Considering the ban for my faction was the single most useful character (still left) while some of the other factions had some not... very useful... characters banned, and that I didn't actually participate in general... unfavourable is all I can really vote. Event seemed well handled, result a bit uneven and disappointing.
I have an unfavorable opinion for two reasons. First, it encouraged the playing of Rescue, which is a shit mission. Second, I have no idea what they were saying when they said they compensated for player numbers or whatever, but it looked to me like 1 win in a relevant scenario = one point. How CA won I have no idea, but these kinds of lazy faction contests that don't correct for faction population are no fun. Interesting idea, though. I'd love to see them refine the idea.
While I like having some stakes in the games we play at tournaments and like, the choices for some characters were clear while other not so much. I just hope that this in some way can advance the story and give CB a chance to "redo" some of these characters.
I think I'd rather CB stick to rewarding the winner, instead of penalizing the losers. That way, the winner is happy, and the losers aren't actively annoyed.
As fun as this poll is it isnt over. The backdoor story concludes at the end of the season, this is just the midseason break so to speak
Yeah, I was just thinking about that. Having uncertainty as to whether or not people will lose shit is just kind of bad for morale. Better to have a reward for the winner. But CB has a blind spot for that - they seemed nonplussed when YJ players weren't hype about the JSA revolt, and they didn't seem to understand why this wasn't the best idea. Another comment, about the person at the top of the ITS rankings getting a reward - I think that's a bad system. Better to have the winner of a big tournament like Interplanetario, or keep it to group/faction events like this. The last two top-of-ITS players have both had clouded ethical/sportsmanship histories, which is probably somewhat related to why they're at the top of the rankings.
I don't feel like it was particularly well communicated; once I was reminded it existed I had a hard time even finding the page where I could see the overall status/progress. It was also a bit uneven in that Combined Army and Tohaa were listed as being immune from the negative effects, but CA still won overall, meaning that every eligible faction "lost". I also was never a fan of the vague terms that this was presented in. Nobody knew if the character bans were going to have a large impact or not, and we still don't know how long they will last. The characters selected also seem pretty uneven between armies; I think Rao has been in almost every SAA list I've faced, and I've never seen Andromeda not still in the blister hanging on the store wall. In the end I voted for no opinion because I mostly forgot this was happening and I don't play any (either?) of the factions that lost characters worth taking.
This is par for the course for CB. They're allergic to accountability. Like, CA "won." I have no idea if that's legit or if CA was granted free points to make it look like it was something organic. They claimed they accounted for faction population... but it pretty clearly wasn't.
I know that this is a big sticking point for you, but I'm much less convinced that they did not put in some controls for faction popularity. For example, I'm pretty sure that CA is not the most popular faction, and especially not by the kind of margin that the b4ckd00r results imply. Going by the end of season 8 results, you would have expected PanO and CA to be reversed if this were a pure popularity contest. https://www.infinitythegame.com/blo...statistics-analyzing-season-8s-organized-play
@toadchild If things were being equalized for player pop you wouldn't have NA2 in the obvious dead last.
You'd have a point if you said Tohaa. NA2 is sufficiently new that they honestly don't even count as far as I'm concerned. They didn't even exist until halfway through this ITS season, so they have absolutely no historical information on their player base size.
@toadchild Given that players move from faction to faction, compensating based off of historical faction size is just as useless as not doing it at all.
I'm not too big a fan of community driven campaigns in general because people just can't be trusted. I can see the appeal to other people, however, so I'm fine with it as long as they don't tie major plot developments to the outcome. Backdoor didn't affect me much at all, but I do use Tarik, Voronin and Xi Zhuang in my lists quite frequently, so I'm interested to see how they'll be modified, if at all.
I really don't know how you would propose compensating based on size that did not take into account existing trends in faction size/popularity. I literally have no idea what you're trying to propose at this point.
@toadchild Do it in "real time" over the course of the event based off of faction percentages that actually participate in the event rather than historical ones.
I find it deeply disturbing that Corvus Belli believes than can somehow impact my casual games. I know they said that it wouldn't happen this time but who knows what will happen next. Say I've got some buddies over, we're drinking, decide to get a quick game in, and I decide to use Rao, because just a fun game you know? Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISION!
