Jump to content


CCW Feedback Thread


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Agnotology #1 Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:29 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6669 battles
  • 386
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

What worked?

 

What didn't?

 

Why?

 

Keep in mind any suggestions will receive scrutiny!

One thing I hope everyone saw, is if there is a way to game the system in your favor, people will do it. Especially if there is a flaw in the rules that allows it. 



20thCenturyLtd #2 Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 18543 battles
  • 1,420
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013

What worked ?

Strategy

What didn't ?

Lack of strategy

Why ?

Strategy is OP


Edited by 20thCenturyLtd, 11 September 2016 - 08:47 PM.

 

 


MagusGerhardt #3 Posted 11 September 2016 - 07:02 AM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7682 battles
  • 5,179
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

The restriction on use of limited availability aircraft that have been acceptable in past formats was unfun.  It cut down on the variety of aircraft that could be encountered in these battles and it removes non-collector value on said limited availability aircraft.

 

There seems to have been some dissatisfaction with the use of diplomacy and map strategy during this season, but I don't see how that could be addressed short of telling teams that collusion or allying is against the rules.  And that would be very difficult to enforce given that teams still get to choose where they are attacking.

 

All things considered I think the event went as smoothly as it could go.  All teams I encountered were good sportsmen while the battle was on.

 

It would be great if WG supported the turnout and teamwork for these things.  It would encourage more participation.  :medal:


 

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787


GiN_nTonic #4 Posted 11 September 2016 - 07:08 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 19668 battles
  • 3,827
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

I guess I would like to find out why the map format is so important.  Beyond the fact we dont have a good # of clans participating, it was too often the case people would move their schedule around to "play" in the CW night and end up having no-shows etc on the other side that resulted in no matches.  Further, it was a 1 and done event where a battle might last only 10 min or so.

 

I think scheduled matches and then a playoff system would be preferable.  Perhaps even a best of 3 game night.  Unlike WoT and WoWS these games can end very quickly.

 



MagusGerhardt #5 Posted 11 September 2016 - 07:47 PM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7682 battles
  • 5,179
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostJlNN, on 11 September 2016 - 12:08 AM, said:

I guess I would like to find out why the map format is so important. 

 

The map format is important because that's what makes it clan wars.  Anything else is a tournament or king of the hill.  Clan wars is a different beast where skill at the game itself is only a portion of the game; the remainder being diplomacy/alliances and map strategy.

 

Beyond the fact we dont have a good # of clans participating, it was too often the case people would move their schedule around to "play" in the CW night and end up having no-shows etc on the other side that resulted in no matches.  Further, it was a 1 and done event where a battle might last only 10 min or so.

 

Regularly scheduled attack declaration deadlines and battle commencement times are also a hallmark of Clan Wars; they are equally inconveniencing to all involved, and thus are fair.  I could agree with a desire for more than a single winner takes all battle, perhaps going to a best two out of three format to capture or defend a territory so long as the number of clans battling is low resulting in a small number of conflicts on battle night.  I'm all for more battles of all human vs all human in a coordinated teamplay environment.  I wouldn't shy away from the chance to have more battles like that.

 

I think scheduled matches and then a playoff system would be preferable.  Perhaps even a best of 3 game night.  Unlike WoT and WoWS these games can end very quickly.

 

It would be preferable, if this wasn't Clan Wars.  Scheduled matches between teams and a playoff system is not clan wars; it is in fact a tournament, and that's something most of us have been involved with in the past as well.  Participation in those dropped as time went on, too.  The outcome was almost always the DRACS teams taking all but one or two spots in the top five teams.

 


 

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787


Porkins_Jr #6 Posted 11 September 2016 - 07:48 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 14402 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
My old clan didn't participate, but I'd just like to second the person who said there shouldn't be restrictions on plane types.

CrazyHeinz #7 Posted 11 September 2016 - 08:54 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9390 battles
  • 888
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012
No restrictions on plane types. If you own it, you can fly it.


MagusGerhardt #8 Posted 11 September 2016 - 09:40 PM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7682 battles
  • 5,179
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCrazyHeinz, on 11 September 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

No restrictions on plane types. If you own it, you can fly it.

 


 

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787


Agnotology #9 Posted 11 September 2016 - 11:20 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6669 battles
  • 386
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Removing plane restrictions is something we were looking to do.


Caffan #10 Posted 12 September 2016 - 12:31 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 14549 battles
  • 40
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

1) Too much land, too few teams. Only 1 small sector should be open at start (like sector D). New sector doesn't open until current sectors are completely owned. I think this would garner more attacks on one territory, and produce more contested battles.

 

2) 3 is too many attacks per team, should change to 2. Too many empty battles, especially given the amount of clans participating. Maybe with the attack declaration automation, there could be 2 rounds per week.

 

3) For weekdays, battle start time (9:30pm ET) is too early for PT zone. But if moved to later time, then too late for ET zone. Battle schedule should be later time (10:30pm ET) on Friday and Saturday. Or keep the same battle start time, but run them on Saturday and Sunday.

 

--MagnusGerhardt "Regularly scheduled attack declaration deadlines and battle commencement times are also a hallmark of Clan Wars; they are equally inconveniencing to all involved, and thus are fair" 
    Right, all first battles starting at 9:30pm ET for the one day can be inconvenient for everyone, but mostly for players not in ET or CT zone. All the more reason when people actually make it to that battle that there actually be a match played. How can we go about making it less inconvenient? How do battle start times work in WoT? From what I can tell, teams are able to choose which prime time zone best fits their clan. Obviously not an option for WOWP Community CW. Also, is there a penalty for no-shows in WoT, like not being able to attack that same territory the next round?

 

4) Defenders getting to choose day the attacker can attack --> still don't like that rule. Would rather go back to the original format PK had at the start of CW.

 

5) Plane and team size/makeup restrictions --> I'm for removing all those restrictions. Bring 15 heavy fighters, or 15 attack aircrafts, whichever.

 

Mostly, biggest issue is that the NA server population does not support Clan Wars. If WG decided not to support the community run event with gold rewards, I can't really fault them for that decision.



Bobby_Tables #11 Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:25 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 24422 battles
  • 658
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

Personally from just my low man on the totem pole perspective I thought this was a great success.  Why?

 

1) When I got into real battles it was against real humans.

2) My heart rate went up, palms got sweaty and I concentrated on winning because I did not want to let my teammates down.

3) Even if we did not battle, I got to talk to clan-mates who I do not normally talk to because they are on different hours, etc....

4) Got to meet a lot of members of other clans and realize they are all pretty cool people

5) It got a bunch of us hard-core never-say-die (to this game) people together for a common purpose.

 

Overall, I had a great time.  Even in uncontested battles I got to meet members of my clan who I do not normally talk to due to schedules, etc.  I do agree that a more consolidated map until more clans join might  likely result in more battles.  Then again, it is a battle for territory so you get what you put into it.  With foresight, our leadership took advantage of new virgin territory to wage battle and win hearts and minds.  I do like the idea of territories as it adds an element of strategy to banging your head against a wall of modified pub matches.  Teams who can put up the most players do have an advantage.  That's why I encourage lower pop clans to join together in order to put up enough players.  I'm looking at you JACS and DOW ;-) 

 

[Edit] Did I just use the term "pub matches?".  Oh heck yeah, I am a veteran now!  Carry on.


Edited by Bobby_Tables, 12 September 2016 - 04:15 AM.


Agnotology #12 Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:10 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6669 battles
  • 386
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostCaffan, on 11 September 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

1) Too much land, too few teams. Only 1 small sector should be open at start (like sector D). New sector doesn't open until current sectors are completely owned. I think this would garner more attacks on one territory, and produce more contested battles.

I am advocate for 1 sector per 3 clans.  Opening most sectors was for testing purposes of map functionality, 

 

2) 3 is too many attacks per team, should change to 2. Too many empty battles, especially given the amount of clans participating. Maybe with the attack declaration automation, there could be 2 rounds per week.

I take issue with them occurring at the same time every day. Would like to see more attacks per day, but split them into time zones. 

 

3) For weekdays, battle start time (9:30pm ET) is too early for PT zone. But if moved to later time, then too late for ET zone. Battle schedule should be later time (10:30pm ET) on Friday and Saturday. Or keep the same battle start time, but run them on Saturday and Sunday.

 

--MagnusGerhardt "Regularly scheduled attack declaration deadlines and battle commencement times are also a hallmark of Clan Wars; they are equally inconveniencing to all involved, and thus are fair" 
    Right, all first battles starting at 9:30pm ET for the one day can be inconvenient for everyone, but mostly for players not in ET or CT zone.

 

All the more reason when people actually make it to that battle that there actually be a match played. How can we go about making it less inconvenient? How do battle start times work in WoT? From what I can tell, teams are able to choose which prime time zone best fits their clan. Map is divided between 3 tiers : 6, 8, 10, and each tier has 4 time zones, ET, CT, MT, and PT, all at 9pm in their own respective timezone.  I think the map could be split between ET and PT if we got 10+ clans

 

Obviously not an option for WOWP Community CW. Also, is there a penalty for no-shows in WoT, like not being able to attack that same territory the next round? In the campaigns they penalize the 3rd no show and up with losses of fame points. Its an idiotic system, as it forces you to plan very accurately for how many members you *think* you will have. Some clans will have played 120+ battles at the end of a 10 day campaign. Hitting 3% no-show rate gets penalized.  In regular clan wars, you lose resources that take time in Stronghold battles to earn that allow you to attack. In CCW, there is a penalty, per se. If the attackers feint an attack, and put players in that room to make it look legit, those players are locked out of playing in that time bracket.

 

4) Defenders getting to choose day the attacker can attack --> still don't like that rule. Would rather go back to the original format PK had at the start of CW.

Agree with defender's choosing day is bad.  I do not recall the original format. 

 

5) Plane and team size/makeup restrictions --> I'm for removing all those restrictions. Bring 15 heavy fighters, or 15 attack aircrafts, whichever.

Agree wholeheartedly, apart from how many full heavy comps we will see. Upside is the players will decide the meta.

 

Mostly, biggest issue is that the NA server population does not support Clan Wars. If WG decided not to support the community run event with gold rewards, I can't really fault them for that decision.

Chicken or the egg at this point. If you want more chickens, you need to lay some eggs.

 


Edited by Agnotology, 12 September 2016 - 05:17 AM.


pigeon_kicker #13 Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 20011 battles
  • 1,421
  • [SF] SF
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Some very interesting points so far to ponder.

If you want to make god laugh, tell him about your plans for survival..

Lead developer for the NACCW web site. Author of the Pigeon Pak Mod Installer

www.team-sf.com

 

 


20thCenturyLtd #14 Posted 12 September 2016 - 06:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 18543 battles
  • 1,420
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013

View Postpigeon_kicker, on 12 September 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Some very interesting points so far to ponder.

 

PK, you can rework this thing until the cows come home, but without prizing, it's done.

 

 


Agnotology #15 Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:39 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6669 battles
  • 386
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostTHEMARCO1979, on 12 September 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

I am currently half way through a 2 month forum RO, so I cant post publicly.  Feel free to copy paste if you feel like sharing, but I have a few comments.  Overall great work, if we had a full population and WG prizing I wouldn't change a thing.  Unfortunately I think you have to pander to people just to keep their involvement.

 

My commenst are simple.

Fewer territories due to the number of Clans involved.  I'm not sure on what number would work better, but there seemed to be too much of a spread on the map.  Closer quarters would mean more battles for land I think.  Depending on how many clans sign up for the next on, I think you should consider reducing the quantity of territories.

 

WS seems to be complaining about land being won without battles and them showing up and having nobody to fight.  I'm not sure if there is truth to this, if there was nobody for them to fight, then they should have been winning land, but from what I hear, they got swept off the map.  Here is the pandering part, I think DRACS allied with WHAWK, which is totally fine in my books and should be allowed, but again, because we have such a small population and so few clans joined, a simple alignment with another clan causes complete domination.  You cant outlaw alliances, and I don't think you should, but there may be something you can do with how an alliance works on the map.  Something I came up with is a rule that you must attack a bordering territory that is Owned within 2 turns.  This will keep allied clans away from each other, and if they want to share a border for protection, they would have to dedicate resources to attack/defend that land.  Not sure how this will pan out, there may be land trading going on, but in the end you only get prizing(if WG ever comes through) by the land you retain.  And it would give a better chance for other clans to strategize an attack during a week where they know your resources would be dedicated to a mandatory attack.  Anyway, something to think about.  It might also help with the animosity that JLNN is trying to build.

 

That's it.

Peace.

 

Clan wars will only work with simplicity. Mandating attacks is ludicrous, both on the planning and enforcement end. All that would happen is an attack would happen between the two of them, neither would make a room or show, default win to defender. All it will do is waste an attack.


Edited by Agnotology, 13 September 2016 - 01:42 AM.


MagusGerhardt #16 Posted 16 September 2016 - 01:57 AM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7682 battles
  • 5,179
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Post20thCenturyLtd, on 12 September 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

 

PK, you can rework this thing until the cows come home, but without prizing, it's done.

 

This needs to be said again and again.

 

Sure, we're here to battle other clans and have fun in all human populated games.

 

But without gold or reward aircraft this project will not grow or move forward.  Personally I have no intent of giving up a few hours of prime time gaming time twice a week for three months again without the possibility of a heap of gold or a rare aircraft at the end of the tunnel.  I'm pretty confident in saying I'm not the only player that feels this way.


 

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787


GiN_nTonic #17 Posted 23 September 2016 - 07:13 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 19668 battles
  • 3,827
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View PostMagusGerhardt, on 11 September 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

The map format is important because that's what makes it clan wars.  Anything else is a tournament or king of the hill.  Clan wars is a different beast where skill at the game itself is only a portion of the game; the remainder being diplomacy/alliances and map strategy.

 

Many games have clan wars without a map.  A map isn't a prerequisite to "Clan Wars".  Sure, its a type of clan wars.  My initial comment was more towards the problem related to the population and clan makeup.  I can tell you that we had a good sized group show up for 3 weeks in a row, and many ended up not playing at all due to no-shows.  Interest is lost very quickly when that starts happening.

 

 



20thCenturyLtd #18 Posted 23 September 2016 - 06:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 18543 battles
  • 1,420
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013

View PostJlNN, on 23 September 2016 - 01:13 AM, said:

 

Many games have clan wars without a map.  A map isn't a prerequisite to "Clan Wars".  Sure, its a type of clan wars.  My initial comment was more towards the problem related to the population and clan makeup.  I can tell you that we had a good sized group show up for 3 weeks in a row, and many ended up not playing at all due to no-shows.  Interest is lost very quickly when that starts happening.

 

 

 

You submitted a roster for prizing of 53. Dracs submitted 43 names. During the first three weeks, we had a grand total of 2 battles. Despite that, we were able to maintain interest among our membership, and our numbers remained steady throughout the 12 weeks of the event. Your clan fought many more battles at the beginning, had a larger base of players, and yet could not maintain enough interest past the first three weeks. Sounds more like an internal issue within your clan is at fault, not the "format" of the event, as you have claimed.

 

 


GiN_nTonic #19 Posted 24 September 2016 - 08:41 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 19668 battles
  • 3,827
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View Post0JetSPeeD0, on 23 September 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

the problem with people not understanding how things work is that they end up blaming everything but their own ignorance.  when a group of people get together, and fail at something, the main cause is usually no leadership, or very poor leadership, which are kind of the same thing.

 

in this event, one clan made good decisions, kept their members engaged, and won.  another clan made very poor decisions, had very poor leadership, lost the confidence of its members and ended up losing.  that is not the fault of the event.  in every community event i can think of WS has complained about the rules.  the only event i know of where WS did well, was where they were part of the admin, and they ended up being discovered to be cheating with another admin clan (V).

 

at this point i think it is pretty clear to the community that WS and its leadership cant be taken seriously as a clan, nor should their comments be heard in any sort of constructive manner as feedback towards a successful event.  don't get me wrong, i am not a WS hater, there are plenty of decent people in WS, they just have no direction, and that is the fault of its leadership.

 

... grow a pair and post under your real name instead of hiding behind a re-re-roll Jet.   After all, it was your "leadership" that contributed greatly to the largest exodus from Drac since its inception.  Good luck with that.

 


Edited by JlNN, 24 September 2016 - 08:46 AM.


GiN_nTonic #20 Posted 24 September 2016 - 09:02 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 19668 battles
  • 3,827
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View Post20thCenturyLtd, on 23 September 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

 

You submitted a roster for prizing of 53. Dracs submitted 43 names. During the first three weeks, we had a grand total of 2 battles. Despite that, we were able to maintain interest among our membership, and our numbers remained steady throughout the 12 weeks of the event. Your clan fought many more battles at the beginning, had a larger base of players, and yet could not maintain enough interest past the first three weeks. Sounds more like an internal issue within your clan is at fault, not the "format" of the event, as you have claimed.

 

Hey genius - the difference being we had many scheduled battles where people would change their work schedules around to play on certain nights that ended up not playing. Due to the format if we attacked say 2-3 territories but "gave up"  (via our own no-show due to "strategy") territories meant there was a good chance teams assembled that day didn't play play each other.  That happened many times.

 

Unlike your group, the purpose for us getting our guys together was to actually play games.  Win/lose - just playing in games is the point of all this.  The "league" format Vulcan had going was much better and more manageable IMO.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users