Jump to content


2nd document to WG regarding Clan Wars


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Poll: Limiting factors in CW (41 members have cast votes)

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

How should WG approach the limit matter?

  1. WG should choose between what we asked in our first document and what we currently have in season 6 (37 votes [90.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.24%

  2. WG should experiment with new limiting features (4 votes [9.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.76%

If you voted for the 1st answer, then which of the two options do you prefer?

  1. Remove penalty system, remove income limit, add division limit (28 votes [68.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.29%

  2. Keep things as they are now (season 6) (8 votes [19.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.51%

  3. - (5 votes [12.20%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.20%

Vote Hide poll

FireflyDivision #1 Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:56 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Ladies, Gentlemen and Apache attack helicopters, 

 

Hopefully you've been enjoying CW season 6. Personally, I've had alot of fun. In my opinion, it has been a great improvement compared to the previous few seasons. I understand that some people could feel nostalgic about CW 1.0 (2012), however those times are unfortunately gone for good and we therefore have to work on making CW better in a "different" way. I think CW season 6 was a very big and important step towards it. The core idea of fighting for provinces and establishing yourself on the global map has returned, diplomacy has returned, and the amount of interesting conflicts on the global map has increased. Of course, one notable exception is that a couple of top clans (FAME, CSA, GO-IN) have been holding a corner together without fighting each other. However, I believe that time will partially solve this issue. Now that CW is heading to the right direction, more and more clans are putting in effort to seriously improve themselves. That means that in the future, more clans will probably try to attack the region with the highest profitability. 

 

Personally, I think that season 7 should be the same as season 6. In order to get more competition, we need consistency. If the map layout remains the same, clans can practice and plan beforehand. Moreover, clans will not put huge effort into improving if they have to live with the fear that CW may take a different, less desirable turn in one of the future seasons. In the last few years, CW was greatly damaged by WG's wild changes. Time is required to heal CW. If you remember... CW in the first few years was pretty much the same all the time. That consistency is what led to great competition. That consistency is what led to the creation of multiple top clans which fought each other for top reputation. That consistency is what made it worth building a new clan during an extended period of time. 

 

The previous document we sent to WG had a pretty successful effect. Therefore, to make the points above clear, I would like to create a 2nd document. That would again require 200-300 clans to sign it. 

Like I said, in the document, I will explain why season 7 should be similar to season 6. 

 

Now, I realise that WG didn't implement a couple of the things we asked for in the previous document. This is exactly what they said about it:

 

Block Quote

 What We Cannot Do Now

 

Primarily, we cannot abandon profitability limits and add restrictions on the number of Divisions. This requires additional development and we will only be able to get back to this issue in one of the future seasons.

 

We also need to give such changes a careful consideration. Currently the main issue is seen in the fact that even with limited number of Divisions, a strong clan could be able to hold a lot of provinces because no opponents would dare to attack such clan.

 

We should also mention penalties for missed battles, which will also remain effective in the current season. First of all, given removal of tasks that earn Victory Points, their negative consequences will diminish significantly, because the only penalty that will remain is increased Division cost. However, Divisions are obtained for Influence, and everyone has it in abundance (Influence will require a separate consideration whether to remove it entirely or change it somehow).

 

Besides, as we see it, the best way-out would be to combine the mechanics of  limiting profitability or Divisions with penalties. For example, if you do not defend your provinces, you have fewer Divisions available or decreased profitability. But this requires extensive elaboration and cannot be implemented for the upcoming season.

 

I don't find their elaboration convincing. First of all, not daring to attack a top clan is a clan's choice. It doesn't matter what kind of rules CWs have. They can try making fancy changes such as "if you do not defend your provinces, you have fewer Divisions available or decreased profitability.", however, that will change nothing. Because for that to have any effect, clans would still have to attack a top clan, and that's what the issue is about... Therefore, it will not fix what it's supposed to fix and it will probably make things worse for everyone. I don't think that we should be experimenting with new weird features at this point, because that is exactly how CW was ruined over the years.

 

I also do not understand why WG thinks that top clans can still dominate the whole map even when there is a division limit. Imagine a scenario when there is a limit of 7 divisions and FAME holds 15 provinces. FAME will never be able to defend all their provinces. It'll be physically impossible. Furthermore, if they left some of the provinces in the center of their group of provinces empty, clans will land inside FAME territory by using RIOTS, which will cause FAME to be overloaded with even more battles.

 

I think there are only two ways to do this:

 

Either they do what we asked them to do in our first document (remove penalty system, remove the max 10 provinces give income limit, add a division limit of 7)  or keep everything like it is in season 6. 

We shouldn't be experimenting with other stuff. 

 

Before I start with writing the 2nd document (which will need to be signed by many clans), I would like to know a couple of things from you:

 

- Do you agree with that season 7 should be similar to season 6?

- What do you think about what I wrote in the last part of this post? (the part about deciding about limits). I added a poll about this. 

 

Of course, If you've got anything else to say about CW, you're welcome to do so :)

 

 

 

 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 19 September 2017 - 05:58 PM.


Unkel_Dolan #2 Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25643 battles
  • 2,693
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010
what about different tank lock? a clan attacking a province would get shorter tank lock than the defending clan

FireflyDivision #3 Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:53 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postbraintuma, on 19 September 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

what about different tank lock? a clan attacking a province would get shorter tank lock than the defending clan

 

Old system was like that. However, if you lost your tank on a defense, your tank would be locked for a full week. Now it's 3 days regardless. Making it 3 days for def and 1 day for attack would make no sense. Either they'll need to go back to the old system or keep the current one. I prefer the current system tbh. 1 week is too long. 

FireflyDivision #4 Posted 19 September 2017 - 08:05 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Someone voted for this

 

WG should experiment with new limiting features

 

and 

 

Remove penalty system, remove income limit, add division limit 

 

People, please read before voting :P

 



Silas001 #5 Posted 20 September 2017 - 12:59 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47400 battles
  • 1,717
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

I like this and we should do it for every season/campaign.

The current season is definetely an improvement and we should start from this season and propose our changes based on the current state.

 

The last time you did a great job with creating the document and gathering the support of the community, but it was kinda in a rush and didnt really provide the possibility to influence anything in it. Now we have a lot more time and should do a proper job gathering the feedback of the community and forging the best document we can come up with.

 

I personally have some issues(mostly one though) that I would like to raise/discuss. Ill do that tomorrow(today?), though.



FireflyDivision #6 Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:28 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostSilas001, on 20 September 2017 - 12:59 AM, said:

I like this and we should do it for every season/campaign.

The current season is definetely an improvement and we should start from this season and propose our changes based on the current state.

 

The last time you did a great job with creating the document and gathering the support of the community, but it was kinda in a rush and didnt really provide the possibility to influence anything in it. Now we have a lot more time and should do a proper job gathering the feedback of the community and forging the best document we can come up with.

 

I personally have some issues(mostly one though) that I would like to raise/discuss. Ill do that tomorrow(today?), though.

 

Well, the "CW's demise and how to fix it" thread had been there for a while. However, this is still exactly why I created this thread. I like to take an "open" approach, let people know exactly what I'm doing and give them the chance to speak their mind. It makes it easier to gather support from clans and it also seems to give WG more confidence with implementing things we requested, because they know that we made a concrete list of changes and discussed with all the clans on the forums. 



__H3H3__ #7 Posted 20 September 2017 - 09:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30372 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

I still think that maps like Ruinberg and Mountain pass are broken for both CW and advances. I hate camps. In my clan not everyone has a Maus (3 out of the 15 people most of the time). Well good luck getting that Ruinberg province from that crapclan that you can beat on any other map except for the campy ones.

 

When you watch FAME playing against other top clan they never camp.:)

 

But yeah it's super easy just remove these totally failed camp maps for CW and advance and it is fixed.

 

CSA 3 has their Mountain Pass province for 12 days now, I wonder. Do they have a good FC with OP tactics. Or just a shitty camp?  hmmm

 


Edited by another_Ghost_Shell, 20 September 2017 - 09:33 AM.


_Crusad3r_ #8 Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29124 battles
  • 1,582
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Postanother_Ghost_Shell, on 20 September 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

I still think that maps like Ruinberg and Mountain pass are broken for both CW and advances. I hate camps. In my clan not everyone has a Maus (3 out of the 15 people most of the time). Well good luck getting that Ruinberg province from that crapclan that you can beat on any other map except for the campy ones.

 

When you watch FAME playing against other top clan they never camp.:)

 

But yeah it's super easy just remove these totally failed camp maps for CW and advance and it is fixed.

 

CSA 3 has their Mountain Pass province for 12 days now, I wonder. Do they have a good FC with OP tactics. Or just a shitty camp?  hmmm

 

 

Clans don't always just camp on Ruinberg/Himmelsdorf/Mtn. Pass - we fought HOOT yesterday on Malinovka and they camped - we had mediums behind their buildings beside their cap in the first 90 secs and they only had a few meds and then heavies on the hill which they didn't even push except late game with BC's when they tried to reset the cap (they had no arty to reset). All maps can be camped. It comes down to how you try to break it that either wins or loses your game. Any tactic can be broken. It just comes down to how good your tactic is in comparison to the enemies and how you react. If everyone wanted maps removed there would be no CW. Either adapt and create new tactics or use existing ones or attack provinces with maps you are comfortable on :) 

 

Then there are also clans who only play certain maps - iirc PARSA only plays Ruinberg and Himmelsdorf at least from the last campaign anyway so maybe instead of trying to have a tactic for every map - focus on a couple maps and have multiple tactics :)



FireflyDivision #9 Posted 20 September 2017 - 12:54 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
As much as I hate campaing, it's still a legitimate tactic and we cannot ask WG to remove campy maps because we don't like spending time on breaking camps. Before we know it, other clans will start asking for the removal of open maps for some weird reason. In my opinion, this is more about tank & map balance than the global map. 

Edited by FireflyDivision, 20 September 2017 - 12:55 PM.


__H3H3__ #10 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30372 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 20 September 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

As much as I hate campaing, it's still a legitimate tactic and we cannot ask WG to remove campy maps because we don't like spending time on breaking camps. Before we know it, other clans will start asking for the removal of open maps for some weird reason. In my opinion, this is more about tank & map balance than the global map. 

 

Camping with 15 tanks (only Mauses) in one corner of the map. Move 2 meters on Mountain pass and most of the tanks are in their camp position. No FC needed so not really a legitimate tactic. There is also almost no skill needed to make a good camp if you have the tanks for it.

By the way they also removed all the climes on Mountain pass so that means campers get a buff as well:( . It's  extremely broken and not fun for any one, but WG won't do anything about it so I will stop crying already. :facepalm:Just annoys the crap out of me don't know if I am the only one.



__H3H3__ #11 Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30372 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 20 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

 

Clans don't always just camp on Ruinberg/Himmelsdorf/Mtn. Pass - we fought HOOT yesterday on Malinovka and they camped - we had mediums behind their buildings beside their cap in the first 90 secs and they only had a few meds and then heavies on the hill which they didn't even push except late game with BC's when they tried to reset the cap (they had no arty to reset). All maps can be camped. It comes down to how you try to break it that either wins or loses your game. Any tactic can be broken. It just comes down to how good your tactic is in comparison to the enemies and how you react. If everyone wanted maps removed there would be no CW. Either adapt and create new tactics or use existing ones or attack provinces with maps you are comfortable on :) 

 

Then there are also clans who only play certain maps - iirc PARSA only plays Ruinberg and Himmelsdorf at least from the last campaign anyway so maybe instead of trying to have a tactic for every map - focus on a couple maps and have multiple tactics :)

 

It is impossible to break a camp against 15 mauses if you're team only has 3 Mauses. And sometimes you can't choose the map for example: you are fighting a clan who has a few provinces. You win everything until they have one province left  ( Ruinberg). Because they keep winning on this camp map you can't get them of the global map. Wich means they start to attack you back and give us tank locks. But yes if you have the tanks for it all camps are breakable. Like I said we don't have the tanks. 

FireflyDivision #12 Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:02 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postanother_Ghost_Shell, on 20 September 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

 

Camping with 15 tanks (only Mauses) in one corner of the map. Move 2 meters on Mountain pass and most of the tanks are in their camp position. No FC needed so not really a legitimate tactic. There is also almost no skill needed to make a good camp if you have the tanks for it.

By the way they also removed all the climes on Mountain pass so that means campers get a buff as well:( . It's  extremely broken and not fun for any one, but WG won't do anything about it so I will stop crying already. :facepalm:Just annoys the crap out of me don't know if I am the only one.

 

You're right, actually. Some maps don't require any balancing in randoms because 15 tank mountain pass camps isn't something you see in randoms. So additional balancing just for CW's sake is perhaps necessary. However, one key question is: when can we consider a particular camp OP? There is a vague line between OP and hard-to-break.

Griva #13 Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 32286 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

@Firefly, you gave us only 2 options :E

As long as everyone see only these they are going to vote for "remove" but if you create another option it can be way better and who knows everyone going to vote for it.

 

It really depends how you consider all changes - look at the facts:

When season 6 end we get big event on global map which ends in last days of this year.

As always we could get 2 weeks break but they said they are not going to do long frozens so will see what they do.

My point - WG has more than 3 months from now to create something on global map anyway.

 

In my opinion there are 2 problems causing stagnation:

 

The first one is lack of people. It is simple as **** that avarage clan has 1-2 max lineups on tier X. I bet you can count on one hand clans with 3 teams.

Because of this it's just not possible to fight on global map even if you want because you need always at least one team to defend your province and one to atack.

Of course there are some delays but it's "random" and problem still exists because you want to atack more than 1 province and maybe defend more than one.

 

We wanted to see encounter battles and I am still up for this and also 3 months should be enough to create it.

Someone mentioned that we could remove final battles in encounters - I mean if you atack province A from province B and B atacks your A at the same time, there is encounter battles and winning clan take the province

(in case of your win you take A)

This can be a little bad solution but it just shows that we can create some alternative solution.

 

Second one is about two things. Clan wars died so much during last year that political wise there are no competition and very bad balance in power of clans. I am completely ok with the fact that strong clans want and earn a lot of gold but I want them to fight for it. I think that desire is too small to move. What if we change map like this, based on this:

Spoiler

 

do the same but split it for 4 or even 5 regions, make the last region even more profitable but smaller - can this force top clans to fight for it? Maybe we should ask these clans directly?

 

Other idea

 

Maybe there should be gold bonus for winning against stronger clan? Or task to beat stronger clan? We want to make it worth, to attack stronger clans so why we don't make something like this?

Examples

  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1150 - after win we get no bonus
  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1250 - clan get bonus 200 gold for  win
  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1400 - clan get bonus 600 gold for win

It can be done that point difference has also weight so difference between 1200 and 1250 gives 100 gold but for clans 1400 and 1450 it can be 300.

 


Anyway can you put your all ideas for penalty system? I bet there is like 10 other options and problably 2 of them are better than just removing it.



__H3H3__ #14 Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30372 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 20 September 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

 

You're right, actually. Some maps don't require any balancing in randoms because 15 tank mountain pass camps isn't something you see in randoms. So additional balancing just for CW's sake is perhaps necessary. However, one key question is: when can we consider a particular camp OP? There is a vague line between OP and hard-to-break.

 

The maps where I have the most problems with are Mountain Pass and Ruinberg. Himmelsdorf is hard but is definitely not impossbible. I would say those 2 maps are the worst ones. 

For example CSA-3 has their Mountain Pass province for 12 days now. If you got to their clan log you can see that they win all their defenses and lose all their attacks. Says enough I think.



Griva #15 Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 32286 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

View PostFireflyDivision, on 20 September 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

 

You're right, actually. Some maps don't require any balancing in randoms because 15 tank mountain pass camps isn't something you see in randoms. So additional balancing just for CW's sake is perhaps necessary. However, one key question is: when can we consider a particular camp OP? There is a vague line between OP and hard-to-break.

 

The problem is that WG removing climbs used only to break camp during CW. If no one use it in randoms so what is the problem?

All camps are possible to break but the problem is you never know when it happens thats why this is so frustrating because you hear voice in your mind:

 

"what if they camp? take two arti! yeeees and lot of mauses wahahha, good choice! wahaha"

 

Mountain pass camp is a little OP because you need more preparation to break it and this can't be done in the battle in 5 mins.



FireflyDivision #16 Posted 20 September 2017 - 03:03 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Block Quote

 @Firefly, you gave us only 2 options :E

As long as everyone see only these they are going to vote for "remove" but if you create another option it can be way better and who knows everyone going to vote for it.

 

It's not about thinking of something new. It's about IF we should think of something new. Many people (me included) believe that we shouldn't be experimenting with totally new features anymore. It's what caused the downfall of CW and all eyes should be pointed at keeping it simple and consistent. If the option of thinking of something totally new wins, then we'll start thinking of new options. However, there is no need to even think about it if people don't want something new. 

 

Block Quote

 It really depends how you consider all changes - look at the facts:

When season 6 end we get big event on global map which ends in last days of this year.

As always we could get 2 weeks break but they said they are not going to do long frozens so will see what they do.

My point - WG has more than 3 months from now to create something on global map anyway.

 

I think they are currently spending time on designing the campaign. Anyway, it doesn't matter how long you think about a new feature, you cannot predict it's real outcome without actually seeing it in action. And taking such a risk is too dangerous. After all the damage that has been done to CW, it finally started healing. This is our only chance. Don't wanna turn back now. 

 

Block Quote

 

In my opinion there are 2 problems causing stagnation:

 

The first one is lack of people. It is simple as **** that avarage clan has 1-2 max lineups on tier X. I bet you can count on one hand clans with 3 teams.

Because of this it's just not possible to fight on global map even if you want because you need always at least one team to defend your province and one to atack.

Of course there are some delays but it's "random" and problem still exists because you want to atack more than 1 province and maybe defend more than one.

 

There are also quite some clans with 2 teams, actually. The situation for clans with 1 team isnt too bad either, with half of the provinces being delayed and the existance of timezone borders. You see, in the last months (or even year), having high activity wasn't necessary because all you had to do was play advances (last months) and spam landings (last year). Clans have just started with trying to improve their activity. It's gonna need some time. Consistency, like I explain in the main post, is an important factor as well. 

 

Block Quote

 We wanted to see encounter battles and I am still up for this and also 3 months should be enough to create it.

Someone mentioned that we could remove final battles in encounters - I mean if you atack province A from province B and B atacks your A at the same time, there is encounter battles and winning clan take the province

(in case of your win you take A)

This can be a little bad solution but it just shows that we can create some alternative solution.

 

Your solution isn't thought out well, which again shows the dangers of implementing features in a way that we haven't had before. You might not be the only clan having an encounter battle for the province. As for re-introducing encounter battles like they existed before: that's an option. Perhaps we should put that to a vote. But again: we shouldn't change its mechanics. 

 

Block Quote

 

Second one is about two things. Clan wars died so much during last year that political wise there are no competition and very bad balance in power of clans. I am completely ok with the fact that strong clans want and earn a lot of gold but I want them to fight for it. I think that desire is too small to move. What if we change map like this, based on this:

Spoiler 
 

 

do the same but split it for 4 or even 5 regions, make the last region even more profitable but smaller - can this force top clans to fight for it? Maybe we should ask these clans directly?

 

We shouldn't change the map. We should keep it the same all the time and just allow clans to change their politics/plans depending on it. Believe me, you're going to see clans challenging the top clans in the future. If you make the middle and lower regions bigger, it gives non-top clans even less reason to develop themselves to be a top clan. The "establishment" will never be broken. 

 

Block Quote

 Other idea

 

Maybe there should be gold bonus for winning against stronger clan? Or task to beat stronger clan? We want to make it worth, to attack stronger clans so why we don't make something like this?

Examples

  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1150 - after win we get no bonus
  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1250 - clan get bonus 200 gold for  win
  • clan has 1200 elo and enemy has 1400 - clan get bonus 600 gold for win

It can be done that point difference has also weight so difference between 1200 and 1250 gives 100 gold but for clans 1400 and 1450 it can be 300.

 

Attacking a top clan is a matter of choice. You won't convince a clan which is not ready to attack a top clan yet to attack it just for some missions. Keep current system. Beating a top clan and taking & ransacking its 4.8k gold province is reward enough. 

 

Block Quote

 Anyway can you put your all ideas for penalty system? I bet there is like 10 other options and problably 2 of them are better than just removing it.

 

Like I said... current vote isn't about that. It's about deciding whether we should pick one of the options we're (kinda) used to, or take a big massive risk and try to develop something new. If the latter seems to be the preference, then we'll go deeper into this subject. 

 



cro001 #17 Posted 20 September 2017 - 05:44 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28807 battles
  • 1,888
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012
It's worth mentioning that on RU server CONTRAS have over 90% map control still.

FireflyDivision #18 Posted 20 September 2017 - 06:17 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postcro001, on 20 September 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

It's worth mentioning that on RU server CONTRAS have over 90% map control still.

 

Yep. There are appearently still quite some changes they want implemented. I think the difference is that RU made a list of what CW generally should be about. On EU, we created a concrete list of CW settings & rules, as well as a concrete plan on how the global map layout should be. Everything was public. I guess it could be part of the reason why WG confidently implemented most of the changes that we requested in our document. 



Silas001 #19 Posted 21 September 2017 - 12:42 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47400 battles
  • 1,717
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostFireflyDivision, on 20 September 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

As much as I hate campaing, it's still a legitimate tactic and we cannot ask WG to remove campy maps because we don't like spending time on breaking camps. Before we know it, other clans will start asking for the removal of open maps for some weird reason. In my opinion, this is more about tank & map balance than the global map. 

 

You are right BUT the issue here is just bad map-design.

Generally camping means you have to give something up in return (mostly map-control etc.) so the Cap-Circle gives you an alternative way to win the game if the enemy decides to camp it out. So you either win by cap or force the enemy to take action to stop the cap. But on some maps that is impossible because some genius at WG put the Cap-Circle in the base with very limited access and easy to defend corridors which means ... you basically eliminate that alternative way of winning the game and are just left with breaking up an easily defendable corridor where the defender is always at an advantage.

 

btw. Thats why I wouldnt put Himmelsdorf in the same category as Ruinberg and Mountain Pass, because Himmelsdorf is a great example of a somewhat well-balanced city-map where Heavys are superior and camping is still a viable tactic but you can access and attack the base from multiple sides and break a camp (especially the southern base). So even if you camp hard and a draw is enough you spread your tanks thin to cover the whole base or give something up to keep them together - you cannot have it all.

 

Anyway, even though the current season is a great improvement, I do have some issues, that I would like to get fixed.

Positioning of Landings:

In the first document there was the request to move all Landings to the borders of the map and only have revolts in the center but that creates some ridicoulus problems and btw. was not at all the case with the old WDM. Just based on the natural structuring of world the map had A LOT enclaves providing a lot more "border" areas with landings basically in the middle of the map since you still could cross the seas around the landings.

In the mediterranean the landings even blocked most passages between Africa and Europe creating a barrier between low- and high-income regions (which I didnt consider a good part of the old WDM).

 

So I am sure this request lead to a lot of headaches at WGEU and I dont think they themselfs were happy with the result either but thats what we got:

 

These 2 pictures and the problems should be self-explanatory:

 

So in old CW there is almost no landing that borders another landing and every landing has multiple choices to attack, while now the opposite is the case. Now every landing has neighboring territories with landings really limiting the choices to move forward and often even have to share those very limited options with neighboring landings.

 

So how can we solve this in CW2.0 where the same area covers a lot more provinces, than in old CW(and thus more provinces from coast to coast)? I would really look forward to your ideas (Or do you even see this as a negative thing considering that from time to time there are still revolts in the center?)

My suggestion:

- Dont make the the area as "round" as possible but - like in CW1 - have a lots of inlets (?) to increase the natural borders area. In the Tier8-region we already have that a little bit. So in order to not have a weird spiral-shaped map in the middle of russia move the map to coastal regions with lots of islands, peninsulas and bays and have enough crossings connecting the coastal areas over the sea.

- In general I would increase the size of low-income-areas compared to high-income areas and have a much wider (in this case) eastern border(ie. adding baltic states and Bulgaria/Greece) and thus allowing more landings without getting too overcrowded - adjust time-zones of course.

 

Even without taking the landings into account in old times the poorest region (Africa) was at least as big as all of High and Medium Income(Europe) put together and still was the most crowded region which makes total sense. The are always a lot more "middle-class" clans fighting for the lower rewards.

 

Bring back Encounter battles

In old CW there was something called encounter battles. If 2 clans attacked each other they would have an encounter battle(one of the 2 maps chosen randomly) 30 min before prime time and only the winner would keep the stack and move on to attack in normal prime-time.

In general you want to encourage clans to not just sit and farm but to fight for their gold without overcomplicating it at making up some arbitrary, weird and often counterproductive rules, like the income-limit at 10 provinces.

This was exactly that. It is a very simple, intuitive mechanic and I dont see any real downside.

On the other hand: Encounter battles made it a little bit easier to go on the attack and you had to be a little bit less scared to have to field one team too much at prime time. Additionally if you were confident enough(or if the province was mostly shielded by you/your allies) you could leave the province empty and not having to worry to lose the territory without a fight because the enemy first would have to win the encounter battle against you.

Long story short: There are so many situations where encounter battles would help smaller and bigger clans alike that want to fight but dont want to risk having to attack and defend at the same time.

 

Penalty System

Get rid of the penalty system for not attending a battle.

Get rid of the minimum amount of players needed to start the battle.

Get rid of the minimum Tier.

Because WHY?

This was introduced for campaigns where clans got rightfully frustrated with missing out on fame-points from technical victories or enemies showing up in low numbers. But there are much easier ways to fix this: Either compensate the clan who did show up or rather just dont make the fame points depending on XP in the first place, but just on the outcome of the battle(win/lose/draw, maybe K/D-ratio). That would easily fix other issues as well, like infamous rigging battles by maximizing XP.

 

In normal CW it is just is another incentive to NOT attack and risk to get penalties. Of course without penalties that could mean you would just spam attacks but with limited divisions+cooldown and encounter battles that negative effect would be miniscule and sometimes technical victories/defeats would just be a (rare) part of normal warfare and I prefer clans going on full-attack than going full defense farm mode and avoiding fights at all cost.

 

 

So I think I got it all for the moment but I probably still forgot something. Pls share your opinions on these points. :)


Edited by Silas001, 21 September 2017 - 01:07 AM.


FireflyDivision #20 Posted 21 September 2017 - 08:44 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23780 battles
  • 3,792
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Unless I see many people opposing it, a request for encounter battles will be added to the 2nd document.

 

As for the global map layout: I don't really see a big problem here. The landings are fine, it gives clans who wanna land enough choice of maps, and if to get into the map, clans of two landings have to move through the same province, it just increases competition. Besides... it gives a newly landed clan the chance to fight another newly landed clan first (in that "encounter" battle) before fighting the clan established on the global map.

Furthermore, as there are enough alternative landings, you can consider those few that require clans to move through the same province as "extra". You can also choose a different landing. But it also has another positive effect in many cases. In CW 1.0, an alliance could totally surround 1 landing zone with multiple clans, and the landed clan would have to face the alliance alone. Now. that there are e.g. 4 landings next to each other, 4 newly landed clans can cooperate on breaking the "siege" (which is also another plus for diplomacy that we wanted back). The current round shapedness of the map is good because of how the profitability and timezones can be positioned. If you remember, in CW 1.0, it was different. On the east side, a couple of clans which were able to have teams at a very early prime time, were able to dominate the area without much competition. Now, there is alot more motion in the earliest timezone.

 

As for penalties... that's what the poll is for :) 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 21 September 2017 - 08:54 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users