Senior Member
So we are nearly a campaign in and I figured now was a good time to give my feedback and to see what other feedback other people had.
So I am going to say off the bat that I have never felt the faction war was rigged. I have felt that the faction war lacked transparency and that it was flawed. In terms of transparency I definitely think that this has improved a great deal, while we do not know how they weight assets by percentage of people in each faction, showing us the actual assets is a definite improvement.
Outside of this their stated aims were that people should be able to be involved in more battles which is why they have longer battle preparation phases, that territories do not change hands quite so easily as they did before and that more of the campaign matters. I believe the longer time per battle is certainly fairer, we have known for a while that two of the factions fluctuate in assets dropping, this equalises that somewhat and perhaps has a fairer spread over time. Where I do not feel the changes have worked quite so well is in territories changing hands and in making previous battles more relevant.
In terms of territories changing hands, five days ago the knights went down to seven territories,over the next two days, the territories equalled out before moving back to as they had been before. So in my view, the territories closer to a faction's base and the carry over from the previous battle could do with tweaking. Of course I do not think that there should be no movement from the beginning nor that there should be no way back for a faction falling behind, but it still feels a little easier than it might be. The other factor in this is what happens when a territory is not being contested? On battle 19, the knights had a 7 million advantage on one territory, the next battle that territory was no longer contested, then that territory was back in contention and the vikings had a 272,000 advantage by the end of the battle, this bearing in mind that even if the knights earlier 7 million did not apply, it was quite close to their stronghold so there should have been some advantage even by default asset values. With this in mind it seems that if a faction lead, then if they expand they are lowering their chances of keeping territories when other factions push back, what I worry about is that instead of the last two days being the only ones that matter, that might turn into the last four days. On the flip side to this, the vikings genuinely have had the edge in percentage of assets dropped, that will have some impact also.
I still do not think the war is rigged, I think that it is a good deal better and much more transparent, there could not have been any analysis of this nature in previous seasons. Parring this down into a tldr, my feedback would be
I believe that the carry over from the last turn and the initial asset advantage in territories closer to a faction's base need to be tweaked higher.
I believe, if it isn't currently, at least some percentage of the asset advantage on a territory that has spent a few battles not being contested needs to carry over so that the previous battles matter more.
Anyhow that is my view on it, so thoughts, feedback and questions to pass on to the devs from anyone else?
Member
Senior Member
the ui has devinetly got an improvment. but i cant help but feel that everytime some values get changed it favours a specific faction.
first season was vickings having the advantage the whole season.
second season suddenly knights had gained so much force and vickings lost any kind of power. surprised by the samurai vicktory thoght.
3rd season got even more into the favour of the knights.
right now its clear that the vickings get the most benefit out of the faction war changes. throuhout the last 14 days they always had the most territorys.
in the end its just how the mathematical formula is constructed and not about player effort.
Senior Member
I saw a post on reddit that had a little food for thought, that a good part of this is we have made the faction war advantages turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.Originally Posted by SenBotsu893 Go to original post
There were two things that happened when the vlkings won season 1, the people who wanted easy wins with little effort went to the vikings, the people who were more serious about taking part and bought into the conspiracy went to the samurai (and indeed there were people at the end of that season all the knights will win). I think there is a constant flow of people chasing the last to win and people buying into ubisoft are sharing the wins around and if I want to win I should go there and that is having at least some effect.
If the above is accurate, people who are doing the sports glory hunters route won't be with the vikings, they haven't won in ages, so they are not bloating their ranks, meanwhile the people who are chasing win by conspiracy and are perhaps a little try hard in it have gone to the vilkngs, and those of us who have stuck with one faction are either dealing with the deadwood or don't have enough of the I want to win every season so I will play ten hours a day types.
Member
Community Manager
Thanks for letting us know your thoughts on the Faction War since the changes were made! It's good to hear the additional transparency is going down well.
I'll make sure to pass this on.I believe that the carry over from the last turn and the initial asset advantage in territories closer to a faction's base need to be tweaked higher.
I believe, if it isn't currently, at least some percentage of the asset advantage on a territory that has spent a few battles not being contested needs to carry over so that the previous battles matter more.
Senior Member
Like I said, the vikings also genuinely have the highest asset allocation so that might be part of it and that should not be punished, it is just if the aim is to stop territories flipflopping, that has happened a few times so it is a matter of finding out how much of it is the vikings are doing awesome and how much of it is these numbers could use changing.Originally Posted by UbiInsulin Go to original post
Senior Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
Personally, I still don't really understand how Faction War works. I absent-mindedly, random-pickedly plant a war banner here, deploy troops there.... I've been doing that for the past week daily and haven't noticed any change in any territory, none that I can spot at least. It's still all grey to me. What is it about other than maybe decorating some maps by the winning faction? does it deploy more troops during Dominion? if so, if I am Knight Faction, and I've contributed a lot into Faction War, and boosted the number of troops, and in a 4v4 match against three who are Knight Faction, and I'm with two Viking Faction and one Samurai Faction, did I boost my enemy's troops and make it harder on myself?
How does a Faction win a war? by taking more territories? how? I don't see which spots really need defending and which spots are ripe for the taking. I do both actions absent-mindedly. I keep planting war banners and deploying troops and I don't see how I'm contributing to the war, but I just know it's better to do it manually that let the game automatically assign troops.
I'd appreciate if I'm given some information or link that explains in-depth how Faction War works, it bugs me a tad bit that there's some major chunk of the game I do not yet fully understand.
