to have a hardcore zerg, but most players are not hardcore players.  This is why in the KoS  recruitment process for Crowfall, we are welcoming casual players with open arms, something we normally do not do......

 

 

Zergs, are usually defined as lower skilled/equipped/trained collections of large groups of players.  The numbers of what a "Zerg" are though are ENTIRELY relative to each person playing a game.  In any open field PvP game, if you are running around with 15 people and come across 5 and attack and kill them, you'll frequently hear the cries "ZERG MOAR NEWBS!".  If you have 50 people and you come across a small guild of 20, and you kill them.  Again, you'll hear the cries "LOL, YOU SUCK AND CAN ONLY WIN IN NUMBERS!".  If you have 150 people and you come across a guild of 50, and you kill them.  I don't think I need to explain again what to expect from your verbal interchange.

 

So, now that we out of the way that "zergs" are relative.  We can talk about the design concepts that encourage/support zergs.

 

1. Rewards

 

In a game such as Crowfall, we all know that CW's will end and victors will be crowned and rewarded.  We don't know very much about this system yet, but there are a variety of ways that they can implement rewards that will reduce the value of relying on numbers.  If winners can only receive a set value of export for winning, then guilds who rely on numbers for success would then receive the same amount of reward, but will then have to use that to support significantly more members.

 

What that system does is it prohibits value for being a member of a larger community because even though you might increase your chances of winning, your individual reward is reduced the more of you there are.

 

2. CW Resource Availability

 

We can assume that there will not be enough resources to support the average online population of a CW at any give point.  Why?  Because there is nothing to fight over if everyone has everything.  The scarcity of resources will encourage players to remain in smaller guilds due to logistical nightmare of outfitting hundreds of people when you only are capable of collecting resources to support 75.  This is an assumption, but it's a realistic design possibility.

 

3.  Friendly Fire

 

This is going to be a big factor TBH.  What ACE has said is that they want to start out with FF enabled and see how things go.  Yes, I'm sure there will be CW's without FF turned on, but I'd also assume that those CW's would have a reduced reward/acknowledgement for success.  Reduce risk.  Reduce reward.

 

4. CW Variety and Availability

 

Another nicety of the CW's is the ability to join any number of campaigns.  If there is a "zerg guild" going to a particular CW, then you can not join that campaign.  If you were already there and they join, you can leave (most likely).  If a multi thousand person alliance/guild forms and they attempt to mass enter a CW, they'll have to A) Get all their people in and hope everyone is at least VIP members and then B) They'll have so little competition they'll be hanging out in a CW with jack to do while others are out enjoing the game.

 

 

There are many ways ACE can design a game, that instead of trying to cap a zerg through mechanics (they never work), simply limits the value of being in a zerg.  Reduce the value of the zerg and you'll reduce the size and frequency of zergs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Rewards

In a game such as Crowfall, we all know that CW's will end and victors will be crowned and rewarded.  We don't know very much about this system yet, but there are a variety of ways that they can implement rewards that will reduce the value of relying on numbers.  If winners can only receive a set value of export for winning, then guilds who rely on numbers for success would then receive the same amount of reward, but will then have to use that to support significantly more members.

 

What that system does is it prohibits value for being a member of a larger community because even though you might increase your chances of winning, your individual reward is reduced the more of you there are.

 

I think this is the area with the most potential to "fix" a zerg problem. The rewards should never scale up by the number of people in the force and no reward should ever be given to each participant on the winning side. There should be no system to ensure that the division of spoils is fair. Make people find their own way to distribute the rewards, preferably giving them plenty of room to be greedy and unfair.  Encouraging infighting is the best solution to zergs IMO.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zerging will be part of any mmo, lucky though the CW will be ginormous (they have said "continents") so while there may be a zerg or two going on there will always be room to side step and go on an offensive strike of your own. This will encourage the zerg party to split (some defend) or to leave more defenses in the first place lessening the zerg. We will have to see how it plays out, but if they can keep faction population in a CW pretty equal at all times (ie. No 3am ninja sacks) it should be a good time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a game such as Crowfall, we all know that CW's will end and victors will be crowned and rewarded.  We don't know very much about this system yet, but there are a variety of ways that they can implement rewards that will reduce the value of relying on numbers.  If winners can only receive a set value of export for winning, then guilds who rely on numbers for success would then receive the same amount of reward, but will then have to use that to support significantly more members.

 

 

 

I think this is the area with the most potential to "fix" a zerg problem. The rewards should never scale up by the number of people in the force and no reward should ever be given to each participant on the winning side. There should be no system to ensure that the division of spoils is fair. Make people find their own way to distribute the rewards, preferably giving them plenty of room to be greedy and unfair.  Encouraging infighting is the best solution to zergs IMO.

 

Yes, but that is not how the Campaign "winnings" (stuff you jamb into your Embargo Vault while hoping for a team victory) work.  From the FAQ:

 

6. Is the Embargo Vault specific to a player?

Yes! Each player will have their own Embargo Vault to fill, in each Campaign. Players will need to balance how much of the world’s resources are dedicated to helping the team win, versus how much they want to scavenge for themselves. Having a full Embargo Vault isn’t going to help maintain control of the structures in a world!

 

Since each individual player has their own individual Embargo Vault, the only way to reduce rewards would be through the % multiplier.  For instance, if you win the max export might be 100%, Kneeling 50%, and Loss 0%.  They could add an "Anti-Zerg" penalty onto that multiplier (ie when the entire server hops onto the same team with full embargo vaults) but the calculations could get hairy - as Valor pointed out, what exactly is a zerg anyway?  Just because you fought against an numerically superior enemy doesn't mean your opponent is doing something wrong, they just may be smarter or better organized or have more political capital.


rSHxVEY.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is not how the Campaign "winnings" (stuff you jamb into your Embargo Vault while hoping for a team victory) work.

 

Yep, I'm not saying the problem has already been solved, I am just saying I see potential to solve the problem by limiting rewards.

 

Since each individual player has their own individual Embargo Vault, the only way to reduce rewards would be through the % multiplier.  For instance, if you win the max export might be 100%, Kneeling 50%, and Loss 0%.  They could add an "Anti-Zerg" penalty onto that multiplier (ie when the entire server hops onto the same team with full embargo vaults) but the calculations could get hairy - as Valor pointed out, what exactly is a zerg anyway?

 

The "zerg penalty" could be proportionate to the size of the winning side. Want the absolute maximum export? Win the whole campaign solo. Where you draw the line and call a group a "zerg" doesn't need to be defined.

 

Also, you seem to be ignoring potential limits on how much resource/material there is to gather and embargo in the first place. If a 100 man team captures a mine that produces 100 steel per day, each of them will gain less to embargo than if a 50 man team captured the same mine. So a multipler on the embargo is not the only way to limit the spoils available.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is not how the Campaign "winnings" (stuff you jamb into your Embargo Vault while hoping for a team victory) work.  From the FAQ:

 

6. Is the Embargo Vault specific to a player?

Yes! Each player will have their own Embargo Vault to fill, in each Campaign. Players will need to balance how much of the world’s resources are dedicated to helping the team win, versus how much they want to scavenge for themselves. Having a full Embargo Vault isn’t going to help maintain control of the structures in a world!

 

 

Exactly ren, (thanks for posting facts) Valor and many others are making the mistake of applying their own interpretation or view onto something that is not supported by facts.  I have been following crowns and crows alot lately and this is a common theme (love the show though).  I am not sure if all three of these guys (Draegan, Valor and Lakez) belong to the same guild or not, But LotD is a ZERG. BUT, they are organized and are not a noob zerg.   Just because there are alot of players in LoTD don't anyone assume for a second that guilds like LotD are a mindless hapless bunch of noobs.  Their teamspeak or whatever voice program will be structured with channel commanders and leaders with a well thought out strategy during mass pvp battles.

 

Any good battle plan will keep the friendly fire to a minimum.  Valor knows this....The only possible way I can see to combat a zerg is like they did in 400.  Use a bottle neck as a pick off point.  terrain will be your friend.  Open spaces will be your enemy.  Now if the Devs design the terrain  for areas like this then we may have hope, other wise a zerg will win always.  Especially a zerg like LoTD.

 

​Valor how many member's does loTD have???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

But LotD is a ZERG. BUT, they are organized and are not a noob zerg.   Just because there are alot of players in LoTD don't anyone assume for a second that guilds like LotD are a mindless hapless bunch of noobs.  Their teamspeak or whatever voice program will be structured with channel commanders and leaders with a well thought out strategy during mass pvp battles.

 

...

 

​Valor how many member's does loTD have???

 

My understanding of "zerg" is using numbers to compensate for lack of tactics, leadership, skill, etc.  And it is a derogatory term.  So your statement of LotD zerging but also being organized and well lead strikes me as contradictory....  

 

At any rate, we at LotD currently have two active chapters (WS and AA) and each have 100ish active members.  So during prime-time that gives us 25-50 online in each game - a good number to go out and get something accomplished.  Once you get too far past that you start to loose the sense of community of a guild structure in a game and outweights the advantages of having more muscle at your disposal.  Sometime leaner and meaner while having some political connections is better than trying to bulk up yourself!


rSHxVEY.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ren, I do not look at a zerg as necessarily a derogatory term....I refer to a zerg mainly as massive numbers,...Based on numbers you just gave, KoS is a little smaller...We have 1000's of members but 100 to 150 active.....If we get 50 to 60 from the KoS core for this game I will be happy....

 

But, I digress, A zerg is probably more referred to as you suggested...

 

Having a 100 active members will be on the larger side I believe.  I never played Shadowbane but KoS did...  TBW and KoS was with other alliance members and did quite well.  Being organized is the key...as you well know.

Edited by Nakawe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly ren, (thanks for posting facts) Valor and many others are making the mistake of applying their own interpretation or view onto something that is not supported by facts.  I have been following crowns and crows alot lately and this is a common theme (love the show though).  I am not sure if all three of these guys (Draegan, Valor and Lakez) belong to the same guild or not, But LotD is a ZERG. BUT, they are organized and are not a noob zerg.   Just because there are alot of players in LoTD don't anyone assume for a second that guilds like LotD are a mindless hapless bunch of noobs.  Their teamspeak or whatever voice program will be structured with channel commanders and leaders with a well thought out strategy during mass pvp battles.

 

Any good battle plan will keep the friendly fire to a minimum.  Valor knows this....The only possible way I can see to combat a zerg is like they did in 400.  Use a bottle neck as a pick off point.  terrain will be your friend.  Open spaces will be your enemy.  Now if the Devs design the terrain  for areas like this then we may have hope, other wise a zerg will win always.  Especially a zerg like LoTD.

 

​Valor how many member's does loTD have???

 

Well, there have been some assumptions made here!

I was not making my own interpretation, I was stating ways Crowfall COULD handle capping "zerg" guilds.  I admit we don't always get things right, but we never try to pass off our opinion as fact.  If you read over my post again, I clearly state that what the system they are building we don't know enough about yet, but that it would support a number of ways to hinder the viability of zergs in CF.

 

I wasn't stating that's how they'd do it, just how they COULD. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You combat zerging by designing combat mechanics that reward preparation and complex coordination over mass button mashing.

 

When combat is the mere sum of individual actors enacting their individual abilities against a common enemy, you get a bland, mediocre game.

 

When collaborators are incentivized to plan their activities in advance, engage in time- and/or resource-intensive preparation for combat, and coordinate the use of abilities that interact with each other, the effectiveness of zerging all but disappears. You get a game with the opportunity for player skill, evolving combat tactics, and dynamic battles.

This is a great view.

 

Imagine the fun of doing extra effects based on what your teammate is doing.  You hold 'em, I'll hit 'em and fastball special!

 

Icebolt auto-critting the bad guy your knight just shield bashed, etc.  Strategic combination beats zerg numbers.

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...