Native Completed Split North American Campaign [SNAC]

What do you think about the Split North American Campaign?

  • It sounds interesting and fun, and I will participate.

    Votes: 32 54.2%

  • It sounds interesting and fun, but I will not participate.

    Votes: 4 6.8%

  • It has potential but needs work.

    Votes: 11 18.6%

  • It is a poor idea.

    Votes: 9 15.3%

  • Other {post}

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • Total voters
    59

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Not sure if that holds true for the majority of the population.

And see, I'm getting the overpopulation issue back and forth. But Texas and California have a pretty large number of Warband players. So does the Eastern seaboard. I feel it'll be about even, and also about even in terms of skill. Even thinking in terms of clans, you've got TMW, I believe the majority of the fleeting Ras, and a slight majority of Balions on the East. You've got wK, majority of the Wappaws, and a bunch of other players on the West.

Not to mention the 'mercenary' Europeans are more likely to join the East side as they tend to be more familiar with them anyway. I don't feel it'll be much of an issue, and if there is a strong leaning towards one side, it's nothing that shameless advertising won't fix.  :lol:
 
A few questions:

1: I'm sure there will be a large difference between the amount of Western players competing vs Eastern.  How will that be balanced?  Adding more states to the West pool, giving Western players more "lives" of some sort, etc.  We would have Texas and California, but in between those two states, the player-base seems pretty sparse.  I guess we could play it by ear and see how many players register, instead of speculating.

2: How do we determine who plays in which battle?  Is it only the players that are involved in the combative states, or anyone from the Western/Eastern bloc that can make the match?

3: What's the timeline for this event?  Ideally, one side would capture all of the opposing team's territories, but if it turns into a stalemate, what are the metrics for determining victory?  Which faction has the most territory, most surviving players, most successful battles, etc.
 
WilySly said:
A few questions:

1: I'm sure there will be a large difference between the amount of Western players competing vs Eastern.  How will that be balanced?  Adding more states to the West pool, giving Western players more "lives" of some sort, etc.  We would have Texas and California, but in between those two states, the player-base seems pretty sparse.  I guess we could play it by ear and see how many players register, instead of speculating.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and this issue keeps going back and forth. I personally don't think there will be an issue. If there is, there's something I call the Rebel effect. This comes from the fact in ROCK I heard Snoop tell about sometimes they have 5 people, sometimes they have 20. I presume those original 5 people would be the more dedicated ones - literally speaking, they'd be the ones that would sign up. But if you advertised a bit, those 15 might sign up too. I'd like to make use of this if we need it. I'll initially let the sign ups go as they please, maybe pester a few clan leaders but that's about it. If numbers are way swayed, then I'll be buggering players more in the other direction. In the end, the playerbase in NA is so swingset that there's no telling what will happen.

2: How do we determine who plays in which battle?  Is it only the players that are involved in the combative states, or anyone from the Western/Eastern bloc that can make the match?
Click to expand...
As aforementioned, there will be 4 armies total, 2 armies drawing from the same player pool. Whenever that army attacks, anyone from that player pool can participate. The playerpool will be people who have signed up and have been assigned. Who actually plays will be determined by the 'general' or leader of that army. To illustrate:

Army 1 + 2 Player pool:
Joe
Bob
Smith.

That player pool can participate in both Army 1 and Army 2 matches.

On the defending side, I'll randomly decide which army is defending in which match, and the appropriate player pool will be used.

3: What's the timeline for this event?  Ideally, one side would capture all of the opposing team's territories, but if it turns into a stalemate, what are the metrics for determining victory?  Which faction has the most territory, most surviving players, most successful battles, etc.
Click to expand...

I set up Texas so that it wouldn't go down first turn, so I'll hoping for at least three. For an Eastern win, I suppose by the time Texas goes it's GG, and for a Western win, it'll be drawn out a little longer.

Two weeks per turn. That may seem lengthy, but that is four matches.

I assume the largest territorial gains would be the winning metric in case of a stalemate/lack of continued interest.
 
This is an interesting idea, but needs some work. The biggest attraction for me is matches with a large number of players that are unexplored outside the famouse Wappaw scrims. But there are a number of things that I don't think will work out or need more work:
  • Balancing (already brought up by WilySly) -- it's anecdotal, but I think most (competitive) players are on the east coast
  • "Home states" -- there's little to no way of verifying that a player resides in a state (s)he claims (s)he is. This opens up a possibility of "stacking New Jersey or Maine or California or Alaska", i.e. the states that are furtherst from the border, to avoid risking being given the boot early in the game, when your home state that's close to the border is captured.
  • Someone has tried to do something like this a while ago, but with time-zones. I wonder why didn't it take off...
  • What is the victory condition? Capturing all the enemy states/provinces? Let me do some math: in the best case you can capture 2 states per turn, that is if your armies are always victorious and you choose the optimal route. Which means that if you need to capture, say, 25 US states and 5 Canadian provinces, it will take you at least 30/2=15 turns. That is 15 weeks (or ~ 3 months) if matches are played weekly. My experience with ROCK suggests that people will lose interest far sooner than that.
  • A related concern is that if teams are really balanced then the action will be limited to the border states and no army will be able to advance far enough to win the game, so people will get bored by the lack of action. If the teams are not balanced, you have a hope of the campaign actually finishing, but then the losing side will lose interest quickly. Note that in ROCK we had taken extra measures to ensure that it's terminating (and in short time), yet noone stuck around for the finale. I'm not saying it has to be that way with this tournament, but I think it's a valid and serious concern.

Recommendation: host a single event instead, to see how many people would join from each side and if they enjoy it at all. Then, maybe, make it a regular event (say, monthly). But no capturing states and stuff.
 
  • KissMyAxe said:
    • Balancing (already brought up by WilySly) -- it's anecdotal, but I think most (competitive) players are on the east coast
    Click to expand...
    We'll see. I've heard it both ways.

    • "Home states" -- there's little to no way of verifying that a player resides in a state (s)he claims (s)he is. This opens up a possibility of "stacking New Jersey or Maine or California or Alaska", i.e. the states that are furtherst from the border, to avoid risking being given the boot early in the game, when your home state that's close to the border is captured.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just going to do the honor system and hope that nobody will do it. It'll ruin the entire point.

    • Someone has tried to do something like this a while ago, but with time-zones. I wonder why didn't it take off...
    Click to expand...
    It was run by MrNevino, for one, and nobody took it seriously, primarily because even the host didn't seem to take it seriously.

    • What is the victory condition? Capturing all the enemy states/provinces? Let me do some math: in the best case you can capture 2 states per turn, that is if your armies are always victorious and you choose the optimal route. Which means that if you need to capture, say, 25 US states and 5 Canadian provinces, it will take you at least 30/2=15 turns. That is 15 weeks (or ~ 3 months) if matches are played weekly. My experience with ROCK suggests that people will lose interest far sooner than that.
    Click to expand...
    Here is the deal with that - it's not going to take that long for the game to realistically end. For the West, as soon as Texas is gone they lose simply due to the amount of people living in Texas, and that can happen in a grand total of two turns. The West can cut across the South and take several strong players out that way. That is the objective of this campaign - territories don't matter nearly as much as the people you lose. At some point when you lose enough strong players I'll just call it GG - though at what point I'm not sure. Would like suggestions on this. The most I expect this campaign to go is about a month and a half, though it depends on whether stalemates occur.

    Recommendation: host a single event instead, to see how many people would join from each side and if they enjoy it at all. Then, maybe, make it a regular event (say, monthly).
    Click to expand...
    Unlikely, considering a single event won't capture the spirit of the campaign at all - and I'm not sure how having a state signup sheet is worth it just for one event.

    Frankly, I think it'll work. Looking above, we have 16 'I'm ins', and several trolls probably put it sucks. The people saying it needs work would likely participate anyway. And I've managed all this with no advertising, aside from a basic "would you like this" talk with the clan leaders, which I've gotten an almost universal yes from.
 
Alright. If the East Coast Balion is in, I'm in too. I seldom refuse a good fight.

Also try making a short section separate from the introduction explaining the rules with the least number of words possible (for the benefit of Mad Dawg and such :razz:).
 
Wouldn't this require every member to tell us what state they're in? I just feel like some people might be a little uncomfortable with that.

Also, NY's OP, amirite?

EDIT:
Who are the commanders?!!?
 
toronto has the best players . and its never going to be captured we represent the east side!!! *sticks up gang symbol* yeyeyey yyoyooyoyyo nigg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MP Please make Chamber Blocking Viable for Multiplayer
Replies
2
Views
86
k86
Troops “Follow Me” Too Closely
Replies
0
Views
52
k86
Expressing myself about the state of the game.
Replies
11
Views
462
badman
Back
Top Bottom