PDA

View Full Version : Changes for faction war.



Alustar.
04-19-2017, 03:55 PM
To start with, I initially had no issues with the system. Mostly since I didn't know for certain if it would flop or not. I gave it a shot. in retro spect I kind of feel this is both a poorly planned an implemented idea, as well as a wildly missed opportunity.
Allow me to elaborate, during the opening credits, you are treated to the introduction of the three factions. You even see them face off 1v1v1.
Anyone else feel a little gipped that there isn't even an option for that?

So on to the faction war. The current system in my opinion should be scrapped. I know I'm not alone in feeling that a three way tug of war mini game is counter productive to the theme of the title. Instead of that, make a seperate faction war mode all together.

For this you could use 5v5v5 with spawn points centered around a single(or multiple) objective points (remember the 1v1v1 around that small stream of water?). Winning could be point based, holding resources and such. While loss conditions could be tied to a base of operations that the heroes would then attack/defend or risk being cut off from respawns.
So let's hear it. We need a viable replacement for a real faction war. Something more tangible than what we have currently.

RatedChaotic
04-19-2017, 05:39 PM
I would love a 1v1v1 mode and a better Faction War concept. Theres really nothing that pulls me into placing assets or taking part in it manually the way it currently is. Tho you have brought in ideas that would make the Faction War an actual War between factions. Instead of just watching the map change colors and hearing cool sword sounds every few hours.

New Mode: Faction War

This mode will use your 1v1v1 and your 5v5v5. In turn these battles determine the status of the Faction War map and rewards. Tho it would hurt the other modes. Maybe something similar? I dont know.

UbiNoty
04-20-2017, 12:48 AM
After the current season ends, we'll be taking all of your feedback and evaluating what improvements we can make to the faction war for the next upcoming season. Other than incentive, what part of the concept do you find lacking?

AgentCelt
04-20-2017, 12:56 AM
After the current season ends, we'll be taking all of your feedback and evaluating what improvements we can make to the faction war for the next upcoming season. Other than incentive, what part of the concept do you find lacking?

The entire thing is just bland. Each round winner is based on luck and isn't that the whole purpose of the thing, to help your faction win? Also the fact that I can be a Vikings playing as a Samurai with Knight teammates playing as Vikings.... seems daft. I just think the whole thing is there to add a bit of flavour to a repetitive multiplayer and to make the main menu look a bit nice.

The_B0G_
04-20-2017, 01:15 AM
At the very least it should be 24 hour turns, being in the lead a turn or two before the end of the season is a disadvantage as it is now, each turn losing factions get boosts that are hard to overcome, especially if you aren't near your player peak.

I don't really know how it works well enough to give a detailed solution to this problem, I just know that war assets are all around 32-33% at the end of every round for all factions, yet in 4 rounds the knights have yet to win once.

Xinlyfenne.YT
04-20-2017, 02:08 AM
@UbiNoty

Maybe have all the zones be grouped differently: instead of game modes, have the three teams own an area at the start. Make multiple zones per team; with a main base at the rear.

Ex. Each team has 8 zones, with 9 zones* unoccupied. Four near or adjacent to unoccupied zones, three protecting the base, and the base.

After a battle, you can apply assets to defend a zone in your team's area, or into another territory to take it over. You can only take over territories adjacent to your team's own.

Each team will have a main base, where, if taken over, will cause them to lose their remaining area to the team that took it over. So to get there, your team needs to make a path to the enemies' base by conquering their land. Also; bases can only be attacked once two out of three of the defending bases are taken over.

Each day, at 00:00, the land conquered will update. The lands conquered will stay. But, it will reset all asset placement.

Each week, give the teams one day to earn double assets in a game mode. On a random day, let's say Sunday, each team can earn double points in Elimination. Random, so you can't schedule it.

If your team has a base alive, you get 10% more exp. This will promote teams to defend their land. If you team loses everything, on the other hand...

...if your team loses the main base, and loses all your land, you can still place assets (only on non-base and non base defense zones). You become a mercenary unit. You have no base to protect; no goal in mind. So it's unlikely your team will conquer much of anything. But if you do conquer land, that piece of land will give your team a 1% exp boost per land acquired. If your team somehow manages to take over a base, the enemy team will lose everything and your mercenary team gains all of it. Yes, meaning your exp bonus can be greater than the one team remaining. However, this also means the one team remaining will win that round; unless somehow they also get defeated by your mercenary team or the other one.

After a round ends, the team with the most area acquired wins that round. If it's a tie, or if all teams are mercs., then the team that has the most assets (in raw data) will win.

* Note: What it could look like
http://i.imgur.com/6NEqeKq.png

AgentCelt
04-20-2017, 02:15 AM
@UbiNoty

Maybe have all the zones be grouped differently: instead of game modes, have the three teams own an area at the start. Make multiple zones per team; with a main base at the rear.

Ex. Each team has 8 zones, with 9 zones* unoccupied. Four near or adjacent to unoccupied zones, three protecting the base, and the base.

After a battle, you can apply assets to defend a zone in your team's area, or into another territory to take it over. You can only take over territories adjacent to your team's own.

Each team will have a main base, where, if taken over, will cause them to lose their remaining area to the team that took it over. So to get there, your team needs to make a path to the enemies' base by conquering their land. Also; bases can only be attacked once two out of three of the defending bases are taken over.

Each day, at 00:00, the land conquered will update. The lands conquered will stay. But, it will reset all asset placement.

Each week, give the teams one day to earn double assets in a game mode. On a random day, let's say Sunday, each team can earn double points in Elimination. Random, so you can't schedule it.

If your team has a base alive, you get 10% more exp. This will promote teams to defend their land. If you team loses everything, on the other hand...

...if your team loses the main base, and loses all your land, you can still place assets (only on non-base and non base defense zones). You become a mercenary unit. You have no base to protect; no goal in mind. So it's unlikely your team will conquer much of anything. But if you do conquer land, that piece of land will give your team a 1% exp boost per land acquired. If your team somehow manages to take over a base, the enemy team will lose everything and your mercenary team gains all of it. Yes, meaning your exp bonus can be greater than the one team remaining. However, this also means the one team remaining will win that round; unless somehow they also get defeated by your mercenary team or the other one.

After a round ends, the team with the most area acquired wins that round. If it's a tie, or if all teams are mercs., then the team that has the most assets (in raw data) will win.

* Note: What it could look like
http://i.imgur.com/6NEqeKq.png

This is actually an awesome idea. Obviously some cons but nothing that can't be fixed with some more thought. Hopefully Ubi can take some inspiration here.

UbiNoty
04-20-2017, 02:50 AM
Thanks for the interesting ideas! Will certainly pass it along :D

CandleInTheDark
04-20-2017, 02:59 AM
After the current season ends, we'll be taking all of your feedback and evaluating what improvements we can make to the faction war for the next upcoming season. Other than incentive, what part of the concept do you find lacking?

It might also be worth looking at the timings. Someone made a point that two rounds finished at 6 am utc and both of these were won by the samurai,two finished at 6 pm utc and those were both win by the vikings and while I do not believe their reasoning is any accurate at all, they made the point that the knights are generally strong between those times this being the reason they did not win.

They painted it as a conspiracy of Ubisoft picking winners, I don't believe that for a second, I think it was disgruntled sour grapes, but it still might be worth looking at the times when more often than not it is a close call between the factions.

The_B0G_
04-20-2017, 03:03 AM
It might also be worth looking at the timings. Someone made a point that two rounds finished a 6 am utc and both of these were won by the samurai,two finished at 6 pm utc and those were both win by the vikings and while I do nto believe their reasoning is any accurate at all, they made the point that the knights are generally strong between those times this being the reason they did not win.

They painted it as a conspiracy of Ubisoft picking winners, I don;t believe that for a second, I think it was disgruntled sour grapes, but it still might be worth looking at the times when more often than not it is a close call between the factions.

+1 I also read about this. This is why I think the turn durations should be changed to include peak hours from all 3 factions before ending.

CandleInTheDark
04-20-2017, 03:20 AM
+1 I also read about this. This is why I think the turn durations should be changed to include peak hours from all 3 factions before ending.

Yeah that is the crux of it, finding that sweetspot where all three factions have a roughly equal chance, that's something that can onlyreally be seen with the data.

Alustar.
04-20-2017, 03:50 AM
@UbiNoty

Maybe have all the zones be grouped differently: instead of game modes, have the three teams own an area at the start. Make multiple zones per team; with a main base at the rear.

Ex. Each team has 8 zones, with 9 zones* unoccupied. Four near or adjacent to unoccupied zones, three protecting the base, and the base.

After a battle, you can apply assets to defend a zone in your team's area, or into another territory to take it over. You can only take over territories adjacent to your team's own.

Each team will have a main base, where, if taken over, will cause them to lose their remaining area to the team that took it over. So to get there, your team needs to make a path to the enemies' base by conquering their land. Also; bases can only be attacked once two out of three of the defending bases are taken over.

Each day, at 00:00, the land conquered will update. The lands conquered will stay. But, it will reset all asset placement.

Each week, give the teams one day to earn double assets in a game mode. On a random day, let's say Sunday, each team can earn double points in Elimination. Random, so you can't schedule it.

If your team has a base alive, you get 10% more exp. This will promote teams to defend their land. If you team loses everything, on the other hand...

...if your team loses the main base, and loses all your land, you can still place assets (only on non-base and non base defense zones). You become a mercenary unit. You have no base to protect; no goal in mind. So it's unlikely your team will conquer much of anything. But if you do conquer land, that piece of land will give your team a 1% exp boost per land acquired. If your team somehow manages to take over a base, the enemy team will lose everything and your mercenary team gains all of it. Yes, meaning your exp bonus can be greater than the one team remaining. However, this also means the one team remaining will win that round; unless somehow they also get defeated by your mercenary team or the other one.

After a round ends, the team with the most area acquired wins that round. If it's a tie, or if all teams are mercs., then the team that has the most assets (in raw data) will win.

* Note: What it could look like
http://i.imgur.com/6NEqeKq.png

You could easily work an attack/defend matches for different zones.
Examples would be two of the zones owned by each faction respectively could be tied to an open skirmish map, while the other two could be fortress invasions. Kind of like capture the flag, only you need infiltrate and eliminate/defend a commander and or the opposing team.

Additionally maps should be open to support all three factions should a zone become contested by them. You should still have the option to face off against just one faction, however.

Lastly I think there should be a second look at the match making in general. see if there is a way to support binding groups to like factions. (Not binding heroes to their respective group, though. Defectors happen in war) just make it so that if a group wins, those gains are not then given to an opposing faction to be used against us. It seems counter productive to the process.

Kaotic_CipherTV
04-20-2017, 04:15 AM
It might also be worth looking at the timings. Someone made a point that two rounds finished at 6 am utc and both of these were won by the samurai,two finished at 6 pm utc and those were both win by the vikings and while I do not believe their reasoning is any accurate at all, they made the point that the knights are generally strong between those times this being the reason they did not win.

They painted it as a conspiracy of Ubisoft picking winners, I don't believe that for a second, I think it was disgruntled sour grapes, but it still might be worth looking at the times when more often than not it is a close call between the factions.

That was me. I wasnt saying they picked the winners, but i said this is why some people think that. Each round cant end at a different time for real stability was my point. I still support an actual game mode that locks you into a faction character and this mode is the only one that generates assets. The mode can still be 4v4 and can have map/game mode votes for Elim/Skirm/Dom.

I also like the idea of the rounds lasting 24hours. It would have a lot less push and pull on the map and you would actually feel like you are fighting for the territory. You would just have to get rid of the end of round/turn bonuses.

Alustar.
04-20-2017, 11:47 AM
Bumping this to get some more suggestions.

Captain-Courage
04-20-2017, 03:03 PM
@UbiNoty (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/2133832-UbiNoty)

Just get rid of it and redo all of you UI / UX and menus.
Really, I don't say it to be mean but it hurts the game more than it helps it right now.

The pre release marketing hype has now passed, your CM don't need to create buzz towards artificial Knight / Samurai / Vikings communities on social medias anymore and it has showed to be an inefficient tool for player retention, your objective for your post launch monetisation plan, so you don't really need it anymore.
I know it could have been, and maybe is still an useful tool for you Noty, I know your job, but let's get real for a second, what does it brings actually in terms of gameplay ?
It's articifial and shallow, and doesn't even really makes sense according to lore and diegesis since you can play every hero with every faction.
Players saw it and don't care anymore. They can have subpar standards yes, but they're not that stupid.

You made a pure arena lobby based game.
Not a strategic persistent MMO.
Don't try to make the game looking like something it's not actually, it only hurts it and mislead potential prospects with a product that would like to be everything, but achieve nothing.

The only thing it achieved is messing with the UI. Your UI / UX designer did a poor job with the general interface (like half of your main menu is filled with useless crap and adds to your shop, you really need to be more subtle with that) and you didn't made his task easier with this idea of mixing a map and a menu for a feature that fundamentally brings absolutely nothing substancial for the game.
Nothing.

You burned money on developping assets noone will really care about, or even notice to begin with ... like the visual changes that occur when a territory is passed to another faction. The tutorial video whouldn't have pointed it out that I wouldn't even have noticed. Not that I care much more now that I know.
Assets and manpower for details when some other parts of the game desperately scream for help and love.

I really hope all this Faction War mess only took a minor part of all the development global assets, manpower and budget you used to create the game.
Otherwise you have some very questionnable project directors in your company.
Like, really.

Lumina-US
04-20-2017, 07:52 PM
MAKE FACTION WAR GREAT AGAIN, as a certain orange Clown in charge would say.

How to do so - plain and simple, encourage the players to become more/actively involved, by making every turn and choice matter.

I'm fine with it still being a meta game that takes place on a map, so NO, it should NOT be turned into another PVP-game mode as suggested by some, just to make sure the winning chances stay equal, so leave it a turn based map game as it is now, but make some things actually happen on that map, by adding a little bit more of a strategical/rpg-ish aspect to it.

I've been thinking of a similar system as seen in "Braveheart - The Game". There you had a map with the option to attack/defend territories, just like in "For Honor", but you didn't auto-gain them, by actually just clicking on it, you had to actively conquer or defend them, depending if you where the Clan attacking or the one being attacked.

You could either actively enter the fight yourself or had an option to simulate the whole thing and depending on the outcome you either gained/or lost a territory and once you had enough territories under your Clan's control, you had (after a super epic cutscene) the chance to attack and conquer that other Clan's village(s) to make your own army even stronger.

However, the game wasn't always about war only, you could also join/form alliances between different Clans to make them fight alongside you and there was also an option to try your luck on pure diplomacy, instead of pure force, so sometimes they started betraying you for their own benefit, but if you successfully managed to unite enough Clans under your flag, you could literally storm the english-mans maingates and conquer their Castles up to the King's Stronghold itself.

So for "For Honor" i have actually been thinking of something like that, you know, basically a "Story Mode Light".

First make all Factions have Clans who first attack each other, but as we progress further, give us a chance to form alliances between such Clans.

Events like that could be told in a short cutscene, after spending X war assets within the two weeks long rounds as they currently are.

Sometimes you win territories, sometimes you loose them, sometimes alliances are formed, sometimes broken, let the game itself decide who gains the advantage, based on the amount of assets spent for your own Faction.

That way still a bit of luck would be involved, but the actual numbers of assets spent by each Faction would totally matter and once the Season is in it's last days you get various chances to storm the opposing factions Stronghold - and whoever wins that fight, wins the Season and any exclusive rewards that come with it.

Roll depending on the outcome, resp. on which side you play on, a "you won/you lost" video, with some more epic scenes to look at - BAM, tons of happy gamers.

But don't forget to give out something worthwile to the 2nd and 3rd placed Faction as well, that way everybody wins (somehow) and people would actually feel way more involved, as well as motivated to participate in the Faction War, because it would once again, have a real meaning.

NKOR-jongwoo
04-20-2017, 08:29 PM
After the current season ends, we'll be taking all of your feedback and evaluating what improvements we can make to the faction war for the next upcoming season. Other than incentive, what part of the concept do you find lacking?


I'll be honest, I chose the Knight when I first launched the game, but what I generally see when I log on is the Knights getting a push on territory maybe once every round, but they lose the push immediately after the next update of the map from the other two factions. I think that's because some people who are well known in the streaming community, and other online video platforms influence players (not deliberately) but nonetheless makes them join the faction that they have selected in the game to support them or because they feel it'd be cool or interesting. So I think that a revamp of the faction war system where a few comments have mentioned a possible 1v1v1 mode that contributes the most deployments to the map, or even perhaps making it so for example; You have chosen Samurai as your allegiance yet you play a Knight you wouldn't earn as many deployments as you would if you picked a Samurai character. Not really sure if it sounds stupid or not, just throwing some curve balls out there for suggestions.

RatedChaotic
04-20-2017, 09:00 PM
In my opinion.....Seeing anything more than this table top game with numbers would be good. We are fighting a faction war after all. Lets fight for those rewards literally..in an event, battle, or something. Let the best faction with the best fighters win it instead of having time and population be a factor.

pancakerz
04-20-2017, 11:05 PM
I just want to say that I am all for an RP style game mode where you're restricted to playing a hero from your own faction.

RLTygurr
04-20-2017, 11:18 PM
@UbiNoty

* Note: What it could look like
http://i.imgur.com/6NEqeKq.png

This is definitely a good idea and I like the way you have it structured. Perhaps as a more interactive system each territory could have some kind of bonus/boost for the faction that controls it in order to give incentives and objectives to push for rather than just capturing territory. For example, all three factions will start with the same boosts at the beginning of every round, so starting territories will all even out with the same things. The neutral territories will have more powerful boosts, such as extra XP or steel per match, 1 free scavenger crate for every update you hold the territory, or (if you want to really make it feel special) special gear appearances that will only drop if you hold that territory. This makes that "Legendary" gear even more rare, as you will have to control a certain territory to even have a chance for it to drop.

People want more than just cosmetics out of the game though, so as you update the game between seasons, it would be a good idea to look for new and exciting ideas to bring to augment the game itself rather than just "Hey you finished a round here's 2000 steel and a scavenger crate. Buy stuff you don't need anymore because all the characters you use are rep 3 already". It just seems like a slap in the face.

UbiNoty
04-20-2017, 11:51 PM
I really love what you're all bringing to the conversation :D. I totally feel many of the sentiments and concerns you all have brought up regarding the current state of the faction war system and the team is aware of it too. We really do listen to you all and want to incorporate your ideas, so while you may not see changes right away with season 2- rest assured that the team will definitely be looking to make improvements based on your feedback.

Alustar.
04-21-2017, 11:03 AM
I really love what you're all bringing to the conversation :D. I totally feel many of the sentiments and concerns you all have brought up regarding the current state of the faction war system and the team is aware of it too. We really do listen to you all and want to incorporate your ideas, so while you may not see changes right away with season 2- rest assured that the team will definitely be looking to make improvements based on your feedback.

Bumping again cause Noty loves it. Also side note, can we get something done about forum bot spam? This is getting ridiculous. Some of these topics got bumped back over 4 pages behind a wall of spam. :(