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

Get rid of Gods Reach and The Shadow

Recommended Posts

This is gonna be a tough one, let's begin:

 

Gods Reach:

 

Gods reach suffers from some very bad conflicts with the Crowfall's current design.

 

Limited custom fortress building and resource collection are going to be a major features, and every guild will want their piece of the pie. In Gods Reach, with only 3 factions, there will be 10-30 major guilds on each faction, all fighting for their piece of that very limited pie. It may seem that creating guild competition is a good thing, until you remember that these guilds need to work together. Even worse, each guild will only have 1/30th of a faction's forces, meaning that they HAVE to work together, as they will not be able to accomplish much by acting independently.

 

I am a guild-leader in Planetside 2, and let me tell you: Without guild competition, working with other leaders is hell. If we had competition, the experience will become MISERABLE. Command chat in Planetside 2 is already known as a horrible place, and as a result: every player mutes it reflexively. Even worse, in planetside 2: there are about 10 major guilds per faction, with at most, half of them online at the same time. So a standard commander has about has about 1/8th of all the faction's forces under their command (the rest being un-guilded), meaning that they can accomplish SOMETHING when working alone. If leader were forced to work with even more: no leader would touch these campaigns with a 10-foot pole.

 

There are a few other problems that a 3-faction system creates: like the screwing with the EVE-like economy as it discourages trade, or any other problems that I can't think of, but I will leave it at that. It is better to remove Gods Reach then fixing these problems, as fixing will mess with other campaign designs, and this wont be fun for anyone.

 

Why The Infected works:

 

The infected works because its player,and thus the guild, distribution is much thinner. Each faction will have 2-6 major guilds; each one with a large enough portion of the faction under their control to allow for independent play. But still having other guilds who are possible to work with. Furthermore, they are no longer competing with each other for resources. With so many foes, it is Inefficient to fight each other, adding to the reasons to work together.

 

Concerning the economy: Each faction will be too small to allow an independent economy, so trading will happen no matter what.

 

The Shadow:

 

This one is pointless, just pointless. The Dregs comes down to GvG anyway, the only difference being that you can betray your guild in. By adding another rule-set with a minor distinction, we needlessly split the player-base. There can be a no-betrayal rule in certain Dregs campaigns, as is part of the beauty of changing rule-sets. But there is just no need for an ENTIRE new rule-system for it.

 

 

Concerning risk vs reward factors of going into campaigns with more rival teams( and as thus a lower chance to win): It was mentioned that each rule-type had its own percentage of embargo that can be taken with you. Instead of tying the win percentage to the rule-set. Just make it into another turn-able nob. Why not have a Dregs campaign with higher export allowances. (just to screw with people, it could have triple FF damage)

 

So ya, if anyone has any other reasons to to add to why these campaign types are bad, I will be happy to mention them. And if I am wrong, well, I am sure you will talk all about it in the thread bellow; see you in the discussion!!! *sharpens pitchfork*

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to keep God's Reach and The Shadow both. God's Reach creates competition between guilds within each faction for resources, yes, but this is the case for every faction and thus those who work together or figure something out between each other will thus have a better chance at victory. The point in this is that cooperation isn't going to be easy and that compromise might be necessary. This might even be when pre campaign EK Politics come into play in that alliances of large guilds help to maintain resources between allied guilds. It is an intentional part of the game to create friction between sub-factions, I believe.

 

As for GvG, I think this is also necessary for some types of guilds to make a name for themselves. The Dregs, while there might be some guildies working together, still comes down to 1vAll situation in the end, a brawl, a free-for-all. GvG is a more organized guild-state vs guild-state gameplay. They are thus very different and thus deserve different game modes for each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We don't know how the dregs rewards winners yet and we don't know how that differs from the shadows, so all assumptions about the two are simply assumptions without foundation of fact.

 

2. 3 Faction RvR is possible and it does require factions to ally in order to succeed.  This is the same approach as has worked in both Warhammer Online and Guild Wars 2 most recently.  Guilds are able to choose a faction to join and as such are able to join with their allies or form their own alliances once in the CW.

 

With the Good, Neutral, Evil approach, you could have a variety of social and political situations arise that can influence who the victor of the CW is and the guild or guilds who are able to lead their faction to victory will rise to the top.  RvR is not about what guild wins, it's about what faction wins and then further what contributions your guild or members performed during the campaign.  If you can't lead your faction, you'll fall behind the other two, but because the other two are also competing with each other, you could theoretically ally one of the other factions and bypass any insubordination within your own.

 

Point is, I disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to keep God's Reach and The Shadow both. God's Reach creates competition between guilds within each faction for resources, yes, but this is the case for every faction and thus those who work together or figure something out between each other will thus have a better chance at victory. The point in this is that cooperation isn't going to be easy and that compromise might be necessary. This might even be when pre campaign EK Politics come into play in that alliances of large guilds help to maintain resources between allied guilds. It is an intentional part of the game to create friction between sub-factions, I believe.

 

As for GvG, I think this is also necessary for some types of guilds to make a name for themselves. The Dregs, while there might be some guildies working together, still comes down to 1vAll situation in the end, a brawl, a free-for-all. GvG is a more organized guild-state vs guild-state gameplay. They are thus very different and thus deserve different game modes for each.

Due to the nature of God's reach, you cant just hope the factions gets together and work out( which they FOR A FACT will not. Also, if your solution is pre-campaign alliances, you run face-first into uncle-bob territory). That is 1/3rd of the entire server's players getting screwed-over for it.

 

Concerning dregs as "GvG": for a fact, in a PvP MMO, an FFA system basically comes down to guilds anyway...  for the export part of things: I highly doubt there will not be a system in place to allow a full guild's roster of members from getting the game-winning rewards. Even if there were not a system that does so, it wouldn't matter until the last hours of the last day, so it is GvG all the same.

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We don't know how the dregs rewards winners yet and we don't know how that differs from the shadows, so all assumptions about the two are simply assumptions without foundation of fact.

 

2. 3 Faction RvR is possible and it does require factions to ally in order to succeed.  This is the same approach as has worked in both Warhammer Online and Guild Wars 2 most recently.  Guilds are able to choose a faction to join and as such are able to join with their allies or form their own alliances once in the CW.

 

With the Good, Neutral, Evil approach, you could have a variety of social and political situations arise that can influence who the victor of the CW is and the guild or guilds who are able to lead their faction to victory will rise to the top.  RvR is not about what guild wins, it's about what faction wins and then further what contributions your guild or members performed during the campaign.  If you can't lead your faction, you'll fall behind the other two, but because the other two are also competing with each other, you could theoretically ally one of the other factions and bypass any insubordination within your own.

 

Point is, I disagree with you.

1. That is a given for all posts, we can only work with what we know, and assume for the rest.

 

2. I don't know much of Guild Wars 2. Is the PvP instanced-based winnable matches (with each match lasting up to... say... 3 days) or are they persistent battlegrounds similar to EVE? Same question for Warhammer. My answer will have to change based on how they handle PvP

 

3. The orders/balance/chaos system makes does help mitigate the problems of the system, but the core issues still stand, and it reduces the strategy to hoping that the other team is more competent then yours (which they wont be).

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Warhammer your were in a side and you weren't able to change it , the only way to change it was delete your character and reroll on the other side (the side was related to the race of your character).

The battleground wasn't persistent, there were some winning condiction (one side had to control 2 maps on 3  (if i remember well) to be able to get to the Capital of the other faction. Once there the map was instanced in several different timed battlegrounds and after the end of all the bg all the 3 maps would reset to the starting situation


Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Warhammer your were in a side and you weren't able to change it , the only way to change it was delete your character and reroll on the other side (the side was related to the race of your character).

The battleground wasn't persistent, there were some winning condiction (one side had to control 2 maps on 3  (if i remember well) to be able to get to the Capital of the other faction. Once there the map was instanced in several different timed battlegrounds and after the end of all the bg all the 3 maps would reset to the starting situation

How long would it take to win the entire "match"


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That is a given for all posts, we can only work with what we know, and assume for the rest.

 

2. I don't know much of Guild Wars 2. Is the PvP instanced-based winnable matches (with each match lasting up to... say... 3 days) or are they persistent battlegrounds similar to EVE? Same question for Warhammer. My answer will have to change based on how they handle PvP

 

3. The orders/balance/chaos system makes does help mitigate the problems of the system, but the core issues still stand, and it reduces the strategy to hoping that the other team is more competent then yours (which they wont be).

 

1. Yes, we can only assume... but calling for the removal of a game feature based off of assumptions is well... presumptuous don't you think?

 

2. GW2 had campaigns that lasted for 1 or 2 weeks I believe.  I believe it went from one to the other.  During that time, you were forced to work together if you wanted to win.  3 servers per campaign and they were ranked in groups of 3 by performance in prior campaigns.  Some servers worked together and were successful... others sucked and never won. What happened is people started moving servers if they wanted to be competitive, or if they didn't want to be competitive.  The best servers were the ones who could organize their populations.

 

Warhammer Online, you joined a server and you faced off against another faction.  If you didn't like where you were, you rerolled or tried to organize the server.  their poor set up killed most of their servers and their game.

 

3. Strategy going into these CW's will be joining together with their allies and finding seeking out good competition to join with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long would it take to win the entire "match"

 

Could take forever because to win a map a faction had to control a number of POI to get winning point and the other faction would had only to get one of the POI needed to make the map contested again and you had to play on 3 maps at the same time so a match could take forever or just a few days

The sad part of that system was that the major prize were gived during the Capital assault Bg so most of the time one side allowed the other side to quickly control the 2 maps needed to go to the Capital battleground to receive prize (prize were gived to both side and there were only a minimal cons in losing your capital)

I was in a little guild on War and i hated most the players on my side than the players on the other side, we weren't following the self proclamed Side Chief and we were fighting even when our side was trying to get the other side in our Capital so we were hated by our side

It was really a bad system the bigger flaw was that even when you were losing your capital you still were winning items and things that you were unable to win if the map was contested...

Edited by cappaspada

Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with the shadow, it's sorta pointless cause it's just Dregs without friendly fire. However, they designed the systems to have 5 levels of difficulty and reward. So let's say you don't think you are good enough to play in Dregs but still want decent loot, Shadow is a pretty good option then. As for your logic about the first band, you are right, having about 60 (which in your example seems really high, I'd only assume about 2000 people will play on each Gods Reach server) will be hard to manage. And even harder to control. BUT, it was designed this way to build that "join or die" mentality. If you want to win, you will have all those guilds work together or you die from refusing. Remember, you CHOSE to do the non independent mode, and if you don't like it, you can only blame yourself.

To a small problem I see with Gods Reach however that will give some credit to your point. Balance, is the prime factor in why this gamemode is sorta garbage. When you have a team of "Order" that doesn't work together (like you said), and you have a team of "Chaos) (that also won't work together) you are left with Balance which will 99% of the time win. Especially when playing Balance takes little skill as you need to just fight for both sides , flip flopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes, we can only assume... but calling for the removal of a game feature based off of assumptions is well... presumptuous don't you think?

 

2. GW2 had campaigns that lasted for 1 or 2 weeks I believe.  I believe it went from one to the other.  During that time, you were forced to work together if you wanted to win.  3 servers per campaign and they were ranked in groups of 3 by performance in prior campaigns.  Some servers worked together and were successful... others sucked and never won. What happened is people started moving servers if they wanted to be competitive, or if they didn't want to be competitive.  The best servers were the ones who could organize their populations.

 

Warhammer Online, you joined a server and you faced off against another faction.  If you didn't like where you were, you rerolled or tried to organize the server.  their poor set up killed most of their servers and their game.

 

3. Strategy going into these CW's will be joining together with their allies and finding seeking out good competition to join with you.

1. It is presumptuous... perhaps. But based off of what we know, we should suggest what we can, when we can, so long as it doesn't go to the level of spam.

 

2. To be fair, I actually asked the wrong question, the main problem comes in the form of splitting a limited economy across a team, and limited building space to over 20 potentially groups of buildings(and many other random ones as well)

 

3. Smaller alliances will certainly arise, but it just wont be enough to salvage an entire server


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with the shadow, it's sorta pointless cause it's just Dregs without friendly fire. However, they designed the systems to have 5 levels of difficulty and reward. So let's say you don't think you are good enough to play in Dregs but still want decent loot, Shadow is a pretty good option then. As for your logic about the first band, you are right, having about 60 (which in your example seems really high, I'd only assume about 2000 people will play on each Gods Reach server) will be hard to manage. And even harder to control. BUT, it was designed this way to build that "join or die" mentality. If you want to win, you will have all those guilds work together or you die from refusing. Remember, you CHOSE to do the non independent mode, and if you don't like it, you can only blame yourself.

 

To a small problem I see with Gods Reach however that will give some credit to your point. Balance, is the prime factor in why this gamemode is sorta garbage. When you have a team of "Order" that doesn't work together (like you said), and you have a team of "Chaos) (that also won't work together) you are left with Balance which will 99% of the time win. Especially when playing Balance takes little skill as you need to just fight for both sides , flip flopping.

These aren't levels of difficulty, these are levels of team distributions (with difficulty coming as a side-effect). The issue with Gods Reach is that the distribution is too little. concerning giving people choice: I am OK with campaigns that allow for a smaller amount of teams, but it shouldn't be a major pre-defined system. It should be one of those silly gimick rule-sets, such as all-centaur. That way resources aren't wasted on it.


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with others we don't know enough about the differences between Shadow and Dregs. I think Gods Reach is fine, people love trifaction. If anything, I'd toss Infected, it's not HC enough for me to really want to play like Shadow or Dregs, but also seems too tedious for me to fnck around in like I might do with some random alt in Gods Reach.


gCWxS8u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with others we don't know enough about the differences between Shadow and Dregs. I think Gods Reach is fine, people love trifaction. If anything, I'd toss Infected, it's not HC enough for me to really want to play like Shadow or Dregs, but also seems too tedious for me to fnck around in like I might do with some random alt in Gods Reach.

3 Faction is unlikely to work with an EVE-like economy and Bases-building/Resource collection.


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Faction is unlikely to work with an EVE-like economy and Bases-building/Resource collection.

 

Do you really think CF's economy will be that similar to Eve? I think people are going to approach God's reach as a tri-faction ruleset and play accordingly, it's also pretty familiar for many MMO pvpers. Unlike 12-faction.

 

Obviously we are still short on info. Something like initial spawning could play a huge role in how Gods Reach works. Do they spawn the players of each faction randomly throughout the world or do they spawn the players into a certain portion of the in-game continent for each faction?


gCWxS8u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gods reach suffers from some very bad conflicts with the Crowfall's current design.

 

Limited custom fortress building and resource collection are going to be a major features, and every guild will want their piece of the pie. In Gods Reach, with only 3 factions, there will be 10-30 major guilds on each faction, all fighting for their piece of that very limited pie. It may seem that creating guild competition is a good thing, until you remember that these guilds need to work together. Even worse, each guild will only have 1/30th of a faction's forces, meaning that they HAVE to work together, as they will not be able to accomplish much by acting independently.

 

I am a guild-leader in Planetside 2, and let me tell you: Without guild competition, working with other leaders is hell. If we had competition, the experience will become MISERABLE. Command chat in Planetside 2 is already known as a horrible place, and as a result: every player mutes it reflexively. Even worse, in planetside 2: there are about 10 major guilds per faction, with at most, half of them online at the same time. So a standard commander has about has about 1/8th of all the faction's forces under their command (the rest being un-guilded), meaning that they can accomplish SOMETHING when working alone. If leader were forced to work with even more: no leader would touch these campaigns with a 10-foot pole.

 

There are a few other problems that a 3-faction system creates: like the screwing with the EVE-like economy as it discourages trade, or any other problems that I can't think of, but I will leave it at that. It is better to remove Gods Reach then fixing these problems, as fixing will mess with other campaign designs, and this wont be fun for anyone.

 

Found the guy who didn't play DAoC.


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

Do you really think CF's economy will be that similar to Eve? I think people are going to approach God's reach as a tri-faction ruleset and play accordingly, it's also pretty familiar for many MMO pvpers. Unlike 12-faction.

 

Obviously we are still short on info. Something like initial spawning could play a huge role in how Gods Reach works. Do they spawn the players of each faction randomly throughout the world or do they spawn the players into a certain portion of the in-game continent for each faction?

We are short on info, so it is difficult to know how these rule-sets will function, but I doubt an economy even similar to EVE will be very effective in a 3-faction rule-set.


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for GvG, I think this is also necessary for some types of guilds to make a name for themselves. The Dregs, while there might be some guildies working together, still comes down to 1vAll situation in the end, a brawl, a free-for-all. GvG is a more organized guild-state vs guild-state gameplay. They are thus very different and thus deserve different game modes for each.

 

Unless I misunderstood this thread, the difference between Shadows and Dregs is just that Friendly Fire is on in the Dregs. It's not going to be a solo roaming gank fest. It's going to by guild vs guild, making The Shadows superfluous and splitting the population. Is there some other major difference that makes it a necessity to stay?


pKWaYh4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I misunderstood this thread, the difference between Shadows and Dregs is just that Friendly Fire is on in the Dregs. It's not going to be a solo roaming gank fest. It's going to by guild vs guild, making The Shadows superfluous and splitting the population. Is there some other major difference that makes it a necessity to stay?

friendly fire is on in all game modes, at least in some limited form. And no, there is no reason to keep it, which is why I am suggesting we get rid of it (as well as Gods Reach)


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wall of china

 

​I agree but for different reasons. The vertical gradient (EK -> GR -> TI -> TS -> TG) for scaling difficulty and major types of gameplay is too long and will cause the player base to spread too much and introduce complexity into the economy (for the worse), as there has to be constant balancing of resources vs risk and so on. I support the idea that there should be only two vertical domains below EKs (Faction based PvE/PvP + Guild based FFA) and the rest should be handled via adding campaigns based on interest (horizontal distribution) within these two.

 

I've built several walls of text across the forum regarding this but I think we should wait and see how they progress on that matter; on the offchance they're withholding information which might change our contra arguments.

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...