IIIlusionist [253384] —
Original article
In the second piece of our article trilogy concerning the ongoing Faction 2.0 Beta testing, today we are looking at the punitive aspects of Faction Warring - specifically how much it will cost in cash, and what it requires in terms of energy
The points target system means that wars, regardless of other factors, will last a minimum period of one day. This is the time it will take to reach 1,000,000 points with ten people involved, and it seems this will go some way towards limiting the advantage gained from surprise declarations, as the defending faction are now able to enter into the war without having to wait for leaders to declare filler factions.
But will this mean the end of our beloved war chaining? Perhaps, but on the other hand, might the points system also introduce a maximum duration a war can last? Could we see competitive wars where players are continuously joining the hill and attacking each other limited to a couple of days?
Before the Beta many players called for longer wars, and to an extent this does fulfil their wishes. However, those hoping for week or month-long conflicts - a popular feature of Torn's early years - may have to instead look outside of the territory system to satiate their desire for more prolonged action. Territory warfare is clearly intended to be the primary system of war, but with other systems reportedly in the pipeline, there may well be plenty of alternative ways to do a faction some damage, or there could end up being none.
Returning to our discussion of territory warfare, it is thought unlikely that all sectors will impose a 1,000,000 points target. Far more plausible is the idea that the points required will increase the closer to the centre a faction fights. This leads us to the intriguing possibility that central territories may require a long and hard tussle to tear away from their defendants, ultimately leading to more massive and lengthy battles; battles which will require the development of new tactics, alliances and maybe even some foul play to emerge as victor.
In the forums Chedburn [1] mentioned that he wanted wars to be costly and brutal affairs in terms of energy, time and finances. However, one concern that has cropped up quite often is the cost of joining the hill, which currently stands at 25 energy. With the myriad of ways someone can be booted off the hill, clearly a huge amount of energy could be spent clicking the "Join the defend" button to keep the hill maxed out and the points mounting. This of course could be alleviated by lowering the cost of joining the hill or replacing it with a nerve penalty, but whether this will happen is not yet known.
So what of the financial costs regarding Faction 2.0 Wars? Well, how a war is financed varies greatly from faction to faction, with some leaders supplying everything including Xanax, points or FHC coupons, and others placing the burden upon their faction members.
Will factions and members spend more money for less respect, or is there now even more to be gained by waging mass conflict against your rival factions? Either way, respect will be gained daily so wars for territory will be a long-term, unstable investments - ones which factions must protect or risk having snatched away; and with the energy cost of wars looking likely to increase, overall more money may be needed to stay competitive, meaning both leaders and individual members might need to put their hands in their pockets.
Along with money, the impacts of stats on Faction Wars 2.0 are also being evaluated. At present it can be argued that a faction with weaker members can win wars by out-chaining factions with stronger members. Of course, bigger stats and deeper cash reserves will always give you an edge, but will this advantage become even greater, or will it stay the same? It is not hard to see the monster players being able to sit comfortably on the hill, kicking the opposing faction off without breaking a sweat.
Regardless of what it costs to begin a war, the fact that hospitalization or jailing removes players from the hill means that bounties and alliances could make winning them even more expensive, with your relationships with other factions proving crucial throughout the conflict. This would certainly prove an interesting addition to the game, but on the flip side, what is stopping Torn's traditional power houses from joining forces, causing all sorts of problems for other less-established factions? We may well see a warring scene where declaring a single faction means declaring war on said faction plus a couple of their allies. An interesting concept, but will this lead us down the path of "termed wars" again? Where wars are discussed before they are fought in an effort to get a straight 1 vs 1 without factions calling in monster players to fight their battles.
Perhaps more of concern is the fact that weaker players may be limited to roles which are potentially less exciting and action packed, due to their inability to beat the majority of opponents in a one-on-one attack. This raises the possibility that many of Torn's newer members will spend much of their time reviving faction-mates or acting as tactical distraction fodder, with the experienced players getting stuck in to the interesting stuff as the low-level grunts are smacked around by the enemy, at least till they grow some muscle.
War is expensive, brutal and unfair, but will making war so unforgiving in a game make for a challenging and enjoyable game, or a frustrating and wearisome experience that players have little time for.
The points target system means that wars, regardless of other factors, will last a minimum period of one day. This is the time it will take to reach 1,000,000 points with ten people involved, and it seems this will go some way towards limiting the advantage gained from surprise declarations, as the defending faction are now able to enter into the war without having to wait for leaders to declare filler factions.
But will this mean the end of our beloved war chaining? Perhaps, but on the other hand, might the points system also introduce a maximum duration a war can last? Could we see competitive wars where players are continuously joining the hill and attacking each other limited to a couple of days?
Before the Beta many players called for longer wars, and to an extent this does fulfil their wishes. However, those hoping for week or month-long conflicts - a popular feature of Torn's early years - may have to instead look outside of the territory system to satiate their desire for more prolonged action. Territory warfare is clearly intended to be the primary system of war, but with other systems reportedly in the pipeline, there may well be plenty of alternative ways to do a faction some damage, or there could end up being none.
Returning to our discussion of territory warfare, it is thought unlikely that all sectors will impose a 1,000,000 points target. Far more plausible is the idea that the points required will increase the closer to the centre a faction fights. This leads us to the intriguing possibility that central territories may require a long and hard tussle to tear away from their defendants, ultimately leading to more massive and lengthy battles; battles which will require the development of new tactics, alliances and maybe even some foul play to emerge as victor.
In the forums Chedburn [1] mentioned that he wanted wars to be costly and brutal affairs in terms of energy, time and finances. However, one concern that has cropped up quite often is the cost of joining the hill, which currently stands at 25 energy. With the myriad of ways someone can be booted off the hill, clearly a huge amount of energy could be spent clicking the "Join the defend" button to keep the hill maxed out and the points mounting. This of course could be alleviated by lowering the cost of joining the hill or replacing it with a nerve penalty, but whether this will happen is not yet known.
So what of the financial costs regarding Faction 2.0 Wars? Well, how a war is financed varies greatly from faction to faction, with some leaders supplying everything including Xanax, points or FHC coupons, and others placing the burden upon their faction members.
Will factions and members spend more money for less respect, or is there now even more to be gained by waging mass conflict against your rival factions? Either way, respect will be gained daily so wars for territory will be a long-term, unstable investments - ones which factions must protect or risk having snatched away; and with the energy cost of wars looking likely to increase, overall more money may be needed to stay competitive, meaning both leaders and individual members might need to put their hands in their pockets.
Along with money, the impacts of stats on Faction Wars 2.0 are also being evaluated. At present it can be argued that a faction with weaker members can win wars by out-chaining factions with stronger members. Of course, bigger stats and deeper cash reserves will always give you an edge, but will this advantage become even greater, or will it stay the same? It is not hard to see the monster players being able to sit comfortably on the hill, kicking the opposing faction off without breaking a sweat.
Regardless of what it costs to begin a war, the fact that hospitalization or jailing removes players from the hill means that bounties and alliances could make winning them even more expensive, with your relationships with other factions proving crucial throughout the conflict. This would certainly prove an interesting addition to the game, but on the flip side, what is stopping Torn's traditional power houses from joining forces, causing all sorts of problems for other less-established factions? We may well see a warring scene where declaring a single faction means declaring war on said faction plus a couple of their allies. An interesting concept, but will this lead us down the path of "termed wars" again? Where wars are discussed before they are fought in an effort to get a straight 1 vs 1 without factions calling in monster players to fight their battles.
Perhaps more of concern is the fact that weaker players may be limited to roles which are potentially less exciting and action packed, due to their inability to beat the majority of opponents in a one-on-one attack. This raises the possibility that many of Torn's newer members will spend much of their time reviving faction-mates or acting as tactical distraction fodder, with the experienced players getting stuck in to the interesting stuff as the low-level grunts are smacked around by the enemy, at least till they grow some muscle.
War is expensive, brutal and unfair, but will making war so unforgiving in a game make for a challenging and enjoyable game, or a frustrating and wearisome experience that players have little time for.
Original article
Comments
Post a Comment