Jump to content


Lets talk about about Clan wars once again.


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Silas001 #1 Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49654 battles
  • 1,782
  • [CH3SS] CH3SS
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
First a little history:

 

Sadly now we have to discuss the same issues again.

 

Of course the new alliance-system was not really thought through and only made the issues worse by allowing Top-clans to simultaniously fight all over the map to shield their allies and even put a plug on the landings as well (since there was not a lot of fighting going on for themselfs or they were in different time-zones).

 

So I have a couple suggestions:

1. Distribution of Gold-Income:

Basically the same Firefly already proposed almost 2 years ago: Seperated by hard borders or not, move the high- and low-income zones back to opposite sites of the global map encouraging increasing competition based on where you are choosing to fight.

 

Furthermore I would personally add: Since the low-income-zones are obviously visited by many more clans those areas should be bigger and also feature more space for landings without them blocking each other. If you dont want to inflate the overall Gold-income by increasing the amount of provinces just keep the amount of high-income provinces the same (maybe even increase the income/province for the strongest region) and reverse the minimum income from 480 Gold/Province back to 120-240 (edit: on Tier10-Front) - allowing you to have a lot more low-income provinces and have a steeper gradient between high- and low-income areas. (Again: Increasing the incentive to move up the ladder and fight against better clans)

 

2. Alliance System:

As Firefly said back then: Dont use the WDM as a playground to test unfinished features. This system offers some really interesting ideas, like spreading out fights on the global map along your alliance, which has allways been a part of CW so this offers a system, to make this somewhat official. But as I said: It is just unfinished and in this state a bad influence on CW.

 

So we have 2 options here: Either scrap the whole thing and go back to what we had with delays/pre-deffs etc. by potentially allied clans etc. or think through all the consequences of your new features.

The biggest issues here:

Make the whole thing transparent. Let us see on the map the alliance-relations between clans.

Dont allow clans to take over fights for sub-clans on the other end of the map. You might limit that system to clans with direct connection to your HQ or at the furthest with a connection through other clans in the same alliance.

Definetely dont allow clans to take over fights for anyone in landing tournaments.

 

Furthermore I would prefer real alliances between equally strong clans that can hold their ground in a big war and dont think the 3XR/feudal approach (vassals paying a liege for protection) should be the only design for this. The current "alliances" promotes big clans to hold a couple pawms to control the edges of their territory/the map instead of actually fighting against other strong alliances for gold.

And if my rather average Clan is attacking another clan of similar strength on the edge of the map, there is a good chance I declared war on a Top5 Clan? That is rather stupid.

 

 

Last but not least probably the most polarizing issue around here and I bet it has been discussed multiple times already:

3. Timetable of tournaments:

Introducing +15 min-provinces to eliminate the large gaps of up to 30 min between CWs definetely was an improvement (back in the day it was a real annoyance just sitting around most of the time waiting for the next battle). Yet I feel we have gone a little far.

I would prefer to repeal and replace this and go for 15min Battles with 20 min between start times of each round (:00/:20/:40 instead of :00/:30 and :15/:45).

The most important consequences would be:

- One team cannot fight two parallell tournaments at the same time anymore.

- For every tournament there would be three instead of two rounds/hour.

  >>> Landing tournaments of 32 clans + owner (6 rounds) would be over after 2 hours instead of 3 and tournaments between multiple attackers on the map would be much less likely to go into the next time-zone.

- Overall probably slightly less battles played/day, but allowing clans to better prepare for each battle (Which CW is all about - otherwise there still is Stronghold)

- No need to prematurely abort battles because you dont want a technical lose in another tournament. At the worst you would still have 1-3 min until the next battle.

  >>> Most noticable in campaigns with increasing delay between tournaments starting in different time zones, so in worst case you would have to abort with 4 min left +possibly all tanks still locked in the previous battle.

 

 

So I would like to start a discussion about the development of CW again and make WG implement some changes again.

We dont have to agree on all three issues here. Especially #1 would be quite essential to me and easier to implement again without the devs in Minsk, while #3 would be really nice to have, but I could live with the current system as well.

 


Edited by Silas001, 12 February 2019 - 01:23 PM.


mango91 #2 Posted 12 February 2019 - 09:27 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 43642 battles
  • 2,150
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

I always like to discuss on my fav game mode. Gonna answer point by point

 

1)

please do not put hard borders between any province, they would just kill the game as a low tier clan is never gonna apply on a landing in the "big boys area" while now if there're some issue in the time management, they could even take land in the middle of the high income area

anyway, more 240g provinces are welcome, bigger is better

last for this point -> you have to spread high gold income through all the time zones. Otherwise it would be unbalanced, of course. So whether you place time zone horizontal and gold zone vertical or the opposite. Also from every border-landing (I mean those really far away from the high gold area) you should have about the same number of provinces to conquer before you get to the high income area

 

2)

Alliances must be limited (and I think WG got it) and easier to be browsed. IMO 1 - 2 - 4 model is fine. 3 layers, max 2 clans as minors for everyone

no need to reduce the action range or the tier range

 

3)

I strongly disagree on this point. the +15 without the influence spending delay has been a great idea. playing the same tournament every 20 min instead of 30 would just mess up things. Every clan would need 2+ teams to hold 2+ provinces, while at the moment one of the layers of the game is the delay_and_counter-delay

 

What I would love to see coming back is the chips mechanic, with the chance to place the fake atks



Firefly__xD #3 Posted 12 February 2019 - 10:00 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25117 battles
  • 4,054
  • [PSQD] PSQD
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

My main issue right now is the global map layout (again!).

 

Like 2 seasons after the improvements, WG did something new and weird. Instead of having high gold on the left and low gold on the right, they decided to put high gold in the middle. Here, a simplistic view:

trhtrret.png

Red = high gold

Black = low gold

 

What is the problem with this and why is this the opposite of what we asked for?

1. Top clans on the left won't ever reach top clans on the right, and thus limiting top clan v top clan action

2. Non-top clans have nowhere to settle except for the landing area. 

3. Non-top clans can't reach 90% of the other non-top clans, thus destroying the competition on that level. 

 

What does the new layout focus on?

- top clan v non-top clan action. 

Is this going to work? 

- No. A clan develops itsself in steps. And a non-top clan most likely is just going to refuse to fight a top clan. Except for occasional cases where 10 non-tops formed an alliance and catch a top clan alone. You can't do anything about it. 

What's the effect?

- You throw away potential non-top clan vs non-top clan fights and wars, making the global map less interesting for viewers and for non-top clans. 

 

"But... but... there is tier 8!!"

CW was always meant as tier 10 endgame. Tier 6 CW was even removed by developer initiative. Furthermore, a large number of t8 clans looks to play t10 CW. But just place yourself in their shoes.

- You build and train your clan in t8 fighting other bots

- You think you're finally better than most other t8 clans and want to move a step further, so you decide to go t10

- You discover t10 isn't a step further, but TEN steps further. 

 

What do we need to do?

Restore the original principle. + unlock a part of eastern Europe/Russia and make it low gold (120-240 golds?) where non-tops can head first. 

Actually the map of the last campaign was pretty close to what i have been suggesting in the last months:

- UK = top gold

- Western Europe = mid gold

- Eastern Europe + Russia = low gold

 

You give each type of clan a place to go for and you're still rewarding clans based on their performance. Top clans will always earn more gold than non-top clans. However, you need to understand that earning tens of thousands of gold isn't the only thing you should think of. Many clans just want a chance to properly participate in t10 Clan Wars, even if their income for the time being will be low. What does properly participating mean? It means getting on the map, getting a group of provinces, forming cooperations, attacking & wiping other clans off. 

Having to play landing tournaments every day, getting 1 prov every 5th day and getting kicked off again the next day isn't real CW.

 

"but... but... GIT GUD THEN!!"

Who says I haven't thought of that? This is exactly what it's about. If you're not GUD, you don't get high income. You're stuck in the 120-240 gold zone. But at least you get to play CW the proper way and are motivated to improve yourself. Remember: the CW community will only grow when CW is fun for people. Non-top clans will only receive a good stream of recruits when those clans too can play CW the way it is meant to be played, even if it's associated with low gold income. A clan leader needs to be able to come one day and say "alright boys, we will start a war with this clan and try to kick them off" or "our alliance decided to conduct a war against that alliance", or simply "these two clans are trying to take our provinces, let's try to defend and show them who we are" etc etc etc. 

 

Remember one thing I said on the forum earlier:

 

Every clan deserves a chance to participate. Only the good ones deserve to earn a high/decent amount of gold. 

 

Update #1: and as I said before, there should be no hard/uncrossable borders between the various gold regions. In fact, I'd even go as far as removing the hard border between the t10 and t8 fronts. T8 clans can FIGHT their way to t10 (just like clans in Africa could fight their way to Europe in the past).

 

 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 12 February 2019 - 10:07 AM.


Silas001 #4 Posted 12 February 2019 - 02:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49654 battles
  • 1,782
  • [CH3SS] CH3SS
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
Firefly as usual you usual you made my points for me but a lot more eloquently. :)

 

Regarding hard borders I agree that I would like to see none of those. It wasnt really well-worded in my post.

 

However creating a passable Border between Tier8 and 10 might be trickier then one could think. The Clans on the high-income in Tier8 probably would feel quite comfortable there and might not want to move up to Tier10 while others would like to. If you got that figured out you should still keep the time-zones consistent and not mess with the distribution of the gold within one zone.

All in all I would keep Tier8 and 10 seperated but allow clans with land on Tier8 to on Tier10, work with an independent HQ etc. so they wouldnt have to leave the map to get a taste of Tier10 CW. Of course all of this would require vastly increasing the amount of provinces.

 

 

A little reminder: Back in the golden days of CW Africa counted a lot more provinces than all of Europe (high and medium-income) put together and Africa was still overcrowded.

 

View Postmango91, on 12 February 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

2)

Alliances must be limited (and I think WG got it) and easier to be browsed. IMO 1 - 2 - 4 model is fine. 3 layers, max 2 clans as minors for everyone

no need to reduce the action range or the tier range

 

As I said I dont really like the layered model with vassal clans. Each alliance member should be able to stand their ground and only trade battles with neighbouring allies to have everyone in your alliance fighting and not put all the burden on one ally alone to fight back attacks from only one side.

Either way I dont think Alliances should be limited. If you want to build an empire of 100 small Clans that would be fine as long as they all can fight on their own and not all 100 clans can fight everywhere on the map and in landings at the same time. You would just get multiple inofficially allied "alliances"  (which was the case in the last season). Just put a limit on how far your armies can march to support your allies. So you cant take over a landing for a sub-clan or fight on the other side of the map against low-level clans while farming on the high income. In this case just adding more clans to your alliance wouldnt help that much and at some point only limit your own expansion.

 

View Postmango91, on 12 February 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

3)

I strongly disagree on this point. the +15 without the influence spending delay has been a great idea. playing the same tournament every 20 min instead of 30 would just mess up things. Every clan would need 2+ teams to hold 2+ provinces, while at the moment one of the layers of the game is the delay_and_counter-delay

 

What I would love to see coming back is the chips mechanic, with the chance to place the fake atks

 

First I would like to see encounter-battles again as well - Not in the campaigns though, due to how they are designed without HQ and attacking everything at once.

 

Anyway so let me try to missionize you to the right side on this issue. You are right that you would be able to fight for less provinces per team, but I dont really see that as a negative thing. It would be the same as before +15min provinces with less waiting time and most important less interference with other time-zones - thus allowing the same team to attack/defend more provinces over multiple time-zones. (Not as much as with +15 min battles but still)

The biggest problem was that suddenly clans doubled the amount of provinces they could hold but the number of provinces overall or gold/province did not account for that.

 

Another problem would be especially for clans fighting with only 2 teams that advantage rarely gets used because of how the +15-provinces are distributed. There is a good chance you only have +15 or only +00 to attack and defend, while that evens out over bigger areas it is problematic on a smaller scale. Plus in our clan we often deliberately decided to not play parallell attacks/defs/landings etc. for the above-mentioned reasons so we dont get a lot of the advantages anyway. I would guess other clans also have to make that decision and trade in either quality(focussing on winning one tournament) or quantity (having another shot if you lose one battle but not playing to your full potential on both)

 

Anyway I hope you could follow. I am not really good with words and convincing people. If you dont agree I suppose we just have different views on the same thing which is fine I guess.

 



mango91 #5 Posted 12 February 2019 - 03:29 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 43642 battles
  • 2,150
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

not being a native is often tricky. I don't translate my thoughts completely

 

back to the points

 

2)

If Alliance system has to stay, my opinion is that we at least have to ask for smaller alliances.

I'm not a fan of the mechanic too, even if I had the chance to meet great ppl while doing the diplo work.

 

limiting the "distance" would just increase the management

 

3) 

10/10 would play encounters in normal GM sandbox

 

on the 00-20-40, let me explain my mind.

i) 1 team has to be fully committed to one and one only tournament each hour, playing up to 3 battles. Now 1 team can play 2 tournaments with up to 4 battles

ii) every round after the first, leaves ( 5 + ( 15 - time needed to win)) mins to fill the new team, ready up and do the tictac again (assuming base changing, minor ticatc fix etc.). Now you have ( 15 - time needed to win)mins to jump in the other tournament OR ( 15 + ( 15 - time needed to win))mins to fight the same tournament battle.

iii) As the map is drawn, you can play on max 2 timezones (exceptions given for long provinces snakes, but I still think that 2 is a fair assumption) so the management of the interference is mandatory to increase the province number (and I think that's an important layer, otherwise with 00-20-40 you would almost never be able to "overbook" those top clans spreaded over multiple timezones)

 

iv) choices are meant to be personal, of course. Let me just tell you that not being in a 65% CW wr clan, I prefer to give my guys the chance to play 2 tournaments (so at least 2 battles every hour) than forcing them to field "the best" and maybe losing the first match (due to the cursed ELO MM), with as output about 50mins of inactivity


Edited by mango91, 12 February 2019 - 03:30 PM.


Firefly__xD #6 Posted 12 February 2019 - 11:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25117 battles
  • 4,054
  • [PSQD] PSQD
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Would be funny to have CW entirely as a twisted encounter type of mode.

 

tgrgw.png

 

1 cap in the middle of the map.

 

Landing tournament: Destroy all enemy tanks or cap base to win. Draw = loss for both teams.

 

Battle with owner: the same, but draw = win for defender.

 

I mean, in theory, having the cap in the centre would put emphasis on playing for map control, wouldn't it? As a defender, you need map control to effectively defend a central cap point. As attacker, you also need good map control to be able to cap or you get crossfired/sniped.

 

#brainstorm.


Edited by FireflyDivision, 12 February 2019 - 11:26 PM.


Silas001 #7 Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49654 battles
  • 1,782
  • [CH3SS] CH3SS
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

I kinda feel you wanted to post this in the other thread but yes, I also thought of that. Although you would have to make sure that balancing still would work. It might have unintended consequences on gameplay since you wouldnt need to be concerned with lots of the map.



Firefly__xD #8 Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25117 battles
  • 4,054
  • [PSQD] PSQD
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostSilas001, on 13 February 2019 - 11:35 AM, said:

I kinda feel you wanted to post this in the other thread but yes, I also thought of that. Although you would have to make sure that balancing still would work. It might have unintended consequences on gameplay since you wouldnt need to be concerned with lots of the map.

 

Well you of course need further thinking to determine whether the positives will outweight the negatives or not. 

 

As for "not having to be concerned with lots of the map": I think the opposite. Traditional tactics will remain possible and you'll see them expressed more violently. As the cap is in the center, controlling key points will be more important, no matter whether you defend or not. You may see big fights in the J3 area, maybe even mid-brawls. However, it isn't just limited to that. As spawn areas won't be occupied by 10-15 enemy defenders, using a 9-line flanking/rotational maneuver could lead to interesting results. From the north, you could drive all the way to south and get the H8 hill to snipe from. What if two rotations meet each other on the 9 line? You can use any imaginable strategy because you don't have to defend the area you spawn in.  

 

Some random scenario that might happen (not done too carefully, didn't really place spotters for example. Just for illustration):

 

 tr3tf3wf (1).png 

 

Update for readers: it's just a brainstorm. The whole idea may be completely stupid. Especially on maps that are already good. However, I believe on maps like Mountain Pass, the positives definitely outweight the negatives.

 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 13 February 2019 - 08:07 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users