Maybe they can lock the Faction that is winning, so they can only switch to factions that are not. This way more will join let say, orks, an wam!, Orks are winning, not because they already did, but because more players choose one faction that was lossing and decidet to want to win with it PS: Lets expand my idea. This lock of the winnig faction will only affect thoes who already did lock in into other factions. So if you are comming home and always play Eldar, which are winning, you can! But if you come home, play as a Chaos, see the Eldar are winning, you cannot join the Eldar, but other factions. Thill the Conquest is over. Or wait some time.
Thats a really good idea. It keeps the VD from spreading to the winning faction but limits the factions involved in the lock. I can support this.
Could be an interesting way to use a lock but it would be jumping around as the "winner" emerges and that just means 2nd place faction that is closest to the win may gain the "VD" players causing a shift to lock that faction. Would have to also determine how far out do you determine which faction is winning to warrant a lock. If its too soon, players logging in midway through the battle wouldn't be able to play their main faction just because they weren't there from the start of a "mission". This will still also cause the last place faction to get evac'd quick as players jumpship to another faction to "not lose" or get farmed too hardcore. People go the distance when it comes to not only winning, but also when it comes down to not "losing". This is a new phenom for multi-faction gameplay I've seen in GW2 and PS2, communities aren't built like how they used to be lol.
I might support this? I'm not entirely sure. I don't want to keep people who are just logging in from being able to select their faction of choice, but I would want to stop people from switching for VD. I'm actually not against populations shifting, just the VD shimmy. EDIT: Sorry, krage, you snuck your reply in just before I did. See, that's kind of why I'd support just a straight lock for a reasonable* duration. If you're switching simply to "not lose," in my eyes you're still VD. Maybe I'm a bit of an extremist, but nothing frosts my ass more than swapping out simply because you want to win/don't want to lose. *What's reasonable and still functional, I can't even begin to guess.
If you are just logging in you should be able to choose any race that you want regardless of population. If I cant log into my favorite faction after a long day of work I would get pissed off.
Just require an hour offline (if ineffective, increase this amount) to be able to switch faction. Too much to be worth waiting out for switching out because of a battle, not so much a problem for playing together with friends and certainly not a problem if you only play in the evening after work. I am not sure, but seeing as not every race will have the same campaign goals, wouldn't it be a bit hard to find out reliably who is winning at any point in time? If this is possible though, then by all means, this warrants testing. Well, first, I thought tyranids would only balance out large territory possession, not necessarily large population. Even if they do punish overpop, if left alone their only effect will be to destroy supply lines, which probably has quite a delay in getting noticed, so the wavestomp would probably continue for some time until they notice that something happened. Our goal is to prevent waves like this, not punish them after the fact.
There can still be big farm battles between two losing sides. Example races. Orks and Chaos (both of them are low pop factions and aren't winning the game). Orks are farming Chaos in some big battle like corn field. Chaos guys are tired of being farmed and join to Orks because he can get easy exp and wants to gear his alt. Problem still exists. I'm still supporting timed FL.
about the tyranids, miguel said that we will notice the missing terretorys. Maybe if they are not conectet aynmore, we can not spawn that fast, or get ammunition and vehicels
It's not the case. Look, Friendly Fire has the same amount of opponents as FL, still the devs are 100% sure to implement this. Funny, these two issues are strongly related, if FF is in FL is a neccessity too.
