Community Manager
Greetings everyone,
This week, we would like to hear your thoughts on the recent Season 4 changes to Faction War. Now that you've had a good amount of time with it, let us know what you think, what changes you would like to see, and any other thoughts you may have on the current system. We look forward to reading through your feedback!
- For Honor Community Team
Senior Member
Hello! I'd like to chip in with various bits I've mentioned here and there on several threads, concerning Faction War.
- It's still very detached from the actual gameplay we do in PvP/PvAI. The matches don't count, match outcomes don't count, win rate doesn't count. It's all purely based on how we deploy troops after each match. A war of passive attrition, it's all about troops.
- Campaigns are as much interesting as when there is no campaign going on. It's all the same, deploy troops.
- Many people just plant a war banner somewhere then proceed to do a series of 30+ matches without bothering about Faction War. This not only deliberately unbalances troop deployment across the taken zones for a Faction, but also leads to even further passive attrition, by forcing another Faction to focus more on a specific patch of land because that patch of land became +5M in troop favor for one Faction (for example) and the others are dragging behind and must place that many troops in that same land to retake the land.
- There seems to be a limit to how much land a Faction can take; I don't know if the Knights can take all Viking lands up until the Viking statue on the uppermost area of the world map. It's unlikely, as Vikings would permanently lose their foothold; it's a war of passive attrition that ultimately bears no serious consequences and simply bothers players to manually place troops for a reward of a few Scavenger Crates later, which are, by themselves, largely obsolete; most of the good loot comes from actual matches, not crates. But please do correct me if I'm wrong here.
- Similarly, many players enjoy private duels in Custom Match, which contributes to nothing in the multiplayer Faction War.
- Players who hippy-hop between Factions constantly are hurting troop deployment, and they go mostly unpunished. The opposite is also true. Players who remain loyal to one Faction for a long duration aren't really rewarded for it.
- In Dominion, if I'm Knight Faction, with two Viking Faction and one Samurai Faction, and we're fighting a team of three Knight Faction and one Samurai Faction; how exactly am I contributing to my Faction here? if I constantly deploy troops, effectively boosting troop gain for Knights; did I boost troop gain for my enemy team for this match, seeing as there are three Knight Faction players on the opposing team?
- Concerning readability, it's certainly more friendly than the previous version; yet it's still too greyed out, too lackluster, doesn't engage us players in anything overly important or exciting, and doesn't promote active participation in anything. It's all about troop numbers, ultimately.
I think I had more but I would probably repeat myself a bit at this point, and bore you out of it. Thanks for reading!
Senior Member
The most immediate issue with the Faction War is there's no active incentive to participate. If I deploy troops, if I don't, nothing really changes that session. It's more an investment than actual gameplay. I've talked to players who don't even know what the Faction War is, never mind the point of contributing. It's too far in the background; it's a needless pause and words on the screen when you jump from Home to Multi.
Actively incentivize participation via one of the ingame reward avenues: Loot or Steel. Else it's a waste of space.
The new interface is definitely nice though.
Community Manager
Member
Fady's points are on point, hahaha.
I especially agree with his second last one. Where if you're in a team of three opposing faction members fighting a team made largely of your own faction members then by playing really well are you not harming your faction over all?
I know that troop numbers are determined by a player's individual score but the players on the losing team always score far less than the winning team. It's just too difficult to succeed individually without a team backing you up.
So effectively you end up helping the opposing faction members in your team get more troops while restricting your own faction's troops.
I would suggest a very simple tweak to the team building process so that it aligns people with the same faction as well as possible. So that you would end up with two viking and two samurai vs four knights, instead of a knight, two samurai and a viking verses three knights and a viking, as often happens.
I also like his suggestion of adding more bonuses based on the actual match wins. Perhaps the winners of the match receive 100% faction war troops while the losing team only gets 50% faction war troops.
You would really need the above change first though, so that factions players that win together receive the full bonus rather than it balancing out due to teams being made up from all factions randomly.
Well, more likely skill based teams. I'm guessing they try to balance player skill in the teams so that the match is more fair, but you really shouldn't. I mean, if the faction war is between the knights, vikings and samurai then the knights being on one team shouldn't be considered unfair because they're better than the viking and samurai in the other team. It should just mean that those knights will score big for their faction because they're better players than the players from the opposing factions.
Also perhaps a penalty in the faction war for players that quit out? I mean, they're essentially deserters right? So why not reflect that.
As for incentives for playing the faction war, perhaps the victors of the previous season get a 25% boost to steel gain and exp gain for the next season while the losing faction receive a 25% reduction in steel and exp gain.
People that abandon their faction when they lose would keep the -25% gains until the next season starts, at which point they'd get the rewards or penalties their new faction achieved. It'd kinda be like a negative champion status applied to every player in the losing faction.
If you didn't want the negative incentive then you could always give the winners +50%, the second place +25% and the losers no change.
Member
To be blunt I feel it's just pointless. If you win you get an ornament and some crates... It is so disconnected from the actual game. Factions mean nothing. I've been a samurai since I started playing at season 2, never changed, but what does that even matter? You can change factions when you want, use any hero from any faction, no perks from being any faction.
Now I'm a samurai and if perhaps you were fighting in say an objective game in your zone you got some buffs and duels were in Vikings any knights zones you were far from home so you got some negative numbers. When the game modes shuffle it would be beneficial to fight in your home zone. Like it is now I just find where dominion is and play no matter where and don't care about deploying troops.
In 4v4 games matchmaking is done by skill right, so the factions are all mixed together. Why would I fight along side a knight? What if, say there were 2 of the same faction on one side they could get a buff somehow when they work together, more points perhaps capturing zones or for assists? You would be looking to stay with or help you fellow side.
Make the factions mean something. Like I said it makes no difference what side you took. I do have the samurai season winning ornament on both my heroes I use. So there is pride in your faction... Make it count for something you could do better.
Member
I'd like to see some big changes, the entire premise of the game should not be an afterthought for players. It's Knights vs. Vikings vs. Samurai, not a free-for-all.
The first change I would make is to have players matched with members of their own faction by default. Knights with Knights, Samurai with Samurai, Vikings with Vikings. You can still play as any hero, but you get more war assets if you play as one from your faction.
With the new layer of matchmaking, you can set up the games to better represent what's happening on the faction war, making the gameplay and the world map feel more connected. If you're a Knight pushing into Viking territory, you'll be on a team of Knights with Knight minions attacking a Viking stronghold manned by Viking minions.
The second thing I'd add is a new mode: Siege. This would be an event triggered when you start to encroach on an enemy's faction statue on the map. These modes would have large, dedicated maps. It could be a big 8v8 game, or it could be a PvE mode with story feats and such, anything works as long as it's big.
The last thing I'd add is probably the most significant: Make factions able to lose. If the enemy reaches your statue on the map and competes enough sieges per the event, your faction is driven of the war map for the rest of the season. This would add a sense of urgency that we just don't have right now, as well as a new way to win a season (however unlikely) by capturing both enemy statues.
Couple these changes with some of the reward tweaks outlined above by others, as well as a better interface, and you've got a solid faction war system. I'm glad you guys are looking for feedback on this, because the vapidity of the faction conflict thus far has been one of my major beefs with For Honor. Godspeed and good luck with whatever you end up doing!
Junior Member
1.) Reward palyers for beeing loyal over 2 or 3 seasons to one faction with some additional loot crates.
In my opinion they should be rewarded with the same amout of loot crates for beeing loyal as the winning
faction gets - this would create some motivation.
2.) Rise the quality of the loot crates form faction war in generell.
3.) Let the players choose a region on the faction war battlefield (regarding to the chosen game mode) BEFORE
they start the match, after a match place the war assets automatically in this region. The amount should still be
depending on loose or win.
4.) Allocate more war assets, considering 3.), to players who`re fighting with a hero from their chosen faction.
This will create more impact on the decision for one of the factions.
5.) Implement some events for the following situations in faction war.
- 2 Factions got the same amount of regions at the end of a season:
This should trigger an event where the two factions get the chance to fight for the second place.
(chance to get more rewards for the winning one)
- A faction reaches the "main base" of another:
An additional event should be triggered where the factions battle for the ownership of the main base.
Is should go for a defined amount of rounds - winning side depletes more war assets to the base.
The winning one gets additional war assets each round, which are placed at the main base.
And during the next season a banner is set on top of the main base from the winning faction (but ).
When disposing the war assets each round 4.) should still be respected. 3.) is irrelevant there, because
the fight is only for the main base.
I think this sould provide more importance to the faction war.
Member
It maybe just a coincidence, but it sure feels like the faction war is set up. Knights (beta), Vikings (S1), Samurai (S2), Knights (S3), Vikings (S4) Season 4 is a guess but the Vikings already won the first two rounds.
There were updates to the Faction War? While I do like the addition of the war banner and the change of "war resources" to "troops", named territories, etc. It still plays the same: select match, play, deploy troops, repeat. Feels like just something going on in the background with no real focus.
Rewards are lacking, regardless of time invested, come in last 1 crate, come in first 3 crates. (round rewards) Season rewards lacking as well Bronze, Silver, Gold, emblem frame and ornaments (with win).
Being a member of a Faction just sets your emblem shape and what front you fight on, no real effect on gameplay. Samurai, Viking, Knight, they all just get paired up randomly and shoved into a match with and against each other.
Junior Member
