The way I figured alliance would work is "Hey! We're allied with those freaks so you don't get much reward for killing them so it's not worth it in the long run. But you don't get major penalties either." Factions all want the same thing and that's not just territories but also their campaign objectives, which will be tailored for factions as well as their population size being considered. So buddy up with one other where it met their needs/ceasefire order toward achieving these objectives. Would factions know the others factions campaign objectives? I'd say only if it was openly told or if there's some way like a War Council thing to discover it. Basic example being like a check intent roll in TTRPGs (Sub-Factions with better means to spy/farsight have a bonus to such things? ex. Ulthwe and Alpha Legion). I can't see it really working that way in the smaller match settings. Open world or even bigger territories with bigger player count it could be interesting with sides negotiating terms/ignoring each other even if only until opportunity to get what they want arises. Maybe a different faction controlling territory would be in the interest of another faction. Such as Eldar wanting Orks to act as a buffer between their stuff they want to keep and the other factions in exchange they help Orks get an artillery piece with their promise to not use it on them <suspicions intensify>. Would it be entirely player/War Council choice or regulated by a system with player/War Council choice? Remains for the future to tell. Even with that it's also confusing though. I can't see these happening (They want to destroy each other). CSM+LSM CSM+Eldar I can loosely see these happening in tolerating each other via "enemy of my enemy is my friend (for now)" LSM+Eldar - "Light" side CSM+Orks - "Dark" side Very loosely I can see Eldar+Orks - Actively fighting together not really but an agreement as I said above maybe. LSM+Orks - Because the Ork faction leader HAS SEVERAL SPACE WOLF TROPHIES. So that would mean SW won't ally with them and any other Chapter allying with them would be a F***you to the SW and draw their ire. Wtf. Personally if my faction decides to ally then okay I'll run with it because game. But also because game I'll never let my guard down around them or want to mingle with them or them with us. Nor would I say "Hey stop that they're our allies" if I see friendlies attack them. Though... I can't resist a good jump party. Tyranids are classed as an enemy to all and want to nomnom all so of course they won't join sides. Think of the AI enemies in a match in Turok (2008). They don't choose sides and they attack anyone and everyone. I never got the sense the nids will really be a faction vying for control of the continent as they don't get benefits from territory other than it being theirs. Or maybe it doesn't even become theirs just becomes neutral ground with something like "This place crawls" tagged onto it to indicate that Tyranids have appeared/overrun it. Their presence decaps it but them being nids don't care to capture it just occupy it. In short they're essentially a wrench thrown in the gears of player faction war machines. Would Tyranids showing up force a "desperate allies" rule on factions involved in the fight? Off-topic: Maybe the nids can actually get more powerful if they somehow swarm bunches of territories/defeat players in PvE instances. Since to for them to win would be to nomnom and with great nomnom comes great devouring. ----- You say alliances in lore often last as long as a campaign so it's not far-fetched. Then you say an alliance lasting as long as a campaign is wrong because of lore. I somehow get the feeling Games Workshop is to blame for my confusion right now.
I think some of our differences are just in the semantics. A "match" is a "match", whether you refer to the Founders Access single control point version or the stretch goal version with multiple control points. A lot is going to depend on how control is allocated. But for what it's worth, I agree with you that once there are 3+ control points in a map, the logic of a fixed attacking and defending side makes less sense if all four factions are trying to get involved. However, there still need to be controls on population and population balancing within the "match", so it's not as simple as just making it open world in the same way as PS2 (IMO). Delaying release is a commercial decision; sooner or later, it needs to bring in money and not just absorb investment. In this case, it's worth bearing in mind EC is already delayed compared to Behaviour's original timeline. So I don't necessarily agree with you that we should focus feedback primarily stretch goals - these were pegged as being 6+ months after planned launch! However, there are merits to considering the different journey stages in any case, so it's no biggie. As for expanding the continent, this is (I assume) because the tech limitations affect the number of people in one place more than the total number of people in all places. So having multiple places isn't a huge problem compared to fewer places with hundreds and hundreds of people fighting in a confined area - if anything, it actually helps. Evolving from heavily instanced to less heavily instanced to full open world will be a ballache, but Behaviour have already indicated this is the best of a series of not great options in terms of gameplay when the tech didn't live up to expectations, plus being easier to expand from than other alternatives they'd considered.
Regarding the "matches"... In the Twitch shows, it is obvious that the overriding boundary for a match is time, meaning attackers are only given so much "time" to conquer the objective. Is that going to be the case going forward? I realize they need some mechanic during alpha testing to determine a match length, but that doesn't mean that "time" needs to be the limiting factor going forward. What if a mechanic of "resources" was used instead of "time". Meaning, you were only allotted a fixed amount of "spawn points" per match and once those were gone, it was basically a war of attrition (you fight until you're all dead). Now those "spawn points" could be spent on everything from vehicles and special classes to respawning dead troops. And BOTH sides would have their own pool of "spawn points" to draw from. And there should be a caveat that if you raise a downed ally, it does not consume a "spawn point". I think that system would allow for more organic battles that feel like a true victory/defeat since the loosing side was literally obliterated, rather than going "Whew! We survived a 10 minute timer! We win!" Plus, I think it would help the 3+ faction battle scenario, if it should ever come to be. Again, because the battle would be driven by appropriate usage of resources rather than throwing everything you have at something before a timer runs out. Has this been discussed before? (Should I move the question to its own thread)?
I think we are going about this the wrong way. Obviously we are getting instanced arena matches so why not just embrace it for what it is. Build the maps so they arent too big for 32vs32. Dont worry about all of the open world tie in stuff its not going to happen. 32 vs 32 means we also dont have to worry about implementing some weird alliance system. 32 vs 32 means all the extra council stuff can just be scratched off the board saving BI even more money. Plus with 32vs 32 you dont have to build 120 maps. Battlefield4 launched with like 8 maps? So give us 8 maps and then they can sell us DLC maps later on or maybe even a season pass so we can get all the DLC for just one price. Instead of some hybrid wannabe openworld system just go full force the way you are going and make the best instanced arena shooter that you can. I would still play it.
Timestamp Link is to their Youtube Channel video. Q: [27:15] Is there any deadline for the attacker to capture strongholds? A: The attackers will have a time while the defenders have a lives. We are looking into having a "repair event" for the strongholds. - in Twitch Episode Summaries - Warp Echoes episode #4.
The problem with giving the attackers infinite time is that they could, in principle, decide not to attack. If they lurk near their spawn point, it forces the defenders to sit around twiddling their thumbs for no gain or, bizarrely, have to attack the attackers' spawn point to try to end the match. Less extreme issues are that it encourages careful sniping and discourages riskier assaults, and that spawning more expensive classes/vehicles and/or dying risks attracting criticism from your team mates. There's a nice concept there, but it'd have to be implemented and tested carefully for unintended consequences. Potentially, though, you could implement multiple simultaneous victory/defeat conditions; Key objective: If the attacker takes and holds the primary control point, the attacker wins Domination: If the attacker holds all secondary control points for 3 minutes, the attacker wins* Attrition: If either one side's resource counter is brought to 0, it triggers a 30s countdown to defeat** Time: If time expires, defenders automatically win (default) *ie, Defenders are not able to camp one critical location with their entire force **So you don't have to play "hunt the last remaining stealth class" for 10 minutes.
My initial reaction was: ANGRY MARINES!!!! However, more than 1 on 1 sounds like it'd be hard to make fun. Tabletop games involving free for all tend to make whoever gets knocked out first pretty angry (Risk being a great example). I've not played anything like that in a shooter variant, but I'd imagine that it'd lead to me rage quitting after I got zerged by another faction after engaging with the intended target one too many times. Until there's a plan to somehow make more-than-2-faction battles fun, I'd prefer things to stay 1 on 1. I don't think just making everything open world would solve that proeblm for the reasons Kanthric mentioned.
