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

question about balance faction

Recommended Posts

hi, i was curious bout the balance faction. i was kind of thinking it would be like a swing faction to help restore balance among the order and chaos. like if order are dominating, balance could party up with chaos for a bit to bring things back under balance. then join up with order if chaos starts getting out of hand. the bar at the top to show who's in control led me to think this. i like that if thats the plan, if its gonna be a straight 3 factions thats fine as well. if the latter is the case, can we get a triangle to demonstrate better where the power lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it works currently, balance can not party with other factions, and taking objectives as balance simply removes the influence from the bar.

You can be "winning" as balance if order and chaos own half the map, but in practice that's a stupid thing to do because then you don't own any forts or keeps and can't get anything done. In practice its just three identical factions at the moment.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Verisper said:

like if order are dominating, balance could party up with chaos for a bit to bring things back under balance. then join up with order if chaos starts getting out of hand.

When the 3-faction system was first implemented it functioned like this. When one faction between Order or Chaos was dominant, Balance was automatically placed on the "side" of the one not dominating, in that they weren't able to hurt each other in battle. From what I recall of the feedback ACE received this was not very popular amongst those who were testing at the time.


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are definitely issues with the system, I will say that a fight over a Fort where the balance faction changed sides mid-fight - meaning they were red to Order at one point in the fight and then red to Chaos at another - is one of my top-5 moments in Crowfall. It was very unique to suddenly find yourself allied to a prior enemy:
 

 

Watching this is strange, not even a year ago but all of our skills are so vastly improve. Combat is so much faster and more precise now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthrage, thats pretty interesting/funny. that would definitely be a problem.  didnt know there was already some testing done on this system.  @moneda,i kinda figured we could choose to align ourselves or not. like balance could be fighting balance by joinin the opposing groups. i could see that being exploited unfairly though. i didnt know there was a mechanic "faction shift"

Edited by Verisper
needed to make point clearer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will 2nd Nakawe's input.  Just another 3 faction system is fairly standard and problematic when 1 of the factions has dominance.  I would be very interested in playing a campaign where Balance switched sides based on who is winning:

a. Order is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is automatically allied with Chaos.

b. Chaos is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is automatically allied with Order.

c. Neither Order nor Chaos is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is not allied with anyone.

The trick will be deciding on what 'sizable' is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gonna have to do some research  (through notes of original kick-starter).  If memory is much good anymore (which it normally isn't)  Faction based rule set is just one portion of the battlegrounds (campaigns).   There are others rule sets based on other various play styles.  Well, at least there use to be.  Am I seeing that the vision may have changed?  Hope not... Gonna need a ton more players to support the game in order to fill up numerous campaigns.

Edited by Nakawe

Share this post


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

I will 2nd Nakawe's input.  Just another 3 faction system is fairly standard and problematic when 1 of the factions has dominance.  I would be very interested in playing a campaign where Balance switched sides based on who is winning:

a. Order is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is automatically allied with Chaos.

b. Chaos is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is automatically allied with Order.

c. Neither Order nor Chaos is winning by a 'sizable' amount, Balance is not allied with anyone.

The trick will be deciding on what 'sizable' is.

In a way this is already true. If Order is winning by a sizable amount then Balance needs to target them rather than Chaos to win. If Order is winning, and Balance takes out a Chaos keep, they are actually helping Order to win.

The current scoring system needs a lot of work, but it does create a different scenario for Balance than it does for Order or Chaos.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

In a way this is already true. If Order is winning by a sizable amount then Balance needs to target them rather than Chaos to win. If Order is winning, and Balance takes out a Chaos keep, they are actually helping Order to win.

The current scoring system needs a lot of work, but it does create a different scenario for Balance than it does for Order or Chaos.

Yes, your 100% right, BUT, implementation could have been done way better.  Currently it is just a 3 faction campaign.  Every faction game in the course of history has done this.  Not that it matters to me because frankly I never liked the faction campaign since its inception.  Isn't the faction campaign the "sissy" campaign anyway?  

  1. Eternal Kingdom-  ie EK
  2. God's reach- sissy faction
  3. The infected- 12 gods
  4. The shadow- Guild vs Guild
  5. The Dregs-small groups of self centered egotistical bad asses.

Share this post


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

Currently it is just a 3 faction campaign.  Every faction game in the course of history has done this.

While I totally agree it could be done better, this statement seems to ignore the fact that scoring for Balance is in fact different than scoring for Order and Chaos. It is not "just a 3 faction campaign" like every other faction game out there. Balance has different scoring mechanics than Order and Chaos do.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

While I totally agree it could be done better, this statement seems to ignore the fact that scoring for Balance is in fact different than scoring for Order and Chaos. It is not "just a 3 faction campaign" like every other faction game out there. Balance has different scoring mechanics than Order and Chaos do.

Well, everyone has same objective.  Keep the dial on your side.  Under their current vision prob no other way to do it.  hence, the reason I hate a faction ruleset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, Jah, but it relies heavily on the players understanding the mechanic (which is not all that apparent at the moment) and then making good decisions.  Also, consider the following scenario...  I'm playing Balance.  Order is dominating.  I run into a Chaos player out in the open world.  One or both of us don't really understand the game mechanic and so attack each other.  Or, we understand the mechanic, but just don't care and one of us decide to attack the other anyway.  The world is still not safer for the underdogs.  Another scenario... all three factions are at the same fort.  Even if I only want to hit Order players, my AOEs would damage Chaos players as well.

I'm for an ally system that makes the game mechanic more apparent and facilitates sensible cooperation (even if some players are apathetic or unaware).

Edited by Liightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The awkward part is where Balance can technically win without participating simply because Order and Chaos are in a stalemate.

Ultimately, the theory of Order vs Chaos with Balance in the middle sounds neat on paper.  If one faction gets too strong, Balance helps "balance" it out.

Question... What happens when Balance is the overpowered faction?

The old DAoC 3 Faction system that's been duplicated time and time again simply works.  When 1 faction gets too strong, it's on the other two to work together, or at least stop working against each other to help balance it out.  That's been accomplished across countless MMOs without some mechanic that turns them "not red".

 


2s922vm.png

Chapter Leader

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dislike the current 3 faction system with balance switching sites all the time, i won't play this ruleset. A classic 3 faction king of the hill ruleset is what i would play.


One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to Find them, One Ring to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2018 at 2:20 PM, Diz said:

Question... What happens when Balance is the overpowered faction?

 

Balance wins, the campaign ends, and everyone moves on. They may be forced to choose a different faction next campaign based on player registration numbers.

I think the problem with the system is that campaigns are currently limited by time and time alone. Ideally the length of a campaign is directly influenced by its victory conditions. When any given side is an overwhelming force, the campaign should end swiftly because the overwhelming corse is completing the victory condition extremely rapidly. That was the whole point of the campaign mechanism in the first place, to determine winners and prevent the game from going in to an extended stagnant state that becomes boring for both winners and losers.

As for which faction is overpowered, faction campaigns need a mechanism to load balance that we also don't have yet, the registration phase. During registration the campaign should be checking population and guild membership numbers when guilds/ individuals are selecting factions in an attempt to load balance them. You could even add easily tracked metrics to this data like tracking individual player's "coverage" and specifically attempting to load balance it for time zones and play time as well.

The idea is to form the NPC faction teams during registration to ensure a mostly fair match so that you don't start with any overpowered factions, and when the campaign is obviously won by a faction (because they've hit the victory point goal) you end it. In THAT context, it makes a lot more sense to give balance special rules or mechanics for the purpose of making balance feel more like a "neutral" faction than actually using balance as a lever to try and equalize the population. For instance, what if balance could only capture "softer" objectives like forts, but were considered neutral at all keeps outside of a siege and only capable of flipping keeps owned by the winning faction to ownership of the losing one. That changes Balance's dynamics immediately as Balance is incentivized to value forts as a primary objective while Order and Chaos are incentivized to use them strictly for their tactical utility. Balance in this case doesn't might not have the ability to swing the map all the way to the middle on their own if owning all keeps was of equal value as owning all forts, and would have to help the underdog take a keep or let the underdog have a fort in order to get that scoring back to the middle. Balance ends up playing a more complicated set of rules, but its an easily understood set of rules with trade offs that hit the meta-goal of being a balancing force without actually getting in the way of players playing "naturally" and treating each other as red. I might not LIKE some Order guys in this campaign, and I might KOS them even if they're losing, but if the mechanics still make me hand them a keep now and then just to get my win I'm still gonna hand them that keep.

Or we could just axe the idea altogether and go with standard three faction play. Having experienced the laugh parade that is GW2's WvW system, or the slightly better but still flawed Planetside and Planetside 2 I can confidently say that having three factions does not automatically encourage the losing sides to team up. Often it encourages the two losing sides to exclusively target one another as they are more manageable, more fun targets and they assume they're going to lose anyway so they figure they may as well have a good time losing.

Faction campaigns are explicitly designed to be spaces where nobody is leading and everyone is following very broad systemic goals. I'd be wary of using any system in those campaigns that overly prioritizes working WITH another faction as it assumes some fort of player based faction leadership structure. The whole goal of factions is that the system is the leadership structure, and no player or guild is more important than another within the context of a faction. Creating incentives for player based leadership in these campaigns may actively keep people who should be in GvG in faction campaigns, or subject solo players and small groups that use them to escape complex player leadership structures to "more of the same" and that seems like a bad idea in a system that's trying to set up different types of PvP rulesets for different types of PvP players.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  current 3 faction system with the balance faction auto- allie-ing all the time, just doesn't work for multiple reasons and is not fun, in my opinion. I think a classic 3 faction system with  equile win conditions, will work a lot better. But i guess the auto-allie balance faction was worth a try (sounds good in theory), but simply failed in practice testing.


One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to Find them, One Ring to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave my Balance faction alone, it's fine as it is! Switching sides would just cause problems, mid fight your fighting someone next thing your friendly with them...I'm sorry it wont work, if you don't like 3 faction wars go play another campaign with a different rule set? I'm pretty sure they have already said there will be a handful of choices available.

 

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...