Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
AdmiralJCJF

So... When Are We Getting Results?

52 posts in this topic

You bet! 😸

1

Share this post


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

Catislam...

me gusta haqqislam.jpg

NUH.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you doing with my avatar....you leave my avatar alone!

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nazroth said:

@sevsterino

 

On point of loosing interrest. What you wrote sounds rather convincing, except for difficulty of playing Yu-Jing. There are so many factors, including local meta, player's experience, preffered units and more, and more and more - I doubt you made a poll among your players and compared the real data. I'm not trying to belittle your point of view on the situation - just want to push you in the right direction. See this - these are Nomad stats for the campaign, from among crucial theaters,

Phase one: 320 posted battreps among La Forja MH and CD, 266 solid ones among them,

Phase two: 113 posted battreps among Dong Peyote, 100 solid ones among them,

Phase three: 72 posted battreps among Legation and Baijing, 62 solid ones among them,

The drop is obvious and it has nothing to do with 'Nomad army difficult to play' nor 'noobs grab the starters'. There is a huge, wide world out there and every small meta is different from the others. We as a faction had a single player that grabbed a round 50 points around theaters of interrest, while we also had a player that lost over 30 points in the same theaters to the threatening factions. All of these are solid battle reports, with vast writeup and pictures and army lists and all. As you can see - it's not always like one commander might do the difference. In the end even a brightest star might get countered countered by the darkest one.

From my personal experience - what kept us going was Bromadship. Many of our players made initial sacrifices, we feelt like a team hardened by standing side by side against the surrounding foes, we did not wanted to let down our Bromads. There were plenty of players not overly invested in the campaign, that threw in their singular wins in important theaters. Real deal Nomad supporters. No need to sacrifice your lives for the online campaign, but to show your teammates that you appreciate their effort and throw in that win for the cause - that's what makes this kind of event special. I think that was the key to our performance.

Of course you are right. I did not provide scientific data, but only possible reasons identified by a small group of players based on small sample from few groups. Most likely all of those reasons have had an impact to a certain extend, some of them more than others. Although all factions faced similar problems, Yu Jing's drop of activity was the greatest. Thus from the lack of other possible reasons, I just guess that the factors I mentioned played more significant role in our faction than in others. But like I say, its just my guess, unsupported by hard facts. 

There was nothing wrong with our leaders, as some people insinuate here. Morale on the forums was quite good, but the forum participation was really small. Therefore, a lot of players did not read or follow orders, so we had a significant spread of points over locations. Weak forum participation of just few players was also a sign of casual approach of the majority. Some decisions made by our leaders seems to be wrong from the perspective of time, but at the time of making them, they were right and based on Yu Jing's expected power output. That output had never been reached however. The effort dropped unexpectedly for remaining players and leaders,  so the objectives could not be reached and the efforts felt like a waste at some locations. Again, it was difficult if even possible to predict.

By referring to players that scored a lot of points I meant a significant number of players that actually scored a lot of points for other factions, not just few top individuals. Last time I checked statistics we had very few compared to pretty much any other faction, which clearly shows that the group of most dedicated players had a big impact on the final score in the final and decisive stage.

Anyway, I just try to provide some sound reasons, not cry here that it was unfair for Yu Jing. I had my share of fun and I met great dedicated Yu Jing players, which is a total success by itself for me personally. Said that, in the future I will only participate in other campaigns if the entire mechanic changes into a more narrative, exciting and enjoyable style.... you know, more like an actual campaign, not a 10 weeks long group tournament. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sevsterino said:

Therefore, a lot of players did not read or follow orders, so we had a significant spread of points over locations.

From where I stand 'the orders' might be to blame. You see - these are just random players from across the globe. I imagine many would not give a 'F' about someone elses orders. There's plenty of 'rogue' players out there and they must just be accounted for by high command's plans. The only way to communicate with people who does not read the Briefing Room, does not 'follow' faction strategy - is to plant a flag somewhere. I imagine that faction high command is able to control 15% of it's population at best. Rest is up to people entering the warconsole, seeing where the factions flag is and some might drop their attacks there as a matter of impulse. What I actually mean is that we are not military. Few people selecting a leader/high command/liason does not grant actual power over the rest of faction players. In some cases even the most active players might do something that clearly contradicts and undermines faction strategy.

Just as a side note - in our camp the rules were clear: Active, dedicated players do their stuff. Who is willing - might follow. No hard feelings toward guys who ignore the effort. This seem to work well. high Command winning loyalty of the teammates one at a time.

7 hours ago, sevsterino said:

Anyway, I just try to provide some sound reasons, not cry here that it was unfair for Yu Jing. I had my share of fun and I met great dedicated Yu Jing players, which is a total success by itself for me personally. Said that, in the future I will only participate in other campaigns if the entire mechanic changes into a more narrative, exciting and enjoyable style.... you know, more like an actual campaign, not a 10 weeks long group tournament. 

Do not worry. You sounded just as you wanted to. No 'cry' registered, at least I did not noticed any.

I am following the topic just to get to know Yu-Jing situation more. Unfortuinatelly I do not have time to scroll through all of yours battle reports to prepare sufficient data to analyze your situation more.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Tenzer that cat video is what the internet was created for. Cheers for sharing dude!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nazroth said:

From where I stand 'the orders' might be to blame. You see - these are just random players from across the globe. I imagine many would not give a 'F' about someone elses orders. There's plenty of 'rogue' players out there and they must just be accounted for by high command's plans. The only way to communicate with people who does not read the Briefing Room, does not 'follow' faction strategy - is to plant a flag somewhere. I imagine that faction high command is able to control 15% of it's population at best. Rest is up to people entering the warconsole, seeing where the factions flag is and some might drop their attacks there as a matter of impulse. What I actually mean is that we are not military. Few people selecting a leader/high command/liason does not grant actual power over the rest of faction players. In some cases even the most active players might do something that clearly contradicts and undermines faction strategy.

Just as a side note - in our camp the rules were clear: Active, dedicated players do their stuff. Who is willing - might follow. No hard feelings toward guys who ignore the effort. This seem to work well. high Command winning loyalty of the teammates one at a time.

 

This is very important, because it is exactly how Haqqislam has functioned.  I did the same assessment at the end of Operation: Flaestrike, but it's easy enough to do so, here goes:

While we had 549 Commanders listed in Haqqislam, just 64 actively answered the Role Call Thread created on day one; and The Swords of the Prophet, the group consisting of our more active players that were also active at the Haqqislam Forums, has only 19 members.  This is why we at Haqqislam understood from Flamestrike that having a "High Command" was a necesity to give guidelines to those players willing to work together so we could work in unison despite our small numbers and to avoid being manipulated by other factions via external infuence (people talking to members face to face, or through social media) or infiltration.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Haqq High Command did not seek to impose it's will. The Old Guard quickly established some things so it wouldn't be chaos and they a vote was held to decide who would be in the High Command this year. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even then, it was all more suggestion than rule.  Although I was one of the key players in the Baijing push, I barely defended Ilik at all through the whole campaign.  There was a lot of leeway given to account for players going their own way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Danger Rose said:

This is very important, because it is exactly how Haqqislam has functioned.  I did the same assessment at the end of Operation: Flaestrike, but it's easy enough to do so, here goes:

While we had 549 Commanders listed in Haqqislam, just 64 actively answered the Role Call Thread created on day one; and The Swords of the Prophet, the group consisting of our more active players that were also active at the Haqqislam Forums, has only 19 members.  This is why we at Haqqislam understood from Flamestrike that having a "High Command" was a necesity to give guidelines to those players willing to work together so we could work in unison despite our small numbers and to avoid being manipulated by other factions via external infuence (people talking to members face to face, or through social media) or infiltration.

 

Thank you for those numbers, @Danger Rose!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Danger Rose said:

While we had 549 Commanders listed in Haqqislam, just 64 actively answered the Role Call Thread created on day one; and The Swords of the Prophet, the group consisting of our more active players that were also active at the Haqqislam Forums, has only 19 members. 

When we did Roll Call thread we had around 15 people answering and around 10 actively participating. Among those ten about half was active in the forums but had little time for actual games in a week. The "orders" were just suggestions of course, everyone was allowed to make their own decisions. We also chose commanders in a democratic vote. You see my point now about dedicated and casual players? So even our most dedicated group either did not participate in the forums or was just too small to make any difference. I think Yu Jing relied on casual players that logged between 2 and 4 battles each during the whole campaign. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sevsterino:  Yeah, i really enjoyed your assessment and I agree with most of your points.  I too would love to have the Campaign move more into a Narrative Faction Goals Oriented format.  I do have to say, Wotan was a great improvement on Flamia, it felt a lot less like Risk:  Infinity.

While there's still room for improvement, I really liked that they took several of the players recommendations and improved the experience.

Let's wait and see.  They have a year to plan the next one (if they can find the time between all their projects :D). 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping we get a result which reflects more than X won the most games so wins the campaign. 

 

Hopefully choice of theatre counts for a lot and factions controlling only their own territory counts for little in terms of a win. (In contrast with those who captured new territory/lost existing territory).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • How scores are managed if ariadna got the highest amount of campaign points?
  • Highest amount of campaign points means ariadna won the campaign?
  • If the sistem looks for report rates, downvoting the reports of a faction is a valid way to negate the points of your enemies?
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2017 at 8:14 PM, Nazroth said:

Catislam...

me gusta haqqislam.jpg

Haqq islam again trying to do something Catholics do better ?;P

Image result for catholic cat

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Audun54 said:

Hope there's more to it, than that single video... seeing Phase one and two results AI Historianed would be pretty nice.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more detail on how the campaign points add up would be nice as well, especially considering Ariadna are the winner on that metric even though we held neither of the two zones we took in phase 3. I'd also like to publicly deny any sort of agreement with aleph. We just decided to go for the bigger prize, looking at our numbers we could easily have taken Echo, the Tohaa ship or Ilik but we decided that pano needed a slap from last year, and while we were at it since the nomads were in contention for the lead, why not stick them with the low blow while their back was turned? 

0

Share this post


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

A little more detail on how the campaign points add up would be nice as well, especially considering Ariadna are the winner on that metric even though we held neither of the two zones we took in phase 3. I'd also like to publicly deny any sort of agreement with aleph. We just decided to go for the bigger prize, looking at our numbers we could easily have taken Echo, the Tohaa ship or Ilik but we decided that pano needed a slap from last year, and while we were at it since the nomads were in contention for the lead, why not stick them with the low blow while their back was turned? 

Yeah, it's clear that they are just reading tea leaves with how interactions between factions worked. Like ALEPH and Ariadna interaction or "Nomads taking on Pano" crazy idea etc. Not to mention approach to data - like counting in empty accounts as faction members - same thing last year. This time I don;t have neither time nor energy to spend scrolling through all commanders and preparing a list of empty accounts to present real data. Whatever. That video is to feed the masses that does not know how things were with the factions.

Still - two phases that seen most people invested in are absent from the summary. Sad thing to witness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool video but I'd still like to see a breakdown of the first two phases (since they were the really intense ones - phase 3 was smouldering embers compared to a raging fire). Also what about looking at the total for an area over multiple phases (where this can be applied of course)? 

Looking forward to hearing some more about the wrap up. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I'd forgotten about that one, thanks for the reminder. Still leaves phase 2 and the areas that closed off (or appeared) in it  :D

0

Share this post


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

Phase one charts were covered at this point.

Thanks, I too forgort about it. The campaign was long and fighting was hard. Would there be a summary for Phase 2? No need for video, a summary would do the phase two justice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be down to CB :)

 

But right now I reckon their emphasis is on getting in the liaison analysis for their 2018 plans etc

0

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0