Jump to content


Clan Wars 3rd Campaign Feedback


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

Gnomus #1 Posted 17 December 2014 - 06:03 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 34484 battles
  • 2,029
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    02-12-2011

As Campaign Feedback section seems to have all topics closed here's a feedback topic to this side.

 

I hope WG will take note of players feedback and try to do future Campaigns even better. So here's my two  cent's:

 

General:

 

Tying Clan victory to FP's was quite good, especially when second stage bonuses went to clan and not for players (that would have unbalanced whole personal competition). This was not perfect, but goodish. Clans aiming for clan competition didn't have to give up so much, as every battle brought in points for clan as well as individuals.

 

Landing missions were good. They gave FP's for players, but amount of them was low enough not to destabilize FP situation in general. I would still do few changes. Remove those one area long missions, but double (but not more) points from 2 and 4 (and perhaps add 3) area long mission. Now 25k was worht around half a victory on map, so little low, but nice bonus. Still not worth using lot of energy. 50k was around one battle worth and 100k missions around two battles worth. Not really worth spending lot of time and energy to do them, if you could farm battles instead, but good catch if you managed to do get some done while fighting.

 

Ability to choose a tank is little here and there. Those feeling uniqueness is important will complain when M60 and VK7201 will no longer be tied only to 1st and 2nd Campaigns, but I can very well understand why WG did it this way, especially on NA server with very high demand for M60.

 

Camo paint for top 20k was nice touch. It could be somewhat more distinct, if picture on FTR is correct one, as now it's easy to mess with other similar camoes.

 

Handling of battle rigging was abysmal as ever. What I gathered some clans kept enemy tank alive little longer to get cap points and it was considered rigging. Amount of FP's that can be generated is quite low. Blatant feeding for enemy should be punished, but now it is pretty hard to know what is considered bad and what is not.  Same time situations like this: http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/456563-3rd-campaign-cheating-or/ should always rise a red flag and have inquiries done by WG to see if there was something wrong or not. I know it's difficult situation, as there is no formal way to handle subclans or allies, but now many clans refused to fight their subclans or allies because they felt it would be "dirty". This gives large advantage to shameless clans. Get these things fixed and give us clear information what can be done and what can not.

 

Lenght was still little long. Having those days off was good thing, but I think it would have been better to have 3x 7 days Campaign. First and Third Stages would have worked well, 2nd needed some time because of Fortresses, but then there might have been some better system.

 

1st Stage

 

This was pretty solid. Lot of good battles and convoys to give some little extra. Nothing too game breaking.

 

- Lineups were little dull on some maps, T37 hordes, but then it is not a Campaign/CW problem as much as general tank balance problem.

 

- Convoys were giving little bit too low reward, especially when they could be captured only once per clan. One convoy was worth around one battle, so no point spending lot of energy on them. Reward could have been little higher, like 100k fame for a clan.

 

2nd Stage

 

- This was quite bad. It spoilt action on map and devaluated clan FP's from 1st Stage.

 

- Throwing randomly some clans off the map was bad. If clans were interested in getting to Fortresses then one clan would be removed from map by WG and have it's stacks usable while another would need to remove itself and have it's stack frozen. Meanwhile some clan that had for example 4 areas on map and two stack frozen because of defeats and was counting on having 4 BwO's could have two of it's stacks removed by WG, so instead of 4 BwO's they would get only two, or if they remove rest of their chips they would only have two stacks to use in landings. Either kick all or do not kick anyone. Larege random changes are always bad. Don't use them.

 

- Fotresses and their landings blocked of large areas of map. There were some areas that had only 2 or 3 non-restricted areas available because landings blocking off their exit routes.

 

- There were some epic battles inside fortresses for approaches and citadels, but then there were also some circling around as clans didn't want to hold areas there, just capture and discard them.

 

- Positioning of some fortresses. For example one in Caucasus had Georgia as landing area, and because of geography anyone getting there could take 3 approaches unopposed even with 1 chip per area, as no-one else could move directly to those areas. Areas should be more or less even.

 

- Moving of fortresses in middle of stage made some new interesting things. Like our neighboring clan that had all it's areas and HQ wiped, but had still one attack left on the map. Do you actually think how large random changes on map actually can affect clans?

 

3rd Stage

 

This was basically good stage. Fight, fight and then fight some more. Better yet if you can keep lot of area and fight clans with large holdings. Basic principal here was good. Not random things, just proper war.

 

Having no riots on 18 or earlier timezones on first day after world redivision was little bad. Do you really think how things work with other rules? Minor problem, but also something that should have been easy to fix.

 

G was done badly. Did I say badly? Yes, BADLY! As said earlier, basic idea was good. First some premises: There were three stages, that were of similar weight, 10 days per stage at first, then last one was cut to 8, still pretty balanced. We had special multiplier to even out exp output of different tiers, so battles in T6, T8 and T10 would give roughly similar amount of FP's. So one might make an assumption that WG is thinking all three stages should be of equal importance. Right? Of course not.

 

We had this special multiplier G, that could never be below 1.5. So even without counting any holdings every single battle of 3rd stage would weight at minimum 1.5 times the weigh of battles of 1st and 2nd stage. In first two stages 11k level limit moved an average 2496 per day (if I counted correctly) and in third stage limit moved by 5145 per day on average. So every battle on 3rd stage was more than twice of importance to 1st and 2nd stage. This cutted clans performance in first 2/3 of Campaign to half in importance. And this whole thing got public only after 20 days of fighting. This kind of FP creep was totally unnecessary and should not happen out of the blue. Give us all the important rules before Campaign starts. Please.

 

As I have written elsewhere, having G giving bonus to clans that do well was not so much a problem. Clan doing well and having G=2 instead of 1.5 gets nice 33% increase in comparison to basic situation. Super clan getting G=3 is having 100% bonus to their effort. Good for them, and getting G to 3 was not easy task, so they have earned their major bonus. G inside of Stage was not broken, but good system of rewarding doing well. What was problem was that this G made earlier tiers lose too much of their meaning.

 

Basically I would have two possible corrections to G (you can keep the basic system, it's good enough):

1. Have G set to 1.5 instead of 1 on 1st and 2nd Stage. This way basic battle without extras is exactly worth the same as on earlier stages, but clans doing well will get little bonus when compared to others, but generally difference is 1.5 vs 2 (33% increase) instead of 1 vs 2 (100% increase).

2. Give that bonus only to Clan FP, not to personal FP. Still worth getting, but doesn't break things too much.

 

Having G better balanced between different tiers would also have made it little more difficult for superclans to bring up players to 11k range. Instead of good win row of one evening they would have needed at least two, or perhaps 3. No longer so outrageous. Actually there were very few who managed that, but it shows problem of G. Getting one player from 0 to well inside 11k in one night in 1st or 2nd stage would have been totally impossible.

 

Note to some complainers as there seemed to be some understanding in other topics: Having G balanced between the tiers has nothing to do with "play on map, not on landings", but balance on why one victory on 3rd stage should be worth two (or even 3 or 4) victories on 1st and 2nd stage.

 

Note to some complainers who raged about G in general: Inside 3rd stage G was not ouf of bounds. Mediocre clans could easily get their G to 1.5-2 range and it was only few clans that could keep their G at 3+ range. Main problem, in my opinion, was that because of G 1st and 2nd Stage points lost lot of their value unbalancing Stages.

 

 

Generally:

 

My own clan didn't do as well as expected, but I think this was best Campaign this far, not by results, but by structure. My main points:

 

1. Clan FP's from 1st Stage were pretty much useless in comparison to amounts 2nd and 3rd stage brought in.

2. Fortresses with their hair rising clan FP's and large random changes on map were not so good.

3. Third stage with emphasis on battles and area control (can't just NAP sit, needs to fight) would have been good if G hadn't been so out of bounds in comparison to 1st and 2nd Stage (inside 3rd Stage it worked well enough). It could have been ok, if it had been known in advance that there's first little 20 day warm up and then 8 hard days of fighting, but better yet to have tiers in balance (or just make whole Campaign T10 if you don't want give low tiers a meaning).

 

In the end I think correct clan won. RSOP showed very high quality throughout the Campaign and it takes balls of steels to stream most of their battles for every one to see. What secret tactics? Not on Lemmings attack menu, but lot of good ideas for all the clans to try out. Oh, and it takes balls of furry rodent to fight in live stream with no delay showing and telling your tactical moves to enemy in real time. Hallowed be thy Uli!

 



Kantti #2 Posted 17 December 2014 - 06:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23283 battles
  • 303
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

What the man said. Even if some power creep was to be expected (it has always happened in previous campaigns), this was nasty surprise for some even if the top clans didn't have to care about it as they were only focused on rivalry for top places. There were many great points in Gnomus' post, but if you have to pick one, ffs GIVE US ALL INFORMATION BEFORE A SINGLE BATTLE IS FOUGHT IN CAMPAIGN.

 

And hallowed be Uli!



Weak_Moronix #3 Posted 17 December 2014 - 07:24 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26814 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-28-2011
How to choose the tank?

wojtus11 #4 Posted 17 December 2014 - 07:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45915 battles
  • 250
  • [WHYOU] WHYOU
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011

View PostGnomus, on 17 December 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Handling of battle rigging was abysmal as ever. What I gathered some clans kept enemy tank alive little longer to get cap points and it was considered rigging. Amount of FP's that can be generated is quite low.

 

"Fraud handling" was typical WG-style which we all should be accustomed to already. What can be removed in future is the system which promotes the "mini-rigging". As I proposed in another thread, FP should be tied to victory/frags/damage not XP. There should also be penalty points for no-shows and incomplete teams (=less tanks than chips).

CroPanzer #5 Posted 17 December 2014 - 07:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 19772 battles
  • 993
  • [CARAS] CARAS
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010

View Postkillstill99, on 17 December 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

How to choose the tank?

 

I suppose info on that will come tommorow after 10AM CET

 

Btw, how do we get the camo, and then, assign it to the tank we want?


Edited by CroPanzer, 17 December 2014 - 07:51 PM.


von_chom #6 Posted 18 December 2014 - 08:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 17146 battles
  • 1,409
  • [_CALM] _CALM
  • Member since:
    09-18-2010

View PostCroPanzer, on 17 December 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

 

I suppose info on that will come tommorow after 10AM CET

 

Btw, how do we get the camo, and then, assign it to the tank we want?

 

http://worldoftanks....ap/choose_tank/

HBox #7 Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:35 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 52075 battles
  • 248
  • [ORLY] ORLY
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011

View Postvon_chom, on 18 December 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

 

that link is to the reward tank no mention of the reward camo and how to get it any one have any news on this 

thank you 



knightM #8 Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:33 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45398 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

General feedback 

 

Player famepoints (FPs) as part of clan ranking [b]  was good idea combined with the "clan famepoints". What was a problem was how FPs were awarded.

 

 FP award issues:

 

1. You get more FPs if you play worse because FPs are based on XPs and you get 50% of XP enemy team gets 

This is obviously totally wrong.

Some ideas how to change it:

- remove the enemy XP part.

- add bonus for each own tank that survived

- add bonus for time elapsed

 

2. FPs are the same no matter who you fight  

This made stage 1 and 3 basically a "hunt for weak clans that will fight you" instead of a competition. There should be some bonuses that add points depending on the relative number of FPs (or position in alley of fame) the fighting clans have. So that fighting "worse" clans will give less points than fighting "good" clans.

 

The "leave map button" abuse 

It's still the same problem as in any campaign since its introduction. The ability to leave and land same day (if you have chips) for no penalty makes many clans jump around the map all the time, run from strong enemies and attack weak and makes half the map empty most of campaign.

=> freeze all chips for 48 hours after using leave map button or remove the button completely

 

 Publishing stage rules 

Rules for all stages should be published at the campaign start, so that all clans can actually plan how they will play the campaign. Since the campaign is almost 30 days long planning is crucial for everyone.

Since average player of WoT is some 30 years old it needs to plan holiday/family/work etc. in advance and has issues staying available all the time for 30 days, not knowing what comes next week or week after.

 

Writing exactly what is going to happen between stages 

Again same problem as in Campaign 2, clans need to know exactly what will happen with chips on/off map between the stages in advance so that they can plan their moves.

 

=========================================================================

Stage related issues 

 

 Stage 1

 

The points for convoys were way too low, 1 battle on map gave about 65k points, 1 battle on a new map gave 100k. 

Convoy gave 40k which is even less than 1 battle. Should have been 100-120k to make it worth it. As you can see from results basically whole ranking was made by fights (in "fight a noob that will fight you" style) and almost nothing from convoys.

 

Additionaly to encourage clans to fight for them, there could have been FP bonus for fights on "convoy" provinces (for example 50% more FPs).

 

 Stage 2 

The multiplier from the central province was way too high so that 1-2 battles had huge impacts on both stage and campaign rankings.

Instead of 4x it should have been 2 or 3x.

 

Specially at the end of the first fortress period there were lots of points gained for "free" by taking empty fort provinces cause not many clans had chips or interest in fighting there. This could have been avoided by giving more points for fights on fort provinces (50% etc) in a same way as it was done in "Twillight of the gods".

 

 Stage 3

Again same problem as with stage 1 since your result depended on actually finding clans that will fight you.

So your ranking depended on whether your enemies wanted you to do well.

Just like I mentioned before could have been fixed by adding FP coefficient depending on the relative ranking of the clans.

 

Additionaly the G coefficient was a bit wrongly setup. It gave high number if either your or your enemy had many provinces, but no bonus on top of that if  both you and enemy had many provinces. So it discouraged strong clans fighting vs each other.

 

Could have been easily changed into G= number of your provinces + number of enemy clan provinces

 


Edited by knightM, 19 December 2014 - 11:37 AM.


cleGo #9 Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:50 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 27985 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostknightM, on 19 December 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

General feedback 

 

Player famepoints (FPs) as part of clan ranking [b]  was good idea combined with the "clan famepoints". What was a problem was how FPs were awarded.

 

 FP award issues:

 

1. You get more FPs if you play worse because FPs are based on XPs and you get 50% of XP enemy team gets 

This is obviously totally wrong.

Some ideas how to change it:

- remove the enemy XP part.

- add bonus for each own tank that survived

- add bonus for time elapsed

 

2. FPs are the same no matter who you fight  

This made stage 1 and 3 basically a "hunt for weak clans that will fight you" instead of a competition. There should be some bonuses that add points depending on the relative number of FPs (or position in alley of fame) the fighting clans have. So that fighting "worse" clans will give less points than fighting "good" clans.

 

The "leave map button" abuse 

It's still the same problem as in any campaign since its introduction. The ability to leave and land same day (if you have chips) for no penalty makes many clans jump around the map all the time, run from strong enemies and attack weak and makes half the map empty most of campaign.

=> freeze all chips for 48 hours after using leave map button or remove the button completely

 

 Publishing stage rules 

Rules for all stages should be published at the campaign start, so that all clans can actually plan how they will play the campaign. Since the campaign is almost 30 days long planning is crucial for everyone.

Since average player of WoT is some 30 years old it needs to plan holiday/family/work etc. in advance and has issues staying available all the time for 30 days, not knowing what comes next week or week after.

 

Writing exactly what is going to happen between stages 

Again same problem as in Campaign 2, clans need to know exactly what will happen with chips on/off map between the stages in advance so that they can plan their moves.

 

=========================================================================

Stage related issues 

 

 Stage 1

 

The points for convoys were way too low, 1 battle on map gave about 65k points, 1 battle on a new map gave 100k. 

Convoy gave 40k which is even less than 1 battle. Should have been 100-120k to make it worth it. As you can see from results basically whole ranking was made by fights (in "fight a noob that will fight you" style) and almost nothing from convoys.

 

Additionaly to encourage clans to fight for them, there could have been FP bonus for fights on "convoy" provinces (for example 50% more FPs).

 

 Stage 2 

The multiplier from the central province was way too high so that 1-2 battles had huge impacts on both stage and campaign rankings.

Instead of 4x it should have been 2 or 3x.

 

Specially at the end of the first fortress period there were lots of points gained for "free" by taking empty fort provinces cause not many clans had chips or interest in fighting there. This could have been avoided by giving more points for fights on fort provinces (50% etc) in a same way as it was done in "Twillight of the gods".

 

 Stage 3

Again same problem as with stage 1 since your result depended on actually finding clans that will fight you.

So your ranking depended on whether your enemies wanted you to do well.

Just like I mentioned before could have been fixed by adding FP coefficient depending on the relative ranking of the clans.

 

Additionaly the G coefficient was a bit wrongly setup. It gave high number if either your or your enemy had many provinces, but no bonus on top of that if  both you and enemy had many provinces. So it discouraged strong clans fighting vs each other.

 

Could have been easily changed into G= number of your provinces + number of enemy clan provinces

 

 

Blaa,blaa,blaa. Yes we all know that the FP system didnt work. Despite of all  that, overall standings in top five were as expected. Only the marching order was unclear before the campaing started.

In all: Sometimes lose, allways WIN :)



Outfielder #10 Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:52 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24088 battles
  • 4,465
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011

View PostHBox, on 19 December 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

 

that link is to the reward tank no mention of the reward camo and how to get it any one have any news on this

thank you

 

I asked support about it and advised them to put something about it on the website.....and now we wait......



Gnomus #11 Posted 19 December 2014 - 03:46 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 34484 battles
  • 2,029
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    02-12-2011

View PostcleGo, on 19 December 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

 

Blaa,blaa,blaa. Yes we all know that the FP system didnt work. Despite of all  that, overall standings in top five were as expected. Only the marching order was unclear before the campaing started.

In all: Sometimes lose, allways WIN :)

 

Feedback should have nothing to do with players/clans position, but just give WG good ideas what they did well and what they did wrong. RSOP won this Campaign fair and square, and I didn't see any complain "how results should have been different" on knightM reply.  His point about weak clan hunting instead of good clans clashing each others for top positions is quite good.

 

Please feel free to give good feedback that WG can use to make future Campaigns better, but leave all leet talk and arse hurt to other topics.



nebopd #12 Posted 20 December 2014 - 12:15 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20393 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

Hi all,

As a player that played the whole campaign, I would have several comments:

1) I am little bit disappointed with the situation in the 3rd stage. As Gnomus already pointed out, the FP must be balanced within stages and in future campaigns the effort in whole campaign must be balanced. I noticed many players from strong clans that literally moved from 0 points to magic 11.000 players in the last few days of 3rd stage.

2) the battle schedule should be limited until 16.00, so clans cannot "adjust" their landings in evening terms depending on number or strength of the opponents. This will force clans to plan in advance and strategically. 

3) Numerous times we had 2 or 3 battles in the same time (or +/- 5 minutes), or we had missing opponents because they had to choose between other landings. WG should make an effort in the CW engine to avoid these situations. 



knightM #13 Posted 20 December 2014 - 11:42 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45398 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View PostcleGo, on 19 December 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

 

Blaa,blaa,blaa. Yes we all know that the FP system didnt work. Despite of all  that, overall standings in top five were as expected. Only the marching order was unclear before the campaing started.

In all: Sometimes lose, allways WIN :)

 

This is exactly the main problem with clan feedback here. People get tank (or good position in campaign) and they go "it worked ok". Eventually if someone who "lost" complains it's just marked as whining. Forgetting that all the mess that was ruining both player and clan plans on all sides could be easily avoided by simple rule adjustments or by publishing rules in time.

 

I do recall how RSOP was raging when they weren't able to use 5 stacks on day 1 of stage 2 due to WG mess and unpublished rules, I also do recall how we were marked as whiners by other clans when we complained about same issues between stage 1 and 2 in 2nd campaign. So here you have both cause and effect. Few complains when it happened last time (cause only us and EXNOM were really affected) => it happened again and you got hurt next time.

Similarly when I pointed out issues with stage 1 while it was happening (and we were on some 20-ish place), there immediately was one from OMNI saying how "rules wont make you fight better".  This was also the reason why I posted feedback on stage 2 when we were leading it.

 

I hope you now see the problem. 

When there are bugs/errors/issues in rules or rules are not published it might be beneficial to you one time and might hurt you badly next time so it's common interest to reduce or eliminate the issues rather than flaming each other.

 


Edited by knightM, 20 December 2014 - 11:47 AM.


Nekrodamus #14 Posted 20 December 2014 - 01:26 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 48505 battles
  • 2,246
  • [LEOFL] LEOFL
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011

Correct, at least this single thread should be 100% serious and kept free of flaming and whining.

 

The idea of player fame points is great, yet the way to get them is broken since they are based on XP with their weird and stupid calculation.

 

I never understood why the XP of the looser should affect the XP of the winner and why an extremly lucky last minute 15:14 is regarded 'the better win' compared to a 15:0 massacre. If you just want to point out that a victory in the first league is more valuable and a loss more painfull, use factors like *1.5 and *0.5 but leave the enemy's XP alone.

 

If it is not possible to change the XP calculation or not worth the effort before CW 2.0 comes out, find another way for the calculation of fame points. Anything would be good, as long as the enemy's performance is not involved.

 

Optimising or denying fame points would be impossible then, which will be fair and transparent for all players. And your support team will be please too, as they have nothing to controll.

 

 


Edited by Nekrodamus, 20 December 2014 - 01:28 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users