Jump to content

[Announcement] Global Map Season 12 - things you need to know [updated Aug 14th]

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

DG_ToasteD #121 Posted Yesterday, 07:25 PM


  • Member
  • 17917 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:

View PostGoatGuy, on 18 August 2019 - 09:33 AM, said:

Guys, remember these discussions are players trying to improve and keep the game alive. That includes Hopey's posts.

I support the logic that CW is for competitive play and the benefit of ‘pooling’ players into one tier (10) and one front. BUT there are game mechanics that stand in the way of lower ranked or smaller clans doing so:

  1. Our players don’t have allot of Tier10 tanks and we are prevented making up numbers with lower tiers.
  2. The few tanks we do have get locked for such a long time on 15v15
  3. The penalties for a no-show (due to lack of players) are so harsh (more so in a campaign opposed to CW season)
  4. The skill gap (between high and low ranked clans) is widened to impossible levels by the reward tank advantage. Can anyone honestly say that the following screenshot (1vs 12 reward tanks) was fair or fun competition for SABRE?



If you think the above is fine or you don't care then that is an OK opinion. But then don't also suggest that lower clans should compete more under these conditions. People play WoT for THEIR enjoyment NOT YOURS. Lower clans do not owe higher clans games.


I’m not saying the mechanics are easily fixed. But I feel they (and others) are reducing the player base in CW and WoT itself. There have been some arrogant comments towards  ‘lesser’ clans. But that attitude (and certain game mechanics) are leading to player voting with their feet and situations such as highlighted by some Teal players: “every time we chip 15v15 everyone removes theirs so we get the land for free and no game, not our fault no one wants to fight us”. 


Ayee im top for xp

Jezzalenko1978 #122 Posted Yesterday, 07:28 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 38164 battles
  • 456
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:

View Poststewiejp, on 18 August 2019 - 08:06 PM, said:

Hypothetical question for the clans with lots of reward tanks up their sleeves (including my own clan) : Would a "no reward tanks on landing zones" be a reasonable compromise for those who fear the 907/Chief/279e/260 swarms. With the aim of encouraging clans to have a go at 15v15, especially clans who have not had much of a go at tier 10 or 15v15?

Sure it may not be technically possible, and of late all I play in CW is the Chief (even put some dirty equiment on it from the mission) - just thinking out loud. 


We just ran some Team training with -2AR- doing exactly that, for balance, and to work on some calling strats etc.  I for one have no problem with it.  We had a pretty robust discussion here in chat - and I must admit, the Chiefs and 907's are dayum stronk comparative say to a S.Conq and 140 as a direct comparison..... due to speed armour etc. 


But at the end of the day, If the game was that close regarding result, I highly doubt those tanks would be the real difference..... sure they can certainly help, but we've found the strats win more than the tonks.


All that said and done Stewie, I agree with concept for the good of tier 10 CeeDubs!  Great point, worthy of discussion!

Stewy_ #123 Posted Yesterday, 07:38 PM


  • Member
  • 18119 battles
  • 15
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:

I for one agree with the concept of having a tech-tree only global map. Advances Im unsure of, mainly because there isn't "too much" on the line and players putting great amounts of effort to get a chief/907 at least deserve the right to play it in some form of clan activity. However, I do believe a global map/campaign without reward vehicles would be beneficial for the future of clan wars.


The reason I think this, is because of how active these sorts of events are. Many new clans coming into the campaign scene deserve to have an even chance against the higher tier clans in terms of tank picks, and the result of the match purely comes down to player skill and calling strategies. Unfortunately, we cannot deny the fact that chieftains and 907s are better than their tech tree counter parts (Super conq and 907). 



Would love to see what other people think, especially the higher tier clans like YETI/TEAL. Personally as a caller for 1AR, we have improved greatly over the past month, and I can't deny that it has a little bit to do with the fact we now have 10+ players in the clan with chieftains, and heaps with 907s. Our results have been much better than they were beforehand, when we literally had 3 chieftain players for campaign

Edited by Stewy_, Yesterday, 07:56 PM.

Jezzalenko1978 #124 Posted Yesterday, 07:54 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 38164 battles
  • 456
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:

I think this is a great topic for discussion, as a thread separate from this one regarding the current season - Big Stewie and little Stewy, I would love to hear the thoughts on this.... 


I'm looking at your production company with the multitude of administration staff to kick this off StewieJP!

Edited by Jezzalenko1978, Yesterday, 07:58 PM.

IMC_Jimmy #125 Posted Yesterday, 09:16 PM

    Hold my beer, I've got this!

  • Member
  • 19942 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
i for 1 like that idea of tech tree tanks only, no reward tanks, no mission tanks just straight up tech tree tanks.. would be a great addition 
www.twitch.tv/imc_jimmy tonking at it's most sillyest #Tier 4 Clan Wars Plz

pr154 #126 Posted Today, 06:01 AM


  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 17885 battles
  • 85
  • Member since:

View PostIMC_Jimmy, on 18 August 2019 - 11:16 PM, said:

i for 1 like that idea of tech tree tanks only, no reward tanks, no mission tanks just straight up tech tree tanks.. would be a great addition 


Suspect there would be a bit of blowback to this... I'd like to think the ELO system already provides a reasonable degree of matching of haves against the have-nots


Assuming for a moment that the way forward is to run a single 15v15 map at Tier X, I would agree with other posters in that the ELO system would become more justified in its application, as every clan regardless of their position would be vying for the same territory. I actually wouldn't be opposed to expanding its brief so that subsequent rounds are ELO-matched as well rather than going on the XP of the previous fight, but with the highest-ELO clans getting the bye currently I recognise that this would mean less games for them (Having that said, the higher-ELO would indicate that they have a higher prospect of overall success)


My main concern with a universal map is that new clans contesting this level of competition for the first time do have a hard road ahead of them. We ran an experiment in the first week, and found that with 4-5 landings per night it took a new clan about a week to drop from a default 1000ELO to 850ELO. We kept at it because we had ulterior motives, but I'm not sure that an emerging clan with limited competitive experience will have 15 members with the tenacity to fight 4-5 games a night for 3-4 weeks to get to where they need to be. Perhaps a more aggressive modifier to ELO is required for a clan with <10 fights at a given Global Map Tier?

Ezz #127 Posted Today, 06:40 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 67774 battles
  • 35,983
  • Member since:
Or they could, you know, balance the tanks.........

Edited by Ezz, Today, 06:40 AM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"

9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users