PDA

View Full Version : Faction War Fixes



TucuReborn
02-13-2017, 05:01 AM
First thing's first, I am not taking a side on who should have won. That's not the goal of this. The goal here is to highlight and bring forth discussion on how to improve the mechanics of Faction Wars so it is not a matter of timing losses and hold actual value to tactics.


Before we get on, the goal of this discussion is the following:

-Discuss issues related to Loser Benefits.

-Make Faction Wars both easier and more fair for all parties.




Now, on to the meat.

The first part of Faction Wars I disagree with it the automatic asset bonus losing teams gain. While it sounds like a comeback mechanic, and a decent one, I would like to look a little deeper. This part of the Faction War is what is founding such disagreement among the fanbase at the moment. Vikings, partly via this mechanic, had the highest opportunity at the beginning of the last round to gain more territory. Had they kept the trend, they well may have won. However, it punishes the victors and makes any gains less meaningful. What I mean by this is that both the loser and winner have an unfair position. The loser can easily take back lost ground, and the winner has trouble maintaining it and holding their defenses. This sounds good for a comeback, right? Wrong.

Lets look at Rome. The Roman Empire spanned continents. It was a powerhouse of military force. Much like how a strong Faction may be. The weakness they suffered was that they were too spread out. They expanded to the point they could no longer control the empire. If a single Faction expands, they can be focused much harder and this is an innate balancing point. Yes, they have more territory, but when the enemy has less places to fortify it becomes easier to allocate resources to defend it. Contrary, the enemy has even more power to their limited resources. Assuming each team has roughly equal Assets, the losing teams can gain advantages by not having as many areas to defend.

This is not to say the asset bonus does not have a place, but a constant 5% for the losing team at any value is definitely not a balancing point and outright punishes the winners. My suggestion would be one of the following.

1) The Asset bonus increases based on the tier of loss. A faction holding only a few territories will have a larger bonus than one who is barely losing. This still makes it hard to keep pushing and prevents outright sweeps,

2) Carry extra Assets into defense. Suppose we capture an area. This area has a surplus of 5% than the enemy, which is theoretically pushed out. That 5% could remain in the captured area, while putting the new front at 50%. In war, defenses usually have an advantage after all, and it makes little sense to have assets simply vanish. Survivors of war do not simply disappear and no longer have value.

3) Similar to 2, give defending areas a slight bonus no matter who it is. This makes attacking an actual effort, while leaving defense easier to deal with. For example, instead of starting 50/50, the defending territory starts 55/45. This would work, at least in my mind, with the previous examples.

4) Literally all of the above. A losing faction gives them a small benefit, which calculates into defensive and offensive values. They may be able to start with higher defenses than normal, and be able to lower defenses a bit. And, as the enemy pushes, they have a slight carry over so war assets are not wasted per round. Perhaps they absolutely sweep a territory by 20%, but that 20% is now useless afterwards. They may as well have taken it by 1% for all the game cares. If instead part of it carried over, it would make it harder for the loss bonus to just automatically sweep back.



Rough ideas, but better than it being a meaningless back and forth powered by loser benefits. At the very least they should rework the loser benefit system so winning has actual value.


Another adjustment is isolation. Several times during the beta, a territory was isolated. Nothing happens? The isolated territory is no longer able to attack or be attacked, which makes no sense in game or in realistic war. In war, an isolated area has no supply lines, no new soldiers, and lower defense. I'm not saying they should hand it over, but at the very least it should be attackable and not some invulnerable fortress while other areas are not.

1) Immediately hand over isolated territories to the one who cuts them off. If a single faction cuts off lines, the territory should fall by all logic, and adds a sort of tactic to the game. In case of a switch, where two territories swap places but others stay owned by the original, it could be an issue.

2) The Territory is unable to attack, but may be defended by assets. Probably the most fair of the options, and the most straightforward.

3) This one is a bit different. Instead of a single territory being where we deploy assets, we deploy them to the front on the edges of a territory. If we deploy to fronts, the strongest one pushes the other back out of the territory the front is on. in case of being attacked by tall three factions, a territory treats the fronts as one and shares it like they currently do. This also effectively reduces the areas attackable by half, and removes the choice of whether attacking or defending is the better option.