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

Founders' Update: Great stuff is happening! - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

If these POIs are going to change hands continually, that change of hands has to be undesirable, or it will become ritual.

 

Maybe a steady increase of benefits would work? The longer you occupy the POI the more (resources or whatever it might be) you'll receive.


ZCcquVD.png

THE most active European Crowfall community. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A common problem with these types of features is cross-rivalry collaboration to share the feature. That is, otherwise-opposed parties will actually willfully exchange control of the feature so that both benefit, because it's easier to get the desired result that way, and leave conflict to more vital circumstances. Witness the capture points in the PvP zone at release time of SWToR. There must be a clear and immediate incentive to deny access, rather than merely gain control for the relatively short time required to get what you want and leave.

 

I don't have any specific concern that you won't get this right. It's a common enough problem, however, that I think it's worth mentioning. If these POIs are going to change hands continually, that change of hands has to be undesirable, or it will become ritual.

 

We'd need to see a more detailed design doc to draw any real conclusions, but I don't share your concern at this point. SWToR had two sides, making stable cooperation agreements feasible, and no concept of lasting victory and thus no incentive not to cooperate. In Crowfall, you have many more factions competing for the same resources, any of which can unilaterally choose for a "taking turns" system to fail, and no incentive for them to cooperate at the expense of their own campaign success. Allowing your competitor to gain resources which you have the option to deny them is always "undesirable".

 

With that said, I don't necessarily see a problem with a dynamic in which you take a POI, work it, defend it while you're working it, and then leave it for someone else to work when you're done. As long as resources are scarce enough that there's benefit to be gained by attacking someone else's quarrying operation rather than just waiting your turn, the system is doing its job.


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

Any info on whether we'll be able to trade in the physical Collector's Edition for store credit? I'm not into collecting more stuff, but I'd be more than willing to exchange that for some digital in-game swag.   :)

 

That's coming, hopefully at the same time as the Collectors' Edition itself.


Gordon Walton, ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.  [Rules of Conduct]

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Posted Today, 12:44 AM

 

Tyrant, it was nice playing with you guys the other day.  I have to say how I impressed I am with this question and Answer.  When I read Dreaden's question, I honestly expected an instant of course not but thank you for playing type of answer.  I would have been happy either way but this gives me the opportunity to have a second account as needed without purchasing the game and I appreciate that.

 

One question on that though. One of the biggest draws for me getting a CE is the Beta 2 access included with the 2015 Contributor bundle.  Is there a way to get that earlier than release so that we can gift it to someone?  What I mean is, if I give my CE to my wife or son, I would want them to be able to be in Beta 2 with me as well.  

 

Will there be a plan in place for us to use it that way?

 

Kloke / Khloe

 

 

Unfortunately not.  The Collectors' Edition items are all physical, even the 2015 Contributor bundle will be a card with the code on it in the box. 


Gordon Walton, ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.  [Rules of Conduct]

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing your competitor to gain resources which you have the option to deny them is always "undesirable".

 

As long as resources are scarce enough that there's benefit to be gained by attacking someone else's quarrying operation rather than just waiting your turn, the system is doing its job.

 

... unless the incentive to deny them is less than the incentive to do other things. It isn't just about whether you could deny your competitor the resources. It's about whether it's worth your while to do so. If it isn't, then not only will you just wander away in pursuit of more interesting or impactful activities, you'll also be more willing to simply wait until a competitor leaves, because they probably won't bother you when it's your "turn". A need to defend your caravan as you transport the procured resource is a strong incentive not to bother the next group in line.

 

It doesn't take intentional coordination for this to occur. It's a naturally-emerging behavior. With zero communication, an expectation can arise that people leave caravans alone in exchange for like allowance. That means it doesn't much matter how many factions are involved; if the sum of the time each faction spends suckling at the resource teat is less than or equal to the time the teat is available, there will be, at most, some intermittent skirmishing to suckle next, but very little concerted effort to deny access.

 

The suggestion, then, is that ACE make the strategic and/or tactical cost of allowing a competitor access to these POIs greater than the opportunity cost of attacking them instead of doing something else.


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

you'll also be more willing to simply wait until a competitor leaves, because they probably won't bother you when it's your "turn"

 

This is only true if the production potential of the resource exceeds the aggregate demand for that resource. Of course there's no need to fight over resources if there's enough for everybody. If there isn't enough for everybody, then "waiting your turn" becomes sharply less attractive than other options.


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

This is only true if the production potential of the resource exceeds the aggregate demand for that resource. Of course there's no need to fight over resources if there's enough for everybody. If there isn't enough for everybody, then "waiting your turn" becomes sharply less attractive than other options.

 

Completely agree! So here's where we get back to the call out of my original post on this topic: continually changing hands.

 

ACE wants these POIs continually to change hands. If the practical supply is less than the aggregate demand and the resource is worth having, then they will not continually change hands. They will be taken and defended, and change hands only with great, and therefore infrequent, effort. Yes, if they're allowed to be persistently-held POIs, then what you say is of course accurate. But that is not the intention!

 

So if we want them to change hands "continually", we have to make sure there is not strong net incentive to hold them persistently. That means we have either to 1) reduce the value of holding them, which can easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place; or 2) increase the cost of holding them, which can also easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place. Thus, if we want these POIs to change hands continually, we have make them worth taking, but not worth holding.

 

The complicated part of this is driving the involved incentives in such a way that competitors do not simply exchange the POIs relatively peaceably. Thus, my concern and suggestion.


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

It feels like Crowfall is making me regress back in age. First computer games, now toy soldiers, following this logic, next I will be sucking on a breast. Maybe a special collectors edition assasin breast replica, I could chew on before going to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree! So here's where we get back to the call out of my original post on this topic: continually changing hands.

 

ACE wants these POIs continually to change hands. If the practical supply is less than the aggregate demand and the resource is worth having, then they will not continually change hands. They will be taken and defended, and change hands only with great, and therefore infrequent, effort. Yes, if they're allowed to be persistently-held POIs, then what you say is of course accurate. But that is not the intention!

 

So if we want them to change hands "continually", we have to make sure there is not strong net incentive to hold them persistently. That means we have either to 1) reduce the value of holding them, which can easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place; or 2) increase the cost of holding them, which can also easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place. Thus, if we want these POIs to change hands continually, we have make them worth taking, but not worth holding.

 

The complicated part of this is driving the involved incentives in such a way that competitors do not simply exchange the POIs relatively peaceably. Thus, my concern and suggestion.

 

Interesting topic. Making POIs that "continuously" change hands just seems lame from a strategic/conquest perspective, because why give up resources once you have claimed them? No civilization does that. It also makes me think of GW2 POIs and hope it isn't anywhere close to that circle jerk lameness. On the other hand, if you let one group continuously dominate a POI, then you definitely have an "Uncle Bob" situation. One possible way to do it would be to have different resources at different POIs spread out over the map, so a guild/alliance couldn't control all resources simultaneously, forcing conflict and/or trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACE wants these POIs continually to change hands. If the practical supply is less than the aggregate demand and the resource is worth having, then they will not continually change hands. They will be taken and defended, and change hands only with great, and therefore infrequent, effort. Yes, if they're allowed to be persistently-held POIs, then what you say is of course accurate. But that is not the intention!

 

What Todd meant when he said "change hands continually" could be open to some interpretation.  I would still expect POIs to be held and defended for periods of time.  People just won't be able to claim them and then log off knowing they own it until the next "window of oppurtunity."  If you want to hold it, you have to actually defend it continuously.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic. Making POIs that "continuously" change hands just seems lame from a strategic/conquest perspective, because why give up resources once you have claimed them? No civilization does that. It also makes me think of GW2 POIs and hope it isn't anywhere close to that circle jerk lameness. On the other hand, if you let one group continuously dominate a POI, then you definitely have an "Uncle Bob" situation. One possible way to do it would be to have different resources at different POIs spread out over the map, so a guild/alliance couldn't control all resources simultaneously, forcing conflict and/or trade.

You don't really give them up as much as we'll have them taken away from us by other players. Would be bad if they were only open during Windows of opportunity like the keeps will be. Would make it too static if POIs were like that. So the POIs will be a great source of not just resource's of course but for PvP action.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Todd meant when he said "change hands continually" could be open to some interpretation.  I would still expect POIs to be held and defended for periods of time.  People just won't be able to claim them and then log off knowing they own it until the next "window of oppurtunity."  If you want to hold it, you have to actually defend it continuously.

 

A big enough guild will not give up a POI unless ACE implements features to stop Guilds from earning materials after a certain amount of time.

 

What zinnie said, except that there's more than one way for game design to force someone off the POI. This is why I said

 

So if we want them to change hands "continually", we have to make sure there is not strong net incentive to hold them persistently. That means we have either to 1) reduce the value of holding them, which can easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place; or 2) increase the cost of holding them, which can also easily turn into reducing the incentive to take them in the first place. Thus, if we want these POIs to change hands continually, we have make them worth taking, but not worth holding.

Edited by hamopeche

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

Digital exclusive item (The only thing of value I truley see for people that have aready bought packages)

What is the point in a physical collectors edition if you only want virtual items from it?

Inb4 "Exactly".

 

Worthless to you maybe, not to pretty much everyone else.


532c836f2a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Thus, if we want these POIs to change hands continually, we have make them worth taking, but not worth holding.

 

I still think they actually want us fighting to hold these things.  I don't think they want people to capture them but not defend them.  I think that is a misinterpretation of what they meant by "change hands continually."


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not.  The Collectors' Edition items are all physical, even the 2015 Contributor bundle will be a card with the code on it in the box. 

 

Ok, I can still provide my Wife or Son with the game and it was expected so thank you.


Kloke

Shadowbane / Server: War / Guild: DHL / Thief: Yin / Scout: Plexiglassdragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mine which produces "more than -I- need" but "less than -everyone- needs" would create the desirable level of conflict: groups which had held the mine for long enough to meet their own needs would have less and less incentive to continue defending their claim, while everyone who was still starving on the outside would have undiminished incentive to unseat them.

 

Sure, you might like to maintain your claim indefinitely in order to trade the surplus, but there's a strong motivation disparity between "we need to take that mine to remain viable" and "we'd like to hold that mine for profit". And if the mine owners are strong and numerous enough to hold the mine indefinitely despite that motivation gap... good game, working as intended.

 

(Also, with a low enough barrier to capture, defending a resource 24x7 is impractical unless you're already the dominant force on the server.)


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

The problem I see is that promotion class is possibly a major advancement in character progression.  Having to collect an item means that advancement could be hindered or completely halted by other players.  That might be a bad thing.

 

The discipline runes will (hopefully) be fluff for the character and not a major advancement.  Little things to help round-out skills and abilities.  You can also change these runes at any time whereas you are stuck with the promotion class.

 

Since you can change disciplines on your character, it's ok to have them as collectible items.  They can then be used as a means of trade between players.  But it's likely not a good thing to block or gate a person's character progression.  Unless you make the promotion class an item to trade, but then where is the meaning?

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like the more important advancements our characters can make should involve some effort. I can remember when I had to go through the quest line to get my paladin's epic mount in WoW. It was really hard at the time, but it's one of the best memories I have from any MMO because it took me some time to get. Blizzard later changed it because people were frustrated by having to go through the quest line and now you just gain the thing from a trainer. In my opinion something cool was lost when they made that update.

 

I certainly agree that other players should not have the ability to completely prevent you from advancing to the next stage of character development, but I really don't see anything wrong with having to overcome other players to advance in a PvP game.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mine which produces "more than -I- need" but "less than -everyone- needs" would create the desirable level of conflict: groups which had held the mine for long enough to meet their own needs would have less and less incentive to continue defending their claim, while everyone who was still starving on the outside would have undiminished incentive to unseat them.

 

Sure, that's a great starting point. Again, though, to make sure the holders don't just abandon, or leave a token force, once they've gotten what they need, there must be an immediate, clear benefit to denying the next comers. It can't just be, "OHAI LET'S FIGHT", because there are likely to be more pressing demands or opportunities for combat elsewhere. If the only incentive to deny the next comers is the opportunity to be a nuisance, only bored people will bother. This is why this balance is so hard to achieve: you want the current occupants to be incentivized to resist would-be successors, but not sufficiently so to incentivize establishing a semi-permanent defense.

 

As someone else in this thread suggested, a good approach might be to ensure that no faction has sufficient participants to control a large proportion of the POIs they need at any one point in time. That can quickly go too far, though, if you can control only such a small proportion that you simply run one or two POIs at a time; that would result in the peaceable exchange I've warned against.


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

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...