Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Results of the last discussion about the Campaign for Cybertron we're pretty conclusive - you guys definitely want more, and thanks to Seibertrons hard work we now have even more options for individual rewards and faction bonuses that you can fight over!

So, I have another question for you:

Which is your favourite round type? Just enter in the poll above!


Whilst you are thinking over that, here is a brief explanation of how we plan to continue...

• The map will be rebooted (I'm not using the other r-word), with the Decepticons in control (as they were winning 6-0) and they will have first choice of round for season 2.
• We will still be fighting over Cybertron. Other planets like that fleshling-filed mudball we all live on, Nebulos, and Caminus etc. are all options for the future, but we're sticking to what we know right now.
• An additional pair of game rules will be added that only 50% of Cybertron will need to be conquered before Iacon or Kaon can be attacked, and no territory can be competed over more than once before that point. This should limit the game to less than 10 rounds.
• We will also plan out, and announce in advance, what type of battle each region will use (e.g alt hunt, scavenger hunt, scalp hunt, total war etc.), so the deciding team can pick what hey want to go for. Note: the story itself will only be revealed once the region has been chosen.
• Any prizes or rewards will only be announced once the story has been released, and as per the last Campaign season are not guaranteed for every round or may require multiple victories depending on the scale of planned prize or reward.

And now on to the letters page feedback...

steve2275 wrote:the likes of alldarker kurn and revengeofstarscream would help
I need them to enter and have the results matter

Whilst the campaign was designed around the idea of building up the forums, the sheer level of Decepticon spam input proves your point Steve. I'm currently looking at a buddy system, where the outnumbered factions members can nominate non-posting players up to join in as 'drones', capped at the same number of opposing players. The forum-active members of the faction would have to post any victories the 'drone' players achieved, but they would count towards your factions total.
Would this help?

Wingz wrote:

Psychout wrote:Was the Shard [for the big final battle] a good idea, or did that just make things worse in your opinion?

The shard would have been a good idea had it rotated.

Advantages such as this will be fully mapped out in advance in future for two reasons: one, to ensure that they can be peer reviewed and do what is intended, and two, in case I am unavailable to implement changes for whatever reason, the game doesn't grind to a halt. Ideally, they would be removed alltogether.

Optimus_Prime007 wrote:Maybe if we had some more bots/maximals. Wingz, Steve, Servant, Sumo, myself, gets thin after that.

I know the changes that will be coming should help attract some new players or possibly older players to the game. Just got to find a way to make a fair playing field that Wingz is alluding to. I am hoping this will help out with the numbers problem.

My hope is, through the use of the Faction Command Bulletins on the HMW front page occasional players will be encouraged to look in more often and take part. I have seen a ton of names I recognise popping up recently, and attracting them back in here as well would be a big boost for everyone, especially if the scores are more even this time around.


I am still interested in peoples feedback and comments on the last season of the Campaign, and any (simple) suggestions people have for other round types, feel free to add them in below!



Meanwhile, if you're desperate for a fight and cant wait for campaign to begin again, the traitorous Bun-Bun has his own grudge match/tournament going on, and you can still join in here!

Psychout wrote:Advantages such as this will be fully mapped out in advance in future for two reasons: one, to ensure that they can be peer reviewed and do what is intended, and two, in case I am unavailable to implement changes for whatever reason, the game doesn't grind to a halt. Ideally, they would be removed alltogether.

Agreed Thank you, Psych.

I'm a little disappointed you only get one vote. I'd have liked two. But probably best this way.

Agreed, that only 1 vote is a little limiting, as while I voted for the Scavenger Hunt, I also really enjoyed the Scalp Hunt which I thought was fairly popular.

The reason for the single vote is so I know how many have taken parting it. It'll give me an idea of how many are likely to play along in future rounds.

-Soundwave- wrote:I'm a little disappointed you only get one vote. I'd have liked two. But probably best this way.

What's the other one you'd gave votes for?

Psychout wrote:

-Soundwave- wrote:I'm a little disappointed you only get one vote. I'd have liked two. But probably best this way.

What's the other one you'd gave votes for?

I voted for the Scavenger hunt, but then I'd have added the total war.

-Soundwave- wrote:

Psychout wrote:

-Soundwave- wrote:I'm a little disappointed you only get one vote. I'd have liked two. But probably best this way.

What's the other one you'd gave votes for?

I voted for the Scavenger hunt, but then I'd have added the total war.

I thought the total war vote was yours.

The Scavenger Hunt round was great fun though, even with my partner evaporating on the day it began. Although maybe leave off the trainwreck achievement next time?

We could also try different style of goals. I think the last wabbit hunting was calculated by amount of damage. We could go for something like train wreck survival, first\last kill, number of rams\strafe\repairs\avoids, and so forth. This could reduce the worry of not having any targets as long as we count everything.

as i can only pick one, i went with alt hunts but i'm also a fan of theme hunts and of total war

Can I change my vote to "The kind of event that doesn't lose all it momentum halfway through because the site has an aneurysm" ?

Bun-Bun wrote:Can I change my vote to "The kind of event that doesn't lose all it momentum halfway through because the site has an aneurysm" ?

Its not a good tourney unless there is a site crash in the middle of it.

a total kills in a week tourney would be cool
when it starts post # of team kills
go from there
perhaps bonus point multiplied by level stasis locked (110 point against sky shuttle

Hey, sorry, stupid question here. What does rebooting the map mean?

Naked Magnus wrote:Hey, sorry, stupid question here. What does rebooting the map mean?

I couldn't find the most recent map showing all the territories the Cons won but here's the post with the original

Bun-Bun wrote:

Naked Magnus wrote:Hey, sorry, stupid question here. What does rebooting the map mean?

I couldn't find the most recent map showing all the territories the Cons won but here's the post with the original

Ah, ok. It is something that is manually updated then as part of the tournament.

Naked Magnus wrote:

Bun-Bun wrote:

Naked Magnus wrote:Hey, sorry, stupid question here. What does rebooting the map mean?

I couldn't find the most recent map showing all the territories the Cons won but here's the post with the original

Ah, ok. It is something that is manually updated then as part of the tournament.

Correct. IIRC at last check the automated tourney code/map doesn't work yet. So good old-fashioned manual manipulation it is.... er... it's not what it sounds like (I hope)

The map was originally knocked up on MSPaint almost a decade ago as an example for OS, but I ended up using it for the campaign.

Ryan has said he is implementing something similar in the future, but until then were stuck with manually updating it.

'Rebooting' just means we'll wipe the scores and start over for season 2.

steve2275 wrote:a total kills in a week tourney would be cool
when it starts post # of team kills
go from there
perhaps bonus point multiplied by level stasis locked (110 point against sky shuttle

Yes! Great idea Steve.

I think the point multiplier might penalise the higher levels such as yourself, but I'll look into it.

not sure what ya mean by penalize?
anyway thanks

If you gain a bonus for killing a higher level, what bonuses don the higher levels get as they can only kill those below them?

It may not be relevant, but we'll take a look.

making numbers competing on both sides equal is good, but levels should also be relatively equal. I think that's more important than having the bots that pick a partner need to match their level...they should match to get the levels across the competition equal.

sprockitz wrote:making numbers competing on both sides equal is good, but levels should also be relatively equal. I think that's more important than having the bots that pick a partner need to match their level...they should match to get the levels across the competition equal.

Easier said than done, but it's a good point.

Dropping clause 5 from here might help address that, we just have to hope that the players chosen without it fill the gap. If the players just aren't there though, there is little we can do unfortunately.

Psychout wrote:

sprockitz wrote:making numbers competing on both sides equal is good, but levels should also be relatively equal. I think that's more important than having the bots that pick a partner need to match their level...they should match to get the levels across the competition equal.

Easier said than done, but it's a good point.

Dropping clause 5 from here might help address that, we just have to hope that the players chosen without it fill the gap. If the players just aren't there though, there is little we can do unfortunately.

oops, that was the thread I meant to respond in

sprockitz wrote:

Psychout wrote:

sprockitz wrote:making numbers competing on both sides equal is good, but levels should also be relatively equal. I think that's more important than having the bots that pick a partner need to match their level...they should match to get the levels across the competition equal.

Easier said than done, but it's a good point.

Dropping clause 5 from here might help address that, we just have to hope that the players chosen without it fill the gap. If the players just aren't there though, there is little we can do unfortunately.

oops, that was the thread I meant to respond in

I'm open to any suggestions people may have on improving it though. We'll never get a perfect solution, but any way to even the odds and give the bots a good chance is a good thing from a Campaign Coordinator perspective.