Jump to content


About the ClanWars, clan activities such as skirmishes, advances and wargames ; reward & premium...


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

ValkyrionX_TV #1 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:13 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

In reality it is a problem that has already been raised by others before me and which has been talked about, too little, and about which attention must not be lowered.

 

First we need to talk about the CWs on the global map.
I own almost all the tier X reward vehicles of CWs and personal campaigns , excluding VK72 and T95E6 , and of course I almost always find myself playing Obj279, chieftain , obj907 and obj260.
Frankly, I'm getting fed up with it.

 

Obviously there is something wrong with this situation.
Having so many vehicles tier X in the game and being forced to this ridiculous "meta game" where at most there is a use of 5 vehicles [obj279e - chieftain - obj907 - ebr105 - obj260] I find it something quite disgusting and above all boring that negatively affects the gameplay.

 

There was talk of limiting the number of reward vehicles in cw and clan activities, why has the WG not yet undertaken a real solution to this problem?

The same problem applies to clan activities such as tier X skirmishes , advances and wargames.

 

 


The same problem afflicts the CWs tier 8 infested with premium tanks , obviously better than those of the tech trees , influencing in my opinion negatively the game.

 

Clan tier 8 activities are also packed with premium vehicles, seeing entire teams with around 8 progett46, 2 heavy vehicles such as defender and is3a and an ebr as a spotter is frankly very boring.
[in this case it is more acceptable considering that it is used to farm credits, but it is equally annoying in my opinion]

 

Will the WG ever take real and concrete initiatives to give more space to the tech trees tanks in clan activities?

 

 

 

This "meta" tanks policy must absolutely end.

 

07:22 Added after 8 minute

it must be said that in certain maps and in certain situations some of the following vehicles appear:

t100, amx 50b, rarely the t57 heavy, is7, obj277, wz5a, t110e3/e4 , SQ

 

obviously the composition of the teams I could say that at 90% is composed only of reward vehicles, the gameplay is quite horrible in my opinion.


As much as it was the Type5 the meta tank of the CWs before its nerf and the introduction of the chieftain.



Jauhesammutin #2 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23877 battles
  • 1,098
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostValkyrionX, on 16 October 2019 - 07:13 AM, said:

In reality it is a problem that has already been raised by others before me and which has been talked about, too little, and about which attention must not be lowered.

 

First we need to talk about the CWs on the global map.
I own almost all the tier X reward vehicles of CWs and personal campaigns , excluding VK72 and T95E6 , and of course I almost always find myself playing Obj279, chieftain , obj907 and obj260.
Frankly, I'm getting fed up with it.

 

Obviously there is something wrong with this situation.
Having so many vehicles tier X in the game and being forced to this ridiculous "meta game" where at most there is a use of 5 vehicles [obj279e - chieftain - obj907 - ebr105 - obj260] I find it something quite disgusting and above all boring that negatively affects the gameplay.

 

There was talk of limiting the number of reward vehicles in cw and clan activities, why has the WG not yet undertaken a real solution to this problem?

The same problem applies to clan activities such as tier X skirmishes , advances and wargames.

 

 


The same problem afflicts the CWs tier 8 infested with premium tanks , obviously better than those of the tech trees , influencing in my opinion negatively the game.

 

Clan tier 8 activities are also packed with premium vehicles, seeing entire teams with around 8 progett46, 2 heavy vehicles such as defender and is3a and an ebr as a spotter is frankly very boring.
[in this case it is more acceptable considering that it is used to farm credits, but it is equally annoying in my opinion]

 

Will the WG ever take real and concrete initiatives to give more space to the tech trees tanks in clan activities?

 

 

 

This "meta" tanks policy must absolutely end.

 

I completely agree with this. I don't know how to fix this without straightly limiting the usage of reward tanks.

 

If they balanced all T10 tanks to equal levels then maybe for a while we would see different setup on vehicles. As the time goes on the players would figure out the best tanks for certain maps and we would end up with the same situation as we have today except the vehicles wouldn't certainly be reward vehicles.

 

They could limit the number of reward tanks. Let's say 2 per 15 tanks. But then players are going to use the next best tanks. S.Conq instead of the Chieftain and 277/5A instead of 279. This is basically what is already happening in the "middle" clans where some players have reward vehicles. 

 

The best solution to this in my opinion would be that they limit the available tanks for each month. For example 140, Patton and Leo 1 for 1st month, 62A, STB-1 and Cent AX for the second month and so on. Then the meta would be fresh and players would have to grind not so popular lines. 

 



ValkyrionX_TV #3 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:28 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostJauhesammutin, on 16 October 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

I completely agree with this. I don't know how to fix this without straightly limiting the usage of reward tanks.

 

If they balanced all T10 tanks to equal levels then maybe for a while we would see different setup on vehicles. As the time goes on the players would figure out the best tanks for certain maps and we would end up with the same situation as we have today except the vehicles wouldn't certainly be reward vehicles.

 

They could limit the number of reward tanks. Let's say 2 per 15 tanks. But then players are going to use the next best tanks. S.Conq instead of the Chieftain and 277/5A instead of 279. This is basically what is already happening in the "middle" clans where some players have reward vehicles. 

 

The best solution to this in my opinion would be that they limit the available tanks for each month. For example 140, Patton and Leo 1 for 1st month, 62A, STB-1 and Cent AX for the second month and so on. Then the meta would be fresh and players would have to grind not so popular lines. 

 

 

the number of reward vehicles should be limited to a maximum of 5 x team in the format 15 vs 15 and block reward vehicles for a certain number of battles, regardless of the results obtained in battle.

 

the same thing should be applied to cw tier 8 and clan activities of any level , the gameplay is something really horrible given the ridiculous meta vehicles policy.

 

and obviously we should have a better balance of both tier X and tier 8 vehicles , too many tier X tanks are too uncompetitive and others are too much competitive, same for premium tier 8 vehicles over normal ones.


Edited by ValkyrionX, 16 October 2019 - 08:31 AM.


Long_Range_Sniper #4 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:32 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 39390 battles
  • 11,162
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostJauhesammutin, on 16 October 2019 - 07:23 AM, said:

I completely agree with this. I don't know how to fix this without straightly limiting the usage of reward tanks.

 

If this gained enough traction with the community and WG had the data behind the scenes then I think they could influence tank choice indirectly.If someone has a reward tank, then they have already received rewards by default.

 

Currently, playing a reward tank to get a reward tank is a lot easier than playing a tech tree tank to get a reward tank. You're picked more often by FC's and you have a tank that is more competitive against the tanks you're playing against.

 

As CW is designed around achieving fame points, then WG could simply tweak the fame point calculations.

 

E.g. If you want to play your Chieftain in CW, then fine, but you'll only obtain a percentage of the fame points you'd obtain playing the Super Conqueror. Alternatively, if you play the Super Conqueror and are successful then you get an enhanced multiplier.

 

The trick and nuance would be making the multipler or reduction appropriate enough to entice players to try tech tree tanks, without putting off too many who still want to play their reward tanks. But if they could get it right, it would be a win/win.

 

CW reward tanks could still be played, and people would see an incentive to play tech tree tanks. Leading to a more diverse and different meta maybe?

 

Just a thought.



pihip #5 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16396 battles
  • 1,361
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

I'm unfamiliar with clanwars having never taken part in any, but I do remember a time, years ago, when the only tanks used in one of such gamemodes ("Tank Company" maybe? I don't remember the exact name) were the Hellcat (pre-nerf) and the Tier 6 KV-1S.

 

This to say that I'm not surprised the same scenario is repeating itself, and perhaps has been the case since a metagame established itself - either play the strongest stuff available, or don't bother to play at all. Which begs the question as to why anyone who's interested in such game modes would keep non-meta tanks to begin with, which in turn defeats the purpose of grinding lines and unlocking new tanks.

 

I also have my opinions about certain reward tanks (it's no secret I consider Object 279e to be grossly overpowered and toxic for any game mode it appears in), but that's off topic and I'll leave it at that.


I don't know if this can still be considered a proof of an inept balancing team within WG, or if it's all intended and aimed at the CIS/RU market (note how half of the tanks Valkyrion mentioned are Soviet) and us western capitalists have to stay silent and get [edited]shoved every time.



ValkyrionX_TV #6 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:36 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 16 October 2019 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

If this gained enough traction with the community and WG had the data behind the scenes then I think they could influence tank choice indirectly.If someone has a reward tank, then they have already received rewards by default.

 

Currently, playing a reward tank to get a reward tank is a lot easier than playing a tech tree tank to get a reward tank. You're picked more often by FC's and you have a tank that is more competitive against the tanks you're playing against.

 

As CW is designed around achieving fame points, then WG could simply tweak the fame point calculations.

 

E.g. If you want to play your Chieftain in CW, then fine, but you'll only obtain a percentage of the fame points you'd obtain playing the Super Conqueror. Alternatively, if you play the Super Conqueror and are successful then you get an enhanced multiplier.

 

The trick and nuance would be making the multipler or reduction appropriate enough to entice players to try tech tree tanks, without putting off too many who still want to play their reward tanks. But if they could get it right, it would be a win/win.

 

CW reward tanks could still be played, and people would see an incentive to play tech tree tanks. Leading to a more diverse and different meta maybe?

 

Just a thought.

 

 

interesting to change the gain of fame points if you play a vehicle reward, however it would not solve the problem for the other game modes.

 

obviously this thing would be in contrast with the choices of the FCs of the clans that obviously wants the best vehicles on the battlefield, so it is a relative solution in my opinion.



TankkiPoju #7 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:37 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24785 battles
  • 7,692
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

Dude are you complaining about OP rewards tanks, or are you just tired playing yours and want new ones? :)

 

WG could just buff many tier 8 tanks to same power level as premium tanks, but since they don't make money from that.. they won't. For example, Tiger 2 could get like 2.5k DPM and it would be a super strong tank already. Easy fix. But it won't happen.



ValkyrionX_TV #8 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:41 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostTankkiPoju, on 16 October 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

Dude are you complaining about OP rewards tanks, or are you just tired playing yours and want new ones? :)

 

WG could just buff many tier 8 tanks to same power level as premium tanks, but since they don't make money from that.. they won't. For example, Tiger 2 could get like 2.5k DPM and it would be a super strong tank already. Easy fix. But it won't happen.

 

no, my friend, I am sick of this meaningless gameplay and the non-existent rotation of vehicles and a meta game that is now really touching the ridiculous.

 

we are told that balancing solutions concerning vehicles will be undertaken [eekeboo words] only after the game's ammunition has been reworked.

 

So at least in 2 years given the development times so slow of the game.

 

[and in my opinion the game's ammunition are not the problem , if people shoot special ammunition it is because over the years the armor of the vehicles have increased , the same thing if we talk about HE spam]


Edited by ValkyrionX, 16 October 2019 - 08:47 AM.


SovietBias #9 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:43 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40031 battles
  • 1,855
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013
I guess if the CW crowd is sick of the usual Obj./Chief spam, I don't see why they couldn't introduce a vehicle limit. 

fwhaatpiraat #10 Posted 16 October 2019 - 08:55 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 61425 battles
  • 2,252
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
Just allow up to 3 vehicles of a particular tank per team. Whether it's 7v7, 10v10 or 15vs15.

So at tier 6 you won't see 5-6 T-34-85Ms + 2-1 light tanks anymore. At least you will need some Cromwells, an A-43 or Sherman E2, etc.

At tier 8 you won't see 7 Progetto's anymore, Pantera's could replace them. Note: skinned tanks like Defender/252U should be considered as same.

Tier X will see the most variety probably, teams full of 907s and Chieftains have to change. 140s obviously could replace 907s. Maybe the Super Conq could become an alternative for Chieftain, or maybe even 113, besides 260 (or 277).

This way there will be plenty of room for premium/reward tanks (no angry 'owners' of those tanks), but at least there will be some variety.

Long_Range_Sniper #11 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:01 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 39390 battles
  • 11,162
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostValkyrionX, on 16 October 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

 

interesting to change the gain of fame points if you play a vehicle reward, however it would not solve the problem for the other game modes.

 

obviously this thing would be in contrast with the choices of the FCs of the clans that obviously wants the best vehicles on the battlefield, so it is a relative solution in my opinion.

 

Why couldn't you change it for CW where the rewards are not tanks, but gold? At the end of the day players are using a reward to get a reward. 

 

The thing about a vehicle limit is that it just moves the meta a little. Placing a restriction on the number of CW reward tanks would just change a 15 RW tank v 15 RW tank to 5RW (+10) v 5RW(+10)

 

It's the +10 where the diversity arises, and so if you're going to restrict 5 then why not 2 or 10?

 

If you remember the old TOTP, WG got rid of the vote method, because players never voted for the unpopular tank lines. You have to either take away a players choice, or provide an incentive for them to play a tank they wouldn't prefer to play.

 

Capping reward tanks takes away the choice, and moves it to the FC so it could work, as could giving 2x fame points to anyone playing the E100.

 

Personally, I think these are just hypothetical discussions as there's not a sniff from WG that they see any issue at all. I'd look for a sign first in ranked battles, and the next season is due this month.



ValkyrionX_TV #12 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:04 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 16 October 2019 - 09:01 AM, said:

 

Why couldn't you change it for CW where the rewards are not tanks, but gold? At the end of the day players are using a reward to get a reward. 

 

The thing about a vehicle limit is that it just moves the meta a little. Placing a restriction on the number of CW reward tanks would just change a 15 RW tank v 15 RW tank to 5RW (+10) v 5RW(+10)

 

It's the +10 where the diversity arises, and so if you're going to restrict 5 then why not 2 or 10?

 

If you remember the old TOTP, WG got rid of the vote method, because players never voted for the unpopular tank lines. You have to either take away a players choice, or provide an incentive for them to play a tank they wouldn't prefer to play.

 

Capping reward tanks takes away the choice, and moves it to the FC so it could work, as could giving 2x fame points to anyone playing the E100.

 

Personally, I think these are just hypothetical discussions as there's not a sniff from WG that they see any issue at all. I'd look for a sign first in ranked battles, and the next season is due this month.

 

in fact, even the ranked, as you well say, suffer from the same problem.

anyway I think we're talking about hot air, given that the wg seems more interested in introducing new and useless mechanics [double barrel] in the game to sell new premium vehicles as always, postponing the problems of balancing the game to date.



LordMuffin #13 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53982 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 16 October 2019 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

If this gained enough traction with the community and WG had the data behind the scenes then I think they could influence tank choice indirectly.If someone has a reward tank, then they have already received rewards by default.

 

Currently, playing a reward tank to get a reward tank is a lot easier than playing a tech tree tank to get a reward tank. You're picked more often by FC's and you have a tank that is more competitive against the tanks you're playing against.

 

As CW is designed around achieving fame points, then WG could simply tweak the fame point calculations.

 

E.g. If you want to play your Chieftain in CW, then fine, but you'll only obtain a percentage of the fame points you'd obtain playing the Super Conqueror. Alternatively, if you play the Super Conqueror and are successful then you get an enhanced multiplier.

 

The trick and nuance would be making the multipler or reduction appropriate enough to entice players to try tech tree tanks, without putting off too many who still want to play their reward tanks. But if they could get it right, it would be a win/win.

 

CW reward tanks could still be played, and people would see an incentive to play tech tree tanks. Leading to a more diverse and different meta maybe?

 

Just a thought.

This is like using duct tape to fix water pipes.

 

Would rather see that WG actually made T10 balanced and made maps which allow T10 tanks to play.

 

Variety of tanks shouldn't be enforced from WG, it should be a choice made by clan to create most competetive lineup for the map and tactic of choice.

 

But with a limited number of tanks to choose from (due to bad balance) and a very limited amount of tactics to use  (due to map design and tank balance)  it is hardly surprising same tanks is always in use. 


Edited by LordMuffin, 16 October 2019 - 09:15 AM.


Spurtung #14 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:13 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 77771 battles
  • 7,484
  • [WG_PT] WG_PT
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 16 October 2019 - 08:01 AM, said:

 

 If you remember the old TOTP, WG got rid of the vote method, because players never voted for the unpopular tank lines. You have to either take away a players choice, or provide an incentive for them to play a tank they wouldn't prefer to play.

 

On the other hand, tanks voted were removed from roster, so eventually all tanks would have their turn.

They interrupted it precisely when we were entering that stage, after having had a vote where the most unpopular were up for voting, and if I remember right this was soon after the 4005 rework...



Long_Range_Sniper #15 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 39390 battles
  • 11,162
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostLordMuffin, on 16 October 2019 - 08:12 AM, said:

This is like using duct tape to fix water pipes.

 

You mean how WG solve all their problems.

 

FL takes too long to grind.

Issue boosters to make grind faster.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 16 October 2019 - 08:13 AM, said:

 

On the other hand, tanks voted were removed from roster, so eventually all tanks would have their turn.

They interrupted it precisely when we were entering that stage, after having had a vote where the most unpopular were up for voting, and if I remember right this was soon after the 4005 rework...

 

I don't remember all tanks getting their turn. I may be wrong.



Spurtung #16 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:19 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 77771 battles
  • 7,484
  • [WG_PT] WG_PT
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostValkyrionX, on 16 October 2019 - 08:04 AM, said:

anyway I think we're talking about hot air, given that the wg seems more interested in introducing new and useless mechanics [double barrel] in the game to sell new premium vehicles as always, postponing the problems of balancing the game to date.

View PostLordMuffin, on 16 October 2019 - 08:12 AM, said:

Would rather see that WG actually made T10 balanced and made maps which allow T10 tanks to play.

 

They'll never really balance anything. They'll keep this flavor of the month policy, with a side dish of premium content and call ti a day.

 

Remember WGL? That was a ridiculous showcase of what was currently OP in the game, and being that painfully obvious was what I believed led to its downfall. One year you had the WT E100. the next had the buffed Maus, and so on.

 

The esports was never their aim, they simply don't want that level of scrutiny or else all tier 10 in this game would be a matter of tactical decision or personal preference, not "how OP is this tank currently?".

08:25 Added after 5 minute

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 16 October 2019 - 08:15 AM, said:

View PostSpurtung, on 16 October 2019 - 08:13 AM, said:

 

On the other hand, tanks voted were removed from roster, so eventually all tanks would have their turn.

They interrupted it precisely when we were entering that stage, after having had a vote where the most unpopular were up for voting, and if I remember right this was soon after the 4005 rework...

 

I don't remember all tanks getting their turn. I may be wrong.

 

It was. At start it was a bit weird, because those 50 (or was it 75?) wins at top 10 XP would give you the full reward ONLY if you had voted the winning tank, and since everyone held their vote to see the IS-7 was gonna win, they soon replaced it to "own the tank? you access the missions".

 

So, in future voting rounds for TOTT HT, the IS-7 was never to be seen again. And they did MT, TD to make them even, with occasionally LT and SPG, always following the principle of removing tanks that win voting from future voting of that class.

 

Then came the 4005 rework, they made a "let's put together all the unpopular tanks from their respective classes so you have to vote on the baddies" and obviously, 4005 won. Soon after, they got rid of that model, without ever having had concluded the whole set of tier 10s having a chance.



Knight_Zao #17 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:28 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 38736 battles
  • 293
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

Could always make CWs and advances tier 9 for one season and tier 10 for another, just for variety.

Always liked to try 15v15 at tier 9

 



Cobra6 #18 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 18,049
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

And let's not forget the completely removed T8 and T6 stages from CW campaigns as they are not *literally* Pay-2-Win. You can't compete with "Free" tanks at these tiers in highly competitive plays.

 

Which is a shame as T6 / T8 were always the most interesting stages in the campaign with the least amount of BS armor and the most amount of action.

 

Cobra 6



mateyflip #19 Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39047 battles
  • 577
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Another constructive post, WP OP and thank you.

 

Not that it matters to me as I'll never get to those dizzy heights :teethhappy:



ValkyrionX_TV #20 Posted 16 October 2019 - 10:09 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Moderator
  • 56071 battles
  • 3,033
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostKnight_Zao, on 16 October 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:

Could always make CWs and advances tier 9 for one season and tier 10 for another, just for variety.

Always liked to try 15v15 at tier 9

 

 

meh.. tier 9 in cws has no sense imo 

 

wg must force players to use more different tanks to prevent teams with only reward vehicles

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users