Jump to content


Stage 1 Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

knightM #1 Posted 01 December 2015 - 12:19 AM

    Lieutenant

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

Feedback thread for the stage 1 as a whole.

 

From my point of view as someone who played 3 campaigns and 3 shorter events (out of 4) previously:

 

The good:

- Balance between the main possible strategies was quite good (with the exception of the issue pointed out in last point below)

 

The bad:

7vs7 on tier 6 is a rather specific gamemode. Yes it has been used in tier 6 CW for a while and is used in tier 6 skirmishes, still as the poll in this section seems to show, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for most people

 

- After safari lot of clans complained that it needed too much activity. Now number of landings was reduced, yet due to the rules +bids and number of available applications the activity needed was as bad as safari. Number of applications could have been kept at 5 or something like that. This would also affect balance between the different strategies though.

 

The ugly:

 

- Having influence (something accumulated due to activity outside of campaign) have a large effect on the results. This means that not all clans have an equal starting point in a time-limited event, what's worse this was not clear until the first rules were published ca. 4 days before start of the campaign

 

- Not having all provinces as a landing on first day, as has been the tradition in the past. Combined with the bidding system this decided most of top 20 results during this stage. If not placement then certainly the point gains, who spend more influence (and got lucky on province choice) got an advantage. It also seems this will be even worse in stage 2.

 

Just a quick look at some of the top placed clans in this stage and number of provinces they took on the first day:

3XR - 12 provinces using influence without a single shot fired, 4 taken in fights

OM - 4 with influence, 3 in fights

SANTI - 4 with influence, 5 in fights

WORKS - 2 with influence, 2 in fights

5STAR5 - 11 with influence, 3 in fights

RSOP - 8 with influence, 3 in fights

 

Would they end up on same positions anyway? Maybe yes, maybe not, what however is very certain is that they got a huge advantage by this. Can we blame for using influence? Off course not, they naturally do anything they are allowed to by the rules to win. But if we don't think this uneven playing field is a good idea we better be sure to tell WG that.

 

 


Edited by knightM, 09 December 2015 - 09:33 PM.


Fynnegun #2 Posted 01 December 2015 - 11:31 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

Thanks knightM for the detailed feedback, I'll include it in my report.

If anyone else has such (detailed) feedback, you can post it here I'll take into account as well.



Kuba9m #3 Posted 01 December 2015 - 01:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25471 battles
  • 1,203
  • [PSQD] PSQD
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

I think clans on the map were in worse position than those who were jumping. In last 3 days clans out the map could take each day about 30k fame pts , clans on the map with 8-10 provinces for the same amount of players needed (squads) made about 10-15k fame ,of course if they weren't raped...

So maybe next time make sth about if some clan is going out from map he lose % of fame from provinces , not all as it was now , because if You don't leave map 1st , maybe 2nd , but in 4-5 You lose big amount of pts ;)

Btw it was nice 6th tier contest



LilJumpa #4 Posted 01 December 2015 - 01:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 20912 battles
  • 216
  • [--S--] --S--
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013

Agreeing with everything KnightM wrote.

 

Since KAZNA is a clan aiming for Top 50, here's some additional feedback from a clan not necessarily aiming for Clanranking but Playerranking.

In regards of previous campaigns:

 

Positive:

 - The loosened connection between clan-FP and player-FP giving clans more flexibility in planning and their strategies.

  • no extra multipliers for battles for clan tasks (x2x5x25 anyone?)
  • clan-FP are not distributed among the players fighting the specific battles
  • all battles are more or less worth the same, only affected by maprules

 

 - Looking at the Tier 8 rules: Battles in all stages give the same amount of player-FP not making a whole stage of the campaign worthless.

 

Neutral:

- 7vs7: On Tier 6 many battles seem to be decided by RNG rather than tactics in this format.

- Map selection for the global map

- Total randomness of the landing zones: Having a province totally surrounded by landing tournaments is...... bad luck I guess

 

Negative:

 

- Influence (see KnightM): Should be a seperated pool and the same for each clan. In addition the rules for the following stages are published so late that you don't even know if you have to save influence or can spend it all on one stage

 

- Technical Issues with the map: If the rules state that you cannot set landings/bids while owning a province there should be no luck-factor involved here

 

  • On the first day we won a bid at 20:00 CET, immediatly got the province and had 2 tournament applications and a bid cancelled  at 22.00 CET which where set before we owned the province
  • During the campaign it was possible to win a tournament for an empty province at ~23.30 CET and already set Landing tournaments or bids for the next day while getting the province from NPC at 00.00 CET (Day 6)
  • Tell your guys responsible for the german localisation of the map that there is a differenc between scheduled and planned battles :harp:

 



SanyaJuutilainen #5 Posted 01 December 2015 - 02:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20782 battles
  • 1,876
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
Other than the 7vs7 format (which I think big clans are just not used to - met a top clan 5 player team with SU-100, A-43, T37, TOG and HT VI in one battle - and has about the same amount of skill as 15vs15), I agree with the points raised, good summary.

Schepel #6 Posted 01 December 2015 - 04:05 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57334 battles
  • 3,005
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013
I also largely agree with the raised points. The use of influence is just silly and should have no part whatsoever in a campaign. Otherwise, like I said in the poll topic: 7 vs 7 is too restrictive for a campaign. It basically means spamming fast, mobile tanks or a full on camp. There is very little opportunity for tactics or the use of varied teams. With the last big campaign, we saw the use of a wild variety of T6 tanks, but now it is just all about the cromwells and the T37's. Maybe some heavies on a select few city maps, but even there, the best clans tended to opt for light lineups. Also, due to the fact there was actually very little incentive to stay on the map, most clans left the map right after landing on it. There should be good reason to get on the map and stay there, without doing so resulting in severely limited options for large parts of clans to participate. Which, incidentally, is another drawback of 7 vs 7: once on the map, only 7 can play. 

mab90 #7 Posted 01 December 2015 - 08:14 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 21173 battles
  • 46
  • Member since:
    11-30-2010

View PostKuba9m, on 01 December 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I think clans on the map were in worse position than those who were jumping. In last 3 days clans out the map could take each day about 30k fame pts , clans on the map with 8-10 provinces for the same amount of players needed (squads) made about 10-15k fame ,of course if they weren't raped...

So maybe next time make sth about if some clan is going out from map he lose % of fame from provinces , not all as it was now , because if You don't leave map 1st , maybe 2nd , but in 4-5 You lose big amount of pts ;)

Btw it was nice 6th tier contest

 

I think this point can also be taken in another direction. One way would be to give clans leaving the map points, the other would be rewarding clans that keep provinces better. I believe in all the campaigns were losing a province was really bad for your clan's famepoints, the tactic is land and go off to land somewhere else.

You get a reward for keeping a province long, but the punishment is very high when losing that province on the last day. I believe this campaign is the first with an increased number of fame points kept when losing a province, but maybe it is possible to find a % where keeping a province is better then just leaving the map straight. With a perfect balance it would mean that you gain about the same ammount of fame points  if you keep or conquer provinces. This leaves the option for clans to stay on the map and have enough battles to satisfy them there, or hunt for more battles by leaving and landing again. Ofcourse the problem would be finding the right balance between points kept and lost/conquered.

 

I don't agree with the 7vs7 format compaints entirely. I do think it is a problem for active clans to need 10 battles to get everybody playing. I don't think the 7vs7 format is a problem in itself. 7vs7 is used in ESL for several years now. It restricts you in lineup, but the lowe density of tanks on the map (14 vs 30) does make the maps play out differently. I don't want to play it constantly, but I do find it interesting to play for a short period in a campaign (although it is less special with the t6 on the global map now).

 

@poll results, considering there are at this moment around 55 votes in the poll while there are way more than 10.000 players playing in the campaign (can't check number now as the alley of fame seems down).

The number of voters is statistically insignificant at this number of votes. Also the people that will read and vote in here will be a specific subset of the players, probably with a bias towards the higher skilled players. That means it will show what that subset thinks is better, it does not conclude that the majority of campaign players have the same oppinion.

 

On topic the of influence I think there is a clear consensus. It should not be used in campaigns (same for other resources that can be prepared beforehand (artillery strikes/bombers)). If it has to be included in the campaign, make sure all clans can prepare for it in time (so the playing ground is level again) or find another way (give each clan a certain number of campaign influence, maybe with influence gain during battles on the campaign map only).

 

 


Edited by mab90, 01 December 2015 - 08:19 PM.


knightM #8 Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:46 AM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostKuba9m, on 01 December 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I think clans on the map were in worse position than those who were jumping. In last 3 days clans out the map could take each day about 30k fame pts , clans on the map with 8-10 provinces for the same amount of players needed (squads) made about 10-15k fame ,of course if they weren't raped...

So maybe next time make sth about if some clan is going out from map he lose % of fame from provinces , not all as it was now , because if You don't leave map 1st , maybe 2nd , but in 4-5 You lose big amount of pts ;)

Btw it was nice 6th tier contest

 

Well ranking is invisible right now, but I think 8 out of 10 clans in top 10 never left the map, including the whole top 5.  Yes this was also affected by taking provinces with influence but not for all (as I wrote f.e.WORKS took only 2 provinces this way). So  your statement isn't quite true.

 

This type of rules (hold and camp or re-land) has been played 2 times previously:

1st stage of 2nd campaign - attackers had a huge advantage and won this stage (first 5 or so positions), defenders lost every single point when they lost the province and revolts (landings) were popping everywhere

"World on Fire" event - attackers also had an advantage but some exploits made them loose a lot of points, notably the attacked clan could leave the map before that landing was over and take all points with them. Partly due to this (and some very strong diplomacy ;) ) a camping clan won this stage with a small margin.

 

So now it was the first time where I'd say both strategies were really close.... if it weren't for the influence bid spams on the start.

The 7vs7 mode also affected that though, with 10vs10 or 15vs15 attackers would be more successful on landings.

 


Edited by knightM, 02 December 2015 - 12:46 AM.


KABINE10 #9 Posted 02 December 2015 - 01:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46537 battles
  • 734
  • [RSOP] RSOP
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011

staying on map was way much risky imo.. if you were unlucky last 3 days you got bid zerged at least once, you lost lot of points. yes i know one can say why you have more land + attacks that you can defend, well its simple because everyone did that and if you dont do that the gap between you and lets say top10 raises a lot.. so that was a "rng" factor again, get bid rushed or not.. (also the fact that you need plan your moves hours before but if you get bid rushed you notice it after last turn and its impossible to do anything about it)

also this lead to situation where some teams got 3-4 penalty points.. gg. game over for those.

 

imo that penalty points thing needs complete re thinking. way it is now its just unfair for teams stayed on map on stage1. (very fun to play with 5 and 6 players just because you need field all fights to avoid penalties)

this backfires your campaign a lot. 1) its hard to win in t6 7vs7 with 6 or 5 players. 2)after you already lost lot of points you cant leave map cos you get more minus points (well you can but its stupid move)

 

so yes you can say staying on map was maybe more rewarding but only if you werent completely bid zerged.
 



Winter #10 Posted 04 December 2015 - 05:46 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 43037 battles
  • 399
  • Member since:
    09-07-2010

7v7 Format

My main problem with the 7v7 format was the amount of camping it was causing. While I fully understand that this was a valid tactic for the clans on the map, it really gives a huge advantage on certain maps.

 

Especially Ruinberg with so few tanks is almost impossible to break, I would really much prefer both teams playing to win, not just for a draw. So I'd like to see either more tanks and/or some sort of format where a draw is loss for both/owner. This would obviously be a huge disadvantage for clans on the map so they'd need to be able to secure points faster than they would by the current rules.

 

WGL

Another issue I have with this campaign which doesn't just apply to the first stage, is it at all possible to have a break from WGL during campaigns? It's more than a little frustrating seeing your best FC and competitive players off in a channel doing WGL while you're trying to find an FC for one of your 9 battles.

 

Influence

As mentioned by others, the importance of this should be known well in advance, a lot of clans invest in their provinces these days and wont have 24k+ points lying around to get full enclaves (I know, stage 2 but it caused issues in the first stage as well and this was just my most recent issue with this).



KABINE10 #11 Posted 06 December 2015 - 06:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46537 battles
  • 734
  • [RSOP] RSOP
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011
spend a "year" in NON cw clan. come to say how campaign is not good :P ...dunno, you my brother see the irony i do?

Bronn1 #12 Posted 06 December 2015 - 12:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 52365 battles
  • 404
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    12-17-2011
I, for one, don't, But do you see the fallacy in countering the person and not the arguments he brings? :)

Dr__Kiwi #13 Posted 06 December 2015 - 02:39 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 32829 battles
  • 173
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012
So all of winters good points get nullified because he has been in a non cw clan for the past year? As far as I remember, IDEAL held far more land for the last year than F15 did and for far longer time, so you might want to rethink that reply. Maybe F15 is the non cw clan you are talking about. But what do I know.

KABINE10 #14 Posted 06 December 2015 - 03:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46537 battles
  • 734
  • [RSOP] RSOP
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011
that is true. my mistake.

koel76 #15 Posted 07 December 2015 - 09:14 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 15444 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostKiwi__, on 06 December 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

So all of winters good points get nullified because he has been in a non cw clan for the past year? As far as I remember, IDEAL held far more land for the last year than F15 did and for far longer time, so you might want to rethink that reply. Maybe F15 is the non cw clan you are talking about. But what do I know.

 

Based upon their performance, I might argue that your last statement is somewhat near the actual truth. 
Either way Winter raised some valid points, although I doubt we'll be seeing any change soon™.

Bratapult #16 Posted 09 December 2015 - 01:53 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 21851 battles
  • 455
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postkoel76, on 07 December 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

 

Based upon their performance, I might argue that your last statement is somewhat near the actual truth. 
Either way Winter raised some valid points, although I doubt we'll be seeing any change soon™.

 

f15 was top5 klanu until a certain person got kicked because of certain pleb fc that left the klanu anyways ... FeelsBadMan

Sgt_Diablo #17 Posted 16 December 2015 - 03:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 25583 battles
  • 932
  • [F15] F15
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011

View PostOneBrat, on 09 December 2015 - 01:53 AM, said:

 

f15 was top5 klanu until a certain person got kicked because of certain pleb fc that left the klanu anyways ... FeelsBadMan

 

Maybe some people who got kicked by a certain someone shouldn't have, but I will never know.

I do know some people should have been kicked, but wasn't, though ^^






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users