Introducing Regional United States Battlegroups

By Khamos on Nov. 27, 2011 in Campaigns , News — Comments (55)

During this week's campaign we were trying out something completely new with US Battlegroups. To allow players from all over the country to enjoy the experience of playing Shadow Cities as a part of a large group and meet new mages, all US players were assigned to national 1000-player-battlegroups during the Campaign.

Next week we will be introducing yet again changes that affect Battlegroups mainly in the US but also all other countries.

New Regional US Battlegroups

With the next week's Campaign 'Shadow Feast' we will be introducing new regionally assigned US Battlegroups which allow you to play and connect with all the mages around your region. Starting from monday November 28th there will be 5 regional US Battlegroups.

The new US Battlegroups are: 1. Northeast, 2. South Atlantic, 3. South Central, 4. Midwest and Mountain and 5. Pacific. More detailed information of these new battlegroups can be viewed here.

Player limit removed from Battlegroups

Related to this change, we will be also removing the 1000 player limit from battlegroups, so that you will be playing with all the mages in your region or country regardless of when you login to a new Campaign round. Note that addition to the United States, this change applies also to all other countries.

As always we are very interested to hear your experiences of these changes, so do share your feedback of the new Battlegroups on Shadow Cities Forums during the 'Shadow Feast' Campaign!

Comments

ProfCSI (Acolyte) on 11/27/2011 3:06 a.m.
Broken/missing link for the region descriptions?
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:08 a.m.
Having 1000 mages is too many, in my opinion. Team chat is a mess with this many people. I have already adapted, by using Status threads, but I shouldn't have to dismiss Team Chat entirely. With this many voices, Team Chat is completely useless. It is actually a hassle to try and check it. With regional battlegroups, will I be able to access beacons from my friends? For a while now, I have not been able to see any beacons less than an hour old, after just logging in. I have lost the ability to help my friends many times. I have good friends in this game that live all over the U.S. and some internationally. I really hope that I am able to access their beacons when they need me.
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:12 a.m.
In short: I don't care HOW the battlegroups are organized. I just need to be able to access my friends' beacons. Without being able to access all of my friends' beacons, the game is unplayable, and, I will lose interest.
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:14 a.m.
Well, you pulled the wool over our eyes, GA. Surprising us with this "Mega-BG" tripe, then stepping back, so that we'd more easily accept what ya'll were gunning for previously.
blinDFury (Awakened) on 11/27/2011 3:15 a.m.
Really? You can't be serious? Northeast will have well over 2000 players and you still have not fixed the beacon list or PM system. You are taking the social out of a social game.
Codex (Enlightened) on 11/27/2011 3:18 a.m.
Mike check.
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:23 a.m.
This reminds me of an often used and ill-fated expression: "Too big to fail".
-Justin- (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:41 a.m.
Where's the place where we will contact each other? As said above too many voiced causes confusion.instrad you GA did something so utterly horrible instead of fixing the good stuff. I'd their any common sense? What's the point now? Have you think this through? If this is not reverted, many people will start petitions and cause the fourms to drastically disappear. You should know. I am one of the most OLDEST PLAYERS in sc. I would rather have a June stuff that this. Many friends left. That truly breaks my heart
Sassy982011 (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:44 a.m.
first u screw up my bc list and "FIX" the lag probem and take away my reliable hunting grounds. Next u mix up our bgs and make many of our heavy players quit. Now ur trying to sell this crap and make us like it?! U R SCREWING UP UR OWN GAME! U R MAKING UR PAYERS MAD!
Jaycen (Master) on 11/27/2011 3:51 a.m.
Regional battlegroups are the compromise between the tried and true state battlegroups and the chaotic lottery system of this last week? States banded together to log in Simultaneously in order to stay together and not lose the strategy and sociality found within their home group. Now with unlimited sized regional groups we will automatically be together but still technically separate groups gaining energy and coexisting. No one wants to make strategies and form super alliances within a group that can so easily be split up weekly. States are making their own team chats through statuses already for their state battlegroups, soon team chat wont be used at all because it rolls faster than movie credits. I just want my state back.
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:54 a.m.
This is the map referenced in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg
RiverRigz (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:56 a.m.
I have been playing this game since July, first as the Animator Zack115, and now as RiverRigz. The feature that drew me to it, and kept me playing, was the ability to interact with players from my local geography. While that is still technically possible in the new battlegroup format, it is practically impossible. The Kansas battle group that I was a part of didn't have that many players, but, like many other small bg's, was a tight-knit group. With last week's change, this community was shattered. Many players chose not to play, what one's kept on continued with the most minimal of engagement. A regional system is, in some ways, better, but it fails to really address the many complaints that I have been reading in the statuses: namely, that this larger bg structure destroys the communities that existed before the change. As much as I like the players in the surrounding states, the incentive isn't that great to play in their neighborhoods because they aren't MY neighborhoods. That was the shining feature of this game to begin with, and these changes are tarnishing the unique proposition of a game like this.
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 3:56 a.m.
And, no BG limit means the removal of lotto system. This is an improvement over the current campaign, but a broader-brushed approach than I'd prefer.
blinDFury (Awakened) on 11/27/2011 4:03 a.m.
Hey how about you guys fix what's broke BEFORE you mess with the battle groups? MAYBE if you did a real fix to the beacon list, player list and PM system, MAYBE you wouldn't have such a battle "changing" the game. Hey here's an idea, let's through $417 at the wall and see if it sticks.
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:03 a.m.
Finland is sleeping...
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:05 a.m.
Very good point, RiverRigz.
Vonkastell (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:05 a.m.
I'm willing to give these regional BGs a try, but I feel that the sense of community many of us currently feel in our state BGs will be compromised by these massive un-capped regional BGs. Community and having things to do is the cornerstone of a successful MMO. Since SC only has 2 activities (Gathering Energy and fighting other mages), the main thing that SC has going for it is the community. If the sense of community is lost in this new format because there are so many players talking at once that you can't make close friends, people will lose interest quickly. As I've told many people before, I would have quit months ago if it weren't for the players in my BG. There is a good chance that this regional format will take away the only thing keeping longtime players such as myself playing the game. I'd also like to mention that I agree with Anver that this 'Mega-BG' experiment reeks of manipulation. It seems like you created a terrible situation then in your "infinite kindness" saved us by doing something much less terrible by introducing regional BGs. Obviously, the idea of regional BGs didn't come up over night, so this whole situation seems premeditated and forced. I like SC, it has a lot of potential. While I'm at it, Werewolves Fight Vampires? WTF.
RiverRigz (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:06 a.m.
Then they'll have something to read when they wake up.
LadyEllesmere (Scholar) on 11/27/2011 4:20 a.m.
Omg u bastards-.-" regional seemed like a good idea but n How the he'll will this work with all the broken shit y'all have been to lazy to fix. Then u pull this thread? Bs shadow city.
RiverRigz (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:21 a.m.
Additionally (since I haven't seen it mentioned yet), within the first few hours of the start of the round, orange was down by more than 30,000 points. The incentive to play to win does not exist at that point. It wasn't even that the individual scores were all that incredible. I went from 700th place to 10th by the end of today, with casual playing (that term changes if you ask my wife...). It didn't help, however. Orange is in a hole even deeper than that. Massive battlegroups introduce this very situation: I'm just playing for pots, now. Winning has never been a reasonable goal for this campaign. Sad.
Killing-Time (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:31 a.m.
Meh, my old nv bg had like 25 players and a nice friendly competitive feel, I've seen 2 of my team and none of the peas since the start of this bungle. Vegas is nearly void of players now. I don't think any of us played this game because we love the letter z. If this is accurate it blows
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 4:52 a.m.
I miss the smack talk from my state BG cross chat. No doubt about it. I feel like I want to friend my former enemies, but, I can't, because too much info. is shared in my status threads. Really need another solution to communications.
Seldon (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 5:07 a.m.
I think I speak for most US players when I say: how about you make the entire EU into one big battlegroup for a couple campaigns, then come back and talk to us?
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 8:45 a.m.
Amen, Seldon, but they've used the lame "language barrier" excuse in Europe. REALLY? How's the EU work, then? Some BGs in Europe, like Belgium or Slovakia, have less than 10 players consistently. Or, lump together the Latin American BGs. I get your point, though. The Europeans really don't realize the scope or size of our country. The Russians do, but they're not in this equation.
blinDFury (Awakened) on 11/27/2011 12:36 p.m.
After I have had more time to contemplate and calm down, what we need GA to do if they want to create these mega regional battle groups, is to establish state based divisions. The divisions of the battle groups operate just as the state battle groups did before, including chat but you are just going to group all the state scores together. Create a third chat room for the division. So we have cross team, battle group, and division chats.
Dekk (Awakened) on 11/27/2011 3:46 p.m.
Simply put I'll sit this one out. Make it permeant and I get a spot on my home screen back.
AkumaDrakul (Seeker) on 11/27/2011 5:14 p.m.
Expletive deleted... O.o
Tay21 (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 5:46 p.m.
I like blindfurys idea about the three chat rooms. That way you'll be able to talk to just your state and won't have to pm to do it. Or you can go on your favorite raids and you won't have people swarming it.
JOublie (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 6:58 p.m.
My biggest takeaway from the last campaign (other than the obvious that random bgs aren't very fun) is that 1000 people is far, far too many. Now we have will have more. 1. It is hard to get to know people in the chaos. 2. Quieter people get lost in the shuffle. 3. People give up after early leads (this happens in smaller bgs, but seems more pronounced here). 4. It's harder for new players to 'break in' and harder to mentor new players. 5. Friendly banter becomes 'noise' that gets in the way of planning and coordinating. 6. People give up on even checking the team chats. I am happier about this than the random bgs. But why is GA so into huge bgs? They have the data on the old bg sizes, so it shouldn't be that hard to set up reasonable bgs. Sure, they might need to get rejiggered down the road, but maybe not. I did not find this last campaign fun. I don't know how much of that was due to the random assignment and how much was due to the huge size. Glad to be losing the random assignment, and hoping the game will still be fun with the extra large groups. We will see.
JOublie (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 6:59 p.m.
Lol. Lost my paragraphs and now have a crazy looking ramble.
Chadj (Staff) on 11/27/2011 7:08 p.m.
Feedback will be devoured by us as always, everyone. Please do understand that the growth and development of Shadow Cities is very important to us, and we'll continue to adjust battlegroup arrangements and sizes until we are pleased with final outcome. The cap for each region is something easily adjusted, should not having one prove counter-productive for social and team play. We've discussed battlegroup changes with you and amongst ourselves for several months now, watching and observing current behaviors and chose now to test some of the ideas that we've contemplated and discussed at great length. Whatever setup we decide upon will be the one we believe is best for the whole of the Shadow Cities community, current and future. We look forward to an interesting campaign week, and we hope that at the very least you'll have an opportunity to make some new friends.
Chadj (Staff) on 11/27/2011 7:12 p.m.
Yes, JOublie -- same -- hopefully this section we'll be empowered by the wisdom of the paragraph some day. :D
Caenarys (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 7:28 p.m.
Thanks for the feedback, Chadj.
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 7:36 p.m.
Chad: I feel as if what pleases GA is not what pleases us. I wish we had a more active hand in things. We feel like our opinions don't matter.
Haineko (Master) on 11/27/2011 7:44 p.m.
I liked the original organization of the battlegroups, when it went by state. That could have been improved upon by rearranging things a bit so that there was equal competition. It's mainly the chat rooms - more players is more fun, but there's so much more spam now. Also, when it's regional, there is more of a sense of "community" among the players. I know that many of the US battlegroups have done get-togethers.
Chadj (Staff) on 11/27/2011 7:49 p.m.
Anvar, we are a startup company and some of the changes we explore may feel a little disruptive at times. With that said, we wouldn't have two full time Community Managers if we didn't hold the thoughts of our community in such high regard. We chat with all players and monitor all chats and feeds. It's important that we're tapped into the voices of all our players and not just the vocal groups, or those who feel negatively impacted. There are also many other factors to analyze as well, such as specific gameplay behavior. Please continue to provide feedback as objectively and civil as possible, and we'll always take it to heart as we continue our development and production efforts.
Masterplaid (Enlightened) on 11/27/2011 8:24 p.m.
This sounds fine to me, but I'm worried about only having five US battlegroups. We already over over 5000 active US players, so these BGS will already be full to bursting. Wouldn't it be wiser to have a few more battlegroups so there's room for the game to grow here?
Bet (Enlightened) on 11/27/2011 8:41 p.m.
Chadj: I for one appreciate the fact that you and Khamos do reply directly to us. However we are all extremely concerned about how large some of these regional groups will potentially be. After experiencing the extreme chaos of the 1000 player BGs this past week when it felt as though we were screaming over one another in chat and unable to strategize well with other players right next to us, I truly and sincerely hope GA will rethink the number or size of the regional BGs so they are smaller, rather than larger than 1000. As so many others have said in the forums, the relationships, friendships, and sense of community we have built in chat with our teammates is what makes this game so incredible and why we spend so many hours playing it. If the social aspect becomes diminished because of cacophony, the game will stop being such an addictive play and many players will find something else to occupy them.
Ulysses (Archmage) on 11/27/2011 11:16 p.m.
i'll be sitting this out until the battlegroups are under control. if there was a way to make last week's battle groups worse you just found it. this is no longer the game i was attracted to by the NY Times article. this is no longer the game i became addicted to throughout the summer and fall. its starting to become the type of game i was afraid of. it is not for the casual player anymore. one mage no longer matters in the SC world. i'm not sure how you could have "devoured" our comments and thought that removing the battlegroup cap was a good idea. how about this: 1. restore state bgs for active states and combine smaller states. 2. FIX BEACON LIST TO HAVE MORE BEACONS OF OUR CHOOSING. 3. FIX PM CLIENT THAT HAS BEEN BROKEN SINCE THE SUMMER 4. FIX LAG CAUSED BY LARGE BATTLES. after those 4 things then maybe you can think of having larger battle groups but GA is so ill prepared for this change its staggering.
Jayne (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 1:34 a.m.
I'm sad to say I play much less now that i can't keep in as good of contact with my state players. i hope the regional bgs help, but worry that because we'll be in the same bg as NY, it'll actually be worse. until i'm pleased with how the battle groups are set up, my rating on the app store will remain a 1 star. used to be a 4 star (only reason it wasn't 5 was because of lag and crashing). completely agree with Ulysses - this is not the game i became addicted to over the fall. i hope that game comes back.
Gwalthorne (Seeker) on 11/28/2011 2:22 a.m.
It sounds to me like SC has taken a page from Facebook's guidelines. They do not care what the user wants, but only consider what they want for "their" game. This quite possibly will force me out of SC for good. Part of the attraction to this game for me was the opportunity to "battle" with those within my state. In so doing, I have made friends, and even extended family. Since switching to a National Battle Group, I have lost contact with many of these friends except through PM's, which is fine, but it loses the dynamic of game play. Of course, there is also the HUGE number of people that are playing...This renders team chat useless. I hope SC will see this error and change their decision. I will continue logging into the game to see if this happens, but for now I will not collect energy, and I will cease my purchases of POTs.
Sacajawea (Master) on 11/28/2011 2:23 a.m.
Can you fix or post the link for detailed regional battle group info? I'd like to see that. Thanks!
A333 (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 3:43 a.m.
All this has been said by others, but I would like to add my two cents 1: As is, with huge numbers of mages, chat is not only unenjoyable but useless. It has always been my very favorite part of the game. Not the battles, not the competition, not even CtF, but the /people/. Now messages are frequently, even usually, lost in chat. I used to check chat every time there was a new message. Now I sometimes play for half an hour without looking, since it is mostly inane, puerile babbling. 2: Too much competition. Yes competition is a good thing, and yes I enjoy it, but with these super-BGs it gets a little ridiculous. 10k to get in the top 10? Come on! I can do that, but I don't have the time every round for that. 3: Remember how confusing it was when you first started? All the strange questions, orders, and abbreviations? Imagine what it must be like starting now, when odds are no one will notice your messages! 4: It may seem silly, but, we were happy with the old BG arrangement. I don't remember any complaints. I think that there have obviously been a few complaints over this one. So I ask: why? Why change it? Less servers? Easier to keep an eye on? Obviously it wasn't to improve the gameplay experience. As always, thank you for a great game. Just please don't ruin it
A333 (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 3:45 a.m.
Apparently double returns don't work either. Sorry! Do triple?
katebeckett (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 3:57 a.m.
I on the other hand would like to propose an additional change, because the game has been inappropriately named. New name: Shadow Regions. New motto: Your region is a game. You're a mage.
Anvar (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 2:19 p.m.
+1 kate! Hehehe.
Seldon (Archmage) on 11/28/2011 3:06 p.m.
Or if you live in the Midwest or the Mountain areas, "Shadow Random Combination of Regions". Motto: "Your, um, giant chunk of the country is a game. You're a mage. Good luck, you'll need it."
Fstar (Enlightened) on 11/28/2011 4:18 p.m.
Seriously, I cannot see the complaints about GA not being responsive. If anything, I have not seen any game as responsive. Having run a game, I know all changes provoke huge reactions, get swallowed, and become the new normal, players leaving or staying as they choose. The input is read, is consumed, and changes are made, or not, depending on the developers vision. I personally think the suggested changes are good. The Mega Battle Groups had problems, and the game will change with this next implementation. The tight knit small groups had some advantages, but the big groups do too. The no limit will have a major impact on game play. BG 1 social interaction was non existent, there was simply too much by too many active players, and the competition for finishing in the money was way too high. I think this move addresses both concerns. And I think this will raise coherent social interaction, but it will probably never be like the small group the small BG had before.
Tenar (Arcanist) on 11/29/2011 2:41 a.m.
I tried playing duri b the lotto game and it was just no fun without my state friends. I will try this new regional thing, but I suspect it is just too many people to have any kind of social interaction (which is the only reason I play this game).
clboisvert14 (Visionary) on 11/29/2011 6:21 a.m.
i liked the long beacon list and the original battlegroups, please change it back.
Damien72 (Enlightened) on 11/29/2011 4:46 p.m.
The GPS function of this game is what makes it special I like "knowing" most of the mages (green and orange) in my city and being familiar with the terrain. The concept of moving around in my physical environment really sets SC apart! Now a large part of my game play is in places hundreds of miles away. Why have any literal tie-in to the real world if players aren't encouraged to exploit it? Now I'm raiding with a bunch of near-anonymous players to places I have never been, and have .0001% of encountering either in real life. Which would be fine in any other MMORPG game, but if that's what I wanted, I'd be playing WoW! I agree with katebeckett et al.; the "City" aspect, along with its familiarity and local comradeship, competitiveness and pride is now lost.
Gwalthorne (Seeker) on 11/29/2011 6:22 p.m.
As much as it pains me to admit....I may have been hasty in my disdain for the current set up. It seems to be working rather smoothly for us. I have all of my state friends, cheating has diminished greatly, competition has stepped up...no longer a landslide in either direction. I do look forward to the day when additional levels become available to mages.
Erron (Awakened) on 12/05/2011 5:01 p.m.
Enough has been said. The concencus is we all would like our state BG back. Please !!
Jay11 (Visionary) on 12/06/2011 8:31 p.m.
I agree with Erron. I really liked my state battlegroup, and I want it back! It isn't very fun to play with different mages that your normally used to playing with, and sometimes they take no notice of you. Then you don't have any say in this. Chadj, Khamos, can you see if you can change back the battlegroups to the original ones?
Dope (Archmage) on 12/14/2011 3:02 a.m.
If your not going to go back to state bgs ( which I'd prefer), at least split up some of the bgs to make it somewhat local. Its not all about blowing pots and castings Z's.