Jump to content


Your opinion of random 7v7. (Blitz mode)


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

slitth #1 Posted 09 November 2017 - 11:14 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11952 battles
  • 1,008
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

I have be playing some World of Tanks lately.

And I enjoy the small 7v7 fast paced battles it offers.

 

And I was wondering why WG do not bring this back to normal WoT.

As it offers a nice change of pace.

And it could also offer a artillery free game mode to people who would want that.

 

What do you think? and what would you expect of such a mode.



ThebaldEagle #2 Posted 09 November 2017 - 11:26 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 760 battles
  • 378
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Keep blits on blits platform.

ATM WoT have other things that needs fixing.

 



hasnainrakha57 #3 Posted 09 November 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13813 battles
  • 583
  • [WFTTE] WFTTE
  • Member since:
    08-01-2013

View Postslitth, on 09 November 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

I have be playing some World of Tanks lately.

And I enjoy the small 7v7 fast paced battles it offers.

 

And I was wondering why WG do not bring this back to normal WoT.

As it offers a nice change of pace.

And it could also offer a artillery free game mode to people who would want that.

 

What do you think? and what would you expect of such a mode.

Lol i remember once i was playing wot and there were almost 100 players in que and battle i was thrown in  7too9 players battle in each team it was so fun the whole map seemed to be empty and the way i killed enemy is7 with my ally in t49 was so fun when i was driving crap t69 and we won but if they add 7vs7 many players will become unicum.This will also ruin match making .And wg will need to make small maps.HOW WILL THEY DI THAT? WHEN THEY DOSENT EVEN CREATE NEW MAPS? :)


Edited by hasnainrakha57, 09 November 2017 - 11:28 AM.


japtank #4 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

A mode without arty?

 

Sign me in!

 

A mode which makes maps larger and allows for flanking maneuvers?

 

Sign me in twice!

 

Of course this would be good.

It could even be used to alleviate the burden on 3-5-7 MM when there are too many of a tier tanks queued.

 

I wouldn't dismiss this idea on a whim.



ogremage #5 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33429 battles
  • 1,414
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
It would be great

maroar #6 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29670 battles
  • 2,467
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

Well, the winrate of people would/could become far more varied from 50% than they are now, since every player will be a bigger percentage of the team.

Better players will win more, worse players will win less.

I see this mode becoming less populated over time. In other games you may have these less populated modes up and running, but those will be on 1/2/3 servers, you must remember that in those games there is no "tier system".

It seems this is the same reason why WG restricted the latest modes they introduced to certain tiers, it seems as though they would have to do the same for this mode as well then.



Jigabachi #7 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,002
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
I'd prefer if they would fix all the problems to make randoms fun again. I like matches with more players more.

ogremage #8 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33429 battles
  • 1,414
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
Make grand battles 15 vs 15 or 20 vs 20 with max 1 arty while you are at it

Edited by ogremage, 09 November 2017 - 12:40 PM.


OreH75 #9 Posted 09 November 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47894 battles
  • 2,137
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013
Could be fun on small maps like ensk, mines, himmelsdorf . I expect the matches would become less predictable because there are not enough tanks in each team to occupy all choke points.

ogremage #10 Posted 09 November 2017 - 01:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33429 battles
  • 1,414
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

Making the super small maps like Ensk, Mines, Himmelsdorf as 10 vs 10 seems like a very good idea with very little downside.

 

That's why WG will not do it.



Steeleye_Spam #11 Posted 09 November 2017 - 01:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28653 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    08-31-2014
I don't see any advantage in this. Some 15vs15 games are already over in 3 mins. Less players = less diversity = less interesting. As a counter then, I'd really like to see 30vs30 battles at lower tiers.

K_A #12 Posted 09 November 2017 - 01:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13641 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013
If you want to play 7v7 why not just play Blitz then? It works on a PC just fine..

japtank #13 Posted 09 November 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View Postmaroar, on 09 November 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Well, the winrate of people would/could become far more varied from 50% than they are now, since every player will be a bigger percentage of the team.

Better players will win more, worse players will win less.

 

We may be on to something here.

Two things though:

1° What's the relative weight of stats compared to fun?

2° Any decent PvP game features MMR.

 

Expanding on that, let's talk about stats.

Seriously, stats suck. Stats spoil the fun. We're talking about epic cavalry action here, not about spreadsheet boasting. Screw stats, hide them already, it should have been done years ago instead of adding yet another ridiculous e-peen tool like the hall of fame. If you're proud of your stats, show them, if you don't care or are fed-up being focused, hide them. End of story.

 

Now about MMR, there is a sensible way to implement it to the game, not like the amateurs at AW tried to do and which was doomed to fail from the get go. And not like ranked battles which was yet another design failure. I'm talking MMR here, the real thing, like in all worth their salt e-sports. MMR is a reality and works fine in all games I played featuring it. Do it WG. Now.



Balc0ra #14 Posted 09 November 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66235 battles
  • 16,231
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

7 vs 7 works on blitz due to their small maps sizes to name one. Even mines is half as small, but the same layout. That and their game is balanced for a 7 vs 7 with a +1 MM. Their tanks on low to mid tier have more armor, more HP, more alpha and pen on their guns, like the Matilda IV with 110 pen and 180 alpha. And less view range so you don't spot everything instantly. 

 

If they had a 7 vs 7 mode here. I suspect they need to be balanced differently for that mode to be fun and work on PC. So each round does not last 60 seconds each time. Nor do we have many maps that would work for it. I mean Mines would, Enks perhaps etc. So adding maps made specially for that would make it work better for PC to. Or you could simply take current maps, and push the red lines in to make it smaller. I'm sure many would use it if it was it's own game mode. Kinda like BF3/4's squad mode on smaller maps. No vehicles, just infantry on the normal maps with a smaller play area, and with half the players. Equally fun as the bigger conquest modes.

 



RamRaid90 #15 Posted 09 November 2017 - 03:56 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21398 battles
  • 6,457
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postjaptank, on 09 November 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

 

A mode which makes maps larger and allows for flanking maneuvers?

 

Doesnt make the maps bigger, less tanks onit but the map is still the same size.

 

To OP: If you want a platform like blitz, go and play blitz.



OreH75 #16 Posted 09 November 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47894 battles
  • 2,137
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013

View Postjaptank, on 09 November 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

We may be on to something here.

Two things though:

1° What's the relative weight of stats compared to fun?

2° Any decent PvP game features MMR.

 

Expanding on that, let's talk about stats.

Seriously, stats suck. Stats spoil the fun. We're talking about epic cavalry action here, not about spreadsheet boasting. Screw stats, hide them already, it should have been done years ago instead of adding yet another ridiculous e-peen tool like the hall of fame. If you're proud of your stats, show them, if you don't care or are fed-up being focused, hide them. End of story.

 

Now about MMR, there is a sensible way to implement it to the game, not like the amateurs at AW tried to do and which was doomed to fail from the get go. And not like ranked battles which was yet another design failure. I'm talking MMR here, the real thing, like in all worth their salt e-sports. MMR is a reality and works fine in all games I played featuring it. Do it WG. Now.

 

Please explain:

You say stats suck and and don't matter (tip: don't look at them)? And if they don't matter why do you want MMR then? Its probably based on some kind of stats, like in all other games you've played. So, make up your mind.

 

 



ExclamationMark #17 Posted 09 November 2017 - 04:36 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16775 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
I think it's an excellent idea. Something for the devs to do instead of balancing tanks and fixing the many, many bugs that already exist.

japtank #18 Posted 09 November 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostOreH75, on 09 November 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

 

Please explain:

You say stats suck and and don't matter (tip: don't look at them)? And if they don't matter why do you want MMR then? Its probably based on some kind of stats, like in all other games you've played. So, make up your mind.

 

 

 

MMR ensures you play with players your own level (roughly).

What people don't like is to have to deal with players making each and every single mistake possible or with players who outplay them so much they don't stand a single chance.

I thought it was obvious, but hey! glad to help!



OreH75 #19 Posted 09 November 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47894 battles
  • 2,137
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013

View Postjaptank, on 09 November 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

 

MMR ensures you play with players your own level (roughly).

What people don't like is to have to deal with players making each and every single mistake possible or with players who outplay them so much they don't stand a single chance.

I thought it was obvious, but hey! glad to help!

 

But how you determine a players level then if you dont want to look at stats? Even something simple as number of battles players is stat. 

japtank #20 Posted 09 November 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

May I kindly suggest you get yourself informed about MMR?

Usually, companies don't give the keys to their MMR formula, it's a hidden calculation to avoid manipulation. They use internal data and algorythms, and their system works fine, it does what it's meant to do: ensure a rather level playing field.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users