Jump to content


Season One (Tier 10) Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Fynnegun #1 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:50 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12841 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

Hey guys,

 

Please discuss anything related to Season One in tier 10, you thoughts, what was working ,what wasn't, what can improved, etc.

 

Please remain as constructive as possible, saying "this sucks" does not help if you do not explain why and if you have a possible solution feel free to provide it as well.

 

Thanks!

 

Decept1on



Jonathan_Strange #2 Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:08 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18481 battles
  • 366
  • Member since:
    09-15-2011

Can we know what stood behind thought process of changing T10 gold economy?

- Why the gold income on most provinces is 168/312 instead of 360/480?

- Also upgrading provinces ratio was changed from 120 to 72 per level while the cost of upgrading stayed the same. (any explanation?)

- Actually bringing back old key provinces is fine but why all of 4K+ (we can argue if 3 is enough) are next to each other.

- Could we next time get some info about such things? I believe most of CWs players were a bit shocked by those changes.

- Is gold income *nerf* connected with fantastic rewards for 1st. CW season? And can we expect even less gold per provinces in upcoming seasons when prizes will be even better then now? (some inscriptions giving bonuses to radio-operator for TOP3 would be perfect ;))


Edited by EnslavedAtlas, 29 October 2015 - 11:09 AM.


The007thDreeson #3 Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:16 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39990 battles
  • 914
  • [TERMS] TERMS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View PostEnslavedAtlas, on 29 October 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

- Is gold income *nerf* connected with fantastic rewards for 1st. CW season? And can we expect even less gold per provinces in upcoming seasons when prizes will be even better then now? (some inscriptions giving bonuses to radio-operator for TOP3 would be perfect ;))

 



Fynnegun #4 Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:25 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12841 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

- Rebalancing of provinces.

- Rebalancing as well.

- Tweaking can still be done indeed, thanks.

- Technically this is a new front and has only the geographical situation as common point.

- Yes and no, rebalancing was needed after release, we had to change a few things and some of the gold income pool was transferred to the prizes pool. Hopefully no further change will be required, we'll know after the analysis of the Season One. (inscription should increase survivability of the radio operator, it would make the KV-5 OP)



RaeudigerRonny #5 Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:32 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26392 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
In CW 2.0 we had around 300k Gold/day for T8 and T10. Now we get 70k in T8 and 120k in T10. So which prizepool are you referring to for the difference of 410 k gold/day?

The007thDreeson #6 Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39990 battles
  • 914
  • [TERMS] TERMS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

View PostDecept1on, on 29 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

(inscription should increase survivability of the radio operator, it would make the KV-5 OP)



pmakins #7 Posted 29 October 2015 - 03:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 46840 battles
  • 463
  • [O-S-C] O-S-C
  • Member since:
    10-17-2010

View PostDecept1on, on 29 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

- Rebalancing of provinces.

- Rebalancing as well.

- Tweaking can still be done indeed, thanks.

- Technically this is a new front and has only the geographical situation as common point.

- Yes and no, rebalancing was needed after release, we had to change a few things and some of the gold income pool was transferred to the prizes pool. Hopefully no further change will be required, we'll know after the analysis of the Season One. (inscription should increase survivability of the radio operator, it would make the KV-5 OP)

What rebalancing you are refering to?

We have cca 250 provinces right? All together base gold brought cca 92k

We have 23 provinces that bring above 1000 gold and the total amount they earn with base gold is cca 48k gold.

You are trying to say that it is balanced to have less than 10% of the total provinces earn more than a half of the total income? And plus it is retardedly distributed over the map. 10k in England, 8k in Netherlands, 4k in Northern Italy, 7k in Denmark, 4k in northern Germany (Which means you pack up big income on 3-4 provinces so that you can have all the action distributed on those few areas, which in my opinion isn't the best of solutions to enhance dynamics on the whole of the map)....
First WG states that they want a dynamic gameplay, then they put this funny globalmap... 

If dynamic is what you want then make the gold evenly spread out, and delete the stupid warning system. It's ok in the campaign, but in regular CW you have deprived us of basic delays and supports for alliances... I can have max 2+2 territories in 2 timezones +2 landings in order for me not to get any warnings or any of those bid rushing (if i have less than 45 players online, if you have 3 teams, just make it +1). You think I will want to expand and risk getting warnings or will I defend my land and drink lemonade every day after CW?

Also, what is the point of upgrading a province to tier 5 and above? You spend 5k influence to have 350gold per day more, just so that in 2 months you come and say, new campaign, you all have to leave the tier 10 season so that we can put only tier 6 zone with no possibilites for at least 50% of refunding the total influence we invested in the land. There were many clans who spent a lot of influence on their regions, upgrading to tier 5, just so that WG transfers them to tier 6 or force them to play campaign, which had battles at 1:30 am -.- 

 

Either decrease the amount of inluence you need to upgrade the province by at least 40% or increase the gold income for 40-50% (or to 120 as it used to be, but lets be honest, who in the blue f*** would spend 36k (even 20k is much, not to mention 36k) influence on a territory just so that he can have 1200 gold  more on a province?), otherwise its just useless.

 

edit:   -Where can we read all the rules for the current globalmap? I have tried hard with one of my deputies, and we couldn't find anything.


Edited by pmakins, 29 October 2015 - 03:21 PM.


Binomaja_ #8 Posted 29 October 2015 - 03:35 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 38807 battles
  • 448
  • [EX-4] EX-4
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012

Ok here we go:

- The distribution of the gold on the Provinces is totally retarded since there is 1 small area where all the gold is, meanwhile 90% of the map are totally uninterresting because u can hold maximum 3-5 Provinces with ~ 350 gold

- Upgrading provinces in uninteressting atleast higher than lvl 4. Dafuq why should u waste thousands of influence for 72 Gold.... the amount of gold should increase exponentiell like the costs do

- give ENCOUNTERBATTLES back

- Modules for Divisions are totally useless except of Bombers and Arty which totally breaks gameplay (remove that crap)

- The bidingsystem is horrible like it is now.... u can bid everywhere for 450 influence (Module increases for 20%... as i said USELESS) so u play 2-3 T10 SH per Province and u can Bidspamm on map

- and a small thingy at the end.... i like this El Halluf in the mid of France


Edited by Clownomaja_PRO, 29 October 2015 - 03:42 PM.


RaeudigerRonny #9 Posted 29 October 2015 - 03:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26392 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postpmakins, on 29 October 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

 

edit:   -Where can we read all the rules for the current globalmap? I have tried hard with one of my deputies, and we couldn't find anything.

 

http://worldoftanks....n-announcement/

Here they explained the penalty-system a bit.



_SgtBomber_ #10 Posted 30 October 2015 - 02:40 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Commander
  • 18664 battles
  • 1,334
  • [CRYPT] CRYPT
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

Deception.. if you have any I mean any even the slightest amount of power in WG.. Please I am begging on my knees, now it is time to use it. 

 

You can still save this game, you can still be a hero.. no kappas.



niePlaczNoobie #11 Posted 30 October 2015 - 04:11 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4963 battles
  • 80
  • [HHPL] HHPL
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012
I dont know why i WG always giving easy points to AW?   :sceptic:

pmakins #12 Posted 01 November 2015 - 01:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 46840 battles
  • 463
  • [O-S-C] O-S-C
  • Member since:
    10-17-2010

View PostDecept1on, on 19 October 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

Hey guys,

 

Please discuss anything related to Season One in tier 10, you thoughts, what was working ,what wasn't, what can improved, etc.

 

Please remain as constructive as possible, saying "this sucks" does not help if you do not explain why and if you have a possible solution feel free to provide it as well.

 

Thanks!

 

Decept1on

 

It's always nice to start a thread about discussing a certain aspect of the game and not a single admin answers neither me nor clownomaja for 4 days?
You want to tell me you start a thread, let the playerbase agree that there is something seriously wrong with the global map, and you guys just sit in your chairs, take some popcorns and enjoy the show? Not the best way to treat players who are trying to contribute something to the game -.-



RaeudigerRonny #13 Posted 02 November 2015 - 11:59 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26392 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Hey Decept1on, hope you are still reading this. Do you have any new infos on implementing Overlord and Stalingrad into the Skirmish Map Rotation? It is slightly annoying to play these maps in CW/campaign, but having no possibility to train on them during SH.

DonGonzalesGacha #14 Posted 02 November 2015 - 12:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 34927 battles
  • 1,071
  • [DAG0D] DAG0D
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostClownomaja_PRO, on 29 October 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

- and a small thingy at the end.... i like this El Halluf in the mid of France

 

global warming bro, Europe is gonna be a desert soon kek



FIoris #15 Posted 02 November 2015 - 12:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29988 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    06-27-2012

View PostDomstadtkerl, on 29 October 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

In CW 2.0 we had around 300k Gold/day for T8 and T10. Now we get 70k in T8 and 120k in T10. So which prizepool are you referring to for the difference of 410 k gold/day?

 

Does anyone know how much gold the old map gave?

Fynnegun #16 Posted 02 November 2015 - 02:21 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12841 battles
  • 1,358
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

I'm still reading the discussion and your feedback is taken into account.

By the way we are discussing whether we should postpone this feature here, this is the reason the EU article is not posted yet.

Please let me know what you think, what you like or don't like, and how it can be improved.

 

@Domstadtkerl, it has been requested.



Kuba9m #17 Posted 02 November 2015 - 02:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25471 battles
  • 1,205
  • [PSQD] PSQD
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

Instead of ransack maybe make sth like in old map , cw missions. Random province as main target , where You can earn tripple income bonus for getting that province , and of course for defending clan maybe sth like 1,5-2x bonus if they resist clan with mission :mellow:

About gold income also must be told , make 10t minimum 600g , 8t minimum 250-300g , 6t minimum 100g and will be profitable for everybody


Edited by Kuba9m, 02 November 2015 - 02:32 PM.


Wyrda1 #18 Posted 02 November 2015 - 02:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28689 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostDecept1on, on 02 November 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

I'm still reading the discussion and your feedback is taken into account.

By the way we are discussing whether we should postpone this feature here, this is the reason the EU article is not posted yet.

Please let me know what you think, what you like or don't like, and how it can be improved.

 

@Domstadtkerl, it has been requested.

 

I personally really like the ransacking feature and would like to see it again in CW 2.0 As far as I know most ppl in my clan have the same opinion on this topic.

 

 

What is really retarded IMO is this:

"Thus, in order to defend their province, a Clan has to go through all the tournament rounds. "

Why the [edited]should I have to play my own landing tournament again in order to defend a province I already own? That is not logical and would also restrict bigger/better clan further.

 

 

Edit: About gold income... I would agree to Kuba9m, that the base income on TX should be at least ~500 Gold

Another solution would be, to make upgrading provinces profitable after Tier IV upgrade. atm no one bothers to upgrade provinces higher than IV because it is pointless.


Edited by Wyrda1, 02 November 2015 - 02:37 PM.


knightM #19 Posted 02 November 2015 - 03:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46340 battles
  • 1,670
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View PostDecept1on, on 02 November 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

I'm still reading the discussion and your feedback is taken into account.

By the way we are discussing whether we should postpone this feature here, this is the reason the EU article is not posted yet.

Please let me know what you think, what you like or don't like, and how it can be improved.

 

@Domstadtkerl, it has been requested.

 

Ransacking: yes

 

Defense:

 

First you need to clarify this. In the NA article it says "possibility" in the RU one it says "will be added".

 

if

a) owner can choose to take part and if not it will just fight the winner (like now) then I'd add it

 

b) owner has to take part in all rounds (or loose the province) then NO since that is extremely harmful to anyone owning any province. No matter skill or map. Therefore not only will "strong" clans that own more provinces be angry but also all the small clans that are happy enough to hold 1 tier 6 province.

 

------------------------------

 

@ gold income

 

add more high-income provinces (for example capitals of each country should give  1.5k gold. Capitals of richer countries more than that (ex. right now Berlin gives 600 gold, should be 4k). Can go by GDP:

https://en.wikipedia...ope_by_GDP_(PPP)

 

Top 5: 4k gold in capital

5-15: 2.4k gold 

rest: 1.2k 

 

Some of the capitals are not on map or are not on tier 10 map, so just adjust accordingly keeping the same number of provinces (5x 4k, 10x 2.4k). It's about 20 provinces that need to be changed (and some removed like Birmigham) so the gain in total amount of gold wont be all that big but it would spread the fighting hotspots a bit more evenly

 


Edited by knightM, 02 November 2015 - 03:20 PM.


Nekrodamus #20 Posted 02 November 2015 - 03:50 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 48506 battles
  • 2,246
  • [LEOFL] LEOFL
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011

Two questions about ransack 2.0: How long would ransacking prevent a clan from placing the HQ, 24 hours? Would the province data sheet include any infos about it having been ransacked recently? 

 

Personally I don't like the idea of the new ransack system as it will result in stronk klanus raping ripe provinces only (to increase their income) instead of taking part in 'regular' CW. And of course nobody less stronk will ever spend influence again to increase the income of any province.

 

Implementing the old version again (enter map, set HQ, then ransack the neighbourhood) would be a nice element though.

 

 

Defending a landing zone by going through the tournament again makes no sense at all. Where is the bonus for the job the clan did allready?

 

During the season defending a landing zone allows for an additional (because time shifted) x10 battle. Having to take part in the landing tournament again for let's say five x1 battles which prevents one of the teams to fight neighbours for x3 and x10 battles is a very bad deal.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users