Jump to content


Tier 6 Clan Wars: 7v7 or 15v15


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: Tier 6 Clan Wars (147 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

What do you think the team size should be for tier 6 clan wars?

  1. 7v7 (40 votes [26.49%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.49%

  2. 15v15 (98 votes [64.90%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.90%

  3. Other (13 votes [8.61%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.61%

Vote Hide poll

arturo112 #1 Posted 24 November 2015 - 12:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9034 battles
  • 578
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
Just a quick poll because I for one don't think that tier 6 clan wars being 7v7 is enjoyable. If people have thoughts feel free to post. 

RaeudigerRonny #2 Posted 24 November 2015 - 12:57 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26392 battles
  • 4,744
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
The Fog of War kills it... If you can see the setup on 7v7, you could at least adapt...

FooWayTheTacoMaster #3 Posted 24 November 2015 - 04:52 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 32734 battles
  • 2,425
  • Member since:
    02-16-2013
If it has to be 7vs7 it can't be on these maps, that's for sure. No map control, no strategy, too much about guessing right what the enemy team is going to play... for example the setup you need to break a camping in base 2 ruinberg in a landing vs what you need to beat a good team in that base... 

arturo112 #4 Posted 24 November 2015 - 01:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9034 battles
  • 578
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postfooway, on 24 November 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:

If it has to be 7vs7 it can't be on these maps, that's for sure. No map control, no strategy, too much about guessing right what the enemy team is going to play... for example the setup you need to break a camping in base 2 ruinberg in a landing vs what you need to beat a good team in that base... 

 

At least there's no mountain pass.

scrontch #5 Posted 24 November 2015 - 01:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Commander
  • 25594 battles
  • 1,285
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

Voted 7v7. Because tier 6 is the entry level league.
Not only entry level in terms of skill, but also entry level in terms of activity. You top clan people probably can't understand this, but low activity/casual clans can struggle to field a (single) 15v15 team. Yet tier 6 clanwars is their field of activity, at least it should be.

Now it is arguable if tier 6 should be part of campaigns targeted at *all* clans, like in the current campaign. Maybe use bigger teams *there*. But the general tier 6 map season should be limited to 7v7.

 



_Dunc_ #6 Posted 25 November 2015 - 09:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38700 battles
  • 1,937
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

I'm not a fan of 7v7 in general anyway - deeply unforgiving of mistakes by players and FCs.

 

On that alone, I'd say it's actually worse for small or lower skill clans. We had a 48% average WR clan on Ensk this evening, and tore them apart 7-1 within 3 minutes. I can't really imagine those guys enjoyed that game at all.



roastedlemon #7 Posted 26 November 2015 - 12:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20057 battles
  • 675
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
If i wanted to play tier 6 7v7 i would play SH, its fine in regular CW for people who want to play it, but for campaigns? A big no no. Campaigns are meant to be where the best clans battle it out for the best prizes, where activity and skill are rewarded. Not so that smaller clans can come and have fun, do that in SH or on the regular map.

7LV #8 Posted 29 November 2015 - 07:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18241 battles
  • 1,646
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

Elitist ?

 

 



Schepel #9 Posted 01 December 2015 - 03:54 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 61674 battles
  • 3,168
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013
IMHO, 7 vs 7 makes a lot of otherwise perfectly fine T6 tanks almost impossible to fit in. 7 vs 7 also makes RNG an overly large factor in deciding games. Especially in a format where tanks can get derped in one go (KV-2, O-I), that is not a good thing at all. 15 vs 15 would be best, but I would settle for 10 vs 10. 7 vs 7 is quite simply too limited. There is also no good reason for it to be that limited. The next stages of the campaign cannot be disregarded, so whereas there is an argument to be made for entry level CW on the regular map where people will never have to bother with either T8 or T10, they will have to do so in the campaign.

mab90 #10 Posted 02 December 2015 - 06:25 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 21235 battles
  • 46
  • Member since:
    11-30-2010

View Postroastedlemon, on 26 November 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

If i wanted to play tier 6 7v7 i would play SH, its fine in regular CW for people who want to play it, but for campaigns? A big no no. Campaigns are meant to be where the best clans battle it out for the best prizes, where activity and skill are rewarded. Not so that smaller clans can come and have fun, do that in SH or on the regular map.

 

Explain to me why 15 vs 15 is so much more skill intesive than 7v7. Less people results in every player being more important. Therefore mistakes are punished harder. Which should be to the advantage of the best clans, as their players make less mistakes. In 15 vs 15 it is easier to recover from a lost tank. Skill is still rewarded that way. Except having to plan way more battles, activity is still rewarded as you can play more battles at the same time.

 

I voted for all three options, i don't mind any of the formats. What I do like is changing the standard (7v7 on t6, 10 v10 on t8) sometimes in campaigns to make the battles a little different from usual clanwars and stronghold.


Edited by mab90, 02 December 2015 - 06:28 PM.


arturo112 #11 Posted 03 December 2015 - 12:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9034 battles
  • 578
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postmab90, on 02 December 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

 

Explain to me why 15 vs 15 is so much more skill intesive than 7v7. Less people results in every player being more important. Therefore mistakes are punished harder. Which should be to the advantage of the best clans, as their players make less mistakes. In 15 vs 15 it is easier to recover from a lost tank. Skill is still rewarded that way. Except having to plan way more battles, activity is still rewarded as you can play more battles at the same time.

 

I voted for all three options, i don't mind any of the formats. What I do like is changing the standard (7v7 on t6, 10 v10 on t8) sometimes in campaigns to make the battles a little different from usual clanwars and stronghold.

 

7v7 means that you can't do anything other than stick together as a group of 7 due to 7v6 being a significant overmatch compared to 15v14 or similar. This means you can't take map control, have scouts separated from your main force, etc. (this is just in general, but obviously it can be done on some maps).

mab90 #12 Posted 03 December 2015 - 11:44 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 21235 battles
  • 46
  • Member since:
    11-30-2010

View Postarturo112, on 03 December 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

 

7v7 means that you can't do anything other than stick together as a group of 7 due to 7v6 being a significant overmatch compared to 15v14 or similar. This means you can't take map control, have scouts separated from your main force, etc. (this is just in general, but obviously it can be done on some maps).

 

On some maps that is certainly true. How much skill can get involved is quite map dependant. However, because teams are generally more clustered it also opens up other opportunities. Scouting a few tanks usually gives you a straight indication where the whole enemy team is, allowing you to take map control over the parts that matter. As the tanks are more grouped together it also makes capping strategies more viable, which is less often an option with 10vs10 or 15vs15.

 

Would it be better if more specific maps were used during the t6 stage? (i.e.: mines, sand river, steppes, prohkorovka, himmelsdorf. No: el halluf, highway)

 



Phantatron #13 Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:42 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 52629 battles
  • 25
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-01-2012

There is just way too much RNG factor in this tier 6 7vs7 format. 2 of the most popular/competitive tanks, T37 and Cromwell both are really often ammoracked randomly which may result in instantly losing a match if both teams have somewhat similar lineup and meet each other on 1 area. This situation happens like 90% of the time on some maps when 2 good clans meet each other and battle is over in 2-3min. Just push 7 fast tanks directly to the map's main control area and shoot it out. Team with better focusfire or RNG wins. Boring as hell.

 

Arty is not an option due to the lack of tanks and no time for it to work if enemy has a fast setup. Only when the enemyteam is expected to camp with heavies in some retarded turtle defence this can be used. But ofc you don't know this for sure in advance and attacking a O-I/kv-2 camp on ruinberg south base is just suicide with a light setup. Thing is those heavies are totally limited to that camp, they simply can't move out without getting wasted. So you get matches where you control 95% of the map for 15min and get a draw. With more tanks in the lineup you could at least get some variety, you could make use of more that one class of tank. As it is now we have had games with a light tank setup where enemy team did 0 damage in total and we killed them all because they used a lot of heavies and tried to move. Is that fun for anyone?

 

Oneshots. Really if 1 out of your 7 tanks gets oneshotted early by some lucky O-I snapshot, that's ~14% of your team gone. 1 lucky shot turns the entire game around too often.

 

I agree that 15vs15 doesn't maybe suit this tier 6 too well but make it 10vs10 at least. If some entry level clan can't find 10 players for a match, they shouldn't be playing CW. There is 100 slots that you can fill and you really don't need more than 2 teams to actively participate in CW if you just set some realistic goals. Hell in my old clan we used to play tier 10 CW with ~20 guys online for the most part.



uti8 #14 Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Clan Commander
  • 25898 battles
  • 1,799
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

Stronghold is good the way it is because often its just for fun or during breakes or whatever. Since stronghold has to some degree replaced team battles you need a format for smaller groups of players too. Thats all fine and gives even the smalles clans some area for team play.

 

Clanwars however, should be about tactics and more demanding regarding teamwork. Therefore it would be much more enjoyable with 15 people. Though, I have to admit that in my first clan with 45 people we could barely field the 15 people necessary.

 

The real question would be if you want to include as many unexperienced or small clans as possible or if you want give clanwars the elite status it somehow had. No matter what, at the minimum the campaign should always require 15 players per team no matter the tier!



cikatasa #15 Posted 04 January 2016 - 12:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42527 battles
  • 12
  • [_SRB_] _SRB_
  • Member since:
    11-27-2011
i think to you scare and for shure
I think you crapin your pants ,because we 
small clans 
taking territory larger clans,
and of course that this will bother you because the smaller clans can be organized and how i see we can fight aganst you any time and take your 
 
territories 7 vs 7 is REAL FIGHT

Edited by cikatasa, 04 January 2016 - 12:55 PM.


Carantanien #16 Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:14 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16839 battles
  • 1,521
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

With so big CW map as it is now, it could be posibble to make 3 areas in T6 zone: 7vs7, 10vs10, 15vs15.

So low skilled players could get some 10vs10 and 15vs15 experience before moving to tier8 or 10.

 

 



Nekrodamus #17 Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:26 PM

    Captain

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

While I agree with "low income but low cost too"-CW for training and first steps, CW is about top league team play and allways should be done with teams of 15.

 

CW and SH are different in a lot of aspects so I don't see any need to unify the team sizes.

 

And clans to small or not active enough to guarantee 15 players every day should avoid CW in general (and stay with SH) since they will run into the penalties for sure.


Edited by Nekrodamus, 12 January 2016 - 02:27 PM.


SaWse #18 Posted 01 May 2016 - 03:57 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19643 battles
  • 184
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    10-29-2012
Even 10v10 leaves little room for niche tanks, in 15v15 bringing an arti to mountain pass is an easy decision. But if you get 6 t37s vs 7 its pretty clear what'll happen in 14v15 it's a totally different story.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users