PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for Faction War



Waxfacts
12-22-2017, 05:59 PM
So first i wanna say im not a super genius who has thought out ever flaw, this is a general idea that i think might help faction wars comments and critiques are welcomed. First off, im noticing in the war right now vikings have a big lead. They have won 2 campaigns and hold most of the map more or less all the time. Im assuming that means there are more viking players than there are any other faction. Now i dont know specifics, but if thats the case i would think viking players would have less troops to offer while factions with less players could offer more troops to compensate for their low playerbase. So im going to speak in hypothetical terms, i know these arent the real numbers but it will simply my idea and hopefully provide something to faction wars. So lets say viking player count is 30, samurai is 20, and knights are 10. After a game you will always be able to play 10 troops. In total vikings can place 300, samurai 200, and knights 100 this is if all players played 1 game each. Knights would have to play 3 games to equal 1 game for vikings in troop count, samurai roughly 1.5 games. So having lower player counts those factions would get troop mulipliers. Knights would get a 3x boost to troops and samurai a 1.5x boost. So after every game no matter the player count, everyone will be getting 300 troops. Now this number can slightly change based on wins, performance of a player, etc. This boost will vary depending on faction player count, and the top player coun. It will give boosts to 2 other factions to always match the highest value. Things like offline players could also be factored in but i think just having the general idea of this is fine for now. Now this is pretty simple, Im sure this is an idea thats already been made somewhere else before so if it has... sorry i guess haha just leave a link to it in your comment, thank you.

The_B0G_
12-22-2017, 06:05 PM
Samurai have had the player advantage since release, they only managed to barely win one season. Vikings won season 1 because on average their players were playing better in matches.

I'm not sure how the vikings are steamrolling so bad this season, they've been pretty stagnant since season 1 but I don't think it's because of player numbers.

CandleInTheDark
12-22-2017, 06:07 PM
That is pretty much what they do already, they change the weightings based on active players every week. Not sure of the percentages now but Vikings have also had a significantly smaller population than the other two before this season and had the smallest last time they won.

SenBotsu893
12-22-2017, 06:11 PM
Samurai have had the player advantage since release, they only managed to barely win one season. Vikings won season 1 because on average their players were playing better in matches.

I'm not sure how the vikings are steamrolling so bad this season, they've been pretty stagnant since season 1 but I don't think it's because of player numbers.

if you honestly think vikings ever won becasue on average their players play better then you are a fool.

its just that they receive extra war asssets per player simple as that.

The_B0G_
12-22-2017, 06:15 PM
if you honestly think vikings ever won becasue on average their players play better then you are a fool.

its just that they receive extra war asssets per player simple as that.

In season one the dev team literally told us the reason vikings won was because on average their players were getting the higher scores in matches compared to other factions... I guess facts are for fools.

GeneraISoIo
12-22-2017, 06:19 PM
I agree that the FW has been pretty lopsided and will most likely need a rework. If what everyone is saying is true, and the Vikings have less players and are either playing better (i doubt) or just manually deploying more troops, then how are they steamrolling us with less players unless the devs upped the amount of troops that the faction with the least amount of players get, which in the end is unfair to other factions(just look, less people are whooping everyone else's ***). What about players who don't deploy in the factions that have more people? I was skeptical about the FW from the beginning because individual players really have not power and if your faction keeps losing, nothing you can do but leave the faction. I enjoyed season 1 the most, it seemed the most balanced and I felt like myself as an individual was making more of an impact for my faction. With the addition of all the territories now, that feeling is mostly gone.

SenBotsu893
12-22-2017, 06:20 PM
In season one the dev team literally told us the reason vikings won was because on average their players were getting the higher scores in matches compared to other factions... I guess facts are for fools.

and then they forgot how to play since they didnt even win a single round after the season 1?

clearly you can tell that the ammount of war assets produced now by the vikings are unreasonable high.

another thing to add:

if i carry a group of 3 vikings in my team against a team of samuari and kights to victory. then i have essentially produced more war assets for the vikings than for my own faction.

The_B0G_
12-22-2017, 06:31 PM
and then they forgot how to play since they didnt even win a single round after the season 1?

clearly you can tell that the ammount of war assets produced now by the vikings are unreasonable high.

another thing to add:

if i carry a group of 3 vikings in my team against a team of samuari and kights to victory. then i have essentially produced more war assets for the vikings than for my own faction.

A lot of people flocked to the viking faction to hop on the bandwagon after their season 1 win, the viking faction was not the same as they were in season 1 once season 2 started. I assume most of the good players stayed, but they got all the quitters/faction hoppers from the other factions, so that watered down their talent pool.

If you carried then no, personal score is what gives you big assets. They might get a few hundred extra assets from a win but that doesn't equal top player assets.

SenBotsu893
12-22-2017, 08:47 PM
A lot of people flocked to the viking faction to hop on the bandwagon after their season 1 win, the viking faction was not the same as they were in season 1 once season 2 started. I assume most of the good players stayed, but they got all the quitters/faction hoppers from the other factions, so that watered down their talent pool.

If you carried then no, personal score is what gives you big assets. They might get a few hundred extra assets from a win but that doesn't equal top player assets.

good that you mention that. so having fewer members is not only an advantage in terms of talent pool it does in addition grant you the bonus war assets for haven fewer members in the first place.

and the carrie the team thing does equal to more than a few assests. every enemy i soften up and a rushing in different player who either gets asssist or even the kill itself will increase their personal score.

it also applies to the other way around. lets say i am a knight faction player and i continue to pulverize another knight faction player on the oppsite team while the other vikings/samurai on my team generate points then i am minimizing the ammount of knight points we could create. overall the other faction warriors would create more points.

UbiJurassic
12-22-2017, 10:06 PM
So first i wanna say im not a super genius who has thought out ever flaw, this is a general idea that i think might help faction wars comments and critiques are welcomed. First off, im noticing in the war right now vikings have a big lead. They have won 2 campaigns and hold most of the map more or less all the time. Im assuming that means there are more viking players than there are any other faction. Now i dont know specifics, but if thats the case i would think viking players would have less troops to offer while factions with less players could offer more troops to compensate for their low playerbase. So im going to speak in hypothetical terms, i know these arent the real numbers but it will simply my idea and hopefully provide something to faction wars. So lets say viking player count is 30, samurai is 20, and knights are 10. After a game you will always be able to play 10 troops. In total vikings can place 300, samurai 200, and knights 100 this is if all players played 1 game each. Knights would have to play 3 games to equal 1 game for vikings in troop count, samurai roughly 1.5 games. So having lower player counts those factions would get troop mulipliers. Knights would get a 3x boost to troops and samurai a 1.5x boost. So after every game no matter the player count, everyone will be getting 300 troops. Now this number can slightly change based on wins, performance of a player, etc. This boost will vary depending on faction player count, and the top player coun. It will give boosts to 2 other factions to always match the highest value. Things like offline players could also be factored in but i think just having the general idea of this is fine for now. Now this is pretty simple, Im sure this is an idea thats already been made somewhere else before so if it has... sorry i guess haha just leave a link to it in your comment, thank you.

As Candle already mentioned, the Faction War actually does take into account the number of players for each faction when dispensing war assets. If a faction has a smaller playerbase compared to the others, they will receive a war asset boost to equalize the difference between the others.




it also applies to the other way around. lets say i am a knight faction player and i continue to pulverize another knight faction player on the oppsite team while the other vikings/samurai on my team generate points then i am minimizing the ammount of knight points we could create. overall the other faction warriors would create more points.

That seems to be a very focused outlook though. Mirroring that train of thought, Samurai and Vikings would have a similar disadvantage as the one you suggested for the Knights.

Hormly
12-23-2017, 03:27 AM
I'm not sure how the vikings are steamrolling so bad this season, they've been pretty stagnant since season 1 but I don't think it's because of player numbers.

I had taken a long break after season 1, and decided to come back to take part in this final season.

This explains everything 😎 *drinks mead*

bmason1000
12-23-2017, 07:37 PM
if you honestly think vikings ever won becasue on average their players play better then you are a fool.

its just that they receive extra war asssets per player simple as that.


I agree that the FW has been pretty lopsided and will most likely need a rework. If what everyone is saying is true, and the Vikings have less players and are either playing better (i doubt) Why is it so hard for you to believe that vikings tend to be better players?