Concept to help balance Factions

Slapshot1188

I can't claim credit for this as I saw it on Reddit first but it seems genius to me:

• Territory control is determined by WARs
• WARs currently have 100 players.  50 on each side.
• To help prevent one faction from steamrolling, make the number of players each side gets depend on the number of territories each holds
• If both have the same number of territories then each side gets 50
• If one side has 4 territories and the other 6.  The side with 4 would get 60 players and the side with 6 would get 40 players
• It the side with 6 territories wins and it's now 7 territories to 3 territories the next WAR would give the underdogs 70 players and the larger faction 30 Players.

Seems like a great and dynamic solution to the problem.  It gets progressively harder to win more territory and it incentivizes the smaller factions to fight. I think maybe the numbers can get tweaked a bit so I wouldn't be hung up on them, but the concept itself of adjusting attackers/defenders based on territory control is a good one.

Thoughts?

Iselin

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

Scot

There are a number of ways you could balance faction wars, also NW might need some thinking about the location of the end game raids, even with your explanation it did seem a bit unusual to not put it in the middle or arrange easy travel routes to it.

Any system needs fluidity which the one you mentioned may be lacking, I don't see 30 guys ever winning against 70 guys, so the map is always going to have a limit to how far one faction can go. Now that may be what players want but I would suggest a different way.

What about if the system penalised the larger faction yet not excessively, still allowing for a map wipe? The winners get rewards but then other factions get back their "core" zones straight away. You add to that a time period before which the core zones could not be attacked again.

Some of my idea is a bit complex and my gut feeling is that before trying new schemes they should look at old solutions, coming up with new schemes often has unintended consequences.

Slapshot1188

Iselin said:

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

I support the power buff as well.  I think that both are really similar in complexity.  But I also think most folks are not going to switch factions once they make friends, alliances and start to earn Faction credit.

Also, for player retention I'm not sure we can wait months and months for folks to switch.

The main issue IMHO is not having one company/Faction blob the whole server at launch.  Folks will just quit.

Slapshot1188

Scot said:

There are a number of ways you could balance faction wars, also NW might need some thinking about the location of the end game raids, even with your explanation it did seem a bit unusual to not put it in the middle or arrange easy travel routes to it.

Any system needs fluidity which the one you mentioned may be lacking, I don't see 30 guys ever winning against 70 guys, so the map is always going to have a limit to how far one faction can go. Now that may be what players want but I would suggest a different way.

What about if the system penalised the larger faction yet not excessively, still allowing for a map wipe? The winners get rewards but then other factions get back their "core" zones straight away. You add to that a time period before which the core zones could not be attacked again.

Some of my idea is a bit complex and my gut feeling is that before trying new schemes they should look at old solutions, coming up with new schemes often has unintended consequences.

No map wipe.  Companies invest their time, effort and money into developing their towns. 

And as I said, do not get caught up in the numbers.  Maybe it's not 30/70.  Maybe thats 42/58 or something.  The key is that the number of players on each side is dynamic based on who owns more land.

Iselin

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

I support the power buff as well.  I think that both are really similar in complexity.  But I also think most folks are not going to switch factions once they make friends, alliances and start to earn Faction credit.

Also, for player retention I'm not sure we can wait months and months for folks to switch.

The main issue IMHO is not having one company/Faction blob the whole server at launch.  Folks will just quit.

Well the buff, if significant enough, also serves the same purpose of giving the lower pop side an advantage in the WAR, just not by body count.

Slapshot1188

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

I support the power buff as well.  I think that both are really similar in complexity.  But I also think most folks are not going to switch factions once they make friends, alliances and start to earn Faction credit.

Also, for player retention I'm not sure we can wait months and months for folks to switch.

The main issue IMHO is not having one company/Faction blob the whole server at launch.  Folks will just quit.

Well the buff, if significant enough, also serves the same purpose of giving the lower pop side an advantage in the WAR, just not by body count.

Agreed.  That's why I would support it.  I think both pretty much would accomplish the same thing.  I do not think we will get people to switch factions but I think mitigations can be put in place to keep it competitive.

Iselin

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

I support the power buff as well.  I think that both are really similar in complexity.  But I also think most folks are not going to switch factions once they make friends, alliances and start to earn Faction credit.

Also, for player retention I'm not sure we can wait months and months for folks to switch.

The main issue IMHO is not having one company/Faction blob the whole server at launch.  Folks will just quit.

Well the buff, if significant enough, also serves the same purpose of giving the lower pop side an advantage in the WAR, just not by body count.

Agreed.  That's why I would support it.  I think both pretty much would accomplish the same thing.  I do not think we will get people to switch factions but I think mitigations can be put in place to keep it competitive.

But I also like the idea for purely selfish PvE playing in a zone reasons: I may not get the owning faction buff while in that zone and may have to pay ridiculous taxes to play there but hey, screw them, I have this other low population buff that is as good or better in some ways.

Scot

As long as it works I would certainly vote for a buff rather than keeping players out of PvP.

Slapshot1188

Scot said:

As long as it works I would certainly vote for a buff rather than keeping players out of PvP.

The way it works people are always kept out of the WAR.  Just 100 players get in.  Folks sign up and the attacking and defending companies pick who participates.   All this concept would do is allow more slots to the underdogs, but same total participants

Vrika

Iselin said:

Looks to me like an overly complex fix when a much simpler one is available: a significant buff of varying degrees to the lower pop factions dependent on how much lower their pop is compared to the dominant one.

The fix you posted accepts the imbalance as being permanent and tries to deal with it in the WAR instance.

A generic power buff to everything creates an incentive for more and more players over time to pick or switch to the factions with the bonus so in theory the imbalance would just go away over time.

I don't think that fix would accept the imbalance as being permanent: The game could still have separate mechanism that tries to fix the balance slowly over time.

That would also allow the balance-fixing mechanism to be less invasive. Imho a strong enough balancing mechanism that faction imbalances wouldn't happen would be too strong and screw up the rest of the game's balance too much. It's much better if they make a strong balancing mechanism only for territory control, and some kind of much weaker incentive for faction-switching.

Mendel

If you have it so that the faction with more holdings can field fewer players, I'd see that as a major cause of desertion - players on the winning side can't play.  It would probably cause more frustration because the people wouldn't be able to participate.

A buff for the smaller side and/or more people participating on the weaker side to even things out would probably work better.  (Including more people for a 55-on-50 and up).

Slapshot1188

Mendel said:

If you have it so that the faction with more holdings can field fewer players, I'd see that as a major cause of desertion - players on the winning side can't play.  It would probably cause more frustration because the people wouldn't be able to participate.

A buff for the smaller side and/or more people participating on the weaker side to even things out would probably work better.  (Including more people for a 55-on-50 and up).

But right now not everyone on each side can play.  And the flip side for this point is that MORE people on the "losing" side can play, and thus increase retention.  It's the same total players who get in.   

I dunno.  Not saying it is THE answer, but I liked it.  I like the buff idea too.  I like ANYTHING that will help stop the one Faction blob situation.

Tokken

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Slapshot1188

Tokken said:

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Well.. technically you can just 100% ignore the PvP and play the game that way.  You do not have to participate in the faction wars or anything else.  

Tokken

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Well.. technically you can just 100% ignore the PvP and play the game that way.  You do not have to participate in the faction wars or anything else.  

True, but it would be nice to have PvE Faction quests and gear I can work for through the faction system.

Slapshot1188

Tokken said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Well.. technically you can just 100% ignore the PvP and play the game that way.  You do not have to participate in the faction wars or anything else.  

True, but it would be nice to have PvE Faction quests and gear I can work for through the faction system.

You can progress through the faction vendors doing 100% PvE quests.  I really didnt do any PvP quests at all and got to the level 40/45 gear.  

I used to just load up on Faction and town board quests and head out.   The faction quests were mostly similar to the Town ones:  Go kill x of these guys or go get Y of those items from chests.

The PvP ones never change and were lame, so we ran them once and that was it.

Tokken

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Well.. technically you can just 100% ignore the PvP and play the game that way.  You do not have to participate in the faction wars or anything else.  

True, but it would be nice to have PvE Faction quests and gear I can work for through the faction system.

You can progress through the faction vendors doing 100% PvE quests.  I really didnt do any PvP quests at all and got to the level 40/45 gear.  

I used to just load up on Faction and town board quests and head out.   The faction quests were mostly similar to the Town ones:  Go kill x of these guys or go get Y of those items from chests.

The PvP ones never change and were lame, so we ran them once and that was it.

Thanks Slapshot. I did not know that. I thought the factions only had pvp faction quests. 

Iselin

Tokken said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Tokken said:

I wish they had a PvE faction.

Well.. technically you can just 100% ignore the PvP and play the game that way.  You do not have to participate in the faction wars or anything else.  

True, but it would be nice to have PvE Faction quests and gear I can work for through the faction system.

You can progress through the faction vendors doing 100% PvE quests.  I really didnt do any PvP quests at all and got to the level 40/45 gear.  

I used to just load up on Faction and town board quests and head out.   The faction quests were mostly similar to the Town ones:  Go kill x of these guys or go get Y of those items from chests.

The PvP ones never change and were lame, so we ran them once and that was it.

Thanks Slapshot. I did not know that. I thought the factions only had pvp faction quests. 

No. The PvP quests they have do give about 30 - 40% better XP, faction standing and faction store tokens but there are always 3 PvE and 3 PvP quests available there.

The PvE quests may have lower rewards but they also often send you to locations where you may already have town board or town NPC side quests anyway so they kind of make up for it a bit with efficiency.

Kyleran

Scot said:

There are a number of ways you could balance faction wars, also NW might need some thinking about the location of the end game raids, even with your explanation it did seem a bit unusual to not put it in the middle or arrange easy travel routes to it.

Any system needs fluidity which the one you mentioned may be lacking, I don't see 30 guys ever winning against 70 guys, so the map is always going to have a limit to how far one faction can go. Now that may be what players want but I would suggest a different way.

What about if the system penalised the larger faction yet not excessively, still allowing for a map wipe? The winners get rewards but then other factions get back their "core" zones straight away. You add to that a time period before which the core zones could not be attacked again.

Some of my idea is a bit complex and my gut feeling is that before trying new schemes they should look at old solutions, coming up with new schemes often has unintended consequences.

All depends on how the game is designed, but in DAOC I experienced 8 players beating far larger numbers, 32 or even more at times. 

Same thing in EVE, numbers did not always prevail, 100 could beat 400 through superior tactics ...and lag. 

Most extreme example, Runes of Magic, 8 or so players who cash shopped their way to literal god hood (spending roughly $4K to 8K each) were almost completely unkillable even when the numbers were like 1 against 50 like level players.

 

Scot

Kyleran said:

Scot said:

There are a number of ways you could balance faction wars, also NW might need some thinking about the location of the end game raids, even with your explanation it did seem a bit unusual to not put it in the middle or arrange easy travel routes to it.

Any system needs fluidity which the one you mentioned may be lacking, I don't see 30 guys ever winning against 70 guys, so the map is always going to have a limit to how far one faction can go. Now that may be what players want but I would suggest a different way.

What about if the system penalised the larger faction yet not excessively, still allowing for a map wipe? The winners get rewards but then other factions get back their "core" zones straight away. You add to that a time period before which the core zones could not be attacked again.

Some of my idea is a bit complex and my gut feeling is that before trying new schemes they should look at old solutions, coming up with new schemes often has unintended consequences.

All depends on how the game is designed, but in DAOC I experienced 8 players beating far larger numbers, 32 or even more at times. 

Same thing in EVE, numbers did not always prevail, 100 could beat 400 through superior tactics ...and lag. 

Most extreme example, Runes of Magic, 8 or so players who cash shopped their way to literal god hood (spending roughly $4K to 8K each) were almost completely unkillable even when the numbers were like 1 against 50 like level players.

 

Showing how P2W has ruined PvP, lets hope the Olympics never goes F2P.