Jump to content


Was this Campaign even worth it? My opinions pls comment

campaign fail 30days

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
94 replies to this topic

richblaster #1 Posted 11 December 2014 - 09:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 12140 battles
  • 974
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    04-19-2012

Arf.

 

I thought about making a thread for quite some time now, and I think its necessary to point something out, of course its only my opinion, and you are welcome to comment on that anyway.

 

Not only did WG manage to [edited]up this Campaign with starting Golden League EXACTLY the date the Campaign started. 

No, they also managed to start Silver league EXACTLY the day the 3rd (and most important stage, we will come to that later on) Stage started. Why not one week later? Too hard to look at the calendar and make sure thing dont overlap too much? Its not that hard, or should not be for a company that big, if its worth the name.

 

On top of those, we had 2 days where the map was broken, riots/landings popping everywhere, when we were first being told: "it`s not a bug, its a feature", then ofc it became obvious it WAS a bug, which happened not only once, but at least 2 times. Ok, CW/Campaign is Beta yes, we know that already.

 

Communication was also terribad. People asking questions here in the Campaign section, answers coming very very slow or not at all often (not always tho!)

 

Now lets get to the stages. Its my opinion that G-factor is retarded if it works as this pic suggests (it seems to):

 

This leads to just hord provinces as much as you can, as for example rsop (uliuli) with the 8 provinces they have, cannot have lower multi then 3.03 for every battle on the map.  

 

Dont get me wrong, I am not whining here as I, and most of my fellow clanners have the tank save, but its just [edited]giving the 3rd stage such a big multiplicator, but only telling people that stuff like how much in advance? 2 days? Suddenly, all the people (mostly from small clans i guess) thinking they might be safe playing the crapout of stages 1/2 having collected lets say 60-70k fame are not safe at all, because suddenly wins on the map count a LOT more, and the points from stages 1/2 are worthless.

 

On top, I feel that a campaign lasting for 30 days is really hardcore stuff. We are a non-CW-non-Obligations clan, and i feel we did VERY well so far, and i am pround S3AL, and wanna say thanks to all officers, FCs, and players, many people invested a LOT of time in this, and in the end all this for ONE Pixel tank. Worth it? I really dont know at the moment...what do you think?

 

I am pretty sure i forgot some stuff, feel free to add your opinions, as i am interested how others feel about that.

 

cheers

 

Rich


Edited by richblaster, 11 December 2014 - 09:22 AM.


Gharirey #2 Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:17 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33777 battles
  • 265
  • Member since:
    07-02-2012

I agree with your criticism. But every single campaign has had its flaws and WG screw-ups so far. At least there are some improvements: for example WG is getting better at providing incentives for the good clans to fight each other (citadels in stage 2 and now the G-multiplier).

 

That said there is a lot that I didn't like:

  • Stage 1 was irrelevant in retrospective. The leading clans grabbed ~200% more FP in stage 2 than in stage 1 thanks to extra FP from the citadels. I expect similar numbers from stage 3 due to the G-multiplier. So why play stage 1 at all? Since it hardly influenced the final results, it was little more than a waste of time. Besides, a 20-days campaign would have been just fine.
  • Tier VI is more unsuited for organized play than ever. This tier has horrible balance issues. It used to be the op-ness of KV-1s and Hellcat that created a boring meta but with the introduction of the T37 things have gotten a lot worse. It wasn't unusual to see lineups with over a dozen T37 during stage 1! A tier dominated by a single tank to such a degree should not be used for organized play! The current tier VI CW-meta is retarded: autoaim and pew-pew! Armour is practically irrelevant (there are exactly 2 tanks which stand a chance to provide more than the occasional troll bounce: T-150 and stock Jumbo Sherman). Just dump tier VI already!
  • Stage 2 suffered from the randomness of citadels. If one popped up upon your provinces you got mapped and had to rebuild. That mechanism was very much like a lottery and therefore a bad design choice.
  • 2 days into stage 3, the G-multiplier has already proven its ridiculousness. It's nice for strong clans since it allows them to get players into the top 11000 with ease but I am sorry for the small clans who worked hard during stage 1 and 2 and now get screwed over. This will cause a lot of tears and frustration amongst their players. Remember how FP from missions were awarded only after the end of the 2nd campaign? The tears that issue caused will be nothing in comparison to the crying the G-multiplier will trigger.

 

But in spite of these flaws, I still enjoy campaigns a lot. It's more intense and provides overall objectives that normal cw so badly lacks. It's a lot more fun to play for a place in a ranking and a tank than for a bit of gold. There is no boring farming instead all clans fight hard. And in the end, the winning clans can deservedly brag. Nobody remembers how much provinces clan X held a month ago but I still know who won the last campaign and the one before that. I also remember which clans exceeded my expectations (like STRNG did during stage 1).


Edited by Gharirey, 11 December 2014 - 10:26 AM.


richblaster #3 Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:35 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 12140 battles
  • 974
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    04-19-2012

View PostGharirey, on 11 December 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I agree with your criticism. But every single campaign has had its flaws and WG screw-ups so far. At least there are some improvements: for example WG is getting better at providing incentives for the good clans to fight each other (citadels in stage 2 and now the G-multiplier).

Ok you are right in that tbh.

That said there is a lot that I didn't like:

  • Stage 1 was irrelevant in retrospective. The leading clans grabbed ~200% more FP in stage 2 than in stage 1 thanks to extra FP from the citadels. I expect similar numbers from stage 3 due to the G-multiplier. So why play stage 1 at all? Since it hardly influenced the final results, it was little more than a waste of time. Besides, a 20-days campaign would have been just fine.

           Well, tbh i give a damn about the clan ranking, i am only interested in getting the tank to as many of my fellow s3als as possible. That worked out pretty well so far.

  • Tier VI is more unsuited for organized play than ever. This tier has horrible balance issues. It used to be the op-ness of KV-1s and Hellcat that created a boring meta but with the introduction of the T37 things have gotten a lot worse. It wasn't unusual to see lineups with over a dozen T37 during stage 1! A tier dominated by a single tank to such a degree should not be used for organized play! The current tier VI CW-meta is retarded: autoaim and pew-pew! Armour is practically irrelevant (there are exactly 2 tanks which stand a chance to provide more than the occasional troll bounce: T-150 and stock Jumbo Sherman). Just dump tier VI already!

            Actually we saw several 15 t37 lineups on prokho xD I agree with you 100% here, the t6 light tanks are stupidly OP in t6-only battles. That should be changed somehow. They are also OP in skirmish, but are balanced by the fact they have neither armor nor hp, which means bad players will not be playing well in them.

  • Stage 2 suffered from the randomness of citadels. If one popped up upon your provinces you got mapped and had to rebuild. That mechanism was very much like a lottery and therefore a bad design choice.

           We got rekt by them once completely and the second time almost completely, Stupid move really really stupid to put those into the game. Again we were not interested in them as they gave no more playerfame than battles for normal provinces.

  • 2 days into stage 3, the G-multiplier has already proven its ridiculousness. It's nice for strong clans since it allows them to get players into the top 11000 with ease but I am sorry for the small clans who worked hard during stage 1 and 2 and now get screwed over. This will cause a lot of tears and frustration amongst their players. Remember how FP from missions were awarded only after the end of the 2nd campaign? The tears that issue caused will be nothing in comparison to the crying the G-multiplier will trigger.

             Exactly. Its really retarded that no one knew this in advance. I dont see a problem in giving out the rulez a bit before, but hey its WG so i didnt really expect it otherway.

 



knightM #4 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:12 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46340 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

The main problem (as with previous 2 campaigns) is that rules for stages 2 and 3 are first published 2-3 days before the stage starts and not all together at the start of the campaign. This makes any long-term planning very hard.

 

I do not believe these are made first after the campaign starts, due to all the logistics and translations between servers as well as implementation I am very sure they are clear at least a few weeks before the first stage. 

Publishing them late to "keep tensions up" just messes up clan plans and pisses people off.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

View Postrichblaster, on 11 December 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

This leads to just hord provinces as much as you can, as for example rsop (uliuli) with the 8 provinces they have, cannot have lower multi then 3.03 for every battle on the map.  

 

 

 Not sure if you noticed but the reason they have so many provinces atm is in large part due to a bug in WG campaign programming for the first day after "world redivision", I mentioned it here:

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/442882-your-dedicated-campaign-3-discussion-section/page__st__180__pid__9638403#entry9638403

 

With the way revolts are set-up atm it is not possible for any clan to hold more than 6 provinces for more than a day.

 

 

 

 


Edited by knightM, 11 December 2014 - 11:15 AM.


Deldrin #5 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30829 battles
  • 292
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010

View Postrichblaster, on 11 December 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Suddenly, all the people (mostly from small clans i guess) thinking they might be safe playing the crapout of stages 1/2 having collected lets say 60-70k fame are not safe at all, because suddenly wins on the map count a LOT more, and the points from stages 1/2 are worthless.

 

My clan and I are in exactly this situation. We can put together one good team that will get through landing 90% of the time to battle with owner, but because first and 2nd stage looked promising for us fame-wise we started to pick not-as-good teams together and had much harder time landing (our #2-#4 top players by fame played total of 4 times in 2nd stage). We estimated about 78k fame points will be enough to get the tank. Now? Not even 90k looks safe anymore, and I have only 87k for today because I was trying to give other people a chance to win a tank. And because of this, from my goal of getting 20+ tanks, we'll be lucky to grab 10.

In T6 stage we rocked, held our ground on the map for 3 days straight, having a very close game against RSOP lost because.... T37 spam, who would've thought? Start of T8 stage was alright for us, and then something happened it went downhill. And now all of that effort is worthless because big clans farm FP with smaller clans who RNG'd their way through landing? GG WG, no re.

All of this is just generating drama and stress inside my clan because I just cannot FC battles myself and our main FC doesn't care enough (yesterday wasn't his fault though, if he ever reads this thread).

For my clan this entire campaign will be remembered as gigantic failure, mostly from WG side, but from ours too, sadly.

 

At least o.907 is complete garbage even after the buff, so there's not much to cry about. :trollface:



DosMetros #6 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:49 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24068 battles
  • 223
  • Member since:
    12-01-2010

Surely the reasoning for the late rules is because WG want to avoid the mega-alliance debacle from the 1st campaign?

 

That said, I can't help but think there is a better way to force the bigger clans to clash on the map without them being punished in the rankings whilst fighting among each other. They are on the right path with citadels, but there were too many and they were too random. It would be better with a single big citadel in Europe with high enough multipliers to make it necessary to go in there for any clan wanting to get inside top 10 even though they'll lose a lot more battles than if they stay on the outside.

 

Also, wish I had known more about the FP multipliers, because I would have had a chance to get the tank even though I missed the 1st stage and half of the 2nd. Instead I didn't even try.



Kantti #7 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:53 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23324 battles
  • 303
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostGharirey, on 11 December 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

I agree with your criticism. But every single campaign has had its flaws and WG screw-ups so far. At least there are some improvements: for example WG is getting better at providing incentives for the good clans to fight each other (citadels in stage 2 and now the G-multiplier).

 

Agreed, many things are not even nearly as badly wrong as in previous campaigns. But just to set things straight, the G-multiplier does nothing to get the good clans to fight each other. As the table in OP shows there is no relevance on how big clan you fight as long as you have as many provinces yourself as possible. Difference is like 0,5 in G when fighting against 1 province or 10 province enemy if you yourself have enough provinces. And you can control your own amount of provinces, but you cannot guarantee to find a province-rich opponent near you, so it is obvious which way to go. Also good clan's aim is to win your opponent in VP table. This means that in fact you should deny fights from other good clans and attack more mediocre ones which you can harvest with near 100% WR compared to much smaller WR when going against better clans. THIS is utterly stupid.

 

That said there is a lot that I didn't like:

  • Stage 1 was irrelevant in retrospective. The leading clans grabbed ~200% more FP in stage 2 than in stage 1 thanks to extra FP from the citadels. I expect similar numbers from stage 3 due to the G-multiplier. So why play stage 1 at all? Since it hardly influenced the final results, it was little more than a waste of time. Besides, a 20-days campaign would have been just fine.

 

Agreed. 10 days wasted on horrible tier with nearly zero effect on final outcome. Come on, you can do better than that WG. You have been told in EVERY campaign that you have to stop the FP/VP creep and make things more balanced.

 

  • Tier VI is more unsuited for organized play than ever. This tier has horrible balance issues. It used to be the op-ness of KV-1s and Hellcat that created a boring meta but with the introduction of the T37 things have gotten a lot worse. It wasn't unusual to see lineups with over a dozen T37 during stage 1! A tier dominated by a single tank to such a degree should not be used for organized play! The current tier VI CW-meta is retarded: autoaim and pew-pew! Armour is practically irrelevant (there are exactly 2 tanks which stand a chance to provide more than the occasional troll bounce: T-150 and stock Jumbo Sherman). Just dump tier VI already!

 

Again agreed, but wanting to point out that t8 wasn't much better on open maps... How many times did you see a full ru251 (+ 1-2 arties) lineup losing to some other than identical setup? Didn't at least happen in our corner of the world.

 


Edited by Kantti, 11 December 2014 - 11:54 AM.


Kantti #8 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:57 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23324 battles
  • 303
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostDosMetros, on 11 December 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Surely the reasoning for the late rules is because WG want to avoid the mega-alliance debacle from the 1st campaign?

 

That said, I can't help but think there is a better way to force the bigger clans to clash on the map without them being punished in the rankings whilst fighting among each other. They are on the right path with citadels, but there were too many and they were too random. It would be better with a single big citadel in Europe with high enough multipliers to make it necessary to go in there for any clan wanting to get inside top 10 even though they'll lose a lot more battles than if they stay on the outside.

 

 

Firstly, I am 100% sure that we will see some mega-alliances at least in Africa trying to hoard 8+ territories protected by NAPs while farming some mediocre clans around them. The G-factor will bring this out as benefits are too good to avoid.

 

What we're searching here is some kind of league-system (like bronze and silver series) for clans. The map and rulesets limit too much confrontation between big clans. They can be forced to fight only in league format. And only such system makes it sure that while they waste their efforts against each other, some average clans (fighting weak clans) don't overtake them.


Edited by Kantti, 11 December 2014 - 12:08 PM.


richblaster #9 Posted 11 December 2014 - 12:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 12140 battles
  • 974
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    04-19-2012

View PostknightM, on 11 December 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

The main problem (as with previous 2 campaigns) is that rules for stages 2 and 3 are first published 2-3 days before the stage starts and not all together at the start of the campaign. This makes any long-term planning very hard.

 

I do not believe these are made first after the campaign starts, due to all the logistics and translations between servers as well as implementation I am very sure they are clear at least a few weeks before the first stage. 

Publishing them late to "keep tensions up" just messes up clan plans and pisses people off.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 Not sure if you noticed but the reason they have so many provinces atm is in large part due to a bug in WG campaign programming for the first day after "world redivision", I mentioned it here:

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/442882-your-dedicated-campaign-3-discussion-section/page__st__180__pid__9638403#entry9638403

 

With the way revolts are set-up atm it is not possible for any clan to hold more than 6 provinces for more than a day.

 

wow lol no i did not notice that, thanks for link. even more proof for stupidity on wg-side really...

 

 

View PostDeldrin, on 11 December 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

 

My clan and I are in exactly this situation. We can put together one good team that will get through landing 90% of the time to battle with owner, but because first and 2nd stage looked promising for us fame-wise we started to pick not-as-good teams together and had much harder time landing (our #2-#4 top players by fame played total of 4 times in 2nd stage). We estimated about 78k fame points will be enough to get the tank. Now? Not even 90k looks safe anymore, and I have only 87k for today because I was trying to give other people a chance to win a tank. And because of this, from my goal of getting 20+ tanks, we'll be lucky to grab 10.

In T6 stage we rocked, held our ground on the map for 3 days straight, having a very close game against RSOP lost because.... T37 spam, who would've thought? Start of T8 stage was alright for us, and then something happened it went downhill. And now all of that effort is worthless because big clans farm FP with smaller clans who RNG'd their way through landing? GG WG, no re.

All of this is just generating drama and stress inside my clan because I just cannot FC battles myself and our main FC doesn't care enough (yesterday wasn't his fault though, if he ever reads this thread).

For my clan this entire campaign will be remembered as gigantic failure, mostly from WG side, but from ours too, sadly.

 

At least o.907 is complete garbage even after the buff, so there's not much to cry about. :trollface:

I dont think its garbage. But is it worth 30 days of this? i dont know really. Sad to hear you wil struggle now with fappoints, try your best and hope :)

 

 

View PostDosMetros, on 11 December 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Surely the reasoning for the late rules is because WG want to avoid the mega-alliance debacle from the 1st campaign?

 

That said, I can't help but think there is a better way to force the bigger clans to clash on the map without them being punished in the rankings whilst fighting among each other. They are on the right path with citadels, but there were too many and they were too random. It would be better with a single big citadel in Europe with high enough multipliers to make it necessary to go in there for any clan wanting to get inside top 10 even though they'll lose a lot more battles than if they stay on the outside.

 

Also, wish I had known more about the FP multipliers, because I would have had a chance to get the tank even though I missed the 1st stage and half of the 2nd. Instead I didn't even try.

See that is what i mean. Why not publishing that stuff before campaign. ok maybe they avoided some of the mistakes in the first 2 campaigns, instead they made new ones. Dunno if I can call that "getting better"

 



RaeudigerRonny #10 Posted 11 December 2014 - 02:21 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26392 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

I also played as much as i could in first 2 Stages to reach 87k FP in the hope to skip Stage 3 (cos i dislike t10 gameplay). Looks like i will need somemore games tho, because of all the multipliers. 

In the first 2 days of 3rd stage place 11.000 got raised by 4.000 FP/day. In the first 2 Stages it was around 2.500 FP/day.



Yozzman #11 Posted 11 December 2014 - 03:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 20507 battles
  • 309
  • [BC-X] BC-X
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010

What I missed is that the topclans have a epic battle over a huge amount of fame.

 

Somekind of knockout tournament within the campaign? Reward must be worthy the effort ofcourse :)

 



knightM #12 Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46340 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View PostDosMetros, on 11 December 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Surely the reasoning for the late rules is because WG want to avoid the mega-alliance debacle from the 1st campaign?

 

That said, I can't help but think there is a better way to force the bigger clans to clash on the map without them being punished in the rankings whilst fighting among each other. They are on the right path with citadels, but there were too many and they were too random. It would be better with a single big citadel in Europe with high enough multipliers to make it necessary to go in there for any clan wanting to get inside top 10 even though they'll lose a lot more battles than if they stay on the outside.

 

Also, wish I had known more about the FP multipliers, because I would have had a chance to get the tank even though I missed the 1st stage and half of the 2nd. Instead I didn't even try.

 

Mega-alliances have nothing to do with how rules are published. On the contrary mega-alliances are caused by bad rules and by their late publishing.

 

a) In the first campaign the main reason the UNITED alliance was created was that nobody knew the rules beforehand and the "skiller" clans were scared that because of strange rules and other alliances they won't get the tank.(which was the main goal at that time). I know all this from first hand. You have to remember that this was right after greys got finally (for 2nd time) kicked from central Europe after holding there for 2 or so years and also right after FUSION got defeated, and with revolts just barely being introduced by WG.

 

b) It does not matter when rules are published if an alliance can benefit from being in alliance it will form quite fast. Lately there are instead a lot of "unspoken" alliances where strong clans avoid each other cause it would hurt their standings.

Btw. you remember "World on Fire"? During the whole event (about 14 days) with 3 landings each day RSOP didn't meet EFE a single time on a landing. Similarly KAZNA meet FAME only 2 times (first and last day), neither of that is a coincidence ;)

Similarly if you remember "Twillight of the gods" there were very fight actual fights in Asgaard cause you got points for taking provinces, not for fights.

 

c) After the first campaign strong clans found out that getting a tank is not a problem and WG helped it by decoupling tank with overall standings. So the actual ranking in the campaign became prestigious.

 

 

=> There is no reason at all not to publish rules for all stages before campaign start. If they are bad and favor avoiding each other they will get exploited that way anyway.

 

Look at 2nd campaign for examples, during stage 1 it was best to avoid strong clans => all strong clans did that. Us and EXNOM by camping for points, RSOP and EFE by taking them from weak clans on revolts.

Then in stage 2 points were given for fighting for few trains => same strong clans immediately started to fight each other for those.

 

-----------------


Problem with the "one big fortress" concept is that medium-strength clans can end up with little to no motivation. Just as it happened in 2nd campaign.

 

So the only only concept I can see as promising is something like the proposed ELO rating or similarly very high bonuses for fighting better positioned clans.

 

 


Edited by knightM, 11 December 2014 - 05:30 PM.


Time_To_BurN #13 Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:47 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 29189 battles
  • 184
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

It is really frustrating to think u are almost safe and now just have to see how it goes. 

We are not ready for the topclans yet, but encounter them in the first or second round of almost every landing tournament.

But 2 days in on the tier X stage, what do you guys estimate as the safe side famepoints wise?

The first 2 days place 11.000 increased 4,5k a day which will mean around 90k.

But how does this normally end in these campaigns? Do you estimate an increase?



Dr_Zap #14 Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 57054 battles
  • 1,539
  • [HE-JA] HE-JA
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
We are estimating a score of around 100K should put you in top 11K. This because of the huge multipliers in stage three and in the end of the campaign a number of clans will make a last ditch effort to get the tank which will generate even more battles.

ghz891 #15 Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19241 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
They could make something like G and base it on ranking of clans. Like higher the rank of clans fighting, more they both get (G1 + G2), and some extra multiplier which is one sided for weaker ranked clans fighting stronger ranked ones and inverse for fighting weaker ones. And then you have something roughly like league system, shouldn't be too hard to think of specifics. Or maybe even make it player based, and clan score being sum of player/team points with some lower pointed playes being "unranked" to prevent lowering team scores and gaining more points for fighting weaker opponents.

Edited by ghz891, 11 December 2014 - 06:05 PM.


Kantti #16 Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23324 battles
  • 303
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
In the end we come to that it is either the ruleset that discourages the top clans fighting each other (as victory is more easily attained other way) or the map itself prevents it. Map gets crowded or you happen to land in totally different side than your main adversaries. You simply cannot reach your main opponents in 8 days of one stage if they don't land right next to you. This way you simply cannot get a situation where top clans would constantly fight each others in campaigns such as we have seen. Ofcourse some top clans sporadically meet each other, but still even if KAZNA and RSOP would fight, it would take days and would leave us no time to see e.g. EFE, STRNK, CRUSH and fellows. This is the reason I see absolute series (15vs15 league) as only option to really find out who is toughest. Ofcourse specifics would have to be thought well (how many fights per evening as you really need multiple matches for your top clans active 80+ players and to really see who is better; how the map rotation would be decided etc).

NiemandXL #17 Posted 12 December 2014 - 02:01 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View Postrichblaster, on 11 December 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Now lets get to the stages. Its my opinion that G-factor is retarded if it works as this pic suggests (it seems to):

 

This leads to just hord provinces as much as you can, as for example rsop (uliuli) with the 8 provinces they have, cannot have lower multi then 3.03 for every battle on the map. 

 

At least it makes holding provinces somewhat important like it imho should be. Stage 2 for example was total chaos with clans just jumping around the map for the citadels while the civilians held most provinces.

 

Combining this G-factor system with a base province multiplier for battles that depends on where the province is located might be a good idea for future campaigns. Basically making some regions have a higher base XP multiplier similar to the way that European provinces give more gold than those in Africa. This would basically separate the map into first, second, and third world. Add another battle XP multiplier based om how many provinces a clan holds and that should get the top clans to fight in the same region (where the XP multiplier is highest) against each other instead of farming weak clans.


Edited by NiemandXL, 12 December 2014 - 02:04 AM.


JetCannon3 #18 Posted 12 December 2014 - 05:19 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24480 battles
  • 239
  • [READ] READ
  • Member since:
    10-05-2011

G-factor? More like GG-factor for our clan.

Fairly distributing FPs among ~25 members in the first two stages will get us how many tanks now? Three? Or even five? Lol. Best campaign ever.

 

I basically agree with what has been said in this thread. I'm not even mad about the third stage's ruleset itself. It favours clans that can hold their ground on the map permanently and get a lot of provinces. Fair enough, good clans should be rewarded for their performance.

 

If it just wasn't for the fact that WG can't be bothered to announce rules in time. Like what the hell? Haven't they learned anything from that disastrous first campaign, where you could legitimately skip the first two stages, just rock the last two (four stages back then) and still get your clan into the top 30? Ridiculous! And now we have the same sh*t again.

 

Why even participate in future campaigns if it all comes down to gambling on rules? And no matter if small or big clan, seems like so far everyone got screwed over by the stupidity of rules in their own way.



DosMetros #19 Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24068 battles
  • 223
  • Member since:
    12-01-2010

View PostknightM, on 11 December 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

 

Mega-alliances have nothing to do with how rules are published. On the contrary mega-alliances are caused by bad rules and by their late publishing.

 

 

=> There is no reason at all not to publish rules for all stages before campaign start. If they are bad and favor avoiding each other they will get exploited that way anyway.

 

-----------------


Problem with the "one big fortress" concept is that medium-strength clans can end up with little to no motivation. Just as it happened in 2nd campaign.

 

So the only only concept I can see as promising is something like the proposed ELO rating or similarly very high bonuses for fighting better positioned clans.

 

 

 

I agree with you that the rules themselves are the deciding factor when deciding whether an alliance is beneficiary or not. But saying alliances are created because of late rules is untrue IMO. It's just a hassle for the clan leadership trying to organize and plan everything.

 

The "one big fortress" idea was meant to also accommodate the top 20-30 clans who have a shot at top 10, as well as the top 10 who are aiming for top 3. The multipliers just need to extend far enough out from the "epicenter". Not sure what your definition of medium strength is :)

 

Not sure how well the ELO rating would work, but I definitely like the idea of a bonus linked to the actual campaign ranking as it progresses. That way the number 1 can't necessarily feel safe sitting in the corner of a map, and the number 2 isn't necessarily throwing away his position just to go after the top clan etc.

 

 



an0ther #20 Posted 12 December 2014 - 02:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33688 battles
  • 1,793
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011
Reading all this, I'm quite happy I decided to skip this campaign.





Also tagged with campaign, fail, 30days

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users