Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/cw/global-map-season-2/

This is listed in the link:

Quote

 

General Rules

Some provinces on the Global Map can only be taken by land attacks
ON: Auctions, increasing province income, "Fog of War", Ransacks and division module strategic effects
OFF: Combat reserves
Landing tournament participants: 32
Maximum active landing applications: 3
Clans that already own provinces cannot participate in landing tournaments
Division maintenance is free of charge
Penalties for no-shows in scheduled battles

Fronts and Provinces

Tier VI Front: 340 provinces with 70 landings
Tier VIII Front: 210 provinces with 45 landings
Tier X Front: 140 provinces with 30 landings

 

 

What does everyone think about the changes to clan wars for season 2 of Clan Wars 2.0?

 

It looks like there will be less time needed to grind in stronghold skirmish battles for boxes/influence.  Division upkeep is free and combat reserves are off.  Not all provinces are available to be landed on by auction.

I think they have it all wrong with the map sizes.  The tier 6 map either shouldn't exist or should be the smallest.  Tier 6 clan wars teaches callers and members next to nothing about clan wars.  Also at tier 6 most battles are either hard camp with heavies or fastbois. Neither of which train players to get better at clan wars in higher levels.  Tier 6 clan wars is like children's tee ball where they don't keep score.  Its just there to make you feel good about participating.

Tier 8 clan wars at least has tanks that serve similar roles to their tier 10 counterparts.  Also tier 8 clan wars should be 15 v 15 and tier 6 clan wars should be at least 10 v 10 if they want to teach players about strategy and teamwork in clan wars.  I think the tier 10 map should be larger or else clan wars is no longer end game content.  

For a large majority of the players who played pre clan wars 2.0 that means their tier 10 clan wars tanks are collecting dust in their garage and clan wars is no longer end game content due to the small size of the tier 10 map.  Its also the reason you see more platoons of 44% win rate sub 400 WN8 HE100's in tier 10 pub battles now.

 

What I'd like to see is:

  • Tier VI Front: Deleted or really small (sub 100 provinces) 10 v 10 players.
  • Tier VIII Front: 210-300 provinces with 45 landings 15 v 15 players.
  • Tier X Front: 400-480 provinces with 100 landings 15 v 15 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this change came about 1 season too late, but I'm glad to see wargaming has realized they screwed up big-time, and are trying to rectify said mistakes. That's more than they've exhibited in the past. As for how the changes are, we'll see how it effects the populous when it's live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bavor said:

Tier 6 clan wars teaches callers and members next to nothing about clan wars.

Getting really tired of people saying WG should shit on the majority of the user base. Most people who play this game either don't have a tier 10 or don't have more than one or two. You're effectively telling them they can't participate in CW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Getting really tired of people saying WG should shit on the majority of the user base. Most people who play this game either don't have a tier 10 or don't have more than one or two. You're effectively telling them they can't participate in CW.

Tier 6're are not Clan Wars. Its credit grinding in Strongholds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Getting really tired of people saying WG should shit on the majority of the user base. Most people who play this game either don't have a tier 10 or don't have more than one or two. You're effectively telling them they can't participate in CW.

You do realize most of us were the 'most'.

The way I see it it, or at least the way I saw it back then, T10 should be something you work towards so you can get rewarded. T6/8 is basically an opportunity for you to learn basics before you get to 10s (see TCs).

By having so many provinces in the lower tiers, it's basically WG stating they don't care about the end-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Getting really tired of people saying WG should shit on the majority of the user base. Most people who play this game either don't have a tier 10 or don't have more than one or two. You're effectively telling them they can't participate in CW.

Clan wars was end game content.  It was the reason to grind out to tier 10.  It was a reward for completing the grind.  

In the past, Wargaming has done short term clan wars events where clan wars started in lower tiers and worked its way up.  That way people can get to experience a little of what clan wars is like and motivate them to finish the grind.

Also, many of the people playing tier 6 and tier 8 clan wars now use to play tier 10 clan wars.  However the tier 10 map is so small they don't have the opportunity to play tier 10 clan wars any more.  So, Wargmaing pushed many of the tier 10 clan wars players down to lower levels.  Many of the tier 6 clan wars land holders from the first part of Clan Wars 2.0 use to hold land in northern Canada, Alaska, and Greenland on the old clan wars map.

By having a small tier 10 map Wargaming is shitting on its playerbase more than it would by making the tier 6 map smaller or eliminating the tier 6 map.

 

4 hours ago, Bavor said:

Tier 6 clan wars is like children's tee ball where they don't keep score.  Its just there to make you feel good about participating.

I'm quoting this because maybe you missed it before.  This is how I feel about tier 6 clan wars in its current form.  it teaches players absolutely nothing about clan wars.  Its no different than a tier 6 stronghold skirmish battle.  For most of this game's life there was no tier 6 clan wars.  There was never a need for tier 6 clan wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bavor said:

Clan wars was end game content.

Clan Wars is whatever WG says it is. Period.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to play tier 10 CW, but my observation was the old map was the exclusive preserve of about 10 clans. The folks who make the "end game" argument are largely the folks who were in them. We got a taste of the old meta again with the recent campaign. The guys in my clan didn't like slogging through 20-25-team landing tourneys only to get waxed by one of the OTTERS or BULBAs of the world once we got down to the final 8 or 4 or 2 teams. Participation dropped. In the normal-season CW 2.0 meta, participation rises. What's good for the 1% isn't necessarily best for the 99%, or for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main area of the old CW map, the lower 48 states, was indeed generally the Good Old Boys, but Canada/Alaska/Greenland was rich and full of lower end CW clans. Hell, Minions held land on the old CW map for a good 30+ days. We didnt make a lot, but it was fun dipping into 15v15 with tier 10's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the changes, I'll at least consider playing in Clan Wars. That said, will have to see if the landing times are earlier, if not then no dice.

 

The little I saw of Clan Wars during a prior campaign with Dread clan, it bought up parallels of tournament teams I organized & called for.  Mostly any tactical changes between the tiers were reflected by how things were framed by map, mode, flag placement, time allowed, and vehicles in the peer group range.   How a given team deployed greatly was dependent on how a group was forged & how decisions were reached (or not).

 In some clans no one has calls, its a basically a bob & weave formation.  In others, a map & tank peer group are reviewed ahead of time in depth, and only then are vehicles selected whom tankers are attached too.  In still other clans, the decision makers set out statistical markers for everyone to meet, and pre-select select a broad group of vehicles almost everyone is expected to own.    Like most things in life, social groups can and do vary.

In the Tournament scene, tank locking isn't a factor.  In Clan Wars, its the opposite.      

Tournaments, Team Battles modes tend to allow for more scheduling freedom, from the always on feeling which Clan Wars mode tends to demand. 

Finally recollect, what tier 10 game play means to Wargaming's bottom line:

Premium accounts de facto required -- or expect a great amount of net credits losses on average per match over what Premium account holders have.

Inferior credit resources at tier 10, lead to more defeats on average over time, compared to average # individuals whom spend $ at some point to play at tier 10.    Not to mention inferior crew experience gains, free experience gains, and longer 'grinds'.

 

Tier 6 & 8 Clan Wars modes exist to allow freemium accounts access to organize game play.  If World of Tanks is going to continue to stay in business, it needs a healthy amount of freemium players.  Otherwise, it'll have $ troubles when the whales move on to other entertainment activities. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bavor said:

I'm quoting this because maybe you missed it before.  This is how I feel about tier 6 clan wars in its current form.  it teaches players absolutely nothing about clan wars.  Its no different than a tier 6 stronghold skirmish battle.  For most of this game's life there was no tier 6 clan wars.  There was never a need for tier 6 clan wars.

   You have a lot to learn. Even the gold league individuals can be defeated by mid-tier specialists in a given tournament who's reward was 10k gold.  It has happened, and will happen.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because tier 6 CW is solely about the focus fire ability and which blob can brawl better than the other on most maps.

 

 

On some others its who brought more OIs?

 

Due to the low HP/High DPM of the tier 6s, very close games can simply be determined by luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 6 clan wars as a concept may be problematic to some extent, but not overly so. 

Clan wars with 7 tanks on a side is a terrible idea that ruins motivation to compete and just makes the problems tier 6 has 1000x worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valan said:

Tier 6 & 8 Clan Wars modes exist to allow freemium accounts access to organize game play.  If World of Tanks is going to continue to stay in business, it needs a healthy amount of freemium players.  Otherwise, it'll have $ troubles when the whales move on to other entertainment activities. 

This guy gets it. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Clan Wars is whatever WG says it is. Period.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to play tier 10 CW, but my observation was the old map was the exclusive preserve of about 10 clans. The folks who make the "end game" argument are largely the folks who were in them. We got a taste of the old meta again with the recent campaign. The guys in my clan didn't like slogging through 20-25-team landing tourneys only to get waxed by one of the OTTERS or BULBAs of the world once we got down to the final 8 or 4 or 2 teams. Participation dropped. In the normal-season CW 2.0 meta, participation rises. What's good for the 1% isn't necessarily best for the 99%, or for the game.

Its painfully obvious that you never participated in clan wars before clan wars 2.0 if you think the old map was "the exclusive preserve of about 10 clans" as you put it.  There were at least 50 land holding clans any given day between the US, Canada, and Greenland.  It was more like 100 different land holding clans during a week if you count the ones who only participated a couple days a week.  I was in clans who weren't in the top 100 who held land in Greenland, Canada, and Alaska for extended periods of time.  

"Participation dropped" What????????????????

There was never a drop in participation in the old clan wars that you claim there was.  Maybe some clans didn't compete because they weren't skilled enough and didn't have enough active members.  However there was always an active map, especially outside of the areas -G-, RELIC, PBKAC, OTTER, etc... held

The only reason you saw more clans on the map with Clan Wars 2.0 is that it became a tiring grind to earn boxes and influence to maintain and upgrade your land along with more land available at a much lower land value.  Some clans had to run two teams of strongholds for 2 hours a night just for their maintenance costs on the tier 8 and 10 maps.  The tier 10 map became stagnant for long periods during clan wars 2.0 because everyone was too busy grinding boxes and influence and didn't want to fight.

When a multiplayer online game starts pandering to the lowest common denominator to make them feel good and gives out participation trophies is when it goes downhill.  In its current state, tier 6 clan wars is a participation trophy to make players feel good.  Its not a training ground for higher levels of competition like it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valan said:

Finally recollect, what tier 10 game play means to Wargaming's bottom line:

Premium accounts de facto required -- or expect a great amount of net credits losses on average per match over what Premium account holders have.

Inferior credit resources at tier 10, lead to more defeats on average over time, compared to average # individuals whom spend $ at some point to play at tier 10.    Not to mention inferior crew experience gains, free experience gains, and longer 'grinds'.

Tier 6 & 8 Clan Wars modes exist to allow freemium accounts access to organize game play.  If World of Tanks is going to continue to stay in business, it needs a healthy amount of freemium players.  Otherwise, it'll have $ troubles when the whales move on to other entertainment activities. 

 

I played tier 10 clan wars several nights a week during the time I didn't have a premium account when I was in M--M and BIMBO and I was never hurting for credits.  Yes you lose money playing tier 10 tanks in pubs or clan wars.  You can also make money playing tier 8 and below(platoon with your clan mates) to make up for it and save up credits for your clan wars battles.

Tier 8 clan wars is almost as expensive as tier 10 clan wars if you take clan wars seriously.  Premium consumables cost the same in tier 8 and tier 10 or any tier.  Premium ammo cost for the popular tier 8 clan wars tanks isn't much different than the premium ammo cost for the popular tier 10 clan wars tanks.  If you aren't using some premium ammo and premium consumables you aren't taking clan wars seriously.  The only difference is repair costs of the tanks.

I looked at the tanks I've used in tier 8 clan wars in the past.  Here is their premium ammo costs:
IS-3 - 4800
T32 - 4400
M40/43 - 8000
M26 - 4400
T-54 Lightweight - 4400
IS-5 - 5200
ISU-152 - 4800
AMX 13 90 - 4800
AMX 50 100 - 4000
Lorr. 155 51 - 5200
JP II - 4800
Type 59 - 4400
110 - 4000

Now here is a comparison with the tier 10's and their premium ammo costs:
110E5 - 4400
Obj. 140 - 4800
IS-7 - 4800
AMX 50B - 4800
E100 - 6000
STB-1 - 4800

As you can see the premium ammo for most of them is a similar cost.  Who doesn't run premium ammo in clan wars? Since the ammo is a similar cost and the premium consumables are the same price, the actual cost difference is just the difference in repair costs.  In reality tier 8 and tier 10 clan wars are very similar in cost per battle.  If you would be struggling to have enough credits for tier 10 clan wars, you would be struggling to have enough credits for tier 8 clan wars.

2 hours ago, Valan said:

   You have a lot to learn. Even the gold league individuals can be defeated by mid-tier specialists in a given tournament who's reward was 10k gold.  It has happened, and will happen.     

Way to get way off topic here.  How many tier 6 tournaments are 7 v 7?  I haven't seen any.  If there are, they are rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bavor said:

The only reason you saw more clans on the map with Clan Wars 2.0 is that it became a tiring grind to earn boxes and influence to maintain and upgrade your land along with more land available at a much lower land value.

A point not relevant to the upcoming iteration of CW 2.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue with tier 6 CW apart from 'tier 6' is the 7v7 aspect.

Before CW2.0 was announced, i told Tanitha that tier 6 is useless and tier 8s should have slightly more players a side.

(The official reason behind the lower tiers was for 'experience' for tier 10 so newer clans and callers wouldn't be out of their depth so much, so 7v7???)

Of course, many other people voiced their concern about tier 6, but it hasn't made a difference, really. 

 

Not sure how even WG Minsk thought that less than half a full team a side, plus limiting it to the high dpm/low hp pool tier of 6 was preperation for tier 10 clan wars. It doesn't even prepare you for tier 8 clan wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zippy_the_cat said:

A point not relevant to the upcoming iteration of CW 2.0.

Someone who thinks 1.0 was only for 10 clans is by definition irrelevant to discussing CW.  If you were running into OTTER and co repeatedly, your officers should be shot for criminal chip mismanagement. Regardless, creating a training-ground CW should still only be done at tier 10.  Make it low-gold or silver-only and the big clans won't want to bother.  7v7 tier 6s is just not at all relevant to an actual quality CW match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Getting really tired of people saying WG should shit on the majority of the user base. Most people who play this game either don't have a tier 10 or don't have more than one or two. You're effectively telling them they can't participate in CW.

I don't understand what you are going on about. You haven't played a single CWs match so I don't get why you are posting on a subject you haven't been a part of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rojo180 said:

I don't understand what you are going on about. You haven't played a single CWs match so I don't get why you are posting on a subject you haven't been a part of.

 

Try again. HAFR has 292 battles and I personally have 200. See http://na.wargaming.net/clans/1000013170/players/wot/#players&offset=0&limit=25&order=-battles_count&timeframe=all&battle_type=global_map

Wotlabs and other stat sites not picking up CW 2.0 battles is the fault of their code or WG's data servers. 

16 hours ago, BoilerBandsman said:

Someone who thinks 1.0 was only for 10 clans is by definition irrelevant to discussing CW.  If you were running into OTTER and co repeatedly, your officers should be shot for criminal chip mismanagement.

You control where you drop, but don't control and can't see who drops in the same province in the last hour before the application deadline. Landing tourneys in the campaign were a shit-show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zippy_the_cat said:

Try again. HAFR has 292 battles and I personally have 200. See http://na.wargaming.net/clans/1000013170/players/wot/#players&offset=0&limit=25&order=-battles_count&timeframe=all&battle_type=global_map

Wotlabs and other stat sites not picking up CW 2.0 battles is the fault of their code or WG's data servers. 

You control where you drop, but don't control and can't see who drops in the same province in the last hour before the application deadline. Landing tourneys in the campaign were a shit-show.

But all of a sudden you can say CWs 2.0 is better than CWs 1.0 even though you didn't participate in CWs 1.0.

It appears my point still stands.

Try AGAIN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, zippy_the_cat said:

A point not relevant to the upcoming iteration of CW 2.0.

Yet its relevant to the discussion.  Its why you saw more clans on the map in clan wars 2.0.  The system was broken and a grind that was basically a 2nd job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bavor said:

Yet its relevant to the discussion.  Its why you saw more clans on the map in clan wars 2.0.  The system was broken and a grind that was basically a 2nd job.

So you're saying participation is a bad thing.

I'm not arguing the tier 10 economy in 2.0 was anything but screwed up and would concede the point if the same argument's made for tier 8. What I am arguing is that there's a place for tier 6 CW. What we had with CW 1.0 was also a screwed-up economy, one that gave the VILINs and MAHOUs of the world (or their contemporary equivalents) more gold than they could possibly spend and made it possible for their members to run all-prem loadouts all the time at any tier they chose to play. And diplomacy, not game play, made it free money; there was so much non-aggression going on that the 1.0 map was static, in my observation (I didn't have to play 1.0 to see the map). 

In no way should tier 6 CW have the same pay-outs as tier 8 or tier 10; it of course should pay less, given the smaller team size, etc, and the imperative to encourage clans to develop. But it needs to be an available option, so there's an entry point into competitive play other than the weekly tourneys. I don't think the argument that its existence takes away from tier 8 or 10 CW holds any water. What affects those is the overall economy of the game. If you're able and willing to buy prem time and prem tanks, you can have and play a large tier 10 stable. If you're not, you can't, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zippy_the_cat said:

So you're saying participation is a bad thing.

I'm not arguing the tier 10 economy in 2.0 was anything but screwed up and would concede the point if the same argument's made for tier 8. What I am arguing is that there's a place for tier 6 CW. What we had with CW 1.0 was also a screwed-up economy, one that gave the VILINs and MAHOUs of the world (or their contemporary equivalents) more gold than they could possibly spend and made it possible for their members to run all-prem loadouts all the time at any tier they chose to play. And diplomacy, not game play, made it free money; there was so much non-aggression going on that the 1.0 map was static, in my observation (I didn't have to play 1.0 to see the map). 

In no way should tier 6 CW have the same pay-outs as tier 8 or tier 10; it of course should pay less, given the smaller team size, etc, and the imperative to encourage clans to develop. But it needs to be an available option, so there's an entry point into competitive play other than the weekly tourneys. I don't think the argument that its existence takes away from tier 8 or 10 CW holds any water. What affects those is the overall economy of the game. If you're able and willing to buy prem time and prem tanks, you can have and play a large tier 10 stable. If you're not, you can't, period.

There is less fighting in 2.0 than in 1.0 outside of campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...