Crowfall

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
Jtodd on Kickstarter hitting 800k this morning:

Wow.

I'm writing this just before dawn on Friday, Wed 27th. We are now at the end of day 3 of our kickstarter -- less than 72 hours since we started. ...and you guys just funded us!

$800,000. That's unbelievable.

This is a huge vote of confidence for our vision, and our Company. We are inspired by your passion and honored by the faith that you have placed in us. We won't let you down.

We set out to find an audience to support us in creating something different, something innovative... and now we have, we are going to do exactly that. Thank you for making this happen.

Allies, Enemies, Empires, Betrayal, Risk, Conquest!

We're doing this, together. We're going to make Crowfall a reality.

From all of us at ArtCraft: thank you, sincerely.

Todd, Gordon and the ArtCraft Team

ps. don't stop pushing! we've added our first two stretch goals to page, let's keep this momentum going -- each additional pledge makes the game that much better!
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
Quoting this not to adress Draegan but the various posts about short campaigns. This quote is what the game is about (I hope). If you do that from start to finish every other week, it doesnt carry any weight. Closest comparison would be GW2 if it had a new map every two weeks. I'm not sure the new map alone can carry the game if it turns into a routine like this: day 1 scout, day 2 harvest, day 3 build fortress, 2-4 days of battling it out and by then you have a victor and a bunch of people that lost this campaign and just play their other char in a different campaign, campaign-hopped or swore fealty to get at least some of their rewards out.

Instead I hope that exploring and getting to know the new world, then gathering and building your outposts and finding out who and where the opposing forces are taking hold takes a week or two. Then a month of back+forth and a few weeks of winter as it becomes harder to get resources to repair your keeps and you are driven towards a loss by attrition (which is the point where people will again drop out of the campaign in some manner, but at least it ran at full steam for a solid month or longer).

That said, gimmick campaigns that last a day or 5 can be a blast if the ruleset is appropriate. Again comparing this to PoE, it's the difference between a 3 hour long race event with weird mods and a 3 month season with new rules. The latter has to adhere much closer to the basic premise of the game.
3 things:

1. If the maps are large / sparsely populated enough that it takes a couple weeks to scout out the enemy, then there's not enough resource contention (until the resources despawn in winter or whatever). This means the guilds pvping over resources will be getting outpaced by the guilds that don't.

2. If I have to grind bear asses for the first few weeks of a campaign I'm going to burn out after the first few campaigns. This game will not be a compelling PvE experience, and anytime I'm not pvping or at risk of pvping I'm bored. Maybe I'm just salty over having done way too much PvE to compete in PvP over the last 15 years. I can stomach that when eating the first month of straight PvE means I can spend the rest of the time PvPing, but in a temporary campaign all levels need to involve direct competition.

3. In your short-duration example you say battle it out for 2-4 days and then the campaign ends. In your long example you say a month of back+forth. Why can't it be, "Enter campaign, scout a map and an hour later you've begun the war over resources that will continue until the campaign ends."?
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
And holy crap the official forums are a mess but it's the only place with unending crowfall content to burn out on 2 years pre-release.

They need to do a repeat of what they did in shadowbane and make a private forum where all the legitimate players are invited to.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,589
34,069
If they design them right, EK can be really important for the trade/craft aspect. Something like which guild/player controls the "Jita" of Crowfall. A really big and well know EK with lots of traders/crafters and a big population trading at all times. As the Monarch can set taxes and control access it could really be a nice gameplay element ("trade-wars").
OK but imagine Jita if the hot PvP spot was through a wormhole where all modules got removed when you went through it and you had to buy regular tech 1 junk from vendors on the other side.

That's where I don't see how this is going to work if everyone without the good stuff can just play terminator campaigns? Are EKs going to be just functionally cosmetic or terminator campaigns marginalized (or rare)?
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
I hope terminator campaigns are the norm, but I can see the community gravitating toward campaigns that let them bring in the maximum amount of stuff possible. This is a case where the regular community will have an advantage in high-import rules over the irregular players, so they'll gravitate toward that.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,589
34,069
I hope terminator campaigns are the norm, but I can see the community gravitating toward campaigns that let them bring in the maximum amount of stuff possible. This is a case where the regular community will have an advantage in high-import rules over the irregular players, so they'll gravitate toward that.
Then why wouldn't you bring your badass uber guild to terminator-ville and stalk the newbies and take all the resources? CIRCULAR LOGIC FOR DAYS TUCBRO
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
OK but imagine Jita if the hot PvP spot was through a wormhole where all modules got removed when you went through it and you had to buy regular tech 1 junk from vendors on the other side.

That's where I don't see how this is going to work if everyone without the good stuff can just play terminator campaigns? Are EKs going to be just functionally cosmetic or terminator campaigns marginalized (or rare)?
Certain archetypes will be able to craft better types of items than your vendor purchased t1 example. Especially considering the bulk of your characters power has been stated to be the skills you've trained/passively trained.

So the real analogy in comparison to EVE would be:

Your pod goes through a wormhole, you retain all your battlecruiser/cap ship piloting skills, now go craft a PoS and protect it while you build a ship to go fight in.

There's a little more to it than just log in buy a weapon and go fight. Getting your crafters a safe place to store mats and make weapons that aren't rusty longswords is going to be pretty crucial week 1 of a campaign.

Send out a scouting party to figure out the immediate threats and clear some of the fog of war from the map for your team.
 

Sylas

<Bronze Donator>
3,132
2,790
OK but imagine Jita if the hot PvP spot was through a wormhole where all modules got removed when you went through it and you had to buy regular tech 1 junk from vendors on the other side.

That's where I don't see how this is going to work if everyone without the good stuff can just play terminator campaigns? Are EKs going to be just functionally cosmetic or terminator campaigns marginalized (or rare)?
what's wrong with that? if you choose to go on a terminator rules campaign, Everyone has to build T1 on the other side of the wormhole. If you brought a few logistic/tradeskill guys with you that you're gonna protect and fight over the resources so they can supply you, you will quickly have t2 and a slight advantage over the guys who can't.

They've already said that items will eventually break no matter what you do, in addition to the chance of losing some/all of your items upon death, so i'm not sure why ppl are seeing gear as the main progression? The less gear matters the better, and it already sounds like it won't really matter that much.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
Then why wouldn't you bring your badass uber guild to terminator-ville and stalk the newbies and take all the resources? CIRCULAR LOGIC FOR DAYS TUCBRO
As long as they make it so all the hard-dicked PvP guilds can just pile onto the same campaign and call everyone outside that campaign pussies I don't care much.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,589
34,069
Certain archetypes will be able to craft better types of items than your vendor purchased t1 example. Especially considering the bulk of your characters power has been stated to be the skills you've trained/passively trained.

So the real analogy in comparison to EVE would be:

Your pod goes through a wormhole, you retain all your battlecruiser/cap ship piloting skills, now go craft a PoS and protect it while you build a ship to go fight in.

There's a little more to it than just log in buy a weapon and go fight. Getting your crafters a safe place to store mats and make weapons that aren't rusty longswords is going to be pretty crucial week 1 of a campaign.
So you're saying you learn the recipes in EK based upon resources you bring back from campaigns to use in future campaigns???

rrr_img_91396.jpg


Someone call the Crowfall devs, we got this shit figured out.
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
out of say 180 skill points, your crafting skills are passively trained up to the 140ish mark, at which point you gain skills from actively crafting.

So in a sense yes, the crafting you do in a previous campaign or in your EK absolutely carries over as character power (after a certain point of course)

Some archetypes will have different crafting available to them. This was to influence crafting dependence in other players.

<Let me find the crafting section of the FAQ and copy paste it here>

2. Are the Archetypes customizable beyond character creation?
Yes. Once in the game, you must raise your skills to qualify for a Promotion class. This allows you to differentiate yourself (pretty dramatically) from your base Archetype.
Additionally, there are also Disciplines which can be learned to gain access to addition skills, weapon styles, powers and crafting recipes. For example, the "Archery" Discipline can be used to unlock the use of Bows. The "Bounty Hunter" Discipline gives you additional skills and power that are helpful when hunting other players.

8. Is there a limit to the amount of skill a player can gain in a specific skill?
Yes. The Archetype of each character sets an initial maximum amount for each starting skill. For example, the Legionnaire can raise his Polearm skill to 100.
Taking an Advantage at character create such as "Military Training" can raise this max to 110.
If that Legionnaire promotes to Centurion, it raises the skill max by an additional 40 points (to a total of 150).
Finally taking the "Executioner" Discipline will raise the max by another +25, giving him 175 maximum Polearm skill.
The character can now passively train to 175 skill in Polearm.
 

Mr Creed

Too old for this shit
2,380
276
3 things:

1. If the maps are large / sparsely populated enough that it takes a couple weeks to scout out the enemy, then there's not enough resource contention (until the resources despawn in winter or whatever). This means the guilds pvping over resources will be getting outpaced by the guilds that don't.

2. If I have to grind bear asses for the first few weeks of a campaign I'm going to burn out after the first few campaigns. This game will not be a compelling PvE experience, and anytime I'm not pvping or at risk of pvping I'm bored. Maybe I'm just salty over having done way too much PvE to compete in PvP over the last 15 years. I can stomach that when eating the first month of straight PvE means I can spend the rest of the time PvPing, but in a temporary campaign all levels need to involve direct competition.

3. In your short-duration example you say battle it out for 2-4 days and then the campaign ends. In your long example you say a month of back+forth. Why can't it be, "Enter campaign, scout a map and an hour later you've begun the war over resources that will continue until the campaign ends."?
I dont mean you look for days until the first hostile encounter. You just make it sound like anything that comes before the castle siege is best shortened to a day or less, and I think that would be less interesting in the long run.

The 'whole learn the map, find spots to build keeps and get the resources you need' is filled with pvp, just a different kind. At first you have skirmishes over promising locations, then raids on supplies (and dolyak caravans) and establish who the contenders will be for that campaign by vanquishing unorganized or smaller opposition. Given at least partial loot and equipment wearing down, you can technically "win" at this stage without any opponent ever getting a secure settlement running. Big siege gameplay would come into play once the strongest guilds/teams/factions have established their respective domains. How soon you do that could even be one of the strategic choices: Do you try to disrupt others to be point of neglecting the advancement of your own bases in the hopes of stifling opposition early, or do you try to get an edge by establishing fortifications at key points first? I think if they compress the early part of the campaign too much they lose out on interesting gameplay.


@Flex: good to hear that campaigns are usually longer then a couple of weeks.
 

Blackwulf

N00b
999
18
Guys, I just dropped another 100 bucks on turrets and guns for my Hornet (Star Citizen.) I decided I'm not really at the status of big baller, multiple game developer supporter. I'm gonna step off this hype train and just kind of watch you guys partying it up.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
I dont mean you look for days until the first hostile encounter. You just make it sound like anything that comes before the castle siege is best shortened to a day or less, and I think that would be less interesting in the long run.

The 'whole learn the map, find spots to build keeps and get the resources you need' is filled with pvp, just a different kind. At first you have skirmishes over promising locations, then raids on supplies (and dolyak caravans) and establish who the contenders will be for that campaign by vanquishing unorganized or smaller opposition. Given at least partial loot and equipment wearing down, you can technically "win" at this stage without any opponent ever getting a secure settlement running. Big siege gameplay would come into play once the strongest guilds/teams/factions have established their respective domains. How soon you do that could even be one of the strategic choices: Do you try to disrupt others to be point of neglecting the advancement of your own bases in the hopes of stifling opposition early, or do you try to get an edge by establishing fortifications at key points first? I think if they compress the early part of the campaign too much they lose out on interesting gameplay.


@Flex: good to hear that campaigns are usually longer then a couple of weeks.
Ok. I agree totally and I don't think they will compress that stage since that stage is the whole point of the multiple campaigns (to an extent).

Here's how an ideal campaign start would look like to me with a basic ruleset on Dregs:
Day1:
Hour0: Everyone spawns completely randomly all around the map, mass chaos ensues when PRX members spawn next to CC members.
Hour2: The organized groups have mapped out a few high-value resource areas (this part will be especially interesting if there is no ingame map). Different groups begin fighting over these resources as they have scouts continuing to scout other areas that may be less contested / out of the way.
Hour4: The first few battles are over, half the organized forces have settled into a farming area, the other half are still fighting. That ratio is decreasing in favor of organized farming. This continues for the rest of the day with skirmishes, scouting etc.
Day 2: Farming continues, the map is basically scouted at this point. Discussion begins for the different guilds on where to place the base as people continue to accrue resources to build the initial base.
Day 3: The initial base is placed. It's a shack. This gives a base of operations, respawn points, areas to store resources and a plan begins to start making it into a fortress. Some groups have big dicks and put their base in the middle of the resources and have to continuously fight and defend their base. It's not destructable unless someone banes them with resources nobody has yet.
Day 4: Groups with bases begin teching up, building t1 of their blacksmiths, alchemists, tailors, husbrandries etc. Those groups with lots of players and/or organization start to pull ahead as they start improving their gear with tier 1 gear.
Day 5: Groups now have t1 gear and the game is set and somewhat stable. Now groups are at the point where they have to make the choice of resource generation and conquering. The resource areas are set up where if you are organized/skilled/geared you can make a higher profit from PKing players and raiding their mine, or by capturing their dolyak. This continues into the next week.
Week 2: The top groups now are getting to t2 gear, have horses etc and are expanding their base into more of a fortification to prepare for being baned. They continue to generate their own resource in areas close to their base that are easier to defend (with NPC guards maybe?) and go out and hit their competitors and/or weaker opponents for resources.
Week 3: Someone makes a T5 alchemist shop (or something) that can produce a bane weapon at a high cost. An organized force banes an enemy stronghold and brings a bunch of siege weapons from their T4 lumberyard and loses, losing a ton of resources in the process. The defending force gets to loot the bane weapon, salvage the siege weapons, loot the enemy and get a huge boost. Another organized force banes an enemy stronghold and wins, they get to loot the enemy stronghold, decimate it. The losers ragequit and go play WoW.
Week 4: The top groups are now at the top of their tech tree and are starting to run wild on everyone else. People start pledging fealty to them and a few solid groups emerge. These groups, probably located away from each other start to focus on each other and the prolonged war starts to begin. There is some mechanism to destroy enemy fortifications outside banes and the top couple groups start to destroy the enemy fortifications then bane them.
Week 5: The campaign coalesces into basically two opponents. One opponent gets the advantage and wins. They are the Uncle Tom. Some condition in the campaign begins to accelerate the seasons and Uncle Tom gets to extract all the resources and trophies before the campaign ends.
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
@tuco Day 3 on banes:

No banes described yet as a means of attacking someones property, from what we know all property and terrain is destructable unless protected by a bloodstone tree that isn't producing fruit in the bloodstone victory condition world.

So day 3 means go raid nearby shacks. Until property protection is addressed by the devs your shack is vulnerable as hell.

I think I'd dig a hole and put a crate down there to store mats and cover it with a titty rock.

Or I'd go on the coast and dig a pirate cave out of sight of everyone.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
No protected buildings and banes in campaigns? Okay fine.

brb, allying with SEA/Oceanics/EU guilds
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
No protected buildings and banes in campaigns? Okay fine.

brb, allying with SEA/Oceanics/EU guilds
The only peace time info was for the bloodstone ruleset in the faction campaign structure. Which is the least risky of all the campaigns. Dregs being the most risky.

Can't really theorycraft without knowing how they intend to allow players to protect their stuff in the dregs.

If they open up a bloodstone world in the dregs, you'd rush to find the mats required to plant a bloodstone tree and then it protects your keep within a certain raidius until the window where it spawns bloodfruit or whatever. I'm not sure how an FFA world would negotiate bloodfruit as a win condition considering everyone is their own guild in essence. So win conditions would have to be player unique (like topping the charts somewhere or collecting the most resources in your bank etc)

Either way I'm digging a hole day 1 to hide stuff.
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
Big post on campaign permanence and stretch goals from Todd:

So, I've read a fair number of posts about the temporal nature of Campaigns -- meaning, the fact that Campaigns don't last forever.

It seems like some people are confused on the how/what/why, so I figured it is worth discussing.

AND, after I lay the groundwork, I'll tell you a few ideas that I have to tackle this problem. If they seem interesting to you -- or if someone is inspired by one of these ideas and comes up with something even better -- these could potentially make great stretch goals.

First off, let me address a quick point:

It's not that I hate the idea of permanent Campaigns. To the contrary, actually, I love the idea. I really, REALLY wanted to make it work for SB. But I couldn't, because I think it is flawed.

Yes, this an opinion. It's an opinion based over a decade as a creative director, and on watching one server after another go stagnant, due to lack of a restart mechanism... after which the concurrent player numbers would take a nose-dive until eventually it turns into a ghost town.

(and yes, a few of the servers then lit back up again after some time -- but having everyone quit your game, to allow a few remaining survivors can rebuilt a new game out of the wreckage of the old one, is not a particular good restart mechanic. it doesn't make for a sustainable game service.)

To be clear: this isn't a religious argument for me. If I can find a way to make it work -- to make it sustainable -- of COURSE we will do it. In a heartbeat.

So, here are a few ideas that I have for solving the "Uncle Bob" problem.

SUDDEN DEATH

This idea TECHNICALLY could allow a Campaign World to last forever, though it's left up to the players to make it happen. I'm going to create a VERY simple ruleset, as an example. If we like the model, we'll come up with actual rules to replace these.

For illustrative purposes, let's say:

Campaign World A ends with Team 1 winning.
Campaign World B ends with Team 2 winning.

The two campaigns are not related, but had similar rulesets and players populations.

Everyone on Each of these Worlds is given a chance to leave, and take their winnings with them (i.e. give them an optional exit point).

If enough players on World A and World B want to stick around, a new Campaign starts: SUDDEN DEATH between these worlds.

Portals can now be opened between the two Worlds. Meaning: players can A can travel to B, and vice versa.

Some object (for fun, let's call it a Tree of Life) spawns on ONE of the two World.

The win condition is: someone has to plant the Tree of Life on their World and protect it for 1 week's time.

Whichever World does that, is given a 2 week stay of execution, before it is paired with another World ? for another round of Sudden Death.

The implications of this system are: a Campaign World COULD last forever, but only if the team is good enough to defend it, forever.


OVERTIME

Here is another one, and it's even more simple. This is basically the, "we don't believe you, Todd" ruleset, for players that don't believe my that server stagnation is an issue. Fair enough, I could be wrong. Let's test it.

We could allow Campaigns to go into overtime. The rule could be as simple as:

The Campaigns stays in WINTER, and isn't destroyed, as long as the concurrent player population (average per week) stays above some threshold.

Basically, as long as people are still hanging out in this World -- presumably because they are having fun -- we don't close it down.

I'd be fine to try it, so long as:

- we allow the losing team members to leave (because it would suck to be locked to a Campaign forever when you know you are doomed, that's a rage quit moment) and
- we limit the exports when the Campaign eventually ends (otherwise, guilds would use this as a way to farm materials from a World without risk.)

If I'm wrong, and the populations stay high, that's fantastic. I'd LOVE to be wrong on this one.
if I'm right, the Campaigns will come naturally to a close, and maybe we can stop debating it. ( yeah, I know, that's never going to happen. ;p )

I'm sure there are other ideas, as well, and happy to discuss them.

A few notes for those who want to pitch ideas:

- Keep your tone reasonable and we're more likely to read it.
- Try and be succinct; no one wants to wade through a 30 page idea that could be summarized in a few sentences, and
- Work within the architecture of the design as it currently exists. This means: don't pitch things that would require us to dump the idea of Campaigns, or the EK, or import/export rules, or passive training. We're not going to rip this game apart, but we ARE open to extending it, if we think the result will be more fun for everyone.

What do you think? Good stretch goals? Bad stretch goals?

Let us know your thoughts!

Todd
ACE


EDIT: if I didn't make it clear -- this is a discussion about FUTURE stretch goals! We won't consider doing any of this stuff until AFTER we have fulfilled the base vision of the game, as explained in the KS video and page.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
Settle down Todd, stop bloating your game. End the campaigns and destroy the world with a GM event where they spawn all the sapphirons.