Jump to content


Event Feedback - Ongoing

Civil War

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

_Marine #21 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 21:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 27274 battles
  • 3,246
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
An hour (or half  hour) before CW battles there could be someone who is streaming who can go over all the happenings from the previous day, battles which are going to be key based upon chip movements, and an overall sense of how things are going before jumping into battles

map381 #22 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 21:37

    Captain

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

View Postbulldog1986, on Feb 19 2015 - 15:07, said:

Two things right off the bat

 

1st - Allow more time for teams to get in place if you are going to have battle lines, the clan wars map does not always cooperate with how you want it to.

 

2nd - Limit the amount of cover stacks allowed to 2 per territory

 

View PostwriI, on Feb 19 2015 - 15:11, said:

Something that should be worked on is the map...or layout of provinces, particularly the HQ's. Having each team's HQ border the other I suppose attracts two good clans together for battles, however as you see this time, one clan quickly gained the HQ from the other and has kept it sense with little to no resistance. Possibly throwing the HQ's in the back of the line would force teams to extend their boundaries in effort to gain those HQ's. I feel this would have a better impact on the war and create a more balanced structure for the event.

 

I agree with bulldog...and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I also agree with wril.  Seeing the 3 and 4 team coverstacks taht we've been getting(and yes, giving as well)  is a challenge

TigersLovePepper #23 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 21:46

    Captain

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 31489 battles
  • 1,128
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostwriI, on Feb 19 2015 - 15:11, said:

Something that should be worked on is the map...or layout of provinces, particularly the HQ's. Having each team's HQ border the other I suppose attracts two good clans together for battles, however as you see this time, one clan quickly gained the HQ from the other and has kept it sense with little to no resistance. Possibly throwing the HQ's in the back of the line would force teams to extend their boundaries in effort to gain those HQ's. I feel this would have a better impact on the war and create a more balanced structure for the event.

 

I disagree, we've gotten tons of good battles against -G- and surrounding clans, contesting the HQs. And the only reason the western HQ was taken so quickly was the structure of the teams, with us being stronger in the west. If Relic hadn't pulled off, they still might be contesting that. I prefer having the HQs on the front lines because that fosters intense fighting.



Barathis #24 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 21:57

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28094 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostTigersLovePepper, on Feb 19 2015 - 14:46, said:

 

I disagree, we've gotten tons of good battles against -G- and surrounding clans, contesting the HQs. And the only reason the western HQ was taken so quickly was the structure of the teams, with us being stronger in the west. If Relic hadn't pulled off, they still might be contesting that. I prefer having the HQs on the front lines because that fosters intense fighting.

 

I would think that being on the front lines doesn't necessarily lead to more intense fighting, instead it would lead to less because 1 clan is more likely able to cover both, adjacent territories, as we see happening, rather than one clan having to stretch across the map if they wanted to cover both HQ's in a timezone.  All HQ's are worth the same so if there are 4 areas of the map needing covered instead of just 2 sets of 2 adjacent territories.  More important/intense fighting would be spread out thus making more intense fighting for twice as many clans instead of just the attacker and defender in 2 zones. 

steelrain97 #25 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39085 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012
Big fan of the event, it has been somewhat difficult to follow the event on twitch. Perhaps you could have 1 designated streamer per clan. That guy could host whoever will actually be in the battle. Feature a few fights per night as opposed to having 30 streamers and viewers having to hunt down a stream and hope that fights are actually going on. I know that's asking for a lot of a few player's time, but its the best alternative I can think of other than Wargaming organized streams.

Illusion #26 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:22

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 25549 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    10-13-2010

View Poststeelrain97, on Feb 19 2015 - 21:13, said:

Big fan of the event, it has been somewhat difficult to follow the event on twitch. Perhaps you could have 1 designated streamer per clan. That guy could host whoever will actually be in the battle. Feature a few fights per night as opposed to having 30 streamers and viewers having to hunt down a stream and hope that fights are actually going on. I know that's asking for a lot of a few player's time, but its the best alternative I can think of other than Wargaming organized streams.

 

This is hard to do as not all streamers are on every night and also sometimes you have several battles happening at the same time for a clan

Allu_o7o7o7 #27 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:29

    Major

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

View PostBarathis, on Feb 20 2015 - 08:57, said:

I would think that being on the front lines doesn't necessarily lead to more intense fighting, instead it would lead to less because 1 clan is more likely able to cover both, adjacent territories, as we see happening, rather than one clan having to stretch across the map if they wanted to cover both HQ's in a timezone.  All HQ's are worth the same so if there are 4 areas of the map needing covered instead of just 2 sets of 2 adjacent territories.  More important/intense fighting would be spread out thus making more intense fighting for twice as many clans instead of just the attacker and defender in 2 zones. 

 

OTTER has fought 13 battles in the last 2 days of conflict, half of them against G. I'd call that pretty intense fighting. If the HQs were more spread out you'd have G, OTTER, VILIN and RELIC sitting on 1 each, with only the other clans around them fighting which I believe to be the gold farming meta we were attempting to escape...



Mr_Peabody #28 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23378 battles
  • 5,171
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
Since the war has been a bit lopsided up to this point, I've become concerned that once the point differential becomes insurmountable that the battles might turn noncompetitive. In the future we might consider using an increasing value for territories/HQs to weight the end more heavily than the beginning thus keeping things interesting right up until the last days. I'm not sold on this, but the idea keeps popping into my head so I thought I'd throw it out there for the smarter people to mull over.

tefftorbes #29 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15004 battles
  • 1,943
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012

View Poststeelrain97, on Feb 19 2015 - 16:13, said:

Big fan of the event, it has been somewhat difficult to follow the event on twitch. Perhaps you could have 1 designated streamer per clan. That guy could host whoever will actually be in the battle. Feature a few fights per night as opposed to having 30 streamers and viewers having to hunt down a stream and hope that fights are actually going on. I know that's asking for a lot of a few player's time, but its the best alternative I can think of other than Wargaming organized streams.

 

That's a lot of work to be honest.

 

I'd like to see a little bit more in the nightly rundowns, perhaps a video that includes video highlight clips from the battles of the last night, or few nights - there have been some amazing finishes to a few matches that I've seen so far...

 

But the people that would do this are also the ones calling the battles, running their clans, and dealing with life issues all while this is going on. I can say with confidence that I don't have the time to do anything of the sort. I do think the best thing that could be done now is simply highlighting the best matches of each day, crazy comebacks that a team may pull off - or watching a team snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

 I think some of the content that comes out a little bit more slowly after the event will be the best content - might have some war videos from different perspectives and whatnot.



favrepeoria #30 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
Yes having the HQs next to each of other is better cause it forces the top clans into the same area. It almost would be better to even have a larger HQ area such as the second stage of last campaign but only have one main HQ. Literally make it king of the hill. One territory worth the most with the surrounding areas decreasing in value until outside the scoring territory. Have all the clans start outside the scoring area or something and have to fight into the center. The first couple days then would be land grab but after that it would be an interesting fight as best clans focused towards the middle. The lesser on the outside covering mid and fighting each other. One hill one giant brawl for said hill

wril #31 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 27504 battles
  • 3,151
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

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.



Allu_o7o7o7 #32 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 22:49

    Major

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

View PostMr_Peabody, on Feb 20 2015 - 09:31, said:

Since the war has been a bit lopsided up to this point, I've become concerned that once the point differential becomes insurmountable that the battles might turn noncompetitive. In the future we might consider using an increasing value for territories/HQs to weight the end more heavily than the beginning thus keeping things interesting right up until the last days. I'm not sold on this, but the idea keeps popping into my head so I thought I'd throw it out there for the smarter people to mull over.

 

I don't think anyone was surprised that south took an advantage based on initial positioning. South team has a stronger Late TZ presence and North team has a stronger Early TZ one. South dumped all their heavy hitters bar OTTER into the west and helped secure the foundations of the Wall of OTTER with piles of bodies and chips. We're only 3 days of 10 through the event, north has every landing zone and the south team is entrenched but surrounded.

 

When it comes to territory holding in CW, in a 1 on 1, the defender has an advantage, in a war though, the attacker has it. I dunno if this is nearly as over as some are claiming. Presently South has split the North team which allowed for short term territory gains... but we'll see how that pans out now that relic is around to do the same to us.



favrepeoria #33 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 23:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,463
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
We are suppose to be surrounded.  O wait that's paratroopers not tanks!

Mawderator #34 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 23:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14047 battles
  • 385
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostMr_Peabody, on Feb 19 2015 - 15:31, said:

Since the war has been a bit lopsided up to this point, I've become concerned that once the point differential becomes insurmountable that the battles might turn noncompetitive. In the future we might consider using an increasing value for territories/HQs to weight the end more heavily than the beginning thus keeping things interesting right up until the last days. I'm not sold on this, but the idea keeps popping into my head so I thought I'd throw it out there for the smarter people to mull over.

 

Friendly reminder that Bulba offered to join the North team for their final pick when we saw how stacked the teams were.

Georgietheprincess #35 Posted Feb 19 2015 - 23:56

    Captain

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 33964 battles
  • 1,612
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012

View Posttefftorbes, on Feb 19 2015 - 16:31, said:

 

That's a lot of work to be honest.

 

I'd like to see a little bit more in the nightly rundowns, perhaps a video that includes video highlight clips from the battles of the last night, or few nights - there have been some amazing finishes to a few matches that I've seen so far...

 

But the people that would do this are also the ones calling the battles, running their clans, and dealing with life issues all while this is going on. I can say with confidence that I don't have the time to do anything of the sort. I do think the best thing that could be done now is simply highlighting the best matches of each day, crazy comebacks that a team may pull off - or watching a team snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

 I think some of the content that comes out a little bit more slowly after the event will be the best content - might have some war videos from different perspectives and whatnot.

 

perhaps have some of the wargaming guys put this together at the end of the night if we can get them involved. HAve everyone submit replays to them and at like 7 have an hour long pre game so to speak looking over the previous days key battles with interviews of callers ect...

 

Also an idea I've had that may or may not be beneficial would be to have 3 teams instead of two. I think that could create some intresting fights\chip movements and if there was anotherror stacked team it would matter less. Just an idea though.



ninjafroggie #36 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 00:03

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 22130 battles
  • 241
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

View PostAllu_o7o7o7, on Feb 19 2015 - 16:29, said:

 

OTTER has fought 13 battles in the last 2 days of conflict, half of them against G. I'd call that pretty intense fighting. If the HQs were more spread out you'd have G, OTTER, VILIN and RELIC sitting on 1 each, with only the other clans around them fighting which I believe to be the gold farming meta we were attempting to escape...

Couldnt agree more, and I LOVE that the team picks have *mostly* broken up longstanding alliances, letting clans work together that are normally either in different alliances or nowhere near each other on the map.  For example, Thugz has never really fought -G- before at all, and several other clans such as _NPC_ and ESPRT we had never fought before this event.  It's nice seeing so many different strats, normally you are only fighting over 3 or 4 maps and you only ever see 2 or 3 strats from each side, but this event is forcing us to play on maps we haven't before and showing us new strats from opponents we haven't fought on maps we that have played. 

Kudos to everyone involved that we so easily set aside long-standing rivalries and politics in the name of good fights.

View PostMr_Peabody, on Feb 19 2015 - 16:31, said:

Since the war has been a bit lopsided up to this point, I've become concerned that once the point differential becomes insurmountable that the battles might turn noncompetitive. In the future we might consider using an increasing value for territories/HQs to weight the end more heavily than the beginning thus keeping things interesting right up until the last days. I'm not sold on this, but the idea keeps popping into my head so I thought I'd throw it out there for the smarter people to mull over.

 

I'm leaning that way too....right now it seems like if the north is unable to reclaim at least 1 or 2 of the HQs in the next couple days, or take a huge number of the 1pt provinces, it will be almost impossible for them to win without mapping all the confederate clans and keeping them off the map.  The trick would be to design it so that the early war is still weighted enough to make it matter, while still weighing the back end enough to allow the side that is behind to catch up, but not so easily that eaerly war victories lose their importance.  That is not an easy puzzle to solve.



Esmote #37 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 00:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14271 battles
  • 992
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

Might as well give some feedback from a spectator's point of view since I personally enjoy this event so much that I'd like to suggest ways to make it better.

 

Realistically speaking, often times being nearly completely surrounded in a real-world war meant that the surrounded army was pretty much screwed. In addition, an alliance in the past could do extremely well in most of the war yet completely bomb it at the end and lose the entire war. A perfect example of this is Germany in World War I: they completely dominated throughout much of the war yet completely bombed 1917 and thus screwed their chances to win World War I. In this civil war, the south side could completely bomb the second half and still have enough points from the first half to win the war despite the fact that they could get wrecked in the second half.

 

To get to the point, I personally think that the headquarter idea from a purpose perspective is a phenomenal one because it forces the top clans to occupy them and fight over them instead of one of them running off and picking on those that some wouldn't consider as strong. It's basically a device that sticks the top clans fighting each other, which is definitely a good thing. However, from an outsider's point of view, the headquarters just have too many points on them. To give a good example of what I'm talking about, take the following oversimplified example:

 

 

Assume that Clans A and B chipped each of the four scoring provinces. Clan A beats Clan B on each and every one of the light green (1 point) provinces whereas Clan B beats Clan A only on the blue (4 point) province. Despite the fact that Clan A won 75% of their battles against Clan B, the scoring system basically gives Clan B more points and implies that Clan B did better, which isn't exactly the case. This same pattern could go on for four more rounds for a total of five - Clan A could win every light green province battle and Clan B could win every blue province battle - Clan A would run a 15-5 and Clan B would run a 5-15 yet the scoring system basically says that Clan B is better, which - at that point - would be pretty false. 

 

Overall I really do think that this community-organized civil war is absolutely fantastic and very well-done. Though, I definitely echo the concerns by others over an insurmountable amount of early points due to the overvaluing of the headquarters. I like the headquarters idea in terms of all the top clans fighting over them, but it may be better if their values were dropped to either 2 or 3. Should they remain valuable? Absolutely. But at 4 points? We've already seen that the headquarters alone have given one side an extremely massive advantage when we haven't even finished a third of the war; from a spectator's point of view, it would be really hard to be interested in watching the second half if one side already has a near-impossible point advantage to climb over just due to headquarter overvaluing. As mentioned by others, some probable solutions could include decreasing their point values or increasing the weight of the second half. Nevertheless, I do enjoy this event and am excited to see the rest of it play out. Just my two cents.



Worstplayer_Na #38 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 00:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 20361 battles
  • 2,417
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
don't mind me.. just farming tons of stronghold boxes from clans that can't defend them

Huck_ #39 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 02:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 33307 battles
  • 3,075
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011
+1 for farming pixel gold in a dead game 

LordFozy #40 Posted Feb 20 2015 - 02:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24332 battles
  • 351
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-15-2012

View Posttalonsc, on Feb 19 2015 - 21:07, said:

Similar to how Neroz is posting a daily summary, in the future if there were to be a twitch broadcast / news show that would review/provide post match highlights, analysis of the matches, discussion of the meta being used by teams on particular maps. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View PostNer0z, on Feb 19 2015 - 21:16, said:

This is rather small but I'd like to see weekly twitch streamed interviews of the two captains where they can talk about things that happened, clans that are performing well and their plans going forward ect.

 

View PostGalatia, on Feb 20 2015 - 00:10, said:

Might as well give some feedback from a spectator's point of view since I personally enjoy this event so much that I'd like to suggest ways to make it better.

 

Realistically speaking, often times being nearly completely surrounded in a real-world war meant that the surrounded army was pretty much screwed. In addition, an alliance in the past could do extremely well in most of the war yet completely bomb it at the end and lose the entire war. A perfect example of this is Germany in World War I: they completely dominated throughout much of the war yet completely bombed 1917 and thus screwed their chances to win World War I. In this civil war, the south side could completely bomb the second half and still have enough points from the first half to win the war despite the fact that they could get wrecked in the second half.

 

To get to the point, I personally think that the headquarter idea from a purpose perspective is a phenomenal one because it forces the top clans to occupy them and fight over them instead of one of them running off and picking on those that some wouldn't consider as strong. It's basically a device that sticks the top clans fighting each other, which is definitely a good thing. However, from an outsider's point of view, the headquarters just have too many points on them. To give a good example of what I'm talking about, take the following oversimplified example:

 

 

Assume that Clans A and B chipped each of the four scoring provinces. Clan A beats Clan B on each and every one of the light green (1 point) provinces whereas Clan B beats Clan A only on the blue (4 point) province. Despite the fact that Clan A won 75% of their battles against Clan B, the scoring system basically gives Clan B more points and implies that Clan B did better, which isn't exactly the case. This same pattern could go on for four more rounds for a total of five - Clan A could win every light green province battle and Clan B could win every blue province battle - Clan A would run a 15-5 and Clan B would run a 5-15 yet the scoring system basically says that Clan B is better, which - at that point - would be pretty false. 

 

Overall I really do think that this community-organized civil war is absolutely fantastic and very well-done. Though, I definitely echo the concerns by others over an insurmountable amount of early points due to the overvaluing of the headquarters. I like the headquarters idea in terms of all the top clans fighting over them, but it may be better if their values were dropped to either 2 or 3. Should they remain valuable? Absolutely. But at 4 points? We've already seen that the headquarters alone have given one side an extremely massive advantage when we haven't even finished a third of the war; from a spectator's point of view, it would be really hard to be interested in watching the second half if one side already has a near-impossible point advantage to climb over just due to headquarter overvaluing. As mentioned by others, some probable solutions could include decreasing their point values or increasing the weight of the second half. Nevertheless, I do enjoy this event and am excited to see the rest of it play out. Just my two cents.

 

This to me sums up the main things to look at changing in the future. More complete coverage of the end-day summaries and looking forward having multiple clan leaders/ callers on one stream talking about it would be so interesting to actually get to see, would love to know what each side thinks about a certain highlighted battle or area on the map. 

 

Also the point difference in HQ's to regular provinces is turning out to be a major headache for one team with all HQ's being taken by one team after only 2 days of fighting and holding it for the third already see's them with a 70 point advantage is a little concerning going forward from a spectators and participants point of view.







Also tagged with Civil War

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users