PDA

View Full Version : Stoic,what is the purpose of factions for the players?



tnankie
03-05-2013, 05:35 PM
Right this is going to be a bit ugly.
I still haven't completely formed these thoughts.

I think it is important to understand what Stoic think this game should be about. I have read interviews and we get second hand information from the forum moderators (or are they community managers?). However, I do not have a clear idea as to what the devs think this game is about. The reason I think it is important is that it explains the thinking about design decisions that generate complaints.

Now I know it is important for each player to play a game for their own reasons. If they enjoy it for whatever reason then that is great. But I think it is important to know what was intended.

My reasons for asking is this, lately I've bounced off factions hard. I bought the renown/rally boost and played a few games early on. I now have three rows of warriors and can field more or less any team I choose, ergo renown is...not very important to me. I've reached the end game of character/team development. I got there so quickly I am forced to think that cannot be the point of the game and I am sure others got here even faster.

It is reasonably clear (to me) that the ranking system is being either being exploited or was significantly distorted by early the shakedown period 50+ win streaks? really? and not top of the rankings...hmmmm. So Elo? is that the point, ignore those other tables it is all about Elo?
The problem here is that I am left wondering how often top players play each other? When I last looked at the tourney ladder there were an awful lot of 10 wins 0 losses at the top. Unless two players near the top of a ranking list enter queue at the same time they aren't going to play each other. If topping a ranking list is the goal then there is a real motivation to avoid hard matches (or even equal matches). This isn't difficult to do if you monitor who is playing at what times.

(some quick maths to illustrate, playing relatively weaker players gets say 6 Elo with 95% win rate and loses 24 Elo 5%. So on average you gain 5.7 Elo and lose 1.2 Elo, net gain 4.5 Elo per match, playing equal ranked players win 15 Elo 50% lose 15 Elo 50% net gain 0 per match)

So clearly ranking isn't doing it for me as I feel guilty farming weaker players. So it must be about the game, about the individual matches! Yeah, and many of those matches are great. No really I am being completely serious most matches I really enjoy. and then when things get close and tight up pops RNG. By design with the implementation of thrashers and hits through armour the closer a game is the more chance affects the outcome. Damn. You just lost me.


So what is the point of factions? Is it about having fun in the individual matches? Is it about building a stable of warriors, is it about rankings? What is the point of factions as a player Stoic?

Why I'd really like to know this is that then I can asses what Stoic are going to be focusing on improving, determine if that is something that interests me and subsequently decide whether to stay or go.


Disclaimer: There are some design choices that I don't like at all. Fair enough you can't please everyone. What I am trying to get a feeling for is which ones are intentional and the result of a conscious choice known the consequences, thus likely to remain unchanged. And which ones were made with an eye to later revision and thus are open to change.

Galactimus
03-05-2013, 06:53 PM
1. Renown. There's obviously going to be a lot more uses for renown as the game continues development. Different classes to unlock (Menders), higher ranked promotions (ie. Rank 2: 100 Renown, Rank 3: 200.) Tournament entry fees. More things to buy in the store. Who knows what they'll end up adding. I have about 900 Renown saved up at the moment and I'm sure it'll all be spent the second the next major update comes out. There's obviously a reason why you can purchase 1,000 Renown chunks from the store. I have a feeling well need 10,000 by the time we finally hit the real meat of the end game.


2. Rankings. As one of the people who obtained a 52 win streak I haven't really found the ELO system to be unbalanced. I only have a win:loss ratio of 5:1. I lost a ton of matches learning the basics. But during my recent win streak I shot up from 1,200 to 1,475 elo. Once I got near the top of the rankings I was only getting 1 elo from super easy opponents and 6-7 ELO from mind-wrenching slug fests. But sometimes those incredibly hard matches were against incredibly low ranked players. Once you are ranked so high on the leaderboard the risk becomes greater. The closer you get to the top the easier it is to fall. You end up fighting people just as skilled as you yet you have very little to gain.

When I lost my 53rd match I lost over 30 ELO but I only would have gained 1-2. That's like 20 low ranked players or 4-5 high ranked players just to get back to where I was. It seems fair to me. You're not going to be high on the leaderboards if you can't win against everyone. It's going to be hard beating anyone of skill if all you've done is farmed your way through the first few ranks by facing Rank 1 newbies.


3. What is the point of Factions? I think you are overthinking this too much. Its an online turn-based strategy RPG. You've already played it for what it is. You've leveled up your characters and you've defeated players using turn-based strategy. The development team can say with a smile on their face: "Mission Accomplished!" Besides, this is only the beginning. There isn't a lot of content right now - but this was a very smart move by the development team. The profits they make from the Store will really help them turn this game into something special. I haven't played a turn based strategy game this fun since Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3 - and that was $60.

BJSV
03-05-2013, 07:08 PM
I also feel as renown is not needed very much but I guess its just because we started early and there isn't everything in game devs planned on adding so this will probably change with time.

Those 30/40/50...80+ win streaks are just omg. I dont get how its even possible unless you are exploiting time of day when there arent many ppl online. Which would explain why they dont get a loss from disconnect. I played 40 games and lost 2 already thanks to servers. I am just saying that it seems highly unlikely that some people get losses from powers that are out of their hands while other manage to escape them with twice as much games. P.S. I am a noob and i wont see 10+ win streak for a long time i guess.

And yeah, this is chess. With vikings! There isnt much to it than that. You either like it or not.

tnankie
03-05-2013, 08:08 PM
your opinions...thanks for telling me what to think.

raven2134
03-05-2013, 09:20 PM
Forwarding this to Stoic. I think they will reply. I do think it's a good question tnankie, and knowing what the "end game" will be or if there is one is something important.

Slimsy Platypus
03-05-2013, 09:27 PM
Tnankie - the developer's intentions with Factions were recently described in a Gamasutra artile as follows: (this is written by Alex) "As we develop the content, we'll make it playable for free so that people can actually try the game as it’s built, and generate news and excitement...We'll keep adding new content made for the single player, like combat, characters and AI until we ship the final game."

Full Article HERE (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AlexThomas/20130304/187768/Developing_a_Kickstarterfunded_game_a_look_from_in side.php)

It is my understanding the developer's intent with Factions was to expose some of the single player systems to the public while the game was in development, so that they could tweak some of the systems to perfection while the game was being developed. Also, since the game does not have extensive funding for marketing, Factions would aid in "getting the word out". This is simply me speculating, but I'm not sure anyone expected Factions to be as strong of a stand alone title as it is, and the massive numbers now enjoying the game can attest to that.

So with that being said, I'm sorry you are not 100% pleased with Factions. What we do know is that Stoic has been working their behinds off in getting this together for us. Matchmaking tweaking is on-going as is balancing. At the same time Stoic is trying to progress with developing a single player Saga. The most successful games in the industry don't have perfect matchmaking or perfectly balanced games, and I assume they have a lot more resources than 5 guys in a shack, that are trying to get something else done. So, let's be patient, and continue to provide constructive criticisms when we can.

So to me (for whatever it's worth), Factions is about playing an addictive combat against other people in an outstanding community. Furthermore, it's about helping (and watching!) an epic development team progress their baby into something beyond the amazing state it already is.

raven2134
03-05-2013, 09:40 PM
I think tnankie's question goes more along the line of what is the player playing/working toward as he plays the game? What does the player want to reach or achieve after battling and earning renown? The goals you mentioned Slimsy, are well, good and practical, but they're also ones outside of the game (besides the playing against others). Is playing against others, which is the means, also the end?

Is the competition the point of the game? I think it's a compelling factor, I also think a player can set it healthily as a the point of the game if they want to. I mean I did hit a point where I wondered what I was fighting for (lol that sounds strange)...but then in the same way, I'm just looking for something that's fun to do and feels satisfying, even without concrete goals.

You don't need to aim to be a FIFA pro baller to go outside and play some football. We don't necessarily think that playing a casual game of footbal, which is still a competition, needs something more.

As a player, I persnally feel Factios is like this. It's me playing with someone else, having fun, like in a game of football, after work.

If Stoic decides there's more to it though, like an "end-game" or a point past that, then cool beans.

netharch
03-05-2013, 09:55 PM
For me, factions is about getting myself ready for the single player game. I enjoy the combat, and and I want to be ready to dive right in to the story when it releases.

erom
03-05-2013, 11:34 PM
On the point about renown: This is what I was trying to say while everyone was crying and moaning over the initial renown hump and trying to put more renown sources into the game. The grind is short, for a competitive game, and pretty soon we'll all have more renown than we know what to do with. More units will come, but you're crazy if you think stoic can make and balance units faster than we can earn the renown for them, unless they make rank 2 and 3 take like 250 and 500 renown or something dumb like that.

tnankie
03-06-2013, 12:05 AM
I understand what factions achieves for the developers of the Banner saga. That has been made clear at numerous points over the net.

Raven had it right,
The question is what do the dev's think the point of the game is for a player? What is the experience they are aiming at and trying to move towards? (Assuming that they consider there is room for improvement [I don't think Stoic think it is perfect yet....but well you know some people think their children are perfect])

I like the football analogy...and I think that is my frustration with the game. I don't enjoy the battles enough. To use an animation phrase 'uncanny valley' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
the battles are really good are really close to awesome and then something (that I consider stupid, others disagree) bounces me right off again.

Obviously I care about the game 'cause I keep posting this stuff...I just...don't know...don't know why I don't like it.

I wonder if mutators could be answer for me. Especially if they were able to be player created. Give those people who are arguing the unit x should be like this, or in case Y, z should happen not P. Let people test their dumb ideas and prove to themselves their ideas are dumb.


Perhaps I should just accept that I don't like the game and F#%k off...

brianrcampbell
03-06-2013, 01:39 AM
I think that some (though certainly not all) of your concerns will be allayed as the game develops a bit. A couple things in particular:

1) Matchmaking could (will?) improve as players get more games under their belts. The matchmaking system could (will?) match you up with players closer to your Elo, which should result in more of your games being competitive and exciting. Elo is a pretty sound ranking system, and is used (in some form) in chess and lots of video games.

2) As higher unit ranks are opened up, builds and strategies will diverge more significantly, broadening the range of tactics that you encounter and employ. That could be fun.

Speaking for myself, I want to see where my ELO number levels out. After that, maybe I'll try to learn and get better, or maybe I'll have fun just playing the game, or maybe I'll lose interest. Who knows.

Alex
03-06-2013, 02:12 AM
Hi again, tnankie. Uhhhhm... I'm not sure what to tell you, man. The whole game was literally developed by a concept artist and a writer making up stuff that they thought was fun, and then convincing a few talented people to help us make it. That's about as deep as it goes. Isn't that how most games are made?

As for what we're thinking, we designed the combat system for the single player game, and we let people play it multiplayer, because that would be fun, right?

We didn't want the game to be a grind but we like progression and it mirrors the single player experience, so we let you get to a full team quickly (people still complain that there's too much grinding, can't please every/anyone). We found a lot of issues with the Elo system that we're still working out because we've never made one before.

About the Thrasher issue, what I mentioned to you on two separate occasions is that we like the Thrasher's randomness. I kind of felt like you ignored my comments on that, or don't want to accept them. You definitely made it clear that you don't like the Thrasher. Ok, I get it... I think we disagree on this, but we don't have any plans to change him. We also like how the miss chance works. Again, it's one of those things about why is XCOM and BfW and Blood Bowl all completely based on percentage chance gameplay? Because that's what they wanted to make. Somebody made a subjective call and said "yes, this is fun". We wanted to be predominantly NOT chance-based, but that doesn't mean we can't have any.

We're going to be doing a Kickstarter update relatively soon laying out what's to come. As we've said, every time we develop some new tech for the single player game we're adding it to Factions, so people can (theoretically) enjoy it. We're going to be adding the Dredge and their AI, so you can play against the computer in a series of scripted battles. We're going to add new classes as we make them for single player. We're going to add city building to Factions and let you build your own city (maybe with friends/guild mates?), because that's a system we need for the single player. We hope someday to have territory control gameplay and 2v2 battles, but that's way far off.

Factions has always been a platform to let people try the game while we make it, and expose issues and come up with ideas, and that's all we ever intended it to be. Hopefully fun, too.

Basically, I'm confused by the question. Why do people play Starcraft, or DotA or, I dunno, chess? I don't think Starcraft is very fun. Obviously some people disagree.

The good thing is, even if you're not digging Factions now, come back later. We'll have new stuff. We'll have single player. Maybe you'll find something you like better!

tnankie
03-06-2013, 04:09 AM
Thanks for the reply, I really do appreciate it.

Look I get the random thing Alex (I assume you speak for Stoic on this?), I appreciate you have different views. I've been quite careful (I thought) to make sure my posts expressed my thoughts and acknowledge that others thought differently.

So factions is an ongoing development platform and that you as a player see it as a chance to see single player stuff before the sp game is released.
So have fun in the battles enjoy yourself seeing this stuff we are creating as we create it (*cool huh?), we added this Elo thing 'cause we thought some of you might like it.

Paraphrased a bit but that is how I read your post, fair summary?

Assuming it is....O.K. I think I understand a little better, you are not trying to create some hyper competitive knife edge balanced game? This isn't a turn based version of brood wars or a non one hit kill version of chess then?

So going onwards your focus is server stability (which seems mostly sorted) then development of things needed for SP and their implementation into factions.

Guess it is put up or shut up time. I wonder if I can make a game?

* Actually I really do think this is cool and I really appreciate you doing it.

Alex
03-06-2013, 04:22 AM
Tnankie, yup I'm fairly confident I can speak for Stoic (I'm the writer, Arnie is the artist, we made the company along with John, the programmer and we all do design). Your paraphrase is pretty much spot on, though we do feel a bit more excitement about the whole thing.

We'd love if someday the game became a popular e-sport (is it lame to use that term? I don't know), but no, we don't expect to make a hyper-competitive knife-edge balanced game with 5 people working out of a shack while in full production on a single player product. We're just doing the best we can, and people seem to really like it. Arnie gets a little more pumped about this mp stuff than I do, but we're pretty realistic about what we can accomplish.

Yup, the focus is on stability and then adding new content as we make it. We want Factions to grow over time, but not dump all our resources into it now. I'd say that pretty much sums it up. No problem, maybe other people had similar questions and now they have a better idea, too.

tnankie
03-06-2013, 05:09 AM
Sure Alex, just differentiating between your personal views and those that the team have thrashed out as the 'stoic position'; which you personally think is so far south it keeps getting penguins stuck up its bum.


So I might thrash a few more noobs, get some rank 0 units ready for incoming new classes then go dark.

(I still love the art and am interested in the story even if I disagree with the chance element in combat)

P.S: Seriously, mutators Unreal Tournament style.
P.P.S I am Australian and thus genetically bad at doing excitement....or at least communicating excitement.

Galactimus
03-06-2013, 07:51 AM
Those 30/40/50...80+ win streaks are just omg. I dont get how its even possible unless you are exploiting time of day when there arent many ppl online. Which would explain why they dont get a loss from disconnect. I played 40 games and lost 2 already thanks to servers. I am just saying that it seems highly unlikely that some people get losses from powers that are out of their hands while other manage to escape them with twice as much games.

Being disconnected from the server due to game maintenance does not count as a loss. In fact I'm pretty sure that being disconnected this way counts as a win for both players. The game crashing to desktop just as a match starts also doesn't count as a loss. Therefore, there are no losses that are out of your hands. Win streaks are only broken if you lose, surrender, or if the user disconnects from the game (internet connection, power outage, etc.)



your opinions...thanks for telling me what to think.
Forums are a bad place if you don't like sharing opinions. No need to be rude.

erom
03-06-2013, 09:52 AM
I was thinking about this during my morning walk with the dog today, and it occurred to me that the point of factions is almost exactly the same as the point of chess - the matches are fun, and if you want to get competitive there are Elo rankings. That's it. Isn't that... enough?

More theoretically, I feel like there is this pressure in the games industry to make every game a lifestyle. Like League of Legends wants you to be a "LoL player" if you know what I mean. I feel like maybe it's nice to have a game with a brisk pace to endgame, and then it's just a game. I don't think you should feel bad about playing the game a lot for a month, then walking away from it for a while until some new content drops (Dredge, dredge, dredge, dredge, woooooo).

But I feel where you are coming from on the whole randomness thing - personally, I like the direction they went with it, but I have played tons of games in my life which were really good but had one little thing I disagreed with or didn't like and man does it just bug you to no end.

Arnie
03-06-2013, 10:11 AM
I was thinking about this during my morning walk with the dog today, and it occurred to me that the point of factions is almost exactly the same as the point of chess - the matches are fun, and if you want to get competitive there are Elo rankings. That's it. Isn't that... enough?


Bingo! It's a fun game to play if you like competitive turn based combat. It's a sort of chess type table-top game that will grow over time. play it until you're bored and then check back from time to time, you may find new stuff you want to check out. :)
As Alex said, up next is a single player Narrative Mode with new enemies. Also new units and ranks all through the development.
Renown: There will be plenty to do with renown in the future...fear not. How much will a city cost to build? I'd wager more than promoting a unit to rank 1.

Galactimus
03-06-2013, 10:15 AM
We're going to add city building to Factions and let you build your own city (maybe with friends/guild mates?) How much will a city cost to build? I'd wager more than promoting a unit to rank 1.

City building!? You just made my day sir.

Yellow
03-06-2013, 10:20 AM
We're going to be doing a Kickstarter update relatively soon laying out what's to come. As we've said, every time we develop some new tech for the single player game we're adding it to Factions, so people can (theoretically) enjoy it. We're going to be adding the Dredge and their AI, so you can play against the computer in a series of scripted battles. We're going to add new classes as we make them for single player. We're going to add city building to Factions and let you build your own city (maybe with friends/guild mates?), because that's a system we need for the single player. We hope someday to have territory control gameplay and 2v2 battles, but that's way far off.



Hi Alex, thats quite a nice "update" on what to spect from the future ;) ty a lot for the info.





We'd love if someday the game became a popular e-sport (is it lame to use that term? I don't know)....

.....Arnie gets a little more pumped about this mp stuff than I do, but we're pretty realistic about what we can accomplish.



I get as pumped as Arnie about the e-sport idea ;) That was one of my biggest wishes for the "Total War Series", as i was quite an active and kinda top player there, but so far my wish never came true... Lets see if it can be made reality with this game in stead :)

quartex
03-06-2013, 10:51 AM
Thanks for the update on what's coming up for Factions. (of all the new features you've mentioned 2v2 looks especially cool) You should really post this information in a kickstarter update to let people know what's coming up for Factions. (after posting a single-player update for mollify all those multiplayer haters)

theRayDog
03-06-2013, 11:44 AM
Bingo! It's a fun game to play if you like competitive turn based combat. It's a sort of chess type table-top game that will grow over time. play it until you're bored and then check back from time to time, you may find new stuff you want to check out. :)
As Alex said, up next is a single player Narrative Mode with new enemies. Also new units and ranks all through the development.
Renown: There will be plenty to do with renown in the future...fear not. How much will a city cost to build? I'd wager more than promoting a unit to rank 1.

That was exactly the impression I had about playing Factio- OH MY GOD CITY BUILDING? w00t

Been having a lot of fun, keep up the good work! :D

BJSV
03-06-2013, 12:17 PM
Lol city building. Nice.

Conundrum
03-06-2013, 11:14 PM
P.P.S I am Australian and thus genetically bad at doing excitement....or at least communicating excitement.

Please don't blame that on being Australian! "Apathetic" is one of the last words I'd use to describe Australian culture.

piotras
03-07-2013, 08:25 AM
I've played the game for a while and I really love it. Don't remember last time I got so hooked on a game and threw so much money at it, BUT I kinda understand where tnankie is coming from.

Some players don't need incentives to play games, they just enjoy things their own way, but for some people (including myself) gameplay can be made or broken by incentives.

Let's take the achievements craze - it's great, it spices your game by telling you that if I do something in a special way or manage to pull something off I will get rewarded. Sweet. Typically I don't like to replay single player games (especially current games), but the other day I replayed splinter cell conviction and changed my gameplay to get the remaining achievements (or whatever they call it) which I didn't get the first time round. I had as much fun as the first time, but it wouldn't be as much fun the second time for me if the incentive wasn't there.

Take a bad example then (in my opinion of course) - Deus Ex human revolution. Advertised as a game with multiple approaches, with something for both the sneaky bastards and those who appreciate the head-first rambo-approach. They shower you with futuristic weaponry, skills that let you break through walls, BUT... they reward you more and make you level quicker if you stun your opponents and remain undetected. Right. So what's the point of giving all these toys if you reward me more for not using it? Each time I went trigger happy I always had an after thought "Darn, I would get that level already if I played it differently". It really hindered the whole experience for me.

Let's look at TBS:F. The official word is: have fun enjoying a free game, while we test the combat for single player. A new player comes to play Factions that never heard of the Saga and he sees: elo, win streaks, win:loss ratios, renown etc. The incentive that crystallises from this is to win, generate renown, be high up there on the rankings.

It's a question now who are we dealing with. Will that person be happy to just fool around and don't bother about the competitive incentive - experiment, find his playstyle and enjoy the game no matter if he/she wins or losses? Or will that person go along with the incentive and worry about losses, try to abuse matchmaking, choose to play safe rather than experiment, look up and copy the 'easy and cheesy' builds - all these things are slowly creeping in, making the atmosphere I loved so much during the beta a bit toxic and shifting people's attention into balance and prevention issues.

One of the reasons is how we deal with rankings and the fact that a player willing just to fool around has no choice - they will be part of the ladder if they like it or not.

As Factions become less of a testing ground and more of a multiplayer game of its own I think we should consider what sort of incentives are being created for the players. I wish that in the future we would see the tournaments as the place for players to compete, take the risks and be judged on their skills, while the general play as a place to fool around and simply have fun, test tactics and generate some renown without the bitterness of "dang, just lost my winning streak :p".

franknarf
03-07-2013, 09:10 AM
@piotras: Yeah, the numbers new players see being tracked do, I think, have an effect on how they approach the game. To repeat what I said in your old thread:

I always figured the stats that we see in the Hall of Valor were chosen based purely on how easy they were to program, not whether they're really what it's ideal to have at the front of players' minds (didn't we have "losing streak" in some iteration?)...If so, I think Stoic ought to give them a second thought with that in mind.
I've seen new players getting the wrong impression in so many ways, e.g., "That guy's units have 10 times the kills on mine. The matchmaker must be broken!" Anyway, it's not easy to address the problem of newcomers' perceptions.

I agree about DXHR, but it's still one of my favorite games of recent years :) With TBSF, at least the Hall of Valor stuff doesn't affect the underlying RPG mechanics, but I still think it matters what's being tracked.

Oh, and regarding your last point, the way it is now, I'm more inclined to experiment in the tourney (where my win:loss ratio is halved) instead of normal play because the records are transitory, but that is sort of backwards.

raven2134
03-07-2013, 09:22 AM
Hmm...Interesting points franknarf and piotras.

What if:
1. Matchmaking improved so that Elo matching became more apparent
2. The all-time leaderboards ceased to be "all-time" and became long period but would refresh/reset.
3. Tournaments occurred at different unit ranks (once that comes in).
4. Battle renown earned became a new leaderboard stat

How do you think these would affect the game? These were things that have been hovering around in my thoughts recently. Also, how do you guys think the stats the leaderboard tracked be changed or improved?

piotras
03-07-2013, 11:17 AM
1. Matchmaking improved so that Elo matching became more apparent

I think people should be primarily matched on their power level, as it is now. If Elo was the deciding factor it would generate funny situation where good players would be afraid of getting new units or base-teams in because they might be seriously out-powered and loose to weaker players. After all not all good players with base teams are abusers, some like to advance new builds from scratch and I hope to be able to do so one day too. Anyway, I think it sounds fairer to get people of the same power level (it should be your skill that makes you win, not your unit power). If it didn't matter rank-wise who wins (i.e. no win-streak and W:S ratio etc.) during general 'skirmish' play there would be no incentive for good players to abuse weaker ones, besides getting a few more renown per game (BUT loosing on kills on their advanced units). If rankings would be available only during weekly tournaments there would be no rank-abuse because the rank is fresh and taking a base team to a tournament fight is a suicide (if allowed at all).

2. The all-time leaderboards ceased to be "all-time" and became long period but would refresh/reset.

We already have this sort of ranking in - it's the tournament ranking. Not sure if there's any point to create another similar one, but which refresh less often. We already have rankings which cater to the same group of players by fulfilling the same function, following the same stats, with the only difference being that one resets while the other does not. In the future it would be nice to also cater to the audience who feels that their fun and freedom is constrained by primary incentive communicated by the game - winning.


3. Tournaments occurred at different unit ranks (once that comes in).

Sounds great. Especially that it takes a bit to get those kills and renown. Some sort of rank restriction sounds good and would allow players that don't have rank 3 team yet to have a go at a tournament. Heck, I play this often and I'm not sure how long will it take me to get to rank 3.

4. Battle renown earned became a new leaderboard stat

Not sure what you mean, could you explain? Wouldn't that be the same as total-games / total wins stat currently followed?


How do you think these would affect the game? These were things that have been hovering around in my thoughts recently. Also, how do you guys think the stats the leaderboard tracked be changed or improved?

I think the stats currently followed are good, because there's a highly competitive audience over there that wants to win and that's how they define fun - winning! Like every multiplayer game that's part of it and it should be in, BUT weakly ranked tournaments would satisfy that need of that particular group. The population which is completely forgotten is the one that would like to have fun at playing this game, but feels constrained due to being pushed into the rankings. The latter group is also the victim of abuse by the first (the competitive) group who (not all of course) one way or the other will try their best to win, even if it comes to using the system to their unfair advantage. We can either waste even more time trying to prevent it or just make the general play a non-ranked skirmish area which is used to test new builds, get renown or just play for the sake of playing before you decide to test your skills (and see your impact) at the weekly tournaments.

I strongly believe that if skirmish fights wouldn't be recorded we would see much more people simply playing the game and abusing less or trying gimmicky builds, while the ones that need to put themselves in context would have the tournaments to shine. This would also make the ranked play much more interesting, because it would be made of people that feel ready to compete.

raven2134
03-07-2013, 11:39 AM
Interesting responses. Now the issue with focusing solely on tournament to cater to the competitive portion of the player base is that the tourney can only be comprised of so many games to be feasible/reasonable. In our case, that's currently 25 games. At 25 games that's probably a fraction of what someone would experience. True people would enjoy more freedom if no stats were tracked or there were less pressure to compete outside tournaments, but at the same time, this would likely result in people feeling largely aimless. With the "point" of the game becoming even more obscure or abstracted, it is more likely people will not stick around.

Yes, Factions is something you can sit down, enjoy, leave for a while, come back, and see what's new. But at the same time, keeping players playing it even at its present form and with its current goals is something important. A significant number of the players need to remain persistent for the game to be viable - we can't be going back to beta days.

It's a fair point, if the all-time rankings becomes temporary then doesn't it overlap with tournament ladder? Strictly speaking...yes it would. However there is I think enough difference due to the time frame to elicit a different treatment if the counterpart to tourney ranks becomes "seasonal". First, however, tournament play should ideally be less about finishing with a perfect record (which seems to be what it boils down to right now), so that the other ranking can really reflect consistency and prolonged condition rather than capturing a short period of performance (i.e. season vs playoffs/premier). Perhaps...maybe we could/should be making all-time rankings the aggregate of tourney ranks, like how it is for some sports.

The renown thing and other stats was something I was asking in lieu of the idea that perhaps we may be implicitly focusing on certain points which cause people to behave a certain way, and if there were other means to measure progress, that may be a better fit.

piotras
03-07-2013, 11:49 AM
Perhaps...maybe we could/should be making all-time rankings the aggregate of tourney ranks, like how it is for some sports.

Really like the concept (!), since it would take the freshers out of the way of abuse (or people who don't consider keeping up their stats as fun) and make the veteran players have some sort of track-record of their prolonged play and a 'sticking-around' incentive.

BTW. a quote from "1st ranked, 101 killstreak player opinion on the game"

14.You should force more experienced players to stay away from unit power 1-3 games, as they are just noob bashed, but give exact same renown reward as battling a grizzlied veteran in tier 6 – make rewards for them very small. Right now I can play lvl2 games againt new players and get kills for my units, get a plenty of renown, and take away the fun from newbies – and I am willing to do this, as many others (who I’ve met and beat) simply it’s the most effective way to get a lot of renown – and games are faster there too!

15. Make a way to introduce unranked play, so I don’t fear trying out new tactics for sake of losing hard earned elo in a cookie cutter build.

franknarf
03-07-2013, 12:13 PM
@raven: I really like the idea of making long-run rankings aggregate up from tourney rankings! I feel like that would address the problem, and lead to a couple more interesting track-ables (# top-3 finishes, streak of placing in the top 3, ...). I'd keep the current long-run Elo alongside it, though, so that there's something to work towards outside of those 25 matches. It just won't be taken seriously as a true measure of skill (as Stoic will concede/has conceded that there's no way to stop it from being gamed).

Under this system, the match-resolution rewards might need to be tweaked. Would it still make sense to give less for friend matches? Or to give a reward for a win streak outside of the tourney?

By the way, I think the tourney system is broken insomuch as it's comes down to playing 25 perfect games against random players (as opposed to top players), but that's sort of a separate issue. And of course I want this: :)

3. Tournaments occurred at different unit ranks (once that comes in).

Arnie
03-07-2013, 02:01 PM
Good reads here.
In todays build we're going to make it mandatory to have a power of 6 to be ranked in Global Rankings. It gives new players a bit of time to relax and makes it worthless to hunt them for Elo.

Yellow
03-07-2013, 03:09 PM
Good reads here.
In todays build we're going to make it mandatory to have a power of 6 to be ranked in Global Rankings. It gives new players a bit of time to relax and makes it worthless to hunt them for Elo.

Hi Arnie am not sure if i understood right, if somebody is not using a power 6 team then the matches, will not count on the leaderboards? was that it?

scase
03-07-2013, 06:28 PM
Hi Arnie am not sure if i understood right, if somebody is not suing a power 6 team the matches they do will not count on the leaderboards? was that it?

Yes exactly that.

Two
03-07-2013, 08:41 PM
So, I was reading through the whole thread and I found it very interesting and enlightening. I have huge respect to developers that respect so much their community, so thumbs up Stoic for all the replies!

As you can tell, I am relevant new to the game, playing continuously for the past week and at about 50-60 matches. I do shared some of the concerns of OP but not in the exact same manner. I am not certain if this is the post to express them, but given the attention it has drawn I am hoping someone here will enlighten me (pardon me if this has already been discussed elsewhere).

So, I guess I have a couple of questions... meh here they are:

1.) How is Factions related to the actual SP? Will all of my time invested and progress be passed on to the SP mode?

2.) Is Factions even going to be related to the SP or will it be completely separate? So when the release is out and you start the game you will be asked if you want to play SP or MP (Multi-Player meaning Factions)?

3.) If they will not be connected in any way, will the support of Factions keep on after SP releases?

4.) If they will be, will the, what we call in other online games, "end game" be in SP or MP?

I believe these are enough questions for one post. Thank you in advance for any answer and your work is very much appreciated. I will close this post with an altered to fit the situation quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."

The good thing is we that care about games, appreciate the effort.

Cheers,
Two

EDIT: Typos / expressions.

RobertTheScott
03-07-2013, 10:12 PM
It's been said elsewhere, but I want to say it here.

It seems to me that non-tourney win-streaks and win-loss ratios, for the most part, are recognitions of the failure of the matchmaking system (or gamers' ability to game the system) rather than recognitions of skill. Now that I realize that, I worry less about that measure, which makes the game more fun.

raven2134
03-08-2013, 08:49 AM
1.) How is Factions related to the actual SP? Will all of my time invested and progress be passed on to the SP mode?

The games will be separated in this regard, I could be mistaken though. The connection between the two will be in terms of lore events (that effect the world both populate), and the units and some features since Factions is the testing ground for Saga. Also, a prologue portion of the narrative will be made available in Factions (which is why I am not sure how progress from this section will work).


2.) Is Factions even going to be related to the SP or will it be completely separate? So when the release is out and you start the game you will be asked if you want to play SP or MP (Multi-Player meaning Factions)?

The games are stand-alone for now, and John has mentioned in a post elsewhere that Non-DRM MP requires technology to be developed, such as an independent friends list and updater, before this is possible. I am not sure whether Factions will be accessible from the Saga, or if they will be kept separate in terms of packaging.


3.) If they will not be connected in any way, will the support of Factions keep on after SP releases?

This I am sure about, Stoic is planning to support Factions for a long time, and it will be a testing ground for the single player even after chapter 1 releases, because there are 2 more chapters forthcoming.


4.) If they will be, will the, what we call in other online games, "end game" be in SP or MP?

I do not know the answer to this, and I think this is related to the question of the thread which we are contemplating about too :)

Two
03-08-2013, 08:58 AM
Fair enough!

Thank you for the reply Raven! I am mostly covered, I will wait for the official updates for more details.

P.S: You can close a thread I made regarding the same questions, no need anymore.

raven2134
03-08-2013, 08:59 AM
Gotcha ;)