Jump to content


Tier 6 and Tier 8 is killing the global map

Pins BookShelf Dead Plants

  • Please log in to reply
373 replies to this topic

Flying_Elite #361 Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Always blame Hema!

  • Forum Moderator
  • 23821 battles
  • 1,510
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostU12D13, on 18 September 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

Still waiting for a CW season where there is a prem ammo hardcap. :v (waits for the tryhards to burn in their lack of skill ammo)

 

At tier 8 it makes it even more P2W when no one can pen a Defender or Chrysler without yoloing

 


   

Spoiler

Facebook | Youtube | SEA Replay Thread | WotLabs Stats | Best Ambush Skills Asia

3 MoE: Crusader

2 MoE: AMX 1390, Skorp G, T-34-3, T-34, T67, M53/M55, WZ-131, STRV m/42-57

NICE MEME

 


MagicalFlyingFox #362 Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:31 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24592 battles
  • 11,189
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012
Or a Maus without TDs.

LuckyLuciano #363 Posted 18 September 2017 - 04:15 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7601 battles
  • 234
  • [T-C] T-C
  • Member since:
    07-23-2014

Happy to only have tier 10 CW's if the map was bigger and more suited to allow all form of clans to participate.. in its current state that's a no.. you need to have the moderately better players to compete at that level in the short amount if land that is available.. again competing against the same clans over and over which is about 3-5...

 


 

So until such time it gets fixed tier 8 should stay for those clans to practice on (forget the rewards) just give them a place to not have to face the top tier clans over and over and lose morale and learning and development.


Glue the Moose
 


Weebl #364 Posted 18 September 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 14662 battles
  • 1,366
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostLuckyLuciano, on 18 September 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

So until such time it gets fixed tier 8 should stay for those clans to practice on (forget the rewards) just give them a place to not have to face the top tier clans over and over and lose morale and learning and development.

I don't think anybody is arguing for the removal of tier 8 CW while leaving the 10 map as it is. 

 

It obviously would need need to get bigger to allow room for more clans to participate without it just being everybody in a TZ butting heads over the same province. 



DarthCavalier #365 Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4921 battles
  • 115
  • [-2AR-] -2AR-
  • Member since:
    01-06-2014

View PostFlying_Elite, on 18 September 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

At tier 8 it makes it even more P2W when no one can pen a Defender or Chrysler without yoloing

 

 

​Oh how I WISH that was true....


JordyBro #366 Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:19 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 20102 battles
  • 967
  • Member since:
    12-25-2012

View PostWeebl, on 18 September 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

It obviously would need need to get bigger to allow room for more clans to participate without it just being everybody in a TZ butting heads over the same province. 

 

Yep, if tier 8 was to go which I highly doubt, potentially a limit to what a clan can hold would be a good addition. You guys VPA and other clans that can do it shouldn't be punished however at least it will open up some room for the lesser clans to compete still at tier 10. This way everyone can get involved even with a small slice of the cake. 


 


Weebl #367 Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:39 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 14662 battles
  • 1,366
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostJordyBro, on 19 September 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

 

Yep, if tier 8 was to go which I highly doubt, potentially a limit to what a clan can hold would be a good addition. You guys VPA and other clans that can do it shouldn't be punished however at least it will open up some room for the lesser clans to compete still at tier 10. This way everyone can get involved even with a small slice of the cake. 

Ideally there would be plenty of provinces to go around, the only fly in the ointment would be if nobody attacked Pyro, VPA etc. I know if we sit on the map holding land and nobody attacks, then we would push out just to get battles. 

Some of the Viet clans seem to be back a bit though? We have been a bit spammed tonight?

for it to work well, each clan should be able to hold a max of 2 provinces per time zone otherwise lots of attacks could overstretch them, this would leave room for plenty of clans (presuming that there were enough provinces of course) holding territory worth their skill level without being able to dominate huge tracts of the map. 



JordyBro #368 Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:01 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 20102 battles
  • 967
  • Member since:
    12-25-2012

View PostWeebl, on 19 September 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

Ideally there would be plenty of provinces to go around, the only fly in the ointment would be if nobody attacked Pyro, VPA etc. I know if we sit on the map holding land and nobody attacks, then we would push out just to get battles. 

Some of the Viet clans seem to be back a bit though? We have been a bit spammed tonight?

for it to work well, each clan should be able to hold a max of 2 provinces per time zone otherwise lots of attacks could overstretch them, this would leave room for plenty of clans (presuming that there were enough provinces of course) holding territory worth their skill level without being able to dominate huge tracts of the map. 

 

Yeah fair point, everyone is entitled to battles, I haven't looked at the map for weeks now semi away from home back next week though. Will be nice to have good ping, nice to hear you are getting spammed I'm sure you guys enjoy it ;)

 


Weebl #369 Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:22 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 14662 battles
  • 1,366
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostJordyBro, on 19 September 2017 - 10:01 PM, said:

 

Yeah fair point, everyone is entitled to battles, I haven't looked at the map for weeks now semi away from home back next week though. Will be nice to have good ping, nice to hear you are getting spammed I'm sure you guys enjoy it ;)

It's battles :)

 

unfortunately it looks like it's an attempt to give us 2 games at a time (even with borked cable we can still easily muster 20) and they are sending 8 or 9 guys in with random tanks in an attempt to lock some tanks and feel out some strats, so the battles are not the best. 



BetterThanjEbUs #370 Posted 20 September 2017 - 05:54 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 16377 battles
  • 60
  • [T-C] T-C
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013

I had some thoughts about making it harder or less beneficial for clans to hold land indefinitely.  I mean, putting hard limit in place (based on # members perhaps) would be the simple & brutal way to do things, but there are options.

 

The easiest thing to do would be to make revolts more prevalent everywhere, which means as the occupying force you may be forced to fight to hold the land you have more often, and i'd have provinces in revolt decrease the amount of gold production rapidly (that may already be the case its been a while since ive looked at the global map).  

 

Then as everyone knows that when you have land, you just have to not lose - attackers you often come up against a turtle which often massively benefits the defending team and can lead to boring battles.  What I would do is change it to try to encourage the defending team to fight a little more positively, and "suppress" the revolt once another clan attacks.  So, if you were the defender of the land unless you got a dominant/complete kill victory over the attackers (in this scenario the rebelling citizens of the territory) the gold production stats to decrease & the revolt levels keep increasing.

 

One thing the better clans like PYRO & LIFE have found on the tier 8 map is that clans don't want to waste time attacking for a certain loss & little gain.  So maybe the attackers on a revolt could get a gold bump or something if they "freed" the province - make the risk/reward a little more positive for weaker clans.

 

I think that would both make it less productive to hold provinces indefinitely as eventually they'd all be in revolt & producing no gold for you.  It would encourage more clans to attack the better clans because you might get a great reward if you win, even if you can't then hold the land for long.  Also the defenders might play a bit riskier as if they didn't completely defeat you the province would still be in revolt & gold production would be at risk - which again would help out the weaker clans a bit.

 

IMHO that's better than a hard limit on the provinces because it would hopefully solve the lack of battles & lack of opportunities problems at the same time.  (Hopefully my explanation of my idea makes as much sense written as it does in my head).



MagicalFlyingFox #371 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:43 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24592 battles
  • 11,189
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

your first suggestion is quite literally CW1.0 lol

 

The easiest way is to reduce gold income per province and greatly increase the amount of provinces with higher average gold income areas and lower average gold income areas so the good clans contest the higher average gold areas and clan ability scaling with the gold they earn on the map. That way to make a good gold income you need to own large amounts of land, which is definitely going to require more battles.

I'd like more of a circle where the higher density zones are more in the middle of the map so that the clans in the centre will be encircled all around. 

 

To maintain the gold, there should be more battles because of the greater amount of land required to maintain the greater income. 

 

Its either that or the old goldpot method where there are a few gold pots which good clans fight to connect and what not. This is probably the best for smaller clans. 

 

If WG actually made CW a tactical game with a map and provinces, it might actually be really cool to get into. Otherwise its just a gimmicky tourney-like thing. 



Flying_Elite #372 Posted 20 September 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Always blame Hema!

  • Forum Moderator
  • 23821 battles
  • 1,510
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 20 September 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

If WG actually made CW a tactical game with a map and provinces, it might actually be really cool to get into. Otherwise its just a gimmicky tourney-like thing. 

 

You mean that if 2 clans that have land attack the same province you'd have to have 2 battles at the same time in order to keep it? and whoever wins either has to vs each other and in the owners case they keep the land?

 


   

Spoiler

Facebook | Youtube | SEA Replay Thread | WotLabs Stats | Best Ambush Skills Asia

3 MoE: Crusader

2 MoE: AMX 1390, Skorp G, T-34-3, T-34, T67, M53/M55, WZ-131, STRV m/42-57

NICE MEME

 


MagicalFlyingFox #373 Posted 20 September 2017 - 03:59 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 24592 battles
  • 11,189
  • [PYRO] PYRO
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012
No, I'm thinking quite literally a game within a game. 

BetterThanjEbUs #374 Posted 21 September 2017 - 05:19 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 16377 battles
  • 60
  • [T-C] T-C
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013
I kinda just don't see it happening with the current clanwars 2.0.  They're putting so much more energy into the Advances / Strongholds / Wargames part of the in game client I almost think they should just shutdown the Clanwars / global map part & divert any of their funding into doing more with the in client stuff.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users