Yasashii Fuyu

What would you like to see improved/added in the next campaign?

174 posts in this topic

Hello Fellow Operation Flamestrike Players.

Since I recently saw a lot of Threads dissolve into horrible aggressive arguments with little positivity and more accusations than constructive critique, I thought why now collect your thoughts about this campaign, and turn them into concrete ideas on how to improve the next campaign, or what to add to the next campaign to make it even more awesome?

That way BoW and Corvus Belli can take a look at this lists, and pick whatever they think might actually work and improve things, instead of wading through boatloads of accusations to understand what they could improve.

Please let's try to keep this friendly and constructive, I know a lot of stress has built up in the last few days, but I am sure most of us would like to have another campaign sometime next year, and we all would want it to be even better than this one was, right?

 

So I guess I'll start with some of the ideas that came through my mind: (In random order as they come to my mind)

1) Improve the Faction Forums:

Having closed Forums for each Faction was an awesome idea, and it helped bring the community together and share our stories and ideas.

But the functionality of this Forum was terrible.

Make the forum more like this Forum here, with proper abilities to post pictures/videos, the ability to make closed groups for trusted members and such.

And if you somehow manage to do it.....prevent the Forum from being invaded by Fake Accounts....I don't know how that could be done, but since whole Factions soon after the beginning of this campaign started to abuse Fake Accounts as "spies" posting anything important in the Faction Forum was basically the same as openly announcing it to our enemies, which couldn't/shouldn't be the supposed role of these Forums.....

2) Bring about some sort of punishment for Spying on others and being found out

"Spygate" sounded like it could be a great thing, some sort of punishment for all those Fake Account Users or whatnot, but it never came around, and the abuse of Fake Accounts seems to have become openly accepted afterwards. The punishment could be BRUTAL, like taking away 50-100 points in an area of choosing for the faction that outed the Spy...That way spies might at least stay hidden and in secret forums...instead of just openly admitting they are Fake Account users without any punishment whatsoever...

3) Define a clear set of rules, and stick to it until the end

We are Tabletop Wargamers, we like to read rules, and we like to create strategies and plans around it. What we don't like is for these rules to be vague and ever changing.

Please clearly define whether creating Fake Account creation and spying in other people's Forums is allowed or not.

Please clearly define the winning conditions of your campaign, how to achieve them (How is a Sector controlled? Majority points? Or do both Zones need to have your Flag? What about Allies in them? Yes it's not all about winning, but if you are actually close to winning, it'd be nice to know how exactly it's done...

Please clearly define when the end date of the Campaign is going to be, and stick to it as much as possible. We don't need the exact day, but at least the week would be nice. And if changes to that are needed, post that openly and explain to us why, not all of us are children, we can take a "Because our system broke down and we need some more time to test it" as an answer...

Which leads to:

4) More communication/Motivation/Coverage

This Campaign started out incredible! Videos to introduce us, battle reports to motivate us, regular status updates to keep us in the game and show us that our actions mattered......and then things suddenly died down completely.

Please keep producing videos like the 200 hour update and so on, keep promoting awesome battle reports, commanders, special achievements or events.

A Campaign like this creates a lot of activity in a community, and I am sure also lead to a lot of more money being spent for Corvus Belli (I know I did...) so it's only right to keep the coverage up and treat this as an awesome mayor event! You had thousands of players participate from all over the world in this!

If you yourself can't do it because you know too little about Infinity....either ask Corvus Belli for help, or if need be the Community, I am sure there are people willing to support this!

5) Improve the Alliance system, or leave it out

Adding Alliances on players demand was a nice basic idea, but the implementation was horrible, it lead to a brutal standstill, with no more Zones changing control until new ones were added, because the fronts had become so hard that it was impossible to expand anymore without instantly getting overrun in an area with an alliance.

Also the Alliances were ultra static and very restrictive. I get that allying with one faction in one area sounds like a good idea, but if you can never change that area of add to it, it's basically just a point push.

I also think that the point of this alliances kind of was not reached....as far as I see it it was supposed to help the smaller factions to matter, but in reality all it ever did was stop the currently strongest faction from doing anything productive anymore, while leaving everything the same for all other factions...which simply lead to another faction becoming the strongest faction, still making the smaller factions "useless" (As much or little as they were before).

Maybe allow for 1 alliance per month, or make it possible to change the location of this alliance dynamically once a month. Or maybe just create a setting where certain alliances are done right at the beginning of the story and those two factions basically count as one. With this campaign as a Beta test it should be possible to see which factions have a lot of users and which don't, so possible fair pairings could be created.

6) Add a limit to how many battle reports a player can post per week/Add a minimum quality Level

Having players that play 10 battles per week and post them with only 1 or 2 lines of text, barely any pictures (or all the same) and claiming dozens of victories for their faction has become a real issue in this campaign, even more so in these last days.

I know it's not that good of an idea to limit players abilities to contribute, but it's extremely frustrating to spend several hours to create awesome battle reports with lots of pictures, a little story, and proper 300+ point battles...to earn 3 points for your faction....just to see some other guy post 10 reports a week with only 2 sentences, no pictures, and claim 30 points, completely negating any of your efforts...

4 battles per week per player or something along those lines should do the trick, and encourage playing proper 300 point games instead of just spamming 150 point battles all week long for extra points with low quality.

 

I think I still have some more things on my mind, but I need to stop now because of RL.

 

If you add your own improvement ideas, please keep in mind that this should just be a list of your personal improvement ideas, not a discussion or argument about the ideas of other people, if you don't like others ideas that's fine, but no need to argue about it here.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Improve the Faction Forums:

Adding functions is a definite yes, how we stop an infiltrator is anyone's guess (we did talk about this some months ago, and had planned out a 'This is a spy' button - but the potential for bullying is a bit too much, and the more we thought about it, infiltration and spying is really just part and parcel of the thing - and in some ways adds to the realism

2) Bring about some sort of punishment for Spying on others and being found out

We had a plan all drawn up for this, but unfortunately the third rewrite of the core system left us no time to implement. (The third core rewrite was one of those "I think we're done, ohh wait there's another issue but it should be just a few hours to fix... I think we're done!!! Ohh hang on now that's broken) So every time I thought we had a gap in development to run it out, we unfortunately didn't and there was no clear picture of whether the next round of code was short or long...

anyway...

Our plan was to turn it into a capture the flag scenario, the spy was captured (or outed) by a particular faction in the particular theater and they held the spy and got a big lump of points 'While they held him'

However

Any other faction could play the newly opened up capture the spy mission in the theater, and submit their reports. At (random) intervilles it would be recalculated (again with a random element) who was now holding the spy. So basically 1-10 The current holder holds them 10 - 20 Another faction holds them and then picked randomly from all the reports submitted. So if your faction hunted him alot, you would have a better chance of catching him. The big bulk of points would then transfer to your faction, and so it would continue. (Obviously the numbers and mechanics have been simplified a bit here)

3) Define a clear set of rules, and stick to it until the end 

Agreed, but no easy task first time around, when almost everything is unexpected, and the 'expected unexpected', never occurs lol

I would imagine we will always randomize the end of the campaign, for various reasons.

The reasons for the extension this time round have been explained a few times now (including here http://www.beastsofwar.com/infinity/operation-flamestrike-finish/)

4) More communication/Motivation/Coverage

Very happy to do the videos, and this week we have had the chance to start writing alot more code to pull alot more interesting behind the scenes stats, to make those possible. I will however point out that some of the others on this forum poured scorn on our little videos, and just called them a promotion mouth piece. We however enjoyed them, and had we more time to produce them and finish the stats code we would have done more. Unfortunately it keeps coming back to the very heart of the system needed upgraded and without that there was no campaign at all.

BTW We have been showcasing great battle reports over on BoW for weeks too : ) http://www.beastsofwar.com/infinity/

5) Improve the Alliance system, or leave it out

Well, you guys asked for it lol (In my defence I did say it was not a great idea, as this is war not peace) but it was worth a try, and we wanted to ensure that we at least tried to give the participants the tools they asked for.

In an interesting note, elsewhere in a thread someone exclaimed that the factions should never have been alowed to fight each other in the first place, that it did not suit the Infinity Narrative... i would upload a pic of my puzzled face only it might disturb you lol

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they meant the scale of the fight since Infinity is more about black ops and this felt more like outright war. Then again this is Paradisio which we know has outright war going on vs the Combined Army. I think alliances are a good idea, the various factions aren't a bunch of Khorne berserkers howling for blood and skulls. However it did make things somewhat static and didn't help the smaller factions all that much.

Maybe something like joint operations - were two factions agree to ally for the op (make it a special mission in itself) and they get extra points for completing it (needs 8 victories in a week to count as successful or something) or one of them can give the points it earned to the other (that way you can have Aleph ask for reinforcement vs CA and Haqq sends a few teams to help them stabilize the front and it would make for some fun narratives). It could be something fluid, which is what Human Sphere politics sounds like from the latest book.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Garak said:

I think they meant the scale of the fight since Infinity is more about black ops and this felt more like outright war. Then again this is Paradisio which we know has outright war going on vs the Combined Army. I think alliances are a good idea, the various factions aren't a bunch of Khorne berserkers howling for blood and skulls. However it did make things somewhat static and didn't help the smaller factions all that much.

Maybe something like joint operations - were two factions agree to ally for the op (make it a special mission in itself) and they get extra points for completing it (needs 8 victories in a week to count as successful or something) or one of them can give the points it earned to the other (that way you can have Aleph ask for reinforcement vs CA and Haqq sends a few teams to help them stabilize the front and it would make for some fun narratives). It could be something fluid, which is what Human Sphere politics sounds like from the latest book.

I'll think about the special op thing, but like a lot of the ideas we have come up with or been presented with, it sounds easy in our heads until we try to work out how you make that work, and how you make it have a realistic impact (so don't inflate it etc)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know. But it was an idea I thought should be mentioned - if it can work or not is something else.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Beasts of War - Warren

Just to make this clear, as mentioned above, this is a list of things I would like to see in the next campaign ;-)

I know this has been your first try at something like this, and a lot of kinks and bugs had to be filtered out, which disturbed a lot of the flow you might have intended for it.

And as you said, you are already doing some of the things I mentioned (promoting some of the awesome battle reports for example).

I just wanted to make a List of all the things that any future campaign would benefit from having ready right from the get go, so things can run a little smoother and you can focus on the campaign itself, instead of just the technical data..... I know you as a company might care more for the technical data....but for us players it's all about the campaign, the fluff, the awesome stories....and if BoW (or Corvus Belli) can keep us hyped and keep things interesting on that side, I am sure it will turn into an even more awesome campaign  ;-)

 

PS: I kind of like the Spy Hunt idea, but I think it might get very confusing once 5+ spies are exposed ;-P

PPS: I know what you described with the core code, as a Software Tester myself I can agree, it's always that "only small change" or "just need to add this little thing and we're done" part of the development that takes the longest to actually get to work, and sometimes it's the small things that suddenly crash the whole card house and forces you to start all over again.....which is why I am a Software Tester and not a developer, I like to crash the Card House, not having to rebuild it ;-P

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a good idea to somehow make sure you only have a certain time window to post up your reports after playing, as from looking at the stats from this go round it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of hoarding results until new theaters opened up in the zones. 

Now this to me seems slightly off. Note however I have no idea of how to enforce a such a timeframe for posting things up.

Other than that minor niggle and the basics of the forum functionality (which has been addressed).

I personally thought it was all rather good for a work in progress beta.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Yasashii Fuyu said:

@Beasts of War - Warren

Just to make this clear, as mentioned above, this is a list of things I would like to see in the next campaign ;-)

I know this has been your first try at something like this, and a lot of kinks and bugs had to be filtered out, which disturbed a lot of the flow you might have intended for it.

And as you said, you are already doing some of the things I mentioned (promoting some of the awesome battle reports for example).

I just wanted to make a List of all the things that any future campaign would benefit from having ready right from the get go, so things can run a little smoother and you can focus on the campaign itself, instead of just the technical data..... I know you as a company might care more for the technical data....but for us players it's all about the campaign, the fluff, the awesome stories....and if BoW (or Corvus Belli) can keep us hyped and keep things interesting on that side, I am sure it will turn into an even more awesome campaign  ;-)

 

PS: I kind of like the Spy Hunt idea, but I think it might get very confusing once 5+ spies are exposed ;-P

Absolutely : )  (I really do Agree Wholeheartedly)

I do appreciate that, but I also want to be very clear about setting expectations on what is important under the hood. Anyone who is interested enough, needs to know that our priority is on the platform, because the smoother it runs the more time it frees up to do the other things, if it doesn't run, then nothing happens and all the fluffy stuff comes to a halt as well.

Ultimately the platform should get to a stage where there is minimal requirement for hand holding, and participants can get stuck in and engage with the experience.

I'm trying to be very clear about setting these expectations here, because likewise we/you have a list of things we'd like to work on, enable, develop and implement into the campaign, equally I would like to see a little less paranoia/rage/conspiracy and a bit more just getting stuck in ; )

 

44 minutes ago, librerian_samae said:

I think it would be a good idea to somehow make sure you only have a certain time window to post up your reports after playing, as from looking at the stats from this go round it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of hoarding results until new theaters opened up in the zones. 

Now this to me seems slightly off. Note however I have no idea of how to enforce a such a timeframe for posting things up.

We discussed this to death in here when we were defining the system.

Our mantra and mission all along was 'Let people Play Games' whatever their skill, whatever their budget - just let people join in.

So the system started with being as open as possible and accommodating as possible, then we looked at ways to lock things down a bit.

We limit the number of missions you can generate to 2 per day, but we don't limit when they are published so if you and a friend play during the week you are ok to write them up at the weekend. We could potentially have them expire after a period of time and not be published and we'll look into that.

But really it has been about keeping it inclusive as possible.

We have had participants demand that it was kept to ITS missions only, that the low point missions were not allowed, that those who submitted a battle report based on demo games be disallowed, we have had people who felt it was their sole purpose to expose 'cheats' only for it to be discovered they were just normal folk, living normal lives who just wanted to participate in a casual way.

I will admit that some of the above has left me feeling a tad... disappointed

So again I'm stating it here to set expectations for the future, these campaigns (certainly any that BoW ever run) are about being inclusive and just letting people play and enjoy themselves.

We are always looking to keep the data and results accurate, that is another reason we are so obsessed with it. (and we will find a way to deal with it) Our preference would be for you and those you play with, to just get stuck in and play some games, sure go ahead and raise stuff with us privately via PM etc, but some of the public 'outings', were a little much. (And in my opinion by folk who should know better)

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame you for feeling disillusioned at times, but hey take it as a complement that people got super involved with your campaign and really care about it :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, librerian_samae said:

I don't blame you for feeling disillusioned at times, but hey take it as a complement that people got super involved with your campaign and really care about it :)

lol Not disillusioned ... yet : )

The response the the campaign has been fantastic though, and next time - we start with everything we have now already built! ; )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yasashii Fuyu I don't think adding more limitations on battle reports is going to fly- their already is a limit, and all the 2 line reports are getting likely binned anyway, Also saying 300 points is the "proper" way to play kinda defeats the point of a campaign like this "Oh you just picked up a starter cos you saw all the coverage? well you can only join in once you have 2 to 3 times as many models" is a bit elitist frankly. Personally I'd rather see someone doing 2 demo games a day with new players at 150 points with decent write ups than literally any other method of playing, because they're bringing new blood into the game.

On the other hand, I still maintain that the 2 per day limit was implemented backwards, I'd prefer to be able to generate as many missions as the system resources allow(so you don't need to keep notes around for days to do the writeup for a tourney/event etc), but only publish 2 per day.

The spy hunts etc need to be done in a way you can't just set up a bunch of double agents to trigger bonuses.

What I would like to see is Some kind of Strategic assets attached to theatres, were if you hold a theatre certain actions gain you a bonus for example if you hold the spaceport  and play a drop troop assault style mission its worth 4 for a win instead of 3, conversely the risk involved in a mission like that would mean you get nothing for a draw while your opponent gets 1 point still. the special missions would need a limit beyond the regular though, say 1 per player every 3 days or something, just so it stops people only wanting to play the mission they get extra points for and nothing else. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had to be careful with 'live bonuses' because we obviously didn't know what the faction dynamics were going to be like (was one faction going to dwarf all others)

So if PanO had of been very quick to mobilize, securing objectives to get bonuses could have led to an overrun situation very quickly. I am keen to raise our game on making theaters more interesting though, so we will definitely be working on that.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) To stop infiltration make a requirement of at least three battle reports (WIN) for a certain faction to gain access to it's Briefing Rom. This will cut out most of the spying - especially if you tweak battle reports requirements a bit.

6) Limit of battles played is a bad idea, cause it leads to people playing less games. I'd say - let the best 10 games for each player count towards the end result, and each above that be just 1 point (even a lost one). This will still be a reason to play a lot - even if to improove results, people will loose up when it comes to winning and just playing will be far more rewarding. Also Spamming Reports will not have such huge impact on the outcome - but still be vital in a way. Just not so rewarding and broken as it was up to now.

7) I would really love to see some changes to Faction stathistics. Such as 'top commanders' and 'battle hardened'. More than once I was trying to automatically click at these to open up a full list - but it does not exist... Also the way to filter commanders by only one filter and such limited option should be improoved.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nazroth said:

1) To stop infiltration make a requirement of at least three battle reports (WIN) for a certain faction to gain access to it's Briefing Rom. This will cut out most of the spying - especially if you tweak battle reports requirements a bit.

6) Limit of battles played is a bad idea, cause it leads to people playing less games. I'd say - let the best 10 games for each player count towards the end result, and each above that be just 1 point (even a lost one). This will still be a reason to play a lot - even if to improove results, people will loose up when it comes to winning and just playing will be far more rewarding. Also Spamming Reports will not have such huge impact on the outcome - but still be vital in a way. Just not so rewarding and broken as it was up to now.

7) I would really love to see some changes to Faction stathistics. Such as 'top commanders' and 'battle hardened'. More than once I was trying to automatically click at these to open up a full list - but it does not exist... Also the way to filter commanders by only one filter and such limited option should be improoved.

1) Does this not potentially shut out casual players for maybe three weeks from getting stuck into chatting with fellow players? Again kinda runs against the inclusive rule we have.

6) Interesting Idea, let us mull that one over

7) Let me see what we can do on that front : )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beasts of War - Warren said:

1) Does this not potentially shut out casual players for maybe three weeks from getting stuck into chatting with fellow players? Again kinda runs against the inclusive rule we have.

Why not add a common Briefing Room where all could talk and hype etc? Sure - there may appear some fuss once the campaign enters it's final stage, but you will have a way to keep people occupied before they gain access to their factions closed Briefing Rooms - also obtaining such access will do for a nice achievement - AND - will keep players more loyal to their factions and much more commited - cause they had to work to get this.

Also Private Messege function would be nice - while we at it.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nazroth said:

Why not add a common Briefing Room where all could talk and hype etc? Sure - there may appear some fuss once the campaign enters it's final stage, but you will have a way to keep people occupied before they gain access to their factions closed Briefing Rooms - also obtaining such access will do for a nice achievement - AND - will keep players more loyal to their factions and much more commited - cause they had to work to get this.

Also Private Messege function would be nice - while we at it.

 

Yes in principle, but we're adding yet another layer of communication to the mix - and already (as you and I know) it's an area we would like more clarity not less. Let me chat it over with the team - but the end result is the same - someone will circumvent it and it was a ton of work to stop something that realistically cannot be stopped.

Private messaging is on the cards though - and an area we have been thinking about quite a bit.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Beasts of War - Warren said:

Someone will circumvent it and it was a ton of work to stop something that realistically cannot be stopped.

The easiest way to stop it is to add 'report player' buttons and if someone reaches 5 reports he's out of the common briefing room for two weeks. Done. Even if abused a bit - it will do the work of stoping any fuss. Also a straight rules of behaviour in the common room will keep people at bay - just nominate some moderators and you have a clean and friendly common room.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nazroth said:

6) Limit of battles played is a bad idea, cause it leads to people playing less games. I'd say - let the best 10 games for each player count towards the end result, and each above that be just 1 point (even a lost one). This will still be a reason to play a lot - even if to improove results, people will loose up when it comes to winning and just playing will be far more rewarding. Also Spamming Reports will not have such huge impact on the outcome - but still be vital in a way. Just not so rewarding and broken as it was up to now.

How do you determine the 10 "best"? Who decides what theatre the points go into?

4 minutes ago, Nazroth said:

Why not add a common Briefing Room where all could talk and hype etc? Sure - there may appear some fuss once the campaign enters it's final stage, but you will have a way to keep people occupied before they gain access to their factions closed Briefing Rooms - also obtaining such access will do for a nice achievement - AND - will keep players more loyal to their factions and much more commited - cause they had to work to get this.

Also Private Messege function would be nice - while we at it.

 

PM function I agree with, but locking folk out until you think they're good enough to join in just ain't right, and if anything would encourage spam, three "wins" with no content that the historians will sweep away at the end up.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add another point to this, since cazboab's comment made me think about it a bit more.

7) Try to find some other way to weed out bad/fake reports

Having an A.I Historian at the end of the campaign to seek through the battle reports and weed out all the fake/bad ones is a nice idea, but with this kind of solution, players never know where their own faction currently stands until the very end of the campaign. I like the "you might be doooooomed!" idea of that, but let's look at it realistically....

Who is going to suffer most from this? If let's say a faction loses it's first ranking position because of that, and thus loses the campaign because of it, who is really going to suffer from it? The player that took 5 minutes of his time to create a bunch of fake/bad reports? Or the players that spent several hours to create awesome battle reports and who did their best do contribute to the campaign?

The A.I. Historian seems ultimately like a punishment for those players that actually DID write good report, because no matter how good their reports are, in the end they might still lose because some other guy was cheating, and they didn't know/couldn't do anything about it.

The idea of Nazroth with the 10 best reports and such might actually help with that, although I still think there will need to be a weekly limit to battle reports to prevent excessive fake/bad battle report spamming. I know it might be "not inclusive" for some players, but let's be honest....how many players are there that get more than, let's say, 4 games in per week? I say it's better to slightly restrict a very small minority, than to frustrate/negate the majority of remaining players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  A.I Historian serves two purposes

1) Lifting a Fog of War - the fog of war adds a much needed dynamic to the whole thing of you have a general picture of what's going on but you will not know for sure until it's over.

2) It drives content and narrative once the campaign is over

 

Let make this clear 'every faction has access to the same tools as every other faction & and this is a team effort for each faction'

So once the reports are weighted (good and bad) its the same process for every faction and every participant - quite democratic lol

 

Let me ask, wouldn't you like the history of flamia to be written based on those reports that were the most accurate and believable?

 

And surely the dignity of the story is far more valuable than any individual win condition?

 

The story will continue far into the future of the game world : )

12 minutes ago, Nazroth said:

The easiest way to stop it is to add 'report player' buttons and if someone reaches 5 reports he's out of the common briefing room for two weeks. Done. Even if abused a bit - it will do the work of stoping any fuss. Also a straight rules of behaviour in the common room will keep people at bay - just nominate some moderators and you have a clean and friendly common room.

 

One word - Bullying

Unfortunately we have already been seeing glimpses of that as it is - so based on what I have witnessed I am even more against this (and I was the one who suggested it and fought for it about 4 months ago during development)

The needs of the one out way the needs of the many on this to me now.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yasashii Fuyu said:

let's say, 4 games in per week?

+1 to this idea,

11 minutes ago, cazboab said:

How do you determine the 10 "best"? Who decides what theatre the points go into?

Best by results, not the quality of reports etc. Also right now assigning points to theaters is actually bit sucky - cause it's 'free for all'. It ld to small conflicts over where to play, while in the end every cunning player appointed battles where they were needed the most. This should also be looked into - maybe there should be a way for top commanders to pin faction to a certain location for a certain amolunt of time - like global strategy - where all points earned by the faction will go for the pinned location - no matter where people played. Scoring should be done at the end of each month, with Historian or similar thing doing it's work, points being counted and carved in stone, while the event continues - 10 best results limit is reset etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nazroth said:

Best by results, not the quality of reports etc. Also right now assigning points to theaters is actually bit sucky - cause it's 'free for all'. It ld to small conflicts over where to play, while in the end every cunning player appointed battles where they were needed the most. This should also be looked into - maybe there should be a way for top commanders to pin faction to a certain location for a certain amolunt of time - like global strategy - where all points earned by the faction will go for the pinned location - no matter where people played. Scoring should be done at the end of each month, with Historian or similar thing doing it's work, points being counted and carved in stone, while the event continues - 10 best results limit is reset etc.

I like the idea of players being able to opt into 'Follow Our Leaders' type missions where they can push to help out, but then again the briefing rooms already kind of do that for those who are inclined to play that style of campaign. Coupled with it becomes a game only for the 'chosen' few... so it has to be balanced and opted into some how to people don't feel like they are getting a second rate experience compared to others.

Definately will mull it over as a possible way to play though. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Beasts of War - Warren said:

Let me ask, wouldn't you like the history of flamia to be written based on those reports that were the most accurate and believable?

 

And surely the dignity of the story is far more valuable than any individual win condition?

I understand where you come from, but the main problem is that all throughout the campaign tactics (both game and diplomatic wise) have been made according to all reports present at that time. Attacks on certain areas have been stopped because it was deemed "captured" or defenses have been abandoned because the area was "secure" again. 

Whole alliances have been formed against other factions because "they were the strongest" and "we small factions need to hold together".

The whole history of this campaign has been built upon these events, and if the A.I. historian now at the end, when everything is said and done, walks over all this, and the end result suddenly is vastly different....I know I personally would feel that everything we did was based on a lie...and that's not a good feeling, even more so at the end of a campaign when you can no longer change it.

I like the idea that right now PanO and Yu Jing are giving their all to grab some last points to snatch potential "victory" from each others grasps....but what good is that if at the end the A.I. Historian simply stated "Oh well....that's all nice and dandy, but in reality Tohaa was the strongest faction of this war all along.....you just never noticed because of Fog of War..."

I guess in the end it all boils down to this since I don't know the true scale of effect that the A.I. historian will have:

The random effect seems too big at the end of the campaign, and the chance of a program invalidating whole faction's efforts seem cruel.

Maybe let the A.I. historian run over the available data in certain intervals (once a week? Once a month?) so people at least have a basic idea of how things REALLY stand, not just what everybody believes they stand at...

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yasashii Fuyu said:

I understand where you come from, but the main problem is that all throughout the campaign tactics (both game and diplomatic wise) have been made according to all reports present at that time. Attacks on certain areas have been stopped because it was deemed "captured" or defenses have been abandoned because the area was "secure" again. 

Whole alliances have been formed against other factions because "they were the strongest" and "we small factions need to hold together".

The whole history of this campaign has been built upon these events, and if the A.I. historian now at the end, when everything is said and done, walks over all this, and the end result suddenly is vastly different....I know I personally would feel that everything we did was based on a lie...and that's not a good feeling, even more so at the end of a campaign when you can no longer change it.

I like the idea that right now PanO and Yu Jing are giving their all to grab some last points to snatch potential "victory" from each others grasps....but what good is that if at the end the A.I. Historian simply stated "Oh well....that's all nice and dandy, but in reality Tohaa was the strongest faction of this war all along.....you just never noticed because of Fog of War..."

I guess in the end it all boils down to this since I don't know the true scale of effect that the A.I. historian will have:

The random effect seems too big at the end of the campaign, and the chance of a program invalidating whole faction's efforts seem cruel.

Maybe let the A.I. historian run over the available data in certain intervals (once a week? Once a month?) so people at least have a basic idea of how things REALLY stand, not just what everybody believes they stand at...

 

Equally do you think any of the above is any different to how it would feel in reality?

To put your mind at ease (The AI Historians stuff we have run so far has made a few changes, but nothing really drastic)

You are focusing on the 'edge case' A whole faction brought down because because of a few bad eggs. - Based on the numbers of players it would take an awful lot of bad eggs for it to make that level of difference.

And every faction is in the same boat.

So lets say you did lose control of a theater, well that's kind of tough I'm sure the faction that gains it wont complain and they had exactly the same rules, the same repeated warnings as everyone else. 

It's part of the game, and if you played the game better than you opponents then it's all gravy - if you didn't - then don't they deserve for that to be reflected?

Everything you have done may well have been based on a lie (it really wasn't) but that is for a faction to police - if we took away the surprise 1) there would be no drama, 2) people would just look to circumvent it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nazroth said:

Best by results, not the quality of reports etc. Also right now assigning points to theaters is actually bit sucky - cause it's 'free for all'. It ld to small conflicts over where to play, while in the end every cunning player appointed battles where they were needed the most. This should also be looked into - maybe there should be a way for top commanders to pin faction to a certain location for a certain amolunt of time - like global strategy - where all points earned by the faction will go for the pinned location - no matter where people played. Scoring should be done at the end of each month, with Historian or similar thing doing it's work, points being counted and carved in stone, while the event continues - 10 best results limit is reset etc.

How do you determine which 10 wins are better than any other wins?

The strategy element means the faction with the most dedicated and on the ball leaders has a huge advantage, though maybe that's as it should be. Instead of counting all points in that zone though, maybe its better to have each faction gain a bonus in a particular theatre that they can move on set days?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now