Book II, Chal IV - Kaliphlin Civil War (Results Posted)

[Jacob Nion]

gee, two weeks away and now I'm completely lost ...

Everything is awesome! Everthing is cool when you're part of the team (desert king)!

[Rogue Angel]

I have declared for Ulandus.

[Yzalirk]

It's good to have you with us, Rogue! Now, we must get you in our chat and conspire!

[Bregir]

Was any decision taken in terms of limiting the number of Guerillas per builder, or do we keep the "one week per guerilla"?

[SkaForHire]

Right now it is still one a week. If we change it, it will not be until the end of April so everyone has notice.

[Maxim I]

gee, two weeks away and now I'm completely lost ...

I am also completely lost!

I agree with the majority that there are way too much GA's and they take away the fun of the game for me... I used to comment on every entry, but I had a busy weekend once and now I don't know where to start...

[Kai NRG]

Just mark the forum read and then start commenting as they pop up. That's what I usually do when things get swamped.

[gedren_y]

All this activity has the consequence of pushing a lot of threads back. To see all of the Warzone threads, check the first page of the Challenge C thread. There have been a handful of freebuilds as well, so you might as well just use the 'load more topics' button.

[Jacob Nion]

One question about cat b: is it common for this category to post all mocs and the whole story or is it also legal to post every build + part of the story in a thread onf its own and at the end link everything here in one post?

[Kai NRG]

One question about cat b: is it common for this category to post all mocs and the whole story or is it also legal to post every build + part of the story in a thread onf its own and at the end link everything here in one post?

The entire thing should be in one thread, at least that's how it's usually done. We already have enough threads cluttering things with Category C!

[Bregir]

First of all, let me again say that this challenge is awesome! It has me (and many others) crank out a lot of high quality builds, and given many chances of improving one's skill. :thumbup:

I am going to participate throughout the challenge to the best of my ability.

However, there are some balancing issues. Mind you, I am not talking about imbalances between teams, but rather between guerillas and war zones. Therefore, I would like to make a case for limiting the effect and quantity of Guerillas. The reasons for this is as follows:

1. I think we are seeing a tendency towards quantity over quality, where it becomes more important to crank out a high number of builds than to be creative and put in an effort in each build and story
   
2. The challenge is shifting towards available time, rather than skill and effort as deciding factor.
   
3. The large number of Guerillas are making the whole war very confusing, and losing overview definitely isn't conducive to immersion, and in turn, participation and "fun" .
   
4. The stress and workload posed by counterguerillas is a bit demotivating. A team can be completely swamped one week, resulting in loosing a lot of territory to relatively small, simple builds, simply because they were not countered.
   
5. Lastly, and most importantly, I think guerillas have become too powerful. In my opinion (and looking at the outputs of this very challenge) the warzones produce the most interesting and challenging builds, and should be what decide the war. Right now, efforts are more effectively put into guerillas, as they have a higher expected outcome.
   

Therefore, I suggest a number of initiatives to rebalance the wargame towards the war zones and towards a fewer total number of builds. (That is, fewer guerilla attacks)

1. Limit the number of guerillas per builder to one per two weeks.
   
2. Remove the limit on the number of counters per builder. (Alternatively, 1 per week per builder)
   
3. Make the voting about total guerilla effort versus total countereffort, rather than one on one. (X number of guerilla builds for a zone vs x number of counters)
   
4. Always have a vote, even when there are no counters. Criteria: Is the total guerilla effort, least the countereffort, enough to take over the zone?
   
5. (Keep the current limitiations in terms of "deep in enemy territory" and zones with more than one victory point)
   

This will limit the number of guerilla builds, and rebalace the game towards the warzones. Further, it ensure that guerilla builds only take over a zone, when they are suffienciently creative and effective. I think guerilla attacks should be more true to their real life purpose: Disturbance of war effort and reassignment of ressources away from the general war effort.

I think this will lead to a more interesting and less confusing/stressfull war game, both for participants and organisers. (I really sympathize with the amount of work Ska has been putting into this :thumbup: )

These are my suggestions, and they are, of course, open to discussion. There are probably some things I have missed, as well as some disagreement about my goals with the above. I am looking forward to some input, and hope this can help refine and rebalance this AWESOME challenge for the betterment of all.

[Jacob Nion]

Always have a vote, even when there are no counters. Criteria: Is the total guerilla effort, least the countereffort, enough to take over the zone?

That is a great idea, sir! It would force everyone to put enough effort in his builds.

Also imho there's still imbalance between personal points for GAs and warzones. One can gain three points by only making a guerilla, regardless of size or quality, that's at least one point more than posting a wz entry. And a successful guerilla generates more points than making the highest rankimg entry for a warzone. Maybe there should only be points when the guerilla is successful, or at least only one point.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Jacob Nion

[robuko]

The points for GAs and CGs are massively higher than the points for competing in warzones, and the odds of victory are dramatically higher. Players who care about points will focus on these. The GA system is far too powerful.

[Kai NRG]

It is harder to get a guerrilla approved than a WZ though. The new rules strike me as being a good idea. I do wish there were some way to get voters to look at the threads rather than just the pictures. I have a feeling that some of my more creative guerrillas that don't look much like the original suffer from the lack of obvious, "Okay, that counters this pretty well." But maybe that's just me. I seem to have a tendency to loose guerrillas and counters!

Which, by the way, I might point out to robuko that I have yet to receive full point quota for either a GA or a CG. Although, yes, it does have the potential to turn over a lot of points.

[Jacob Nion]

[...]Which, by the way, I might point out to robuko that I have yet to receive full point quota for either a GA or a CG. Although, yes, it does have the potential to turn over a lot of points.

You had the opportunity to build several counters a week. That generates a bunch of points, even if not all of them are successful.

[Bregir]

You had the opportunity to build several counters a week. That generates a bunch of points, even if not all of them are successful.

Let's not make this a discussion about Kai's (or anyone else's) personal points.

However, generally speaking, setting the counters free, will of course require lowering the number of points rewarded per counter. (For instance one per counter, two if your side win.)

(On a sidenote, no limit on counter's isn't meant to mean you can counter the same build multiple times. Of course each builder should only be allowd one counter per guerilla build. )

Edited April 28, 2015 by Bregir

[Jacob Nion]

That was no criticism on Kai; he did the counters for his team and that's an impressive job. And of cozrse that should be reqarded. But with the current point system the point value is probably too much distorted.

[Gideon]

I fully agree with the fact that the guerrilla concept is overpowered (which is something I have been trying to say from the start ). Right now it also makes the GoH forum way too spammed which means that I and many others don't even have the time to go through the forum, let alone comment on the builds.

So I'm fully behind any changes in the system to make it more about quality than quantity and to shift focus towards the warzones. And I'm saying this despite the fact that the HC has not had a lot of luck in the warzones

[Garmadon]

...Therefore, I would like to make a case for limiting the effect and quantity of Guerrillas...

1. Lastly, and most importantly, I think guerrillas have become too powerful. In my opinion (and looking at the outputs of this very challenge) the warzones produce the most interesting and challenging builds, and should be what decide the war. Right now, efforts are more effectively put into guerrillas, as they have a higher expected outcome.
   

Therefore, I suggest a number of initiatives to re-balance the wargame towards the war zones and towards a fewer total number of builds. (That is, fewer guerrilla attacks)

1. Limit the number of guerrillas per builder to one per two weeks.
   
2. Remove the limit on the number of counters per builder. (Alternatively, 1 per week per builder)
   
3. Make the voting about total guerrilla effort versus total countereffort, rather than one on one. (X number of guerrilla builds for a zone vs x number of counters)
   
4. Always have a vote, even when there are no counters. Criteria: Is the total guerrilla effort, least the countereffort, enough to take over the zone?
   
5. (Keep the current limitations in terms of "deep in enemy territory" and zones with more than one victory point)
   

This will limit the number of guerrilla builds, and re-balance the game towards the warzones. Further, it ensure that guerrilla builds only take over a zone, when they are sufficiently creative and effective. I think guerrilla attacks should be more true to their real life purpose: Disturbance of war effort and reassignment of resources away from the general war effort...

I certainly agree with you as to limiting guerrilla builds and making WZs more important. Your first, third, fourth, and fifth suggestions are very good and I would be happy to see them adopted However, I do not believe that removing the limit on counters would help for the following reasons:

1. We would not want counters to replace guerrillas as the overloaded builds. Counters require just as much focus on quality over quantity as guerrillas (furthermore, if your fourth suggestion gets approved I think it would greatly help the problem and wouldn't necessitate a change in the counter limit)
   
2. This challenge is, after all, a team effort. Therefore, I believe that the limit on counters should be a stimulant for team effort and coordination, rather than all the team's members being able to go off on their own and build tons of counters.
   
3. However, I would advocate keeping the rule about overloaded guerrillas (i.e., if a team has more guerrillas against it than the half of its members it may request a longer deadline for any guerrillas over that number or each builder may do extra counters), only changing the last part so that there would still be a limit. E.g., if there are 10 guerrilla one week against Ulandus - which has 14 members if I recall correctly - each member would be able to build a maximum of two counters that week (excluding leftovers, as before).
   

As to the personal points for guerrillas and counters, I'm not sure that anyone builds them just for personal points. The last time the points changed there was no perceptible difference in the quantity of counters or guerrillas, and I don't believe it would help now either.

If you are merely concerned about the points per se, changing them would clearly make a difference there, but it would probably not affect the quantity or quality at all Still a WZ entry that places fifth in the voting is worth the same as an unsuccessful guerrilla, and with the suggestion made by Bregir the number of successful guerrillas would be reduced, so I see no great problem there (though I do realize it is far harder to place if you build for the DK than it is for Ulandus!)

Edited April 28, 2015 by Garmadon

[Bregir]

I certainly agree with you as to limiting guerrilla builds and making WZs more important. Your first, third, fourth, and fifth suggestions are very good and I would be happy to see them adopted However, I do not believe that removing the limit on counters would help for the following reasons:

1. We would not want counters to replace guerrillas as the overloaded builds. Counters require just as much focus on quality over quantity as guerrillas (furthermore, if your fourth suggestion gets approved I think it would greatly help the problem and wouldn't necessitate a change in the counter limit)
   
2. This challenge is, after all, a team effort. Therefore, I believe that the limit on counters should be a stimulant for team effort and coordination, rather than all the team's members being able to go off on their own and build tons of counters.
   
3. However, I would advocate keeping the rule about overloaded guerrillas (i.e., if a team has more guerrillas against it than the half of its members it may request a longer deadline for any guerrillas over that number or each builder may do extra counters), only changing the last part so that there would still be a limit. E.g., if there are 10 guerrilla one week against Ulandus - which has 14 members if I recall correctly - each member would be able to build a maximum of two counters that week (excluding leftovers, as before).
   

As to the personal points for guerrillas and counters, I'm not sure that anyone builds them just for personal points. The last time the points changed there was no perceptible difference in the quantity of counters or guerrillas, and I don't believe it would help now either.

If you are merely concerned about the points per se, changing them would clearly make a difference there, but it would probably not affect the quantity or quality at all Still a WZ entry that places fifth in the voting is worth the same as an unsuccessful guerrilla, and with the suggestion made by Bregir the number of successful guerrillas would be reduced, so I see no great problem there (though I do realize it is far harder to place if you build for the DK than it is for Ulandus!)

I'll sign that!

[Kai NRG]

I agree with Garmadon's suggestions. Personally, I don't build guerrillas instead of warzones just because they're worth more points. (To be sure, of course, I've built both ever since the beginning, but anyway.) I find guerrillas harder to build actually because you have to come up with the concept from start to finish. And I may remark that I did not go on a countering spree primarily for points, but rather for my team. (Though as I'm loosing most of them I suppose my team hasn't benefited a whole lot! haha, and I can see why those who picked the wrong team didn't get the opportunity to counter like crazy could be a bit miffed, at least if they were loosing in personal points by that margin.)

Of course personal points are a nice bonus but I don't think we're even competing for a physical prize anyway (though I could be wrong), just bragging rights, and moreover, the person with the most points is not the ipso facto winner; I would imagine build quality will be taken into account as well. Up until just this week I think very few of my builds sacrificed quantity for time in any way; it's just my last two (GA and CG) that I do think may have to a certain extent. This week however, I should be able to pick it back up because, thankfully, there are no guerrillas against us for once!

While we're listing complaints, I'm not super thrilled with the way the DK is set to win an overwhelming victory in a few of these latest WZs just because in sheer numbers of builds they have more than both the other two teams. In build quality IMHO, at least in the case of WZ13, they don't deserve an overwhelming victory. A victory maybe, but not overwhelming.

BTW, in a two way battle, if one team has double the amount of builds as the other team has, do they get an overwhelming victory?

On the side, I can see why some of those who have less time aren't super happy with the way this challenge is set up. But for those of us who have more time but less bricks, these small vig-size builds are very nice, because they actually give us a shot at winning - something I've never really had before for a GoH challenge, particularly the larger ones!

[LordDan]

@ Bregir

1. This is an good idea, but I don't think it will be necessary if the other changes are made( plus building GA's are fun)

2.Isn't this already in place, which is why Kai was able to build like a bazillion counters ( I also built multiple counter this week because I thought this was in place)

3. Absolutely!! I think team effort/ combined quality of all the builds should be taken into account.

4. Sure

5.Yes

[Dragonfire]

I would like to join Ulandus, please.

[Kai NRG]

...2.Isn't this already in place, which is why Kai was able to build like a bazillion counters ( I also built multiple counter this week because I thought this was in place)...

I was able to build multiples because between all the guerrillas done against us, we had more than our quota of 7 a week. When a team has more guerrillas against it than it's members divided by two, any member may build as many counters as he/she desires.

[mrcp6d]

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in the past dozen posts or so. Frankly, GoH (and its other spin-offs on other forums) have been an incredible force to raise the overall castle-MOCing ability of us AFOLs and TFOLs over the past couple years. I'm not sure the current rules set allows for the true quality that us old-timers have become used to viewing because the best way to play this game is currently to push out guerrilla builds every week (on Sundays if you're smart! ). That said, it's impressive to me both the quantity and quality I've seen thus far. But it is definitely grueling (this isn't Iron Builder! ) and for some us us AFOLs is sucking some to most of the fun out of building for GoH.

Serious kudos to Ska for putting this all together, but as has been posted multiple times since the beginning of the challenge, these rules are sort of a first attempt. It's a GREAT concept, but I think needs refinement for many of us "shielded" folks to extract the same levels of enjoyment we're used to getting.