33 replies to this topic

[Karasu_Hidesuke]

OK, not sure if this really is the weirdest way to win a battle, but for me it counts as the weirdest. My team went from 15 to 0, I was the last on my team to go and we won the battle in Stalingrad. My team, as usual, went glory hunting and I was very late to the capping party with my broken down 110 (18 hps). I started to cap and...

 

The reason we won and they didn't was because I managed to complete the capping before I got destroyed. Bet the guy who destroyed my 110 didn't feel as happy about the kill as I did about winning the battle!

 

Edit:

And it did happen!

 

http://wotreplays.com/site/3804155#stalingrad-browarszky-110

 

Update:

 

CS confirmed that "... there is a small time frame of few seconds, when if you get killed, you will lose. But in this case those seconds have passed, so the capture was successful." So it's perfectly legit to win a match while losing the entire team but the timing needs to be pitch-perfect.

 

So don't try this at home, guys! 

Edited by Browarszky, 09 September 2017 - 09:23 PM.

[Dava_117]

Browarszky, on 04 September 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

OK, not sure if this really is the weirdest way to win a battle, but for me it counts as the weirdest. My team went from 15 to 0, I was the last on my team to go and we won the battle in Stalingrad. My team, as usual, went glory hunting and I was very late to the capping party with my broken down 110 (18 hps). I started to cap and...

 

The reason we won and they didn't was because I managed to complete the capping before I got destroyed. Bet the guy who destroyed my 110 didn't feel as happy about the kill as I did about winning the battle!

 

Don' know if it's the weirdest. Sure is the trollest! 

[qpranger]

The weirdest way to win a battle in WOT is to have two balanced teams fighting one another cleverly for over 10 minutes, with one team eventually coming out on top with a feeling that they fought worthy human opponents and those could have won instead.

Edited by qpranger, 04 September 2017 - 10:15 PM.

[LCpl_Jones]

oh that would be annoying for the enemy 

[WindSpIitter1]

Isn't a win by killing stronger than a win by cap? I seem to remember killing everyone in the last 2 seconds invalidates a friendly cap attempt, I'd assume it'd invalidate the enemies as well. 

[lafeel]

HeathLedger_, on 04 September 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Isn't a win by killing stronger than a win by cap? I seem to remember killing everyone in the last 2 seconds invalidates a friendly cap attempt, I'd assume it'd invalidate the enemies as well. 

 

Last I heard, yes it is. A wiped out team always trumps a capped base.

[WindSpIitter1]

lafeel, on 04 September 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

Last I heard, yes it is. A wiped out team always trumps a capped base.

 

I know in the past it was possible to have your mission screwed up because the win by cap condition got overruled by your team being too damn good at winning in every way possible.

[Karasu_Hidesuke]

HeathLedger_, on 04 September 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Isn't a win by killing stronger than a win by cap? I seem to remember killing everyone in the last 2 seconds invalidates a friendly cap attempt, I'd assume it'd invalidate the enemies as well. 

 

IIRC I got killed about 1 or no more than 2 seconds after I had capped.

[WindSpIitter1]

Browarszky, on 04 September 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

 

IIRC I got killed about 1 or no more than 2 seconds after I had capped.

 

Well, the screen quite clearly says you won, pyrhic victory or not. It's just that afaik when your team caps out and someone kills the last dude the kill-all victory applies over the cap victory and so I assumed it'd be the same if the enemy team caps. 

 

But then I might very well be wrong in that assumption. 

 

Anyway, worst I've seen is a churchill 3 getting a kolobanov's for capping out on airfield because nobody on the enemy team could reach him in time in those buildings. Or the one where I killed the last dude in the last 6s of the match. 

[brisha]

Nano second timing at play here, the win and the kill happened at the exact same split second so the cap counts. usually it takes about 4 seconds after the timer reaches 100 to secure the cap, you can get killed and lose when the timer reaches 100, in this case it all happened at the same time.

[PowJay]

A gem of wisdom here. The enemy will think that they should have won. Many others will think that the enemy should have won. Heck, even you might think that the enemy should have won, OP, but here's the thing...

 

The enemy didn't lose in the last second. They lost after several minutes of battle by failing to kill all of your team and complete the requirements for a win. If cap is confirmed then killing you made no difference. 

 

We've seen this before, from the losing side. The OP was not a happy bunny. 

[omglaserspewpew]

lafeel, on 04 September 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

Last I heard, yes it is. A wiped out team always trumps a capped base.

 

Exactly. It was always like that, in every WG game. The OP situation smells like a bug and it would be really cool if WG looked into it.

 

Try asking support, I'm curious.

Edited by omglaserspewpew, 05 September 2017 - 08:47 AM.

[jabster]

HeathLedger_, on 04 September 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

 

Well, the screen quite clearly says you won, pyrhic victory or not. It's just that afaik when your team caps out and someone kills the last dude the kill-all victory applies over the cap victory and so I assumed it'd be the same if the enemy team caps. 

 

But then I might very well be wrong in that assumption. 

 

Anyway, worst I've seen is a churchill 3 getting a kolobanov's for capping out on airfield because nobody on the enemy team could reach him in time in those buildings. Or the one where I killed the last dude in the last 6s of the match. 

 

I beleve there's a small window of time between the game being won and the game actually completing so yes it is possible to win a game but have no tanks left. 

[Kozzy]

jabster, on 05 September 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

 

I beleve there's a small window of time between the game being won and the game actually completing so yes it is possible to win a game but have no tanks left. 

 

One thing I find annoying.  Why not have it so that when the last tank on one team is destroyed that's it, game over.  Similarly, as soon as the cap counter hits 100%, game should end, everyone knows what's going on and no ambiguity anywhere.

[Steffin]

If your team gets killed after a successful cap you still loose.  Idle allies are destroyed automatically before the check if there are still survivors in your team.

 

[malachi6]

qpranger, on 04 September 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

The weirdest way to win a battle in WOT is to have two balanced teams fighting one another cleverly for over 10 minutes, with one team eventually coming out on top with a feeling that they fought worthy human opponents and those could have won instead.

 

 

A comment not founded in the mechanics of even real world battles.  One side wins occur not because of a lack of skill, but one team securing a gun advantage that can quickly roll up the flank giving a bigger gun advantage and so on.  Indeed, most historical generals actually use this as a tactic.  look at Alexander at Gaugamela or Frederick the Great, who employed the tactic multiple times.  look up refused flank / oblique order.

 

In WoT this is compounded by a lack of map awareness and an unwillingness to adopt to unfolding situations.

Edited by malachi6, 05 September 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[Karasu_Hidesuke]

omglaserspewpew, on 05 September 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

 

Exactly. It was always like that, in every WG game. The OP situation smells like a bug and it would be really cool if WG looked into it.

 

Try asking support, I'm curious.

 

I submitted a ticket but because they say outright they are not going to reply to tickets related to game mechanics there is roughly like a zero chance of getting an answer from them.

[Kozzy]

malachi6, on 05 September 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

 

 

A comment not founded in the mechanics of even real world battles.  One side wins occur not because of a lack of skill, but one team securing a gun advantage that can quickly roll up the flank giving a bigger gun advantage and so on.  Indeed, most historical generals actually use this as a tactic.  look at Alexander at Gaugamela or Frederick the Great, who employed the tactic multiple times.  look up refused flank / oblique order.

 

In WoT this is compounded by a lack of map awareness and an unwillingness to adopt to unfolding situations.

 

Don't forget some player's lack of willingness to participate in the win.  Some players want more better players on their team to help carry them to victory.  They want the MM to rig the games so they get more of the better players to help THEM increase THEIR WR lol.  It's crazy.  

[Aikl]

Turning a roflstomp into a grand display of digged-in defense and 'vision games' sure is a weird way of winning. It makes me feel weird, at least. Weird in a dirty way.

(Fisherman's Bay sure is weird when you can park two TDs in A1, a TD/LT in a bush at ~B7 (or something) and basically deny half the map to a numerically far superior enemy.)

[qpranger]

Kozzy, on 05 September 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Don't forget some player's lack of willingness to participate in the win. ...  It's crazy.  

 

Well, since we already established that I am not one of those players, I guess you refer to yourself in that circumvent way. And I agree that it does sound crazy when you belittle yourself like this.