Jump to content


Event Feedback - Ongoing

Civil War

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

BRONSON75 #101 Posted Feb 22 2015 - 12:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12062 battles
  • 48
  • [GANGZ] GANGZ
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014
What an amazing job all of the organizers and participants have done thus far. It's great to see it from all perspectives. It is purely win, win, win, all the way around. Future suggestion......... do it again and again and again! Anything you all do is so much better than what was being done by WG or any entities on the global map, which was nothing worthwhile. You have proven player organized events are viable, as well as entertaining for ALL involved, from spectator to participant, and apparently even for WG themselves taking notes and clearly interested in the event for myriad reasons. It's all trial and error as most things in life are, so aside from clans and individuals mucking things up with hurt feelings, prides, and prejudices influencing their conduct in a negative way, you guys can really do no wrong at this point. I truly believe many lasting effects have been spawned from this venture, many of which have been called out by others, but one thing is absolutely clear, the initiative that has been undertaken and enacted with this first Civil War, as well as the professionalism from ALL parties of BOTH sides, will only lead to a better gaming experience for every player. Guaranteed. This has been HUGE. Bigger than I think many yet realize. At the very least it has proven a handful of motivated individuals can accomplish something positive, simply because they cared enough for the game, community, and players to try to better it, and break with the stagnation of the status quo. So my suggestion for future events is simply to be sure to have them at all. Keep it going. The willingness to listen to input for future events clearly should show everyone that those events WILL BE BETTER. Hats off and o7 to you organizers and players! Great job, gentlemen.

RevODekcuF #102 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 01:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16645 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
- What about the possibility of the Landing Zones being the HQs or prime provinces to hold, to get not only the 20 participants involved, but also to allow outside clans to have an influence in the tournament base for each of the landings.  This idea obviously can be expanded upon more, by setting up maybe a two day limit on ability remain in a landing zone as the owner before you have to give it up to the winner of the next days landing tournament.

PurpleGuy #103 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 02:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34218 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

I believe it would be better to get a bit more cover on the games, especially if we consider up and coming callers/clans.  By covering the meta as well as watching the matches, newer clans/callers will be able to understand what they should be expecting when they thrust themselves into clan wars(such as how camping does not work).  It is really important to broadcast events like this and how there are replays that people can watch in order for newer clans to improve themselves and become a force that can hold some ground on the map.  

 

But I mean, that's my opinion and ntr is ded :^)

 



veganzombiez #104 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 20:35

    Assistant Producer

  • Administrator
  • 14190 battles
  • 785
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

Maybe instead of 4-point HQs, have two 2-point provinces: HQ in the back, and a Forward Operating Base (FOB) closer to the front.  And then add bonus points for holding a state or region (pre-determined group of provinces).  To make it more difficult, the state/region has to be held by the same clan, not the team.

 

Alternatively, give each clan a total number of chips they can throw, and then add more if they hold a region.  This would likely require more administration from Hyp/me though.



TigersLovePepper #105 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 20:43

    Captain

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 31108 battles
  • 1,128
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Postveganzombiez, on Feb 23 2015 - 14:35, said:

Maybe instead of 4-point HQs, have two 2-point provinces: HQ in the back, and a Forward Operating Base (FOB) closer to the front.  And then add bonus points for holding a state or region (pre-determined group of provinces).  To make it more difficult, the state/region has to be held by the same clan, not the team.

 

Alternatively, give each clan a total number of chips they can throw, and then add more if they hold a region.  This would likely require more administration from Hyp/me though.

 Chip constraints seem wildly unfair, and the region bonuses I think would influence the strategy way too much. I do think we should change the HQs to two points each though, to prevent OTTER or another clan from roflstomping to victory. 



wril #106 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 20:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 27500 battles
  • 3,151
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
Remove HQs

Katukov #107 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 21:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 61074 battles
  • 3,284
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    11-27-2010
removed.

Edited by Katukov, Feb 28 2015 - 06:12.


favrepeoria #108 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 21:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

As we are seeing now, there will be no incentive to keep fighting after one team is mathematically eliminated. This should be countered with objectives that complete at the end of the event. Someone probably already said it but I don't feel like reading all pages again.


I would suggest half the total winnings being tied to winning or 60% whatever works. Then other secondary missions being worth value also such as holding most landings, holding most non HQ territories, etc. I think there couls also be other individual clan rewards such as bonuses for doing certain things like not get mapped, highest win percentage, most enemy tanks killed, etc. Not all are great ideas but it is more for examples.

 

These would all need a clause saying the clan must stay within a certain range of the fighting zone such as territory adjacent to points zones or must be on designated landings each night. 



LordFozy #109 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 21:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23894 battles
  • 351
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012
Honestly I like the idea of 2 point provinces and having the HQ's in the back and a FOB in the front. I don't agree with the state/ or region idea and chip constraints, but the rest I think could make it a little more challenging to just roflstomp to victory right on day 1 and not look back. 

favrepeoria #110 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 21:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
So event like this but have an HQ in the back also not near FOB. Have the FOB be like the current HQs. He problem being all these ideas are hard to say how the change would effect it without actually trying it.  The FOBs worth same amount as HQ? If HQ worth more that would focus the strongest clan on each team away from each other making for boring fight. I think best cause even though by naming is make them the same potentially leading to the middle tier clans in the fight for those. Either way I suppose you will have the middle clans fighting for one of the two. FOBs and HQ being far enough apart that one clan cannot hold both very well

Gyarados #111 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 22:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14341 battles
  • 11,504
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostTigersLovePepper, on Feb 23 2015 - 11:43, said:

 Chip constraints seem wildly unfair, and the region bonuses I think would influence the strategy way too much. I do think we should change the HQs to two points each though, to prevent OTTER or another clan from roflstomping to victory. 

 

To a point, I don't think it's too much. I wouldn't say insofar as to actually handicap anyone, but imagine if the tables were turned in terms of momentum and North had a bajilliondy cover stacks out, they're annoying to grind through. 

 

The only issue I've had with this is that I just didn't understand why the HQs were directly touching each other and RIGHT on the line, but I'll fully admit that I also had no planning in this at all, so there's that as well.



favrepeoria #112 Posted Feb 23 2015 - 22:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
You could fight through a bajilliondy cover stacks to fight through a bajilliondy cover stacks on the actual HQ then

Allu_o7o7o7 #113 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 00:22

    Major

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

View PostGyarados, on Feb 24 2015 - 09:22, said:

To a point, I don't think it's too much. I wouldn't say insofar as to actually handicap anyone, but imagine if the tables were turned in terms of momentum and North had a bajilliondy cover stacks out, they're annoying to grind through. 

The only issue I've had with this is that I just didn't understand why the HQs were directly touching each other and RIGHT on the line, but I'll fully admit that I also had no planning in this at all, so there's that as well.

 

Initially there was only 1 west hq province and 1 east hq province that sat between the 2 teams but neither team started with. it was later suggested that the HQs be increased to 2 provinces each so that chip constraints would make them more of a commitment to hold. calling them HQs was probably the main mistake, as that'd imply 1 team has distinct ownership of each. we did this because we couldn't find a spot to have a balanced north vs south engagement without timezone and/or landings being a major factor and imbalance.

 

doing what we did with 4 or 5 single hq territories spread out along the line instead of 2 groups of 2 would prolly have been a better idea for this first war



Gyarados #114 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 01:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14341 battles
  • 11,504
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

I mean, the line was defined. Putting them even one territory back for each team would be sufficed, I think, to at least make it a little less...lame, I guess. Since we had no momentum on night 1 (which is on our team) the HQs (or HVTs or whatever) were just already open. Even so, only winning one battle and boom, 8 points on that flank each night from two territories. Obviously it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the entire event, but it would have it at least more interesting. 



Allu_o7o7o7 #115 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 02:31

    Major

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

otter lost our attack on the hq on the first night to g, it was the only chip stack we threw... pbkac moving through us screwed up our chips too. the not chipping fisrt night thing didn't impact south as bad, but my point is that it didn't only impact north



Kamikaze_Squirrel #116 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 03:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26414 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
I don't know that the HQ placements were fundamentally flawed.  They seemed to provide excellent opportunities to really focus conflict at central points on the map.  That would I think have worked, but the South truly came out swinging.  Not only pushing the North clans out and taking the HQ's but even pressing on further to make 'buffer' areas between Northern lines and the HQ's.  It was the South's own strong play from day 1 that has lead to the imbalance of points presently, not the placement or even respective values of HQ zones versus normal ones.  imho

GarlicFries #117 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 20144 battles
  • 2,837
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2013
http://www.strawpoll.me/3720194
http://www.strawpoll.me/3720194
http://www.strawpoll.me/3720194

Please make this happen

Dirg #118 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 05:22

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25935 battles
  • 2,705
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-03-2010
what if you had no hq's and instead territory was given a value based on the draft position of the team who owned it. So a team picked in round 1 has land its 1 point. A team picked in round 10 territory is worth 10 points. The top pick teams now must try to clear out enemy low picks while defending their own low picks land. Not fully thought out but it does seem to favor a lot of movement and a lot more reliance on your mid picks.

BoilerBandsman #119 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 18:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11354 battles
  • 1,133
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
For the record, any "comeback" mechanic to make things competitive late is straight carebear nonsense.  If a team is dominant in the first 5 days, it deserves to score 5 dominant days, full stop.  Adding gimmickry to make things "interesting" is just introducing imbalance for the sake of faux drama.

MaxXxim #120 Posted Feb 24 2015 - 18:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35635 battles
  • 35
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012
Allow sides to relocate their HQ ones a week to any territory owned by that side, but two HQ must have a least one time zone between them (exmpl: 8pm and 10pm time zones) so they wouldn't get walled that easly





Also tagged with Civil War

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users