PDA

View Full Version : Faction War and War Map Bonuses



Kryltic
02-18-2018, 01:50 AM
I'm going to be brutally honest. These are far too easy to obtain for the more popular factions and almost impossible to reclaim/ keep for weaker ones (without that been their main focus). The faction balance is horrific, I dont see the point in playing any faction other than Vikings now. You need to rebalance war assets based on faction participation.

I get you hate Samurai with a passion but please at least pretend to like us.

Can you not sort out the score balance based on the match results? I'm sick of been the only samurai player on a team.

JadeBosson.
02-18-2018, 02:11 AM
wait theres map bonuses?

CandleInTheDark
02-18-2018, 02:28 AM
I'm going to be brutally honest. These are far too easy to obtain for the more popular factions and almost impossible to reclaim/ keep for weaker ones (without that been their main focus). The faction balance is horrific, I dont see the point in playing any faction other than Vikings now. You need to rebalance war assets based on faction participation.

I get you hate Samurai with a passion but please at least pretend to like us.

Can you not sort out the score balance based on the match results? I'm sick of been the only samurai player on a team.

This has come up on the Den a few times and I think you have a couple misinterpretations of what is going on within the faction war.

Firstly you talk about more popular factions as a samurai, the samurai have,for at least the last three seasons, had the highest population, without fail.Vikings when they won season 1 had the lowest and I believe at the start of last season also and have always tended to have less players. That is potentially part of a problem for you individually because assets are weighted on active participants in each faction, yours, asa samurai, mean less than a viking player's if equal proportions of each faction were engaged in manually deploying assets and makingsmart decisions in doing so it would be equally weighted, the devs can't control active (as in playing) players who don't engage with the faction war as a whole.

It isn't just that weighting though, they also already balance assets based on performance in a match, it was part of why the vikings were pretty dominant in last season as the statistics showed that vikings were getting awarded, before weighting, more assets per match based around performance. So it is the quality of player also and with the conspiracy theories, the better players have been faction hopping while some less engaged have gone to whoever won last and have created a self fulfilling prophecy around the players that have stuck to one faction in that regard.


wait theres map bonuses?

Yeah, there are bonuses for assets (if posted on a castle you own) xp and steel now.

JadeBosson.
02-18-2018, 02:55 AM
oh that's neat

Okita_Soji..
02-18-2018, 07:57 AM
I know everyone says the Vikings are the lowest and samurai the most but I too never see it. I took count of each faction I played with today on Xbox. Knights 72 Vikings 56 Samurai 36. It quite rare on my end to see samurai. I am sceptical about what is being done with the faction war and how it's handled. It seems you get the same no matter where you place only difference is if you win or lose you get more or less troops.

Kryltic
02-18-2018, 12:02 PM
Sorry but I rarely see other Samurai players, its almost always Viking players I see. A few knights and once in a blue moon I'll meet a fellow Samurai player.

For the last few months it feels like the Samurai faction spend all our time simply trying to hold on to what few territories we own and then desperately trying to reclaim them when we do eventually lose.

People are saying it looks like Vikings are heavily favoured and the Samurai are neglected because they are. Unless Ubisoft are prepared to show us this data I'm going to stick with what I've seen and others have agreed with. I just feel it's pointless sticking with Samurai as we won't win anything and soon others will end up getting extra xp for our troubles.

Zordrage
02-18-2018, 01:03 PM
Maybe i see samurai players like every 3-4 th match.... but i constantly see a bunch of vikings and knights all day...

so i call that Statistic that samurai is the most played BS......
Also samurais getting cornered in the map again from both other factions.... like Always.....

CandleInTheDark
02-18-2018, 01:25 PM
You have anecdotal evidence based on who you meet in your region, rep and skill bracket which is no more or less valid than any time I see 5-6 samurai in a match, they have the numbers based on who is playing worldwide...yeah I'm going with the people who have the hard data.

Zordrage
02-18-2018, 02:49 PM
You have anecdotal evidence based on who you meet in your region, rep and skill bracket which is no more or less valid than any time I see 5-6 samurai in a match, they have the numbers based on who is playing worldwide...yeah I'm going with the people who have the hard data.

Devs can say anything you know... just to get out of stuff...
playing Games too long now to trust any Devs.....

Vakris_One
02-18-2018, 03:03 PM
I also see way more Vikings and Knights than Samurai in my matchmaking. Samurai are the least encountered in my experienced and I don't know why that is. I'm in UK so maybe the majority of Samurai players are from completely opposite timezones to me like Oceania, Asia, etc.

But my personal experience aside, the way I know the faction war works in terms of weighting assets all indicators point to the fact that Samurai are the largest because we can't make any head way. Just look at our performance in Seasons 3, 4 and now 5. We're often getting crushed by the smaller factions whose assets count for more than ours. Samurai are bloated with players who have zero interest in being competitive in the faction war and that acts like a lead weight for us.

A smaller but more focused/organised force beats a larger but more disorganised force. The majority of our players probably joined Samurai cos Samurai are "kewl" and they're either newbies or they couldn't give a toss about the faction war. If the devs don't implement a way to auto kick inactive players out of the equation for faction asset weighting then the largest faction will always be screwed.

I think it's highly likely the Samurai won't be seeing our unique territories (the bonus granting buildings) for the remainder of the Season. The Knights and Vikes will park on them and their assets count for twice as many as Sams so they have all the potential to be unmoveable unless they turn on each other. This Season will be decided by how often the Knights and Vikes fight each other. The Samurai have no chance to dictate anything the way things are. Quite frankly the Faction War is hugely unfair right now in my opinion.

Okita_Soji..
02-18-2018, 03:25 PM
Maybe it's my region as I am in NY but the skill matchmaking is all over the place. I know it can be wonky but the numbers were from mostly pvai games. With the low activity the games are sometimes on par and 2 arrows greater skilled, mostly it's 1 arrow higher skilled that I get into. Perhaps the Asian region is overflowing the samurai faction and I don't get connected to them cause of where I am.

CandleInTheDark
02-18-2018, 03:27 PM
I also see way more Vikings and Knights than Samurai in my matchmaking. Samurai are the least encountered in my experienced and I don't know why that is. I'm in UK so maybe the majority of Samurai players are from completely opposite timezones to me like Oceania, Asia, etc.

But my personal experience aside, the way I know the faction war works in terms of weighting assets all indicators point to the fact that Samurai are the largest because we can't make any head way. Just look at our performance in Seasons 3, 4 and now 5. We're often getting crushed by the smaller factions whose assets count for more than ours. Samurai are bloated with players who have zero interest in being competitive in the faction war and that acts like a lead weight for us.

A smaller but more focused/organised force beats a larger but more disorganised force. The majority of our players probably joined Samurai cos Samurai are "kewl" and they're either newbies or they couldn't give a toss about the faction war. If the devs don't implement a way to auto kick inactive players out of the equation for faction asset weighting then the largest faction will always be screwed.

I think it's highly likely the Samurai won't be seeing our unique territories (the bonus granting buildings) for the remainder of the Season. The Knights and Vikes will park on them and their assets count for twice as many as Sams so they have all the potential to be unmoveable unless they turn on each other. This Season will be decided by how often the Knights and Vikes fight each other. The Samurai have no chance to dictate anything the way things are. Quite frankly the Faction War is hugely unfair right now in my opinion.

Yeah I do want to note that I am not saying that things don't need tuning in some way as the way it stands if people aren't engaging in the faction war then numbers and weighting don't really mean as much as they should,my argument is in that according to the op the devs are lying over something they have no motive to because it doesn't fit their individual anecdotal evidence. It probably doesn't help the samurai any more than the knights that a subsection of the knights are not engaging in any way past placing a banner on a meme as the samurai need to pass through there to make decent headway on the knights. Honestly it probably screws over the samurai marginally more than it screws over the rest of the knights who see territories fall by thousands for the sake of xx million in three territories.

Kryltic
02-18-2018, 03:52 PM
You have anecdotal evidence based on who you meet in your region, rep and skill bracket which is no more or less valid than any time I see 5-6 samurai in a match, they have the numbers based on who is playing worldwide...yeah I'm going with the people who have the hard data.

Again I'm also going from what others have said. Seeing 5-6 Samurai in a match? I haven't seen that since season 2.

Devs can say what they like, unless they show us the data I'm going to go with what I've seen. I'm also going to go with the fact that many devs on warriors den show a strong favouritism towards Vikings as a faction.

CandleInTheDark
02-18-2018, 03:59 PM
Again I'm also going from what others have said. Seeing 5-6 Samurai in a match? I haven't seen that since season 2.

Devs can say what they like, unless they show us the data I'm going to go with what I've seen. I'm also going to go with the fact that many devs on warriors den show a strong favouritism towards Vikings as a faction.

And I have seen 5-6 samurai in a match a few times recently, like I said, all you have is anecdotal, all I have is anecdotal, the devs have the numbers and they have been constant in what they have said the active population, which they weight the assets by weekly, is.

As it is though they already do what was suggested in the first post, they already weight by faction population and by match performance.

Zordrage
02-18-2018, 04:04 PM
And I have seen 5-6 samurai in a match a few times recently, like I said, all you have is anecdotal, all I have is anecdotal, the devs have the numbers and they have been constant in what they have said the active population, which they weight the assets by weekly, is.

As it is though they already do what was suggested in the first post, they already weight by faction population and by match performance.

They weighting the Assets utterly badly then....

Devils-_-legacy
02-18-2018, 04:07 PM
I would be interested to see the fraction numbers who play pvp actively I have my droughts it's as balanced as the devs say I see way more vikings then any other fraction I've always wondered if that's because of were I am located or they have more people in the fraction

Vakris_One
02-18-2018, 04:09 PM
I wish Samurai were the smallest population. Then our attacking and defening would be so much easier and we'd be able to replicate what the Vikes did last Season. The Faction War handicaps the largest population too much and/or gives the smallest population too much of a boost - it's either one or the other (or hell, maybe even both) and the devs should look into it.

Zordrage
02-18-2018, 04:10 PM
I would be interested to see the fraction numbers who play pvp actively I have my droughts it's as balanced as the devs say I see way more vikings then any other fraction I've always wondered if that's because of were I am located or they have more people in the fraction

im from EU and i barely ever see samurai players.....

Devils-_-legacy
02-18-2018, 04:12 PM
Iknow the feeling feels like I'm the only samurai at times

Vakris_One
02-18-2018, 04:19 PM
I would be interested to see the fraction numbers who play pvp actively I have my droughts it's as balanced as the devs say I see way more vikings then any other fraction I've always wondered if that's because of were I am located or they have more people in the fraction
There's also the case that apparently you get a slight boost to assets when you win a match that had other players of the same faction on your team. So if more Vikes and Knights are getting placed into the same team than Samurai (because similiar timezones, etc) then we have a problem there as well.

Devils-_-legacy
02-18-2018, 04:27 PM
I never knew that

CandleInTheDark
02-18-2018, 04:44 PM
They weighting the Assets utterly badly then....

They don't really go into how exactly they weight them but my assumption is that if every member of every faction played a hundred matches to the same standard of play they would have the same assets available to them through the weighting, they have also said they change the weighting every week based on current active players. What the devs cannot control is how well each member of a faction plays their matches,how many they play and how invested they are in the faction war.

The_B0G_
02-18-2018, 06:22 PM
After last season it does seem like certain things aren't balanced in the faction war, the total domination of Vikings last season after barely winning a round since the first season is odd.

It seems like the less players you have, the bigger advantage you have. Hence why the Samurai have such a problem winning. They've always had the largest player count by far.

CandleInTheDark
02-19-2018, 12:50 AM
After last season it does seem like certain things aren't balanced in the faction war, the total domination of Vikings last season after barely winning a round since the first season is odd.

It seems like the less players you have, the bigger advantage you have. Hence why the Samurai have such a problem winning. They've always had the largest player count by far.

A lot of it is down to the players in all honesty,looking at the map there are quite a few x million lead territories. Looking at only the territories with over a million lead, the knights have 23 million in two territories, if only they changed their distribution, they could take around another nine territories. The vikings have 17 million lead in five territories, they are currently losing seven battles by less than three million total and would still have enough to gain more. The samurai have 24 million lead in five territories, they are losing three to the knights by less than a million total and a further four to the vikings by less than five million total, they can't advance centrally against the knights but they should be cleaning up against the vikings right now as things stand.

The devs gave us a very useful tool when they decided to show us asset numbers rather than percentages and here is the thing, part of this is on the players. Any that do not place a banner are spreading their assets thinly and anyone who is placing a banner on a territory that has a few million lead is not putting them somewhere that they could wipe out a chunk of the deficit. Some of this is not on the faction war mechanics but on players who are not having a look at the map or, in the case of the knights, are placing them on two spots for a meme. I honestly do believe the devs have done near as much as they can in transparency, weighting and in having some assets carry over so past turns mean something, what they cannot do is control how much of the population engages in the faction war and in the case of those that do how smart the choices they make are, that is why I always suggest that people who are invested in the faction war join groups so that they can try to make a change bigger than their own efforts in key locations.

Vakris_One
02-19-2018, 01:11 AM
A lot of it is down to the players in all honesty,looking at the map there are quite a few x million lead territories. Looking at only the territories with over a million lead, the knights have 23 million in two territories, if only they changed their distribution, they could take around another nine territories. The vikings have 17 million in five territories, they are currently losing seven battles by less than three million total and would still have enough to gain more. The samurai have 24 million in five territories, they are losing three to the knights by less than a million total and a further four to the vikings by less than five million total, they can't advance centrally against the knights but they should be cleaning up against the vikings right now as things stand.

The devs gave us a very useful tool when they decided to show us asset numbers rather than percentages and here is the thing, part of this is on the players. Any that do not place a banner are spreading their assets thinly and anyone who is placing a banner on a territory that has a few million lead is not putting them somewhere that they could wipe out a chunk of the deficit. Some of this is not on the faction war mechanics but on players who are not having a look at the map or, in the case of the knights, are placing them on two spots for a meme. I honestly do believe the devs have done near as much as they can in transparency, weighting and in having some assets carry over so past turns mean something, what they cannot do is control how much of the population engages in the faction war and in the case of those that do how smart the choices they make are, that is why I always suggest that people who are invested in the faction war join groups so that they can try to make a change bigger than their own efforts in key locations.
I honestly wish I had your faith in the devs ability to run their own faction war Candle but alas I do not. From what I have seen over the last year of the Faction War and the devs who are responsible for it and their attitudes and conduct, I just don't have faith in their commitment towards having as balanced a faction war as possible. Sure they've fleshed the concept out and made it look like a nice little table top board game but they still seem to be far too content with having their players waste their time with "balancing" mechanics that are noticeably not fit for purpose.

CandleInTheDark
02-19-2018, 01:17 AM
I honestly wish I had your faith in the devs ability to run their own faction war Candle but alas I do not. From what I have seen over the last year of the Faction War and the devs who are responsible for it and their attitudes and conduct, I just don't have faith in their commitment towards having as balanced a faction war as possible. Sure they've fleshed the concept out and made it look like a nice little table top board game but they still seem to be far too content with having their players waste their time with "balancing" mechanics that are noticeably not fit for purpose.

Oh I agree that their attitude has sucked at times, and in a bunch of my last recaps I was calling them out for it fortnightly on the damn rigged jokes. A good bunch of it is they did not address the concern it was rigged seriously and people feel screwed over with the rewards. But as the numbers I posted show,some of it also lies with the player, we have the tools to make smart decisions, if I have 100 assets do I place them where we have two million lead or where we are behind by 5000? Whether for a meme or lack of caring or enough players deciding this is where they are parking for the whole battle, players are not making the best use of those tools. It is no coincidence I feel that we were told often that vikings more than anyone placed assets manually after every fight and they wound up winning.

AkenoKobayashi
02-19-2018, 02:47 AM
If what you are saying is true, Candle, then either my faction members (not all) are just a bunch of posers, scrubs, or simply don't properly place their assets. If they had any competence, we should not have lost one of our strategic territories. And we have, last time I played, and we were -500K from taking it back.

CandleInTheDark
02-19-2018, 02:54 AM
If what you are saying is true, Candle, then either my faction members (not all) are just a bunch of posers, scrubs, or simply don't properly place their assets. If they had any competence, we should not have lost one of our strategic territories. And we have, last time I played, and we were -500K from taking it back.

Honestly the same can be said of people of all factions. When we only had percentages, we didn't know how much 1% meant, it could be bigger than 5% elsewhere, but now we see the numbers we have more informed choices. As I noted a few posts ago, each of the factions could have taken 5-7 more territories if they and only they had spread their resources a bit better than they did last turn.

mrmistark
02-19-2018, 05:55 AM
Central US here. I havenít seen a samurai since god knows when.

A question I have is: does the ďpopulationĒ of each faction still count those who literally quit playing the game 8 months ago? I had a ton of friends back in season 1 that were sams but after the game was so obviously broken I was the only one out of the whole group who continued playing. Are these players who have been inactive for months, some even uninstalling the game, still considered as the faction population?

To be clear, Iím asking completely unbiased. Iím a knight so I canít complain about a huge losing streak too much. Just curious to know. If so they need to implement a 1 week drop off where players that become inactive for that week boost other fellow faction assets. No reason a population of players who quit a year ago should count towards assets. Iím willing to bet it has a huge part in whatís happening with the faction war.

CandleInTheDark
02-19-2018, 06:06 AM
Central US here. I haven’t seen a samurai since god knows when.

A question I have is: does the “population” of each faction still count those who literally quit playing the game 8 months ago? I had a ton of friends back in season 1 that were sams but after the game was so obviously broken I was the only one out of the whole group who continued playing. Are these players who have been inactive for months, some even uninstalling the game, still considered as the faction population?

To be clear, I’m asking completely unbiased. I’m a knight so I can’t complain about a huge losing streak too much. Just curious to know. If so they need to implement a 1 week drop off where players that become inactive for that week boost other fellow faction assets. No reason a population of players who quit a year ago should count towards assets. I’m willing to bet it has a huge part in what’s happening with the faction war.

They went over it on a Den a while ago after one of the free weekends since someone asked if those accounts skew things now, they rebalance the weighting based on active accounts every week.

Vakris_One
02-19-2018, 02:39 PM
Oh I agree that their attitude has sucked at times, and in a bunch of my last recaps I was calling them out for it fortnightly on the damn rigged jokes. A good bunch of it is they did not address the concern it was rigged seriously and people feel screwed over with the rewards. But as the numbers I posted show,some of it also lies with the player, we have the tools to make smart decisions, if I have 100 assets do I place them where we have two million lead or where we are behind by 5000? Whether for a meme or lack of caring or enough players deciding this is where they are parking for the whole battle, players are not making the best use of those tools. It is no coincidence I feel that we were told often that vikings more than anyone placed assets manually after every fight and they wound up winning.
True but then we come back to the assets weighting issue. Say the Vikes are the smallest and the Samurai the biggest in terms of population. For the sake of argument:

- Vikings have 400 members
- Samurai have 800 members

Every single Viking player has the maximum bonus weight to their asset deployments while the Samurai players have no bonus weighting. The Vikings would only need around 200 of their members to be manually deploying tactically and in an organised manner. Whereas the Samurai would need around 400 of their members to be organised and deploying manually in order to keep pace against the Vikings. So basically the bigger faction would need roughly twice as many active and organised players than the smallest faction in order to compete with them.

I don't know the specific numbers and can only speculate the thresholds but based on what we know about weighting it really does look like the smaller the faction population the less organised members you need. It's already bloody hard to get even so much as 5 random players organised for a video game. The way the sysyem is apparently set up the FW is basically saying, "If the smallest faction has 5 organised players then you [the biggest faction] will need 10 organised players in order to compete against their bonus asset weighting."

This is my biggest problem with the FW system. It is not a level playing field, judging from all the info we have been privy to. It's almost exactly a mimick of how low tier heroes are disadvantaged against high tier heroes, i.e. if playing a low tier hero you have to be twice as good as your opponent in order to scratch out a win.

CandleInTheDark
02-19-2018, 06:23 PM
True but then we come back to the assets weighting issue. Say the Vikes are the smallest and the Samurai the biggest in terms of population. For the sake of argument:

- Vikings have 400 members
- Samurai have 800 members

Every single Viking player has the maximum bonus weight to their asset deployments while the Samurai players have no bonus weighting. The Vikings would only need around 200 of their members to be manually deploying tactically and in an organised manner. Whereas the Samurai would need around 400 of their members to be organised and deploying manually in order to keep pace against the Vikings. So basically the bigger faction would need roughly twice as many active and organised players than the smallest faction in order to compete with them.

I don't know the specific numbers and can only speculate the thresholds but based on what we know about weighting it really does look like the smaller the faction population the less organised members you need. It's already bloody hard to get even so much as 5 random players organised for a video game. The way the sysyem is apparently set up the FW is basically saying, "If the smallest faction has 5 organised players then you [the biggest faction] will need 10 organised players in order to compete against their bonus asset weighting."

This is my biggest problem with the FW system. It is not a level playing field, judging from all the info we have been privy to. It's almost exactly a mimick of how low tier heroes are disadvantaged against high tier heroes, i.e. if playing a low tier hero you have to be twice as good as your opponent in order to scratch out a win.

Yeah that is the problem with it and honestly I don't know what can be done about that, the devs can't force people to be organised and to engage. They can give incentives, whether the rewards or new strategic territories, they can give prompts like with the hotspots, unless they make the war opt in (and please please please no faction lock characters in that case) there isn't a lot they can do and even that wouldn't stop meme chasers or people who make generally bad choices like not realising where their banner has been parked all day is in a good position.

One idea I did have a while ago was that with the banner, you got matched with people in your faction against people of the opposing faction, I don't know how feasible that is though as I can already see problems with that, like what happens in territories all three factions are fighting over and how does the matchmaking handle it if it is struggling to find players for a particular territory in a particular game? In the latter it might have to either move the territory (no, no, no, I don't want the volcano, we are 2000 behind in the square in front of it) or the game mode and we have all seen the threads that show what people think about that, alternatively they keep the fronts system but if I don't want to play duel or ranked that limits where I can put assets.

AkenoKobayashi
02-20-2018, 03:35 AM
It wouldn't matter how Ubi tries to convince people to contribute, as long as the population bonus is applied, the faction with the lowest population will outdo the most popular one. The Vikings will continue to crush everyone because of this, on top of the most populated faction not properly contributing to the map. Honestly, the best thing I saw was last night when the Samurai were +7 territories, and were actually defending the castle. Probably won't happen again though.

CandleInTheDark
02-20-2018, 06:34 PM
It wouldn't matter how Ubi tries to convince people to contribute, as long as the population bonus is applied, the faction with the lowest population will outdo the most popular one. The Vikings will continue to crush everyone because of this, on top of the most populated faction not properly contributing to the map. Honestly, the best thing I saw was last night when the Samurai were +7 territories, and were actually defending the castle. Probably won't happen again though.

Problem there is say the faction bonus isn't applied and there are roughly equal people in each faction actually thinking about what they are doing, the bigger faction still has all those extra who even if they never place a war banner, if they just play let's say 50 games over the course of a battle make a difference. It isn't a perfect solution because ubisoft can't dictate how many people will actively engage with it but it is still fairer all around in that if equal percentages of a faction or engaged in it they should have the same resources to spend.

AkenoKobayashi
02-20-2018, 10:44 PM
So, one side is screwed either way. Population bonus hands wins to the lesser of the three, but no population bonus hands the win to the larger of the three. Assuming that each faction would have all players playing, of course.

The_B0G_
02-21-2018, 01:52 AM
So, one side is screwed either way. Population bonus hands wins to the lesser of the three, but no population bonus hands the win to the larger of the three. Assuming mat each faction would have all players playing, of course.

Its hard to calculate, historically the person who had the most men, won the battle. There's a few rare battles that this wasn't the case but that was usually do to being far better trained or having a technological edge or using the terrain to their advantage. Smashing shi℅loads of numbers together and deciding battles will never work perfect, especially when you can't be certain how many hours each of those players will play.

AkenoKobayashi
02-23-2018, 10:29 PM
We took the volcano by the way. I'm surprised to see that we were also holding it by a good number.