PDA

View Full Version : Could the devs stop with the rigged jokes?



CandleInTheDark
11-30-2017, 06:39 PM
There are some of us who have been defending the faction war since pretty much the beginning. I get it, the conspiracies amuse/annoy you in equal measure but you are not helping yourselves.

I have read people saying that the passive aggressive attitude is insulting, I have read people saying that you are trying to deflect the fact that it actually is rigged, you are never going to convince everyone but these fortnightly of course we rig the war jokes do not help and honestly as someone who has put in paragraphs over why I don't think it is rigged this is getting damn old.

David_gorda
11-30-2017, 06:42 PM
Lol why would they rig the faction war? It makes No sense...

bob333e
11-30-2017, 06:47 PM
I agree, an official statement from them could certainly help kill this old debate. As for me, personally, I don't know how serious to take Faction War. It's a nice little thing that you partake with in-between matches, but to what extent....

- Scavenger crates? most of my good loot came from matches, and nearly every damn time I use a crate I salvage everything I got, except maybe two times when I got some look I desired (seeing as you cannot Change Look across tiers, I had to wait for a look that matched the tier of my equipped gear).

- Ornaments? Most of the Warden's ornaments do not interest me (I'm a Warden main); it's mostly those that are with the Mythic Outfits (and the Mask one too), and maybe 2-3 others. If we could have a glimpse of the upcoming reward ornaments every campaign, that would help hella for me...

- Personal contribution? I understand little of it still. I keep planting war banners and deploying troops willy-nilly. I don't feel like I'm contributing much :/

With that Faction War rant over, I do agree, an official response from them could certainly help us as a community to better value the Faction War as an important part of the game.

Tundra 793
11-30-2017, 07:13 PM
Lol why would they rig the faction war? It makes No sense...

To show the players, and the public that one of their core mechanics is fair. It would probably look really bad if any one faction just kept steamrolling the others each Season, because eventually everyone would just play that faction for the rewards.

Either the Faction War is rigged. Or we've just witnessed one of those once-in-a-lifetime unbelievable coincidences where the Faction War played out in the most convenient way possible for the developers.

As a player looking at the game, with an average interest in the Faction War, it seems hilariously inconsistent, and convenient. I've seen far more proof of rigging, than the developers have given me to say otherwise. The constant "oh it's so not rigged because we say so" jokes are just inappropriate right now.

D-d0g56
11-30-2017, 07:22 PM
Either the Faction War is rigged. Or we've just witnessed one of those once-in-a-lifetime unbelievable coincidences where the Faction War played out in the most convenient way possible for the developers.


And this is why they still make faction war jokes.

I for one actually find them funny and had never believed that they were directed at the whole comunity. The faction war is pretty easy to understand so long that you accept that it's faction hoppers that unkowingly decide the outcome.

bob333e
11-30-2017, 07:26 PM
it's faction hoppers that unkowingly decide the outcome.

They need to implement rewards for those who stayed with their Faction for a set duration, it would help solving all the hippy-hopping greatly. And would reward loyalty to an extent.

CandleInTheDark
11-30-2017, 07:28 PM
And this is why they still make faction war jokes.

I for one actually find them funny and had never believed that they were directed at the whole comunity. The faction war is pretty easy to understand so long that you accept that it's faction hoppers that unkowingly decide the outcome.

I think the fact that a lot of knights are so set on the volcano doesn't help us any, people are making pretty poor choices all around. As the devs highlighted in the analysis, there was one viking/samurai front where the samurai had over 100,000 lead in one territory, right next door they lost one by 1000, I would bet there are a few times where if we had changed where we were deploying, we could have spared assets from that 7,000,000 lead we had in one territory to push ourselves over the line in another five or six.

I do think some of it is the faction hoppers as well,mind you, especially if they don't deploy. The knights had the highest percentage of manual deploy all last season, last campaign only the vikings were above 50%

D-d0g56
11-30-2017, 07:30 PM
They need to implement rewards for those who stayed with their Faction for a set duration, it would help solving all the hippy-hopping greatly. And would reward loyalty to an extent.

I actually agree with this. Infact, I think I mentioned something similar in a thread last week. It would be a good edition to the game for many reasons.

D-d0g56
11-30-2017, 07:38 PM
I think the fact that a lot of knights are so set on the volcano doesn't help us any, people are making pretty poor choices all around. As the devs highlighted in the analysis, there was one viking/samurai front where the samurai had over 100,000 lead in one territory, right next door they lost one by 1000, I would bet there are a few times where if we had changed where we were deploying, we could have spared assets from that 7,000,000 lead we had in one territory to push ourselves over the line in another five or six.

I do think some of it is the faction hoppers as well,mind you, especially if they don't deploy. The knights had the highest percentage of manual deploy all last season, last campaign only the vikings were above 50%

Most of that I agree with, although I fail to see how the knights could of won the round through better choices alone. At best it could have won them a few more terretories but the vikings were just to far in front for that to be a noticeble impact. The main problem for the knights was how thier troops arrived. So many just wanted to play the weekend and then left. Unless the more passive players pick up the slack on weekdays then they're going to be at a loss this time around too.

CandleInTheDark
11-30-2017, 07:51 PM
Most of that I agree with, although I fail to see how the knights could of won the round through better choices alone. At best it could have won them a few more terretories but the vikings were just to far in front for that to be a noticeble impact. The main problem for the knights was how thier troops arrived. So many just wanted to play the weekend and then left. Unless the more passive players pick up the slack on weekdays then they're going to be at a loss this time around too.

Part of that was that the knights and samurai mostly attacked each other, it is one of the reasons I suspect there has been some faction hopping affecting this as last season the vikings and samurai did the same. And yeah it seems that there is a weekend peak and since the weighting is weekly,not daily, that likely will hurt us some.

At the same time, better choices would have helped at least some, the vikings only had more assets in 16 battles but they did the best in 25 of them, that is nine battles they used less assets better and the knights had a 0.1% asset edge over the whole campaign. We had 7-12 million in leads in some places,it seems when that territory becomes uncontested those are lost and the problem with having three x million asset leads is unless we are building a wall when we already have a lead that is several we are losing by x hundred thousand. Take battle 22, in three territories, we had a 14 million asset lead over the vikings, we lost a further 5 against the vikings by 306000. Samurai were always going to trash us on their front that turn but that would have been a swing of ten against the vikings with just one territory of wasted assets and we could still have taken a further two territories off the samurai.

One thing I do love by the by is that we can make this sort of analysis, we couldn't with percentages.

D-d0g56
11-30-2017, 08:10 PM
One thing I do love by the by is that we can make this sort of analysis, we couldn't with percentages.

Same, I do think they did a great job making it more transparent.

Although 16/25 is actually a lot if you considor there's three factions. That's making advances 2/3 times out of three factions in total. If there's an election of three parties and one wins 66% of terretories, that canidate would be seen as having an absolute majority. Most likely doubling what the territories of his or her rivals has. Which is pretty much the result of the faction war in this case.

Arekonator
11-30-2017, 08:44 PM
It would be interesting to know how much he population between factions changed between the seasons.

ShadowStepped
11-30-2017, 10:50 PM
I could personally care less about the faction war. I have never liked it and probably never will. In the grand scheme of things it is pointless. For me personally, i feel it is nothing more than a diversion to take away from some issues that need addressed. I play this game for the competitive pvp. If i wanted to worry about troops and locations of troops for rewards i think are pretty overall worthless, i would play Risk. Just how i feel about it, i know that there are others who enjoy it. I am still not sure why but there are some.