PDA

View Full Version : Faction War Balance Proposal: Lockdown



Lord-Arion
02-24-2017, 02:12 PM
So its clear there is a bit of a double teaming problem in the faction war, primarily towards the knights.

I have a proposal for putting a stop to steam rolling alliances.

If a faction over the course of three rounds suffers bulk losses and are not in the lead then their warfronts with the 2nd or last place faction are dug in and locked in stalemate for a turn. This locked front has one of two possible options.

1. The locked down front can only be attacked by the locked down faction forcing only defensive play from the non locked down faction.

2. Neither faction can delpoy assets in a locked down front.

The lockdown only serves the 3rd and 2nd place positions forcing them to deploy against the leading faction. This stops the 2nd place faction from just exploiting the little guy while they are being kicked around by the 1st place faction.

Lets use a scenario here. Samurai are in 1st with 30 territories Vikings are in 2nd with 25, and knights are in tied with them with 15. Over the past two turns the knights have lost 5 territories both times. At the end of the current turn they lose 5 more putting them at 10 and Samurai up to 33 and Vikings to 22.

So:

Rounds A,B, & C losses were 15 total and knights did not lead at the start of this period of bulk territory loss.

Because the total loss of turns A,B,C were >= 15 the knights front with the vikings locksdown.

The vikings now cannot doubleteam the knights and must attack the samurai which are holding a commanding lead. The knights have 1 less front to worry about and can dedicate assets to pushing back the first place faction without worrying about a continued double team because the 2nd place faction sees them as an easy target. The vikings are forced to do battle with the samurai forcing assets away from the knight front and onto the samurai/viking front giving knights a chance to regain some ground and stay competitive by not having them defending against the full strength of both vikings and samurai.

After the turn ends the lockdown is lifted and cannot be activated again unless bulk losses are suffered for another three turns straight. Lockdown is not granted to the leading faction regardless of the severity of losses over the course of three rounds, they are in the lead afterall.

By forcing the 2nd place faction to fight the 1st place faction it gives the 3rd place faction a chance to find their footing and rally. This also prevents factions from getting rolled to oblivion overnight unless of course they are leading in which suffered losses dont tend to put them on the brink of total annihilation. It also forces the 2nd and 1st place factions to acknowledge one another as enemies. After the lockdown is lifted the faction that had it recieves a small asset buff for the following turn to prevent the double team from simply returning. That or 2nd place recieves a buff against 1st place to draw their attention there rather than reiniating the double team against the 3rd place faction.

1st place faction should see starting disadvantages in contested fronts of factions with <=15 territories increasing in severity depending on how deep in the hole the target faction is. 1st place faction should NEVER see an owned territory or contested territory have a massive favorable margin at the start of a turn, period as it promotes steamrolling.

What do you guys think?

SirCorrino
02-24-2017, 02:17 PM
Nah, there's not enough conscious effort on any one side to focus on a specific faction for this to do anything than punish the winner for doing well.

Lord-Arion
02-24-2017, 02:29 PM
Nah, there's not enough conscious effort on any one side to focus on a specific faction for this to do anything than punish the winner for doing well.

It isnt punishing the leader for doing well so much as it is breaking a double teaming and forcing the leader to defend for a single turn rather than just steam roll endlessly. With a front locked down its not like 3rd will ascend to 1st. 2nd might pick up the lead but 1st wont be kicked off a cliff into last place.

Lord-Arion
02-24-2017, 02:30 PM
Its more of a "Hey pick on someone your own size" to a double teaming 2nd place faction. Forces them to challenge for the lead rather than just help kick the last place faction while they are down.

Obdach01
02-24-2017, 03:11 PM
Its more of a "Hey pick on someone your own size" to a double teaming 2nd place faction. Forces them to challenge for the lead rather than just help kick the last place faction while they are down.

Mate, I don't mind this behaviour. It gives some realism to the faction war. However, I think the real problem is, that some people did not understand the concept yet. I think some people count on getting the rewards of the winning faction when the change sides, if their faction seems to loose. But this is a false assumption. Changing your faction in the middle of the war helps the faction you change to, but will give you NO rewards for the win, when the round is over. Faction war rewards are only given to the ones who did NOT change their faction during an ongoing round.

People will realize this on Monday. Some of them will come to the forums and complain. Some will say the have been with the faction all the time and UBI ****ed up. There will be a lot of whinning. And some will realize the mechanic and will silently move on (hey, it's a game) and will not change sides again. My guess is, that next round will be more balanced.

Lord-Arion
02-24-2017, 03:12 PM
We can hope, this is merely a mechanical proposal to help in that balance.