Hecaton

Is it an intended function of the campaign to only report result to theaters on a win outcome?

103 posts in this topic

I don't want to turn this into a faction witchhunt, and I don't want to mention specific names for the same reason, but it seems like there is a certain subset of players (#notallPanO) at at least the Sygtir-1 location skewing results in PanO's favor, by doing three things - 1. Preferentially posting wins (and only wins) to the Sygtir-1 theater post-facto. 2. Using dummy accounts to post fake games to the theater. 3. Rating PanO batreps at 10 stars and CA ones at a low rating, regardless of the quality. 

Point 3 is very hard to combat because star ratings are a subjective thing anyway, though if a large amount of legit reports are thrown out because they are under 4 stars or whatever at the end of the segment then I'd be upset. But I refuse to try to counteract this by swinging things back in the opposite direction; I'd rather try to rate each faction's batreps as honestly as I can. 

Point 2 is something for the BoW crew to look out for, if that's on their agenda. I hope networks of suspicious dummy accounts are deleted and not counted, but I understand that micromanaging the reports and accounts might not be in the cards considering labor limitations. 

And Point 1 is something that I had assumed was poor form and hadn't done, but I'm checking in to make sure. If it is not meant to be part of 'sportsmanlike' play in the campaign, is there anything we can do about it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be a shit show and people will abuse whatever you try to do. 

Just relax and enjoy your games and how everyone is sharing games.

7

Share this post


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

I don't want to turn this into a faction witchhunt, and I don't want to mention specific names for the same reason, but it seems like there is a certain subset of players (#notallPanO) at at least the Sygtir-1 location skewing results in PanO's favor, by doing three things - 1. Preferentially posting wins (and only wins) to the Sygtir-1 theater post-facto. 2. Using dummy accounts to post fake games to the theater. 3. Rating PanO batreps at 10 stars and CA ones at a low rating, regardless of the quality. 

Point 3 is very hard to combat because star ratings are a subjective thing anyway, though if a large amount of legit reports are thrown out because they are under 4 stars or whatever at the end of the segment then I'd be upset. But I refuse to try to counteract this by swinging things back in the opposite direction; I'd rather try to rate each faction's batreps as honestly as I can. 

Point 2 is something for the BoW crew to look out for, if that's on their agenda. I hope networks of suspicious dummy accounts are deleted and not counted, but I understand that micromanaging the reports and accounts might not be in the cards considering labor limitations. 

And Point 1 is something that I had assumed was poor form and hadn't done, but I'm checking in to make sure. If it is not meant to be part of 'sportsmanlike' play in the campaign, is there anything we can do about it?

Oh, look, another Combined Army player turning what might have been a legitimate comment into another personal attack.

What a surprise.

I "don't want to mention specific names" either, but around my parts it's the Combined Army player telling everyone to post their games to "whichever location the winner wants". So, yeah, there's that.

And when a PanO player gets a dozen 1-star ratings on a high quality report seconds after calling out a Combined Army commander for shit-talking... yeah, there's that too.

I know I've talked about how to play the campaign fairly and have fun, with agreeing battlefields beforehand, writing quality reports and rating fairly across the board. But there's only so much I can do to encourage and direct people.

It's a pity you had to make this into an attack on PanOceania and our players @Hecaton, because I might have had your back on this if you hadn't.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AdmiralJCJF said:

Oh, look, another Combined Army player turning what might have been a legitimate comment into another personal attack.

What a surprise.

I "don't want to mention specific names" either, but around my parts it's the Combined Army player telling everyone to post their games to "whichever location the winner wants". So, yeah, there's that.

And when a PanO player gets a dozen 1-star ratings on a high quality report seconds after calling out a Combined Army commander for shit-talking... yeah, there's that too.

I know I've talked about how to play the campaign fairly and have fun, with agreeing battlefields beforehand, writing quality reports and rating fairly across the board. But there's only so much I can do to encourage and direct people.

It's a pity you had to make this into an attack on PanOceania and our players @Hecaton, because I might have had your back on this if you hadn't.

I definitely don't think it's all PanO players or anything. Just a very small subset of them causing a disproportionate amount of the stuff I'm seeing. And I'm not dismissive of the idea that it's coming from the other side (CA players as well). I think if any of these things are happening, it's poor sportsmanship/trying to ruin other people's experience (except for point 1 if BoW/CB is ok with it), and I hope that if anything is done about this it's applied evenly to all factions. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hecaton said:

I definitely don't think it's all PanO players or anything. Just a very small subset of them causing a disproportionate amount of the stuff I'm seeing. And I'm not dismissive of the idea that it's coming from the other side (CA players as well). I think if any of these things are happening, it's poor sportsmanship/trying to ruin other people's experience (except for point 1 if BoW/CB is ok with it), and I hope that if anything is done about this it's applied evenly to all factions. 

Then maybe, just maybe, next time frame up your discussion of the issue without throwing in a specific factional accusation.

Because right now this just comes across as yet another CA-alliance bullying tactic.

2

Share this post


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

Oh, look, another Combined Army player turning what might have been a legitimate comment into another personal attack.

What a surprise.

I "don't want to mention specific names" either, but around my parts it's the Combined Army player telling everyone to post their games to "whichever location the winner wants". So, yeah, there's that.

And when a PanO player gets a dozen 1-star ratings on a high quality report seconds after calling out a Combined Army commander for shit-talking... yeah, there's that too.

I know I've talked about how to play the campaign fairly and have fun, with agreeing battlefields beforehand, writing quality reports and rating fairly across the board. But there's only so much I can do to encourage and direct people.

It's a pity you had to make this into an attack on PanOceania and our players @Hecaton, because I might have had your back on this if you hadn't.

how about you both walk away and realise you're talking about a fictional campaign which may or may not affect anything

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AdmiralJCJF said:

Then maybe, just maybe, next time frame up your discussion of the issue without throwing in a specific factional accusation.

Because right now this just comes across as yet another CA-alliance bullying tactic.

The pattern of batreps of the PanO faction specifically has some weird quirks to it that I believe bear mentioning. I noticed you brought up similar behavior of CA players - good! Hopefully CB/BoW has the time to look at players who are gaming the system and deal with them appropriately, regardless of what faction they come from. But I was seeing some behavior that *wasn't* coming from all factions evenly, so I thought I'd mention it if it hadn't already been brought to BoW/CB's attention. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate that such reports are done in as plain and non accusing way as possible to avoid the tension we have now.

 

 

4

Share this post


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

I would appreciate that such reports are done in as plain and non accusing way as possible to avoid the tension we have now.

Sorry @PsychoticStorm,

The frustrating part for me is that I agree with the underlying issue, but deplore the accusatory and aggressive way in which it has been delivered.

It makes it hard to just engage in a neutral discussion of the benefits of change vs continuity when it's framed up in this way.

1

Share this post


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

Sorry @PsychoticStorm,

The frustrating part for me is that I agree with the underlying issue, but deplore the accusatory and aggressive way in which it has been delivered.

It makes it hard to just engage in a neutral discussion of the benefits of change vs continuity when it's framed up in this way.

I understand that tone can be warped through the internet, so please believe me when I say I'm asking the following in all seriousness and without hostility: What part of it seemed hostile to you? If I thought that one faction was disproportionately benefiting from, let's just say, "shenanigans," how do you think I should have brought it up?

2

Share this post


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

I understand that tone can be warped through the internet, so please believe me when I say I'm asking the following in all seriousness and without hostility: What part of it seemed hostile to you? If I thought that one faction was disproportionately benefiting from, let's just say, "shenanigans," how do you think I should have brought it up?

Maybe just say exactly that, like you just did there. You've communicated your intent without it coming across as a partisan thing. Surely you can understand how a Combined Army player making accusations against PanOceania right now fails to be "neutral" in tone.

1

Share this post


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

Maybe just say exactly that, like you just did there. You've communicated your intent without it coming across as a partisan thing. Surely you can understand how a Combined Army player making accusations against PanOceania right now fails to be "neutral" in tone.

Just to be clear, are you saying that a CA player remarking on weird phenomena benefiting PanO as a faction will categorically fail to be neutral? I mentioned PanO specifically, but I didn't accuse all PanO players, in fact I noted that it was a small subset of them that I was seeing this behavior from. Unfortunately, in order for the observation to make sense, I had to mention the faction involved specifically, though I also used fairly neutral language ("seems") in making my statement. I could be totally off base here, certainly. I thought I used non-inflammatory language, and I was not trying to give offense. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hecaton said:

Just to be clear, are you saying that a CA player remarking on weird phenomena benefiting PanO as a faction will categorically fail to be neutral? I mentioned PanO specifically, but I didn't accuse all PanO players, in fact I noted that it was a small subset of them that I was seeing this behavior from. Unfortunately, in order for the observation to make sense, I had to mention the faction involved specifically, though I also used fairly neutral language ("seems") in making my statement. I could be totally off base here, certainly. I thought I used non-inflammatory language, and I was not trying to give offense. 

Yes, it's going to come off as partisan basically no matter how you try to couch it.

That's not really your fault (there are people who started the trend, but that's not relevant to this conversation) but I still don't agree that your OP couldn't have been made clearly without directly accusing any one faction.

Here's the thing, we've all seen this happening and it's happening in reports from all factions.

And, to be blunt, after spending all the time I have herding the PanOceania players back to Sygtir-1 so we stop wasting points all across the map while the Combined Army dumps 80%+ in one place and THEN to have a Combined Army player (the same faction with the near perfect targeting record from day 1) accuse PanOceania of cheating because we've finally got our act together...

Well, yeah.

1

Share this post


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

That's not really your fault (there are people who started the trend, but that's not relevant to this conversation) but I still don't agree that your OP couldn't have been made clearly without directly accusing any one faction.

Unfortunately I disagree. Sorry I upset you. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to turn this into a faction witchhunt, and I don't want to mention specific names for the same reason, but it seems like there is a certain subset of players in at at least one location skewing results in their factions favor, by doing three things - 1. Preferentially posting wins (and only wins) to that theater post-facto. 2. Using dummy accounts to post fake games to the theater. 3. Rating their batreps at 10 stars and other faction ones at a low rating, regardless of the quality. 

...

 

That wasn't exactly hard.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate both of you are invested in this campaign. But I can state that you both came off as very confrontational. Again, try to relax, you can't control everyone and the less you worry about it, the more enjoyable the campaign will be. 

JCJF, using a local player as an example which wasn't even relevant to try support your counter attack is poor form as well, and hardly a great way to diffuse the situation or right a perceived wrong. It also makes you look bad.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hecaton said:

Unfortunately I disagree. Sorry I upset you. 

I'd be more inclined to believe you if you hadn't started discussing a legitimate topic and then swung into making two more unrelated accusations against one faction just because.

*shrugs*

Anyhow, I'm not going to discuss the actual issue in this environment, but I do want to discuss it so you're welcome to do that in a less toxic way if you want to:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to report all of my games, win or lose.  So far they've both been in Ilik.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this being a Narrative Event; I will continue to do Narrative reports and write them the best way possible, win or lose; because I'm writing my Sand Cats stories in this Campaign and I'm enjoying it despite all the drama some here want to create.

I can tell you, Haqqislam is not witholding Reports, not posting only victories and trying very hard not to post empty reports.  And I didn't have to ask that from them, that is the kind of players we have.  I don't care who wins or loses this campaing, I just want to have fun.  If this competitive attitude keeps on, all you will get is what you have in this thread: People yelling at each other and not changing anything because each has his/her own opinion and are too stubborn to even consider trying to make this an inclusive, COOPERATIVE event.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were an intended function then there wouldn't be a report linking feature...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's intended as such, but I think that it's expected that people are going to be more enthusiastic about writing up their victories than they are writing up their defeats.  Giving both players big bonuses for linking battle reports is an attempt to counter this, because it gives the winner a reason to pressure the loser to post their version of events.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even reported losses do help the community, especially if they have been written well enough for proper assesment. 

If you can give a good evaluation on what went wrong for what reason you can contribute a lot to your fellow players' progresses, especially for the progresses of your own youngbloods. 

Don't be a miser about losses. Cool dudes lose gracefully and make the best out of it for everyone. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to insert some other party into this discussion:

I too did notice a certain trend of some factions (definitely not only PanO by the way...) to rate their own factions reports over proportionally good (reports with only ~150 words, 2 pics and no army list getting 9 stars? not too likely normally I'd say... ).

The win rates of certain factions would also indicate that they are either not posting their loses, or are just that damn good, I don't know which one it is yet as I haven't personally witnessed anyone holding a report back or seen any data on that, but it does seem a bit odd I must admit.

I can only say that as far as I am aware of as a member of Yu Jing High Command, we do not hold back our loses (as is apparent by our horrible W/L rate *lol*) , heck we even encourage our players to post them anyway, cause every loss is a lesson, and this is a narrative event for fun, not a hardcore win at all cost tournament. And we have posted guidelines on what we might consider "fair rating" of battle reports, which so far, looking at the reports from out faction, I think is being heeded.

Don't forget people, douchbags exist in every online event, and they will try their best to ruin other people's fun, make themselves look better, and so on, no matter the cost, and sometimes you just can't do anything about it.

Just keep in mind that this is supposed to be a narrative event, and even if another faction roflstomps you because they have a gazillion fake reports...as long as you did your best and created whatever storyline you find compelling, it should be good enough....and let's have some faith in Corvus Belli that they'll deal with this in one way or another.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad 'strategy' is to make an effort to comment and rate Nomad batreps. No predatory downvoting, and to publish high quality batreps. Nothing bad. I don't suspect our opponents of being bad sports in this regard either.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hecaton, dial back the tone of your posts a little, seriously.

Admiral, please don't tar all CA players with the same brush :)

 

2

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