Factions, a retrospective


#1

I had a discussion with a lot of people who played factions, and since @youssefkh keeps putting off posting about it, I’m doing it :d

We all know the story of what happened (and if you don’t here you go’), but myself and many others I think were blinded by the events that all went down in the heat of the moment to really appreciate the effects it had on our community. The way it brought noobs and newer players up and to the forefront, people who don’t get a chance to play serious eras and let them go at it, especially in BAR and LAN. I think the leadership is what needs to be stronger, since in every faction there was activity and discussion, but morale was low (correct me if I’m wrong).

In my opinion it was a big success overall and it led to a lot of an overall sense of community afterwards (shout out to the big skype chat kaen made and the lovely conversation we have there)

I want a discussion about it though, so let me know what you guys think went wrong, what could be improved on. (Josh had a thread like this back last year, but I think its better now that were farther forward in time)

  • Factions si
  • Factions no

0 voters


#2

I think the issues in factions era were regarding people trying to win it not , because noobs were not learning which was the primary goal of the era. I do think that a lot of people got better from that era.


#3

in BD any event in general is successful because of eras usually being monotonous


#4

TL;DR at the bottom of my post.

A lot of this will be a repeat from earlier posts, nonetheless:

I think the Factions event had a lot of positives. Especially in our alliance we had a lot of newbies and relatively un-connected players that just needed a chance to prove themselves and to be able to learn from more experienced players. Given that we also had a good amount of experienced players that were active in chat and trying to organise these players, it worked out really well in our alliance. I think LAN might have been a similar experience, as I was saying to you on Skype I think Rania and Iceman, if nothing else, are both social players that really did their best to help players in their teams.

This was obviously not the case for STRK and FIRE, I think morale dropped too much there despite really having plenty of players that could have done well. The way to solve that… I am not sure of. That’s the thing about a random allocation, you never know who is going to end up where and who is going to take responsibility given that it’s a melting pot of players that have never played together before.

Really though, at the risk of repeating myself, I loved the players we had in BAR. They were mostly players I had never played with before, but we had such great spirit. No matter how experienced or inexperienced someone was, if they wanted to be active and help there was always online that was willing to coordinate with them, help out with any questions, and just generally make sure people were having a good time. Our morale was great, even though it felt like we were fighting against the tide due to FIRE having some big boosters (hi PLO, hi Will) that made it hard for us due to the obvious lack of income and having to fight 50 squad armies while we all had 7, lol.

I think something could be improved in that sense, by at least having SOME metal mines so that people have some income. I realise the risk of insanely big armies is there, but it’s a small risk and a few extra resource OPs wouldn’t make such a huge difference. It would also help because then newbies could lose their armies and still rebuild with a big army faster. Another point is that early on AI colonies got released and only boosters could really go for them because people were not yet in a team and to be able to guard your colony early on you really really needed to boost. I think it would be better to have everyone put into a team right away, and to start releasing AI colonies at tick 50 or so rather than tick 1 in this case (though I am unsure about this part).

The obvious biggest problem with the Factions era as it was conceived of last time was leadership of the BAR alliance. This could have been avoided in several ways:

  • Different leaders
  • More insight by the rebellious scum that took over leadership, due to official leadership not replying on Skype for days on a 3 ticker, that above mentioned leadership would kick, in which case said rebellious scum might have voted one of their rebellious scum leader first before their rebellious attack.

Joking aside, I think that if this hadn’t happened then, at least for the people in BAR, this would have been a perfect era. We would have gotten to fight LAN for better or worse (I think BAR would have won) meaning our alliance consisting of a lot of relative newbies and non-boosters would have had a great war to practice with, and the era would have ended on a relative high note due to a nice big war where everyone could try and show themselves.

Of course due to what happened it didn’t end on a high note and instead of leading to these positive outcomes, the negative outcome led to a significant amount of (old, returning) players leaving and a lot of bad blood.

TL;DR
I still believe the Factions event is a great idea. A chance for newbies to show themselves and to learn, a way of promoting the mindset of fighting your friends rather than always teaming up with them (or kicking for them :wink: ) and a way to help people that aren’t getting into alliances but are nonetheless decent players to talk to people outside their normal network and get into future teams. So despite the obvious negative end to the last Factions event, I think that with some simple tweaks - :

  • Leaders being unable to kick or large repercussions for leaders that do kick if this can’t be programmed in
  • Players being placed into teams right away
  • Slightly more resource OPs and slightly more spread out AI spawns so everyone has some income
  • Rewards being based on alliance rank, not (only) individual rank

Continuing… With these tweaks the next Factions event would be a great success, similarly great to the first one in the first few hundred ticks. I also think having more positive leaders would contribute given that this seems to have had a negative effect on especially STRK, but I am not sure this can be avoided and I think it is not a sufficient downside to not host a Factions event even if that aspect can’t be improved.


#5

To learn something new, you need to try new things and not be afraid to be wrong.


#6

i agree with you Arthas


#7

Just give every alliance an active leader atleast , even an active Ketan would do , but please an active leader who coordinates and plays the whole event even if all his team has quit.


#8

why do u have to mention someone :sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile:


#9

Biggest problem was finding leaders who WANTED to do it :sweat_smile: I probably reached out to every damn contact I had on my skype list who had any leadership experience (which is like, 100 people). And honestly, only 2 of them said yes. One was a last second replacement as 1 had fallen through last second due to irl issues, and the the other I ended up finding from a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend (not joking). So it’s not so much a lack of good potential leaders, it was a lack of good potential leaders who wanted to accept (As you remember Milly, you were one of the one’s who turned me down).

The 1st factions no doubt gave me a LOT of insight on things I failed to predict. Some things I honestly DID predict, but what I had stated was ignored or just no way of enforcing (no allying, no trading players, no spying, etc.).

We obviously had some ideas to potentially fix many of these issues, but ya know, hindsight is 20-20. And my hope would be to actually not have any official “leader”. Even for the 1st factions, my original hope was to have the admins be the heads of each faction and simply be a figure head. Thing about factions is, no 1 man can do everything for such a large group of people. It’s not reasonable. I knew that from the get-go. But many still put the world on the leader’s shoulders (and I also knew that would happen, which is why I was very honest about what being a leader would entail when I asked folks to do it).


#10

This is probably the biggest issue of creating a factions event.

Remember who were picked for being leader last factions?
Psi, Jazz, Rob, Darkflame.

I am not 100% sure what happen but Rob couldnt even start the era because of some issue so SirSkipwith replaced him. And DarkFlame ,The person who was picked to lead LAN(the team which won) didnt even lead or stabilize the team. The team was in chaos and even tho i didnt have time for the era i had to gather skypes from everyone and ask people to do this and that and make them take the era seriously , and so slowly Rania and Iceman took over diplomacy and war and eventually won the era.

I think the factions was primarily a test to see how well it goes, if it is to happen again there has to be a few changes before it becomes frustrating. (and factions was fucking amazing to play for the first few hundred ticks i was around, i can say that for sure)


#11

Finding 4 good leaders will always be the problem. Might aswell do 2 teams


#12

As I said, I’d rather not have any leaders tbh. Just stick a figure head there (such as admins) and then give more options to the players to create a more pseudo hierarchy within their respective teams. Shouldn’t be too hard to implement some changes that allow a change in roles. Cause for such a large group, the thing is, those who are good leaders will come to the limelight on their own. So i think it’d be better to just let those types shine on their own instead of just sticking the title of “leader” onto those few willing to accept it (especially when they will end up doing the work anyways once in the team).

But if/when the time comes, you can be sure we will have learned from the last factions and put many safeguards into place to help make it a more overall fun event.


#13

si :sunglasses::sunglasses:


#14

I mean that is a solution or increasing the power of leader ship making for example each leader have 3 sub leaders since arranging such massive teams is really hard


#15

I loved factions, (lol). While I didn’t fare to well, I think it was a lot of fun. My only suggestion is smaller teams if it ever happens again.

4 teams of 50+ is pretty unmanagable. This is made even more difficult when a majority of top talent lands in two teams.

With teams of 10-20 I think a factions event would be more fun and feasible!


#16

With those factions that had very poor starts and then were essentially bullied by better performing and boosting factions, motivation was lost very quickly. Especially when the other factions were able to quickly push towards your colonies. For new players, being conquered is severely demotivating or even seeing your allies around you be conquered.

So an idea I had was something of a safe zone. Instead of basing the victor on score, why not place an end goal to achieve in the middle of the map. Sort of like incorporating king of the hill with factions. 1-x relics/garrisons placed in the middle of the map. Factions grow within their specified zone and then have to push out towards the middle to win. This will allow A) colonies to be safe and B) if a faction is having major issues, a reliable way to pull back and gather up.

Now to make it so those alliances actively pushing towards the middle do have an advantage over those that just sit and build on their colonies, you could place limit res ops in the middle zone. So alliances that are fighting, are also earning more income to rebuild losses. It’s not a perfect idea at all and I am sure there can be many tweeks to it, but feel free to discuss.

Regarding the issue of leadership, that is something that is going to be hard to achieve. Many of the top players including myself refused leadership for whatever reason but you still had many decide to actively lead within their factions. Perhaps we need to look at taking the plunge and going for the role and not fearing it for w.e reason.


#17

I actually do love that idea. It could make the era much more playable for newbies


#18

Definitely a good idea G. And I did forget to mention, a lot of the changes discussed in the suggestions threads, I still had in mind for the next attempt. Like, when a team loses (leader is conquered) then the team is disbanded and dispersed between the others.

However, the idea of a new map that focuses on pursuing the middle ground is quite interesting. Especially if you make it so it’s exceedingly difficult to invade the main hive areas for the original teams. However, I feel that the map would have to be quite huge to make that a viable option. Otherwise, it’ll still be easy for teams to do what LAN did to STRK and just nuke them until they lost all hope.

And my idea for leadership would be that a figure head leader is chosen (ideal world for me would be admins are those figureheads) and then revamped minister roles that basically allow for leadership abilities (minus kicking) for those chosen. This would give teams multiple leaders essentially that could be chosen by the teams themselves (perhaps have it so a certain number of votes gives the roles, or could leave it to figurehead leader to assign based on who’s truly helping).


#19

This is what I got mostly sad about, I was finally hearing my oldest mates in the game have fun instead of them saying “Capo why do you still play BD”. As soon as that era ended only 2 out of those 10 have touched BD again


#20

I think this is a great idea, I know so many people turned down leading last time as Gaurav said because they didn’t want to have that sort of burden, even though essentially 3/4 leaders last time didn’t really do anything. People in general prefer a kind of leadership position within the team rather than having that orange flag