Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Pann

The First Campaign - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Balance essentially gains an ally whenever they start losing.

If the score is in the middle third that means balance is winning and balance has to fight 1v1v1 since they have no allies.

As soon as chaos or order starts winning (and thus balance starts losing) balance becomes allies with the loser and begins to fight the winning faction 2v1. 

The other two factions must fight 1v2, 1v1v1, or 2v1 - but only balance gets to avoid facing 1v2. The only time balance has to actually fight on even terms (1v1v1) is when they are winning. Anytime they're losing they gain an ally and get to fight 2v1. 

On paper it sounds like balance is incredibly favored by these mechanics. 

This ruleset is best served if balance is a much smaller faction when compared to order/chaos. That way balance is there truly just to balance out the battle between order and chaos. I think the fights would be much more even if this were the case. The best way to accomplish this I think is to make the window in which balance can win a very narrow one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Balance essentially gains an ally whenever they start losing.

If the score is in the middle third that means balance is winning and balance has to fight 1v1v1 since they have no allies.

As soon as chaos or order starts winning (and thus balance starts losing) balance becomes allies with the loser and begins to fight the winning faction 2v1. 

The other two factions must fight 1v2, 1v1v1, or 2v1 - but only balance gets to avoid facing 1v2. The only time balance has to actually fight on even terms (1v1v1) is when they are winning. Anytime they're losing they gain an ally and get to fight 2v1. 

On paper it sounds like balance is incredibly favored by these mechanics. 

This ruleset is best served if balance is a much smaller faction when compared to order/chaos. That way balance is there truly just to balance out the battle between order and chaos. I think the fights would be much more even if this were the case. The best way to accomplish this I think is to make the window in which balance can win a very narrow one. 

Indeed. Assuming it operates as it appears and as you describe, part of me would be embarrassed to choose Balance under this system. It screams desperation to win by any means. EZ mode. I win button.

Choose your lightweight metaphor. It looks to be a massive advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coolwaters said:

Indeed. Assuming it operates as it appears and as you describe, part of me would be embarrassed to choose Balance under this system. It screams desperation to win by any means. EZ mode. I win button.

Choose your lightweight metaphor. It looks to be a massive advantage.

IF they narrowed balance's win threshold and thus lowered the population on the faction I think balance would be a good choice for a newer player trying to establish themselves mainly because you'll have a lot less people trying to kill you. You would be able to experience a campaign where you would mostly be fighting just 1 faction at a time so you'd be able to farm relatively peacefully. The faction rulesets are a lot more forgiving as far as export % for the losers so even if balance didn't win a newer player would be able to farm stuff with less chance of getting ganked/looted and be able to export a fair amount of it. Maybe balance should be the faction the EK crafter type joins who doesn't necessarily want to do a lot of PVP or belong to a larger guild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't stop at balance either though...

It will feel cheap for either Chaos or Order if your key victories are accomplished and lost only on the back of 2v1 zerging

<shrug>

As it is: mechanically interesting nature of Balance is likely going to make it the most popular faction, regardless of people trying to win min and max

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, coolwaters said:

Ya, it may not feel good either way.

It will still feel good. Kinda like banging a hooker it was fun but you still had to pay for it with money and self respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Balance essentially gains an ally whenever they start losing.

If the score is in the middle third that means balance is winning and balance has to fight 1v1v1 since they have no allies.

As soon as chaos or order starts winning (and thus balance starts losing) balance becomes allies with the loser and begins to fight the winning faction 2v1. 

The other two factions must fight 1v2, 1v1v1, or 2v1 - but only balance gets to avoid facing 1v2. The only time balance has to actually fight on even terms (1v1v1) is when they are winning. Anytime they're losing they gain an ally and get to fight 2v1. 

On paper it sounds like balance is incredibly favored by these mechanics. 

This ruleset is best served if balance is a much smaller faction when compared to order/chaos. That way balance is there truly just to balance out the battle between order and chaos. I think the fights would be much more even if this were the case. The best way to accomplish this I think is to make the window in which balance can win a very narrow one. 

Seems like winning with balance might take actually more effort then the other two factions. For Chaos or Order "all" you have to do is hold more keeps that's it. But for Balance you have to make sure Chaos and Order hold the same amount of keeps while also holding the ones you have claimed. Simply holding more keeps for Balance isn't the way to win because even if you hold more than either side Chaos might hold more then Order by a larger margin, thus Chaos wins.

Also the side switching mechanic works for all factions meaning Order and Chaos gets "help" as well not just Balance. Could say having an entire faction ally with you when you are losing is a bit of a crutch as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see this asked (and i didn't see it indicated either, but..):

Will there be a skill wipe?

Also: Is the ally for Balance hard-coded on change?   This derives from two ideas, first being, if you've pvp'd before, you know there is always at least one 'derp' on your side you wish you could grief into the ground, so just because the game says Order/Chaos is my 'ally' doesn't make it so; ie can we 'over-ride' this ally for a faction that is not balance? 

Secondly, is it immediate? IE if we are fighting a group of Chaos and the scales tip whereby Chaos is now my 'ally', do we just suddenly stop fighting and get all chummy, just because?

Balance has to be able to hold forts/keeps, because that is where they are migrating the advanced crafting (stations) for campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pang said:

Seems like winning with balance might take actually more effort then the other two factions. For Chaos or Order "all" you have to do is hold more keeps that's it. But for Balance you have to make sure Chaos and Order hold the same amount of keeps while also holding the ones you have claimed. Simply holding more keeps for Balance isn't the way to win because even if you hold more than either side Chaos might hold more then Order by a larger margin, thus Chaos wins.

Also the side switching mechanic works for all factions meaning Order and Chaos gets "help" as well not just Balance. Could say having an entire faction ally with you when you are losing is a bit of a crutch as well.  

But how many more will chaos have to hold over order to win (and vice versa)? If balance has to keep order/chaos at the same exact number it would be very difficult for balance to win but based on the meter we were given it appears to be split into thirds. This is why I suggested the window for balance to win needs to be narrowed. 

I understand chaos/order gets help when they're losing but they have to fight 1v2 when they're winning. Balance only has to fight 1v1v1 when they're winning. Balance never has to fight 1v2 like order/chaos does. 

We will test it and see but looking at it on paper I think the auto alliance feature should be scrapped and the win threshold for balance needs to be more narrow. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, blazzen said:

Balance essentially gains an ally whenever they start losing.

If the score is in the middle third that means balance is winning and balance has to fight 1v1v1 since they have no allies.

Comment the first:  I would prefer that the auto ally stuff not happen

Comment the second:  Your claims presuppose that the bands for victory conditions are the same as the bands for toggling the ally setting

Comment the third:  Chaos and Order have the option of choosing a point in time at which Balance is non aligned and go to town on Balance

 

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mivius said:

Didn't see this asked (and i didn't see it indicated either, but..):

Will there be a skill wipe?

Also: Is the ally for Balance hard-coded on change?   This derives from two ideas, first being, if you've pvp'd before, you know there is always at least one 'derp' on your side you wish you could grief into the ground, so just because the game says Order/Chaos is my 'ally' doesn't make it so; ie can we 'over-ride' this ally for a faction that is not balance? 

Secondly, is it immediate? IE if we are fighting a group of Chaos and the scales tip whereby Chaos is now my 'ally', do we just suddenly stop fighting and get all chummy, just because?

Balance has to be able to hold forts/keeps, because that is where they are migrating the advanced crafting (stations) for campaigns.

Based on the article it says "To facilitate this idea (that Balance constantly shifts alliances), we set it up such that when one side takes the lead, BALANCE is automatically considered an “ally” to the losing faction in terms of both targeting and friendly fire." So yeah seems like its hardcoded. Must remember this is a different type of ruleset band then say a Dregs band so likely who and when you can attack others with be different.

Yeah agree Balance will have to be able to hold keeps, I thought not before but after thinking more and reading the article again, yeah they'll need to be able to hold keeps in order to keep that balance between Chaos and Order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Todd doesn't post for months and isn't in the Q&A's any more then he goes and drops this. 

 

A few suggestions:

1) Look to the Total war RTS series for siege warfare. In particular gates and victory positions should be a capture point or hold F as you claim it. If it is a hold F your heroes should yell out "the gate is being captured" or a horn should sound if any of the defenders are near it. That way it is possible to capture things by stealth or betrayal but it isn't cheesy.

2) If balance is winning Order and Chaos should team up to destroy them since they have an equal band in the victory conditions. Also that way it is always 2 on 1 against the strongest faction in the game rather than everyone picking order and by default winning. 

3) there should be a global warning when balance is switching sides with a 5 minute warning. 

4) Bought maps should go out of date as buildings change and selected defenses change. Since this a small world I don't think maps will be that valuable but we'll see.

Edited by Holyvigil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember:  this is one type of CW ruleset.  Since it is three faction with a tug-o-war mechanic, it is most like what God's Reach was/is supposed to me (the outer most band). Therefore, it should be a little less "hardcore".  

So, in other words, some folks should really just calm the custard down. :D 


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, narsille said:

Comment the first:  I would prefer that the auto ally stuff not happen

Comment the second:  Your claims presuppose that the bands for victory conditions are the same as the bands for toggling the ally setting

Comment the third:  Chaos and Order have the option of choosing a point in time at which Balance is non aligned and go to town on Balance

 

 

1) I agree, the auto alliance causes most of the imbalance. The window for balance to win also needs to be narrowed because you can assume all things being even that the score should remain pretty tight thus giving balance a mathematical edge being in the middle third. 

2) Quoting directly from the article:

Quote

To facilitate this idea (that Balance constantly shifts alliances), we set it up such that when one side takes the lead, BALANCE is automatically considered an “ally” to the losing faction in terms of both targeting and friendly fire.

3) Yes, chaos and order have the choice of going after balance when balance is winning. But they have to do it while dealing with friendly fire. When order or chaos is winning balance teams up against the winner WITHOUT having to face friendly fire. This is why I describe balance as fighting 2v1 or 1v1v1 whereas Order/Chaos have to fight 1v2 when winning, 1v1v1 when balance is winning, or 2v1 when the opposing force (not balance) is winning. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, blazzen said:

But how many more will chaos have to hold over order to win (and vice versa)? If balance has to keep order/chaos at the same exact number it would be very difficult for balance to win but based on the meter we were given it appears to be split into thirds. This is why I suggested the window for balance to win needs to be narrowed. 

I understand chaos/order gets help when they're losing but they have to fight 1v2 when they're winning. Balance only has to fight 1v1v1 when they're winning. Balance never has to fight 1v2 like order/chaos does. 

We will test it and see but looking at it on paper I think the auto alliance feature should be scrapped and the win threshold for balance needs to be more narrow. 

 

Yeah agree the winning range will likely need tweaking after they get data from the first few.

Not sure I agree though that having to fight on two fronts like Balance does when they are winning is "easier" then fighting on one front with they are allied with one of the factions. When wining Balance has two enemies whereas when Chaos or Order is winning they (technically) have one, ie the two other allied factions. Besides there nothing stopping Order and Chaos from temp teaming up to fight Balance when they are winning together to diminish their effect on the balance.

Personally would rather see them tweak and balance things and keep trying it before just scraping something as I think the switch mechanic adds depth and interest to the faction based PvP gameplay.  But yeah if it doesn't work it doesn't work, at least we'll know for sure then.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pang said:

Yeah agree the winning range will likely need tweaking after they get data from the first few.

Not sure I agree though that having to fight on two fronts like Balance does when they are winning is "easier" then fighting on one front with they are allied with one of the factions. When wining Balance has two enemies whereas when Chaos or Order is winning they have one, ie the two other allied factions. Besides there nothing stopping Order and Chaos from temp teaming up to fight Balance when they are winning together to diminish their effect on the balance.

Personally would rather see them tweak and balance things and keep trying it before just scraping something as I think the switch mechanic adds depth and interest to the faction based PvP gameplay.   

Friendly fire is the key component to this argument that you're missing.

I'm not going to break it down any further for you. If you don't understand at this point I can't help you. 

EDIT: Quoting myself from the post just above the one you made.

Quote

3) Yes, chaos and order have the choice of going after balance when balance is winning. But they have to do it while dealing with friendly fire. When order or chaos is winning balance teams up against the winner WITHOUT having to face friendly fire. This is why I describe balance as fighting 2v1 or 1v1v1 whereas Order/Chaos have to fight 1v2 when winning, 1v1v1 when balance is winning, or 2v1 when the opposing force (not balance) is winning. 

 

Edited by blazzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...