Author Topic: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...  (Read 7668 times)

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« on: April 05, 2017, 05:04:51 pm »
Me and the rest of GwTh and others took gear to take blackcliff, we grinded for 3 hours doing search and destroy. The Baronies needed only 6k more effort while Chaladon required 1k. Amazingly enough, just as we finished our game and watched in disappointment the unlikely score, some other group won the final points to require Blackcliff! We got it!

Serpent point suddenly vanished from being contested, and Black cliff immediately went to a defense against the chaladons that had a headstart with 50% effort.
What the hell happened? We put so much effort, with some final moments of luck we got it, but then it just jerks itself and did that!


I am sure that things will be much more interresting than this pretty soon. But still, that minor whateverthehellmisshapthathappenedthere is... anti-climactic.
In any case, I hope there will be more of this soon!

Offline Psi Crow

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 6
    • [SMGS]
    • 43 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • germanspeaking GoI community on Steam
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2017, 08:16:56 pm »
Remember how Ayetach was bragging in global how Chaladon shall win Blackcliff just moments before this happened?
Am I accusing? No.
Am I implying? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jk ^^
Chaladon ftw!!!!

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2017, 10:46:02 pm »
Wait...

WE TOOK BLACKCLIFF!?

Celebration

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2017, 03:23:02 am »
we took blackcliff but because of the 350k lead chaladon gained afterwards due to some weird worldmap bug I guess, chaladon is currently 10k away from getting it. it appears that blackcliff is going to be Stalingrad of goia

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2017, 03:30:34 am »
jokes aside. It was super demoralizing to see the region you just spent 2-4 hours deployed in be immediately attacked again, with a 50% lead to the enemy. makes you really feel like you are doing a difference for your faction, other than just avoiding the inevitable loss.

Furthermore, something also feels odd about fighting chaladon. I dont have any game evidence for this, but I think engineers should look into it.

When Baronies fight anglea it feels like the 2 factions are even and that both has a chance at taking any area from eachother, but looking at chaladon it feels like baronies just cant keep up with the amount of defense and attack they put in a lot faster than baronies can muster anything.
Might be because of chaladon getting a too big of a bonus due to the low membercount, but I Dunno might also be that baronies are just terrible at coordinating atm. - still think it should be looked into.

Offline Huskarr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 29
    • [Rydr]
    • 32 
    • 45
    • 42 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2017, 08:22:36 am »
Chaladon OP. Pls don't nerf

Offline Nikola Brackman

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 14 
    • 27
    • 18 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2017, 10:21:24 am »
There does seem to be an odd disconnect between Chaledon's very low target numbers, which suggests a low pop, and their extremely high effort production which suggests the opposite.  Down south, Chaledon is often capable of pushing two to three fronts simultaneously faster than Mercantile can push one.

I guess it might be possible that they have some dedicated group of tryhards that are exploiting the bajeezus out of infiltration speedruns in a passworded faction-only lobby.  That method can allegedly crank out about 20k effort every 5 minutes or so with 16 people, and only one of them has to be particularly good (the squid pilot).  The squid crew only needs to be decent, and everyone else is just there for the free war effort.

Battles may end up coming down to which side can exploit that method the most ruthlessly, though that situation seems rather... anti-fun.

Offline MightyKeb

  • Member
  • Salutes: 78
    • [GwTh]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2017, 11:21:51 am »
There does seem to be an odd disconnect between Chaledon's very low target numbers, which suggests a low pop, and their extremely high effort production which suggests the opposite.  Down south, Chaledon is often capable of pushing two to three fronts simultaneously faster than Mercantile can push one.

I guess it might be possible that they have some dedicated group of tryhards that are exploiting the bajeezus out of infiltration speedruns in a passworded faction-only lobby.  That method can allegedly crank out about 20k effort every 5 minutes or so with 16 people, and only one of them has to be particularly good (the squid pilot).  The squid crew only needs to be decent, and everyone else is just there for the free war effort.

Battles may end up coming down to which side can exploit that method the most ruthlessly, though that situation seems rather... anti-fun.

Back in Open Alpha all the way in August, when Infiltration also didn't exist, we had Retrieve (Old name for Intercept) for this. With the right ships and a decent crew, you could cheese the gamemode in 2 minutes flat or less. I believe it was discovered mostly by Baronies and it helped us capture the most amount of territories by the end of the week - though we also lost just as much because our location forces us to fight multiple fronts.


The problem with alliance is that the gameplay itself and the world map metagame promote completely different ways of playing the game. The game side is slower, it wants you to mess about, take your time and take it all in for maximum enjoyment - which I can understand, you want to have the players actually enjoy the game before anything else.

However, when you have what is essentially a resource race between two groups of players, it becomes all about efficiency. Whoever can crank out the most war effort in the shortest amount of time wins. This incentive was what led to the exploitation of Retrieve gamemode in the first place, - before the convoys gained superhuman tankiness and more numbers. The difficulty multipliers just weren't enough to keep up, and the more difficulty you added the slower your win was anyway, so it didn't actually help you. That fact doesn't help you now either.


My proposal for this issue would be to 1) Significantly raise the war effort multiplier for Hell, and maybe even Veteran difficulty. and 2) Since the end game screen can track time passed, add a multiplier that raises war effort the more time is spent within a game.

Ie: The guy who "rushes" infiltration in 3 minutes gets far, far less war effort than the guy who spent 15 minutes trying to beat Search & Destroy on the same difficulty. But if the Infiltration guy somehow takes 15 minutes to complete his match on the same difficulty, then he gets just as much as the Search & Destroy guy, because they took the same amount of time and hence should get the same amount of war effort. Sure, you can potentially stall out Search & Destroy for atleast 30 minutes with a good stack who abuses the objective system to reset timer to get a crap ton of war effort, but in the end you are making just as much war effort as the guy who spent that 30 minutes playing 3 10-minute Defense rounds. No difference. Less incentive to cheese. More incentive to just play however you want. The only thing that messes up this order will be difficulty multipliers, but those are completely justified, and time-based war effort multiplier will still apply to them.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 11:40:44 am by MightyKeb »

Offline Laeytranger

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [Grim]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2017, 12:43:41 pm »
I don't have alliance, but i am in Chaladon and I can see the chat and stuff.

From what I've seen, they are extremely organised. EVERY SINGLE TIME  I log in, there is always some discussion of strategy discussion going on. i can't obviously say what it is like for the other factions but it does seem very efficient.

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2017, 12:58:44 pm »
Apparently it isn't a bug what happened at Blackcliff.

When Serpent's Point vanished after Baron's won Blackcliff, the War Effort for Serpent's transferred to the defense mission on Blackcliff, allowing Chaladon to take it back much quicker.

There's been a discussion in the Discord, and I think I might have a remedy for the unfairness of this, as well as the lack of control.

If a battle is lost and it eliminates another sector, they could, potentially, give the war effort to Faction Leaders to 'Spend', similar to currency, at a 20-30% reduction.

This would allow effort to not be fully wasted, but also not have what happened to Blackcliff.

Offline Lysanya

  • Member
  • Salutes: 18
    • [Sass]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Lysanya's Twitch Channel
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2017, 02:52:29 pm »
Ie: The guy who "rushes" infiltration in 3 minutes gets far, far less war effort than the guy who spent 15 minutes trying to beat Search & Destroy on the same difficulty. But if the Infiltration guy somehow takes 15 minutes to complete his match on the same difficulty, then he gets just as much as the Search & Destroy guy, because they took the same amount of time and hence should get the same amount of war effort. Sure, you can potentially stall out Search & Destroy for atleast 30 minutes with a good stack who abuses the objective system to reset timer to get a crap ton of war effort, but in the end you are making just as much war effort as the guy who spent that 30 minutes playing 3 10-minute Defense rounds. No difference. Less incentive to cheese. More incentive to just play however you want. The only thing that messes up this order will be difficulty multipliers, but those are completely justified, and time-based war effort multiplier will still apply to them.

You're neglecting coin output in your math.  Pilots doing 4-5 infiltration runs in the time one search and destroy is done is making 4-5x more coins.  That said, it's nowhere near as bad as the first version Retrieve, which you could run with AI in 90 seconds and coin farm all day.

I agree though, that if you can run Hell Infiltration, it is by far the most efficient farming method, and it's not even close.  It is high risk though, so not everyone can cheese it like the old Retrieve method.

Offline MightyKeb

  • Member
  • Salutes: 78
    • [GwTh]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2017, 03:58:52 pm »
You're neglecting coin output in your math.  Pilots doing 4-5 infiltration runs in the time one search and destroy is done is making 4-5x more coins.  That said, it's nowhere near as bad as the first version Retrieve, which you could run with AI in 90 seconds and coin farm all day.



So scale coins the same way?

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2017, 04:51:50 pm »
I think i have cracked the problem. Ever since leaders and faction message baronies are now a lot more organized. I believe that although the game math scales the balance on needed effort based on faction members; the lower count factions will always have an uppet hand. Why? Because of organizational problems. The more members or employees or soldiers whatever you have. The harder it gets to coordinate. The ingame tools for this are not sufficient enough to coordinate 4k members. Multiply that by the 12 battles barony is in constantly and it becomes impossible to control people. I already pitched highlighting critical ressources on the map, to get confused players in the right battles. But its simply down to the hardness if controlling large groups. A smaller group always gets things done quicker. Maybe leaders should have more power in the faction to help with these problems.

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2017, 07:02:19 pm »
Without actual leader power, Anglea will always be at a disadvantage. Well, until Arashi come around. Then they will have it worst.

Offline Nikola Brackman

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 14 
    • 27
    • 18 
    • View Profile
Re: The battle of BlackCliff and whatever the hell happened...
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2017, 10:18:25 pm »
Mercantile is the side that'll really get screwed when Arashi and Yesha are added.  From the looks of the map they're going to divide the Arashi desert along north and south... meaning every single faction in the game will share a border with Mercs. 

So Mercantile will be the only faction that can get stomped by a 5v1.  Chaledon only having to share borders with two factions (Mercs and Fjord) will have a huge geographical advantage.