Crowfall

Sylas · Mar 21, 2015

GoT happens in the goddamn campaigns not in the fucking lobby. sorry to blow up on you specifically but the last 3-4 pages have been so full of dumb i can't stand it anymore. (also on shitty wifi trying to catch up on this thread).

What part of "the game is the campaigns" do you ppl not understand? THE GAME IS THE CAMPAIGNS.

"Oh shit winter is kicking our asses while xyz is quickly owning the map, lets make an alliance with the rest of the 2nd placers to take them out. oh shit abc betrayed the alliance they just knelt to fucking xyz we are doomed and lost all of our embargo those fucking backstabbing faggots we are following them to the next campaign and shitting down their throats. Don't even matter if we win, we are just going to ensure that they lose."

This thread has too much speculation from ppl who have never played a real pvp game To understand what the appeal is. GoT can be used to describe any pvp game, uo, sb, eve, etc. Betrayal, intrique, backstabbing, etc is a consequence of ffa player interactions, its not something you code into the fucking UI or implement with a game mechanic.

Edit meamt to quote someone but on my.phone so fuck it.

Aenor · Mar 21, 2015

Sylas_sl said:
This thread has too much speculation from ppl who have never played a real pvp game To understand what the appeal is.

Define "real PvP game."

Vandyn · Mar 21, 2015

I'm curious to find out what the penalties will be for campaign hopping. Perhaps very severe for Dregs and lessen as you go up in campaign difficulty.

Pyros · Mar 21, 2015

Aenor_sl said:
Define "real PvP game."

Anything that had world pvp/FFA pvp, as opposed to battlegrounds/arena type gameplay. Though obviously, you could argue that's just as real pvp as any other sort of pvp, but generally real pvp means random forced pvp, in opposition to consensual pvp.

Convo · Mar 21, 2015

Flc_sl said:
If I wanted to do that, I'd talk about how LotD has bled members for the past decade, including most of the individuals that made the guild competitive back in the day, still pretends to be among the elite PVP guilds out there when in actuality it's a shell of its former self, and with its only credit being its public relation officers that are masterfully fucking proficient at minimizing the sweeping defeats LotD experiences in game after game while trumping up minor victories as if they just won the MLG championship.

In other words, they're the Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen of guilds.

Anyone who forms an allegiance with RUIN and its 5,000 shithead members and then still proceeds to lose so badly they're forced to change servers so they can compete against unorganized, unguilded players and then claim domination is ridiculous.

Can't wait to see them in the Dregs to test if they've figured out organized target calling and pushes yet.

Pantheon on, pussy...

Draegan_sl · Mar 21, 2015

I think a better definition is PvP you don't queue up for.

Ukerric · Mar 21, 2015

Draegan_sl said:
Dregs gives you a base ruleset but that doesn't mean the import/export rules are all identical.

It's stated on the Dregs (from Kickstarter page):

So, maybe they will change those rules, as Tuco said, but at the moment, that's what's promised.

Barab · Mar 21, 2015

Draegan_sl said:
lol Don't be a pussy. Own that shit dude.

YA Fic, if your going to call out a guild here at least rep whatever guild banner you roll under ...

Draegan_sl · Mar 21, 2015

Ukerric_sl said:
It's stated on the Dregs (from Kickstarter page):

So, maybe they will change those rules, as Tuco said, but at the moment, that's what's promised.

The problem is they have stated so many different what ifs that I don't take anything as rock solid.

Tuco · Mar 21, 2015

Vitality_sl said:
What if they make the guild only artifacts only winnable in the guild vs guild campaign?

Like I said if they add contrived objectives we'll have to re-adjust, but right now the attitude among PvPers is that we want FFA and are exhausted from factional PvP. Organized groups also do better in FFA environments. The people who are helped most by factional PvP are unorganized players who are assigned a group of people to play with, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't as compelling as FFA for us.

Flc_sl said:
No offense, Valor, (and I agree with both your broader point about EKs in this post and appreciate you getting information from the developers) but it's been quite a long time since LotD went into a game and "just fck'd people's shit up."

Weren't you part of that fail alliance in GW2 along with Team Legacy (lol) and RUIN (double lol?) I believe PRX and that group of folks Tuco and company put together - Titan Alliance - destroyed your team regularly.
Wasn't your team regularly destroyed by Condemned in ESO until they broke up?
What's the last game you guys actually dominated in? ArcheAge (lol)? Age of Conan?

I'm really not trying to make this a "shots fired" post and again, appreciate your developer access, but come on dude...

First off, if you want to talk shit about LotD please use this thread:
Lords of the Dead - Guilds - Crowfall Community

Second, from what I hear LotD is competing at the highest levels on Ollo in ArcheAge. I think Havoc was on the same server and broke up before the Auroria content was even released where LotD got a castle. ArcheAge isn't the kind of hardcore PvP ruleset we all want, but it is the current PvP game and LotD is showing a lot of flex in it. There's no reason to doubt they'll carry that to Crowfall.

Lastly, LotD has a good enough pedigree that you have no credibility if you talk shit anonymously.

Draegan_sl said:
The problem is they have stated so many different what ifs that I don't take anything as rock solid.

Yep. This is a bit of a grand experiment and nobody knows how it'll go. They need to focus on making the campaign experience fun and then worry about making the victory of campaigns rewarding.

Draegan_sl said:
I don't know what a guilds motivations are. I know PRX would probably hit the dregs and compete against the best guilds out there and do it for months just to win. They did it in ESO and GW2 for absolutely no gain except for the winning part. So yes, I think they will do it. Not only that, they gain gear and materials to some degree.

This is 100% true. What we mostly want is a clear victory condition that separates a winner and a loser. We can use this to strategize toward and a simple win/loss record proves who is successful. From our experience the benefit of winning a campaign in terms of morale and new applicants is so powerful that a concrete ingame benefit isn't necessary. Speaking personally I'd prefer the trophies exist but don't confer any benefit in the campaign. I think this for several reasons:
1. I want them to stick to their 'clean slate' idea 100%.
2. I don't want to hear the bullshit excuses/complaints people have of outside interference. I hated hearing whining from sides who didn't have orbs in GW2 complaining about how it was impossible to fight. I hate excuses and I hate game mechanics that give people an easy way to make excuses.
3. Most importantly, I think (hope) that a tier1 campaign will emerge will emerge in the community for all the big dick-swinging PvPers to join in and compete against each other. You'll have thick-chinned groups like the KGB roll in that campaign and fight to the death the entire campaign no matter the odds. Then you'll have needle-dicked guilds who roll on a weak campaign because they're afraid of competition.

Ex: The leading guild on Enla in AA rolled on Aranzeb or Ollo and switched servers to Enla right after release because they didn't want to compete with the 'bigger' guilds. Now they're dominating a nobody server and are arguably the most successful guild in ArcheAge in terms of specific feats (castles, halcy record and PvE kills). The strongest alpha guild in ArcheAge rolled on the weakest server like a bunch of pussies and broke up two months later.

So, I get annoyed with the idea that the pussy guilds on the easy campaigns getting better rewards than the badass guilds on the harder campaigns. This will naturally divide the PvP community and reward cowardice.

Draegan_sl · Mar 21, 2015

Here's another what if for you. What if the campaigns with the best resources are actually limited as well. As in out of 50 campaigns only one or two at a time have super mats in them? So the best of the best has to campaign there if they want the big dick stuff.

Tuco · Mar 21, 2015

I disagree with the foundation of your question. I think the key to making this game successful isn't in finding the perfect balance for players to get rewarded after the campaign, but making the campaigns themselves enjoyable. If the carrot is winning a campaign for your EK I feel like they've fallen short of their goal. They want to create an MMO that resets and a permanent trophy area. They don't want to create a bland MMO with really impressive long-term battleground instances.

As to your question directly, I dunno how it'd work out. Players would perform a valuation of what earns them a good reward and are generally risk averse. If each campaign had 100 Unobtanium gems you could export to the EK and you had three campaigns, copper, silver and gold with different power levels of the Unobtanium Gem it'd be difficult to predict how the player base would separate.

Harkon · Mar 21, 2015

The Stanley cup is a great champagne holder but next season the whole team does not get 5% faster slapshots.

I agree that the trophies themselves should be their own reward if they are difficult enough to obtain.

Draegan_sl · Mar 21, 2015

Tuco_sl said:
I disagree with the foundation of your question. I think the key to making this game successful isn't in finding the perfect balance for players to get rewarded after the campaign, but making the campaigns themselves enjoyable. If the carrot is winning a campaign for your EK I feel like they've fallen short of their goal. They want to create an MMO that resets and a permanent trophy area. They don't want to create a bland MMO with really impressive long-term battleground instances.

As to your question directly, I dunno how it'd work out. Players would perform a valuation of what earns them a good reward and are generally risk averse. If each campaign had 100 Unobtanium gems you could export to the EK and you had three campaigns, copper, silver and gold with different power levels of the Unobtanium Gem it'd be difficult to predict how the player base would separate.

I confused with what you mean by foundation of my question. The "what if" I put there was a direct response to you stating that you hate it when pussy guilds go out and get equal rewards to servers with no competition.

We already know that the best and most scarce resources come from campaigns with the highest risk. My suggestion merely states that when you're deciding which campaign to join, the high risk campaigns are limited so those pussy guilds will be forced to compete with other guilds for the same rewards, and not find some empty campaign somewhere or a campaign with no real organization and dominate it.

Even if the rewards are just a notch in your win column and all that everyone cares about is winning, limiting the high risk campaigns forces the best to come together and compete. I think that is a good idea on the macro level of things.

I think you might of over complicated my post.

Teekey · Mar 21, 2015

Sylas_sl said:
GoT happens in the goddamn campaigns not in the fucking lobby.

I think some of the annoyance is that they've talked more about social constructs in the Eternal Kingdom than they have in Campaigns.

In fact, right now I don't even understand what 'throne' we're fighting for in the Campaigns because they've done so little to explain that aspect of the game. Is the 'throne' tied to win objectives? Is it tied to land control? Is it tied to resources? Is there going to be a fealty system in the Campaigns? Is it just Guild factions? Can you create alliances? Is it only guild alliances?

Draegan_sl said:
The problem is they have stated so many different what ifs that I don't take anything as rock solid.

This is the other issue. Most of the game seems to essentially be ideas on a napkin.

I trust that they'll pull it all together, but it makes it somewhat frustrating right now trying to wrap your head around how the game will play out on a day to day basis, or some of the more specific game mechanic interactions.

Tuco_sl said:
Speaking personally I'd prefer the trophies exist but don't confer any benefit in the campaign.

I almost feel like visual bonuses to the victors would be a better route. Better looking armor, special looking mounts, guild standards (that you can impale into an enemy's corpse), spikes to put enemy's head on, cooler looking forts/castles in campaigns, etc.

Ukerric · Mar 21, 2015

Teekey_sl said:
I think some of the annoyance is that they've talked more about social constructs in the Eternal Kingdom than they have in Campaigns.

That's because EK are "easy" to design, and have low importance in the grand scheme of things.

The EK are where you store your bragging trophies, your gameplay enhancing trophies (relics; the more relics you have the more choices you have of boons for your next campaign), and where you craft or purchase your gear for the next campaign. And where you role-play, since there's always a sizable portion of any playerbase who like that.

And in any guild, you're going to have players who like building and crafting. Those are the guys who will craft their EK into a little realm, and the rest of the guild is going to come there to get stuff done, then head back to fight.

I almost feel like visual bonuses to the victors would be a better route. Better looking armor, special looking mounts, guild standards (that you can impale into an enemy's corpse), spikes to put enemy's head on, cooler looking forts/castles in campaigns, etc.

I guess this is going to be part of it. Not all of it, but part of it.

Harkon · Mar 21, 2015

The crafters can't just hang out in the EK though if they really want to benefit their guild they need to enter the campaigns to build shit for the guild there.

Ukerric · Mar 21, 2015

Harkon_sl said:
The crafters can't just hang out in the EK though if they really want to benefit their guild they need to enter the campaigns to build shit for the guild there.

Well, that's a given. The game is about the campaigns, not about WoW-type garrison management. You don't even have resources harvesting in EK, so basically, you set up stuff if you have enough resources to prop new buildings or expand your kingdom, manage your stocks on your vendor, and back to the war you go.

Teekey · Mar 21, 2015

$1.3 million goal hit. Mount up!

Tuco · Mar 21, 2015

Draegan_sl said:
I confused with what you mean by foundation of my question. The "what if" I put there was a direct response to you stating that you hate it when pussy guilds go out and get equal rewards to servers with no competition.

I agree and I think combination of what is being thrown around for tougher campaigns = better rewards is probably a good solution. I think their tournament idea might be an ideal option rather than having tiered campaigns.

My point about foundation is that trying to find the right reward structure for participating in the campaign is the wrong goal. IMO the goal should be to make the campaigns compelling on their own. People should be excited for the next campaign like it's a game release, not concerned about excelling in each campaign for the reward afterward.

Search

Crowfall

Sylas

Aenor

Vandyn

Blackwing Lair Raider

Pyros

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

Barab

Silver Knight of the Realm

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!

Harkon

Vyemm Raider

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

Harkon

Vyemm Raider

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!