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

The First Campaign - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Everyone is getting hung up on faction balance and win cons.
All I see is stuff like

Quote

And this is just the first step! Next, we’ll hook up various Skills and Disciplines so that players who want to specialize in scouting can increase the reveal distance of Fog of War when exploring, and cartographers can increase the size of the area they can scrawl on a single map.

Quote

That scrawled map can now be traded, purchased or looted.

Quote

Resource Points-of-Interest (Mines, Mills and Quarries)

Though I'm mainly wondering when we'll see this. Hoping for another news drop this week or next week.
I'm excited, at any rate


231e101d88.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Groovin said:

Everyone is getting hung up on faction balance and win cons.
All I see is stuff like

Though I'm mainly wondering when we'll see this. Hoping for another news drop this week or next week.
I'm excited, at any rate

I definitely agree, I'm more pumped for when I can sink my teeth into the new content more-so then how EXACTLY things will work. Simply because I don't think ACE is even 100% sure on how it will work. Thus why we are testing their amalgamation of all the different systems we've come to know. I'm especially interested in how Siege Perilous (RIP) helped in defining what siege warfare will be in Campaign Worlds. 

 

Unfortunately when I played Siege Perilous it was rather resource intensive (physics generally are) so we'll see what they've tweaked to make dismembering keeps more fluid. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its unclear to me why we want a system in which the game engine automatically enforces some kind of alliance between Balance and the losing side.  Set the victory conditions appropriately and allow the players to respond accordingly.

I've been thinking a bit about win conditions.  The following feels right to me

At the conclusion of the game:

  1. If the absolute value of (Order Score – Chaos Score) <= 2/9, then Balance wins
  2. If the absolute value of (Order Score – Chaos Score) > 2/9, then the aligned faction with the highest score wins.

If I were to build in some kind of "balancing" system in the software, I'd actually prefer to see something like the following:

If either Order or Chaos has sufficient points to trigger a victory condition

  1. Balance players who kill a player from the weaker side become "Outlaws".  They can now be attacked by anyone including other Balance players
  2. Aligned players from the loosing side who kill a Balance player are similarly Outlawed.

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nazdar said:

The 3-faction scheme is innovative for keeping the match from running away in one direction, but I foresee a huge imbalance towards... balance.  Balance has all sorts of interesting social dynamics.  In comparison, Order/Chaos is bland.  Of course players are going to want to play Balance! Speaking in terms of self-selecting population, I bet we have 10% - 80% - 10% (O - B - C)

Also, mathematically speaking, if the score slider stays in even thirds, Balance is much more likely to win than either extreme.  Winning as Order or Chaos involves one faction successfully conquering two factions.  This can be solved!  The middle third on the score slider will need to be made a LOT more narrow for Balance to ever not win.

Broken:  [ OOOOOO  BBBBBB  CCCCCC ]

Fixed:  [ OOOOOOOO  BB  CCCCCCCC ]

 

 

This is the issue.

Statistically, balance only has to manage 33% of keeps and then swap control between factions all by themselves to win.

While order/chaos has to control and manage 67% by themselves for a winning condition. 

A fix would be that balance can only offensively interact with other players. They should not be able to claim or fund a location. 

They need to be treated as fighting mercenaries.

 

 

Otherwise they can just sit back in 3 out of 10 locations and literally change control of those three back and forth and not interact with anything else and as long as the losing faction controls at least 1 single keep other than the 3 they are managing , they win. 

Narrowing the slider makes this more difficult but still exploitable. 


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


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

Its unclear to me why we want a system in which the game engine automatically enforces some kind of alliance between Balance and the losing side.  Set the victory conditions appropriately and allow the players to respond accordingly.

If I were to build in some kind of "balancing" system in the software, I'd actually prefer to see something like the following:

If either Order or Chaos has sufficient points to trigger a victory condition

  1. Balance players who kill a player from the weaker side become "Outlaws".  They can now be attacked by anyone including other Balance players
  2. Aligned players from the loosing side who kill a Balance player are similarly Outlawed.

I think they are just going with this because it is simple and helps testing. I also am not a fan of that mechanic but it is a simple way to guarantee people will fight who they should fight and play the tug war like they planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the whole point of the balance faction is to prevent one faction from getting irreparably rekt.  If any single faction is owned too hard they get an ally automatically to keep them in the game.  If the second place faction could cannibalize them for advantage over the first place faction, there'd be no coming back.

This doesn't solve the problem of a transcendent balance faction where order or chaos can cannibalize the other in the same manner.  The hope, for me, is that scoring is based mainly on the relative balance between order and chaos so that balance success couldn't encourage this.

Edited by canvox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even test with a faction system? I hope factions won't be a thing for final release. They are so easily exploitable, as explained by many different people earlier in this thread. Implement a simple guild system, asap, and let us fight. 

Share this post


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

Why even test with a faction system? I hope factions won't be a thing for final release. They are so easily exploitable, as explained by many different people earlier in this thread. Implement a simple guild system, asap, and let us fight. 

How did you end up here while knowing literally nothing about the game?

Share this post


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

Why even test with a faction system? I hope factions won't be a thing for final release. They are so easily exploitable, as explained by many different people earlier in this thread. Implement a simple guild system, asap, and let us fight. 

Factions will very much be a part of the final release--in one set of campaign rules.  There will be guild rulesets also.  Furthermore, 3 faction PvP is one of the most tried and true forms of MMO PvP and ACE would be silly not to use it in a CW ruleset.     


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


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

The 3-faction scheme is innovative for keeping the match from running away in one direction, but I foresee a huge imbalance towards... balance.  Balance has all sorts of interesting social dynamics.  In comparison, Order/Chaos is bland.  Of course players are going to want to play Balance! Speaking in terms of self-selecting population, I bet we have 10% - 80% - 10% (O - B - C)

Also, mathematically speaking, if the score slider stays in even thirds, Balance is much more likely to win than either extreme.  Winning as Order or Chaos involves one faction successfully conquering two factions.  This can be solved!  The middle third on the score slider will need to be made a LOT more narrow for Balance to ever not win.

Broken:  [ OOOOOO  BBBBBB  CCCCCC ]

Fixed:  [ OOOOOOOO  BB  CCCCCCCC ]

 

 

I agree with you. Fairly clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are a bit too concerned with game balance at this stage. They are still adding in basic systems. Worrying about how scoring works is pre-mature by about 12 months at least. Something like how scoring works can be adjusted anytime. Getting basic systems working and tested is far more important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlyingDutchman said:

I think people are a bit too concerned with game balance at this stage. They are still adding in basic systems. Worrying about how scoring works is pre-mature by about 12 months at least. Something like how scoring works can be adjusted anytime. Getting basic systems working and tested is far more important. 

Here's the reason some of the folks are concerned about the factions being at least remotely balanced: sustained PvP.

If this test is immediately and obviously non-competitive players will do what players have always done in that instance: they will stop playing.

Necessary to testing? Only because testing relies on human beings who are all very human.

Share this post


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

Here's the reason some of the folks are concerned about the factions being at least remotely balanced: sustained PvP.

If this test is immediately and obviously non-competitive players will do what players have always done in that instance: they will stop playing.

Necessary to testing? Only because testing relies on human beings who are all very human.

Better for people to drift off during testing with the knowledge things will change, and a clear message for ACE, than have that happen after launch and things are much more set in stone.

Just look at No Mans Sky as an example of a hype trainwreck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> 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

Making Balance change camp automatically is going to create an oscillator with neither Chaos or Order being able to win, which means that most of the time Balance will win by default. To avoid that, shouldn't Order and Chaos be able to decide whether or not they want to be allied with Balance? Given the winning condition, Balance HAS to make sure to help the weaker camp anyway even if that camp is hostile to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, moneda said:

You claim a fort simply by locating its dragon statue and using F to interact to claim it on behalf of your faction.

Can't wait to see a duelist F-ing a dragon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tinnis said:

whats stopping an alt account mule logging on to enemy faction and stealing all their shared faction chest resources?

 

9 hours ago, coolster50 said:

What's stopping you from raiding your own faction chest and hoarding the resources?

Difficult to prevent as a form of vandalism, but removing the economic incentive would help limit this greatly and prevent it from becoming a case of tragedy of the commons or systematic treason.

For that, community chest resources should be strictly faction-bound and inventory-bound and shouldn't be exportable to the spirit bank. That property would also have to be transitive through crafting. Loyal craftsmen can use that mechanism by using at least one stack of community chest resources to make sure that the advanced items they craft and give away can only be used to serve the cause of their faction. This could also be implemented by adding an optional "faction / guild seal" to the recipe just like some recipes already allow a "specialty seal". Factions could craft for cheaper without adding the seal but then they accept the risk that items lost on the battlefield or smuggled to the ennemy by a traitor could be used against the faction or stolen by their own corrupt and self-serving members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PaleOne said:

The big exploit you should be worried about is what if a guild puts bodies in all three factions to monitor faction chat, be an invulnerable scout and spread disinformation.

There is one surefire way to make that highly impractical: allocate factions at random. This has many advantages:

- the game can make sure camps are well balanced including accross timezones to ensure a minimum presence in each faction at all hours of the day.

- you have only 1 chance out of 3 that your alt spy account will be allocated to a specific ennemy faction and 2 chances out of 3 that it will be allocated to an ennemy faction at all. If you want to have exactly one spy account in each ennemy faction, your chance is 2/3 * 1/3 = 2/9 or 22% chances. Which means that to have a good expectation of having a spy in each camp you will need 5 alt accounts, and variance will still make it fail once in a while.

Another thing that would help would be to force all accounts heiling from the same IP to be in the same (randomly assigned) faction. This makes cheating even more complicated as the cheater will have to use a different VPN for each session. As for people genuinely heiling from the same IP (LAN users), they shouldn't really mind being in the same faction.

One more way to make this painful and costly to cheat would be to restrict access to the faction chat and community chest to these players that have been actively playing for the last 10 minutes, making it necessary to actively operate the alt accounts or use a bot.

Edited by End

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the 6 pages of this thread i come to a conclusion : Todd should put sentence about TESTING in more greater letters, capitalize, with eye poping stuff to catch attention (test some pictures of naked Doggett) because damn, a lot of people still don't have understand it's gonna be a test of the system first more than our-first-fully-functional-campaign-that-we-can-all-play-and-it-will-be-like-a-released-game!

Edited by Gorwald

WnxjrJ9.gif

Thelanas Kar'Pal Membre fondateur de l'alliance Naerth en 2001 - Ex Shadowbane European Advisor Damnation/Carnage/Vindication/Corruption http://www.twitch.tv/gorwald/profile

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...