Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

As Summer is pretty much over, and my event season and farming work has died back down again, I'm back in a position where I can continue to work on the Campaign we were running for you guys.

The whole idea of the Campaign game was to bring more energy to the forums and continue to build the community here as well as add a fun story to enable people to build/develop their own canon to HMW, if they wanted to.
I like to think it succeeded in those goals.


The elephant in the room however, was always the bots being so heavily outnumbered and many (understandably) losing morale to battle on as a team during the last few rounds of the first season.
I'm interested in your opinions or suggestions on this. I would really love this playing field to be as level as possible. With the resurgence of 'bots over the last few weeks do we think we may have a chance?

So, I guess the question is: Would you like the Campiangn for Cybertron to start over with new season, pick up where we left off and finish fighting season 1, or not bother?

I'll stab Burn and ask him to put a poll up if he can, as I am genuinely curious.
(Please note: Nothing will start until after Seibertron has finished his work on the game, but it will allow us to get planning now if you want us to. )

You should be able to put a poll up yourself

Burn wrote:You should be able to put a poll up yourself

Nope, that's faction forums only.

Psychout wrote:

Burn wrote:You should be able to put a poll up yourself

Nope, that's faction forums only.

I swear I enabled it for ALL forums. Something to look at later, you got your poll though.

Burn wrote:

Psychout wrote:

Burn wrote:You should be able to put a poll up yourself

Nope, that's faction forums only.

I swear I enabled it for ALL forums. Something to look at later, you got your poll though.

So, I voted "Yes" for the poll, but I do have reservations about this.

Psychout wrote:The whole idea of the Campaign game was to bring more energy to the forums and continue to build the community here as well as add a fun story to enable people to build/develop their own canon to HMW, if they wanted to.
I like to think it succeeded in those goals.

I disagree.

In the beginning, many were around and energized, having fun regardless of the outcome. Morale started to fall. Correlation does not mean causation, and I only speak for myself based on my own thoughts as well as comments from others that reflected this: The problem was not in being outnumbered so much as it was in the scoring systems and general complaints not being taken to heart.

May the 4th and the anniversary were a massacre. I can't tell you how many times I stated that to other committee members. There are numbers on our side, but not consistency OR teamwork. This is not the result of a lack of effort to create this, either. It's just simply how a great majority choose to play on this side, and I support that. Even I started to become disillusioned by the end of the last one, because I felt as if it was driving the community further away at that point. There are some new faces about in the lower levels, and I'm happy to see them here, but a fair playing field is what will keep them.

EDIT: Accidentally hit submit.

I appreciate the campaign, and I would LOVE to see it continue, but it needs more thought put into creating a fair playing field. Overwatch had a really good idea in the thoughts thread for this, and I'm sure more could be thought of.

EDIT2: Should likely clarify: When I say we have "numbers", I mean that we have about 30-some commanders that deploy. The problem is:

- Nearly all of them don't want to participate in the community.
- A great majority of Autobot/Maximal players are lower level, also, between 0 and 2, whereas the Decepticons have a GREAT deal more firepower in the higher levels.
- We have a few in the higher ranks, but they aren't consistent, going stretches of time without playing or only having limited characters. They show up on scoring, but their contribution is far less than that of the average Decepticon player.

None of this is meant in the realm of negativity. I'm giving constructive observations to think about when considering how to score and set up these events, something I'm perfectly willing to help with.

I don't know

Wingz wrote:The problem was not in being outnumbered so much as it was in the scoring systems and general complaints not being taken to heart.

Yep. I have no defence here, despite our efforts early in the campaign, we royally screwed up at the end and my workload prevented me from having the time to deal with the issue properly. I know exactly how frustrated you got as we talked about it at the time. This is why I want to raise and address the issue now, and try and find a way to prevent it.

Wingz wrote:There are numbers on our side, but not consistency OR teamwork. This is not the result of a lack of effort to create this, either. [...] There are some new faces about in the lower levels, and I'm happy to see them here, but a fair playing field is what will keep them.

Understood and 100% agreed.
This is the issue most cons I speak to fail to comprehend. We were so used to complex faction coordination as a necessity from our days of being heavily outnumbered, that many worked under the assumption that both factions operate the same way, which of course they don't (an observation, and not a criticism.)
I'd like to see more bots involved in the process of planning. Sounders and I (both pretty high profile cons and former staff) took the bulk of it on as we had the experience, but balance is now more important as games like this need a buy-in from both teams.

Wingz wrote:I appreciate the campaign, and I would LOVE to see it continue, but it needs more thought put into creating a fair playing field. Overwatch had a really good idea in the thoughts thread for this, and I'm sure more could be thought of.

Can you link me to Overwatch's suggestion? It's possible I missed it in my recent absence.

I am open to any idea that fair and sensible. There is only so much work we can put in once a game goes live to balance it, so it needs to be discussed beforehand.

steve2275 wrote:I don't know

Usual jokes about your micro-posting aside Steve, is it just the outnumbering or is there more to your hesitation? Genuinely interested to see if we need to focus on just solving this problem, or if we need to look at other things as well.

Psychout wrote:This is why I want to raise and address the issue now, and try and find a way to prevent it.

Understood and 100% agreed.
This is the issue most cons I speak to fail to comprehend. We were so used to complex faction coordination as a necessity from our days of being heavily outnumbered, that many worked under the assumption that both factions operate the same way, which of course they don't (an observation, and not a criticism.)
I'd like to see more bots involved in the process of planning. Sounders and I (both pretty high profile cons and former staff) took the bulk of it on as we had the experience, but balance is now more important as games like this need a buy-in from both teams.

I've done everything I feel I can, ever since I've been playing this game, to get the Autobot/Maximal community going. Believe me, I want that presence, also, and I'm more than happy to work with the two of you to come up with ideas for balancing. A lot of faces that were active during previous events have moved on, to a large extent, so I'm not sure how many Bots/Maxis would buy in at this point. Will make a new poll in Iacon to see, though the last one over this topic was rather barren.

Can you link me to Overwatch's suggestion? It's possible I missed it in my recent absence.

I posted it for him. The scoring system for round 2 of my rivalry with Bun was popular, also.

I am open to any idea that fair and sensible. There is only so much work we can put in once a game goes live to balance it, so it needs to be discussed beforehand.

I understand, Psych. Hopefully there will be enough interest to continue these, as I personally have very, VERY fond memories from them.

Psychout wrote:

steve2275 wrote:I don't know

Usual jokes about your micro-posting aside Steve, is it just the outnumbering or is there more to your hesitation? Genuinely interested to see if we need to focus on just solving this problem, or if we need to look at other things as well.

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

Wingz wrote:

Psychout wrote:Can you link me to Overwatch's suggestion? It's possible I missed it in my recent absence.

I posted it for him. The scoring system for round 2 of my rivalry with Bun was popular, also.

I had missed that. It's certainly a good way of dealing with the hunt problem, but still leaves us with the full war issue - even the 3v3 rule made little difference, now I've finally had the opportunity to review it.
Was the Shard a good idea, or did that just make things worse in your opinion?

I am around and probably should pop back into Iacon. I went yes on the poll but I do agree the scoring needs adjustment. I am not sure about the shards since the anniversary idea went astray. At this point, a restart might be better. We don't know what Seibs will be doing from this point on. Who knows, maybe Seibs will play in the tourneys as well.

Psychout wrote:Was the Shard a good idea, or did that just make things worse in your opinion?

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

It was to my understanding, in the original idea, that there would be 4 shards, total. After each quarter of the event, a shard would be given to the losing faction as a way of helping them stay competitive with the imbalance.

The problem was that the benefits they gave, to my knowledge, weren't thought out beforehand, where we also had little way of testing their effectiveness before the event started. Only one shard ever surfaced, and it caused a small uproar from the Con community. Coordination, something the Con community is good at, would have easily destroyed any benefit that shard gave. Instead of trying a new idea with it, which would have been difficult post-launch, it was removed from the event completely, which pretty much killed it (as we knew would happen without a support system).

If it were to be re-implemented, it would be better to discuss ideas and test them beforehand. Overall, I like the concept.

Wingz wrote:Instead of trying a new idea with it, which would have been difficult post-launch, it was removed from the event completely, which pretty much killed it (as we knew would happen without a support system).

That was my understanding of how it went too.

I'll admit, it was poor planning on my part as I assumed I would be around to oversee all 4 of them, but real-life threw me a curveball and I missed all but the first day of the war. Additions such as this will be better planned in case that should happen again so there is guidance for the whole planning team in future.

Psychout wrote:

Wingz wrote:Instead of trying a new idea with it, which would have been difficult post-launch, it was removed from the event completely, which pretty much killed it (as we knew would happen without a support system).

That was my understanding of how it went too.

I'll admit, it was poor planning on my part as I assumed I would be around to oversee all 4 of them, but real-life threw me a curveball and I missed all but the first day of the war. Additions such as this will be better planned in case that should happen again so there is guidance for the whole planning team in future.

Life happens. It's all good

That sounds like a good solution for the future. Thank you for all of your consideration in this. Would love to see these events come alive, again!

I voted yes, though when you say "after Seibs finishes the work" does that mean waiting to see if he gets his location map idea up and running so we can visualise results?

ZeroWolf wrote:I voted yes, though when you say "after Seibs finishes the work" does that mean waiting to see if he gets his location map idea up and running so we can visualise results?

Not sure, as I'm not sure what other changes are likely to be made. I hope so!

Psychout wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:I voted yes, though when you say "after Seibs finishes the work" does that mean waiting to see if he gets his location map idea up and running so we can visualise results?

Not sure, as I'm not sure what other changes are likely to be made. I hope so!

As do I but if we all put our heads together we should find a solution to making the campaign fun for all.

ZeroWolf wrote:

Psychout wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:I voted yes, though when you say "after Seibs finishes the work" does that mean waiting to see if he gets his location map idea up and running so we can visualise results?

Not sure, as I'm not sure what other changes are likely to be made. I hope so!

As do I but if we all put our heads together we should find a solution to making the campaign fun for all.

I really hope so.

For the most part, I think having the campaign is good.
Yes, being outnumbered means there are days when it gets you down and you wonder why you bother, but there are also those days when even knowing we're going to lose due being outnumbered, where we want to make you work your afts off for every ounce of your victory. But we also have each of these days when there's no campaign.

I agree that there needs to be more thought into some of the scoring methods and initiatives, although I've nothing to offer as to how.

The 2 rounds that I've thoroughly enjoyed were the "Scavenger Hunt" and the hunt for the "Scalp Hunting".

ThunderThruster wrote:The 2 rounds that I've thoroughly enjoyed were the "Scavenger Hunt" and the hunt for the "Scalp Hunting".

Brilliant TT, this is precisely the feedback we want to hear, thank you.

None of these games are perfect, but as long as you enjoy them we'll keep refining them in the hope they can be!

ThunderThruster wrote:The 2 rounds that I've thoroughly enjoyed were the "Scavenger Hunt" and the hunt for the "Scalp Hunting".

Mine also Those were a LOT of fun!

I say continue where we left off.

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.