Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Stoic,what is the purpose of factions for the players?

  1. #21
    Superbacker quartex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    169
    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)

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnie View Post
    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!

  3. #23
    Junior Member BJSV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Lol city building. Nice.

  4. #24
    Backer Conundrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by tnankie View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    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 ".
    Last edited by piotras; 03-07-2013 at 08:29 AM.

  6. #26
    @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.

  7. #27
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    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?

  8. #28
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by piotras; 03-07-2013 at 11:24 AM.

  9. #29
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    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.

  10. #30
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by piotras; 03-07-2013 at 11:55 AM.

  11. #31
    @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).

  12.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #32
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    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.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnie View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Yellow; 03-07-2013 at 06:33 PM.

  14. #34
    Junior Member scase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    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.

  15. #35
    Junior Member Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9
    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.
    Last edited by Two; 03-07-2013 at 08:44 PM.

  16. #36
    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.

  17. #37
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    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

  18. #38
    Junior Member Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9
    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.

  19. #39
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Gotcha

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •