Del S

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    21d 16h 33m 31s

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Del S

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/23/1988

Converted

  • Location Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

304 profile views
  1. You seem to still miss the big point. The math is as far as I saw okay on paper. But you don't factor in the community effects or don't care. Your system punishes people for losing. That's the thing people will see. The knock on effects of your system, numeracy all to one side, are that losses and draws basically go unreported, wins against people not even taking part now harm your opponents faction, and players who lose a lot will be albatrosses for their faction. You don't address those issues. All we get is your confidence in your numbers reiterated. I'm bad at numbers if I'm honest, and what you write as a numbers excercise seemed okay to me, my issues lie elsewhere. But my thanks for agreeing that your numbers work in theory is... to be dismissed as ignorant? While seemingly you are content to ignore everything but numbers? Isnt that a bit snobby and hypocritical? If your goal was to champion your proposal it seems odd to insult someone who was actually partially in agreement with the numbers you seem to hold so dear. However, it's all academical. You're laser focused on the numbers to the exclusion of anything else it would appear. So in the end there's really only one question I have left here for you that you may be able to answer Who are you trying to convince? After all, you say the silent majority has your back.
  2. Personally, I'm unconvinced because you don't back anything up that well, dismiss concerns and criticism with either repeating the same problematic points over and over or as you just did, ad hominem attacks, and are now claiming a silent majority backs you in disliking Beasts of War. If so... do you honestly think that after all the swipes you have taken at BoW they'll listen to your ideas even if they weren't so criticised and flawed? I don't. If all these people don't like BoW's approach why aren't they here supporting you? Why should they care about the campaigns at all if they're ready to just dismiss the organisers out of hand as being "the bad guys" like you seem to? Do you even know what it is you're arguing about any more? Because I honestly can't see whatever point you're trying to prove with all of this now. You propsed a system, people pointed out issues, you mostly ignored them and now you're getting pretty hostile and defensive. All you seem to have is BoW BAD as an argument now but aren't really giving any constructive alternatives or suggestions to fix whatever it is that makes them so bad to you. Maybe you should just let it go.
  3. Seems to me elvedril understood it perfectly that whoever you beat takes a hit on the faction. Why else would his post have specifically noted " the number of times they are listed as the losers in reports others put up is larger" as part of why he saw a problem? Fact is, any report of a win against your faction even if the person they beat isn't taking part in the campaign that means your faction takes a hit. Fact is, big factions means people are more likely to play games against those factions and therefore report wins against those factions whereas smaller factions could easily maintain heavy leads now. Your system turns numerical advantage into a punishment instead, and actively rewards smaller players. All you do is turn the tables basically. You don't make a fairer or more equal system by just punishing the larger group. Your system means skilled players of large factions suffer because their faction has more new players, or has more non-players who let friends report wins, or they're the Nomads and I exist . Your system eliminates linked reporting and therefore takes away one of the ways cheating can be avoided a little bit whilst also adding a system where cheating leads to a brilliant reward - your fake reports now hurt the enemy hard, and since no one else links it doesn't matter that your opponent doesn't exist.
  4. More games means more losses, yes... that they won't report and won't link. They'll freely report their wins but anyone reporting a loss here is wasting their time now and drawing a target on their back in your proposed system. Anyone who loses too much gets it in the neck from their own faction and stops playing, or doesn't even bother to play in the first place for fear of losing, and therefore removes a possible opponent from an area and therefore hinders active players as it's harder to find a game now. People who don't want to lose and harm their faction might avoid tournaments or refuse to play anyone who is taking part. All that's left if losses are penalised is to win - defeats aren't reported, and the big factions losing more means little when everyone only reports wins. Best case is complete stalemate as the big factions just absorb any reported defeats and then counter with their own wins. Mathematically it's sound, but in terms of human nature it just raises more problems into the campaigns, sorry.
  5. I understand the math fine, but it still doesn't add up to anything making sense in terms of the metagame. Losses and draws now don't get reported, people can win against unlinked foes and farm points while also weakening another faction, people losing loses points for their faction leading to internal anger at anyone who doesn't win even if they don't report (IE everyone gets mad at me :P), and given that no one is reporting losses or draws any more, all that happens is big factions can afford to lose more because they have more players to report wins to counter any defeats that are reported against them.
  6. I see where you're coming from but IMO it's a system that works out worse. Unlinked losses will vanish entirely as now reporting a loss could lose points and draws become even more pointless. And then wins basically become equivalent to an old draw because every win you report sees another enemy win take points back. And if factions lose points when enemies win then the players who get a lot of games in really do start affecting outcomes - and any restrictions on the number of games anyone reports means they are virtually guaranteed to have a 100% win rate because they're not going to report a loss that's actively damaging as well as wasting a precious game. Say Tohaa win five games versus CA. PanO win five against Tohaa and wipe that out. Now two factions lose points and the larger faction has more players to start scoring wins against factions who aren't even after that theatre. No one reports their draws or losses any more so it's just about who puts down the most wins overall, so big factions just crush everyone smaller. We already have problems with motivation of players and a perception that the high roller players are having a large effect. A percentage system would just exacerbate all of those issues as well as make things more complicated than they really need to be.
  7. Wouldn't work out I'm afraid. Not only is it simply impossible to play against the right enemy faction, but any system where losses cause punishment either means no one reports losses or unlinked wins become too powerful because factions begin to lose points. It also means wins are getting totally erased by losses and so smaller factions will suffer even more because big factions can just crush their wins off the scoreboard.
  8. So like a Cult of Sirius but for the CA and not likely to be raided by XCOM? May be unworkable overall but perhaps there could be factions that aren't really factions. Mercenaries, false flags, CA quislings, etc. End result in real terms is, you play a faction but aren't really contributing points for that faction but instead you act on behalf of a client or puppet master faction?
  9. If it helps I doubt we Nomads would ever ally with Pan-O even if the forces of hell itself were rampaging through Tunguska led by a thousand Cyberdemons Perhaps alliances shouldn't be the precise term, maybe just a better system of diplomacy. Nonaggression pacts, rivalries, enemy of my enemy, etc. CA do complicate things all round though.
  10. Most of what I'll suggest here is based on Nomad discussions so Nomads have already heard it, and IIRC the Nomad leadership was basically planning to collect together all the Nomad feedback together, but I'll repeat my pile of nonsense and unworkable ideas here as well I guess Campaign Structure -I echo the calls for a little bit more of a narrative vibe to things. Maybe one way could be to have the background on a web page with optional PDF download. The fluff was all above the missions so people might have overlooked it at times, but there wasn't any real narrative backing apparent for the secret missions in some cases. -Maybe have a more branching narrative: Many Nomads were a little frustrated that the defences of La Forja and then Don Peyote seemingly meant nothing. The shipyards broke in half for seemingly no reason and then Peyote was so damaged it left - the narrative could have had an alternative and more clear explanation, like Peyote arrives to evacuate the damaged La Forja if Nomads held, it is destroyed if they didn't. Peyote docks at the Legation if Peyote is held, it has to leave if it doesn't. -Have the Missions PDFs downloadable as single missions/theatres (see below) rather than only a big fluff/missions PDF. -Maybe each theatre could have multiple mission options per phase (if phases used) or just per theatre if a more Flamia type 'unlock more theatres halfway in' event happens. -If the narrative allowed for things like the option above the multi-missions could be affected here too: The evac of a still-intact but unstable La Forja means a Peyote theatre mission but on the damaged La Forja, in phase 3, Peyote docking means another mission that's part of the Legation theatre but is in narrative, on the Peyote. -An offline editor for battle reports could be better, some way to edit it all without constant reloads of the page each time new content is added or adjusted in place, but this may be technically difficult from how I'm interpreting replies to similar queries. -Perhaps, if a land-based campaign, there could be between-theatre options. Like, a highway between a city and a spaceport, but it's not a theatre itself: Instead the winner can direct points towards both theatres the highway is between: A win there can have you put one on the spaceport and two in the city, for instance. A draw in this in-between sees a point awarded in both theatres for both players. [this probably won't work actually but mentioning it anyway] -Maybe add a "Mercenary" type faction: Not necessarily an actual merc faction but players for "hire" whose wins are "sold" to another faction for XP? Like, say a Merc wins a game in the City, and sells that win to Pan O, getting himself a 100 XP bonus for his mercenary actions. [Again, prob wont work but I think it could be fun to consider at some point] [a merc "faction" could have people field any vanilla army list, maybe not even including actual mercenaries. The main factions could put XP bounties up for wins in target theatres. CA and Tohaa do have a possible problem there, of course...] Campaign Rules and Scoring -Explicit ban on multiple accounts in the same faction. The rules don't actually outright prohibit that but in hindsight it does seem like an obvious way for someone to try and cheat a little. A way that needs considerable effort, true, but a way that can easily enough be closed as there's no real reason for multiple accounts within a faction. -Tying into the more narrative aspect, perhaps the campaign could be openly structured so that factions have more goals than simply winning the campaign as a whole. Better use of secret or even open objectives. -Possibly limit the number of unpublished reports you can accrue: Four generated waiting, plus the current limit of two a day means six reports at most in one go to upload. That IMO means that players who get a lot of games in still can upload them all, and it reduces any effect that rushes can have near the end of any phases. -Possibly alter the spreading of points earned a little. Small games were what some people griped about, so, maybe make small games either count less or larger games count more. EXAMPLE IDEA <299 point games are worth only 2 points for a win. >299 is worth 3. -Bonus Points rather than just XP for linking reports to mitigate any complaints of "noob farming" by ensuring the "noobs" at least have accounts. So, a small game needs to link to get all three points, bigger games now get four. -Encourage more reporting of losses or draws through altering things a little too, perhaps. Say, every loss report earns 0.33 points on a theatre so that every three losses means that that faction gains a point. This also counters the "noob farming" complaint a little more -For draws, the points scored remain 1 point each but maybe give an XP boost for a draw - a "lessons learned" bonus. If we assume that the above is done, that means one big game win scores 4 points when linked. An unlinked small game therefore counts half. Three small games that are linked against the same faction only earn as much as two big wins as the extra point for three losses kicks in. -XP boosts linked to any narrative objectives. ALEPH players asked to attack a place get 5 bonus xp for a narrative boost, or get it for defending their territory. -Smaller factions do still seem to get the short end of the stick right now. Bonus XP or even points for small factions could be in order, maybe based on the faction narrative objectives or their selected targets. Alliances can help counter that a little though -An improved alliances system - maybe allied commanders could access each others briefing rooms during a formal alliance, or an "allied" briefing room to help the meta of alliances? This could also help smaller factions as it means that, for instance, Haqqislam and Tohaa could band together. It does present a problem where players sometimes can only find "allied" players to fight now, so that might need consideration. -if that merc faction idea was somehow workable it also means the small factions could purchase mercenary players to help them out Reports and Briefing Rooms -I think reports should display the factions voting on them: not the players, but the faction average. This helps show if any up/downvoting is happening (which is to be expected because it's part of the system!). I'd go against players specific votes on reports being shown as this will cause larger arguments. If it's a faction number it's more likely to be seen as part of the game rather than give away a specific name for an irate person to go after. -Maybe adjust the star system. It's effectively only an up/down system for some people giving a 1 for a "bad" report and 10 for a "good" report. Maybe a three star or simple up/down system. -Maybe voting on reports could also need to be unlocked by reporting at least one battle or making a comment or five in the briefing room. I don't think it happened to any notable degree, if at all, but this means a sockpuppet account can't be made to downvote or upvote things quite as easily, especially if combined with the multi-account ban being made explicit. It also stops people who aren't actually taking part in the campaign in any way from throwing up or downvotes against people who are. [Note: commenting in the forums is of course taking part which is why I'm assuming it would be an option to unlock voting on reports] -The briefing room could maybe use a few more tools for formatting but I don’t really see the huge issue some people have with it, TBH. Maybe something to make it a little bit harder for spies to get in but still make it possible to spy (like needing to publish a battle of have so many comments to see any threads that have been flagged as classified) to help mitigate a need for off-site forums quite as much, but that’s about all I can think of, and all that does is IMO add a little more fun - spies need to play their game a little differently that way and the faction can still use facebook or discord or whatever to discuss the truly secret stuff... [probably a bit pointless though]. -Tied to the above and the idea of alliances accessing briefing rooms as also above, perhaps if allies can access other factions rooms threads could be "hidden" from allied commanders and shown only to the faction commanders. That means allies can play the spy game on allies to a small extent.
  11. Sure it did, why, on Wikipedia it... Oh. My. God.
  12. He's the real winner from all of this. After all,even aliens need to eat. Presumably. Besides, it's not like he hasn't served human meat before, Soylent Green flavour is still legal in 9 of 12 O-12 member states.
  13. >No unnecessary death >Wants to shoot everything within 500,000 meters One of these things doesn't sync up with the other. Even alien logic can see that, surely?
  14. Ah, but like all multinational organisations everything the O-12 says is actually the exact opposite of what will really happen, so nothing will be done about us, but now! And it's always now. Later never comes because what was going to be later becomes now and later is something else, and before is gone and it used to be now, but later is now, not before. So after later becomes now and now becomes before, nothing happens. Simple!
  15. Ignore the combine and bicker amongst ourselves, got it.