Jump to content


Stage 2 Feedback (campaign 4)


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

knightM #1 Posted 09 December 2015 - 09:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46203 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

Feedback thread for the stage 2 as a whole.

 

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

 

The good:

Interesting idea to combine the farming with convoys and the points from this part were actually ok.

Some small details could have been different but it's just details

- the jump from small enclave (4000 points) to big enclave (8000 was a bit big imo). Could have made the big enclave give 7k (3x1000 +  4k bonus) so that 2 small enclaves give a bit more than 1 big.

- no idea why convoys gave 2200 points, could easily have been 2500

 

 

The bad:

 

Number of provinces in each of the primetimes. I didn't do a detailed count but it looked like 20 and 21 zone had about the same number of provinces (maybe 20 more) , but 22 definitely had much lower number.  Combined with lower number of landings this made the 22 landings extremely crowded.

 

- Bugs in the point calculation and WG taking 5 days to fix them. Sure bugs like that can happen. But we reported those on Thursday evening and they got fixed first on Tuesday with points getting corrected on Wednesday. That's really long time and it made the rankings more of a guesswork for very long time.

 

"Relocating" of some of the enclaves. At least 2 big enclaves did not change at all between the two phases. Tbh I fail to see how a properly designed "random" algorithm can do that. Anyway if it happens there should have been manually corrected immediately as it clearly gives an advantage (however small one) to the clans that hold them

 

The ugly: (mostly repeated from stage 1 but here even more prominent)

 

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.

 

- Not having all provinces as a landing on the first day, as has been the tradition in the past, and instead have the ability to bid directly on the point-giving enclaves.

Here this was even more important than in stage 1 since the points you got "for free" without fights on first day were permanent and couldn't be lost even if you lost every single battle afterwards. 

Also since you then had to defend the same provinces  this gave a big advantage to the clans that managed to get full enclaves this way on the first day. Large parts of the point gain by at least half of the top 20 clans were made by this. Again you can't blame the clans for this if they have the influence to spend. You should blame the rules for creating unequal playing field for no reason.


Edited by knightM, 09 December 2015 - 09:55 PM.


RaeudigerRonny #2 Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:20 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26350 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Fully agree on this. Maybe im writing something more tomorrow.

richblaster #3 Posted 10 December 2015 - 10:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 12140 battles
  • 966
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    04-19-2012

To underline what KnightM said, just an example for the part of using influence on day one for max fap-points, while being unable to get good results without it in the later days:

 

 

 



knightM #4 Posted 11 December 2015 - 12:40 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46203 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

Well that's relatively extreme.  But in the top 10 after the stage there were at least 5 clans which got like half their points for whole stage defending the provinces taken by bids the first day. Think we also got like 1/3 of points from the two provinces that we bid on the start. 

 

Add to that the "randomness" of the bids (you never know who bids same province and clans used anything from min bid to 11k ) and the results have relatively little to do with actual performance (or even activity).


Edited by knightM, 11 December 2015 - 12:41 AM.


Fynnegun #5 Posted 11 December 2015 - 04:04 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12718 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010
Thanks for the details, added in my report.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users