Jump to content


Test the changes to the Stronghold mode!


  • Please log in to reply
405 replies to this topic

StinkyStonky #361 Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28291 battles
  • 2,142
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 01 February 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:

Dude I have been in the HAVOC community in the past - want to know what the problem is? You let ANYONE join.

That's true for the Havoc community.  The community does include Wot University after all.  But it's not true for H5.  I've just checked our recruit page and out of the past 8 applicants we accepted 1 and rejected 7.

 

They can say they will be active etc but they never play and you don't kick them till weeks or months later because you have inactive leadership or leadership who don't want to act.

That's not the community policy and H5 used to be very strict on it.  In the past 6 months we have relaxed this and inactive players now get marked as Reservist for a time before they are kicked.  Inactive players have no impact what so ever on active players.  It's absolutely nothing to do with "inactive leadership".  You just sound bitter (and a little childish)

 

H5 is supposed to be the CW clan of your community and fyi CW season starts in a week and guess what its 15v15 and also guess what you won't play T10 because you don't have the clan activity to do it.

I've taken part in every clan wars campaign/Global map opening since I joined H5 in November 2016.  I can assure you we will be active in the next, just as we were with Operation Gambit.

 

Look at H3. The ENTIRE clan is dead because of the hierarchy in your community

The reasons H3 left are complex and nothing to do with "the hierarchy".

 

- they were not even a CW clan and they still did better than H5 - guess where those players are now? In their own clan.

Yes, they left and set up Red Unicorns with Sir Havoc's blessing.  As for them doing better, that is a commonly claimed misconception that is easily debunked.

http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500022874/ - H5

Block Quote

 OPERATION GAMBIT

Rank 380
Fame Points 7238

 http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500155516/ - R-U formerly H3

Block Quote

 OPERATION GAMBIT

Rank 707
Fame Points 305

 If clan wars is about to restart and R-U take part, I wish them well.

90% of our active members won cammo (~50 members), 75% won bonds (~45).  We were in a place to win gold but slipped down 2 days from the end.

 

You don't have a problem with getting people to play because they don't want to play tier 10 - your problem is you let anyone in and don't take action when you need to. You lose players because you don't take action. 

This is just made up speculation.  Basically you don't know what you're talking about.  It may have been true, in 2015 when you were in Wot-Uni2 (novice players not wanting to play tier 10), but in the past 9 month H5 has had a big increase in the interest in Tier 10.

 

I also love how you contradict yourself: 

It's a struggle to get FCs with experience or willing to suffer the losses required to learn.

It's demoralising getting a WR of below 20%.

There is no contradiction here.  It is a struggle and it is demoralising.  I'm struggling to work out whether you are just bitter from your time in Wot-Uni2, a troll or just not very bright !

 

I.E. QUITTERS.

So,  arrogant as well as ignorant.

 

Yet you have had skill based MM in SH in the last 28 days yet you still complain about losing vs top clans when in reality you just need to get better....

This gives you the full set of being wrong on every single point you tried to make.  I have praised the skill based MM because we (now) very rarely meet high stat teams.  It's actually uncanny how close the teams are to ours in most games.

 



Pushing_The_Upper_Plate #362 Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:23 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29309 battles
  • 1,587
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostStinkyStonky, on 01 February 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

Dude I have been in the HAVOC community in the past - want to know what the problem is? You let ANYONE join.

That's true for the Havoc community.  The community does include Wot University after all.  But it's not true for H5.  I've just checked our recruit page and out of the past 8 applicants we accepted 1 and rejected 7.

 

 

They can say they will be active etc but they never play and you don't kick them till weeks or months later because you have inactive leadership or leadership who don't want to act.

That's not the community policy and H5 used to be very strict on it.  In the past 6 months we have relaxed this and inactive players now get marked as Reservist for a time before they are kicked.  Inactive players have no impact what so ever on active players.  It's absolutely nothing to do with "inactive leadership".  You just sound bitter (and a little childish)

Bitter? No - when I was in W-UN2 we had a good leadership team which got f*cked with because someone higher up decided Gaming_Bear should become commander even though things were fine - that's my point

 

H5 is supposed to be the CW clan of your community and fyi CW season starts in a week and guess what its 15v15 and also guess what you won't play T10 because you don't have the clan activity to do it.

I've taken part in every clan wars campaign/Global map opening since I joined H5 in November 2016.  I can assure you we will be active in the next, just as we were with Operation Gambit.

Active? You got 7k fame points....

Look at H3. The ENTIRE clan is dead because of the hierarchy in your community

The reasons H3 left are complex and nothing to do with "the hierarchy".

Kinda was considering they were the only people in that community I had respect for with the exception of a few others

- they were not even a CW clan and they still did better than H5 - guess where those players are now? In their own clan.

Yes, they left and set up Red Unicorns with Sir Havoc's blessing.  As for them doing better, that is a commonly claimed misconception that is easily debunked.

http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500022874/ - H5

Block Quote

 OPERATION GAMBIT

Rank 380
Fame Points 7238

 http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500155516/ - R-U formerly H3

Block Quote

 OPERATION GAMBIT

Rank 707
Fame Points 305

 If clan wars is about to restart and R-U take part, I wish them well.

90% of our active members won cammo (~50 members), 75% won bonds (~45).  We were in a place to win gold but slipped down 2 days from the end.

Tanks? Camo you got for "participating" nothing special there and if you didn't get bonds you either weren't active or were too bad and gold well not like you would have gotten much there tbh....

You don't have a problem with getting people to play because they don't want to play tier 10 - your problem is you let anyone in and don't take action when you need to. You lose players because you don't take action. 

This is just made up speculation.  Basically you don't know what you're talking about.  It may have been true, in 2015 when you were in Wot-Uni2 (novice players not wanting to play tier 10), but in the past 9 month H5 has had a big increase in the interest in Tier 10.

Back then H3 were the CW clan and H5 wasn't even a thing. 

I also love how you contradict yourself: 

It's a struggle to get FCs with experience or willing to suffer the losses required to learn.

It's demoralising getting a WR of below 20%.

There is no contradiction here.  It is a struggle and it is demoralising.  I'm struggling to work out whether you are just bitter from your time in Wot-Uni2, a troll or just not very bright !

You don't learn by not playing. So because you met a good team once in a while you still struggled to learn from it and instead got bitter and refused to play over it. Spitting out the dummy much?

I.E. QUITTERS.

So,  arrogant as well as ignorant.

Speak for yourself mate...you've got alot more of that in you than half this forum.....

Yet you have had skill based MM in SH in the last 28 days yet you still complain about losing vs top clans when in reality you just need to get better....

This gives you the full set of being wrong on every single point you tried to make.  I have praised the skill based MM because we (now) very rarely meet high stat teams.  It's actually uncanny how close the teams are to ours in most games.

Yet you still can't get a 45% w/r.....just admit it - you suck.

 



Serprotease #363 Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36702 battles
  • 1,399
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    12-05-2013

View PostStinkyStonky, on 01 February 2018 - 01:41 PM, said:

I can also see that since 15th November your clan made ~640,000 boxes and yet you only have 100k boxes left, so Serprotease's claim that

 

 

is complete crap.  Mind you that's also the post where he claimed he/you were disbanding your clan.

 

 

I can also see that you personally have 180 Million silver.  That just goes to show the extent to which your SH seal clubbing breaks the silver economy.

 

Hopefully WG will take a look at that too. 

 

My statement is still true, we had no need to grind boxes.

We earn more than we spend. Keep in mind that we are a sh focus clan.

A decent part of our player base play nothing but sh.

 

Also, what's wrong with having a lot of silver ?

How does that break the game economy ?

Your statement stink envy.

 

View PostStinkyStonky, on 01 February 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

No need for me to lie.  I use the official WG page 

 

http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500060049/

and

http://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/500060049/stronghold/ <-- this page gives all time totals but isn't loading for me ATM.

 

Block Quote

 

Skirmishes
Division Battles for 28 days
X 264 (79.92%)
VIII 512 (73.83%)
VI 888 (86.37%)
Advances
For 28 days 7 (42.86%)

 

Stats are hard to lie about.  It's too easy to look them up.

 

This is not stats. This is raw data, and you can made up any interpretation, any lie you want with that.

Just like your hypothesis about our poor advance activity.

You had two number but no background nor prior knowledge about N00T. Yet, you made up a false statement.

 

 


Edited by Serprotease, 01 February 2018 - 06:38 PM.


Pushing_The_Upper_Plate #364 Posted 01 February 2018 - 07:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29309 battles
  • 1,587
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostSerprotease, on 01 February 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

My statement is still true, we had no need to grind boxes.

We earn more than we spend. Keep in mind that we are a sh focus clan.

A decent part of our player base play nothing but sh.

 

Also, what's wrong with having a lot of silver ?

How does that break the game economy ?

Your statement stink envy.

 

 

This is not stats. This is raw data, and you can made up any interpretation, any lie you want with that.

Just like your hypothesis about our poor advance activity.

You had two number but no background nor prior knowledge about N00T. Yet, you made up a false statement.

 

 

 

Yeah but he has only been around for 2 years in this game so he doesn't know any of the history of the people or clans. HAMI, OM/OMNI(in the good ole days when OMNI was still a clan F to pay respects), OSC, EFE etc etc so you can hardly expect him to remember old N00T if he would even know of it in the first place....

voulezvous #365 Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:32 AM

    Community Team Lead WoT EU

  • WG Staff
  • 17616 battles
  • 359
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

Tankers!

As you know we have been testing different formats in Strongholds over the last couple of weeks and the data is conclusive. The change of tier X format to 10v10 has resulted in several times more battles fought than the 15v15 format was generating.

Based on those findings, we have decided to reduce the format to 10v10 again and keep unlimited legionnaiers.

Considering the launch of Global Map a couple of days ago which, no doubt, will make your clan mates fight for provinces, the lowered number of required players for Strongholds plus unlimited legionnaires should make it easier for you to form a squad and fight in this mode too.

Roll out!



maroar #366 Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:32 AM

    Captain

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

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

Tankers!

As you know we have been testing different formats in Strongholds over the last couple of weeks and the data is conclusive. The change of tier X format to 10v10 has resulted in several times more battles fought than the 15v15 format was generating.

Based on those findings, we have decided to reduce the format to 10v10 again and keep unlimited legionnaiers.

Considering the launch of Global Map a couple of days ago which, no doubt, will make your clan mates fight for provinces, the lowered number of required players for Strongholds plus unlimited legionnaires should make it easier for you to form a squad and fight in this mode too.

Roll out!

 

So, just to look at it mathematically, did it include more players as well?
Since if it is the same ammount of players and you divide them by 10 instead of the usual 15, you would get more teams playing at the same time, thus resulting in more battles.

Then you have to take into account the fact that often people will try out new things, which would lead to more players playing the mode, I think the modes that have died of now (nation vs nation, rampage and so on) also had much more players at the start.

Are these numbers just from the EU server, or do they include other servers?

So is this now another, longer, test period to see if it would keep the higher ammount of players/battles? Or is this a permanent change?

 

Next time, maybe it would be wise, as they do about findings in research fields, to actually publish your findings. A claim without evidence has (close to) no value.

 

 

On a totally different note: are you, wargaming, going to change the ESL format to 10v10 as well or are you planning to move from a 10v10 format in skirmishes to a 7v7 format later on?


Edited by maroar, 12 February 2018 - 11:36 AM.


BlablaPaige #367 Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:52 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Clan Commander
  • 20797 battles
  • 7,010
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

Tankers!

As you know we have been testing different formats in Strongholds over the last couple of weeks and the data is conclusive. The change of tier X format to 10v10 has resulted in several times more battles fought than the 15v15 format was generating.

Based on those findings, we have decided to reduce the format to 10v10 again and keep unlimited legionnaiers.

Considering the launch of Global Map a couple of days ago which, no doubt, will make your clan mates fight for provinces, the lowered number of required players for Strongholds plus unlimited legionnaires should make it easier for you to form a squad and fight in this mode too.

Roll out!

 

Thank you for killing our clan with your change to the sh (again). You are the worst dev ever

vcristi #368 Posted 12 February 2018 - 01:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 67071 battles
  • 461
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

Tankers!

As you know we have been testing different formats in Strongholds over the last couple of weeks and the data is conclusive. The change of tier X format to 10v10 has resulted in several times more battles fought than the 15v15 format was generating.

Based on those findings, we have decided to reduce the format to 10v10 again and keep unlimited legionnaiers.

Considering the launch of Global Map a couple of days ago which, no doubt, will make your clan mates fight for provinces, the lowered number of required players for Strongholds plus unlimited legionnaires should make it easier for you to form a squad and fight in this mode too.

Roll out!

 

So WG Paris choose again to ignore all the bad aspects that 10v10 brings, and implement it just because you say that there were 'more battles'.

What 'more battles' means? Show us the raw data, how do we know that you are not just lying ?

 

And you choose to implement this 10v10 nonsense despite that it:

1. Makes it no more possible to play for map control and spread your tanks all over the map. Now you just go lemming rush one side and fight like baboons. If i want to do that i can make it in tier 6 skirmishes and make some silver in the process, instead of losing it with tier 10...

2. Makes the use of specialized tank classes highly improbable. Now you can not use anymore arty, lights or TD's because there is no room to fit them in a team of 10.

3. Makes the 'arty strike' much more likely to decide the outcome of a game, because the HP pool is much smaller. If someone gets a lucky arty strike and kills 3 of your tanks and you miss it it is gg... Are you really want a single lucky click to decide a game? Look at what is happening in tier 8...

4. Makes the change from Skirmish to Advance harder. In the old 15v15 you just had to click one button and you were ready for Advance, no need to change the team at all. Now you either have to search for 5 more players or let 5 of them outside if you make a 15 team from 2X10 teams...

5. No one likes to play with many legionnaires. One-two of them is ok, but having a full team of legionnaires is worse than a team in a random game. There is no more strategy and no more coordination. If a clan can not get at least 10 people to play, then that clan should stick to randoms.

6. Now you can no longer use skirmishes as a training mode for CW battles and try new tactics in it. Because CW battles are 15v15 (as it should be) and not 10v10 like a tier 8 battle...

 

You choose to ignore all those bad things and implement the moronic 10v10 just because you claim that were 'more' battles.

 

P.S.:  Now go 'Roll out!' and try to do your job properly, see if you can do this 'announcement' properly on your webpage. Posting a reply in a topic no one cares about is no way to make a announcement about a major change to the game!


Edited by vcristi, 12 February 2018 - 01:59 PM.


Norstein_Bekker #369 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 19331 battles
  • 4,302
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013
*meanwhile at WG headquarters*

- Yay we got moar battles in tier X, 10v10 is a success !

- isn't it because we allowed clans to play with 9 mercs ?

- Meh, that's details.

voulezvous #370 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:54 PM

    Community Team Lead WoT EU

  • WG Staff
  • 17616 battles
  • 359
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

View Postmaroar, on 12 February 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

 

So, just to look at it mathematically, did it include more players as well?
Since if it is the same ammount of players and you divide them by 10 instead of the usual 15, you would get more teams playing at the same time, thus resulting in more battles.

Then you have to take into account the fact that often people will try out new things, which would lead to more players playing the mode, I think the modes that have died of now (nation vs nation, rampage and so on) also had much more players at the start.

Are these numbers just from the EU server, or do they include other servers?

So is this now another, longer, test period to see if it would keep the higher ammount of players/battles? Or is this a permanent change?

 

Next time, maybe it would be wise, as they do about findings in research fields, to actually publish your findings. A claim without evidence has (close to) no value.

 

 

On a totally different note: are you, wargaming, going to change the ESL format to 10v10 as well or are you planning to move from a 10v10 format in skirmishes to a 7v7 format later on?

Yes, we accounted for the reduction in team size and took the expected growth of number of battles as a baseline. The results we are talking about are multiples of this baseline and they are from the EU server.

If this is how you would prefer to look at this then sure, it can be looked at as a longer test period. You know very well that we rarely announce something being changed and say that we will never change it again.

We want you, the players, to play our game and if the data will suggest a change is necessary, we will react again. You want a 100% declaration and you know we usually do not give one.

 

As for the League, the announcement we have made a couple of weeks ago promises more information later this year. At this point I have no news to share.

 

 

View PostBlablaPaige, on 12 February 2018 - 11:52 AM, said:

 

Thank you for killing our clan with your change to the sh (again). You are the worst dev ever

I'm not a dev and I do not see how changing this one parameter is a clan-killing event for you.

 

View Postvcristi, on 12 February 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

 

So WG Paris choose again to ignore all the bad aspects that 10v10 brings, and implement it just because you say that there were 'more battles'.

What 'more battles' means? Show us the raw data, how do we know that you are not just lying ?

 

And you choose to implement this 10v10 nonsense despite that it:

1. Makes it no more possible to play for map control and spread your tanks all over the map. Now you just go lemming rush one side and fight like baboons. If i want to do that i can make it in tier 6 skirmishes and make some silver in the process, instead of losing it with tier 10...

2. Makes the use of specialized tank classes highly improbable. Now you can not use anymore arty, lights or TD's because there is no room to fit them in a team of 10.

3. Makes the 'arty strike' much more likely to decide the outcome of a game, because the HP pool is much smaller. If someone gets a lucky arty strike and kills 3 of your tanks and you miss it it is gg... Are you really want a single lucky click to decide a game? Look at what is happening in tier 8...

4. Makes the change from Skirmish to Advance harder. In the old 15v15 you just had to click one button and you were ready for Advance, no need to change the team at all. Now you either have to search for 5 more players or let 5 of them outside if you make a 15 team from 2X10 teams...

5. No one likes to play with many legionnaires. One-two of them is ok, but having a full team of legionnaires is worse than a team in a random game. There is no more strategy and no more coordination. If a clan can not get at least 10 people to play, then that clan should stick to randoms.

 

You choose to ignore all those bad things and implement the moronic 10v10 just because you claim that were 'more' battles.

 

P.S.:  Now go 'Roll out!' and try to do your job properly, see if you can do this 'announcement' properly on your webpage. Posting a reply in a topic no one cares about is no way to make a announcement about a major change to the game!

Overall I think you need to realise that there are two kinds of player feedback. One is direct and written in forum posts, support tickets, etc... the second is indirect - player behaviour in-game. That's the data we keep on referring to. I need you to realise that the potential problems you have raised in points 1-3 are relevant to you but currently our data tells us that you are in the minority. The overwhelming majority seem to favour this change and it is reflected in objectively verifiable information counted in thousands of sessions played. 

Try to get more players on board with your ideas, shift the sentiment of the majority and we will listen!

 

On a more personal note, I recommend dropping the passive agressive tone you employed in your post scriptum. It is not very conductive to a productive exchange of ideas and reflects badly on you.



BlablaPaige #371 Posted 12 February 2018 - 03:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Clan Commander
  • 20797 battles
  • 7,010
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

I'm not a dev and I do not see how changing this one parameter is a clan-killing event for you.

 

I know you aren't a dev, but a part of your job is to send our feedback, this is my feedback. 

 

Beacause our main reason of playing world of tank is the fun we have in group in sh, but tier 6 is unplayable since the t34-85m marathon, tier 8 is no fun at all beacause of the defender and the mm (we played it quite a time but now we are completely tired of it), and now that tier 10 take the totaly horrible 10vs10 form that come with only WZ5a-907 and SConq gamplay, the fun is totally rip, so we have no reason to play this game.

 

All of that beacause nobody in wargaming know how clan work


Edited by BlablaPaige, 12 February 2018 - 04:12 PM.


vcristi #372 Posted 12 February 2018 - 03:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 67071 battles
  • 461
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 01:54 PM, said:

On a more personal note, I recommend dropping the passive agressive tone you employed in your post scriptum. It is not very conductive to a productive exchange of ideas and reflects badly on you.

 

So letting aside my 'passive-aggressive' tone, you consider that 'announcing' this major change to the game in a reply made in a topic no one reads on a forum no one cares about is OK? Really?

This is why people no longer care about sharing/telling what they think about the game changes you made, or about these forums at all, because everyone knows WG do not care at all about any feedback. You care just about what 'numbers' (aka 'income' or 'profit' ) shows...


Edited by vcristi, 12 February 2018 - 03:14 PM.


voulezvous #373 Posted 12 February 2018 - 03:46 PM

    Community Team Lead WoT EU

  • WG Staff
  • 17616 battles
  • 359
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

View Postvcristi, on 12 February 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

 

So letting aside my 'passive-aggressive' tone, you consider that 'announcing' this major change to the game in a reply made in a topic no one reads on a forum no one cares about is OK? Really?

This is why people no longer care about sharing/telling what they think about the game changes you made, or about these forums at all, because everyone knows WG do not care at all about any feedback. You care just about what 'numbers' (aka 'income' or 'profit' ) shows...

 

If this is everything you took away from my post then I recommend you read it again vcristi. I haven't said anything about your opinion on where the change was announced but it seems that you're bent on pinning something on me.

 

I've been posting on several WG forums while performing my duties and so far each time I managed to find a common language with the players. Even if we disagreed they knew they could count on me doing my bit which is passing on their feedback and informing them when questions were posed. I on the other hand could count on a civilized level of conversation where those who posted took issue with the merit of the announcement instead of trying to slip in an insult and then try to put words in my mouth. It's counterproductive!

 



Mariuxszas #374 Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26368 battles
  • 166
  • [ANUBI] ANUBI
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

View Postvcristi, on 12 February 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

 

So letting aside my 'passive-aggressive' tone, you consider that 'announcing' this major change to the game in a reply made in a topic no one reads on a forum no one cares about is OK? Really?

This is why people no longer care about sharing/telling what they think about the game changes you made, or about these forums at all, because everyone knows WG do not care at all about any feedback. You care just about what 'numbers' (aka 'income' or 'profit' ) shows...

 

Edited

Edited by Asklepi0s, 13 February 2018 - 04:39 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to insults


vcristi #375 Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 67071 battles
  • 461
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 12 February 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

 

If this is everything you took away from my post then I recommend you read it again vcristi. I haven't said anything about your opinion on where the change was announced but it seems that you're bent on pinning something on me.

 

I've been posting on several WG forums while performing my duties and so far each time I managed to find a common language with the players. Even if we disagreed they knew they could count on me doing my bit which is passing on their feedback and informing them when questions were posed. I on the other hand could count on a civilized level of conversation where those who posted took issue with the merit of the announcement instead of trying to slip in an insult and then try to put words in my mouth. It's counterproductive!

 

 

I asked you why this is announced just on the forums and why it is not announced on your homepage, like it should be for a big change in the game...

And i see that you dodge that question and do not answer.

You are maybe afraid that announcing this with a news article on your homepage would cause another crapstorm like the Valentine event?



Pushing_The_Upper_Plate #376 Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29309 battles
  • 1,587
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012
Okay I can understand why 10v10 is being introduced. More people play but I feel like you are helping the less experienced and less active clans more here and letting the more active clans die. For me personally I don't enjoy SH at T8 because its just full prem spam and tryhard - I don't touch T6 usually because we have 10 players or more and we don't want people to be left sitting out. In my honest opinion where you are heading is to completely kill off CW for good. SH is one of two ways currently where you can practice tactics. (Advances being the other but thats tryhard for boxes) By making it 10v10 you removed another block from the lower clans which you are trying to help because if they don't learn 15v15 then why would they EVER play CW. If you want a 10v10 gamemode or something similar bring bank the old ranked battles as the old WGL 7/68 or 7/70 gamemode for that but have boxes as a reward as well. 

Pataky #377 Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:30 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 45689 battles
  • 85
  • [HAC-W] HAC-W
  • Member since:
    03-24-2012

View Postvcristi, on 12 February 2018 - 06:00 PM, said:

 

I asked you why this is announced just on the forums and why it is not announced on your homepage, like it should be for a big change in the game...

And i see that you dodge that question and do not answer.

You are maybe afraid that announcing this with a news article on your homepage would cause another crapstorm like the Valentine event?

 

Hi!

 

Yes, this company is great to make hidden changes :D

But maybe the best answer to your question:

We dont need to make a post about this big change in the SH system, just because you have to deal with it :D And of course, if they made a post in the news, maybe more negative feedback will come, which is impossible, to make any bad feedback about their perfect production.

Yes, t10 with 10v10 made more battles.. then what if you change the t8 to 7v7? many more battles wow :D so lets do this.. and please dream about 1v1 in t10 sh, sooo many battles :D

Btw, this is another based only on the numbers decision, and the WG think that that is good.. Just, till you get the chance to try some tactic for the cw on skirmish, now.. not. Till this time, the tactic had the chance to win battles against better clans.. now only have to play lemmings train with 10 tanks and win everything, but at least the numbers are fine :)

 

+1 thing: at least bring back the -1 tier to the SH, (it let more players to play :D ), because your random battles are.. hm.. just play it and you'll know, what about i talk.


Edited by Pataky, 13 February 2018 - 09:32 AM.


Norstein_Bekker #378 Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 19331 battles
  • 4,302
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013

View PostMariuxszas, on 12 February 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

 

I honestly disagree with your opinion, and i completely understand the changes WG is making to the SH. I'm not particularly fond of it on emotional level, but indeed i think it is a good change.

 

Why ?

 

Block Quote

 The overwhelming majority seem to favour this change and it is reflected in objectively verifiable information counted in thousands of sessions played

 

It's not because we play with the changes that we agree with it, it's because we may not have any other choices if we want to play, duh ...

 

=> Lots of arty players are complaining about the reduced damage and stun mechanics, yet they still play arty. 

=> Lots of players are still complaining about the matchmaking, yet they still play randoms.

 

It seems like there is a big flaw in your logic.



StinkyStonky #379 Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:57 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28291 battles
  • 2,142
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

This is obviously a good change.  A 5 fold increase in the number of battles is clearly a massive improvement.  Especially as I'm sure WG can see that the majority of extra games will be from clans that previously didn't play tier 10 SHs.

 

I have one question for vouslezvous and other admins.  Is there any particular reason why we cant have 10v10 AND 15v15 tier 10 SHs ?  Sure I know it would need a code change but wouldn't appear to require new technology, just a new configuration of the existing code.

 

Is it fear that 15v15 would have an even lower population than it previously did and with all the easy win, rabbit clans playing 10v10 the unicorn seal clubber clans would mostly only have other unicorn seal clubber clans to fight (i.e. tryhardering) and so 15v15 would die out ?

 

What's great for my clan is that once we have enough for Tier 8 SHs, we now also have enough for tier 10.  So we can do a few of each.  It will be great.



Norstein_Bekker #380 Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 19331 battles
  • 4,302
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013

Block Quote

 rabbit clans playing 10v10 the unicorn seal clubber clans

 

XDD 

 

Such frustration. You don't need to fight unicorn seal clubber clans to lose obviously, so plz stop this statbashing, it's against the forum rulz.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users