Background Image

Campaign Progresson Mechanic

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Forj, May 14, 2017.

  1. Forgrim Forj Battle-Skald

    Just tossing this out into the marketplace of ideas to see if it survives. I'm sure that bE has their own ideas about campaigns, but I wanted to float this to the players before making any suggestions.

    I don't think the "Total Wins" approach is flexible enough to take account of swinging population, experience mix, and performance. The targets chosen are quite a moving target, campaign to campaign. They also don't properly reflect the win/loss performance, which many of us consider to be a more meaningful measure of a factions performance than total wins - especially exposed by the Loyalists, who in past campaigns have hit the target due to sheer number of games played, and may have trouble in their solo campaign because they can't get enough matches when the population is so bloated.

    I propose that the progress bar is filled using a different algorithm: Have a tick rate per hour that is based on territorial control. Linear or otherwise, the more territory held, the larger the tick. Tune it so that a faction that holds 8 territories per continent for the whole campaign will fill the bar at the last minute. (Or a harsher scaling would make this a campaign loss, but I think that in Grim Darkness just holding onto what you have is a win).

    This would correlate the campaign progression to performance, while removing the correlation to number of games played, and reduce the effect of population size on the ability to complete a campaign. To me, it also changes the psychology of the game, from grinding out the wins to a more active participation and warlike approach, and encourages participation later in the campaign to keep the tick rate up.

    Apologies if you've suggested something similar, there has been a lot of discussion about campaigns and I haven't been able to find this exact idea out there. Please link it if you have, to add to the discussion.
  2. Belphegor LordSloth Preacher

    Awesome idea but i would see a flaw in that. One we had in eve years ago already. Timezone coverage. If your faction is exspected to lock down the map for a certain time with average territories held you allow people to snipe the progress by having alot of russians (like in eve) or any other "niche" timezone. Basically you would come home from school/work to find that you are pushed back to 1 territory, you play the whole evening till you have to go to bed to get back up to 8+ and you get pushed back again during your "offtime".

    I personally think that the whole faction progressbar can never be morphed into something fair. Campaigns should revolve more about "personal" success. Like getting 30 wins. Currently we have a system which sets a very low bar for the casual but creates the pressure "that the rest of the faction" is supposed to win the war.
  3. This. You should be asked to get a number of wins, of caps (or assists), of kills, of executions... within the timeframe of the campaign. With the rewards escalating with the amount of these personal targets you hit.
    Aislinn, Chuffster and Forj like this.
  4. Forgrim Forj Battle-Skald

    My suggestions would be that the tick rate is never zero or negative, so always progresses. I would suggest that if a faction is pushed back, but then spends an equal amount of time "above the bar", then the progress would be the same as if they neither got pushed back nor took ground.

    Say the "even" mark is ticking at +10 every hour. Your faction is ticking at +15, but gets pushed back to +5 overnight. During your playtime, it pushes back to +15. So long as the average hourly tick is more than +10, they will complete. That's probably the weak point though - it may be population independent, but it is not independent of how the population is distributed through time-zones. In counterpoint though, I'd say that the result is still an accurate measure of the performance of a faction. If one timezones skill cannot make up for the losses in another, then that's the way it is.

    I've deliberately left out the personal side of the campaign, and only addressed the faction side. I think that the faction component is what makes it a campaign, rather than just some personal targets. Especially in 40k where its about armies and heroes and not individual soldiers, the campaign should be driven by what's going on at the faction level, not whether each player achieves their own targets.
  5. SmurfKun Tamu Well-Known Member

    I'd rather if they didn't do that. People will chase kills, will kill others just so they can get cap insted you you, will focuse on executions on fort map by rushing outside as defender any time to see a downed enemy out in the open etc. having it scale by win wise would be better.
    Forj likes this.
  6. Well you say it yourself. Armies and Heroes. The faction campaign can proceed any way it likes, the personal campaign is what makes that individual solder a hero.

    So right now you get 10 kills and then the faction has to win enough battles to fill the bar. After those 10 wins what's the keep the casual player or the faction switcher doing anything more? Nothing really.

    But put in some ridiculous personal goals and voila! Now I want to play for 40 hours trying to get the 500 Head-shots I need for the Marksman Title (or whatever bit of shiny shiny they want to add) so I can swag about with it till the next campaign.

    So like the game is now...? Cos I see that happening still BTW.
  7. SmurfKun Tamu Well-Known Member

    1) it happnes now but not a lot but if you put those goals in then it's going to sky rocket
    2) personal goals and such could be implemented but they would have to be specific and useful things like revive X number of people in fort or hold the line. Just do not implement caping and kill requriments
    3) casual players won't care about such time and effort intensive things like that. Adding personal goals like the ones I've suggest should be optional to get more dtc for those who want to put in effort.
  8. Forgrim Forj Battle-Skald

  9. OK @Forj, what are they? Elaborate please. Because the issue isn't the algorithm it's the lack of personal involvement that the current campaigns have. The Faction leaders don't even address you by name, it's all very generic.

    Vote kick and auto kick would deal with that, like it does now.

    Make it assists and revives if you want.

    All I'm trying to show is that there is little to keep most people playing past their 10 wins. That's what's inherently wrong with the campaign system. You've been in the same threads as I the last few days, dedicated LSM players can't be bothered with their campaign because of the wait times and the shoulder being, well YMMV but they feel it's a "meh" reward at best.

    The problem with all the campaigns, even before the solo faction ones are they are flavourless and lackluster. Even the worst player would get 10 wins over 9 days by sheer statistics if they played enough games. Where is the inventive to play and push yourself? Or get better? Or get a group of friends together to play? Or join a guild to make a difference? Or do anything apart from rack up 10 wins and go play DOW3 till it's over with a mild hope that someone else puts the work in for you?
  10. Chuffy Chuffster Deacon

    Good for thinking up something that's an alternative. However concerns over campaigns cannot be fixed merely by changing the way the bar is filled.

    EC Campaigns in general (and single faction campaigns in particular) result in wildly abnormal behaviour in the player base. Anything that changes the win condition will also result in equally unusual activity. It might be exciting at first, before it becomes "Campaign (ab)Normal".

    Single faction campaigns have created a disturbing pattern, for a number of reasons and with a number of likely unintended but relatively predictable results. All have been covered in excruciating detail and it doesn't need much rehashing here.

    In short - Squandering the goodwill of an influx of new players was unfortunate. I understand the desire and need to distribute players across the 4 factions more evenly. What we have had recently amounts to little more than an Elite class promotional tour which has resulted in a "10 wins for the shoulder & out" or "it's not my campaign, sod this!" mentality.


    With that out of the way, what makes a good player experience? I ask this to push everyone forward into thinking about it. There's a lot of focus on the problems and a lot of suggestions on how to fix them, but very little in the way of what is a good experience.

    I am sure the answers would be quite varied and some will be so opposite that both cannot be offered in the game simultaneously. Although they may be able to be offered at different times providing their frequency is not a 9 day slog.

    If players can be offered a good experience often enough, occasional blips are mostly forgotten. This is why I believe trying to engage players at the factional level, particularly over a long period, without engaging them on the personal level is problematic.

    In answering this, if anyone chooses to do so, think about what would get you wanting to log in most days?

Share This Page