Jump to content


Test the changes to the Stronghold mode!


  • Please log in to reply
405 replies to this topic

voulezvous #381 Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:58 PM

    eSport Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17070 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

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?

To be precise, you did not actually ask that. You made an assumption about our intentions and then proceeded to be outraged about it and tell me how to do my job ^^ but sure, i'll indulge you.

 

I believe that the last change which was the 2-week-long 15v15 test was announced here in this 'thread that noone reads' (your words, not mine). Let's just consider that for a moment because, again, I get the impression that you're bent on sensationalism and uncovering a conspiracy where there is none.

  • This thread is devoted to SH mode changes
  • It was created nearly a month ago and in this time managed to accumulate 380 posts. 20 new posts in the last two weeks.
  • The forum would have eventually been the place where you would have had the chance to express your opinion

 

So far i've checked 3 really important boxes when thinking about where to announce a change and I fail to see the fail but I'll keep your feedback in mind for future updates.

Look, I am happy to discuss things with the forum dwellers but I really recommend you take the tinfoil hat off for a moment.

 

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 12 February 2018 - 06:27 PM, said:

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. 

I completely understand your concerns and, as with all other aspects of the game, setting up SH parameters is a tight balancing act where the objective is twofold: keep current players happy but also popularise the mode among less experienced players.

I take your fears that this change is detrimental to SH very seriously but let's see how it works after a couple of weeks again.

 

I'm regularly watching several youtubers who participate or command in SH those last few days and the matches I have seen so far are not as mono-tank and mono-meta as you guys paint it for me.

Let's give it some time, adapt to the new meta and lineups, fight it off with other clans and then come back here and let me know about your findings!

 

 

View PostPataky, on 13 February 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

 

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.

Erm... yeah 'hidden', no post about it at all.

Is it time to change hats?

 

View PostNorstein_Bekker, on 13 February 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

 

Why ?

 

 

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.

Guys that is precisely what I am trying to tell you. You don't like the change and think you have a better solution - write about it on the forum, convince others to do the same so that the player behavior also tells us that this is something you do not want.

Be fair in your assessment, show me examples where this change is creating apocalyptic levels of clan atrition, devastating series of lemming trains, etc... but please be kind enough to notice a good match, where it was a real struggle, where the enemy used an elaborate tactic or a new clan suddenly rises to a high standing, etc... and post it here on the forum. I'm just as curious of the effect as you are.

 

View PostStinkyStonky, on 13 February 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

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.

 

Players exploring a new mode which, I'm sure you agree, is one of the most engaging of them all is something that any game maker appreciates - this is a no brainer but thank you for noticing this Stonky.

As for your question, there is a reason. Splitting the queues would nullify the huge increase in activity which got us here in the first place and get us to square one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



FireflyDivision #382 Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23602 battles
  • 3,761
  • [RANGI] RANGI
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Making the amount of legionnaires in skirmish unlimited was a good decision. Is the skilled matchmaking disabled yet? 

 

As for advances... skilled matchmaking and the legionnaire limit should remain. 



mango91 #383 Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 40476 battles
  • 1,759
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

my 2 cents

 

bring fog of war in SH. So every team could have the "surprise effect" on its side. ( i.e. 2 deathstars could kick some unaware asses this way)

 

it could bring more tank diversity and a nice troll factor. Tryhard gonna tryhard anyway, but they maybe gonna get something unexpected


Edited by mango91, 13 February 2018 - 02:11 PM.


FireflyDivision #384 Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:11 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 23602 battles
  • 3,761
  • [RANGI] RANGI
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postmango91, on 13 February 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

my 2 cents

 

bring fog of war in SH. So every team could have the "surprise effect" on its side. ( i.e. 2 deathstars could kick some unaware asses this way)

 

it could bring more tank diversity and a nice troll factor. Tryhard gonna tryhard anyway, but they maybe gonna get something unexpected

 

Imo, fog of war is not required for skirmishes. However, for advances, they should introduce fog of war. 

mango91 #385 Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 40476 battles
  • 1,759
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostFireflyDivision, on 13 February 2018 - 02:11 PM, said:

 

Imo, fog of war is not required for skirmishes. However, for advances, they should introduce fog of war. 

 

I could be satisfied also by seeing this implemented 



Geno1isme #386 Posted 13 February 2018 - 03:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40053 battles
  • 6,591
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Postvoulezvous, on 13 February 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

I completely understand your concerns and, as with all other aspects of the game, setting up SH parameters is a tight balancing act where the objective is twofold: keep current players happy but also popularise the mode among less experienced players.

I take your fears that this change is detrimental to SH very seriously but let's see how it works after a couple of weeks again.

 

I'm regularly watching several youtubers who participate or command in SH those last few days and the matches I have seen so far are not as mono-tank and mono-meta as you guys paint it for me.

Let's give it some time, adapt to the new meta and lineups, fight it off with other clans and then come back here and let me know about your findings!

 

Well, you have to see this from a different perspective as well: The only organzied 15vs15 gamemodes we're left with now are CW and advances. Both of these however are pretty time-intensive and require planning, they're not really suitable to play when you just have 30-60 minutes "in between". So you're removed the only option to play as a full team spontaneously. 10vs10 on the other hand already existed at T8, so you're not really adding any new options there.

 

Did this change actually create new overall activity, or did it basically just shift activity from T8 to T10? If so, what's the point? Well, short of your obvious agenda to force everyone toward playing T10.



vcristi #387 Posted 13 February 2018 - 03:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 64146 battles
  • 194
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View Postvoulezvous, on 13 February 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

To be precise, you did not actually ask that. You made an assumption about our intentions and then proceeded to be outraged about it and tell me how to do my job ^^ but sure, i'll indulge you.

 

I believe that the last change which was the 2-week-long 15v15 test was announced here in this 'thread that noone reads' (your words, not mine). Let's just consider that for a moment because, again, I get the impression that you're bent on sensationalism and uncovering a conspiracy where there is none.

  • This thread is devoted to SH mode changes
  • It was created nearly a month ago and in this time managed to accumulate 380 posts. 20 new posts in the last two weeks.
  • The forum would have eventually been the place where you would have had the chance to express your opinion

 

So far i've checked 3 really important boxes when thinking about where to announce a change and I fail to see the fail but I'll keep your feedback in mind for future updates.

Look, I am happy to discuss things with the forum dwellers but I really recommend you take the tinfoil hat off for a moment.

 

 

Why do you lie? :amazed:

The 2 weeks change was announced here because this very thread where you are writing right now was generated by this news article:

https://worldoftanks...d-test-jan2018/

 

 

This very thread that you are saying about that ''is devoted to SH mode changes'' and ''It was created nearly a month ago and in this time managed to accumulate 380 posts. 20 new posts in the last two weeks.'' exists just because of that news article that was wrote about a temporary change.

 

Please tell me that a temporary change deserve a news article on your homepage and a definitive change do not deserve that.

The only 2 motives i could think of to not do a news article about this major change to the game could be just:

1. avoiding another 'crapstorm'

​2. just laziness and/or unprofessionalism

If you have another reason besides those two to not make a news article, please feel free to share it here.

 

 

 


Edited by vcristi, 13 February 2018 - 03:54 PM.


Pataky #388 Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:50 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 44029 battles
  • 54
  • [WEBOS] WEBOS
  • Member since:
    03-24-2012
"

Erm... yeah 'hidden', no post about it at all.

Is it time to change hats? "
 
Wow a typical answer from wg staff member.. But no wonder, when he cant read more sentences, and only answer for just a little piece of the post. 
I said you did nothing in the news about this change.. just "hide" it on the forum, and yes hide, because you didn't make any new thread about the permanent changes in the SH system.
You are the big wizzard of the numbers, so i can bet with you, you know, more player check the homepage, than the forum posts.
Yes, now please link me the NEWS about the permanent changes, from the game homepage. Oh you cant.. of course, still i am who need to change hat.. but after that change, maybe i can join to your staff community :D
So, when i try to reduce the needed players for t8, just to play more battles, and when can you bring back the -1 tier to every skirmish? (both options can let more players to play, so .. )
But dont worry, i'm still wait for some useful comment from this staff member. Anything else, than we did this, because just, and you had to deal with it.. 
And, ofc my willing to join your community is real :D


voulezvous #389 Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:56 PM

    eSport Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17070 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

View PostGeno1isme, on 13 February 2018 - 03:26 PM, said:

 

Well, you have to see this from a different perspective as well: The only organzied 15vs15 gamemodes we're left with now are CW and advances. Both of these however are pretty time-intensive and require planning, they're not really suitable to play when you just have 30-60 minutes "in between". So you're removed the only option to play as a full team spontaneously. 10vs10 on the other hand already existed at T8, so you're not really adding any new options there.

 

Did this change actually create new overall activity, or did it basically just shift activity from T8 to T10? If so, what's the point? Well, short of your obvious agenda to force everyone toward playing T10.

That is a good argument, thank you for this perspective. The intention here is popularisation of the mode among clans which previously did not participate in SH. That means more enemies and more battles to all SH players.

As for your suspicion of tier VIII players spilling over to X, I can assure you that we have not spotted a proportional tier VIII battle drop which hopefully means that it attracted completely new clans. We hope to know more as soon as enough battles will have been played.

 

 

View Postvcristi, on 13 February 2018 - 03:53 PM, said:

 

Why do you lie? :amazed:

The 2 weeks change was announced here because this very thread where you are writing right now was generated by this news article:

https://worldoftanks...d-test-jan2018/

 

This very thread that you are saying about that ''is devoted to SH mode changes'' and ''It was created nearly a month ago and in this time managed to accumulate 380 posts. 20 new posts in the last two weeks.'' exists just because of that news article that was wrote about a temporary change.

 

Please tell me that a temporary change deserve a news article on your homepage and a definitive change do not deserve that.

The only 2 motives i could think of to not do a news article about this major change to the game could be just:

1. avoiding another 'crapstorm'

​2. just laziness and/or unprofessionalism

If you have another reason besides those two to not make a news article, please feel free to share it here.

 

 

 

 

Again I have to conclude that you are bent on finding a scandal where there is none.

How do you imagine we intentionally hide something from players only to let them see the change the first time they play?

How many of current SH players you think did not notice the change since Monday? Are the forums boiling over with rage, new topics being formed?

Do you really think that this is due to us not posting an article about it? An article by the way which would not have been longer than the post I had made on the matter.

 

Again, I take your feedback on board and will keep it in mind for future communication with you guys and I'm looking forward to reading your impressions of the mode in new format after some time passed.



Duvelske #390 Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17126 battles
  • 161
  • [QSF] QSF
  • Member since:
    01-25-2016

Hello there,

 

Well today we wanted to play tier x sh again, and found ourselves in a spot where 5 players were unable to play due to the size being limited again to 10 vs 10..

 

But maybe to satisfy people why not making a 10 vs 10 & a 15 vs 15 option on tier x tanks? On another note.. i really do not like that 10 vs 10, its just like tier 6 rush in play a bit and meh..


Edited by Duvelske, 13 February 2018 - 08:28 PM.


Norstein_Bekker #391 Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 18913 battles
  • 4,252
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013

Block Quote

 Guys that is precisely what I am trying to tell you. You don't like the change and think you have a better solution

 

Well then, first of all, I haven't seen ANY statement about the fact that you should get rewarded according to your ELO ranking. 

 

A skill-MM in SH ? Fine. But if you fight big, you win big. When you get to fight the strongest on and on and on, but get rewarded as much as if you were fighting the bottom of the food chain, what is the point ? It was mentionned a couple of time on multiple Stronghold threads, yet no answer ?

 

And do not mention tier X bonuses, since everyone can get them now with a bit of activity (yes, it requires to play a bit more than 100 SH/month to get a tier X stronghold) now that you can't have your stronghold attacked anymore.


Edited by Norstein_Bekker, 14 February 2018 - 03:30 PM.


Paris_Hilton #392 Posted 14 February 2018 - 04:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31814 battles
  • 4,164
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

Block Quote

 Guys that is precisely what I am trying to tell you. You don't like the change and think you have a better solution - write about it on the forum, convince others to do the same so that the player behavior also tells us that this is something you do not want.

 

You must be new at doing your job right ? I mean like everyone here knows pretty much that WG doesn't actually give a big S about EU cluster...  i mean if we look at this pic

Spoiler

 

you get an idea...


Maybe i should link you the video of Kislyi stating after Rubicon (initially WoT 1.0) "we will listen to the players".. lelelelelel like even you as a WG employee do not believe this thing.. 
Since 2010 things are being said on this forum how to maybe change some things and make it for the better.. like sooooo many ideas.. did any WG developer ever come to the EU forums? (yes before we actually had Overlord). Oh right you are transmitting what you read on forums to WG in Minsk.. yeeees that thing we already heard in 2k11 even before you knew WG or the game. 
Same goes with the Esport..I and other players have said it.. You want an esport that is different from your endgame content which was CW with 15v15 you will never succeed.. what do we have now ? nearly homeless esport casters :( (Daki can you sign me a shirt <3 ty) 

So what is the deal now? WG making 10v10 while still the endgame content is 15v15 (unless you want to change CW also which I expect actually) and strongholds were actually the training for CWs..

#makeSerBgreatagain


Edited by Paris_Hilton, 14 February 2018 - 05:06 PM.


StinkyStonky #393 Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25106 battles
  • 1,654
  • [H5VOC] H5VOC
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

All this belly aching is quite pitiful really.

 

Skirmishes is an exploitative mode.  It's where high stat clans can easily get an exaggerated win rate at the expense of lesser clans.  Lesser clans who are forced to play the mode if they want to develop their stronghold to be able to run clan bonuses.

 

View PostNorstein_Bekker, on 14 February 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

 

Well then, first of all, I haven't seen ANY statement about the fact that you should get rewarded according to your ELO ranking. 

 

A skill-MM in SH ? Fine. But if you fight big, you win big. When you get to fight the strongest on and on and on, but get rewarded as much as if you were fighting the bottom of the food chain, what is the point ? 

 

This argument ("you get to fight the strongest on and on and on&quot;) would have some validity if it was true, but it isn't.

 

Let's take a look at *edited* stats.  He has a Personal Rating of 7,100 and a Win Rate of 55%.  So he's a pretty good player ... better than me (there, that's your epeen suitably fluffed).

Now let's look at his skirmish stats.  72% Win Rate after 8,700 games.  That's astonishingly good for a 55% WR player.

 

Perhaps the majority of those 8,700 were before WG introduced skill based MM.  Lets look at his recent Skirmish stats.  Only 7 games over the past 7 days so there's no statistical significance to the 70% WR there, but over 30 days, 240 games with 50 losses and 184 wins for a Win Rate of 77.5%. 

 

So on the face of things it looks as though the Skill based MM has had no effect.  The majority of battles are STILL against lesser teams.  Perhaps the majority of his 8,700 games were in a lesser clan and the *edited* used to get a MUCH HIGHER win rate than merely 77.5% (before skill based MM was introduced).

 

Whatever the truth it shows just how exploitative the mode is.

 

To clans like *edited*, I'd say be careful what you wish for.  If the rewards were linked to the ELO of the clans you beat, especially if it was linked to their ELO relative to yours, you'd actually find that your income would go down.


Edited by NickMustaine, 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM.
Naming and shaming


Norstein_Bekker #394 Posted 14 February 2018 - 06:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 18913 battles
  • 4,252
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013

*edited*

 

And I am not saying that the income should be linked to the ELO of the clans you beat, this would be bullshiet for top clans like GO-IN / FAME who almost always face lower clan ELO (because when you're at the top and there's no one above you, who are you supposed to fight ?)

 

Rewards should be increasing by steps, as in some kind of ranked battles, the higher you get, the higher your income (it was the case before with the strongholds attacks, only clans who were bold enough had a tier X SH, which implied some kind of natural skill selection)


Edited by Daxeno, 15 February 2018 - 11:42 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to off-topic conflict.


Paris_Hilton #395 Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:49 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31814 battles
  • 4,164
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

Block Quote

 

All this belly aching is quite pitiful really.

 

Skirmishes is an exploitative mode.  It's where high stat clans can easily get an exaggerated win rate at the expense of lesser clans.  Lesser clans who are forced to play the mode if they want to develop their stronghold to be able to run clan bonuses

 

You said that... but why should it be an explorative mode ? It was introduced as side to the CW for clans who actually did not want to play CW.. and even at top level you had clans with 0 interest in cw. It was never meant to be a mode where you would have an alternative to the CW and to tweak tactics, become better at team managing and shape more the clan culture.. 

And srsly isn't the sole purpose of the game meeting top clans to get better ? 
I sometimes go in SH with clans that have very low elo, just for the lulz to see how those players play.. Of course they meet teams with similar elo but what strikes me the most is the amount of mistakes and not only on player level but also on tactics. Like not only does my team those mistakes but even the enemy team.. so what is the purpose of something if you cannot learn from it ? At least fighting against good clans will teach you a lesson but if you go there with mindset of a guy who is like "meh lost anyways, cheater, haxxor etc" you will never learn anything..

It only looks like your sole purpose is to complain on why do some clans still have high % because you cannot stand it that they have it... 


Edited by Paris_Hilton, 14 February 2018 - 07:52 PM.


fryster_12 #396 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41601 battles
  • 551
  • [U-L] U-L
  • Member since:
    11-19-2012
I like all the changes made to the stronghold system and hope that the 10v10 Tier 10 remains or a separate stronghold mode is made for 10v10 tier 10 strongholds.  

fryster_12 #397 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41601 battles
  • 551
  • [U-L] U-L
  • Member since:
    11-19-2012

View PostSerprotease, on 01 February 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

 

At the beginning of January, we used to be the most active Sh clan of the Eu cluster (In T8 and T10)

We were above 350 T10 and 700 T8 per 28 days

 

We barely play Advance because we don't really need to play them. We have no real need for boxes and we're not really found of the tryhard mindset that goes with advances.

In the same time, we had T10 sh 15v15 from 19 to 1 pm almost everyday.

Now, we struggle to play T10 sh 10v10 for 2h. No one really want to play them.

 

Btw, more or less due to those change most of our players (as myself) grew bored of this game/ policy and are leaving. We're in the process of disbanding the clan.

So yeah

Much fun.

We were a "small clan" (as we barely have over 60 members) Yet, we were active and Wg policy to help "small clan" to get into T10 killed us.

Great success.

 

 

For real ?

Is that really how Wg is thinking or is this just how you're suppose to communicate about this subject ?

 

15v15 +5 legio

10v10 + 9 Legio

 

Obviously you will have more battle played in the latest.

 

if you lower the requierement to launch a game, more game will be played. Yet, this doesnt make those change relevant.

It's called padding

 

 

Don't think it was the stronghold changes that killed your clan.

StinkyStonky #398 Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:53 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25106 battles
  • 1,654
  • [H5VOC] H5VOC
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

Block Quote

 Edited by NickMustaine, Yesterday, 10:41 AM. 

Naming and shaming

 Naming ?  Hands up, I did name someone.  I picked them arbitrarily as a recent poster.  Almost every high stat poster who has opposed the changes could have been used.  They all have much higher win rates in Skirmishes than in Randoms.

 

Shaming ?  I don't think so.  The named player has nothing to be ashed of.

 

The Shame lies with the exploitative nature of the mode.  It's fine to allow high standard players to band together, but then to pitch them against low ability players is pointless and exploitative.  It's why so many low standard clans try the team based modes and then abandon them.

 



voulezvous #399 Posted 16 February 2018 - 12:05 PM

    eSport Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17070 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012

View PostStinkyStonky, on 16 February 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

 Naming ?  Hands up, I did name someone.  I picked them arbitrarily as a recent poster.  Almost every high stat poster who has opposed the changes could have been used.  They all have much higher win rates in Skirmishes than in Randoms.

 

Shaming ?  I don't think so.  The named player has nothing to be ashed of.

 

The Shame lies with the exploitative nature of the mode.  It's fine to allow high standard players to band together, but then to pitch them against low ability players is pointless and exploitative.  It's why so many low standard clans try the team based modes and then abandon them.

 

 

I understand what you were trying to explain and I do appreciate your insights but for the sake of keeping the discussion on topic and not triggering anyone, you can always be a bit more generic when looking for examples. Pick a player, give his stats and your interpretation of them but there is no need to name him in the post. Screens of his performance should suffice.

If you go back a bit you will see that the discussion went sort of off-topic for a moment because people started a 'gun' measuring contest, telling each other why they are better, instead of discussing what to do to make the mode better.

 

Keep posting! I'm sending my report on Monday - you still have a couple of days to add more insight!



StinkyStonky #400 Posted 16 February 2018 - 12:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25106 battles
  • 1,654
  • [H5VOC] H5VOC
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostParis_Hilton, on 14 February 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

 

You said that... but why should it be an explorative mode ?

I wish it wasn't.  I'm just stating the facts.

 

It was introduced as side to the CW for clans who actually did not want to play CW.. and even at top level you had clans with 0 interest in cw. It was never meant to be a mode where you would have an alternative to the CW and to tweak tactics, become better at team managing and shape more the clan culture.. 

This is interesting but before my time so I'll take your word for it. 

Today there are 5 team based modes that are commonly available.  Team battles, SHs, 6, 8 & 10 and Advances.  The 4 SH modes are the ONLY way to develop a Stronghold and fund clan (credit) boosters.  So whatever the past, that is the reality today.

And srsly isn't the sole purpose of the game meeting top clans to get better ?

SRSLY ?  No.  The main purpose of any game is to have fun.  Some fun can be had by meeting top teams, some fun can be had by getting better.  But if you look at the posts in this thread you'll realise that the MOST fun is had by getting high rewards for repeatedly beating much weaker clans.  When faced with the prospect of meeting similar clans, it's the top players who complain.  Don't confuse this with the reaction of lesser clans.  For them, when faced with the prospect of  meeting similar clans they rejoice.


I sometimes go in SH with clans that have very low elo, just for the lulz to see how those players play.. Of course they meet teams with similar elo but what strikes me the most is the amount of mistakes and not only on player level but also on tactics. Like not only does my team those mistakes but even the enemy team.

I'm certain you are right.  What you're probably failing to appreciate is that in most cases the mistakes are not at all obvious to the players making them.

 

. so what is the purpose of something if you cannot learn from it ?

You don't understand the purpose of recreation ?  I spent 5 years at university getting 2 degrees, so I understand the value of learning from things.  But when I get home from putting my education into practice, treating my recreational time like a job isn't high on my priority list.  If it was I'd probably drink a lot less while I played !!  So the purpose is to have fun.  "learning from it" is very much secondary.

 

At least fighting against good clans will teach you a lesson

It will only "teach you a lesson" in the same way that imprisonment for a crime will "teach you a lesson".  As a platform for learning tactics, strategy and skills, getting steam rolled by far superior opponents is probably the worst possible there is.

but if you go there with mindset of a guy who is like "meh lost anyways, cheater, haxxor etc"

You are using your prejudice that in the case of me and H5 is completely unjustified.  I'll give you 2 example why. 

Me: I often use XVM and so can usually see, before the tanks even move, whether my team is likely to win or lose.  Unlike some, this doesn't bother me.  It helps me decide whether to play defensively or aggressively but when the inevitable happens it doesn't bother me.  I just try to do my best.  Curiously the games I dislike the most are the ones where my team is going to steam roll the opponents and I'm in a slow heavy, destined to do nothing because everything will be dead before I can get to it. 

H5: A year or so ago some players From IDEAL helped us with some training.  It was very interesting and we are/were very grateful.  There was one fantastic Battle where we came up against IDEAL.  After they killed all the H5's they proceeded to push Gotma (their commander) into the water.  It was hilarious, least of which because 4/5 of them got 1 hour bans for TKing when they all piled onto him in the water.  It was so funny that one of them posted it on youtube.  The fascinating thing was their TS chat.  Particularly the early, derogatory comment that he (Gotma) was teaching the "plebs not to camp".  H5 never camps.  It's probably one of our failings.  All of our training is about pushing.  That's what we did the time we came up against Fame and I'm certain it's the reason we beat them, because, even though they drowned half their team crossing a bridge from their spawn, if we had camped, I'm certain they still would have beaten us.  We pushed and caught them off guard while they were still messing about (more of that fun I mentioned previously) 

you will never learn anything..

Getting steam rolled by much better teams is an exceptionally poor way to learn.  A much better way is to learn is to play against similar standard teams.  This is what every single competitive sport does.

It only looks like your sole purpose is to complain on why do some clans still have high % because you cannot stand it that they have it... 

My primary purpose is to congratulate WG and support the changes they made.  This thread contains a lot of over entitled unicorns complaining that Skill based MM means that SHs is no longer the seal clubbing easy mode that it once was.

So I'm also pointing that although the unbalance may not be as extreme as it once was, it is still bad.

 

If WG want to further improve the popularity of SHs they will have to make it more enjoyable for lesser clans.  Currently it is still exploitative.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users