Does anyone feel like nothing interesting is going to happen. All the bases are thoroughly held, with only pan-o and ariadna even really being close. At least in part 1 where there where multiple bases for some factions defence could be stretched thin so there was some back and forth. It just seems now everyone just scores on their own turf. Now I dont want this to derail into an anger thread (despite the troll thread name), more a look at what seems to be happening with the set up of phase 2. I kinda think part 2 should have instead of removing areas to everyone but CA and Tohaa having 1 zone to defend open 3-4 zones that everyone has to fight for fluff it that super defended ones like haqq get locked out, this would also serve as a reward of your faction did so well in phase 1 that you can safely attack in phase 2. For example looking at what did happen in phase 1 going into phase 2 the areas of conflict would shift to johnny 5- kurage- lafayette huts-new aleph base. This narrowing also followed the fluff that was building between players of haqq concentrating with nomads on defence, the arrival of aleph on kurage, and the tohaa/jsa/pano/aleph alliance. This shift would also have forced other factions to take up their stance on these 4 key locations rather than them milling around on their own base doing very little. Or other option open up the map to be like 30 zones so that factions get spread out and things cant be held just as easily.
I had this same thought today. I was just like "Oh man is anything going on with Kurage? No... No there's not, everyone still has their original starting point" This would also allow you to have more missions spread across the map so that people don't get bored with the single official mission per faction :(
Totally neutral zones would be seriously cool to have in the future campaigns. Zones not related to any faction, like a mining facility or a city.
Im going to make a rough map and proposed idea of how a more fluid system might work but rough ideas. These would be a pain to code in atm id imagine but its a start. So fake fluff idea for set up -pan o island, major city in middle, Pan-o is currently controlling its major city, with a tohaa diplomatic embassy in main area when DUN DUN DUN, combined attack, noting this sudden threat some factions who only have embassy in area rapidly deploy military troops to defend their holdings, blah blah blah diplomatic crisis, Pan0 feels the irony of being a super power whose on receiving end of sphere powers transgressing its sovereignty. Phase 1 begins with all factions quickly trying to garrison their local areas, maybe combined start in full control of Rones nodes and can push on imminently into other areas and first phase comes in with a big points multiplier -Island has many hub cities and port towns, each with 3-5 nodes in it + a controlling faction node (this cant be attacked its more of an abstract not physically there one but can help swing balance in favour of controlling player slightly), fluff wise this could either be the location of an embassy of theirs, for example town has a Tohaa diplomatic site (maybe they have an agreement that they can be on planet for research reasons so request an embassy) some could have slots for 2 controllers due to size so top 2 players get the bonus. Any tied areas dont score points Different areas get different values in holding for example major cities 4 points (7 nodes to control) major ports 3 points (5 nodes to control) towns 2 point (3 nodes) checkpoints 1 point (single nodes on roads between hubs) Each cycle points are gained from controlled areas -these initial areas of influence offer a 1.1x modifier to points scored in that city/hub in fights for their nodes(on top of the normal modifier) to give a minute bonus to it being your home turf, this modifier should not be enough to outweigh other factions natural points gain rate (like tohaas) but should be enough to swing equal modifier fights -at the end of a phase (3-4 days to have it cycle faster) the person with most nodes in a city held takes the position of it being their turf, to represent the higher up command structures retreating to safer areas or back off planet in evacuation. -should after a phase an area have little to no action in it, next cycle cut it with a congrats to players holding it, grant them a slight buff to their modifier for 1 cycle. But then remove that area from the map and zoom the map in and drop an extra few nodes in each zone. This should maybe happen in case of fully holding 1 area or just no action happening in an area. Debating on if the winner should keep a passive 50% points income from those held locations for rest of campaign (rounding up). A few side things that can be looked at to grease the wheels in campaign -adaptive points scaling, for example is combined not scary enough, between a phase up their points multiplyer to represent new reinforcements for one cycle, let them gain ground then slowly adjust back down. -work out a system for semi alliances (the normal informal agreements ppl make) and formal ones letting alliances share in whatever reward comes from winning the campaign, this will encourage smaller factions who clearly have no chance of winning trying to take a spot as kingmaker for their own benefit -merc companies can choose who their nodes controlled go to, basically when filling in battle reports just add Ikari-Nomads/yu jing/pano or whatever (though just a note I think re applying this to just 1 city, with lots of smaller districts might take a break from islands and space ships)
Having (only ? ) neutral points would be more interresting .If non-neutral were to stay then attacking it while dominating nearby neutral locations should give à big advantage (like gaining X3 points)
I definitely agree about neutral zones Thing is, in these campaigns, the way to win is to take a zone, and the way to lose is to lose your own zone. As a result, people castle their zones. And because they do that, things don't tend to change hands. And this is fine, really. It's not like you're going to actually take the PanO base from them with Haqq or whatever. But I would perhaps that that instead of every zone being controlled by a faction by default, what about a variety of areas, which players can try to take over, but don't belong to anyone by default? Then who controls where becomes more interesting, and it's not castling your area, it's taking and holding a zone that is the game!
Yeah it's really no surprise that the only two factions that are remotely close to losing a zone this phase are the two that actually attacked something in the phase and thus had to divide attention. Neutral zones would help a lot and might make things interesting for the smaller factions as it would give them something to fight for.
If CB/BoW actually thought this stuff through they'd entertain the idea. These campaigns are an afterthought meant to drive traffic to the BoW site.
I don't agree with you there. Part of the campaign's value for BoW is raising their profile sure, as one can expect, but being that cynical is just baseless. CB and BoW both care and want it to be a good experience, they spend a lot of time and effort to try and make it work.
If that's true then they're doing it wrong, it would be cheaper to buy a bunch of infinity/aristeia swag and run a daily competition for a month. Also BoW is already much larger in terms of views than CB...
To add to the neutral zones idea: Why not have zones with resources, or infrastructure? Things that once captured give you certain bonuses. Or even better, resources that can be spent at the end of each phase on upgrades/actions.
I think numerous neutral zones that generate points would be the best idea. Neutral zones controlled by lower number faction generate more points, higher number generate less. This could be problematic though if the lower number factions take advantage of this and gobble up a bunch for a period. I think neutral zones built in the same way normal faction zones are is good. Each faction can acquire their preferred zones via missions.
In phase 2 we basically had neutral locations as the factions did not get their advantage in points...probably numerous "neutral" locations could encourage factions to split up their points more. Bunkering in seems to be the largest issue for me. For some reason players do not take phase shifts very well...so far every new phase resulted in a drop of acticity. Starting "all over" might be another demotivating factor. Maybe a "assymetrical" approach would be more exciting and dynmaic? Just a though that could be implemented in two or even three ways: 1) each faction gets it's own timeline. Let's say faction A has a phase 1 of 10 days, and faction B has 14 days...points for each faction could then be calculated once their phase is over. If both factions competed for the same spot, that would force faction B to adapt to the shorter timeframe while having other places where they could invest points later. That would maybe make tactics more dynamic as High Commands would have to keep an eye on the developments even closer. 2) each location gets its own phase and do not shut down at the same time. Factions would have to decide where to invest points each week. 3) locations get "secret shutdown values". i.e. a location will shut down (explode or something) if a number od battles have been thought there. That might result in factions trying their best to get that location really quickly and make a push for it. As I think of it, factions could as well get "objective values" for a specific location to achieve campaign points: i.e. Faction A does not need to win a lacation but it is merely enough to get a specifc ratio or overall number of points there. Once that is achieved, another objective might pop up. That could even mean: take that location! There are numerous ways to break this campaign system up, even though I enjoyed it as it is. In any way, deviating from the "stringent set up" we have right now would mean significantly more preparation on BoW and CB's side and might bare the risk of demotivation players as well...
All of these are good ideas that can perfectly well be implemented. Positive (constructive) criticism will always get more attention than negative one. And you can see that they are trying to improve the experience each year. So, my two cents: Indeed, neutral zones would make it easier for everyone to head in one direction without feeling like it's an Out Of Character move. I can even go further and make "Neutral" an extra Faction that no one can join, but whose locations start with a fixed amount of points to be claimed. For example: Power Plant in the region starts with 150pts Neutral. if anyone wants to conquer it, just uploading batreps as soon as the campaign starts won't automatically make it yours. And to have repercussions to holding a position: Whoever gets the Spaceport in Phase 1 gets an extra 25pt in missions during Phase 2, whoever gets the Power Plant gets +1SWC, and whoever gets the Comms Station gets +4" on every Deployment. Just to name some examples.
I wouldn't want to see anything result in games be more advantageous for one side, like more points etc, but I would like to see a system where potentially controlling certain zones "unlocks" other zones which are then strategically more difficult to get rid of. Perhaps if you take the Spaceport, then it means you can put points on the Orbital Traffic Control Base, which can only be removed by other factions by playing against your specific faction, etc. If someone takes the Spaceport, you can't drop points on the OTC Base until you take back the port, etc.
