Jump to content


Campaign 4 feedback (whole campaign)


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

knightM #1 Posted 21 December 2015 - 07:52 PM

    Lieutenant

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

So feedback for the whole campaign, trying to have a look on how all stages worked together as well as repeating some issues from the feedback of each separate stage.


The stage specific feedback threads are here:

http://forum.worldof...age-1-feedback/

http://forum.worldof...ack-campaign-4/

http://forum.worldof...ack-campaign-4/

 

The good:

- The main point-gaining strategies in 1st and 2nd stage were actually good (too bad they got affected too much by the influence issues)

 

The bad:

 

Timing (dates). The campaign was simply too close before christmas. Yes I can see why (CW 2.0 after summer, Safari.. then campaign) but it should have ended at least 2 weeks earlier just like 3rd campaign last year. That would also allow for breaks between stages.

 

Length. It was a few days too long. I can understand that tier 10 could be longer than other stages but could for example make it  6-8-10 days (same number as tier) to keep the overall length the same.

 

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. I'd say it would improve a lot of tier 6 was at least 10vs10.

 

The ugly:

 

Rules published 3-4 days before each stage. This is something WG has been doing since the first campaign and I still don't think it's a good idea. Should publish all rules before start. Yes that would mean WG stuff will be busy with questions that first week... but less busy after.

 

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. Who spend more influence on first day (and got lucky on province choice) got an advantage. During stage 2 and 3 you even got points directly.

 

- Bidding "lottery"

You can't call it auction cause it doesn't work like auction. In an auction you are able to see who is bidding and how much and can adjust. Here you pick some number and hope for the best. As mentioned before during stage 3 first day a 5k bid was about the average for all provinces. Yet you had clans using 7k and getting outbid while there was even a province that nobody bid on.  So whether you won the auction didn't depend on how much influence you had and used but also on who also had the province as a target and how lucky you were

 

Reducing number of landings/provinces each stage. Combined with the mechanisms above this made the campaign a nightmare for mediocre-weak clans. 

 

- Impossibility to plan number of battles + sanctions for missing battles.

Don't get me wrong, it is perfectly fine to get sanctions for not showing up. The problem is that during all stages the number of battles was only limited by number of players online. Now even if you know exactly how many players you will have online at any point it was not possible to plan your battles. There has always been the issue that you don't know whether some province gets attacked or how many clans apply somewhere. Now on top of that you had the insecurity of whether you win a bid "lottery" and whether someone bids on your provinces. At the same time if you always planned to have enough players for even the worst combination of events you ended up missing many opportunities for extra points. So the majority of all clans ended balancing on the razor edge of sanctions vs points gains. This was easy to see when checking who got warnings and penalty points.

 

- "Random" mechanisms in stage 3

Stage 3 combined the worst of the bidding system with "randomly" given tasks where you couldn't see where next target is before choosing and other issues. (see feedback for stage 3 for details). The result was just that.... random. Yes the clan that won most battles in tier 10 won that stage, but that was actually an exception. The placement of the next 12 or so clans during that stage was all about RNG. Some clans got trough 3-4 days of a task with fighting only 1-2 battles. Others fought 10 battles vs strong clans just to get to 2nd day. Yes you can say that over time these random mechanisms get averaged out, but not over a few days of one stage. 

 

"Full points or nothing" in stage 3

After safari clans complained how loosing 1 battle cost you any chance to get more points from the task. Now in stage 3 it not only cost you that but also all points that you "gained" until then. So completely contrary to player feedback. Could have easily been changed into for example getting moved back 1 day on the task. This would also reduce the whole RNG factor of stage 3.

 

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

 

Overall I personally rank this campaign as the worst out of the 4 we had so far. Clearly far behind the 3rd one which we had last year. This is especially troubling after Safari was almost unanimously hailed as the best short-duration event so far.

 

Simple fixes which solve almost all problems mentioned above:

 

- remove auctions and influence from campaigns

- keep all landings open on first day of each stage (even if auctions are removed, this point is still needed so that small clans have a chance to at least get on the map)

 

If the influence effects and the "farmwars" mechanism are kept for next CW events, smaller/medium size clans and new clans will have no chance in them no matter how well they play.  Note that using influence in normal CW does not really have these effects as the provinces there need to be defended over time to give benefits (gold), during campaign you often only need a few specific provinces for a short period.

 


Edited by knightM, 21 December 2015 - 08:00 PM.


DrStronklove #2 Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:09 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 34701 battles
  • 134
  • [-FRI-] -FRI-
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013

I think duration could be shortened to 5 days on each stage with 1 day in between, then it's done in 17 days, and it's still enough to give a good measure of how clans stand in relation to each other.

 

i'd like to see all campaign games being 15v15, on all tiers.

 

Like you said I think that combining punishments with the impossibility of planning battles and uncertainty of bidding is a bad idea.

A very simple solution is to give full fame-points for technical victories, like say 60~80 for a battle in a tournament and 300-370 for battle on a province depending on elo-rating etc.

 

I think this was the best campaign so far, I especially like that clan-fame did not effect personal fame when completing missions etc, because that gives more players a fair chance, and it was easy to make a "ball-park calculation" of who would get rewards. Missions played a part but wasn't extreme, except for the risk-it-all missions in stage 3.

 

Influence is a problem, a lot of guys in my clan got really worn out playing tons and tons of skirmishes to earn enough influence to be able to have the cw-battles, so that when we went in for cw-battles after the first week or so, we were often not performing like we normally do, total burn-out. Nearly a thousand skirmish-battles played by our clan during the campaign, and I presume we even went in with more influence than most clans. 

In spite of that we had to play until 2:30 in the morning of the 19th dec to have enough influence to activate the last divisions on the map for the last day of the campaign.

 

Too short notice on information about campaign. this goes for in-between stages as well as before the whole campaign. Info is always "last minute".


Edited by m4ch1n33rik, 22 December 2015 - 10:11 AM.


Fynnegun #3 Posted 22 December 2015 - 12:12 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12718 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010
Thanks again, if anyone else has feedback to add, please do so of course.

arturo112 #4 Posted 22 December 2015 - 12:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9034 battles
  • 580
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
I just want to add again how bad I think the decision to use influence for the campaign was, especially since there was no indication prior to the campaign that there was going to be a heavy emphasis on influence. Maybe this is fine for NA now since their campaign is delayed and they know to farm up some influence, but if there is going to be a resource from outside of the campaign that is going to have a significant effect on the outcome, then it would make sense (at least to me) to know well before the event starts so clans know what they're up against.

Unkel_Dolan #5 Posted 22 December 2015 - 08:21 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 27031 battles
  • 2,694
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

My 2 cents from the perspective of a small clan. Only 27 people played more than 10 battles in the campaign, we never attempted to fight for clan rankings, only personal rankings.

 

Good:

- fame points distribution. in the past campaigns, clan fame points and personal fame points were mixed, and players who won a game for an objective could get 10.000 fame points in one battle. it made it hard to estimate how many points people needed to be in the reward range. this time around it was quite easy to estimate and we didn't have to worry about some last minute bad surprise.

 

- reward distribution. 5k for top clans and 6k for top players seems fair enough. the 15 battle requirement for top clan players also limits potential abuse, although for such a long campaign I think 25 should have been the minimum. Also the tanks were distributed to the players the day after the end of the campaign, that was nice.

 

- sanctions for no show. that was pretty good, I can't say it helped us because we needed a lot of games and we didn't have a lot of people, but it makes people think before they apply to a landing and overall there were less technical victories (which bring no fame points and make everyone wait in queue 15 minutes for nothing).

 

Bad:

- Length. I understand that WG doesn't want to hand out free tier 10s with no effort required, but I think 21-25 days would be enough. 

 

- Influence. For small clans it wasn't as critical as for clans fighting for top 50, but it still feels unfair, even though my clan actually benefited from it. We don't do CW outside of campaigns, and we only played stronghold shortly before the campaign. Somehow we had 6000 influence in reserve, which allowed us to get a free province at the start of the tier 8 stage. Getting a province without a fight is a huge advantage even when you're only competing for personal rankings. It guarantees you at least a couple x5 fame games every evening (1 defense + 1 attack on a neighbor), whiles clans that don't have influence need to fight 10 landing battles to gain the same amount of points. Even after the first day of the stage, having influence allows a clan to "snipe" the weakest clan they can find on the map by just bidding high on their province. I think it should be disabled entirely during the campaign, or at the very least during the first day of each stage.

 

- Tier 6. Nobody in the clan enjoyed that stage. O-I camp and T37 autoaim swarm. Every game. There is no variety in lineups, and with 7vs7 there is also hardly any variety in tactics. Our clan performed its best in that stage, yet it's still the most disliked stage of all 3. 10vs10 and/or some form of class limits would help making it more interesting.

 

- Landing limitations. As a small clan with no CW activity outside of campaigns, we try to focus on a single map so that we can use our existing tactic and refine it more. But in tier 10 several maps weren't available on landing provinces in some prime times. The lower amount of provinces wasn't an awful thing, it just made almost very landing tournament full, which is good for personal fame points. But it would have been nice to have more maps to choose from at every prime time. 

 

 

That's 4 bad and 3 good, but overall I think this was a good campaign. 



Feldwebel_fin #6 Posted 23 December 2015 - 08:30 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 22961 battles
  • 96
  • [KELA] KELA
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
Timezones... I have been complaining about this since they changed. Now games started for UTC+2 players at 21.00, other possibilities were 22.00 and 23.00. Now landing tournamet with 64 patricipants takes hours. Do those times sound resonable for players who have to go to work or school in morning?

Phantatron #7 Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:24 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 52253 battles
  • 24
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-01-2012

View PostknightM, on 21 December 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

- Impossibility to plan number of battles + sanctions for missing battles.

Don't get me wrong, it is perfectly fine to get sanctions for not showing up. The problem is that during all stages the number of battles was only limited by number of players online. Now even if you know exactly how many players you will have online at any point it was not possible to plan your battles. There has always been the issue that you don't know whether some province gets attacked or how many clans apply somewhere. Now on top of that you had the insecurity of whether you win a bid "lottery" and whether someone bids on your provinces. At the same time if you always planned to have enough players for even the worst combination of events you ended up missing many opportunities for extra points. So the majority of all clans ended balancing on the razor edge of sanctions vs points gains. This was easy to see when checking who got warnings and penalty points.

 

This. We had some day of greedy auction spamming in the early stages since the previous day most of our bids didn't go through and suddenly we had 3 extra battles on the same day where we couldn't get enough players. This resulted in -20k fame and after that we couldn't afford a single gamble or campaign would be over for us. Ofc this fc who placed too many (really small) bids was partially to blame but really there was no telling if any of them would go through. In bare minimum there should be some system of showing that the province has a bid on it or maybe even showing the current winning bid. What's the point of auctioning if you do it in the dark?



knightM #8 Posted 23 December 2015 - 06:13 PM

    Lieutenant

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

Actually I forgot one very important negative point:

 

- No rewards for placement, the only rewards were tanks for top 50 and medals for top 3. While I agree that the famepoint bonuses based on placement were removed, the gold bonuses for placement should have stayed. For example:

300k 1st

200k 2nd

100k 3rd

and after that -10k for every few positions


Edited by knightM, 23 December 2015 - 06:13 PM.


roastedlemon #9 Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20057 battles
  • 675
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostknightM, on 23 December 2015 - 05:13 PM, said:

Actually I forgot one very important negative point:

 

- No rewards for placement, the only rewards were tanks for top 50 and medals for top 3. While I agree that the famepoint bonuses based on placement were removed, the gold bonuses for placement should have stayed. For example:

300k 1st

200k 2nd

100k 3rd

and after that -10k for every few positions

 

This. Apart from the top 3 places which competed for pointless medals and personal clan fame, for positions 4th and below there was no point in caring if u came 4th or 50th. However if there were gold rewards for clans, the incentive to push for higher positions would mean more clans had something to fight for.



Fynnegun #10 Posted 24 December 2015 - 09:06 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12718 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

View PostknightM, on 23 December 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

Actually I forgot one very important negative point:

 

- No rewards for placement, the only rewards were tanks for top 50 and medals for top 3. While I agree that the famepoint bonuses based on placement were removed, the gold bonuses for placement should have stayed. For example:

300k 1st

200k 2nd

100k 3rd

and after that -10k for every few positions

 

Completely agree, it's actually already in my report :)



j_gagarin #11 Posted 25 December 2015 - 09:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 68410 battles
  • 669
  • [VAD-V] VAD-V
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

Still don't understan how the prizes were awardet /Read rules section 3.12/

Acc. to WG 11000 licensec were awarded.

~4500 went to Top50 clan players, who were in the clan when event ended.

Checked on 12.21. Players with less than 15 battle are included. On this day less people left their clan acc. to Wot-Info.

~2000 were out of 11k, 2500k was in acc. to personal rating.

So there should be ~500 left over clan license

6000 went to player acc. to Wildcard system and Personal Rating (PR).

Last person to recieve the tack acc. to Personal rating was at pos. ~8680

 

If the 11k licenses were handed out:

2k of them out for players worst than 11000 acc. to Personal rating (Top50 Clan menbers, with 15+ Battle),

than the last person to recieve the tank should be around 9k.

The last Person is still on pos. ~8680

Acc. to this either:

- roughly extra 300-500 players outside of 11k recieved Clan license and left the clan on 12.21

(its less than 50 most of them with good rating (acc. to Wot-Info)

- or left over clan licenses (no 5k players in Top50 clans at the end) simply vanished (~500)

 

The difference from last player to recieve tank ~8680 and Top50Clanplayes (2500) and licenses acc. to PR. (6000), can come from Top50 Clan player without 15+ battle.

~Thier number is ~100-200, and the rounding of the number during my calculation (makes an error of ~50)

 

Finally I understood.

The 11k = No.  of awards form PR + No. of Clan lincenses before the the last one to recieve from PR (~1950)+ No. of Clan lincenses afterthe the last one to recieve from PR (~2450).

This way ~1950+~6500+~2450 = ~11k


Edited by j_gagarin, 26 December 2015 - 09:55 AM.


bmx555 #12 Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:48 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 37459 battles
  • 7
  • [EA5T] EA5T
  • Member since:
    09-14-2012

.

 



_GipsyDanger #13 Posted 28 May 2016 - 08:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22024 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-30-2013

1


Edited by _GipsyDanger, 28 May 2016 - 08:17 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users