Jump to content


Current Stronghold Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

Kandly #1 Posted 28 September 2018 - 01:38 PM

    Player

  • Player
  • 1020 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    08-23-2016

Commanders,

 

Please leave your feedback regarding the current stronghold below. Feel free to share your experience and any suggestions you might have with us - and we will be compiling them next week! :)

 

Cheers!



fighting_falcon93 #2 Posted 28 September 2018 - 03:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

In my opinion, the problem with strongholds today is that:

 

- Since industrial resources are required to produce reserves, it creates a requirement where players are asked to earn a certain amount of industrial resources each week in order to not get thrown out from the clan. This creates problems for players that have irregular playing schedules, or where they can't follow a very high activity schedule, or when other events in the game take up time from the stronghold gameplay.

 

- Since the clan reserves are activated for limited durations, it creates a situation where the clan activates the reserves on peak hours, and everyone not playing on peak hours doesn't get any benefit from the reserves, although the weekly participation requirement is still requested for them.

 

- Since the gold that can be earned from clans is only aviable on the global map, it creates a very unfair environment where regular average players get no gold at all, because the competition on the global map is too high, meanwhile the clans already sitting on the top gets even more gold. It should be possible to atleast earn some gold from strongholds aswell.

 

My goal with this suggestion is to solve the problems above, and also make strongholds more accessible for the average players and not only the best clans that already get the most.

 

I saw these news on the World of Warships portal not long ago, and that inspired me a lot when writing this suggestion:

 

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/new-clan-base/#oil

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-079-royal-navy/#arsenal-new-goodies

 

The first change I'd like to suggest is to extend the stronghold, make it bigger, add more building slots and add more different kind of buildings. There should be enough building slots so that each clan can build each building, but since the buildings also cost industrial resources to build, it will be up to every clan what they want to prioritize first.

 

I think that you should remove the current buildings and instead add the following buildings:

 

Command Center

Increases the maximum building level limit of all other buildings for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Research Center

Gives 5% more combat xp from each battle for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Service Station

Gives 5% reduced repair cost after each battle for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Military Academy

Gives 5% more crew xp from each battle for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Logistics Center

Gives 5% more credits from each battle for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Special Operations Center

Gives all clan members a special daily mission every 24 hours. This mission gives more exclusive rewards like gold, free xp, bonds etc, and the amount and the chances to get specific rewards increase for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Barracks

Allows 10 additional players to join the clan above the base limit of 100 players for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Transporation Unit

Gives 1% more industrial resources from strongholds and advances for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Airfield

Gives the clan access to 1 usage of the aircraft bombing call-in each battle, and the tier of the call-in is improved for each building level (10 maximum).

 

Artillery Battalion

Gives the clan access to 1 usage of the artillery barrage call-in each battle, and the tier of the call-in is improved for each building level (10 maximum).

 

These buildings are just an example, and there're propably even more buildings with interesting bonuses that can be added. However, these examples should give the general idea of what should be achieved with these buildings. It should basically make it worth it for every single player to join a clan, even if the clan they join is only a relaxed platoon clan that plays whenever they want.

 

Another important note is that industrial resources would no longer be used to produce reserves, as the bonuses from the buildings are permanent. The lack of having to grind a certain amount of industrial resources every week is good, because it allows more relaxed clans that doesn't need to force their players to earn a specific amount of industrial resources every week. This will make a bigger portion of players interested in joining a clan, as their real life now doesn't interfare with clan activities. However, the industrial resources will still be very valuable, as they allow the clan to build up their buildings to become even better. For clans that have already upgraded everything to level 10, the industrial resources can be used for other things, for example handed out to players.

 

If you want to satisfy a wider audience of players and clans, I think it's important that you design features for both disciplined and relaxed clans, and not one of them. If clan wars are designed for the more disciplined clans, then strongholds should be designed for the more relaxed clans. Thus, it shouldn't be required to earn more industrial resources on a regular basis just to get access to the clan benefits.

 

Players should also be able to earn a bit of industrial resources for themselves. For example, after each stronghold battle, the clan receives industrial resources, and the players that fought in the battle get a portion of those industrial resources added to their accounts. I'm talking about something like 10% maybe. These industrial resources can then be saved up by the player and used as a currency. The player should be able to see both his clans and his own current balance of industrial resources by clicking on the strongholds tab in the garage.

 

Next thing I want to change is to also to give average clans a way to earn some gold and other exclusive rewards. For this, I think that you should implement a Clan Arsenal, which is basically a clan shop, where players can use their industrial resources that they've earned in the clan to purchase different things. An example of the things that should be purchasable:

 

- Credits.

- Free XP.

- Gold.

- Premium days.

- Premium tanks.

- Reward tanks.

- Exclusive clan tanks.

- Personal reserves.

- Customization (camo, emblems etc).

- Unique commanders with unique perks (Knispel, Wittmann etc).

 

Of course more things can be added to the Clan Arsenal, but the most important thing here is to give all players access to exchange their industrail resources to atleast small amounts of gold. Think of it as the same concept as in marathons. Players that can't buy gold with their credit card should be allowed to trade extra playing time for some free gold, just as in marathons they can "trade" playing time for a free premium tank. It's highly unfair that the best players, that already have all the advantages they need, are also the ones that have exclusive access to free gold, because no other average clan can compete with them on the global map.

 

Giving more skilled clans more rewards is fine, but everyone should get the same type of rewards.

 

If you'd apply these changes, I think that more players would be interested in joining a clan, and it would also become more fair as now all players would be able to earn some gold, the only difference would be in the quantity, and this is what would stimulate clans and their players to become better at the game, rather than being frustrated how the top gets everything and they sit there emptyhanded.

 

EDIT:

 

Almost forgot. It would be nice with some improvements to the graphics and GUI part of the stronghold in the client aswell. Unfortunately it looks a bit 2012 right now. World of Warships have really made their base look very well:

 

 

It could look really well if you also made the base look a bit bigger and more realistic rather than a few buildings in the middle of nowhere. Also, if you add some animations into the stronghold base, for example chimney smoke, aircraft takeoff/landings, tanks driving around, people walking around etc and use different building images for different levels of the building, it would feel a lot more alive and cool.

 

And thank you a lot for the opurtunity given to leave feedback and affect the development of the game :great:


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 28 September 2018 - 04:06 PM.


Firefly__xD #3 Posted 28 September 2018 - 04:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Arty and air strikes need to be removed from strongholds. 

 

It is not a "tool against camping". Camping is possible in a spread out manner too. Camping is possible behind buildings, where arty/air strike is less effective, too.

 

It is a tool to win a match in a way based on RNG

It is a tool that shreds a team of new SH players to pieces for no reason. 

It is a tool that decides the outcome in a nice battle between top clans in a matter of 3-4 seconds.

It is a tool that disencourages using tactics.

It is a tool that stops your team when you try to push the enemy

It is a tool that stops you from converging your tanks in order to push. 

It is a tool that encourages you to push into the enemy one by one. 

It is a tool that forces you to focus your attention on it, instead of gameplay.

It is a tool which made many players quit or have less fun in strongholds. 

It is a tool added by somebody who had too much fun in RTS games like Company of Heroes. I suggest he keeps playing RTS games if he wants to use arty strikes. 

 

It is a <insert disease here> tool. 

 

Get it out of there.


Edited by FireflyDivision, 28 September 2018 - 04:46 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #4 Posted 28 September 2018 - 06:21 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 28 September 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

It is a tool added by somebody who had too much fun in RTS games like Company of Heroes.

 

To be honest, the call-ins in Company of Heroes 2 are quite different compared to the call-ins in WoT. Me personally think that call-ins are good for the game, they work good in CoH2 aswell, but they're currently implemented in the wrong way in WoT. Mainly, the problems are:

 

- They can only be used once per battle, so commanders prefer to use them against a cluster of targets rather than targets that needs to be digged out.

 

- They are quite unbalanced and unrealistic. For example, the artillery strike call-in in WoT is way too accurate and the duration is way to short (all the shells land in a very short time span). Same goes for the airstrike call-in in WoT, it covers a way too small area and the amount of bombs is way too high, with one individual bomb being laughable (too low alpha).

 

If you want more use of tactics in stronghold battles, I don't really understand why you'd want to have call-ins removed as they do provide good tools for the commander if implemented properly. Also they make battles more varied and interesting if there's more different kinds of call-ins so that each clan would have to pick one that suits their tactics rather than seing every single clan using the same call-ins.

 

As you can see in the video below, that's how the call-ins are implemented in Company of Heroes 2. For example, the artillery strike call-in is applied over an larger area, the spread area is also bigger, and one individual shell does more damage, but there's less shells in total (less total damage), and there's a longer delay between each individual shell, giving the target a chance to react to the situation before it's too late:

 

 

And here's an example of an aistrike call-in. Same story here as with the artillery call-in, it's spread out over a much larger area, it does more damage on a direct hit, but the delay before the call-in arrives is much longer, making it much more difficult to just click on a spot filled with many enemies if the enemies are actually pushing:

 

 

He's a 3rd example of a call-in that we currently do not have in WoT, a Stuka dive-bombing strike. This call-in has very high alpha, but it requires such high precision that you'll need to be quite lucky to hit anything on the move. Tools like this are essential to counter stalemates that occur when some clans put up a camp tactic at maps like Mountain Pass:

 

 

I don't understand why some players want to tune down the tactical aspect of this game and instead turn it into a game where tank combat has been so isolated from other aspects in a war that all it boils down to is basically rush a flank and click on weakspots. Artillery, air supremecy, close air support, all these things played a very big role in WW2 and tank combat.

 

Also, I see no complaints about premium ammo, which is propably the most tactic destroying element in this game today. Instead of having premium ammo, how about using the airstrikes and artillery strikes against the stuff that would otherwise suffer from premium ammo spam? That sounds a lot more tactical than double tapping the 2-key and lol-penning it from the front.

 

Granted, in the end it's WG that decides what they want to do with call-ins, but me personally think that they're good for the tactical aspect of this game if they're implemented correctly.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 28 September 2018 - 06:29 PM.


Firefly__xD #5 Posted 28 September 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 28 September 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

 

To be honest, the call-ins in Company of Heroes 2 are quite different compared to the call-ins in WoT. Me personally think that call-ins are good for the game, they work good in CoH2 aswell, but they're currently implemented in the wrong way in WoT. Mainly, the problems are:

 

- They can only be used once per battle, so commanders prefer to use them against a cluster of targets rather than targets that needs to be digged out.

 

- They are quite unbalanced and unrealistic. For example, the artillery strike call-in in WoT is way too accurate and the duration is way to short (all the shells land in a very short time span). Same goes for the airstrike call-in in WoT, it covers a way too small area and the amount of bombs is way too high, with one individual bomb being laughable (too low alpha).

 

If you want more use of tactics in stronghold battles, I don't really understand why you'd want to have call-ins removed as they do provide good tools for the commander if implemented properly. Also they make battles more varied and interesting if there's more different kinds of call-ins so that each clan would have to pick one that suits their tactics rather than seing every single clan using the same call-ins.

 

As you can see in the video below, that's how the call-ins are implemented in Company of Heroes 2. For example, the artillery strike call-in is applied over an larger area, the spread area is also bigger, and one individual shell does more damage, but there's less shells in total (less total damage), and there's a longer delay between each individual shell, giving the target a chance to react to the situation before it's too late:

 

 

And here's an example of an aistrike call-in. Same story here as with the artillery call-in, it's spread out over a much larger area, it does more damage on a direct hit, but the delay before the call-in arrives is much longer, making it much more difficult to just click on a spot filled with many enemies if the enemies are actually pushing:

 

 

He's a 3rd example of a call-in that we currently do not have in WoT, a Stuka dive-bombing strike. This call-in has very high alpha, but it requires such high precision that you'll need to be quite lucky to hit anything on the move. Tools like this are essential to counter stalemates that occur when some clans put up a camp tactic at maps like Mountain Pass:

 

 

I don't understand why some players want to tune down the tactical aspect of this game and instead turn it into a game where tank combat has been so isolated from other aspects in a war that all it boils down to is basically rush a flank and click on weakspots. Artillery, air supremecy, close air support, all these things played a very big role in WW2 and tank combat.

 

Also, I see no complaints about premium ammo, which is propably the most tactic destroying element in this game today. Instead of having premium ammo, how about using the airstrikes and artillery strikes against the stuff that would otherwise suffer from premium ammo spam? That sounds a lot more tactical than double tapping the 2-key and lol-penning it from the front.

 

Granted, in the end it's WG that decides what they want to do with call-ins, but me personally think that they're good for the tactical aspect of this game if they're implemented correctly.

 

Are you serious?

 

Oh I see it already, you're not even active in Strongholds. 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 28 September 2018 - 06:45 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #6 Posted 28 September 2018 - 07:13 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 28 September 2018 - 07:43 PM, said:

Are you serious?

 

Oh I see it already, you're barely active in Strongholds.

 

Yes, I'm serius, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

 

I'm active in strongholds from time to time, but as a legionaire. My first post in this thread should explain well why I'm not in a clan at the moment. Also, I do watch streamers, for example Daki, who sometimes play advances on stream and use the call-ins. Additionally, all of us had access to call-ins during the frontline. So I know how the call-ins work, but I don't agree with you that they're bad for the game.

 

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not serius.

 

I just don't understand what you find so horrible in call-ins? I read your explanation in the first post but some of those makes very little sense:

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 28 September 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

It is a tool that disencourages using tactics.

Using the call-in itself is a tactic, and allowing the enemy to successfully use it against you is a mistake.

 

It is a tool that stops your team when you try to push the enemy

If you want tactics, then how is it a problem to be able to counter a push?

 

It is a tool that stops you from converging your tanks in order to push.

If you want tactics, then why shouldn't it be allowed to have a tactic against massive cluster attacks?

 

It is a tool that forces you to focus your attention on it, instead of gameplay.

Really you have to be joking on this one? The call-in is part of the gameplay, thus you're still focused on the gameplay.

 

I do respect your opinion and I'm not going to try to change it, it just feels like you want to reduce the game to become a point and click game without any additional ways of outplaying opponents rather than double tapping the 2-key and penetrate them frontally. How is that fun or even healthy for the game?



Firefly__xD #7 Posted 28 September 2018 - 10:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 28 September 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

 

Yes, I'm serius, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

 

I'm active in strongholds from time to time, but as a legionaire. My first post in this thread should explain well why I'm not in a clan at the moment. Also, I do watch streamers, for example Daki, who sometimes play advances on stream and use the call-ins. Additionally, all of us had access to call-ins during the frontline. So I know how the call-ins work, but I don't agree with you that they're bad for the game.

 

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm not serius.

 

I just don't understand what you find so horrible in call-ins? I read your explanation in the first post but some of those makes very little sense:

 

 

I do respect your opinion and I'm not going to try to change it, it just feels like you want to reduce the game to become a point and click game without any additional ways of outplaying opponents rather than double tapping the 2-key and penetrate them frontally. How is that fun or even healthy for the game?

 

Let's give each team 10 arty strikes so they can both sit in base and throw arty strikes at each other until one team eventually wins. Who needs to play with tanks in World of Tanks anyway? Who needs to make pushes anyway?

 

By the way... 

You:  30603 randoms, 133 skirmishes, 13 advances, You watch streams

Me: 24153 randoms, 8976 skirmishes, 2027 advances, I watch streams


Edited by FireflyDivision, 28 September 2018 - 11:04 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #8 Posted 29 September 2018 - 12:06 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 28 September 2018 - 11:30 PM, said:

Let's give each team 10 arty strikes so they can both sit in base and throw arty strikes at each other until one team eventually wins. Who needs to play with tanks in World of Tanks anyway? Who needs to make pushes anyway?

 

No need to limit it to 10. If they implement the call-ins properly, they can even allow unlimited usages, with cool-downs ofc. Just because it's a tank game doesn't mean that all damage done must be made from only tanks. Actually, it's still a tank calling in the call-ins via radio, so indirectly it's the tank causing the damage.

 

With that said, you can't win the game only by using call-ins. That's like saying a Company of Heroes 2 battle can be won with only call-ins aswell. You don't gain any map control by using call-ins, and when the enemy has surrounded you, where are you going to hide then? UYou know the enemy has call-ins aswell so you can't just camp in the base.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 28 September 2018 - 11:30 PM, said:

By the way... 

You:  30603 randoms, 133 skirmishes, 13 advances, You watch streams

Me: 24153 randoms, 8976 skirmishes, 2027 advances, I watch streams

 

Oh, so if someone with 15k skirmish battles jumps into this discussion, he's suddenly "more" correct than both me and you? No, this is not about who's having the more battles, it's about forming an opinion about something. And I think that 133 battles is enough to form an opinion. Then we might not agree, and that is fine, but that doesn't make neither of us "more" correct.

 

We have both left our opinion on this matter, let's put the decision of who's more correct in WGs hands :great:



Firefly__xD #9 Posted 29 September 2018 - 09:49 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 September 2018 - 12:06 AM, said:

 

No need to limit it to 10. If they implement the call-ins properly, they can even allow unlimited usages, with cool-downs ofc. Just because it's a tank game doesn't mean that all damage done must be made from only tanks. Actually, it's still a tank calling in the call-ins via radio, so indirectly it's the tank causing the damage.

 

With that said, you can't win the game only by using call-ins. That's like saying a Company of Heroes 2 battle can be won with only call-ins aswell. You don't gain any map control by using call-ins, and when the enemy has surrounded you, where are you going to hide then? UYou know the enemy has call-ins aswell so you can't just camp in the base.

 

 

Oh, so if someone with 15k skirmish battles jumps into this discussion, he's suddenly "more" correct than both me and you? No, this is not about who's having the more battles, it's about forming an opinion about something. And I think that 133 battles is enough to form an opinion. Then we might not agree, and that is fine, but that doesn't make neither of us "more" correct.

 

We have both left our opinion on this matter, let's put the decision of who's more correct in WGs hands :great:

 

do you really not see what’s wrong with your ideas? It’s so obvious. Especially how you compare coh gameplay to wot gameplay. In coh you can repair, reinforce and create new units. In wot, once you lose hp, it’s gone forever. If you do enough damage with arty strike, enemy cant stop you anymore. You win purely with arty strike. You saying that we need more arty strikes makes 0 sense and proves to me 100% you know nothing about sh. Suggesting wg to implement a way to buy wins would almost make more sense.

fighting_falcon93 #10 Posted 29 September 2018 - 01:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

If you do enough damage with arty strike, enemy cant stop you anymore. You win purely with arty strike.

 

And you do not see what's wrong with your described scenario? You describe it as calling in an artillery strike, the enemy loses hitpoints, and now they're at a disadvantage for the rest of the battle. But you miss one important thing; The enemy should have access to call-ins aswell. It simply becomes a side battle of which team uses the call-ins more efficiently.

 

As I've explained already, I do not like the current implementation of call-ins in WoT either. The main reasons are:

 

- They cost industrial resources, which put small clans that earns less industrial resources at a disadvantage.

- They have a way too short delay, making it way too easy to perfectly hit vehicles that have just stopped for a little while.

- They have a way too small circle of impact, and the shells are way too grouped toghether.

- They have shells that do way too little damage by their own, but together they do way too much damage in total.

- They have a one time usage only, making it a single-use competition with no way for a comeback.

 

What they need to do is:

 

- Change the call-ins so they're more like the call-ins in Company of Heroes 2.

- This means a much longer delay (the time before it arrives).

- This means a much longer duration (the time it's active).

- This means a cool-down (the time before you can use it again), instead of allowing a 1 time use only.

- This means an artillery strike that is less accurate and that has a bigger delay between each shell.

- This means an artillery strike that does damage to a bigger area, but doesn't oneshot stuff on a perfect hit.

- This means other types of call-ins that are good for different situations in a battle. CoH2 is a great source of inspiration for call-ins.

 

If they'd implement more kinds of call-ins and limit each team to only bring 1-2 different ones, battles would become more interesting and strategical, since the call-ins would not just be a consumables that does damage, but actually a tool that can be used strategically in favour of the teams owns tactics. These call-ins does not only have to be about damage, they can even be stuff like aircraft recon sweeps and off-map artillery with smoke shells.

 

As I wrote before. We both have left our opinions on the matter and it's fine if we don't agree. However, there's no reason for us to turn this thread into a 100-page discussion because in the end it's up to WG to decide if they want call-ins or not in the game.



Firefly__xD #11 Posted 29 September 2018 - 03:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 September 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

And you do not see what's wrong with your described scenario? You describe it as calling in an artillery strike, the enemy loses hitpoints, and now they're at a disadvantage for the rest of the battle. But you miss one important thing; The enemy should have access to call-ins aswell. It simply becomes a side battle of which team uses the call-ins more efficiently.

 

 

This game is about tanks, not about artillery strikes. You're supposed to win by driving your tank and shooting the enemy with it. You can use SPG for some indirect fire, not magic airstrikes. You're not supposed to win by endlessly throwing magic airstrikes and hoping your airstrikes hit more than the enemy's airstrikes. Go invent World of Airstrikes for that if you want. I think you're playing a different game and that you're active on the wrong forum anyway. I don't know which game you're playing, but this forum is for World of Tanks. 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 29 September 2018 - 03:08 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #12 Posted 29 September 2018 - 04:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

This game is about tanks

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

You can use SPG for some indirect fire

 

Nice way of contradicting yourself :great:

 

Just so you know... SPGs are not tanks... Yet they're in the game. Wheeled vehicles are not tanks either, yet they will come to the game.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

You're not supposed to win by endlessly throwing magic airstrikes

 

Care to explain why you consider it "magic"? Because close air support had a very big role during WW2, so there's really nothing magic about it. It's way more magic having a single SPG on your team that is able to perfectly land shell after shell on moving targets.

 

Also, I already explained to you that you can't win a battle by only using call-ins, because the call-ins doesn't yield you any map control. Where are you going to hide and wait for your call-ins to cooldown when you've been surrounded and put into crossfire? You know the enemy has access to call-ins aswell. The smaller space you push your team into, the easier will it be for the enemy to use call-ins on you. Properly designed call-ins doesn't remove tactics, it extends them and allows the commander to use more tools in order to win rather than always just pushing head on with premium ammo.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

I don't know which game you're playing, but this forum is for World of Tanks. 

 

Just because the game is called "World of Tanks" doesn't mean that it has to contain only tanks and nothing more or related to tanks. Close air support is very closely related to tank combat.

 

If you don't believe me, you can read more about it here. To quote the first sentence in that link:

 

"In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces and attacks with aerial bombs, glide bombs, missiles, rockets, aircraft cannons, machine guns, and even directed-energy weapons such as lasers."

 

It's just funny because not many posts ago you wrote:

 

"It is a tool that disencourages using tactics."

 

Also this part is interesting:

 

"World War II marked the universal acceptance of the integration of air power into combined arms warfare as close air support. Although the German Luftwaffe was the only force to use CAS at the start of the war, all the major combatants had developed effective air-ground coordination techniques by the war's end."

 

You should read a bit about what combined arms warfare actually means. Since you assume that tank combat is only tanks shooting on tanks I think you'll be highly surprised how many things other than pure tanks that's involved in a tank battle. And yes, combined arms is also a lot more tactics than just using tanks against tanks.



BlablaPaige #13 Posted 29 September 2018 - 05:58 PM

    General

  • Clan Commander
  • 21166 battles
  • 8,167
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011
I'm not good enough in english to explain why your idea of more airstrike is very bad

Firefly__xD #14 Posted 29 September 2018 - 06:06 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 September 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

 

 

Nice way of contradicting yourself :great:

 

Just so you know... SPGs are not tanks... Yet they're in the game. Wheeled vehicles are not tanks either, yet they will come to the game.

 

 

Care to explain why you consider it "magic"? Because close air support had a very big role during WW2, so there's really nothing magic about it. It's way more magic having a single SPG on your team that is able to perfectly land shell after shell on moving targets.

 

Also, I already explained to you that you can't win a battle by only using call-ins, because the call-ins doesn't yield you any map control. Where are you going to hide and wait for your call-ins to cooldown when you've been surrounded and put into crossfire? You know the enemy has access to call-ins aswell. The smaller space you push your team into, the easier will it be for the enemy to use call-ins on you. Properly designed call-ins doesn't remove tactics, it extends them and allows the commander to use more tools in order to win rather than always just pushing head on with premium ammo.

 

 

Just because the game is called "World of Tanks" doesn't mean that it has to contain only tanks and nothing more or related to tanks. Close air support is very closely related to tank combat.

 

If you don't believe me, you can read more about it here. To quote the first sentence in that link:

 

"In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces and attacks with aerial bombs, glide bombs, missiles, rockets, aircraft cannons, machine guns, and even directed-energy weapons such as lasers."

 

It's just funny because not many posts ago you wrote:

 

"It is a tool that disencourages using tactics."

 

Also this part is interesting:

 

"World War II marked the universal acceptance of the integration of air power into combined arms warfare as close air support. Although the German Luftwaffe was the only force to use CAS at the start of the war, all the major combatants had developed effective air-ground coordination techniques by the war's end."

 

You should read a bit about what combined arms warfare actually means. Since you assume that tank combat is only tanks shooting on tanks I think you'll be highly surprised how many things other than pure tanks that's involved in a tank battle. And yes, combined arms is also a lot more tactics than just using tanks against tanks.

 

You're still missing the point.

 

SPGs and wheeled vehicles don't magically fall out of the sky. You can know where SPGs and wheeled vehicles are. Where they shoot from. You also can make a tactical plan aimed at taking them down and countering them. 

What is tactical about arty/air strike? It's pure magic. Randomly comes down from the sky. It has no direction, no source. It's just point, click and magic. You want to have a game where the outcome depends on this. You call this tactics? 

 

I'm very surprised that I have to explain these basic things to you. Very surprised. 

 

By the way, before you ask: the sun is hot. And no, you can't go to the sun at night. It's not 30 degrees Celsius at night. 

 

Since when is WoT a full ww2 simulator anyway? You really have no idea what game you're playing, do you? I was joking when I said it at first, but now I'm serious about it.


Edited by FireflyDivision, 29 September 2018 - 06:10 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #15 Posted 29 September 2018 - 07:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

You're still missing the point.

 

No, I get the point, you don't like call-ins. But that doesn't force me to agree with you. And neither does it mean that they're actually bad for gameplay just because you dislike them. That's why I told you that it's better for us to just leave our opinions here and let WG decide what's good or bad for the game, but it seems you still want to discuss it.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

You can know where SPGs and wheeled vehicles are. Where they shoot from.

 

And you say that call-ins are magic? How about this? A shell drops down from the sky and the crew in the tank suddenly knows the direction of the artillery. This is how real artillery looks feels like:

 

 

When those shells drop down next to you, I can assure you that you'll have no idea at all where they came from.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

You also can make a tactical plan aimed at taking them down and countering them.

 

And you're going to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about? How about you? What "tactical plan" do you want to use to get rid of the enemy artillery when the only tools you have aviable are ordinary tanks that must get line-of-sight to the artillery in order to destroy it? I hope you do realise that most decent teams in stronghold do actually protect their artillery if they even bring one, so good luck with taking their artillery down without first taking their entire team down.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

It's pure magic. Randomly comes down from the sky. It has no direction, no source. It's just point, click and magic.

 

You think it's magic because you fail to see the symbolic concept behind the call-in.

 

It does not randomly come down from the sky. In the case of artillery call-ins, you have an allied artillery battery somewhere outside of the map. In case you didn't know, artillery doesn't sit on the frontline like represented in this game. Neither do they operate alone, multiple of them are used in a combined battery. When you activate the call-in, it's basically a simplification of your radioman contacting this artillery battery and requesting a fire support barrage on the coordinates that you specified when clicking. Same goes for the airstrike, but then your radioman contacts an airwing instead.

 

And it does have a position/direction. The artillery is located outside the map, on safe distance from the frontline, just as they would be in real life. The airstrike even lets you choose what direction the aircraft should fly in from.

 

And it does have a source. The shells in the barrage comes from the artillery in the battery that you requested help from, and the bombs in the airstrike comes from the aircraft that you ordered in.

 

The entire concept is completely logical, the only magic here is that it's a virtual world, which is difficult to solve.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

What is tactical about arty/air strike?

 

It's tactical because it allows the team to use different tools in order to achieve their victory. Remove the call-ins and the only tool you have left is to bruteforce a push with you teams tanks and their premium ammo.

 

- An artillery barrage allows your commander to handle hulldown targets that are difficult to dig out.

- An airstrike allows your commander to handle big clusters of targets that are protecting a key position.

- An aircraft recon strafe allows your commander to dig out unspotted targets that snipe from the back.

- A smoke barrage allows your commander to block vision from the enemy so that your team can push/retreat.

- A dive bomb strike allows you commander to get rid of an annoying target camping behind a building.

 

The possibilites here are endless. Also, do you do realise that all these call-ins above are not made up stuff, they're actual real stuff tested and used in reality and that there's a reason why stuff like this was useful in reality? If these things weren't tactical and useful who'd bother using them?

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

You want to have a game where the outcome depends on this. You call this tactics?

 

Yes. The victory goes to the team that can best utilize all the tools they need to their advantage. For me you sound more like someone who doesn't like them personally, can't be arsed to use any tool besides a bruteforce push, and thus want to eliminate the chance of oponents using it against you.

 

Are you seriusly going to talk down on hundreds of years of war history because they used other tools to their advantage instead of just bruteforcing their way through the enemy? Aircrafts, ships, submarines, mines, snipers, artillery... who needs any of that when you can just round up a few thousand dudes, give them a rifle and ask them to brute force their way through the enemy? Sounds a lot like what England tried to do during the American war of independence. Oh, but even then the Englishmen actually used artillery as a tool to support their infantry.

 

Same goes here if you really want any interesting tactics in this game. The commander comes up with a tactic, and uses different tools to support his tanks. When you've removed the few tools left, he will have no more tools to use. All that will be left is just 1000s of battles with different styles of bruteforce pushing. Doesn't sound really fun to be honest.

 

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

Since when is WoT a full ww2 simulator anyway?

 

So when you lost the argument about the tactical aspect in call-ins, you now resort to the final excuse, that this game is not realistic and thus shouldn't have call-ins? Well that's no worries then because you just told me the call-ins are pure magic so no worries about realism then.

 

Irony aside. I've never said that WoT is a full WW2 simulator. What are you trying to imply, that only simulators are allowed to combine tank combat and call-ins? Just because they implement a part of reality into a game doesn't make it a simulator. With that said I wouldn't have anything against it if they made WoT a little bit more simulator-ish, actually I think it would sort out some of the current problems and make the game a lot more interesting. But as I said, just because they add call-ins doesn't make it a simulator. In that case it would already be a simulator because behold, we already have tanks and ammo types inspired from reality.

 

Did you know that a wonderful (and unfortunately old) game called "Call of Duty: World At War" also had a call-in feature. There you had the possibility to pick up a radio in your hands and order in an artillery barrage on positions that would be too much of a hazzle to take out with your rifle. Very interesting gameplay thanks to that feature and cool effects aswell. And I really don't think that we should call that game a simulator either.

 

Found it:

 


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 29 September 2018 - 07:52 PM.


Firefly__xD #16 Posted 29 September 2018 - 08:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 September 2018 - 07:30 PM, said:

 

No, I get the point, you don't like call-ins. But that doesn't force me to agree with you. And neither does it mean that they're actually bad for gameplay just because you dislike them. That's why I told you that it's better for us to just leave our opinions here and let WG decide what's good or bad for the game, but it seems you still want to discuss it.

 

 

And you say that call-ins are magic? How about this? A shell drops down from the sky and the crew in the tank suddenly knows the direction of the artillery. This is how real artillery looks feels like:

 

 

When those shells drop down next to you, I can assure you that you'll have no idea at all where they came from.

 

 

And you're going to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about? How about you? What "tactical plan" do you want to use to get rid of the enemy artillery when the only tools you have aviable are ordinary tanks that must get line-of-sight to the artillery in order to destroy it? I hope you do realise that most decent teams in stronghold do actually protect their artillery if they even bring one, so good luck with taking their artillery down without first taking their entire team down.

 

 

You think it's magic because you fail to see the symbolic concept behind the call-in.

 

It does not randomly come down from the sky. In the case of artillery call-ins, you have an allied artillery battery somewhere outside of the map. In case you didn't know, artillery doesn't sit on the frontline like represented in this game. Neither do they operate alone, multiple of them are used in a combined battery. When you activate the call-in, it's basically a simplification of your radioman contacting this artillery battery and requesting a fire support barrage on the coordinates that you specified when clicking. Same goes for the airstrike, but then your radioman contacts an airwing instead.

 

And it does have a position/direction. The artillery is located outside the map, on safe distance from the frontline, just as they would be in real life. The airstrike even lets you choose what direction the aircraft should fly in from.

 

And it does have a source. The shells in the barrage comes from the artillery in the battery that you requested help from, and the bombs in the airstrike comes from the aircraft that you ordered in.

 

The entire concept is completely logical, the only magic here is that it's a virtual world, which is difficult to solve.

 

 

It's tactical because it allows the team to use different tools in order to achieve their victory. Remove the call-ins and the only tool you have left is to bruteforce a push with you teams tanks and their premium ammo.

 

- An artillery barrage allows your commander to handle hulldown targets that are difficult to dig out.

- An airstrike allows your commander to handle big clusters of targets that are protecting a key position.

- An aircraft recon strafe allows your commander to dig out unspotted targets that snipe from the back.

- A smoke barrage allows your commander to block vision from the enemy so that your team can push/retreat.

- A dive bomb strike allows you commander to get rid of an annoying target camping behind a building.

 

The possibilites here are endless. Also, do you do realise that all these call-ins above are not made up stuff, they're actual real stuff tested and used in reality and that there's a reason why stuff like this was useful in reality? If these things weren't tactical and useful who'd bother using them?

 

 

Yes. The victory goes to the team that can best utilize all the tools they need to their advantage. For me you sound more like someone who doesn't like them personally, can't be arsed to use any tool besides a bruteforce push, and thus want to eliminate the chance of oponents using it against you.

 

Are you seriusly going to talk down on hundreds of years of war history because they used other tools to their advantage instead of just bruteforcing their way through the enemy? Aircrafts, ships, submarines, mines, snipers, artillery... who needs any of that when you can just round up a few thousand dudes, give them a rifle and ask them to brute force their way through the enemy? Sounds a lot like what England tried to do during the American war of independence. Oh, but even then the Englishmen actually used artillery as a tool to support their infantry.

 

Same goes here if you really want any interesting tactics in this game. The commander comes up with a tactic, and uses different tools to support his tanks. When you've removed the few tools left, he will have no more tools to use. All that will be left is just 1000s of battles with different styles of bruteforce pushing. Doesn't sound really fun to be honest.

 

 

So when you lost the argument about the tactical aspect in call-ins, you now resort to the final excuse, that this game is not realistic and thus shouldn't have call-ins? Well that's no worries then because you just told me the call-ins are pure magic so no worries about realism then.

 

Irony aside. I've never said that WoT is a full WW2 simulator. What are you trying to imply, that only simulators are allowed to combine tank combat and call-ins? Just because they implement a part of reality into a game doesn't make it a simulator. With that said I wouldn't have anything against it if they made WoT a little bit more simulator-ish, actually I think it would sort out some of the current problems and make the game a lot more interesting. But as I said, just because they add call-ins doesn't make it a simulator. In that case it would already be a simulator because behold, we already have tanks and ammo types inspired from reality.

 

Did you know that a wonderful (and unfortunately old) game called "Call of Duty: World At War" also had a call-in feature. There you had the possibility to pick up a radio in your hands and order in an artillery barrage on positions that would be too much of a hazzle to take out with your rifle. Very interesting gameplay thanks to that feature and cool effects aswell. And I really don't think that we should call that game a simulator either.

 

Found it:

 

 

Wow, we talking about Call of Duty and the Syrian civil war now? Can't wait for you to bring up Constantinople and the Ottoman supercannon. Wanna talk about the Deathstar too?

Edited by FireflyDivision, 29 September 2018 - 08:47 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #17 Posted 29 September 2018 - 08:51 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostFireflyDivision, on 29 September 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

Wow, we talking about Call of Duty and the Syrian civil war now?

 

Ahhh :rolleyes: Let's stop talking and let WG decide instead :great:



Firefly__xD #18 Posted 29 September 2018 - 09:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25125 battles
  • 4,054
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 September 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

 

Ahhh :rolleyes: Let's stop talking and let WG decide instead :great:

 

I wonder where all the other people are... Is no one else going to give feedback? Poor Kandly will only see a Firefly vs fighting_falcon93 showdown. 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 29 September 2018 - 09:24 PM.


Norstein_Bekker #19 Posted 30 September 2018 - 02:28 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21546 battles
  • 5,683
  • [N00T] N00T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013
Sorry to barge in.

I just came here to say I totally agree with Firefly_Division about the airstrikes.

It has nothing to do in SH, especially in tier 6 SH. Maybe in Advances, but still, the mechanics are a bit f*cked up, as it can decide the outcome of a battle by itself.

Regarding the MM skillbased in SH, I suggest to keep it in advances, but removing it from the tier 6 and 8 where you want to play fast and maximize your income, so you don't spend 2 minutes in waiting queue.

Regarding the rewards, the higher your ELO, the stronger your opponent ... but the rewards do not follow up. Maybe it's time to reward a bit more skill in this game. I don't mind clans like ROIDS or CSA winning sh*tloads of credits XP, they deserve it.
It seems Fighting_falcon93 doesn't get the difference between rewards and gifts.
The "everyone should get rewards" part is wrong. You have to deserve rewards.

Also, I strongly suggest rebalancing T-34-85M so it doesn't dominate tier 6 SH anymore.

Regarding tier X skirmishes, now that you're allowed to invite as much legionnaries as you want, it should be back to 15v15.

Edited by Norstein_Bekker, 30 September 2018 - 09:48 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #20 Posted 30 September 2018 - 02:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostNorstein_Bekker, on 30 September 2018 - 03:28 AM, said:

Sorry to barge in.

I just came here to say I totally agree with Firefly_Division about the airstrikes.

It has nothing to do in SH, especially in tier 6 SH. Maybe in Advances, but still, the mechanics are a bit f*cked up, as it can decide the outcome of a battle by itself.

Regarding the MM skillbased in SH, I suggest to keep it in tier 8, 10, and advances, but removing it from the tier 6 where you want to play fast and maximize your income, so you don't spend 2 minutes in waiting queue.

Regarding the rewards, the higher your ELO, the stronger your opponent ... but the rewards do not follow up. Maybe it's time to reward a bit more skill in this game. I don't mind clans like ROIDS or CSA winning sh*tloads of credits XP, they deserve it.
It seems Fighting_falcon93 doesn't get the difference between rewards and gifts.
The "everyone should get rewards" part is wrong. You have to deserve rewards.

Also, I strongly suggest rebalancing T-34-85M so it doesn't dominate tier 6 SH anymore.

Regarding tier X skirmishes, now that you're allowed to invite as much legionnaries as you want, it should be back to 15v15.

 

I think that I've already made enough posts in this thread, but since you couldn't leave your own feedback without pointing out how my opinion is wrong, I'll simply reply to you aswell.

 

First of all, good job contradicting yourself. You start by writing that 2 top clans get everything and appearently your clan doesn't get it's fair share, because you tell WG that they should reward skill a bit more. Since you just wrote that the ones on the top get a lot already, I think it's safe to assume that you mean that clans like yours should get rewarded more. Then a few sentences later, you write that rewards has to be deseved. If so, then I think that you should stop complaining that skill isn't rewarded enough, and instead take your clan and go fight the 2 clans you mentioned in your post. Oh, is that too difficult? Then congratulations, now you know how basically every single average clan feels in this game.

 

Secondly. I've not asked WG to handle out gifts. A gift is completely free, a reward is earned by playing. However, you think that only clans like yours "deserve" rewards. In your mind, only clans like yours are actually doing their best, in your mind, the average clans does not deserve it because they just herpa-derp around like donkeys, right? It's YOU that is wrong. Average clans have to play the game (just like you), they have to fight clans with a similiar rating (just like you), and, they have to win (just like you). So why shouldn't they be rewarded? Just because your clan has a higher rating? Let me guess, you want to put the line of rewards directly below your clan, right? So your clan and everyone better should get plenty of gold, while everyone below you should get nothing at all? Let me tell you this. In order to promote competition and growth, EVERYONE needs to be rewarded, otherwise the ones on the bottom will have no initiative to get better. Then as I already explained, higher skill should yeild higher rewards, but everyone should get the same type of rewards (i.e. gold).

 

You need to realise that not everyone plays this game as a secondary life. Some of us has 8 hour jobs/school (or more), some of us has kids, some of us has other interests. Expecting everyone to play the same game month after month atleast 4-5 times per week every evening is highly unrealistic. That however doesn't mean that more casual players doesn't want to play in a clan, participate in the global map, build up their stronghold, and earn some gold aswell. I have no idea why you even think that gold should be exclusively aviable to only the best clanwars players? They might aswell get bonds instead.

 

As I wrote in my first reply, you top players already have clan wars where you can all fight for that rediculous provice that rewards pumps out 10'680 gold (!!!) in one day. Go there, that mode is designed for you. Leave strongholds for less skilled/active players and stop dictating that they should get no gold for their time investments and participations. They deserve it aswell, not only you.

 

@WG: See, this is the exact problem with the current design of your competetive game modes. Here we have good players complaining that they want even more gold, meanwhile they have a gold mine aviable on the global map where one province pumps out 10'680 gold in just one day and the entire "high-profit" area pumps out a whopping 63'480 gold. But they want more! Meanwhile, the majority of players, the ones that actually pay for this game and keeps it running for all these years, they don't even get 10 gold per day. This is not fair at all. It's fine if more skill results in more gold, but it's not fine that some players get gold while others get consumables/credits/xp/whatever.

 

@WG: Btw, looking at the likes of the post I quoted. Isn't it a quite funny coincidence that all the 3 likes comes from players with 55%, 58% and 59% recent winrate. One of those players clans even brought in 10'200 gold yesterday, yet the player is liking a post that's asking for top clans to get even more rewards. It's not difficult to guess why they defend the current absurd distribution of gold. Because in most cases, it's exactly these players that would not benefit if the gold rewards where distributed more evenly. These players have no interest in the games overall health, they just want more benefits in their own pockets.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 30 September 2018 - 03:08 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users