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

The First Campaign - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, pang said:

Why not? Order and Chaos spawns will be switching all the time as well when keeps and forts get claimed/lost.

Because they specify that they are allies "in terms of targeting and friendly fire," and because they talk about Balance winning and losing territory. Also, Balance is only allied with the losing side if there is a losing side. Where would they live when things were in balance?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

Personally, I feel like Balance shouldn't be switching sides and should just be its own side. It limits a whole buncha stuff. But for testing purposes, I can see why they'd do this.

Well as the article says they want to try new things and things that haven't really been done before. Simple three factions games have been done to death IMO, but adding this balance mechanic is far more interesting and dynamic then a simple three way faction war.

Share this post


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

Well as the article says they want to try new things and things that haven't really been done before. Simple three factions games have been done to death IMO, but adding this balance mechanic is far more interesting and dynamic then a simple three way faction war.

Oh, their victory condition should be the same, I just think they shouldn't have a mechanic switching their sides in terms of friendly fire. It'd be a fun act of restraint and "balance" to make sure they're not overshooting their conquests of a single faction.

Share this post


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

Because they specify that they are allies "in terms of targeting and friendly fire," and because they talk about Balance winning and losing territory. Also, Balance is only allied with the losing side if there is a losing side. Where would they live when things were in balance?

Explained it in my last post. 

and yes I already said Balance wins and loses territory, while allied with either faction... The score is a range on that spectrum graphic. Like already said as well it might be the way you say but to me the way I see it makes more sense.

Share this post


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

Which side do you think Balance will be allied with when the server launches?

Since the Campaign world will be naturally balanced at the very start they will not be allied with anyone.  Once Chaos or Order start winning Balance will then ally with the losing faction.


   Official Moderator of the Unofficial Crowfall Discord!  Come join the discussion @ https://discord.me/crowfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the tug of war bar it looks as if you have to be winning fairly substantially to trigger the balance alliance . Let us hope that is more the case than the other speculations.

I like the idea of this style . Otherwise it would be Arathi Basin with three factions and some building.

Share this post


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

Explained it in my last post. 

and yes I already said Balance wins and loses territory, while allied with either faction... The score is a range on that spectrum graphic. Like already said as well it might be the way you say but to me the way I see it makes more sense.

I simply dislike the idea of Balance being incapable of attacking an entire faction, losing or not. Their alliance shouldn't be forced. It should be expected... but it limits the ways Balance can act, as well as the ability of Chaos and Order to break the "balance" by attacking Balance to siphon points for themselves.

The victory conditions work, but a 3-Way War should keep it 3-Way. The current iteration of this Balance Faction mechanic seems to make the war much more 2-Way between Chaos and Order.

Share this post


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

Since the Campaign world will be naturally balanced at the very start they will not be allied with anyone.  Once Chaos or Order start winning Balance will then ally with the losing faction.

That question was specifically aimed at Pang, because he suggested that Balance will always be allied with someone. I doubt he is correct, and the question is meant to illustrate that it is unlikely that balance is always allied with someone.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

I simply dislike the idea of Balance being incapable of attacking an entire faction, losing or not. Their alliance shouldn't be forced. It should be expected... but it limits the ways Balance can act, as well as the ability of Chaos and Order to break the "balance" by attacking Balance to siphon points for themselves.

The victory conditions work, but a 3-Way War should keep it 3-Way. The current iteration of this Balance Faction mechanic seems to make the war much more 2-Way between Chaos and Order.

I don't agree with this.  If the alliance isn't controlled, it's too easy for balance to act against their own interests in a world, with an agreement with one side to split the spoils of war.

I could even see large zerg guilds, or chinese gold farmer companies split and try to run this on purpose.

Personally, I like the idea of forced switching, and it fits with the pantheon.  If you're a follower of the balance Gods, the Gods dictate your allegiance. 

Don't want to be controlled by the Gods, operate where they don't.

Share this post


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

Which side do you think Balance will be allied with when the server launches?

yeah guess that's where my assumption kind of falls apart. My concern is more with win conditions and Balance having more ways to win then Chaos or Order. Chaos and Order have to hold the most territory to win that's it. But Balance can still win even if they hold little to no territory as long as Chaos and Order hold the same amount.

Share this post


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

yeah guess that's where my assumption kind of falls apart. My concern is more with win conditions and Balance having more ways to win then Chaos or Order. Chaos and Order have to hold the most territory to win that's it. But Balance can still win even if they hold little to no territory as long as Chaos and Order hold the same amount.

Yea but if they little or no territory, they would not be able to influence the battle between the two all that much, so them winning would take quite a deal of luck that things ended at a stalemate.

Also, the long term plan is for a winner to be declared by victory not at a specific time. So the best course of action for order and chaos would probably to be try to kick balance out of the world entirely, and then fight it out until one crushed the other.

Balance is probably going to be fighting for survival as much as fighting on one side or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading 9 pages of replies... I feel genuinely bad for @jtoddcoleman, this is a HUGE step in the right direction and its 5 pages of people arguing over the balance of the 3 factions.... who cares? Really though.. I have even seen people asking for rewards for victory... this is a TEST not Alpha. I for one am ecstatic that everything is getting stitched together quicker than I had anticipated. Bringing on Sieges, POI's CW, and everything else is a HUGE technical jump and I am happy that we are going to be able to break the poorly made socks out of it and give them good feedback. As for everyone complaining and arguing over balance... this most likely won't even make it into the final game (3 factions with balance in between) and even if it does, just play a different ruleset, it is not that big of a deal. I swear the player base is constantly looking for something to complain about instead of giving them the praise they should get for listening to our feedback over the last year and taking action.

 

Anyway that is my rant after reading 6 pages of nonsense... @jtoddcoleman congrats on this step and to your team. Looking forward to the next few months!

Share this post


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

Yea but if they little or no territory, they would not be able to influence the battle between the two all that much, so them winning would take quite a deal of luck that things ended at a stalemate.

Also, the long term plan is for a winner to be declared by victory not at a specific time. So the best course of action for order and chaos would probably to be try to kick balance out of the world entirely, and then fight it out until one crushed the other.

Balance is probably going to be fighting for survival as much as fighting on one side or the other.

Yeah good points.  Balance might take more effort to win so that would balance out if winning has a wider range then the other two factions. Meaning for Balance total domination may not be the best course to win. More territory you grab more likely you won't be able to hold it all and one faction will be able to get back in the lead. So for Balance you have to keep that balance and in doing so might be best to let an enemy faction hold a certain amount of territory and no more while you do the same to the other faction.

But yeah I'm really liking this mechanic as I think it'll add a ton more strategy then just a simple faction based CW.

11 minutes ago, supportdaddy said:

After reading 9 pages of replies... I feel genuinely bad for @jtoddcoleman, this is a HUGE step in the right direction and its 5 pages of people arguing over the balance of the 3 factions.... who cares? Really though.. I have even seen people asking for rewards for victory... this is a TEST not Alpha. I for one am ecstatic that everything is getting stitched together quicker than I had anticipated. Bringing on Sieges, POI's CW, and everything else is a HUGE technical jump and I am happy that we are going to be able to break the poorly made socks out of it and give them good feedback. As for everyone complaining and arguing over balance... this most likely won't even make it into the final game (3 factions with balance in between) and even if it does, just play a different ruleset, it is not that big of a deal. I swear the player base is constantly looking for something to complain about instead of giving them the praise they should get for listening to our feedback over the last year and taking action.

 

Anyway that is my rant after reading 6 pages of nonsense... @jtoddcoleman congrats on this step and to your team. Looking forward to the next few months!

Don't really see anyone complaining or arguing. Bringing up concerns and potential issues is part of the testing process.

and I'm pretty much 100% sure this WILL in fact make it to the live game because faction based CW bands was something promised since the KS campaign along with the other CW bands types, ie Dreggs and such.

Edited by pang

Share this post


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

Yeah good points.  Balance might take more effort to win so that would balance out if winning has a wider range then the other two factions. Meaning for Balance total domination may not be the best course to win. More territory you grab more likely you won't be able to hold it all and one faction will be able to get back in the lead. So for Balance you have to keep that balance and in doing so might be best to let an enemy faction hold a certain amount of territory and no more while you do the same to the other faction.

Don't really see anyone complaining or arguing. Bringing up concerns and potential issues is part of the testing process.

and I'm pretty much 100% sure this WILL in fact make it to the live game because faction based CW bands was something promised since the KS campaign along with the other CW bands types, ie Dreggs and such.

If you haven't seen anyone complaining then I am assuming you didn't read the 9 pages of comments

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...