Main page

Since this mode it is totally broken and most of the people i know hate it i have had an idea to make it more playable and balanced (at least untill WG make it selectable as they promised...).

Well,the idea is quite simple and has been used in other games before: make 2 rounds,just it.
One team deffend at first and after that the other team is moved to deffender position,so both team have to make the attack better than the other (faster victory) in order to win. If both lose their attack, it is a draw. This way,the mode would be more balanced,with similar chances to win for both teams. It is not very original but i think it woul be effective.

A very good idea, but what to do with the AFK tanks? One team might then have to play two rounds at a disadvantage??

I don't like your idea because if I lose 0/15 I doubt I would play the second match for another lose, I would simple leave or go afk.

Lets say it that way.... idea is not stupid, bnut meanwhile i hate assault so much, played it this weeekend every 2nd game... No 2 rounds assault no matter if defender and attacker, i dont want it.

Good Idea - But will never happen as theres no garantie the same 30 players have time for 2 games AND after 1 team looses would continue.
Assault ist just fail some maps are just EPIC fail as assault mode ....

So your idea of a fix is to greatly increase the draw numbers in the game ? You'd better stay away from CW dude.

Well,Assault games only take 10 mins so the double round would be 20 mins (standard games last 15 mins,so if u have enough time for one standard game you should have time to play 20 mins).

And yes,the real solution would be the selectable modes but even in this case 2 rounds would make it more balanced. I think it is a good idea.

The only problem with assault mode is that a large part of the tankers doesn't understand there is no base to defend for the attacking team.

 Steffenximus, on 06 August 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

CW are a totally diferent thing man,i am not talking about it....
A draw is more fair than almost instalose for attacker (as it is now if defender has a brain)....and you can still win if you play well.

It also doesn't solve the fact that this mode is unplayable for slow tanks....

 ragnardw, on 06 August 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Not sure how you play those 15 mins, but most normal matches last 5 minutes, if not less (At least this weekend), and most people who can only play a match or two only will pick a scout or something you die faster than heavy or arty(Just for example). I don't wanna see assault at all, but with this I would stop playing WoT till 8.0, there you should be able to pick what mode you wanna to play.
Edited by WhiteNinja, 06 August 2012 - 09:47 AM.

OK, but if I die (or any other player) should I wait for the rematch?
I don't think so... I rather pick another tank and continue to play.

Assault should not be available for players that have very little experience in this game (example: less then 1000 battles), or are not interested in teamplay (very low efficiency).


I can love or hate any new map, or mod, or tank, but I can adapt.
However, what really puts me off lately (since the start of summer school vacations) is insanely large number of VERY BAD players. Never before I've seen so many people make Top Gun, and still be on a losing team.
Suddenly, old lemming trains look so efficient in comparison to.... Cannot find the word for this....
Headless chickens?


Your idea is excellent, but only for you and me, and for others that read and reply topics like this.

Maybe there should be a new mod, new matchamker, or even a new game only for us "over here"?

Could be sorted out with an elaborated tank-specific Map-Veto option.
Attack and defence on map xxxxxxx could then be treated as seperate maps.
I for instance would veto Attack on Prokhorovka out for all of my tanks but fast low tiers.
So if I was the Defender there with my StuG, I would kinda play against players who did bet that they could win as Attackers with their tanks.
This would not only reduce frustration about the new modes, but add a whole new flavor to the game.

And if hardly anybody dared attacking/defending on a map, this would be the clearest possible message to WG that s.th. is wrong there.

 Breitkeil, on 06 August 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Interesting idea, but never going to happen. It took them 18months to fix a broken MM wich everybody new from day 1. What are the ods they are going to implement something like that.

AT op, perhaps yes, but i doubt wg would ever do such a thing.

Nice idea, but I hate assault mode because it is so sloooooow, and if faced with the prospect of two successive rounds of Assault I'm sure many players - not me, but many players - who similarly hate Assault would simply ragequit at the start of the first round.

It's interesting though, if there were a 'would you like to stay in this team button?' at the end of every round (in every mode).  Click 'no' and you go on randomly as normal, but click 'yes' and you would stay with the other players on your team who clicked yes also, with the gaps being filled with randoms, for your next battle.  Perhaps make it so that subsequent games can only be played against other teams who have shared battles, if balance requires this.  I suspect that these teams would begin out of random roflstomp, and then gravitate towards being filled with average players (teams would weaken as the few bosses drift away, and the weaker players stay on to continue winning), leaving teamwork the deciding factor.

In this way, randoms could become a bit more team-focussed and a stepping stone to company battles and even lasting friendships and clan formations.  We'd see fewer complaints about "why oh why am I always teamed with noobs and my enemies are pros".  Would be good for community building, and of course, anyone could always just click no to opt out.

 sarghonas, on 06 August 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

WG is exremely slow, but sometimes ..., see MM, see Komarin ... so never say never
They said this in February, almost half a year ago:

Will it be possible to choose the particular map we would like to play on?  If so, would it be available for premium accounts only? What kind of limits would it have?

• You will not be able to choose a map of your desire. Alternatively, you can put a ‘veto’ on one map and it will be removed from a random map selection. Most probably, it will be available for all members, but premium membership or gold (this is still a subject of discussion) will allow you to ‘veto’ more maps (1-2).

And now Map-Vetos could help ease the new problems with the new modes too. Of course more than just 2-3 vetos would be required for all players.
Just join me whining for it, and sooner or later it will come. Probably sooner, since WG could earn money with it and you know what they say about WG and greed.

 Pethan1983, on 06 August 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

But a Map-Veto (as described above in post no. 14) could help. You would just avoid them, of choose the defending side.
Edited by Breitkeil, 06 August 2012 - 01:30 PM.

My solution is even simpler..refuse to play it ..if u get assault don't move away and only defend urself if someone atk-es..if a lot of ppl will do it WG will notice and maybe they will do something about it...
But until ppl play these modes nothing will change

it would be just better if assault mode takes 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes as standard maps

Best solution when find yourself on attacking side of some practice shoo....assault map. ESC -> Back to garage -> pick random tank -> Battle!
Saves 10min of unfair humiliation.
WG, Assault mode and all those whining about AFKers can eat....
I've got premium tanks for paying the bills anyways and couldn't care less about stats.