PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion - Faction War - Spread the Castle's strategic effect



Kamen42
02-27-2018, 05:56 PM
First please let me say this - If you don't care about Faction War or think it is rigged, this thread does not concern you and you should completely ignore it.

Now, to my suggestion. Currently the castle provides a bonus for the defender +10% deployed troops, but only on that one specific field. I think this effect should be spread to all the fields around it (currently 7 for each faction).

The main reason is that now the strategic bonus seems kind of useless. All other strategic resources (Mill, Forge) provide faction-wide bonus. The castle giving bonus to one field and one field only makes it feel very insignificant. You can simply ignore attacking this one territory and focus on others.

If the castle gave bonuses to adjacent fields as well it would make gaining new territories harder, which would lead to less radical territory-count swings during the campaign. It is not rare that one round a faction has a great lead and two or three rounds later they are dead last.

Spreading the effect would mean that it is easier to defend and if you manage to snatch the territory, to keep it and not lose it right away.

Vakris_One
02-27-2018, 06:06 PM
I thought it provided a faction-wide bonus of +10% troops like the Mill and Forge bonuses. You're telling me it provides this bonus only for the territory the Castle itself is in?

That makes the Castle territory close to pointless. At best you can build a large defence buffer zone there but so what, the enemy will just fight around it and eventually isolate it. Is this really how the Castle bonus works?

bob333e
02-27-2018, 06:11 PM
Good thought, and I'd add that for each warbanner planted on the same field where the castle stands, each warbanner provides a boost nudge across all the areas that the castle has effect over. So if there's a castle providing 10% troop boost on the area where it stands and the surrounding areas, each warbanner planted on that specific field where there is a castle gives a 0.1% boost to the castle's own power. So if 25 players have their warbanners planted on that same field where the castle stands, the castle's boosting power becomes 12.5% troop boost on that field and surrounding fields. That's on top of what the warbanner itself can give in terms of troop deployment.

The main reason for this is that each Faction has only one castle so yeah, it's gotta mean it's some sort of a powerful command center for the Faction itself. It should be something that has noticeable impact on the fields, and something that changes dynamically based on how many players interact with it, since it's their castle after all.

What I don't like, however, is that these castles, mills, and forges seem to have been placed hap-hazardly (random field). The castle, imo, should stand at the very center of the whole Faction territory. Boost it enough and it provides a sizeable force across all surrounding fields. Like a real castle should.

And, the castle's icon / model should also increase / decrease in size based on its power.

bob333e
02-27-2018, 06:19 PM
This effectively makes taking the castle / stronghold of a Faction a worthy battle and something to be proud of, should you achieve it. It's near-impossible, but if enough players don't boost their Faction castle it could eventually happen. Once that happens, their castle icon / model disappears from the map for the rest of the campaign (campaign, not season).

Mills and forges can be seized / captured and repurposed for the enemy, but castles are besieged and destroyed. Owning two castles per Faction is a deathball for the rest of the campaign so this shouldn't happen.

The Faction that has a destroyed castle cannot gain field-wide troop boost, they don't have a command center anymore, so for each field they still own, there will be military camps / tents / outposts models (involves making new models, smaller than mills and forges).

Kamen42
02-27-2018, 06:22 PM
What I don't like, however, is that these castles, mills, and forges seem to have been placed hap-hazardly (random field). The castle, imo, should stand at the very center of the whole Faction territory. Boost it enough and it provides a sizeable force across all surrounding fields. Like a real castle should.

I don't think this is the case, the strategic sources seem to be placed in the same spot for each faction. Mills - 2nd row from central line, second from the edge. Castles - One field from the center of the map and even the forge is one field away from the faction home-piece.

What I was also thinking about is that the castle could provide a percentage of its strength to all faction fields, but I discarded the idea. Some fields can have over a billion total troops and the difference can be as small as a few thousands. So the bonus provided would have to be extremely small.

bob333e
02-27-2018, 06:29 PM
I don't think this is the case, the strategic sources seem to be placed in the same spot for each faction. Mills - 2nd row from central line, second from the edge. Castles - One field from the center of the map and even the forge is one field away from the faction home-piece.

What I was also thinking about is that the castle could provide a percentage of its strength to all faction fields, but I discarded the idea. Some fields can have over a billion total troops and the difference can be as small as a few thousands. So the bonus provided would have to be extremely small.

So this effectively makes the only worthy areas to take being the borders between Faction territories...

Well yeah, maybe smaller than 0.1% boost per warbanner.

The whole Faction War is still under-developed and hastily implemented, while also being near-completely detached from your actual gameplay (mixing Factions together like they're all buddies, or rewarding the player the same troops if he's Knight and playing a Samurai hero, etc).

JadeBosson.
02-27-2018, 06:30 PM
it also comes with bragging right? : WE HAVE A CASTLE NEWBS XD :

Vakris_One
02-27-2018, 06:37 PM
This effectively makes taking the castle / stronghold of a Faction a worthy battle and something to be proud of, should you achieve it. It's near-impossible, but if enough players don't boost their Faction castle it could eventually happen. Once that happens, their castle icon / model disappears from the map for the rest of the campaign (campaign, not season).

Mills and forges can be seized / captured and repurposed for the enemy, but castles are besieged and destroyed. Owning two castles per Faction is a deathball for the rest of the campaign so this shouldn't happen.

The Faction that has a destroyed castle cannot gain field-wide troop boost, they don't have a command center anymore, so for each field they still own, there will be military camps / tents / outposts models (involves making new models, smaller than mills and forges).
The Samurai had their castle taken at least once by the Vikings. I thought we were gonna be screwed for the rest of the campaign but we eventually took it back. In that regard it's a good thing that it isn't a faction wide bonus as any faction that has +20% bonus troops will become unstopable.

I like the idea of Castles being destroyed if taken by the enemy and would add the ability to rebuild a Castle by parking troops there for a set time.

bob333e
02-27-2018, 06:44 PM
The Samurai had their castle taken at least once by the Vikings. I thought we were gonna be screwed for the rest of the campaign but we eventually took it back. In that regard it's a good thing that it isn't a faction wide bonus as any faction that has +20% bonus troops will become unstopable.

I like the idea of Castles being destroyed if taken by the enemy and would add the ability to rebuild a Castle by parking troops there for a set time.

Yeah, since the entire Faction War works on troops, each Faction may only use its own troops. You may not use another Faction's troops because as you said you become an unstoppable force (deathball scenario).

Castles should be placed at the very center of a Faction's zone to make taking them harder (especially if they give field-wide boosts). This prevents the frequent "lol we took your seat" scenarios like what you've described.

I like your second sentence, parking troops (and camps and tents and outposts) on the very area where the castle stood, and successfully holding it for like 3-5 days, you rebuild the castle. A.k.a throwing all them warbanners in that one field for a few days.

Faction War isn't a job, or a serious thing. We lose and gain territories but no loss should ultimately amount to punishment, and no gain should ultimately amount to deathballing. Everything should be reversible largely hassle-free on an individual level.

CandleInTheDark
02-27-2018, 09:18 PM
So this effectively makes the only worthy areas to take being the borders between Faction territories...

Well yeah, maybe smaller than 0.1% boost per warbanner.

The whole Faction War is still under-developed and hastily implemented, while also being near-completely detached from your actual gameplay (mixing Factions together like they're all buddies, or rewarding the player the same troops if he's Knight and playing a Samurai hero, etc).

People keep saying this but no one has had a satisfactory answer as to why my time with my nobushi or valkyrie should be worth less to me or my faction than my time with my warden. As you put it, this isn't a job or a serious thing and we shouldn't be put in a position where if we want to do well with the faction war we are prevented from using characters that we enjoy using. While I agree that matchmaking should do a better job of matching people in groups with their faction if this is possible, the devs have said in other matters that they do not intend to restrict choice and inmyview they should not go against that.

bob333e
02-27-2018, 09:39 PM
People keep saying this but no one has had a satisfactory answer as to why my time with my nobushi or valkyrie should be worth less to me or my faction than my time with my warden. As you put it, this isn't a job or a serious thing and we shouldn't be put in a position where if we want to do well with the faction war we are prevented from using characters that we enjoy using. While I agree that matchmaking should do a better job of matching people in groups with their faction if this is possible, the devs have said in other matters that they do not intend to restrict choice and inmyview they should not go against that.

You have a point that it would eventually tend to feel like a hero choice restriction if you want to maximize troop deployment during a campaign or a season. My statement barely hinted at the general idea that no matter which hero you use it's all the same anyway in terms of Faction War; not specifically pointing at this specific troop gain thing. I threw an example which highlights that everything is mashed together into "common ground" for the sake of not limiting anything to the player. Hence why Faction War feels rather bland and ultimately not really influenced by choice of Faction, and rather detached from gameplay.

I cannot come up with a viable and logical answer either. Anything that limits troop gain, will eventually limit hero choice when it comes to Faction War. And that isn't good, I agree. And since Faction War feeds off solely of troops, they'd have to introduce a new element that's influenced by hero choice, and take Faction War development to another level.