Jump to content


So... thoughts on new campaign?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

fubzy #1 Posted 15 December 2017 - 01:04 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20426 battles
  • 291
  • Member since:
    06-21-2013
Wondering with campaign getting close to an end what peoples thoughts are on how it has played out?
For me its nice to see that Fame have not run away with it by the midway point and that its interesting to follow, although I still have them as favorites to win.

Hows it been for the top clans, middle clans and lower clans?

Would a league system be better with prize pool shared out between all (obviously with top clan getting the most and lowest clan the least)??
Maybe this would need clans to register in advance?

xx984 #2 Posted 15 December 2017 - 01:33 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 56383 battles
  • 2,614
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

I've enjoyed it just because i enjoy CW, free tank and whatever is just a bonus.

 

also 

View Postfubzy, on 15 December 2017 - 12:04 AM, said:

 I still have them as favorites to win.

[edited]  you too :P



__H3H3__ #3 Posted 15 December 2017 - 08:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30975 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
I think the design of this campaign is very weird. Can't really say I think this is a good campaign but I just like playing CW. 

eldrak #4 Posted 15 December 2017 - 09:37 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48523 battles
  • 1,092
  • [NE-VO] NE-VO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

The research/converting fame points combined with the 5% transfer adds a couple of interesting push your luck elements.

 

The increases from research makes getting a tank fairly comfortable for players in top clan while the bond cost ensures you can't cycle through out of clan players unless those already have bonds stocked up (tank selling is limited by the amount of free spots in clan).

 

My only major complaint would be that the bond gains are a bit too low, particularly for the players ranked 6-11k.

You should have gotten bonds for playing every battle in campaign with extra for wins and x5 battles. Imo an active player in a low tier clan around spot 11k should have gotten ~3k bonds with average effort. (they currently get ~1k).



_Crusad3r_ #5 Posted 15 December 2017 - 10:14 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29853 battles
  • 1,598
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012
The whole research thing was a bit weird at first but it makes alot more sense once you get used to it and to be honest its actually a good addition - for people wanting to get higher into the points (clan or personal) to convert your points into a % bonus is actually alot better and tactical instead of the usual spam of battles. The bonds thing needs working on though as alot of players are playing and getting into the decent bonds but there are simply not enough clans playing to create wider brackets for the clan position multipliers (only top 7 clans get the x7) when imo it should be more to make it that bit easier for people to get the tank but then again I don't agree with bonds being linked to CW at all - it should stay in that gamemode, the name of which I will not say....

eldrak #6 Posted 15 December 2017 - 11:19 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48523 battles
  • 1,092
  • [NE-VO] NE-VO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
 

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 15 December 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

the name of which I will not say....

ranked

ranked

Ranked!

RANKED!

 

Actually I agree with you there, Bonds shouldn't be in the game at all.

 

Anyone betting against the *new* campaign tanks for next year being; FV215b, Foch 155, FV215b 183?



_Crusad3r_ #7 Posted 15 December 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29853 battles
  • 1,598
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Posteldrak, on 15 December 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

*edited*

*edited*

*edited!*

*EDITED!*

 

Actually I agree with you there, Bonds shouldn't be in the game at all.

 

Anyone betting against the *new* campaign tanks for next year being; FV215b, Foch 155, FV215b 183?

 

Fixed that for you and in a sense I can actually see a point to them putting those as options because not everyone managed to grind for them but I think the main problem is they are putting all new prems in at T8 and not enough effort into making a T10 reward tank but y'know WG :p



benerdeath #8 Posted 15 December 2017 - 02:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20027 battles
  • 7
  • [ARAVT] ARAVT
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

The technology side is interesting. But I am not sure if it is better than the previous years with clan war with clan missions. I actually prefer the clan mission approach. It gives a purpose everytime we battle rather than just battling for some fame points which we can purchase technology.

 

There is one downside to this approach though. It creates a lot of anxiety for the people around the cutoff point. The reason is, positions can move drastically due to fame point multiplier. I just don't think that something that is taking a long time to participate should have this kind of feature. The points accumulation should be steady. 

 

Let me use an example. To become formula one champion, you will have to collect points from the races throughout the year. The reward points always stay Max of 25 points for each win. When you become a champion at the end, you know that all your effort put in the whole year is paying off. Assuming you haven't collected a lot of points toward the end. You can't suddenly change to a superior team with superior technology and get 10000 points in a single win and win the championship.

 

I repeat, steady points accumulation ensures that people are comfortable with their points accrued so far and it reduces anxiety. Rather than enjoying the game, players are feeling stressed with the current system.

 

I am hot happy with the bond as rewards but whatever decision wargaming made, they must have their reasons. What I would say is that once a player is within the cutoff point, they should have unlimited time to get the tank whenever they want. This will mean that they will collect their bonds as needed and get the tank on their own terms. Providing specific date to get the tank by is just adding to the problem of anxiety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Totieso #9 Posted 15 December 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 38949 battles
  • 2,181
  • [NLIFE] NLIFE
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015
Way too long. Last year was 17 days long, if i recall correctly, and they asked if it was enough. We said yes and talked about 3 5-days weeks. Then they did what they want as always cause they always listen to the community.

ogremage #10 Posted 16 December 2017 - 06:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34080 battles
  • 1,421
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
Isn't there like a week of play left? Subjectively, it doesn't feel like it's "getting close to an end" yet.

Edited by ogremage, 16 December 2017 - 06:52 PM.


FidelisRaven #11 Posted 17 December 2017 - 11:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 39508 battles
  • 557
  • [WHO] WHO
  • Member since:
    05-23-2012
I like the new format, however: 

1) Bonds rewards are too small. There should be a tier 8 prem reward for 2k bonds, this would solve a lot of whine. Also, there should have been a new tier 10 reward tank available, since players who played all previous campaigns and won don't have any incentive to play. 
2) Battle tempo should be reduced. Having battles on prime time and on +15 is a good mechanism for cw - it enables smaller clans with just 1 team to attack and def provinces at the same time in a specific prime time zone. However, in campaigns this leads to overburdening everyone - you have to finish battles early to go into next ones, no breaks for the whole evening - just  4-5 hours of non stop battle battle battle. Exhausting, and should be changed. 
3) Support service should be adjusted for the campaign so that tickets concerning campaign have absolute priority. 

There, you have the perfect campaign ;) 

DuncaN_101 #12 Posted 17 December 2017 - 11:54 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 53717 battles
  • 2,031
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

the only thing i'm not happy with is the fact that you are not fighting 2 get a good enough rank too get a tank ...

you're fighting 2 get a chance 2 BUY a tank wich is not really a reward its just silly. you should just get the tank if you qualify for it not having more resources and time into it.

 

besides this nothing is worse or better then other campaigns i'd say



SirGruut #13 Posted 17 December 2017 - 01:06 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22180 battles
  • 122
  • [QSF] QSF
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014

I think this campaign has been quite messy but to be honest this campaign has been the easiest one yet.

 

1) bonds as rewards: 6/10

There are only a quarter of last years participants but the same amount of rewards and now that we have been going for this long i actually dont mind the system that much, it makes the campaign competitive on every position and untill the end. This is because previously you just needed the top 11k and you get nothing more for reaching higher positions (apart from the bragging rights from top3). In this campaign WG finally gave value to every position and made it worth it for people to compete. The same goes for clan rating, before you were top 50 and you got free tanks or you were -51 and got nothing. This time around there is an insentive to get your clan as high as possible because it will give you more bonds.

 

Using bonds to achieve this is indeed a little dubious and feels like pushing the currency, but what is the alternative? Scaling the number of reward tanks directly with the participation would once again remove the difference between position 4 and position 9 and using credits or gold instead of bonds to buy the final tank would make it so you could just throw you wallet at the game and get a tank. Bonds is the only currency that cannot be obtained by using the wallet but can be grinded slowly in randoms giving an incentive towards competition and allowing those who lack a bit to still get it.

 

Another usefull reason for bonds is that no new reward tank was added and the only decent ones are the 907 and faillowe. People that have played a lot of campaigns  and have the tanks would not play, these players tend to be the best ones as well removing lots of competition. Other people might actually prefer to give make 140/maus 2% better instead of picking a fancy looking reward tank, its giving people options.

 

i gave it 6/10 because it has some good points but looks like it was implemented in a hurry. The thing i like the least about it is that it is probably the mayor reason for the horrible participation this year

 

2) no new reward tank 1/5

This was probably the biggest killer for me, i already have played 2 campaign and always look forward to the new t10 tank. I realize its hard to implement a balanced tank every year especially after how bad the 121B was received but its still quite lazy and is probably partially responsible for the low participation.

 

3) Research and GM mechanics 8/10

I like that there is a new mechanic every year and in the end it isnt to difficult to manage. What i dont like about it is the crazy runaway that this causes for the better clans. Usually bigger clans can earn fame faster because they get land which is an x5 battle and can then attack from there land to get additional (smaller) x5 tournaments. The issue i have is that due to research this gain increases even more because only bigger clans can afford research, on top of that the biggest clans can apply for the elite front, this locks tank but gives insane amounts of clan and regular fame. All of this combined make it so the top clans can earn more fame from holding their provinces for 1 day then a top 40 clan can make in the entire campaign. 

 

This issue becomes even bigger with the rule that allows you to "steal" 5% fame from a clan that is higher ranked, and example is G__G receiving 70k point from getting a technical against fame! This means that any clan can get catapulted into the high ranks by winning 1 battle against a good clan, even with a technical. The idea behind this 5% was decent as a way to even out the fame points somewhat and motivate people to convert into research the side effect is massive tho.

 

The +15 time zones is something i would rather not see again even tho it has some good points:

+ Less time spent waiting for games to start

+ less draws because people dont have the time

+ no big gaps after losing 1 game since there is still the +15 tourament

- more pressure on players,there is never a time to relax or explain some changes to the tactic

- more pressure to quickly pick tanks, this has resulted in less rotations in my clan because its faster to pick exactly the same setup

- double the requirements in points because there are twice as many battles

- more credit intensive since there are twice as many battles

 

4) camo's/medal 4/5

Its great to have 3 different camo's this year to once again promote competition for the higher ranks but i would rather have them spend time on a new t10 tank, i do realize this costs a lot more resources tho.

 

5) timing and duration 2/5

The length of the campaign is something i dont like that much but got used to by now, 4 weeks is very long especially with the amount of pressure and the amount of games with stacked timezones. I would really like to see that the break days are a bit more spread out next year since their was no real brake in the entire 3rd stage (which last 3 weeks!) apart from the patch day, which is something that might not be there next year.

 

I also dont like it that the campaign is this close to christmas, this period tend to be really busy for both students (with examns) and companies to have to make sure everything is done before the holidays. Once again i feel like this is partially responsible for the low participation

 

Overall the campaign was defined by low participation and stressing about bonds, the mechanics were novel and decent but had some (big) holes i feel.

 

edit: added nr 5


Edited by SirGruut, 17 December 2017 - 01:21 PM.


_Crusad3r_ #14 Posted 17 December 2017 - 01:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29853 battles
  • 1,598
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostTotieso, on 15 December 2017 - 10:53 PM, said:

Way too long. Last year was 17 days long, if i recall correctly, and they asked if it was enough. We said yes and talked about 3 5-days weeks. Then they did what they want as always cause they always listen to the community.

 

Last year was a 4 week campaign. One week of T6 (complete cancer) one week of T8 and then 2 weeks of T10 - most campaigns if not all of them have been around 4 weeks long

SirGruut #15 Posted 17 December 2017 - 01:16 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22180 battles
  • 122
  • [QSF] QSF
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 17 December 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

 

Last year was a 4 week campaign. One week of T6 (complete cancer) one week of T8 and then 2 weeks of T10 - most campaigns if not all of them have been around 4 weeks long

 

I do agree that its called a big campaign for a reason, but 4 weeks is very long tho. I dont feel that burned out yet because i have rotated out a lot already but if this was a more difficult campaign or i was in a worse clan i might have had issues with playing this frequently.

fwhaatpiraat #16 Posted 17 December 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49239 battles
  • 844
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostSirGruut, on 17 December 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

-

 

Overall the campaign was defined by low participation and stressing about bonds, the mechanics were novel and decent but had some (big) holes i feel.

 

Well written and good, nuanced points.

 



__H3H3__ #17 Posted 18 December 2017 - 08:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30975 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
I am burned out from this shitty campaign. I played every single day. Almost every single battle because I am one of the only FC's. I also already have the 907 so the only reason I am playing this campaign is to give other people their 907's. Kind of lost my motivation 1 week ago already. 4 weeks is far to long for me. I would enjoy it more if there was a campaign for a tier 8 prem for 2 weeks max.

_Crusad3r_ #18 Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:51 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29853 battles
  • 1,598
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Postanother_Ghost_Shell, on 18 December 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

I am burned out from this shitty campaign. I played every single day. Almost every single battle because I am one of the only FC's. I also already have the 907 so the only reason I am playing this campaign is to give other people their 907's. Kind of lost my motivation 1 week ago already. 4 weeks is far to long for me. I would enjoy it more if there was a campaign for a tier 8 prem for 2 weeks max.

 

At the end of the day all of the T10 reward tank campaigns have been 4 weeks. Noone forces you to sit there and play. If you aren't in the mood to play then don't. Its not like you are handcuffed to your desk to play - you should also try rotating FC's in and out every couple days to rest them but if you only have 1-2 FC's then thats a clan problem ;)

__H3H3__ #19 Posted 18 December 2017 - 10:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30975 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 18 December 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

At the end of the day all of the T10 reward tank campaigns have been 4 weeks. Noone forces you to sit there and play. If you aren't in the mood to play then don't. Its not like you are handcuffed to your desk to play - you should also try rotating FC's in and out every couple days to rest them but if you only have 1-2 FC's then thats a clan problem ;)

 

Well I kind of feel responsible now. The other FC that we have just started FCing this campaign, he doesnt have a lot of experience so he is not winning a lot of his battles. If I decide to stop playing the campaign a lot of people won't get their reward tanks. I just can't to that. But well 4 more days and it's over. 

James_Potkukelkka #20 Posted 18 December 2017 - 02:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23678 battles
  • 64
  • [TSOP] TSOP
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

- Campaing is too long, if we play only X-tier 10-15 days should be enought.

- Bonds... 

- No new reward tank

+ other thing I like, pretty nice campaing.

 

3/5 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users