Jump to content
  • 2
Dunabar

[Factions][War Map][Meta Game] Suggestions to Improve the WW3 Meta Game - War Map

Question

Posted (edited)

Hey Guys

It's time to cover the WW3 War Map and this is going to be a fairly decent sized post, so I won't keep you reading this bla bla for long. This post is semi-tied in with my previous Meta game suggestion post (beyond both covering the WW3 Meta Game) where I covered the Factions in it. If you would like to read that before reading this, here is the link below.

Like always though-

If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with how things work currently with the War Map and Faction Territory.

----

Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive"

----

Content of this post

  • Section 1 - How the War Map currently works with Territory Control
  • Section 2 - Seasonal gameplay
  • Section 3 - Randomly Generated War Map
  • Section 4 - Frontlines & Momentum of War
  • Section 5 - Strategic Control Points, Operation Phases, & Operation Objectives
  • Section 6 - Meta Game Servers

----

Section 1 - How the War Map currently works with Territory Control

Currently the way a Faction takes over a territory is for players of the respective faction to donate Supplies into a Region, if their faction has the most supplies invested into a region, they control the region. Should the enemy faction control the region instead, they just donate supplies till they have contributed the most supplies in the region to take over control of it. It's as simple as that. While sweet & simple isn't always a bad thing, sometimes it leaves one wanting more, and in a Global Conflict so based around the two factions fighting each other in game. The WW3 Meta Game feels less like a Global Conflict and more like a bidding war in an Auction House in regards to claiming territory.

(Please note: I will cover Supplies in the next WW3 Meta Game suggestion post)

So, how can this be improved? Well, before I can offer suggestions to improve it, I need to cover one very important thing first which is the Seasonal Gameplay aspect that would very likely serve a critical role in the Meta Game.

----

Section 2 -  Seasonal Gameplay

Because the Developers want to offer seasonal rewards to the Faction that performs the best during the season (to my knowledge), I'm going to assume the Developers want the War Map to restart every 3 months. This is a very important element in the Meta Game that needs to be considered. Unfortunately however, I don't know how the Developers really want to approach this, plan to balance stuff around it, and what all they want directly involved in it. So, I'm going to keep things easy and assume that I'm correct on the War Map being restarted every 3 months roughly, and from here begin the actual suggestions to improve the War Map & General Meta Game starting with...

----

Section 3 - Randomly Generated War Map

At the start of the new season, have the starter territories of the two factions randomly generated for them with the War Map being divided up equally. This isn't anything hugely revolutionary by any means. But, this will in turn-

  • Keep the War Map largely feeling fresh as the Two Factions would always have different regions of the War Map under their control at the start of the new season.
  • It will allow for some speculation in story telling.  3 Examples of what I mean-
    • Will all of Poland join the West this season?
    • Will all of Poland join the East this season?
    • Will parts of Poland join the West and parts join the East this season?
  • The Players of the Two Factions will need to prioritize their Supplies carefully (Again: I will cover Supplies in the next WW3 Meta Game suggestion post)
  • The Developers do not have to worry about WW3 falling into the stereotypical NATO vs. Whoever matter as much, because modern NATO Nations could very well be randomized into a Faction that other NATO nations didn't get put into. So you could have Seasons where it might be the stereotypical match up, but it could also be say...U.S, Russia, China, & Japan vs. U.K, Germany, Poland, & Korea or whatever future combinations, which means Nations are only cemented into a Faction for that season rather than permanently through whatever lore of the game.
  • Nobody gets made out to be the aggressor ("Bad guy") because the story always changes with the new season and it's never revealed who fired the first shot to kick the third World War into gear.

I personally wouldn't mind more concrete Alliances. But, I know the Developers really want to avoid modern Politics and obviously they get the final say as they're actually working on the game. I'm just a person randomly offering ideas on the internet for free. With that out of the way, lets move on to the next part

----

Section 4 - Frontlines & Momentum of War

To add a realistic touch to the WW3 Meta Game, I suggest adding Frontlines & Momentum of War to the Meta Game.

Frontlines are war fronts that are automatically established at the start of the new Meta Game Season between territories controlled by the Factions like so-

Frontlines.png.626cb68967944d725a4c84d0fb2b8ced.png

The West controls Warsaw and the East controls Smolensk at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline in the picture above.

If a Faction controlled Territory doesn't border a Territory belonging to the opposing faction, then no Frontline is established there, and ideally there would be multiple Frontlines across the Theaters of War. These Frontlines will also move as Territory is gained or lost throughout the season. But, when Frontlines are established at the start of the new season, one Faction will also randomly generate Momentum of War at the Frontlines like so-

Momentum2.png.21ce479e7ab2c21e98301e0c9cbb0f07.png

The West currently has the Momentum of War at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline and the East is currently on the Defensive in the picture above.

The Momentum of War dictates which Faction is Attacking and which Faction is Defending at the Frontlines across the War Map. Wherever the Momentum of War is currently leading is where the fighting is currently taking place between the Factions (IE: What map is in rotation.) If the Faction with the Momentum of War on their side manages to secure the territory they're attacking, one or more new frontlines will be opened up (So if the West in the picture above captured Smolensk, the Frontline of Smolensk-Moscow would be opened up), and the Faction will continue to maintain the Momentum of War. Should the Faction with the Momentum of War on their side fail to secure a territory at any point, the Momentum of War will then shift to the opposing Faction like so-

Momentum.png.8bc602dfad09dd078630ad519fb67234.png

The Momentum of War shifts to the East and now the West is on the defensive in Warsaw at the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline.

If a Faction with the Momentum of War takes control of a Territory with multiple Frontlines, the Faction would have two different Momentum of War at their disposal (IE: Wage a two front war in that general area of the War Map.) Should the controlling Faction of that Territory however, lose control of it, then all the Frontlines will be closed by a Forced Retreat. So lets say as an example...

  • The West controlling Smolensk meant they would be able to launch attacks into the Smolensk-Polyarny front and the Smolensk-Moscow front (I know that makes no sense, just ride the crazy example train with me.) Thus the West would have the Momentum of War on both Fronts. However, should the West fail to capture lets say...Polyarny and lost control of Smolensk before they could fail or succeed at capturing Moscow, then all their successes in Moscow will be wiped away, and both the Smolensk-Polyarny & Smolensk-Moscow Frontlines would be closed with the Warsaw-Smolensk Frontline opening back up.
    • How does this effect games of Moscow/Smolensk being played if the West was put into a Forced Retreat?
      • Even if all the West Teams on Moscow & Smolensk won after the Forced Retreat, their victories/scores/etc would not count for anything towards the Meta Game (they should ideally still get their Money, Supplies, & Experience though) If the West was not forced to retreat however, then their victories/scores/etc would all count.

But of course, how does a Faction secure victory in a territory be it on Defense or Offense to begin with?..

----

Section 5 - Strategic Control Points, Operation Phases, and Operation Objectives

Every territory has 3 (or more) Strategic Control Points on offer with the Defending Faction owning all 3 (or more...) Strategic Control Points. The Attacking team will need to complete 3 (or more...) Operation Phases to obtain all the Strategic Control Points. To complete just 1 Operation Phase though, they must complete all the Operation Objectives in that Operation Phase to move on to the next Operation Phase. Each Operation Phase however, requires Players to take part in different game modes with each Operation Objective being related to those Game Modes. Example-

  • Operation Phase 1 - Recon
    • Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Recon (Insert territory here)
      • Success = 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory
      • Failure = Loss of the Momentum of War on this Frontline
  • Operation Phase 2 - Team Deathmatch & Warzone
    • Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Team Deathmatch (Insert territory here)
    • Achieve X amount of Faction Score Points in Warzone (Insert territory here)
      • Success = 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory
      • Failure = Loss of 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory
  • Operation Phase 3 - Breakthrough
    • Achieve X amount of Faction Victories in Breakthrough (Insert territory here)
      • Success = Capture (Insert Territory name here) and open the (insert Frontline(s) name(s) here)
      • Failure = Loss of 1 Strategic Control Point in that Territory

All the Operation Objectives can vary depending on multiple scenarios and of course whatever the Developers feel is the best call. If say for example...One Faction has a larger amount of players than the other Faction, then maybe the smaller Faction has to achieve less to be successful in the territories for a time till their Faction is populated enough. While this isn't exactly realistic sort of speak, it would at least give that smaller Faction more of a fighting chance than getting completely demolished by the larger Faction.

Now I just have one last thing to cover before ending this post and that is...

----

Section 6 - Meta Game Servers

In the chance that the Developers implement these suggestion (which I don't expect them to and even if they did I wouldn't expect to see them for quite awhile. IE: Well after Early Access.) I would suggest dedicating some servers to the WW3 Meta Game and some servers for just regular non-Meta Game related gameplay if it's possible.

The reason for this is simply because some Players likely wouldn't be interested in the WW3 Meta Game. Maybe they find it too stressful, maybe they just want to play whatever game mode they want whenever they want on whatever map they want, don't want to deal with the chance that their victory achieved nothing for their Faction in the Meta Game because of their Faction lost a key territory, or some other entirely different reason that I haven't posted. Whatever their reason may be, if they don't want to take part in the WW3 Meta game or have it impact their day-to-day WW3 gameplay in any shape or form. I would like for them to have that option to opt out of the WW3 Meta Game entirely from top to bottom.

In the end though these are just suggestions and like any suggestions I make; the Developers can do whatever they see fit to do with them. I just make the suggestion posts.  With Section 6 now at a end, lets wrap this whole post up...

----

 I know this post was a lot longer than my Factions post and that was mainly because there was a lot more tied in with the War Map than the Factions. This post actually would have been shorter, but I restarted it to include the Frontlines & Momentum of War in the suggestion planning. I was originally going to suggest Factions be able to attack any opposing faction region they wanted at any time. But, that really, really sounded dumb to me personally, and given that it's my suggestion post I figured I would just go whole Hog on it. Till the next Meta Game suggestion post however...

Have a good one folks!

PS: I'm pretty sure I covered all the needed bases on the War Map, I may be wrong of course as I was burning the late night oil once again. I will edit the post later in the event that I missed something or didn't cover something well enough in the first go.

PSS: Before anyone says anything I will say it again - I will cover Supplies in the next post.

Edited by Dunabar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I'm getting the gist of what you're suggesting here as it isn't 100% clear. I do like randomised factions. As we saw early on the game had to be changed so teams weren't tied to faction and metagame is based of individual scores. I agree the idea of resources being the sole decider of territory control is silly.

I do think the resource based boosters should remain however, including extra 10% ammunition and so on. These are fun.

In the end as long as winning and losing battles has some bearing on this it will be worthwhile and enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, nubbits said:

I do think the resource based boosters should remain however, including extra 10% ammunition and so on. These are fun.

I have a reason I didn't post those and it's tied in with the Resources coming in the next post. ;)

3 hours ago, nubbits said:

In the end as long as winning and losing battles has some bearing on this it will be worthwhile and enjoyable.

Yup, otherwise the Meta Game just feels like something that has been tacked onto the game rather than being built into it. I'm sure some of this might not be fun for People, but different strokes for different folks as they say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...