If we're going to ban things on the capability of misuse then there's a lot more stuff that needs to be binned along with the secondary accounts... Let's be deeply honest here, what is the insensitive to win? Sure pano were 'rewarded' for winning theffirst year but what did they get for the second? What did Ariadna get for last year? What did everyone who got a "most whatever" award win? Nothing. We're doing this for fun. Now if someone is doing something that absolutely derails the fun for people, then the mods should step in visibly and point out that - whatever the intention - the specific thing isn't considered fun. The ultimate decision on that has to be made by the mods, based on their opinion of what's actually happened, not on what could happen later.
The trouble is, once you open it up, it can easily get abused. Some people may have a cool fluff reason to do what they want, but I'm sure more will just come up with some lame fluff to justify gaming the system. Currently, they attempt to normalize scoring a bit with faction population. O-12 having such a low population scores 5 points per win, while Ariadna with their high population scores 3. If Ariadna players flock to O-12 in an effort to "help" their ally, they'll be manipulating a system meant to balance a less popular faction, scoring significantly more points than they would if they played their actual faction. This leaves Tohaa, who are actually engaging in a fair fight, now having to deal with a high population faction scoring like a low population faction. How is that fair again? Meanwhile, other factions in the campaign are actually coordinating their efforts, not attacking certain areas, engaging each other in specific territories, having allies fight against other factions to take pressure off, etc., all of which which takes considerably more work than just registering new accounts to favor the faction you want to win or lose. This leaves a really bad taste in the mouths of the players who are playing their chosen faction, and playing the campaign strategically.
I understand this concern, but I must echo previous comments... what does the "winner" even get out of all of this? At its core, this seems to be just a fun narrative with few consequences (Guitier will probably have already written the main story whatever the actual outcome of the campaign is). Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think this whole thing with Ariadnans joining O-12 is completely out of left field and also a great twist to the story! Now, if only more commanders would just listen to my interviews with regular "TotallyNotAShasvastii" hoomans...
Well an option would be to remove enforced faction allegiances entirely and let players loan their points to who they want and vary for whom at the time of placement, or to place for your faction (maybe keep it invisible) but also choose a proxy faction to gain points. I'm not saying it's a great idea but if I want my CA to do more to destabilise the sphere I should probably be posting black ops wins in batteries for tohaa. The ariadna - O12 super buddies development is certainly interesting but I can certainly see why tohaa players are upset, it's certainly a gamey move even if it's not the intended intention.
It would be simpler and clearer if alliances were allowed and points could be counted jointly. It would make diplomacy matter a lot more and in game alliances have greater meaning. There is also nothing to stop players doing the same thing now in secret. This is being done openly and in a way that makes sense per the fluff. It also stands to hurt efforts in other battlefields as one fought for O12 is one not fought for Ariadna. It is a very different scenario if a second account is used to play against yourself or throw games for your primary faction. In regars to points being balanced, I would argue they're not well balanced. Haqq and PanO have almost the same number of commanders but Haqq scores more points. NA2 only has 10 less, Ariadna has about 20 more. I'd argue that makes all of them large factions but they score differently. Tohaa are the only ones to really be appropriately balanced in my opinion. Granted points are presumably based on player bbase estimates and they can be off. In addition, the points scoring this year is identical to Kurage, despite despite the new releases that may have skewed player numbera, as seemed to be the case with Ariadna and NA2 last year. In regards to Tohaa, it's impossible to coordinate with allies to attack them in order to relieve pressure when they have nothing to defend. Is this deputy idea flawed? Yes, but it's a solution to a perceived problem. In the specific case of Xaraks it also makes sense since it is a joint O12/Ariadna location. I don't think that has been done before, however, my first campaign was Kurage. Again, this could all be resolved if factions could legitimately ally and pool points in an area, provided coordination between faction commands and CB/ontabletop is done so they know it's an official alliance for the area. Ultimately this will need to be decided by those running the campaign. Just my 2 cents, critique away
The issue with alliances is how do CA or tohaa ever win? in flamestrike CA were pretty close to taking the spaceports before Nomads and haqq got to add their points together. it is unfortunately an imperfect system, this year CA even gently reached out to tohaa but even they wouldn't be our friends despite 33% of tohaa being CA citizens
That’s probably a personal thing to different players, but obviously some feel they get “something” out of winning, or they wouldn’t go through all the effort of gaming the system and ruining the fun for everyone else.
CA should definitely be more of a threat,IMO they should always score 5 regardless of size (maybe even 6??)
@Aspect Graviton The problem for CA I would say is more acute than that of Tohaa. Personally, I'd gave CA a massive points boost, say 20 per win, maybe more. Tohaa can successfully ally as shown with haqq and the Tohaa splinter this campaign. They too could be given a points boost though.
As far as I remember, this was allowed in the first campaign (Flamia Island), when Ariadna scored with Tohaa in the Narooma Hospital to chase out Yu-Jing.
If this is just an online campaign suggestions thread at this point – I really want a little more voice from CB. they've been really silent this entire time and frankly I'm a little lost. The whole reason we're going crazy with these alliances is because we're trying to forge our own narrative somewhat. Just some direction would be nice. I would also like it if even the smaller factions we're given an area to defend – then diplomacy and alliances are incentivized instead of feeling like someone is just being ganged up on. I'm hoping CA has an area in phase 2 at the very least. But there should be some type of "official" way to pool your points.
I suggested this after kurage or wotan, one of the two. I think the suggestion was double or triple points, it'd be fun, as CA we'd just allocate a couple of players to each zone it'd be a proper scrap
I was definitely thinking this at first, too. But people are going to play whoever they play and there will still be inter-faction skirmishes. As long as those narratives are played out it could still be interesting. I think the real danger is losing the narrative piece altogether and just becoming more like a tournament.
If people are making secondary accounts to score for O-12 wouldn't that increase the O-12 numbers and lower the point scoring based on member base?
oh boy...this thread derailed since I left the screen...but I wanted to address the Carabay Drama as well. Personally I don't have a problem with the narrative background and the execution. This works perfectly fine for me...IF...that was your only faction. I guess the problems start to sink in as soon as there are multiple accounts on the console. Not that there actually is any cheating involved...doesn't really work. But still I would prefer for people going one faction only...but that's just me. As for above mentioned points concerning the campaign as a whole: I fully agree. Combined is supposed to be THE threat in this campaign...that's basically where all of the latest book lead up to. They should be everywhere...every win for the Aliens should be a percieved disaster for the human factions as the costs for cleaning that Shasvastii mess up afterwards would be immense...if even possible. Right now...well...Haqq for the win I guess. No undeserved, but way off what I expected the campaign to be about.
I think you're right. I like ehm...what I've done in my pocket of action but whoa-boy has it gotten dicey. I'm glad that admin is working on a response and I'll go with what they say. I suspect it'll be a "cool idea, but don't do it", which makes sense. BUT if they say go ahead, then I'll stick with what I've done. Either way I'm gonna start reading up on how to play Yu Jing units! I'm excited for all the TAG options :D At uh...risk of opening myself up to some spicey reviews, this is what I did with "'Y' faction but playing 'X' army" (Yu Jing faction, PanO army) https://asteroidblues.warconsole.com/battles/panacea-vs-paris-1569368010
If they say go ahead, I'll unpack my Spiral Corps in full and play them for Tohaa, but at the moment I'm just waiting because I'm one of those people who finds this whole situation and its current use against my low population faction rather disquieting given that I was led to believe I couldn't play my Spiral Corps outside of NA2 within the rules as presented (particularly with devs on record as having said Spiral Corps is NA2 and Tohaa is Tohaa). That may have been naive of me as a new player, but I feel strongly about this issue given that I made a very hard choice coming into the campaign to not play the sectorial I'm ultimately more familiar with.