PDA

View Full Version : I don't beleive faction war rewards should become a two tier system



CandleInTheDark
12-02-2017, 03:08 PM
This kind of derailed another thread and I thought I would give it its own. I am going to say from the outset this is not a balanced pros and cons post, I have a strong opinion on this and at best it would be dishonest to find something to write for the sake of it and present it as a balanced argument. If anyone would like to argue against this, feel free, you want to say I am wrong because (insert capitalised cuss words here) also feel free but I am probably just going to laugh at the latter.

I do not believe that there should be any use of faction war rewards to incentivise players to play characters in their own faction. Whether it is zero reward, half reward, give players that do a boost to current rewards,I do not feel that it fixes anything in this game and I believe it causes a lot of problems.

The first problem this causes is a matter of choice. The devs and the reps have said more than once that they do not want to restrict player choice on their characters. The only real exception to this that they have brought in other than single pick in brawl which has been here from the beginning is to make ranked dominion single pick and that is a needed thing if they are going to have people take ranked seriously,no one can say you only got rank through centurion murderballs etc (sorry centurion players!). Anything that discourages choice discourages the use of twelve out of eighteen characters and I do not believe that locking two thirds of the character gameplay experience from a player who cares about faction war is a good thing. Taking my own case, I am a peacekeeper main and while I have a few knight characters levelled, I also very much enjoy the valkyrie and nobushi and I have started playing the kensei. We bought this game to have fun and discouraging people from having a full gameplay experience of their choosing goes directly against that. Character choice is very important, while it might not be so much the case 1v1, in 4v4 there are different roles that need fulling. Each faction has characters fit for all of those roles but there are always going to be people who prefer say the valkyrie over the lawbringer or shugoki for crowd control or the peacekeeper or gladiator over the assassins in the other factions and that choice should not be hindered.

The other main problem is that rather than 'make faction war more relevant', it would be another reason that people turn off from it. I have a fairly good memory for threads I have taken part in on this board and about halfway through last season there were people saying that the Knights were only winning because they had a full set of characters and because their characters are op. Not touching balancing debates in this argument but this argument at the time was very flawed for two reasons, the first being that the Samurai had more more people in their faction in any case and the second being that while some people only play characters in their own faction, there is nothing at all stopping people from any faction playing any character. If the devs were to make a two tier reward system as some people want, this argument would suddenly have a very real case, because if one faction does have op characters then obviously that faction is more likely to get the top tier of faction war rewards. Very far from fixing anything in the faction war I believe that this will break it.

I have seen the argument for immersion and to me this is a very lazy argument. If you are after immersion then I am guessing you are looking for a story, correct? If you want to make your own story then part of that is on you to make a story out of what is happening. Every army has criminals, traitors, mercenaries and it is very easy to make something up that makes sense. Don't believe me? Ok,some examples for you, let's first take the characters I have outside of my faction.

Valkyrie. While the Warborn are the largest faction of Vikings, the land is large and one tribe cannot effectively police all Viking territory. As in the time before the War of Wolves where the Warborn were ruled by those who would hoarde food for themselves and their close allies, this happens often on outlying villages near the border. Disgusted by this, the Valkyrie has determined to cut away the cancer in her tribe by any means necessary and of that means riding under the banner of foes for the betterment of people in those villages, so be it.

Hey let's look at the Nobushi. Before the War of Wolves, societies were very political. Old habits die hard and being on the wrong side of a political argument can be a very dangerous prospect. The Nobushi was on the wrong side of one such argument and was cast out of her society. She protected these villages, these people, and one difference of opinion and she is out? Fortunately the troop she came across did not kill her on sight and now they have a naginata to their cause.

Let's go with the new DLC, Shaman do not value any kind of society, what they want is people not trampling through their territory. This Shaman's patch of forest was peaceful enough until the Vikings trampled through it demanding she fight the knights (who frankly were wary and decided this was not a good place to intrude on). The Shaman is not someone to be commanded, she is someone to be pointed at people not you and hope they annoy her more, the Vikings who disturbed her peace will find this out the hard way.

Aramusha...oh come on, this one is easy. They have cast off all ties to caste and the rules of their society, they do as they please.

Highlander? They have vows after all, but of the people who came to them are oathbreakers then all bets are off.

Just for fun let's pretend I go Viking but am still a peacekeeper main. A jarl has been causing problems for the Knights, my Peacekeeper has carte blanche and a pardon over anything that is necessary if she can get close to the Jarl in order to kill him,of course if she does not complete this task, she cannot return home.

Peacekeeper to Samurai, the Knights came at a time she was desperate, they indoctrinated her, she allowed them to because they said they would look after her family. Three years later she finds her family home burned to the ground and the first thing she sees on approaching is a blackened skeleton wearing her sister's bracelet. Something in her mind breaks and she runs into the swamp where she is fortunate to run into a kensei who recognises the value of a grudge.

Now I write stories in order to pass the time, might get a few published one day, but this was all very easy off the top of my head. Besides this, the good thing about the way things stand is everything is possible. People can play the characters they want but if people want to go into teams with all characters from their faction there is also nothing stopping them from using the look for group board on this forum or looking on faction discords or reddits. Everything is possible and while some things require a little more effort, in my view, this is how it should remain.

Anyhow that is my take on it, if someone wants to attack the argument feel free. As someone who is a big fan of this game, as someone who enjoys the variety it allows in gameplay and as someone who does care about the faction war, it would be a sad day if it came to having to choose between enjoying the game as much as I would like or fully taking part in something I want my faction to succeed in.

Alustar.
12-02-2017, 04:16 PM
I'm in agreement. Mostly that I see it as a lazy fix to a problem that hasn't been properly identified yet.

To me the possible seems making the faction was relevant and integral to gameplay.
If history had taught me anything is that wars of attrition are unsatisfying and demoralizing. The current tug of war needs to go. It feels like a half finished mini game.
In my opinion several things need to be addressed, first are defectors mid round. This could be fixed with one or more ways, of the bat I think players should be locked out of joining a new faction for two rounds(the current round and the one after) instead they are given defector status, and all of their arrests are treated as mercenary assest. These assets can then be purchased by the warring factions to bolster their current ranks(hey look at that, now we have a possible use for all those thousands of piled up salvage tokens) or perhaps that the assets gained by defectors are just divided between the factions opposing the one the player is leaving.
The next thing is feeling with inactive accounts. With such a long again between rounds we should have some way to mitigate the effect inactive players have on the values. I think it would be fair that any account inactive for more than say 5 days should be locked from that round.

Those all would help guide game play into a more serious minded execution of this portion of the game, but over all only addresses defectors and dead weight. In my opinion as it stands this mechanic engages the primal predator instincts without giving any sort of catharsis. Like I said, is a war of attrition, to use an analogy is life teasing a dog with a laser pointer. All it's going to do is make players neurotic chasing prey you know full and well they well never catch. To fix this I think objective nodes need to be added. Key lines being fortress stronghold positions for each faction that can be invaded and occupied, effectively neutralizing an opponent for that round. I feel this could help lead to more creative deployment of war assets as well as curtail the problem with players waiting till the closing of a round to start amping up their deployment.

CandleInTheDark
12-02-2017, 04:27 PM
In terms of inactive accounts, they said on the last Den that the weighting is changed every week, so it seems they keep on that, the main issue is if a bunch all drop one or two days early on in that weekly period. As to defectors, yeah that is as much an issue but more so between seasons as one set of people go to the faction that last won a season, another go in a cycle of the everyone wins a season conspiracy theory which has turned pretty much into a self fulfilling prophecy with these in mind. I don't think it is a coincidence that last season the knights manually deployed assets more than everyone in every round, this season only the vikings manually deployed more than 50% The ones all I want to win every season so I follow the conspiracy theory favoured faction are more likely to take more part in deploying than let's go knights, they won four of the last five rounds.

I do like the idea of fortress strongholds, though hopefully that wouldn't cause too much of what we have with the knights volcano right now,any time that is contested it gets so many more assets than any other.

bob333e
12-03-2017, 03:57 PM
Eloquently well put, and while there are some details the background of which I might be blanking on (seeing as I, in overall, barely even understood how Faction War works), I agree nevertheless that Faction War is still in its most blatant and disinteresting aspect. I'll try to keep my points short and concise as I wish to avoid boring anyone reading this, but I'll happily expand on each point if I prove to have added something to this discussion. Note that this is all personal observation.

- To point out first and foremost, it's only how you "deploy troops" after each match, that you ultimately have an impact on the overall Faction War; regardless of personal player performance, match performance, and match outcome. And this goes for every type of match in multiplayer.

- Players hippy-hop between Factions without consequences or punishments, and the reverse is true: players who stay loyal to a Faction are not really rewarded for loyalty.

- Faction War is basically "who has more numbers". That's just a plain, lazy overgeneralization and oversimplification of a state of three warring major parties, especially considering that each Faction has heroes that specialize in stealth (assassin class); which adds nothinng to a war of numbers.

- There is no real incentive to keep "deploying troops" willy-nilly based on numbers other than "hopefully my Faction will win this round and I'll get some crates". Map decoration is barely noticeable anyway, especially in 4v4. You're too busy focusing on your gameplay than admiring the scenery.

- Additionally, there are no 'Faction Events' (not Community PvP Events, those are different). Faction Events are, for example, when the Samurai Faction takes over three Viking territories (in more ways than just "deploying troops", mind you, but that's to discuss only if I'm asked details about my ideas), and thus the Vikings must win a total of 100 matches within 3 days if they wish to repel Samurai from these territories, etc. Basically, have the player's actual multiplayer gameplay be the major moving force behind the outcomes of the Faction War.

- The concept of holding strongholds and outposts is amazing. They could be tied to match types, maybe Skirmish, and over the course of a campaign, whichever Faction wins a total of 500 rounds (for example) in a given stronghold, takes over the stronghold, boosts war assets, can implement war assets from a losing Faction, can recruit troops, can rebuild nearby outposts... also this would be hella more beautiful if these strongholds and outposts were separate maps than the already known maps, but that's probably far-fetched.


I could brainfart a lot more than this but I'll leave it open for debate for now. But yeah, Faction War is definitely lacking a ton as-is.

SenBotsu893
12-03-2017, 10:33 PM
to be honest when the first season ended i was confused why the faction winner got rewards for all characters.

doesnt make much sense to pledge alliegence to one specific faction and get rewards for the other faction fighters as well

whats the point then of signing in for the your faction when you just need to stick with the strongest faction to get all the rewards regardless?