C6 - The Little Changes

[KoffeinFlummi]

Since most of the things I would like to see changed for C6 are rather minor changes that might not be worth having a seperate thread, I figured I'd make a little thread where everyone can post their personal wishlist for C6 and argue about things until their fingers bleed.

Some things I personally would like changed:

• Remove Damavand Peak from the map pool. In my experience it is one of these maps that always play out the same. Not necessarily because of bias, but because of linearity. There rarely ever is flanking, strategic finesse or any sort of variety involved.
• Remove Epicenter from the map pool. We only played it once IIRC, but that one was enough to prove that it's a horrible spamfest. Not to mention the extreme bias.
• Take your time. Please don't rush things. It felt a little like this last campaign was quickly thrown together in order to keep waiting times low. I'd rather wait for 1 more week and in return enjoy a nice, balanced, fun campaign.
• Focus more on vanilla & B2K maps. I like some of the DLC maps, but quite a few community members don't have those DLCs. I'm not asking to get completely rid of them, but 60% DLC maps, like this campaign, might be a bit much.
• Switch to ArmA III

[Bock]

Some things I personally would like changed:

• Remove Damavand Peak from the map pool. In my experience it is one of these maps that always play out the same. Not necessarily because of bias, but because of linearity. There rarely ever is flanking, strategic finesse or any sort of variety involved.
• Take your time. Please don't rush things. It felt a little like this last campaign was quickly thrown together in order to keep waiting times low. I'd rather wait for 1 more week and in return enjoy a nice, balanced, fun campaign.
• Focus more on vanilla & B2K maps. I like some of the DLC maps, but quite a few community members don't have those DLCs. I'm not asking to get completely rid of them, but 60% DLC maps, like this campaign, might be a bit much.

+1

A few other things I'd like:

• I'd like to see the BO map pool retain rush, TS and possibly CTF, though focus even more around conquest maps.
• Finalize the campaign system and rules prior to the campaign kicking off. It shouldn't be as much of an issue this time around, since there shouldn't be too many major changes, but the campaign system wiki was finalized and made public just prior to the BFI for C5, after the map and territory drafts had already occurred.

not-so-ninja edit after being reminded how broken capitals were by Sloths amazing math skills:

• Capitals are worth too much. The value of a territory should be 3 or 4 times that of a capital, not 3/2. Black Ops attendance, and skill/EU vs NA balance just varies too much to put so much weight on black ops.

[A Docile Sloth]

Would be nice if Capitals were worth less WCP than continents as they are fought over on BOs
-> Capitals give a change of 4 WCP
-> Continents give a change of 3 WCP

If both teams have 50% of WCP and:
1) Team A gets a capital.
Team A now has 50.8%
Team B now has 49.2%

2) Team A gets a continent
Team A now has 50.6%
Team B now has 49.4%

Assuming 50 territories and capitals worth 3 and 2 WCP respectively, a continent is worth 3 WCP and each team starts with 25 territories, 25 capitals and no continents.

[Sao]

-Also, lets not rush this campaign to start. EA are still suffering from the DDOS attacks. No point starting a campaign and people not play because of connectivity (last EUBO etc)

[FisherMan9999]

I think that we should switch to Arma 3 as Flummi said .

[KILLERCANKILL]

Completely agree with all points except the arma 3 one

[FisherMan9999]

You don't like simulators which give you tons of opportunities to make strategies and to think a little?The think that would stop us playing Arma 3 is the optimization.It could lag a lot.

[Necromancer]

• +1 for demavand, horrible. glad i didn't get to play it this campaign.
• number of divisions per territory lowered, but not enough territories were added to balance it.
  less division --> more maps per battle day --> more territories can be caught every battle day. C4 was 3-4 territories a day, C5 was 4-5 territories a day. statistically the campaigns shortens.
• BO shouldn't directly impact the RISK map. The changes purposed to the BO were made to get more participants, but as seen this campaign the attendance of BOs didn't increase at all. people don't show up because they can't, not because they don't want to or because they think BOs are meaningless. I think its unfair one side looses just because their players are unable to get to BO due to work/RL. statistically it also decreases the time of the campaign as the side that wins more battle days would probably win more BOs, which only helps the strong side win faster.
• I'd like to see the fog of war back. not as intensely as before, but would be nice to have fully revealed territories if its next to you, and partially blackened territories on the back territories. with surveillance perks that reveal those territories at the cost of RISK cards /missions / market credits / whatever system is used.
  for those thinking about earlier campaigns and fog of war, note with next-territory line of sight after draft about 90% of the map will be fully revealed. its not as restricting as before.
• to further increase the number of strategies available on the RISK map, it would be nice to be able to put dummy divisions to confuse the opponent. it would look like a real unit until its attacked, in which case it cease to exist (for example 2 dummy divisions to each side, as they blow-up, they are refunded to their army and start from the HQ).
  additional perks, that at some cost, would hide a territory during an attack or defend turn. hiding the amount of units on the territory prior to attack or defense add complexity to the map, which right now is pretty straight forward and movements/attacks are easily predictable. deception and uncertainty are integral parts of any war.
• WCP balance - as territories worth 3, capitals 2 and theaters 3, with so many territories and capitals and the low reward for theaters i think theaters do not play any part in planning the next attack. the reward is negligible.

[Gwynzer]

I was initially very much against the Capital Cities existing and having DIRECT effect on WCP, and I still am to an extent but not quite so much.

Capital cities work quite well with the card system and the various cards you can play which utilise cities in interesting ways, but I still feel they have too much direct effect on WCP. In order to keep Cities useful beyond just a few cards, I suggest we move the 2/3 WCP split for cities/tiles to 1/4 instead.


Fog of war could work with the risk cards for sure. Intelligence cards which reveal tiles for the next week adds more options in the deck.

[matsif]

-put full fog of war back, add in surveillance cards or whatever BOs are for anymore. Gives a lot more meaning to BOs when you have to use them to be able to see where you are attacking, and hopefully would get more people to do BOs. Alternately, automate the card system to not require BOs and drop BOs entirely (as we have done in the past) if attendance is becoming an issue. Also drop the WCP of a capital as others are suggesting.

-keep bf3. despite it's drawbacks it still has the draw power that any simulation game like ARMA3 lacks because it's a game more than a simulation. I'd rather have full battles in bf3 with it's issues than lose whoever we would lose for ARMA's superior tactical/strategic simulation. Also, I prefer the more "arcade" style of the BF series over how serious/realistic ARMA is, and I'm sure I'm not the only one here that feels that way.

-time limit the campaign to 12[variable amount] weeks after the BFI or until the victory conditions are met. This way if we end up with good balanced armies, there isn't a risk of stagnation and people getting bored. Most of you seem to be of the mindset that having 2 balanced armies fighting for 30 weeks is a good thing, but you have never experienced it and don't understand the morale issues it can cause when the attacking/defending team wins week in and week out and it goes on for 4 or 5 months. bf2 c8 vets remember how that went. Having a time limit might also add morale as teams only have [x] weeks to win enough battles but defend enough to have the greater WCP.

-A bunch of you want to remove certain maps (for valid reasons, don't get me wrong) and still add territories, and I don't see how it is possible. You're going to end up flirting with a line where we're duplicating maps to fill these territories and then y'all are gonna complain about playing the same map too many times when we have this discussion again for C7.

-do not rush getting c6 off the ground. I'd much rather not play until the end of june/early july if it takes that long and have a well set campaign than have something that feels rushed, which seems to be a major complaint about this past campaign.

[Necromancer]

-A bunch of you want to remove certain maps (for valid reasons, don't get me wrong) and still add territories, and I don't see how it is possible. You're going to end up flirting with a line where we're duplicating maps to fill these territories and then y'all are gonna complain about playing the same map too many times when we have this discussion again for C7.

i don't recall playing Seine once this campaign.
and i'd rather play 3 karkand territories in a row then a single round of Demavend from the winning side.

[KoffeinFlummi]

-keep bf3. despite it's drawbacks it still has the draw power that any simulation game like ARMA3 lacks because it's a game more than a simulation. I'd rather have full battles in bf3 with it's issues than lose whoever we would lose for ARMA's superior tactical/strategic simulation. Also, I prefer the more "arcade" style of the BF series over how serious/realistic ARMA is, and I'm sure I'm not the only one here that feels that way.

I was joking

[matsif]

I was joking

you forgot your sarcasm font.

[elchino7]

• Focus more on vanilla & B2K maps. I like some of the DLC maps, but quite a few community members don't have those DLCs. I'm not asking to get completely rid of them, but 60% DLC maps, like this campaign, might be a bit much.
  I´ll gladly take out the 32v of Endgame maps for Kharg32v - Firestorm32v - Sein Crossing 64inf - Oman 64inf?????
• Instead of a 60s restart timer could it be a 30s of restart and 30s+ of freeze time?
• Give each side a Jet pilot which haves all the DLCs and tend to show up on GC.
• Capital cities should have a less impact. Im with the 1-3 WP ratio.
• Change Bazaar Rush for any of these: Tehran - Norshar - Karkand or even add them.
• Combine the CTF flags with the TS points considering there are just 4 maps of each version. 300 TS points = 6 flags = 1 risk card. 50 TS points = 1 flag
• Any chance for an only infantry CTF ?

[KoffeinFlummi]

Instead of a 60s restart timer could it be a 30s of restart and 30s+ of freeze time?

If I remember correctly, that was an issue with one of the patches limiting it to somthing like 20 seconds.