PDA

View Full Version : What the hell!!???



AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 08:21 PM
How in earth did the Samurai win the round? They had 7 territories with around 10 hours left and we (Vikings) had well over 30 territories? They got completely destroyed all round by us and the Knights and they manage to scrape the win within 2 turns? What the actual ****?

semper_fi_1999
03-14-2017, 08:26 PM
I am curious how this works too....Although to be honest Vikings should have been out of the running at the very beginning of last round as the Samurai destroyed their base early on. It seems stupid that destroying a base grants such a seemingly small reward for how difficult it is to accomplish (couple "days" of faction base being destroyed).

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 08:41 PM
I am curious how this works too....Although to be honest Vikings should have been out of the running at the very beginning of last round as the Samurai destroyed their base early on. It seems stupid that destroying a base grants such a seemingly small reward for how difficult it is to accomplish (couple "days" of faction base being destroyed).

But Vikings fought back and played well for the remainder of the round. The Samurai were completely finished and won within 2 turns.... What is the point of even having a round last 14 days if the entire thing can be won within the last 14 hours regardless of your position? This is the second time that this game has completely robbed the Vikings.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 08:41 PM
All that matters is who takes what at the end of each turn. The Knights and Vikings spent too many of their assets against each other and let the Samurai take a bunch of territories during the last turn.

semper_fi_1999
03-14-2017, 08:53 PM
But Vikings fought back and played well for the remainder of the round. The Samurai were completely finished and won within 2 turns.... What is the point of even having a round last 14 days if the entire thing can be won within the last 14 hours regardless of your position? This is the second time that this game has completely robbed the Vikings.

You realize that vikings won the first round right?........ Beta doesnt matter so if you are talking about that time period then it is a moot point. Besides....vikings were wiped off of the map by the Samurai the fact that a faction can still play after getting its base destroyed seems rather pointless. It doesnt matter that vikings fought back they shouldnt even be able to because they were obliterated early on. And yes since only the last round matters it makes the rest of the round even more pointless. I find the faction map "war" to be poorly crafted.

Kushfury
03-14-2017, 09:15 PM
Vikings had 34% of deployments, Samurai 30%.
So yeah, would be fun to get reward every 7 hours of reset if you deploy, or at least once a day... it feels like 14 days of useless fighting beside the last hours

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 09:17 PM
You realize that vikings won the first round right?........ Beta doesnt matter so if you are talking about that time period then it is a moot point. Besides....vikings were wiped off of the map by the Samurai the fact that a faction can still play after getting its base destroyed seems rather pointless. It doesnt matter that vikings fought back they shouldnt even be able to because they were obliterated early on. And yes since only the last round matters it makes the rest of the round even more pointless. I find the faction map "war" to be poorly crafted.

I disagree, would make more sense to maybe make them miss a turn if they have their base hit but miss the whole round? A bit extreme. Point is Vikings dominated the majority of the round and got screwed right at the last turn. THE LAST TURN. Round 2 should have been Viking and everyone knows it.

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 09:18 PM
Vikings had 34% of deployments, Samurai 30%.
So yeah, would be fun to get reward every 7 hours of reset if you deploy, or at least once a day... it feels like 14 days of useless fighting beside the last hours

Daily reward based on how much assets you deploy would be great. Encourages people to manually deploy and it doesn't make an entire fortnight of fighting pointless.

VanBaal42
03-14-2017, 09:29 PM
I am curious how this works too....Although to be honest Vikings should have been out of the running at the very beginning of last round as the Samurai destroyed their base early on. It seems stupid that destroying a base grants such a seemingly small reward for how difficult it is to accomplish (couple "days" of faction base being destroyed).

The Samurais were never direct at the vikings base. There was always one field buffer while knights knocked directly at the front door of the saumrai base.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 09:30 PM
In the end it is a matter of deploying your war assets tactically.

RoosterIlluzion
03-14-2017, 09:33 PM
This bullsheet is why I just exit out when I'm done, and have assets auto deploy. It's not worth my time.

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 09:36 PM
In the end it is a matter of deploying your war assets tactically.

Are you really trying to say that taking a beating for 13 days straight and then miraculously scraping a win during the last 12 hours was tactical on the Samurai's part? Faction War is broken. Vikings are clearly the better faction, dominated round 1 & 2 and now currently on top at the start of round 3. There was nothing tactical about the way we were cheated in round 2. Samurai took advantage of the broken Faction War. Cheated.

Simi_Xiamara_
03-14-2017, 09:39 PM
Lawl vikings lose a round and start complaining

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 09:43 PM
Lawl vikings lose a round and start complaining

The complaints are valid though. We have every right to complain when we were cheated,

buhahh125
03-14-2017, 09:47 PM
I disagree, would make more sense to maybe make them miss a turn if they have their base hit but miss the whole round? A bit extreme. Point is Vikings dominated the majority of the round and got screwed right at the last turn. THE LAST TURN. Round 2 should have been Viking and everyone knows it.

How funny you would say that. I have played since day 1 and I recall the Samurai winning majority of the rounds in the prior weeks just to lose on the final day by the Vikings, who mind you, were way behind at the last turn. :D

buhahh125
03-14-2017, 09:49 PM
Lawl vikings lose a round and start complaining

PREACH! :rolleyes:

VanBaal42
03-14-2017, 09:51 PM
How funny you would say that. I have played since day 1 and I recall the Samurai winning majority of the rounds in the prior weeks just to lose on the final day by the Vikings, who mind you, were way behind at the last turn. :D

As i remember the vikings held the most teritorries and had the most assets deployed in average.

dayLockey
03-14-2017, 09:51 PM
Lawl vikings lose a round and start complaining

Simi Xiamara? I spy a Samurai ... but it's OK I'm a Samurai too c:

That said I'm pretty shocked Samurai didn't finish dead last again, let alone finishing 1st. I don't really understand the faction war mechanics too well as I play for the PvP but I agree the Viking/Knight players have a good reason to be annoyed. Just doesn't seem right that the weakest faction out of the 3 wins due to some last moment shenanigans and having some slight momentum early on. I'd like to think Ubisoft's vision of "war" would be a bit more elaborate but oh well, not like the rewards are anything special anyways.

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 09:52 PM
In the end it is a matter of deploying your war assets tactically.

It really isn't though, it's about getting your *** handed to you on a plate for so many turns that the boost you recieve in the final turn is so big you can conquer a silly amount of territories that you couldn't have hoped to conquer before, even if you don't manually deploy, just forget that, let the game deploy them evenly, and you'll win.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 09:52 PM
Are you really trying to say that taking a beating for 13 days straight and then miraculously scraping a win during the last 12 hours was tactical on the Samurai's part? Faction War is broken. Vikings are clearly the better faction, dominated round 1 & 2 and now currently on top at the start of round 3. There was nothing tactical about the way we were cheated in round 2. Samurai took advantage of the broken Faction War. Cheated.


First off, I'm a Viking. Secondly, I stayed up all night playing because I knew the round was ending. Where were you when I was trying to hold on for the win?

semper_fi_1999
03-14-2017, 09:54 PM
Are you really trying to say that taking a beating for 13 days straight and then miraculously scraping a win during the last 12 hours was tactical on the Samurai's part? Faction War is broken. Vikings are clearly the better faction, dominated round 1 & 2 and now currently on top at the start of round 3. There was nothing tactical about the way we were cheated in round 2. Samurai took advantage of the broken Faction War. Cheated.

I would like to point out that this is exactly how the faction war ended the first round. Vikings were being beat badly and then the last half day (real time) they got the bonus and went on to win big with the bonus. Plus it would be interesting to see exactly what the numbers are for each faction. It would be hard to argue that vikings are the best if they outnumber the other factions and therefore have the greatest chance of winning.

My understanding from reading the forums was that the viking base was destroyed and the faction was removed from the war for a couple "days". If I misunderstood that then my bad. That being said what you are complaining about is exactly how vikings boosted to victory in round 1 because in that round when I stopped playing Samurais had almost 30 territories about 24 hours before the round ended....then Samurais ended with the fewest so it does seem like whoever gets beat up on the most right as the last few "days" are coming up and gets the bonus will end up with the win.

buhahh125
03-14-2017, 09:55 PM
As i remember the vikings held the most teritorries and had the most assets deployed in average.

Then the question is this. Is it the last round alone or a combination of all the rounds until the end?

**My recollection differs from yours on the rounds** ^_^ Haha

buhahh125
03-14-2017, 09:56 PM
i would like to point out that this is exactly how the faction war ended the first round. Vikings were being beat badly and then the last half day (real time) they got the bonus and went on to win big with the bonus. Plus it would be interesting to see exactly what the numbers are for each faction. It would be hard to argue that vikings are the best if they outnumber the other factions and therefore have the greatest chance of winning.

My understanding from reading the forums was that the viking base was destroyed and the faction was removed from the way for a couple "days". If i misunderstood that then my bad. That being said what you are complaining about is exactly how vikings boosted to victory in round 1 because in that round when i stopped playing samurais had almost 30 territories about 24 hours before the round ended....then samurais ended with the fewest so it does seem like whoever gets beat up on the most right as the last few "days" are coming up and gets the bonus will end up with the win.

exactly!

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 09:58 PM
It really isn't though, it's about getting your *** handed to you on a plate for so many turns that the boost you recieve in the final turn is so big you can conquer a silly amount of territories that you couldn't have hoped to conquer before, even if you don't manually deploy, just forget that, let the game deploy them evenly, and you'll win.

Get a clue. I have helped take many territories at the very end of turns. It works like a strategy board game. If you just toss your pieces down randomly as a strategy then, "Would you like to play some Risk or Axis & Allies against me sometime?"

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 10:17 PM
Get a clue. I have helped take many territories at the very end of turns. It works like a strategy board game. If you just toss your pieces down randomly as a strategy then, "Would you like to play some Risk or Axis & Allies against me sometime?"

You're not even addressing what I said, so I assume you are stupid enough to believe you actually earned all those War Assets? Do you even know about the boost? And you tell other people to get a clue! Classic. Come back when you know what I am talking about you fool.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 10:18 PM
I would like to point out that this is exactly how the faction war ended the first round. Vikings were being beat badly and then the last half day (real time) they got the bonus and went on to win big with the bonus. Plus it would be interesting to see exactly what the numbers are for each faction. It would be hard to argue that vikings are the best if they outnumber the other factions and therefore have the greatest chance of winning.

Having more players in a faction does not give an inherent advantage to a given faction. This was explained in the first 'Warrior's Den' stream. War assets gained are determined by personal performance in the match and is then (supposedly) balanced by a program on their end based off the relative number of players in each faction. Think of it kind of like applying a curve to test results.



Then the question is this. Is it the last round alone or a combination of all the rounds until the end?

The winner is determined by which faction has the most territories at the end of the round. Territories can change hands only at the end of each turn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason that assets need to be deployed in a tactical manner is that you can only gain a limited number of territories in a given turn (you can't just put assets on any territory you choose.) There comes a point that even if your faction takes every territory it can, that it might still not be enough. Which is why gaining territories in turns other than the very last one is necessary. A huge deficit can be overcome in about 3-4 rounds if done right.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 10:20 PM
You're not even addressing what I said, so I assume you are stupid enough to believe you actually earned all those War Assets? Do you even know about the boost? And you tell other people to get a clue! Classic. Come back when you know what I am talking about you fool.

Actually it is a combination of me, and other members of the Viking faction, strategically placing war assets.

Would you like a tissue? I know you're gonna cry moar.

P.S. By 'get a clue' I mean: Learn to understand how it actually works before you start crying about it. (I figured you might need an explanation.)

ParadigmFringe
03-14-2017, 10:24 PM
Actually it is a combination of me, and other members of the Viking faction, strategically placing war assets.

Would you like a tissue? I know you're gonna cry moar.

P.S. By 'get a clue' I mean: Learn to understand how it actually works before you start crying about it. (I figured you might need an explanation.)

^^^
this guy takes his game WAY too seriously.

semper_fi_1999
03-14-2017, 10:26 PM
Having more players in a faction does not give an inherent advantage to a given faction. This was explained in the first 'Warrior's Den' stream. War assets gained are determined by personal performance in the match and is then (supposedly) balanced by a program on their end based off the relative number of players in each faction. Think of it kind of like applying a curve to test results.

The winner is determined by which faction has the most territories at the end of the round. Territories can change hands only at the end of each turn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason that assets need to be deployed in a tactical manner is that you can only gain a limited number of territories in a given turn (you can't just put assets on any territory you choose.) There comes a point that even if your faction takes every territory it can, that it might still not be enough. Which is why gaining territories in turns other than the very last one is necessary. A huge deficit can be overcome in about 3-4 rounds if done right.

ah thats good to know I assumed otherwise. But so far the way the wars have played out it seems the best strategy is to make sure you are getting your butt kicked a few "days" before the round ends to get the super boost and then boost your way to victory the last couple days. Hilariously similar to how fights work out with the revenge mode. Basically get hit enough or block enough to get revenge then win. I think they need to look into their "balancing" techniques when someone is getting beaten.

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 10:32 PM
Actually it is a combination of me, and other members of the Viking faction, strategically placing war assets.

Would you like a tissue? I know you're gonna cry moar.

P.S. By 'get a clue' I mean: Learn to understand how it actually works before you start crying about it. (I figured you might need an explanation.)

lol and what, you believe the Samurai all became tactical geniuses in the final turn? Really? You can't be that thick. We all know how deploying works, but for some reason you are evading the subject of boosts, feigning ignorance or either actually ignorant of the difference they make. Either way, you're still very wrong about who needs to understand how it actually works. You've dodged the issue twice which to me makes it clear you know full well it had nothing to do with a sudden last minute display of advanced tactics after 12 days of being a lost cause.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 10:37 PM
lol and what, you believe the Samurai all became tactical geniuses in the final turn? Really? You can't be that thick. We all know how deploying works, but for some reason you are evading the subject of boosts, feigning ignorance or either actually ignorant of the difference they make. Either way, you're still very wrong about who needs to understand how it actually works. You've dodged the issue twice which to me makes it clear you know full well it had nothing to do with a sudden last minute display of advanced tactics after 12 days of being a lost cause.

Refer to post #4 before claiming that I avoiding a topic. I don't like explaining myself over and over, most people aren't worth the effort.

Karma_Ghost
03-14-2017, 10:41 PM
I would like to point out that this is exactly how the faction war ended the first round. Vikings were being beat badly and then the last half day (real time) they got the bonus and went on to win big with the bonus. Plus it would be interesting to see exactly what the numbers are for each faction. It would be hard to argue that vikings are the best if they outnumber the other factions and therefore have the greatest chance of winning.

My understanding from reading the forums was that the viking base was destroyed and the faction was removed from the war for a couple "days". If I misunderstood that then my bad. That being said what you are complaining about is exactly how vikings boosted to victory in round 1 because in that round when I stopped playing Samurais had almost 30 territories about 24 hours before the round ended....then Samurais ended with the fewest so it does seem like whoever gets beat up on the most right as the last few "days" are coming up and gets the bonus will end up with the win.

Your story doesn't line up with https://game-forhonor.ubisoft.com/#/en-GB/faction-war . Vikings were in control for the final 2 days.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 10:43 PM
ah thats good to know I assumed otherwise. But so far the way the wars have played out it seems the best strategy is to make sure you are getting your butt kicked a few "days" before the round ends to get the super boost and then boost your way to victory the last couple days. Hilariously similar to how fights work out with the revenge mode. Basically get hit enough or block enough to get revenge then win. I think they need to look into their "balancing" techniques when someone is getting beaten.

Doesn't really matter if you are getting trashed or not, the important factor is people participating at the end of turns (each turn is 6 hours.)

You can deploy anywhere from 1500-2500+ assets at the end of a match (based off of dominion asset gain) during the last hour of a turn: your assets + 20% front bonus (if deploying on same front you fought the match in) + 20% end of turn bonus.

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 10:55 PM
Refer to post #4 before claiming that I avoiding a topic. I don't like explaining myself over and over, most people aren't worth the effort.

That makes three times, four or five if I count all the times you have replied to other people and avoided the subject of boosts in their posts.

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 10:57 PM
Doesn't really matter if you are getting trashed or not, the important factor is people participating at the end of turns (each turn is 6 hours.)

So in another twist, not only do you believe every member of the winning faction suddenly becomes Sun Tzu incarnate after being as dumb as brick for 12 days, you also believe an extra number of players miraculously appear from nowhere in the final turn and swing the entire course of the round in a different direction at the last minute?
LOL
Would you like to buy a Unicorn? :rolleyes:

JRAD541
03-14-2017, 10:59 PM
This bullsheet is why I just exit out when I'm done, and have assets auto deploy. It's not worth my time.

Yup, thinking this is how I'll deal with it from now on as well. Not even going to pay attention to it in game.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 11:01 PM
FTR, I did come in with an explanation as to the 'how' and 'why,' and the intention of discussing it But, some ppl didn't seem to want an explanation. They just wanted to piss and moan.

And for those whom are trying to say I am defending the Samurai faction...read my damned posts. The second one clearly states that I am a Viking, too. As a matter of fact I was a Viking in both betas, also. However, I would rather that my faction understand what happened, and how to prevent it from happening again (so that maybe, just maybe, we can sweep the next 3 rounds) rather than just come on here and cry about the result.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 11:02 PM
So in another twist, not only do you believe every member of the winning faction suddenly becomes Sun Tzu incarnate after being as dumb as brick for 12 days, you also believe an extra number of players miraculously appear from nowhere in the final turn and swing the entire course of the round in a different direction at the last minute?
LOL
Would you like to buy a Unicorn? :rolleyes:

If the Knights and Vikings are concentrated on pouring the majority of their assets into attacking each others' territories, that leaves the samurai free to capture , pretty much, whatever they decide to put assets on. The Knights and Vikings allowed the Samurai to win through their poor tactics.

Would you like to buy a brain, Scarecrow?

Kaotic_CipherTV
03-14-2017, 11:09 PM
Vikings did not understand how the war worked and lost. They took a yellow territory because they couldnt push the samurai, but failed to stop the knights from taking theirs. While it may of given you 21 territories to tie the samurai, you (vikings) failed to notice that 2 of those spots you (vikings) took became isolated territories giving the samurai the advantage in number.

Also the vikings would have lost the first round if it had ended when it was supposed to, the samurai never had a chance to fight back since the war ended 6 hours or so before it should have. (round 1 ended at 9pm Mon EST, Round 2 ended at 6am Tues EST)

This was even discussed at the end of the first round, but i guess since you won you didnt care..

For those that are still confused on how the system works, stop demanding information to be explained by devs like its so essential to your life.. BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE. Go watch the Warriors Den videos they break down all this information for you, oh and they did it back on Feb 28th..

Instead of losing and coming to the forums for the first time to complain, maybe actually use the resources given to you.

sykout25
03-14-2017, 11:10 PM
How in earth did the Samurai win the round? They had 7 territories with around 10 hours left and we (Vikings) had well over 30 territories? They got completely destroyed all round by us and the Knights and they manage to scrape the win within 2 turns? What the actual ****?

7 territories in 2 rounds win the round...I agree- there has to be a catch up rule...there is no other explanation.

Steef-kanon
03-14-2017, 11:19 PM
Obviously a deserved winner of round 2.... back to 11 territories in 2 turns..

Marcrele
03-14-2017, 11:40 PM
Obviously a deserved winner of round 2.... back to 11 territories in 2 turns..

salty post 2

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 11:44 PM
Obviously a deserved winner of round 2.... back to 11 territories in 2 turns..

Haha, exactly. I'm going to be sticking all my assets on Samurai turf from now on. Make sure the only round they win will be the tainted one. Season 1 is still going to be Viking.

Marcrele
03-14-2017, 11:47 PM
OT: I'd like to see some transparent insights from UBI of how the FW mechanics really work. I.E percentage of the active players of each faction, outcome etc, There is no real tactics here just guessing when placing the assetts. And I hardly believe the Vikings are a hive mind judging by the sour comments here. So no need to be rude because some random system p*ssed on your parade ;)

Gray360UK
03-14-2017, 11:48 PM
If the Knights and Vikings are concentrated on pouring the majority of their assets into attacking each others' territories, that leaves the samurai free to capture , pretty much, whatever they decide to put assets on. The Knights and Vikings allowed the Samurai to win through their poor tactics.

Would you like to buy a brain, Scarecrow?

Is that number 6 or number 7, I've lost count honestly ... so much trolling.
You're better at evading and dodging than a Peacekeeper, you should be nerfed, lol

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 11:48 PM
How funny you would say that. I have played since day 1 and I recall the Samurai winning majority of the rounds in the prior weeks just to lose on the final day by the Vikings, who mind you, were way behind at the last turn. :D

There has only been 1 round which I deployed way over 500k assets in, the Vikings played well through the whole round. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Vagor_D
03-14-2017, 11:50 PM
Haha, exactly. I'm going to be sticking all my assets on Samurai turf from now on. Make sure the only round they win will be the tainted one. Season 1 is still going to be Viking.

Play it by ear dude, it may end up being the knights that you have to target. You will need to pay attention to who is gaining/losing what.

I like that attitude better. Season 1 will be ours, all will bow to the Warborn!!! :p

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 11:51 PM
First off, I'm a Viking. Secondly, I stayed up all night playing because I knew the round was ending. Where were you when I was trying to hold on for the win?

After I helped push us over 30 I thought the job was done. I need sleep to be able to work the next day, maybe?

SangLong524
03-14-2017, 11:51 PM
The other day Samurai faction pushed close to Viking HQ. Then after update, we were back to the middle.
Maybe one faction plays while the others sleep? Maybe we distribute assets manually within match front? These little details mean a lot

AgentCelt
03-14-2017, 11:55 PM
The other day Samurai faction pushed close to Viking HQ. Then after update, we were back to the middle.
Maybe one faction plays while the others sleep? Maybe we distribute assets manually within match front? These little details mean a lot

Every faction has been pushed back to HQ. And I agree that timezones probably play a hell of a lot more than we think, but I find it hard to believe that Viking players being offline was the sole reason Samurai were able to make such a comeback.

SangLong524
03-15-2017, 12:01 AM
After I helped push us over 30 I thought the job was done. I need sleep to be able to work the next day, maybe?
It is not over till the round end. U think u are filling quota? It is just like dominion but bigger. Maybe samurai has a sudden surge of players coming back after a long absence (work, maybe) and the struggle has been with the remaining who continued to hold the line.

AgentCelt
03-15-2017, 12:15 AM
It is not over till the round end. U think u are filling quota? It is just like dominion but bigger. Maybe samurai has a sudden surge of players coming back after a long absence (work, maybe) and the struggle has been with the remaining who continued to hold the line.

What a coincidence that a "sudden surge of players" came back DURING THE LAST TURN. No better time for them to return and pick up the win for the Samurai, right?

SangLong524
03-15-2017, 12:21 AM
What a coincidence that a "sudden surge of players" came back DURING THE LAST TURN. No better time for them to return and pick up the win for the Samurai, right?
Yeah. They decide when to play. Its not wrong, u know. By whose authority that For Honor decide when they play? I can be absence the whole season and show up on the last day, i can still play. I know its sound unfair that your non stop playing didnt net u a win, but it just is. Think about how unfair it was for the few remain had to stave off the knight and viking push.

Chettone
03-15-2017, 12:27 AM
In the end it is a matter of deploying your war assets tactically.

Totally the opposite way. Evidence shows that it only the last 6 hours matter. Whoever has higher pop at that time will win the round.

Vagor_D
03-15-2017, 12:40 AM
After I helped push us over 30 I thought the job was done. I need sleep to be able to work the next day, maybe?
I assumed you had a reason you weren't on (the reason is none of my business, tbh.) That question was a sarcastic reply to your sarcastic reply:

In the end it is a matter of deploying your war assets tactically.
Your reply to me:

Are you really trying to say that taking a beating for 13 days straight and then miraculously scraping a win during the last 12 hours was tactical on the Samurai's part? Faction War is broken. Vikings are clearly the better faction, dominated round 1 & 2 and now currently on top at the start of round 3. There was nothing tactical about the way we were cheated in round 2. Samurai took advantage of the broken Faction War. Cheated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Every faction has been pushed back to HQ. And I agree that timezones probably play a hell of a lot more than we think, but I find it hard to believe that Viking players being offline was the sole reason Samurai were able to make such a comeback.

Time zones (regarding sleep and work habits) isn't the only factor in regards to why a faction would earn more assets at a given time of day. Another factor could (and probably is) that the different factions have players of different skill levels online at different times of day. So, generally speaking, if the samurai are outperforming the other 2 factions overnight and in the morning (EST,) they will gain more territories during those turns (unless they 'screw the pooch' assigning their assets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is not over till the round end. U think u are filling quota? It is just like dominion but bigger. Maybe samurai has a sudden surge of players coming back after a long absence (work, maybe) and the struggle has been with the remaining who continued to hold the line.

I like that dominion comparison. It really doesn't matter how quick you make them break if the last guy 1v14's you to end up with the win (yes, there is a video of someone making a sick comeback, he was the only member of his team left and they only had like 800 points at start of the streak.) Vikings were at like 6 or 9 territories in round 1 and made a comeback.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The point is: faction war does have strategy to it. Look at the fronts (mainly during the last hour of a turn) before you decide what game mode you will choose, because you get a bonus if you are placing your assets in a territory that is on the front that you were fighting. To really try to rule FW, faction members will need to actually plan. This means trying to meet new people from your faction so that you can be part of a group of people whom are strategically deploying them as a unit (or at least be on the same page as your friends.) If you don't have friends to collaborate with, just study the map before you start deploying your assets and determine where you think you can make the most difference.

Vagor_D
03-15-2017, 12:51 AM
Totally the opposite way. Evidence shows that it only the last 6 hours matter. Whoever has higher pop at that time will win the round.

You can't go from 5 to 35 territories in one turn, it's impossible (1 turn = 6 hrs. 4 turns/day.) At the beginning of the final turn (12:11 PM GMT -5) the Knights had about 16, Samurai had 17-19, and Vikings had 24-26 (don't remember exact amounts.) That is more than close enough for any faction to have taken it during the final turn.

UCFierce
03-15-2017, 01:18 AM
Which AGAIN only proves that the previous 13 days and six hours makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE what-so-ever; the ONLY time that ACTUALLY matters is the LAST 6 hours.

But this could ALL be cleared up if UbiSoft would release the Faction War mechanics - which they have so far neglected to do.

Vagor_D
03-15-2017, 03:01 AM
Which AGAIN only proves that the previous 13 days and six hours makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE what-so-ever; the ONLY time that ACTUALLY matters is the LAST 6 hours.

But this could ALL be cleared up if UbiSoft would release the Faction War mechanics - which they have so far neglected to do.


They are not going to give you the algorithm that they use to account for the difference in the number of members participating from each faction. The mechanics are quite simple, it is like a board game, or is it that the average user here is too young to know what a strategic 'board game' is?

During a round you will earn war assets based off of your personal performance. You can then choose to place those war assets (think of them as little troop pieces you get to put on the 'board') on an eligible territory (an eligible territory is a territory that abuts a territory controlled by your faction.) If you place them on a territory that is within the front you were fighting on (the front you are fighting on consists of the territories that are highlighted when you 'zoom in' on the faction war map for any game mode) you will gain a 20% Front Bonus (troop pieces) in addition to what you earned from the match. During the last hour of each turn you will also gain a 20% end of turn bonus. At the end of each turn (a turn consists of 6 hours, there are 4 turns in a day) the faction that applied the most assets (after Ubisoft's program applies their formula, based off the number of participants from each faction, to balance it out) to a given territory gains control of that territory. This often changes the location of the borders between the areas controlled by the different factions. Controlling territories at the end of turns serves multiple purposes: It leaves your opponents in a position that they have to gain that many more territories within the next round to remain competitive, you have some leeway to maintain a lead, etc.

tl:dr It's pretty simple. Place your troop pieces where you want them on the virtual 'game board' after your match. The team with the most pieces on a territory wins the territory at the end of the round.

Wolfsanker
03-15-2017, 03:24 AM
So I ran the numbers because I was stunned at this outcome of this round.

Here is the truth in the hard data lads:

Knights
21 15 18 19 19 14 17 14 13 19 18 22 29 28 20 25 26 25 18 19 24 24 20 21 22 23 26 27 22 20 21 25 16 22 16 22 22 14 20 27 20 23 25 25 18 20 27 23 18 20 20 13 17 21 23 23 18

Sum that, and divide by 57 turns you have a very healthy average of 20.82 territories held, per round.


Weebs:
18 16 18 10 15 15 19 17 23 24 18 18 19 25 26 18 14 21 30 21 13 19 19 11 17 22 18 11 16 25 17 12 18 14 12 12 16 18 12 10 16 20 14 6 11 18 13 19 26 19 21 20 21 16 7 9 16

Sum that, divide by 57 and you have an average of a measly 17 territories held, per round.


Vikings:
21 29 24 31 26 31 24 29 24 17 24 20 12 7 14 17 20 14 12 20 23 17 21 28 21 15 16 22 22 15 22 23 26 24 32 26 22 28 28 23 24 17 21 29 31 22 20 18 16 21 19 27 22 23 30 28 26

Sum that, divide by 57 and you have a respectable 22.17 territories held per round.

I'm a Knight, and even I can see the Vikings should have won round two, though the game should probably give you extra points for sacking a capital.

Round two is the story of the Weebs being absolutely BTFO by the Knights, and yet somehow they pick up the victory of round two, despite holding the least amount of territory on average, by FAR for entire the duration of the round?

So yeah, in summation, literally only the last say... two days matters... and thereby who has the catch-up bonus at that time. Who the hell thought this up? Ubisoft you could have hired me and I could have manually calculated the round winner with a god damn pen and paper and done a better job than your system does.

Vagor_D
03-15-2017, 03:35 AM
So yeah, literally only the last say... two days matters... and thereby who has the catch-up bonus at that time. What an absolutely ridiculous, idiotic system. Who thought that up? Ubisoft you could hire me and I could manually calculate the round winner with a god damn pen and paper and do a better job than your system does.

If a faction was to really pull it together they could probably come back from a seemingly overwhelming deficit within 2 turns. (highly unlikely, but totally possible.)

As far as your math you are not taking into consideration how many assets were applied to each territory, or the adjustments that are made to assets gained/placed to even it out. You are only showing the averages of territories held over time, which doesn't matter (If we are playing Monopoly and you owned 75% of the board for 90% of the game do you still win when you go bankrupt at the end?) To oversimplify it, if you have 5 knights and 10 samurai (yes, in this example we only have a total player base of 15 players) a knight will get twice as many war assets for the same performance as a samurai would. The faction controlling the most territories at the end of the round wins. It all comes down to where each faction chooses to place their assets over time, and especially near the end of rounds/turns.

Archaelion
03-15-2017, 03:55 AM
Hi there, Archaelion here. I stayed up all night and took a win for the samurai faction. I grinded hard, dominated, won every game, placed top rank each game and made 4K+ assets to deploy each game. I did this for over 12 hours. I tactically deployed and assaulted the vikings. There was a time that we would have lost--it was close, It was 22 samurai and 21 viking and knights were at 18(+0). We were fighting for first or second. But the vikings went to bed and the samurai stayed up and fought hard. Then the vikings woke up to defeat. But.. I hope you had a good night sleep--I know my sleep was quite sweet. :) Well won samurai. Well won. They don't know what hit em' just like we planned.

Wolfsanker
03-15-2017, 03:56 AM
As far as your math you are not taking into consideration how many assets were applied to each territory, or the adjustments that are made to assets gained/placed to even it out. You are only showing the averages of territories held over time, which doesn't matter (If we are playing Monopoly and you owned 75% of the board for 90% of the game do you still win when you go bankrupt at the end?)

We aren't playing monopoly, we are playing war, and winning war is dependent on holding territory. If two factions get in a massive brawl for one tiny hill, then that's them being stupid, especially if a third faction slips around and claims three bits of land while they're doing it.


To oversimplify it, if you have 5 knights and 10 samurai (yes, in this example we only have a total player base of 15 players) a knight will get twice as many war assets for the same performance as a samurai would.

I already assume they are doing that. Perhaps incorrectly, given how moronic their system is for determining round winners, but that has been my working assumption.

So based on that assumption, how it should work is it should come down to whose players are the most skilled, (on a per-capita basis, which means we are factoring in the size of the player base, and giving their war assets a multiplier), and whose players are most strategic about how they deploy those resources.


especially near the end of rounds/turns.

No. Only at the end of the round/turns. Literally the whole faction could go on holiday for over a week, hold zero territories, and still pull off a win if they showed up in the last two days, put in a half decent effort, and had the 'catch up' system on their side.

That is a very bad system.

A running average territories held would be much more sensible, and I say that knowing full well that would have made my faction lose this round.

G0dzBlaze
03-15-2017, 04:42 AM
The samurai playerbase is always more active at 12:00 am to ??? (east ) since the launch of the game ... so the last round was at the exact same time where all the samurai play and the other factions sleep so they won and since they had a low numbers of territorie they get an extra bonus on assets for that round.

This Faction War has so MANY flaws.

SangLong524
03-15-2017, 04:48 AM
Maybe i'm grasping at straws here, but maybe vikings and knights have, i dont know, overinvested. I mean the amount of assets put in certain areas doesnt pour over, right? Once u capture an area, then the surplus is gone. Assets must be beginning anew once territory updates. And when the new territory status is up, bucketheads and hairy mon.. ehem ones are not there to put new assets on.
Just my guess. i hv no complain. I ain't argue with a good thing ;)

UCFierce
03-15-2017, 11:54 AM
They are not going to give you the algorithm that they use to account for the difference in the number of members participating from each faction. The mechanics are quite simple, it is like a board game, or is it that the average user here is too young to know what a strategic 'board game' is?

(after Ubisoft's program applies their formula, based off the number of participants from each faction, to balance it out) to a given territory gains control of that territory. This often changes the location of the borders between the areas controlled by the different factions. Controlling territories at the end of turns serves multiple purposes: It leaves your opponents in a position that they have to gain that many more territories within the next round to remain competitive, you have some leeway to maintain a lead, etc.
.

EXACTLY - after your long and tedious explanation - you've said nothing - because it ALL boils down to how UBISOFT interprets the numbers - something we are not privy to.
Explain how Ubisoft determines which territories come into play during the NEXT turn?

Certainly appears that Samurai were down to fewer than 10 TOTAL territories with two turns to go till end of round - thus NEW territories that came into play should have been moving into the direction of Samurai base - thus having to DEFEND at least 12 total territories (six on the Knights and six on the Vikings) there was not the OPPORTUNITY for them to GAIN OVER 12 offensive territories in the last two rounds.

There are generally six territories on each of two fronts in any one turn. If a faction loses ALL six territories within that turn - then you would imagine the three of those territories closest to the attackers become "property" of the attacker/ three that were previously in dispute, remain in dispute/and three of the defender's territories previously not under attack become under attack. Its a shifting front concept that describes the momentum of battle.

This however does not appear to be the case when Ubisoft determines how new territories come under attack and how factions must be held to a stalemate before momentum changes direction.

If you can explain how a faction LOSING every territory in dispute suddenly gets ALL OFFENSIVE GAINS - then by all means please do -

NiteShadeCG
03-15-2017, 01:30 PM
I really hope Viking and Samurai keep going at each others throats so us Knights can win a round :D

Chaos_Model
03-15-2017, 02:18 PM
Doesn't really matter if you are getting trashed or not, the important factor is people participating at the end of turns (each turn is 6 hours.).



And that's all that needs to be stated to validate the "Faction War" is bucket of horses&hit...

If this game had any type of realistic element to it's core any faction who was getting wrecked for the amount of time the Samurai was this past round should recieve no bonus to assets, if any thing there should be slight penalty as their territories were claimed by other factions. I gave up on this farce after the first round, it's a good idea, but par for the course with this game, ill concieved in implementation.

Buccs99
03-15-2017, 02:45 PM
may be different if most of us werent disconnecting constantly.

atac56
03-15-2017, 02:45 PM
but this is exactly how the first round went. samurai were dominating majority of the time then lost the last turn. clearly faction war isn't something to take seriously considering the only thing that matters is the last turn, rather than overall points gained over the 7 week period. besides the winner only gets 3 packs just to find out nothing they needed was inside. I don't see how such a trivial sidequest with little returns warrants so much complaint.

Vagor_D
03-15-2017, 08:05 PM
We aren't playing monopoly, we are playing war, and winning war is dependent on holding territory. If two factions get in a massive brawl for one tiny hill, then that's them being stupid, especially if a third faction slips around and claims three bits of land while they're doing it.



I already assume they are doing that. Perhaps incorrectly, given how moronic their system is for determining round winners, but that has been my working assumption.

So based on that assumption, how it should work is it should come down to whose players are the most skilled, (on a per-capita basis, which means we are factoring in the size of the player base, and giving their war assets a multiplier), and whose players are most strategic about how they deploy those resources.



No. Only at the end of the round/turns. Literally the whole faction could go on holiday for over a week, hold zero territories, and still pull off a win if they showed up in the last two days, put in a half decent effort, and had the 'catch up' system on their side.

That is a very bad system.

A running average territories held would be much more sensible, and I say that knowing full well that would have made my faction lose this round.

1. It does not matter what you want to use for the analogy, the following all follow the same principle. If I rope-a-dope for 11 rounds and then KO you in the 12th you should still win because you had me beat on the cards for 11 rounds? If you are beating me down solidly in an MMA match and then I KO you or force you to submit, you should still get the win? If we are at war and you win 100 battles, then I obliterate your army in a tactical move, history should mark you down as the winner...Lemme guess, you think the army of Troy were the true winners of that war? Seriously?

2. You are claiming that their math is wrong simply because it didn't work out in your favor (but I don't hear you complaining about our Viking comeback in round 1.) Maybe you just need to grow up, there will be times when things legitimately will not work out in your favor.

3. Where the borders are at the start of any turn is determined by what factions have deployed war assets on the different eligible territories in prior turns. There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns.

4.This 'catch up' system is something I have only seen referenced by players. The only bonuses I heard stated by devs were: the end of turn bonus, front bonus, and the mathematical adjustment so that assets are earned in a manner that is 'as if' each faction had the amount of participating members.

5. If running average was how you determine the winner the Roman Empire (or Persion, or Ottoman, or British, or Mongolian, etc.) would still rule the world. They held large swaths of territory for long periods of time. Under your system they would have retained it by default.


The system is not perfect. If there is some kind of actual 'catch up system', that gives a faction a bonus for performing poorly, it needs to be removed.

Most importantly, players need to stop trying to over-analyze it. It is a very simple concept with relatively simple rules. Learn them and then deploy your assets in a strategic manner accordingly.

wetterberg
03-15-2017, 08:58 PM
Does anything happen if your factions stronghold gets taken over? Does the overtakers get any reward for that at all?

UCFierce
03-15-2017, 09:02 PM
[QUOTE=Vagor_D;12459550
3. Where the borders are at the start of any turn is determined by what factions have deployed war assets on the different eligible territories in prior turns. There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns.

[/QUOTE]

Explain this because that is NOT what happened in reality.

This was my initial understanding of "territory battle starting points"

Say there is two factions' bases; in between are four territories.
Thus it would look like:
Viking Base - Territory 1- Territory 2 - Territory 3 - Territory 4 - Knight Base
Initially Territories 2 and 3 are in dispute.
If Vikings and Knights split the turn then those same territories 2 and 3 are again in dispute the next turn.
If Vikings hold advantage in both disputed territories 2 and 3 then in the NEXT turn the disputed territories become 3 and 4.
If Knights hold advantage in both disputed territories 2 and 3 then in the NEXT turn the disputed territories become 1 and 2.

The problem then becomes why did Ubisoft allow Offensive gains to be made when clearly the losing faction could NOT maintain or defend its currently held position.
You can't subjectively GROW the battlefield to compensate for former loses; just as you can't subjectively assign which game modes are awarded bonuses; just as you can't compensate if your Faction is half the size of another Faction. If you bring an army half the size of an opponent's army and win - it should be based upon skill, NOT because of some arbitrary modifier which seeks to equal the playing field.

The argument that " There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns." is inconsistent with what apparently happened due to the bonuses and modifiers that Ubisoft applied.

So set me straight Ubisoft - show me that the bonuses and equalizers didn't make ALL the difference in the Faction War.

Wolfsanker
03-15-2017, 09:13 PM
1. It does not matter what you want to use for the analogy, the following all follow the same principle. If I rope-a-dope for 11 rounds and then KO you in the 12th you should still win because you had me beat on the cards for 11 rounds? If you are beating me down solidly in an MMA match and then I KO you or force you to submit, you should still get the win? If we are at war and you win 100 battles, then I obliterate your army in a tactical move, history should mark you down as the winner...Lemme guess, you think the army of Troy were the true winners of that war? Seriously?

Are you are one of those types who gets emotionally invested in their argument and refuses to change their position when new data is presented?

The war is not "over" every 14 days. It is just an arbitrary marker point in an ongoing conflict.

If you make rounds 14 days in length, but only "count" a single snapshot taken at the end of day 14, the obvious end result is you end up disincentivizing your players from fighting hard on 12 out of 14 days. Just show up for the last six or so eight hour periods, as that is all that matters apparently.

The samuai lost hard for thirteen days. At the end they didnt KO anyone they just barely sqeaked ahead on points.

If you like MMA, that is a great analogy, as I do too. What we have here is a mma championship match where no one gets KOed. In this five round championship, the judges say the challenger won on points the first four rounds, but then the champion won the fifth round on points.

The judges declare the champion won, because only the fifth rounds points 'count'.

This is obviously a very silly system.



2. You are claiming that their math is wrong simply because it didn't work out in your favor (but I don't hear you complaining about our Viking comeback in round 1.) Maybe you just need to grow up, there will be times when things legitimately will not work out in your favor.

Lol! I don't need to "grow up", but you definitely need to work on those reading comprehension skills.

I am in the Knights faction, and said very clearly that the numbers supported a viking win. I congratulated them, though I added that I personally thought successfully reaching a faction base should be factored in somehow, as the knights spent a huge amount of time touching the Samurai base.



3. Where the borders are at the start of any turn is determined by what factions have deployed war assets on the different eligible territories in prior turns. There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns.

No, there is not.

The samurai held a measly nine territories at the end of round two. They went from that, to winning, in literally 16 hours. Go check the player activities page.

So if there is a "point of no return" it is no more than a single day. 16 hours, tops, and a faction would have to be in the lowest of single digit territories held, at the begining of that period.



The system is not perfect. If there is some kind of actual 'catch up system', that gives a faction a bonus for performing poorly, it needs to be removed.

I understand why they are doing it. It is to stop any one faction from being totally dominated, as this will demoralize that particular player base and/or cause them to jump ship to another faction.

Simply watch the map and you will see it for yourself 100 percent of the time. Every time a faction gets down to six or so territories, they will completely rally and conquer every single territory they are touching. This is not a coincidence, lets not pretend it is.

But if you are going to have such a mechanic, and arguably practically you need to, given how fickle people will be about factions, you need to have the rounds be based on averages.

Otherwise you see a losing faction being handed a win, due to this catch up mechanic, and then putting in one good assault to clinch the round, despite losing hard for 13 days. Thus is *exactly* what happened in round two.

semper_fi_1999
03-15-2017, 09:56 PM
1. It does not matter what you want to use for the analogy, the following all follow the same principle. If I rope-a-dope for 11 rounds and then KO you in the 12th you should still win because you had me beat on the cards for 11 rounds? If you are beating me down solidly in an MMA match and then I KO you or force you to submit, you should still get the win? If we are at war and you win 100 battles, then I obliterate your army in a tactical move, history should mark you down as the winner...Lemme guess, you think the army of Troy were the true winners of that war? Seriously?

2. You are claiming that their math is wrong simply because it didn't work out in your favor (but I don't hear you complaining about our Viking comeback in round 1.) Maybe you just need to grow up, there will be times when things legitimately will not work out in your favor.

3. Where the borders are at the start of any turn is determined by what factions have deployed war assets on the different eligible territories in prior turns. There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns.

4.This 'catch up' system is something I have only seen referenced by players. The only bonuses I heard stated by devs were: the end of turn bonus, front bonus, and the mathematical adjustment so that assets are earned in a manner that is 'as if' each faction had the amount of participating members.

5. If running average was how you determine the winner the Roman Empire (or Persion, or Ottoman, or British, or Mongolian, etc.) would still rule the world. They held large swaths of territory for long periods of time. Under your system they would have retained it by default.


The system is not perfect. If there is some kind of actual 'catch up system', that gives a faction a bonus for performing poorly, it needs to be removed.

Most importantly, players need to stop trying to over-analyze it. It is a very simple concept with relatively simple rules. Learn them and then deploy your assets in a strategic manner accordingly.

There does appear to be a "catch up" system or boost for a losing faction. I have seen the turns flip and checked the territories just to find that there was already a 60% placed on all territories being attacked or defended against. From there the other group has to over come a 10% difference while still overcoming the players from the other faction also placing their units. This would appear to act as a system to help that faction being beat down and I do not know how many turns this may last.

That being said....many people here act as if the Samurai are always constantly losing and never really pulling ahead yet if you look at the turns over the period of a whole round you see there is a very consistent ebb and flow for turns even within the same day. There appears to be a pretty big factor in when that faction has a majority of their players on.....in fact I just checked recently and I saw that Samurai owned exactly 50% of the map for a turn.....so I think the determining factor in the win may end up being more when the round ends...is it during the Vikings time when most players are on? Samurai's? Knights? And does that faction have a boost from taking recent heavy losses?

SangLong524
03-15-2017, 10:22 PM
The world doesnt go to sleep with u, u know. While u were snoring away, dreaming a sweet dream of victory. We pushed and placed assets manually. Our numbers at the time also counted and more if we took advantage of 20% boost.
Its your fault for cheering prematurely. Dont count chickens b4 they hatch.

HarambeVendetta
03-15-2017, 11:15 PM
They won because they started with a boost, and had their terrirotires start at 55%. it was a garunteed win, because they were the weakest faction, hothing to do with tactics or skill as some people state

Moondyne_MC
03-16-2017, 12:04 AM
It definitely felt like we were handed the victory. I switched the game on after getting home from work, to watch our territories go from around 18 down to 9 then back up for the win. I was baffled.

Vagor_D
03-16-2017, 12:23 AM
Explain this because that is NOT what happened in reality.

This was my initial understanding of "territory battle starting points"

Say there is two factions' bases; in between are four territories.
Thus it would look like:
Viking Base - Territory 1- Territory 2 - Territory 3 - Territory 4 - Knight Base
Initially Territories 2 and 3 are in dispute.
If Vikings and Knights split the turn then those same territories 2 and 3 are again in dispute the next turn.
If Vikings hold advantage in both disputed territories 2 and 3 then in the NEXT turn the disputed territories become 3 and 4.
If Knights hold advantage in both disputed territories 2 and 3 then in the NEXT turn the disputed territories become 1 and 2.

The problem then becomes why did Ubisoft allow Offensive gains to be made when clearly the losing faction could NOT maintain or defend its currently held position.
You can't subjectively GROW the battlefield to compensate for former loses; just as you can't subjectively assign which game modes are awarded bonuses; just as you can't compensate if your Faction is half the size of another Faction. If you bring an army half the size of an opponent's army and win - it should be based upon skill, NOT because of some arbitrary modifier which seeks to equal the playing field.

The argument that " There is a point at which factions cannot make a comeback in just a couple of turns." is inconsistent with what apparently happened due to the bonuses and modifiers that Ubisoft applied.

So set me straight Ubisoft - show me that the bonuses and equalizers didn't make ALL the difference in the Faction War.

Yes, that example is accurate with my understanding as well. If you go on the for honor website it actually lets you click thru the turns 1-by-1 and you can see where the gains and losses were made by the factions.

For an example of a deficit that could not be overcome in a couple of turns: If the Vikings (or you can pick your own faction, like I did) were holding 50 or more territories, with the other 2 factions having 5 or less territories each, neither of the other factions would be able to win. Only half of the contested territories belong to the Vikings and most of the territory that the Viking hold cannot be contested until after the update is applied at the end of the round. In the following round (if all contested territories were taken away from the Vikings) the Vikings would still have enough territories that were behind the front to hold out. Even if the Knights (or Samurai) were to take all eligible territories (including territories belonging to the other faction that is behind) in both rounds they still would only secure enough territories to finish second.

I have said all along that the last couple of turns are the most important, but I won't concede to the bs exaggeration that only the last couple matter.

Once again, Ubi will not give the player base the formula they use to keep the playing field level so that a bunch of you can sit down and figure out how to manipulate it (yes, there would be a bunch of ways and I refuse to post the list I came up with off the top of my head cuz d-bags would try them.)

The system does need some tweaking, it is definitely not perfect. Maybe add in end of turn steel rewards. Make the assets applied to a captured territory provide a bonus to that territory (i.e. if you capture a territory 55/45 it should start at 55/45 in your favor the following round) to reflect the troops you have invested into the area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all:


What we need is a productive conversation about how to effectively participate in FW and minor suggestions that would help to improve it.

What we don't need is a bunch of people screaming that it's broken because it didn't work the way they thought.

Copperneck
03-16-2017, 12:30 AM
I actually posted about this nonsense a couple days ago:


The problem is that after every update, each zone resets to zero troops. If Vikings, for example, go on a rampage, and conquer a zone by 100K troops, the zone will be back to 0 at the reset. This basically means that the only update that matters is the final one right before the end of the round. What about all that effort by the Vikings? It's wasted. And when those Viking players go to bed, the Samurai players who are just coming on, can win with 5 troops in each zone (theoretically).

My solution is to keep track of the troops deployed in each zone throughout the update. In fact, why even have an update? It should be live. Then as a zone starts to become overloaded with Knights, the Samurai and Vikings will know to deploy more troops there. Zones will be conquered less often, and there can be a legit struggle for each zone. And as one faction pushes towards another faction's capital, it will realize that there are more and more troops dug in the "rear zones."

Gray360UK
03-16-2017, 01:52 AM
The system is not perfect. If there is some kind of actual 'catch up system', that gives a faction a bonus for performing poorly, it needs to be removed.

There is a catch up system, the boost I mentioned to you repeatedly, which you refused to consider even once. It's nice to see you almost on the verge of waking up and smelling the coffee after basically insulting the intelligence of anyone that mentioned this before now. You've set yourself up as some sort of authority on the way the Faction War works and have posted far more than anyone else in this thread about how it works, yet you actually have the least idea of how it works beyond the basic concept of deployment tactics, which you wrongly assume the rest of us don't understand. You have repeated the most obvious of facts to a tedious degree. Your 'knowledge' (being kind) seems to be based on things you've heard, or perhaps more importantly, the naive assumption that if you haven't heard it, it doesn't exist. Others are commenting from experience. Some of us have been deploying assets since the Alpha days.

Vagor_D
03-16-2017, 02:24 AM
There is a catch up system, the boost I mentioned to you repeatedly, which you refused to consider even once. It's nice to see you almost on the verge of waking up and smelling the coffee after basically insulting the intelligence of anyone that mentioned this before now. You've set yourself up as some sort of authority on the way the Faction War works and have posted far more than anyone else in this thread about how it works, yet you actually have the least idea of how it works beyond the basic concept of deployment tactics, which you wrongly assume the rest of us don't understand. You have repeated the most obvious of facts to a tedious degree. Your 'knowledge' (being kind) seems to be based on things you've heard, or perhaps more importantly, the naive assumption that if you haven't heard it, it doesn't exist. Others are commenting from experience. Some of us have been deploying assets since the Alpha days.

The catch up system is something I have only seen mentioned by players, I stated that in an earlier post. You sure as heck don't look like a dev account to me. If you have actual proof from the developers post it, until then it is simply player speculation and may not exist at all.

SangLong524
03-16-2017, 03:34 AM
U can have your dog deploying assets for u for years wouldnt make a lick of difference. Unless u are the dev, really everything here is all speculations. Why dont u lot cool down and pay attention to round 3? Or maybe not, it's a good thing for us Samurai.
Noone walks off empty handed after a round. Why do you get your panties in the twist for one or two crates short? What are u gonna do? Stop playing or keeping crying over 10 pieces of gears (2*5=10, just for some mathematic challenged people) that u can get in an hour?
Get over it people. The outcome of round 2 is calculated just like round 1. I dont think the machanic behind FW has changed. And i dont claim to know the calculations. Didnt hear noone b**ch and whine about round 1.

Delectable_Sin
03-16-2017, 04:15 AM
Meh, faction war means nothing. There is no point in even caring about it. The fact that you only have to win the very final round is just insane to me. WTF is Ubi thinking...

Wolfsanker
03-16-2017, 04:15 AM
Because in round one, the clear losers did not win.

SangLong524
03-16-2017, 04:18 AM
Because in round one, the clear losers did not win.

whatever you say, omnipotent one! whatever you say

DrMattHunter
03-16-2017, 07:17 AM
The reason we were able to win is because all the vulnerable territory on the map was pushed hard 10pm-4-5am by Samurai. We always come back during the middle of the night due to the simple fact that most of the Samurai faction aren't USA time, instead these guys are overseas, etc, etc. If you're an American on the Samurai faction and want to make comebacks to the faction wars, your best times to attack are through the night-early morning. We just ****in Samurai bruh. We smoke tree and attack at dark. We deadly. Your girls send us pics. Fear us.