Jump to content


Event Feedback - Ongoing

Civil War

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

Mawderator #161 Posted Feb 25 2015 - 23:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14382 battles
  • 390
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostDUNDALK, on Feb 25 2015 - 10:18, said:

*snip*

 

If you had invested as much time writing poorly thought out walls of text as you did managing your clan, perhaps SU and GBEAR wouldn't be dead.



Allu_o7o7o7 #162 Posted Feb 26 2015 - 01:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 6,207
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
if u did the pick your hq thing, youd still have vilin holding our hq, otter attacking the enemy one and everyone else running interference.

the top 2 clans on each team will always be the base of your attack and defense

Agnotology #163 Posted Feb 26 2015 - 10:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 34703 battles
  • 583
  • Member since:
    05-26-2011

I can't weight in on the meta too much of chip movements, cover stacks, draft picks or province point values.... but this is the first time in over a year clan wars was fun. If the details need to be hashed out, whatever. 

 

We need more things like this.



hellwarden #164 Posted Feb 26 2015 - 21:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25622 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011

This may have been mentioned or discussed already but next time I would like to see......

 

A twitch-stream war-desk during prime-time to cover upcoming battles, view participant after battle replays with color commentary (mostly this), show the current map and points totals, and general buffoonery. 

 

Required: Charismatic personalities who can press "F" and have people believe it.

Rejected: Sock puppets and the hands that feed them. Also people who can juggle.



Allu_o7o7o7 #165 Posted Feb 26 2015 - 21:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 6,207
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Posthellwarden, on Feb 27 2015 - 08:06, said:

This may have been mentioned or discussed already but next time I would like to see......

 

A twitch-stream war-desk during prime-time to cover upcoming battles, view participant after battle replays with color commentary (mostly this), show the current map and points totals, and general buffoonery. 

 

Required: Charismatic personalities who can press "F" and have people believe it.

Rejected: Sock puppets and the hands that feed them. Also people who can juggle.

 

I know in South Team chat we had a nightly spam of streamers and battles going on. In future I'd like to see that going on in a shout box for all to see. Also a streamer not involved in the war that put on a show between matches and then streamed the other streamers streams while they were in battle would help too.

 



Im_Pickle_Rick #166 Posted Feb 26 2015 - 21:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19264 battles
  • 1,593
  • [HOOD] HOOD
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

View PostAllu_o7o7o7, on Feb 26 2015 - 20:16, said:

 

I know in South Team chat we had a nightly spam of streamers and battles going on. In future I'd like to see that going on in a shout box for all to see. Also a streamer not involved in the war that put on a show between matches and then streamed the other streamers streams while they were in battle would help too.

 

 

Yeah that's a really good idea, I'd like to see something like WGLNA commentary on some battles in the future

hellwarden #167 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 01:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25622 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011

View PostAllu_o7o7o7, on Feb 26 2015 - 14:16, said:

 

I know in South Team chat we had a nightly spam of streamers and battles going on. In future I'd like to see that going on in a shout box for all to see. Also a streamer not involved in the war that put on a show between matches and then streamed the other streamers streams while they were in battle would help too.

 

 

View PostDukeNukeEm, on Feb 26 2015 - 14:56, said:

 

Yeah that's a really good idea, I'd like to see something like WGLNA commentary on some battles in the future

 

Wish I would have thought of that.



G1bby #168 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 01:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25707 battles
  • 2,492
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

I'd like to see more 9v5 against Hellwarden!

 

:honoring:



hellwarden #169 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 01:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25622 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011

View PostG1bby, on Feb 26 2015 - 18:42, said:

I'd like to see more 9v5 against Hellwarden!

 

:honoring:

 

It was a 5 chip gamble of fun.

map381 #170 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 09:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19140 battles
  • 1,364
  • [REL_3] REL_3
  • Member since:
    07-18-2012

View Posthellwarden, on Feb 26 2015 - 19:46, said:

 

It was a 5 chip gamble of fun.

 

do you realize how massive g1bby's ego is now?  It's approaching _cru levels...

steelrain97 #171 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 16:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39815 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

I think we could possibly adjust the point values higher. Make regular provinces worth 10 points and making scaled province values ranging from 10 to 20 (decimal province values are messy). Headquarters are worth the most (say 20 points), but reward teams for pushing deep into enemy territory so scale a handful of other provinces from 12 to 16 points near the remote areas of each teams territory. Add a 1 time recapture bonus of 7 points for a headquarters. Retaking a "capital" is a big deal in nearly all map and territory based conflicts both game and real life. Add a negative point modifier for losing a headquarters of say 10 points. Add a dominance bonus of say 25 points for taking and holding x (possibly 60% of total available enemy provinces) number of enemy territories, you would have to take and hold for at least 1 night to get the bonus. Haven't really thought through all the scenarios and repercussions of this so it may not be perfect. Just my 2 cents.

Other than that, I think the general concept of this event is good. But adjusting the point values would add varied team strategies, and a little more complexity to the event. Maybe the possibility for the oh so juicy 4th quarter comeback from a team that goes down by a lot early. 



Ninja__Cat #172 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 20:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 44518 battles
  • 711
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012

View Postwril, on Feb 19 2015 - 22:45, said:

I think we should remove HQs, Currently only G can beat VILLIN and/or OTTER, that means 99% chance South will never loose the other half of HQs.

I think fighting for territories costing 1 point each is more strategic and allows team with only 1 power clan to maintain point lead. I think campaign should be more about how you spread out power clans across map to help non power clans grab as much territory as possible.

 

I'm focusing mostly on the part about you saying that only G can beat VILIN and OTTER. Yes, G is the clan that has the best chance against beating them, but I have personally been in battles where we have beaten VILIN and others where we have beaten OTTER. Both of them will beat us the majority of the time, but we will occasionally beat them and to be honest that's the point. When one of those clans steps up and makes a crucial win that wasn't expected of them that's one of those epic moments that they were talking about. Yes, the teams were a bit lopsided this battle, but headquarters gives teams a focal point to create more battles in that area and that's a good thing.

 

One thing I will say though, there does need to be something that makes it worth it for both teams to keep fighting till the end. Not sure what it is at the moment, but just the fact that the battles ended early it shows a change is needed in that department. Perhaps a separate way of winning a smaller pot of gold would be the side with the most land after the last day of the battle. This way even in the last day or two of battle there is still a chance the team losing can fight to win something, but being a smaller pot of gold it doesn't take away from all the fights that have had previously. Basically maybe 100000K gold for the team with the most points at the end, but 50000 or 25000 gold is still up for grabs to the team that has the most land (regardless of headquarters) after the last battle of the last day. It gives something for the team who is losing regardless of by how much to still have a pseudo winning condition.



G1bby #173 Posted Feb 27 2015 - 20:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25707 battles
  • 2,492
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

View Postmap381, on Feb 27 2015 - 00:47, said:

 

do you realize how massive g1bby's ego is now?  It's approaching _cru levels...

 

Nowhere near the size of my waistline.

Allu_o7o7o7 #174 Posted Feb 28 2015 - 03:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 6,207
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Poststeelrain97, on Feb 28 2015 - 03:46, said:

I think we could possibly adjust the point values higher. Make regular provinces worth 10 points and making scaled province values ranging from 10 to 20 (decimal province values are messy). Headquarters are worth the most (say 20 points), but reward teams for pushing deep into enemy territory so scale a handful of other provinces from 12 to 16 points near the remote areas of each teams territory. Add a 1 time recapture bonus of 7 points for a headquarters. Retaking a "capital" is a big deal in nearly all map and territory based conflicts both game and real life. Add a negative point modifier for losing a headquarters of say 10 points. Add a dominance bonus of say 25 points for taking and holding x (possibly 60% of total available enemy provinces) number of enemy territories, you would have to take and hold for at least 1 night to get the bonus. Haven't really thought through all the scenarios and repercussions of this so it may not be perfect. Just my 2 cents.

Other than that, I think the general concept of this event is good. But adjusting the point values would add varied team strategies, and a little more complexity to the event. Maybe the possibility for the oh so juicy 4th quarter comeback from a team that goes down by a lot early. 

 

Sounds like 8 extra hours a day to work out whos winning. Complex mechanics, mathematical formulae and algorithms are all things we don't want in events and campaigns.

 

View PostNinja__Cat, on Feb 28 2015 - 07:17, said:

I'm focusing mostly on the part about you saying that only G can beat VILIN and OTTER. Yes, G is the clan that has the best chance against beating them, but I have personally been in battles where we have beaten VILIN and others where we have beaten OTTER. Both of them will beat us the majority of the time...

 

Plenty of clans have wins against OTTER, it happens, stop putting words in Wrils mouth and getting all butthopping mad about it. The point Wril was making, the point you agreed with in blue, is that G was likely to be the only clan that would win consistently enough to actually take and hold land from otter/vilin. He was talking about the war, not the battle.



favrepeoria #175 Posted Feb 28 2015 - 05:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27240 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
The point because I don't think it is clear enough for some people. If you win against otter 1 of 10 times but they stomp you out the other 9 times is that really winning?

SpunkyGoon #176 Posted Mar 03 2015 - 02:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22106 battles
  • 608
  • [NUGGS] NUGGS
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012
I found that most of the wars that happened in the past were people trying to take out a power block(it only ended until that power block was mapped or the others got tired).  I think the next event should be something like one side holding an area, and the other side trying to map them.

yewchung #177 Posted Mar 03 2016 - 11:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 17510 battles
  • 4,366
  • [AWOO] AWOO
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
Sweet jesus it's been a whole year already.





Also tagged with Civil War

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users