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

The First Campaign - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, blazzen said:

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. 

 I did in fact take friendly fire mechanics into account. Still doesn't stop Chaos or Order from temporarily ceasing/reducing attacking each other to take on Balance. Yes they will have to deal with FF and accidental attacks will happen but again can't just rule it out as a possibility. Besides it will happen regardless if the auto switch mechanic or not. Not sure if you've played faction based PvP games before especially three way ones but yeah a huge factor is the temp cease fires that go on to team up on the more dominate or winning faction. All this happens when there is FF or not or auto allies or not.

Share this post


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

 I did in fact take friendly fire mechanics into account. Still doesn't stop Chaos or Order from temporarily ceasing/reducing attacking each other to take on Balance. Yes they will have to deal with FF and accidental attacks will happen but again can't just rule it out as a possibility. Besides it will happen regardless if the auto switch mechanic or not. Not sure if you've played faction based PvP games before especially three way ones but yeah a huge factor is the temp cease fires that go on to team up on the more dominate or winning faction. All this happens when there is FF or not or auto allies or not.

I've played GW2, ESO, etc. I'm familiar with factions.

Are you familiar with Crowfall combat? You're aware of how punishing friendly fire is in this game that has 30 meter long by 15 meter wide confessor knockdowns? How about the fact that you can't heal other each unless your allied? 

The friendly fire component of this is YUGE. 

Share this post


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

I've played GW2, ESO, etc. I'm familiar with factions.

Are you familiar with Crowfall combat? You're aware of how punishing friendly fire is in this game that has 30 meter long by 15 meter wide confessor knockdowns? How about the fact that you can't heal other each unless your allied? 

The friendly fire component of this is YUGE. 

Without the auto switch ally mechanic, temp alliances and teaming up will happen anyway. That's just a matter of fact. How the combat currently works doesn't take away the fact that in 3 sided faction PvP two sides can and will team up on the winning, dominate side. That's a part of faction based PvP, so not sure the point of arguing otherwise.

Anyways probably best to just move on, you seem a bit overly combative about this. But I do thank you for replying and discussing the topic civilly for the most part and responding with more than "LOL" and "LOL EASY MODEZZ!!!!".

Share this post


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

Without the auto switch ally mechanic, temp alliances and teaming up will happen anyway. That's just a matter of fact. How the combat currently works doesn't take away the fact that in 3 sided faction PvP two sides can and will team up on the winning, dominate side. That's a part of faction based PvP, so not sure the point of arguing otherwise.

Anyways probably best to just move on, you seem a bit overly combative about this. But I do thank you for replying and discussing the topic civilly for the most part and responding with more than "LOL" and "LOL EASY MODEZZ!!!!".

I agree - the main issue is the auto ally mechanic that makes balance EZ mode. Balance winning in the middle third of the meter is an issue as well. 

We will get to test it and see soon enough but I think the feedback from testing will be to remove the auto ally mechanic to make it so each faction remains red to one another at all times and narrow the window which balance can win. 

Share this post


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

 I did in fact take friendly fire mechanics into account. 

Yeah, you claimed it was a disadvantage to be allied because now your alliance is just one "front."

Nobody is claiming that Order and Chaos can not team up on Balance. They can. But being flagged as friendly is a huge advantage when teaming up on someone. To claim it is a disadvantage boggles the mind.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jah said:

Yeah, you claimed it was a disadvantage to be allied because now your alliance is just one "front."

Nobody is claiming that Order and Chaos can not team up on Balance. They can. But being flagged as friendly is a huge advantage when teaming up on someone. To claim it is a disadvantage boggles the mind.

No. I was questioning which would be considered "easier" in the context of the claim that Balance has an easier path to victory ie the claims of Balance is easy mode or the insinuation that's its a crutch for bads.

But hey thanks for using actual words and sentences this time in your reply. :P Next lets work on quoting and replying to the entire post not just cherry pick and focusing on one single word or sentence. Most times when you and your buddy do that the actual reply to what you cherry pick out is in the rest of the post you ignored. Bottom line if you want to discuss a topic in good faith then lets, just seems like most time just want to prove the other poster to be wrong or shown in a bad light so to speak and not really discuss the actual topic.

Edited by pang

Share this post


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

No. I was questioning which would be considered "easier" in the context of the claim that Balance has an easier path to victory ie the claims of Balance is easy mode or the insinuation that

Next lets work on quoting and replying to the entire post not just cherry pick and focusing on one single word or sentence. Most times when you and your buddy do that the actual reply to what you cherry pick out is in the rest of the post you ignored. Bottom line if you want to discuss a topic in good faith then lets, just seems like most time just want to prove the other poster to be wrong or ignorant and not really discuss the actual topic.

I'm not "cherry picking" when I do partial quotes, I am showing you the specific part that I am replying to. I feel that it helps to keep the debate from getting too muddy.

3 hours ago, pang said:

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.

Are you not claiming here that being allied is a disadvantage because it turns your two forces into one "front" rather than two? Can you understand why I think that is nonsense?

Gaining the benefits of FF immunity and cross-healing does not prevent the two forces from acting as two fronts. All it does is give them advantages. There are no downsides to being allied when you team up against another faction.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the auto-ally is that much of a deal. If it didnt exist we would see 2 out comes:

1) Stays the same.

2) People will screw balance and help the winning side.

So i can see why the DEVs chose to do it this way.

About balance beeing easy mode. I am not sure. In my point of view the loser gains as much as balance itself. The only one that is at disvantage is the current winner.

I would limit balance pop cap. Not to limit balance but just because being attacked by double the numbers isnt that fun. Balance should be one third of the order/chaos at best.

PS: Still think balance should not get points by occupying forts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jah said:

I'm not "cherry picking" when I do partial quotes, I am showing you the specific part that I am replying to. I feel that it helps to keep the debate from getting too muddy.

Are you not claiming here that being allied is a disadvantage because it turns your two forces into one "front" rather than two? Can you understand why I think that is nonsense?

Gaining the benefits of FF immunity and cross-healing does not prevent the two forces from acting as two fronts. All it does is give them advantages. There are no downsides to being allied when you team up against another faction.

No I'm not.... Again I was countering blazzens claim that Balance has it easier due to the combinations of enemies they face ie the whole 1v2 2v1 1v1v1 bit. I didn't use the same terminology he did so maybe that's where you're confused?

and that's fine if you reply that way I guess but just saying it gives the appearance that you're ignoring the rest of the post you cut off. Maybe quote the whole post but underline or bold the parts your are specifically replying to like most do? I just get that impression because like I said sometimes the points you address in the post to the cherry picked line is actually in the rest of the post that got cut off.

Share this post


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

No I'm not.... Again I was countering blazzens claim that Balance has it easier due to the combinations of enemies they face ie the whole 1v2 2v1 1v1v1 bit. I didn't use the same terminology he did so maybe that's where you're confused?

and that's fine if you reply that way I guess but just saying it gives the appearance that you're ignoring the rest of the post you cut off. Maybe quote the whole post but underline or bold the parts your are specifically replying to like most do? I just get that impression because like I said sometimes the points you address in the post to the cherry picked line is actually in the rest of the post that got cut off.

I am not replying to the rest of your post. It would be cherry picking if I focused on just one part and acted like that discredited the rest of your post. I am not doing that. I object to one point, so I quote that point.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that it is not easier for Balance because when Order and Chaos team up on them, they are not turned into "one front" by being automatically allied? So you think that there is an advantage when teaming up to not having friendly fire and the ability to cross-heal?

I get the feeling you don't want to debate that point, and so you are trying to distract from it with this "cherry picking" accusation.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really interested how populations will be adjusted without the ability to switch sides.

 

Generally im a free market kind of guy and would expect if in the first day that Chaos was over populated that some people might jump ship but the way the rules are set up, that isnt going to be allowed.

 

I hope that as you log in, there is some kind of server population meter before people make their choice with a note to people to try to balance populations.


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jah said:

I am not replying to the rest of your post. It would be cherry picking if I focused on just one part and acted like that discredited the rest of your post. I am not doing that. I object to one point, so I quote that point.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that it is not easier for Balance because when Order and Chaos team up on them, they are not turned into "one front" by being automatically allied? So you think that there is an advantage when teaming up to not having friendly fire and the ability to cross-heal?

I get the feeling you don't want to debate that point, and so you are trying to distract from it with this "cherry picking" accusation.

I said it gives the appearance and some others may have had that intention though.

Look... at the basic level ALL I was saying/asking was what is easier fighting two enemies at once or just one? Was debating the claim of Balance having it easier.

I do want to debate the actual topic and I have. What I don't want to do is have to keep repeating my points over and over. When my posts get replied to with "LOL" not sure how that is really showing a willingness to debate the topic at hand.

Share this post


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

Look... at the basic level ALL I was saying/asking was what is easier fighting two enemies at once or just one? Was debating the claim of Balance having it easier.

Two enemies are still two enemies, even when they are granted FF immunity and the ability to cross-heal. Surely you can admit that if you had to fight against two enemies, you would prefer that they not share friendly fire immunity and the ability to cross heal? Because those are advantages?

Two enemies don't become easier to fight when they gain ally status. They actually become much more difficult to fight. Agreed?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blazzen said:

I agree - the main issue is the auto ally mechanic that makes balance EZ mode. Balance winning in the middle third of the meter is an issue as well. 

We will get to test it and see soon enough but I think the feedback from testing will be to remove the auto ally mechanic to make it so each faction remains red to one another at all times and narrow the window which balance can win. 

Balance has to hold keeps plus make sure Chaos and Order has the same or close to the same amount of keeps. Chaos and Order only have to hold the most to win and that's it. If you think Balance gaining an ally is easy mode than isn't the losing side gaining an ally easy mode as well? After all Balance gains the ally through no fault of their own, but only when one of their enemies starts to lose then the losers get a "crutch".

Overall I think it'll all "balance" out due to all the mechanics combined, switching, different win conditions etc. But yeah can't wait to get into it and see what works and what doesn't.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys sure the margin for Balance winning is the same margin for Chaos or Order winning? Seems like you all are arguing on assumptions. You know the adage, " Don't assume, it makes an ass of u and me" :P


giphy.gif

You Can't Be A Genius, If You Aren't The Slightest Bit Insane.

Share this post


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

Balance has to hold keeps plus make sure Chaos and Order has the same or close to the same amount of keeps. Chaos and Order only have to hold the most to win and that's it. If you think Balance gaining an ally is easy mode than isn't the losing side gaining an ally easy mode as well? After all Balance gains the ally through no fault of their own, but only when one of their enemies starts to lose they the losers get a "crutch".

Overall I think it'll all "balance" out due to all the mechanics combined, switching, different win conditions etc. But yeah can't wait to get into it and see what works and what doesn't.

If Order or Chaos get ahead, they face two enemy forces who have the advantage of friendly fire immunity and cross-healing between their forces.

If Balance gets ahead, they face two enemy forces who remain technically enemies with each other, without the advantage of friendly fire immunity and cross-healing.

You acknowledge that is an advantage for Balance?


IhhQKY6.gif

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...