Purpose of this blog

Dmitry Yudo aka Overlord, jack of all trades
David Lister aka Listy, Freelancer and Volunteer

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

[WoT] Your Global War

Clan wars development has been rather... hm... let's say, slow lately. However, this is determined to change in future.

What new features and content would you like to be added?
More territories, historical/non-historical events, seasons for global map, wipe (!), mercenaries, clan tanks, more strategic elements (buildings and other objects to construct)? Anything else?

Any feedback counts!

133 comments:

  1. All of the above and perhaps less of a differance between provences regarding the gold income. Like 72 gold per day in africa compared to 4k+ in parts of europe is just too big.
    creds for gold was a good way of balancing things up a bit between the big clans and the small clans.
    30 v 30 battles for the higher earning provences.
    commanders tank.
    The Game also badly needs more end game content for those that dont play CW such as campaign, game modes, ladders, Ingame contests (not esl), but you already know this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure - guys from regional soccer league want to get payed like Messi & Co, that one had to come ofc.

      Delete
    2. orchard,

      aye, 30vs30 battles would be good. Once they are technologically possible.

      Delete
    3. Folterknecht,

      aye, predictable.

      Delete
    4. Gold income in provinces is a mix of real world area development balance and hardness of defending the province... Ok maybe not with England but still. No no NO super gold in africa. More major provinces would be okay though. 30 v 30 okay but AFTER we get more advanced in game commanding tools.

      Delete
    5. I take your point Folterknecht, but barcelona are not allied to half the spanish league either. Obv there should be a differance in income, but just not as big a differance imo

      Delete
    6. @orchad:

      You seem to have no idea how much time and energy is needed to stay in europe for more than 2 or 3 days. Getting on the map in africa is a walk in the park compared to that, so the difference in income is more than ok.

      Btw no one hinders you to create your own alliance and give europe a try.

      (I m talking about the situation on the EU-Server here)

      Delete
    7. It's pretty similar in US-Europe. You had better be good at diplomacy and be able to back it up with your tanks day in and day out or you will not last long.

      Delete
    8. I was happy about 30 vs 30 battles. But only If we can make a 6 man platoon. Otherway playing along side 29 random people would be terrible.

      Delete
  2. Bonus gold for conquest or some other mechanism to promote war vs camping territories. Perhaps add diminishing returns on owned properties. Maybe add 'random' landing zones that allow access to land locked areas so they can be challanged

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anti-camping mechanics, thinking of that too.

      Delete
    2. Bad idea. EU server does not have this problem at least not as serious as US server. Only parts are not changing for long (eastern borders of the map)

      Delete
    3. May be so. However globally we do need it.

      Delete
    4. I hope you will not punish for defending only and choose to reward for conquering instead. Especially considering the fact that it does not go well with fortifications you said something about looong time ago and it would be stupid to scare powerful clans from CW after you lured some back by enabling gold ammo for credits purchase.
      Diminishing gold gain from provinces is terrible idea. Same as random landing zones. 1st one is plain unfair especially considering the fact that clan may be attacking but it is for example losing in encounters or winning in encounters but facing defeat in battle for province. 2nd because it would make strategicall planning impossible.

      Delete
    5. look on EU server. There is absolutley no need to anti-camping mechanics in western europe, there is constant turmoil of war. To be honest it's even to big, changing the war into chaos.
      On eastern europe quite the contrary.

      Why?
      On Western Europe you have enough clans involved per available provinces and all territories can be reach froma landing in 3, sometimes 4 days
      On Eastern Europe due to the primetime, there is not enough clans to make required pressure. More then 2/3 of clans that can comfortably play in that primetime made an alliance and are able to control whole ussia, sharing more territories then they need.
      Prime-times were devised having in mind joining EU and RU servers, it never happened.
      People that live in RU primetime mostly play on RU server.
      The simplest solution of that problem would be moving all territories on map to primetime 20, or moving balkan and RU territories 1 hour later. It would really help to make Clan Wars territories more balanced.

      The other reason why eastern europe is not so interesting on EU server is wrong map design - some territories are 5 and 6 provinces away from nearest landing.
      Lately there were added new landings which increased pressure on buffer zone, but haven't fixed the problem of isolated centre of the map (the same problem is in africa but I don't really care about africa)
      The simple solution would be adding a landing zone on the "eastern wall", in the middle of ural, like in africa there are landing provinces starting from continental africa.

      Delete
  3. - More territories is an obvious fix. The remainder of Africa, the US, etc. With these new territories though, I would like to see more timezones to play in.
    - Additional CW tiers. Limit them like you do with Company Battles, and lower their payouts respectively, with the lowest tiers paying credits instead of gold.
    - A Mercinary system would be a welcome addition as well, but I too would like to see a system in addendum to clan wars for solo players to compete.
    - Strategic elements such as fortifications and barriers would be great, and these should become available after a clan has held a territory for a certain length of time e.g. dragon teeth available after 1 week of holding, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tiered territories like company battles. I haven't gotten into clan wars at all because, while I own several high tier tanks, I don't want to play a game full of tier 10s and high tier arty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it a call for variety or out of desire to allow more players to participate? If the latter, I doubt it would work.

      Delete
    2. In the posts I have seen on the topic, it seems to be more about the former, because people would like to see more than IS-7, Maus, E-100, T92, and Gw Typ E every match, especially from the big clans.

      Delete
    3. T92? IS-7? I does appear very often. Do not see your problem.

      Delete
    4. The problem is that it gets monotonous.

      Delete
  5. What I would do is a CW like map for public games.

    It would be a faction game. So only german tanks one side, and US, USSR, FR on the other side.

    The territory movements and attack decisions, would be decided by player votes, or just automatic or WG decide it.

    Factions would start at the historical corrent positions.

    To get 1 terrirory there should be not one but many battles to fight to decide who gets it.

    For example. There would be a total of
    5tier1 battle
    10 tier2 battle
    15 tier3 battle
    20 tier4 battle
    25 tier5 battle
    30 tier6 battle
    35 tier7 battle
    40 tier8 battle
    35 tier9 battle
    30 tier 10 battle

    All battle must be fought by random players who are in random campaign battle or faction battle mode.
    At the end of the battles the side with most total wins in all tier gets the territory.

    Players who took part in the battles would get 5 gold for the territory victory for every tier they played in. Or just credit or some consumable (this is WG to decide). It would be like a daily quest. Players could play every nations tank and take part in both side of the battle with other tanks.

    Not all matches have to be played by the match maker. At the end of the day the played total battles will count only.

    There would be new medals for these new modes for taking part in a battle.

    The global map would only reset if a faction gained more then 66% of the map and hold it for 30 days atleast. After the reset everything will be back to the start.

    This is just a quick draft but you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It would be a faction game. So only german tanks one side, and US, USSR, FR on the other side."


      *facepalm

      At the current state of t10 balance (WG calls it balance) this is total BS. Since the introduction of all these high-pen-guns and gold for credits, its all about movement. Just look at the current german t10s ...

      E50(m) as scout/med - lol
      Maus - no comment needed I think
      E100 - ok on some maps with cover but everywhere else it sucks

      Delete
    2. "Just look at the current german t10s ... "

      In random? They are more than fine there.

      Delete
    3. I thought this was about CW ...

      and the Maus is far from fine atm. There are maybe 4-5 maps where that thing is playable, every other map it gets raped as soon as spotted.

      Delete
    4. Em... and Russian tanks are good for every map? Most universal tank currently is T110E5.

      Delete
    5. noone said anything about russian tanks, but yes they are more versatile than the german tier 10s because of having higher speed and agility.

      Delete
    6. Folterknecht,

      in random its performance is ok. In CWs both German tier Xs are not used often indeed.

      Delete
    7. angrybanana,

      such an issue persists, yest.

      Delete
    8. Wasn't trying to whine or anything btw, Im quite satisfied with my E-100, and it isn't as if all tanks should be versatile. I like my E-100 because it can do one thing really well, that is sidescraping and pwning ppl at close range, if you make it versatile it can't have that strength as well I guess, so it will be decent at everything, and if you make all T10s like that there will be no variety.

      Delete
    9. It is not about complete balance, versatility would however still mean that Maus would have to offer something.
      Let it be slow and comparable low damage ... but let it actually be an armor monster ... even with gold ammo. TheMaus is supposed to be exactly that, yet everything and its mum can penetrate it everywhere.

      And try using E4 instead of E100 ... you will see the difference between good and ... E100 ^^

      Delete
    10. you stray of the topic in here.

      Epicolor has an interesting idea.
      Some number of factions - it may be USSR, Germany, and Allies, but we may keep WoT style tanks of all nations mixed and make those factions completely random. The point is, keep them limited to small numbers, below 5.

      People apply for battles individually, fight them and result of those battles are translated into the situation on the frontline.

      How to organise that is of course difficult part, the idea that everyone can move his own tokens, each one of them representing 1 of his tanks in garage, and if he moves them into a territory declared as a war are he will be able to take part is one option (technically it can be difficult to make intereting battles out of it)

      but still, the idea to make a clan wars where you apply individually and effect of randomly set up battles decides about what's going on on the map may be interesting.

      Delete
  6. Better social tools - right now you need a lot of out of game tools to make a large clan work. Better chat, chat channels, rooms to hang out in, etc etc...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THIS!

      We need clan logs including treasury.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, better social stuff like shared chat for multi-division clans, better treasury tools and so on could all be very nice.

      Delete
    3. reasonable?

      It's not reasonable, it is MUST HAVE, sending gold to many players if you need to send different amount of it is a hell of a job, since it is easy to make a small mistake, that you have no way to notice or check later on.

      First plea for having a treasury log was made in June 2011. We ask about that for 18 months now!
      And all that happen in that area is adding to game rules the one that say "support will not provide the treasury log information in case of inter clan situation"

      It was repeated many times and all who asked about that were shut up.


      Especially that it is not really invasive into game mechanics.

      Delete
  7. Whatever happened to the concepts of the commander's tank and clan wars armory which were alluded to in the 2012 timeline?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are still in plans, again, the development has been slow - we didn't have enough resources.

      Delete
    2. Wargaming has over 800 people and there's no resources for the metagame? Really? Nothing has changed in clan wars since it launched (minor rule changes, yippie). Make 3 month clan wars seasons where whomever earned the most gold at the end wins, then radically change the rules each season. Time for some variety.

      Delete
    3. Out of those people web team makes only a tiny part. It's overloaded with various tasks starting from continuous client-server-web integration for every update, development of internal tools, single WG account and cross-project integration to .. to Clan Wars. Unfortunately, it's so.

      Delete
  8. I don't think I have the free time for Clan Wars, though I might take up being a mercenary depending on how much advance notice is needed.

    Also, I would enjoy seeing the global map expansion from Russia.

    Furthermore, the community idea of tier limits depending on map seems like an interesting one.

    Lastly, I had a fairly long-winded idea for a possible mechanic when all three World of games are integrated, but I won't expound on that (because the three games won't be out for a while) unless asked to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Giving the NA server the territories of the Russian server would be nice. Tiered battles to allow the smaller and newer clans a chance to compete starting out. Give them a South Africa or South America region where the battles are limited like company battles. Perhaps silver rewards for territory rather than gold. Something to draw more people into clan wars. This part of the game has to be more accessible, because it truly is a complete change from the pub matches most people deal with. Working with a coordinated team is so much nicer, but I feel sorry for the smaller clans you see doing landing battles who come in with tier 7s and 8s. They may work great together, but they have no chance, and the grind to Tier X is more than a lot of people want to deal with. So get those people in somewhere so you can show them what they're working towards while they grind to play with the big boys.

    Would definitely like a law of diminishing returns on territory held, or find a way to increase the difficulties of clans who hold massive amounts of territory. As it is, aside from extended borders (Usually negated by treaties), there is no disadvantage to sprawl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't small clans would be able to compete even in low tier battles. The competition for gold (any limited resource) will always be fierce and big and strong clans will be in the lead.

      Delete
    2. That's why you make the low tier areas silver rewards only. The big boys most likely won't compete for non-gold provinces, so that will allow smaller groups to have a chance.

      Delete
  10. What happend to the changes to CW-mechanics WG was talking about during late summer/ early autumn (looting ...)?

    Following statements in the NA-Forum from WG-Staff over there, I get the impression that these changes could come Q1 2013?!

    ReplyDelete
  11. For some players (and clans) ClanWars are uninteresting, maybe new features could change it:
    - mercenaries (yay!)
    - T4, T6, T8 Clan Wars
    - restricted resources n provinces - let's say that after one week amount of gold drops about half, after a half week about another half and in two weeks province give you nothing - this could force some movement on maps (still its better than wipe)
    On the other hand - game needs huge rebalancing (derps, T10 TD's, some mid tiered meds, frenchies, chinese [yup we all know that you guys will screw up balancing on it], some guns) and new endgame content.

    last week I finished M48A1 and I find nothing interesting in the game. Maybe Leopard in future or polish tree but for now it's nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. diminishing income makes no sense.
      If there is a war in the are it wont matter, if there isn't one - friendly clans will switch provinces.

      Also you miss the fact that in most cases when clan sits around doing nothing is not because they are lazy. It's because no one attacks them and they cant attack anyone, because to do so, they dont have resources (tokens).

      Delete
  12. Personally don't like the idea of defectively limited CWs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please, don't forget TOOLS for CLAN!!!!
    CW need some clan's management, and today we can say "thx" to some players who develop tools for:

    -replay
    -clan management...
    -team/tank management for cw...

    An exemple at https://sites.google.com/site/wot4fr/stormstats

    Why we don't have diplomaty too????
    When this is could be implemented?
    Tank's chief to manage battle, you talk about 1 year ago and nothings come...

    thx for your interest!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, most of those are already planned. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. PROMISES ...

      PLANNED, yes how long ago .....

      Delete
    3. You might want to reread the post. I have said that we have been slow with CWs. Unfortunately.

      Delete
    4. Being slow is one thing.
      Adding some stupid stuff (no landing if you have provinces, changes in spying) and some interesting but not neccessary (looting, fog of war) was done, while adding simple but freakishly important stuff like clan logs was neglected for 18 months

      similar stuff was mentioned before cw was introduced and nothing was done, so it is rather obvious why "it is planned" sounds like "we don't give a ***, you will wait another 2 years for it or more"

      Delete
  14. one question im cuious about:

    what do you understand under "historical" events?

    e.g: Bonus on fighting in Poland in September?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any that can be linked to real historical events, not necessarily those related to WWII, eg - Discovery of America, Mongolia event on RU server.

      Delete
    2. Or creation of European Union. Can we get EU flag in game? :D

      Delete
    3. I just hope it won't collapse any time soon ) sry for not politically correct j/k, I'm watching TV too much

      Delete
    4. o_O If this is not politically correct joke than I am absolutely wrong. Seriously. :D

      Delete
  15. I'd like to see something that discourages the constant use of a specific strategy/tank selection. I've seen the same territory held for months by using the same tanks, same strategy.

    Perhaps introduce random events that would block certain tank use. For example, "American Supply Shortage" for 1 week, no more than 2 tanks per team can be from the American tech tree. Force people to adapt, use different vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CW is only about Tier10 tanks.
    IMO, the landing zones should be restricted to Tier 5, need lighter tanks to get a foothold, and as you progress further inland to the more valuable provinces, you unlock higher tier tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but the guys who have been only the land already have access to high-tier tanks, so how would you 'balance' that? in my book it would be very silly if you have a landing zone to defend it with inferior tanks if you have better readily available

      Delete
    2. True that. If I have a tier X, why should I be restricted to use it.

      Delete
  17. CW also sucks for those of us thats trapped on the wrong server, because it was promised it wouldnt matter in the long run :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's bad not only because of Clan Wars. Account transfers should help here.

      Delete
  18. I would like to see:
    -better clan management tools/options, maybe members log (who goes in/out), multi-clan integration tools (there are many of clans that have to be divided because of members limit)
    -more provinces (diff. between RUS and EU server is huge)
    -more details about battles on clan page, instead on Global Map (it takes too long to load whole map, just to take a look on next opponent...)
    -additional place in battle for obserwers (like field commanders), its hard to coordinate all tanks while aiming and watching own sides and rear...
    -replay file format explanation for own tools development ;) (really, its all that 3-rd party programs, tools and stuff that keeps many of MMO's running ;))

    ReplyDelete
  19. A thought for a possible 'revolt' scenario. Make any province attempting to revolt against the owner a landing zone the next day. Lets clans fight over it with the chance of the owner defending if they get chips there is time. Also stops the owner simply one chipping if it reverts to NPCs.

    For the SEA server at least, more landing zones in the North-Eastern area of the map would be good. There's an 18 province long stretch of no landing zone border territories here where the normal amount is only 3-4 territory gaps at most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Revolts are planned for the near future.

      Delete
  20. The NA map is largely a static NAP-fest. There are too few competitive players with too much gold spread out on the map such that good clans can set up shop on their plot of land and not have to fight other good clans for gold. They still do out of boredom occasionally, but things return to the status quo quickly enough. If the gold were more heavily concentrated in fewer provinces it would force the good clans closer together.

    Also, move the gold out of the eastern side of the map; half of the NA players are still at work or commuting home when those battles happen, which is why you have provinces that haven't changed hands in over a year there.

    Right now, CW on NA is a joke. It's not a competitive endgame at all; it's just a fountain of free gold for the small pool of competitive and even semi-competitive players on the server.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somewhat agree, NA clan wars are the least, I would say, active.

      Delete
    2. did you notice the same problem NA has that EU has? Earliest primetime is not interesting for many clans so thoe who can play there have an upper hand to get resources from it for free.

      lesser spread of primetimes (or all provinces in 1) would create the situation, where no one gets a safe hiding spot, weakest clans will be attacked first no matter where they hide.

      Delete
  21. Another end game content, i am cassual player with no time for regular CW battles but i have end-game tanks.
    Thats one of reasons i quit.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This game has been out for 2 years and nothing changed... Did you expect for people after 12k battles to do another 12k just so i can drive my tank of a cliff? You just keep adding tanks and maps. I dont mind paying for games but when you have nothing to pay for its bad. Lucky for you guys there are no similar online games like this. Some escort mission would be cool or some survival missions like defending against 10 waves of enemy npc tanks witch could last for an hour or some rescue missions. I took a break for 5 months from this game and when i came back i was like...wow more tanks and more tanks and o boy more tanks... its sad really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The game has changed a lot for the past two years. That's a fact.

      Delete
    2. The graphics have been improved...
      Game sounds have been improved
      Game mechanics have been improved...
      More maps have been added...
      More tanks have been added...
      And at the end of the day you still click that lonely random battle button and play the "same" battles over and over again.
      Its like your girlfriend is getting more prettier every day but she can only give you a handjob. I want to have sex goddammit.

      Delete
    3. When it comes to that kind of comparison, I can't but merely agree...

      Delete
    4. @ Martin Marty

      Please, do not forget that for many players current mods (assault and encounter) are too complicated. After seeing what my random teammates do in those mods I turn them off as fast as it was possible. My fun from WoT rised by at least 50 prc. after that. And still I am sometimes sick when I see what people do in simple Standard battle. Escort with random players? No way!

      As far as I know escort mode was tested and WG decided that it is too hard for average random teams. So even if such modes will appear they are usefull only for companies.

      To be honest I do not feel tired by one mode. Not at all. I have different tanks with different playstyles and strong sides, there are quite many maps. When I feel bored I just play less or make some brake. Thats all.

      After release of British tanks and new physics I do not wait impatiantly for anything. Would be nice to see random historical battles, European tree and new maps which are better then Port or Serene Cost, but if there were no patches for one year I wouldn't cry.

      Delete
    5. Too many ppl with simple minds care for nothing then getting new tanks in every patch and not a greater game.
      These are the ones who destroys the game and lures the developers into making it easy for themself.
      Would Eve-online be as big as it is if you could only fly in high-sec doing the same missions all the time in the same systems? Think not.

      Compared to any other game, SP/MP/MMO, World of Tanks is right now very simple and boring. It could be great if WG stopped dumping tanks into the game, which we dont need and start to actually develop the game and make it something more.

      Implement a choice: basic and expert game mode. Problem solved.

      Delete
    6. Dead_Skin_Mask,

      don't want to make silly promises bordering ads, but we have prepared a lot for World of Tanks to be improved and added in 2013-2014. Hope,you will be positively surprised.

      Delete
    7. @ Johan Grankvist

      EVE can do incredible miracles, but I still would not play it :) I am WWII tanks fan. Not gamer. You must remember that WoT has also group of fans, who play cause here are tanks, tanks that existed or were at least planned in real life, not some sci-fi mechs or spaceships. I like fantasy and sci-fi books and movies, but I am not interested in that kind of games. I never played MMO. For years I was playing almost only in flight simulators and Total War series (I am also medieval and ancient warfare fan). For me it is more important that tank has real life turret, then if there are some other game mods ;). So as you see I have very simple mind ;)

      @ Overlord

      I do not doubt :) I only say that I am currently quite satisfied with WoT. I am sure that I will play the game for years even if nothing will change.

      Biggest issue I have with the game are terrible players I get in my random teams, specially when I am lowest tier. But still I am not fan of some leagues :). I would rather preferred smaller teams (so 1 player has bigger influence on battle) or even lower tiers dispersion in battles (so I do not have to watch how 2 tiers higher teammates in well armored tanks camp at base or die in first minute, while I can't do much in my tank).

      Delete
    8. As seen above there are 2 types of players in WoT.

      Is it possible to make a matchmaking system that combine players based on their statistic? Maybe give players ranks based on statistic?

      As soon as i enter a battle i can tell the outcome of battle just by looking at players statistics. I would rather wait longer for a better match that i can enjoy and will be fair, then to get fast in a battle that will be a total fail. Dont get me wrong i dont mind losing, but a match with people with bad statistic vs good statistic cant even be called a battle.

      I believe that would solve the random matches and (optional) "hard modes" problem for everyone.

      Delete
    9. To get what? Extrmely fierce competition in every battle regardless of how well you play?

      Delete
    10. no, rather to get both sides full of players who are knowing what they are doing, not fast rape 15:0 after half of enemy tanks suicided or fast loses 2:15 after our 3 top tanks were hiding behind arty for 12 minutes of the battle.

      fierce battle can be sometimes a bit frustrating, battles with morons on both sides are frustrating always

      Delete
  23. As was already said before, widen the CWs to be played on different tiers. Geographically, or completely separated or by some other idea players suggest. And it doesn't have to be by 4-6-8-10 tier like company battles.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think the most urgent need is the tools for commanders to effectively control the clan. This includes:
    - Log of usage of gold
    - Statistics about players CW-activity

    Specially the statistics are needed to see who actively play the Clan Wars, and therefore who should be credited when distributing gold. Also it is needed to see who don't play CW at all, so they can make room for people who are willing to play CW.

    Other thing is that I feel that 100 people limit is too much for a clan, since you don't get games enough to keep 100 people active in the CW. Most days there are only 1 or 2 Clan Wars game after you have landed, and even with full rotation that would mean that one player gets to play less than one CW game per every 3rd day (if counted 2 games avg. per day). Not enough to keep people active and interested in the Clan Wars.

    ReplyDelete
  25. - Commander seat: one extra player have the right to issue orders to the team. At first commander should use TS to issue commands, but later there should be an option to use a map (not the minimap) for it. And the orders should appear on the player's GUI.
    - Organization units / squads: ability to issue players to squads (6-8) before and in battle.
    - Observer seats: teams should invite players to view the match. The observer should see only that side which invited him.
    - Lower tier battles.
    - And after all these MERCENARIES: bulletin board for searching player. The pay should be calculated from the tier of the battle (the type of the vehicle?) and maybe set up more requirements. These requirements add a bonus to the payment (W/L%, min played matches, etc -> higher the requirement higher the added pay). The pay should be in silver or in gold. Maybe the base payment should be silver, and for the requirements it should be gold.

    The first changes are required for use random players efficiently.

    Lh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. PS: the Bulletin board+ requirements system can be an incentive to clanless players to improve their stats. Because with better stats they can undertake better "jobs".

      Example:
      Tier 6 player W/L 55%. -> 6*3000 silver + 5*2 Gold.
      (3000 / tier; 2 gold / 1% over 50)
      On defeat, only the half or third of this should be payed.

      These number are only for the example, and should be balanced.

      Lh.

      Delete
  26. most stuff i want is already said in one way or another, altough my idea of incorporating lower tier tanks is slightly diffrent:

    instead of making diffrent tier cw's, we could use a system like in TC, were lower tier tanks weight less and there is a limit on the total MMweight (instead of just counting the tiers). this will drag in more scouts/ tier 8/9 tanks for sure. since they are more then capable enough.

    But like stated by others here: MORE VARIETY!!! i stoped playing cw cause it was always the same tanks fighting the same way(and a crappy clan as well at that time)

    ReplyDelete
  27. - Move the gold! Territories that change in value, or having to chase the high gold territories around the map will create a more dynamic environment.

    - Multiple maps per territory. If a clan doesn't know if it's defending on Ensk, or Ruinberg, or Himmelsdorf, it really switches up the strategy. Which map would be randomly determined when the battle starts.

    - Random start positions on the maps themselves, rather than defenders being north always on a specific map, etc.

    - Restrictions on tank types on specific maps/territories... limit heavies to 1/side in some scenario.

    - Specials events on the clan wars map that impact gameplay and focus activity.

    - Bonus for "mapping" a clan. Knock 'em off the map and receive bonus gold. Gets even better if it scales based on how long they've been on the map... people will actively target the big static clans more if there's a huge bonus for mapping them.

    - As above, bonuses for taking a territory away that's been held longer that scale based on the length of time held?

    - Limit a clan's chips if they aren't actively fighting each night, or if they camp. Find some way of making camping territories a tactical disadvantage in the battles themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Give the Euro players who are stuck on the NA Cluster since closed Beta the Chance to move to the Euro Cluster, so we can actually take part in Clan Wars without being completely sleep-deprived.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Make it less streamlined to fight in CW. Randomize as much as possible so as many tanks, clans and tactics is forced to be used.

    Today everyone is using the same tanks on the same maps with more or less same tactics. Gets veeeery boring quickly.

    Starting from the landing phase:
    Every match is randomized in company size which forces clans to use other tanks then only tier x.
    The composition of the company is set aswell with a certain number of Heavy, Medium, Light, TD and Arty so any other tank size then Heavy and Medium gets a meaning in Clan Wars again, regardless of map and company size.
    The Map stays the same with a randomized game mode which can be either nation wars (A team can only use one nations tanks) or something else.

    This would give CW a air of randomness which it is sorely lacking today.
    It is too damn boring to be honest. Many clans have lost members because they feel that CW is boring and is now playing WoT whenever there is a weekend bonus or perhaps not at all.

    In combinaion with a poor random game setup outside clan wars, WoT is boring when you get your 4th tier x tank. Different tank, same shit basicly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Desire for more random noted :)

      Delete
    2. find an optimum with that.
      playing CW like tank comapnies makes no sense.
      important part of CW is being able to prepare a battle, knowing from which cap you start and a map of course.
      Important part of a strategy is to move your tokens the way that will end in battles that you play on the map you prefer from the cap you prefer to maximize your winning chance.

      So random maps each day - absolutely not.
      Limits to what you can use - no, CW are about to use the lineup you find useful.

      Bt atm maps are bundled together. If you fight in eastern germany, you play 90% of battles on fisherman's bay and erlenberg
      If you fight in Poland, you play 90% of battles on Murovanka and Ruinberg.
      And so on and so on.

      So what would help would be just different map distribution in provinces, more variety.

      Delete
  30. Global War is very cool. But what about small fights 3x3 and 1x1??? I know it was planned long ago, but still no information.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Make large gold rewards for the capture of landy deep inside clan held territory . If a clan has a high yeld territory for more then say a week, there is a reward put on it to promote other clans to capture and enjoy the bounty. I'm not suggesting we improve hourly gold income of the zone, but just make a reward for it being captured this one time. This is actually something that came to my mind as clan wars beta was released, and i think to this day it still would encourage large change n land ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As a part of a CW clan in "training" (we held land for 1 day..). Better in-game cw tools would be nice, most asked question in clan channel:

    1. Is chips down for tonight? / Are we attacking tonight?
    2. When is CW?
    3. Am I needed?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Inspired by the following thread/post

    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/183784-sandblasted-alliance/page__st__160__pid__3450416#entry3450416

    I got this idea:

    Why dont take back the "no landing rule"? Not completly but allowing a clan that already owns land, 1 landing per week?

    That would have some positive effects imo:

    - smaller clans can train additional maps without losing everything the worked hard for
    - bigger clans have the posibilty to either get back 1 landing zone or cause trouble on the other side of the map

    Covering the landing zones for an ally wouldnt be possible effectively with only 1 landing attempt per week.

    On regarding the gold of these provinces far away from your HQ: Landing in the same time zone gives 85%, 1 time zone difference 70% and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What new features and content would you like to be added?
    More territories, historical/non-historical events, seasons for global map, wipe (!), mercenaries, clan tanks, more strategic elements (buildings and other objects to construct)? Anything else?

    1) Mercenaries!
    3) historical battle f.eg. Germans/Russians '44
    2) Destruct all objects.
    3) Weather/night
    4) Strategic elements
    5) Historical events
    6) More slots to buy for gold!
    7) Exchange my exp to credits (silver)!
    8) One big flat with small hills map. No place to hide only couple wrecks and 30vs30 tanks! That could be battle! Ukrainian stepps! No trees no bushes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all of those do relate to CWs. I like point 7 most.

      Delete
  35. SMOKE...we want to use the SMOKE LAUNCHERS...a battlefield with SMOKE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. - a brand new clanwar system:

    * differents timings = we could have a set of CW starting at 0900, another at 1400, another at 2000, witch is THREE différents set of possibilities

    * those differents CW could be limited on tiers on a imprédictible ratio ( monday is TX, tuesday is T7, wed is T3, thursday is T8, sat is T8, sun is TX, and nex week it will be another set of probability ....

    * Give us more territory to fight for !!!! Asia, usnorth and ussouth, atlantide ....

    * spy are good, but really, WTF. Better add sabotor system. If the sabotor succeed, some trigger events could works like
    - no money for xx hours from teritory
    - only 14 players ( yes, this big mauss is sofering an engine breakdown )
    - ennemy line-up details totaly reveal at battle startup
    or
    - ennemy position reveal .....
    -

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi!

    I looked on RU server global map and its huge with several regions... i don't like that! i believe that it would be better to keep fighting in Europe and not expand the global map but instead divide current provinces into several.

    Why does great Brittan have only 6 provinces? 15-20 is better! just triple the number of provinces. no need to have clan wars in south africa, there never was a tank battle there in real life...

    building objects on provinces would be nice - build a repair shop and every tank lost during defending that province would have 24hours less freezeout time. i leave other object ideas to you :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why does great Brittan have only 6 provinces? 15-20 is better! just triple the number of provinces. no need to have clan wars in south africa, there never was a tank battle there in real life..."

      There was never a tank battle in Britain in real life, either.

      Delete
  38. Improved waiting room:
    *) There could be a rooster where the commander lists his preferred tank setup so that players know which tanks to pick.
    *) A management overview of the tanks selected for CW (how many heavy,med, ... and then by type)
    *) and so on

    On gameplay:
    *) I think that you should take a look at the company point system. I think it has potential for CW as well.
    *) Fluctuating Gold Value of provinces - example: the longer a province is owned by the same clan the more gold it generates ... which should entice other clans to take it :)

    Clan tools:
    *) overview about locked tanks

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would be glad to see a mechanism that enables clans to tighten their cooperation. In a situation when one group holds a territory there is a very low chance to get any alied support without allies taking a landing zone nearby, or on the back of the clan they are fighting at the moment. This causes large areas to go static with trench war going on and borders not moving to much for weeks and longer.

    A good idea would be to enable an alliance (embeded in game mechanics instead of just a teamspeak deal) of up to 3 clans to land on the map using allied forces territories. This way we would add a LOT of forces to play, and make clan wars more intense and dynamic. If every clan currently on the map could turn one or two of their provinces into a completely new landing zone for their two allies (that province would be shared 50-50 income with the clan introduced to the map), there would suddenly be a totaly new front of war that could totaly change that part of the map. That is what I would like to see in CW, and what I want to propose.

    Another thing would be to enable allied chips to travel through their allies territories without causing any hostile actions. This would do three significant things:
    - Attack enemy territories from a different angle (but only for provinces that will directly be connected with own, or allied territories, and if a province is cnnected t a headquartes province INdirectly, the allied clan would take some % of it's income, or the income would be simply cut by any degree that would make sense balancewise)
    - Set Your own chips to defend allies (since a new landing zone could pop out anywhere on the map after some period of time it is owned by the enemy)
    - A pack of chips can be placed on the map and "saved" in allied territory to preevnt a complete wipe from the global clan wars. This once again adds more chips and clans to play on the global map, and makes it more dynamic.

    Of course this would require a LOT of balancing, very low limits (max 3-4 i think, or less) to number of clans in an "allience", and very high cost of "sharing a province" or "transfering income" through allied territory (up to 70% income lost maybe?). The last thing is to limit number of chips that are "outside our own lands" to one or two packages of 15 max, and each package would have to generate some sort of upkeep costs while beeing outside our own lands (like 50 or 100 gold each day it's "out", or a sum getting higher every day it's out, so after a week or two it would become a GIANT expense).

    To sum up what I would love to see is as follows:
    - More cooperation and alliance options.
    - More forces put into play on the global map
    - More possibilities to get new and/or loose already owned territories (!)
    - High cost of using "not owned" territiries for chip and income transfers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah ... I almost forgot:

      In-game map and clan wars management on client level is also a great tool to have. With global map available for every player including planned moves, and our chips as well as allied clans positions (i' not that sure about their chips, but still).

      Another think is a calendar ingame with countdown timers for all games like ESL (this has to be integrated for easy ESL play!), event games, CW and "specials". So maybe some sort of 3 nearest things on side of the button like:
      - "CW - Corsica - 3h:24m"
      - "CW - Tuscany - 3h:48m"
      - "ESL - 3v3 Tier8 - 5h:11m"
      Also "blinking" or some sort of other indication for battles starting in less than 15minutes (so that we know that starting a random battle might be risky and we might not make it in time). "Special battles" on the bottom of the scree is not really that visible for ma in 1080p and 22 inch monitor, so I guess many other players have the same problem.

      Delete
  40. Hmm, i like to see
    - API for clansites to easyest managemnt of cw-s (who was on it, who checking-leave)
    - Alliances war! if few clan in one alliance, can run on cw's with mixed groups.
    - For equality and disband the goldenfarmer big alliance - monthly or weekly clear all of cw... (if you see, example the yellow and the om community 100-200 day sit on the same place and do nothing just camping on the big golds... )
    - Less differency on the province incomes (eu-permeu-arabs-african)
    - Counter steal action - like in the old "Norht & South" game, you have a chance to counter attack the enemy province income-transfer. If you win, u steal the daily income from this province, if no, you loose your fully attacker team
    - Littler provinces to europe, more landing point
    - More russian & arab province
    - Open the american provinces too on the EU/NA server!
    - Point system for CW's, like in tournaments. Example 120 point, max tier10, min tier1, 15 person. (so no full 15x10t... )

    - Fun-idea >> separated CW for each "company premade size". As in company the cw now like the ultimate company rules, no tierpoint limit. But an alternate company for 90 point, max tier8's... better balanced, more fun, more gold. One alliance/clan, one cw type.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've been running CW with major clan for 2 years. It is largely the samething night after night. Their is an incredibly high turnover rate due to people being burnt out because the battles are every single night. The system should be about taking land, not owning it. That is the fundamental flaw with CW. I would reset the map every so often, and reward those who fight and take land with more gold then just sitting on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Periodical CW resets are one of the things to consider.

      Delete
    2. The resets have to be spaced long enough a part that fighting does not seem like a waste. Example would be say Planetside where you could fight over and over for the same thing, each night it would be reset next time you logged on.

      Another possible addition would be to change the timezones of the regions when you reset. Make guys play new maps, it helps keep things from getting too stagnate.

      Delete
  42. 1. WG has to decide what they actually want: offensive CW or defensive. Then create a ruleset for it. Paying gold for land ownership and limiting almost all offensive and expansive options while saying CW is about attacking and fighting somewhat contradicts. If offensive CW is wanted, incentives have to be given and there need to be options to actually be offensive (no landing rule, token limit, tank freeze, in future revolts -> everything is directly leading to a forced defensive stance to achieve the given incentives ... gold only). Take away restrictions, give gold and other incentives for offensive options (e.g. bonus traits like x times xp for some time, increased gold income, bonus tokens, credits, ... when winning a set amount of attacking battles) - take away gold from land ownership for that if necessary. Make being offensive the way you need to go for being successful. Right now being offensive only really punishes a clan except for perhaps better battles.

    2. clan/alliance managment tools are so overdue one can´t even put it in the right words anymore. And it can´t be that hard to implement that. However, endgame seems to be lowest priority and posting ideas for better CW is a bit of a joke considering that even the easiest things aren´t implemented in a time frame we have seen already. Alliance system included here.

    3. Mercenary system is overdue to get small clans and solo players with limited time into CW. A mercenary system would actually benefit them unlike tank freeze and other weird rules (i have yet to see a big clan having real problems with tank freeze - and that was the official reason for it if i remember correct). If mercenaries would bring their own tokens it would even benefit offensive options in CW.

    4. Commander tank with a command map would be great, as stated above in some comments. However, i would put that on low priority until the far more pressing matters are resolved. Would still be a blast, though.

    5. For more diversity of tanks used in CW - if that is wanted by WG - balance tanks accordingly. The current balance forces clans to use pretty specific tanks for success and denies a lot of tanks to be used consistently (e.g. Maus ... pretty much useless as it has almost zero traits to offer as armor is worthless with high-pen guns, TDs lacking superior dpm to balance their lack of useability without turrets, ...)


    In general WG really has to make up their minds about CW. Talking about this but creating a ruleset and CW promoting the opposite is weird. All new rules have promoted defensive playing, not a single one was helping with offensive gameplay. Tanks are only balanced for random matches rendering quite a lot of them useless in company or cw matches. Yet WG is officially saying that CW is supposed to be an active and offensive war.

    And the most important point at last:

    Actually start to do something with CW. It hasn´t had a low priority ... it has been NO priority ever since.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's correct, as I have mentioned CW weren't given enough attention becuase of the lack of web resources, or even putting in better becuase of the heavy workload our web team had. As things stay currently, we can expect some progress with it in future.

      So it's posting your CW ideas here is not a waste of time at all.

      Delete
    2. well, partially it is waste of time, since people who doesn't know much about CW (haldf of the posters here) talk ot people who doesn't know much about CW (you and other developers) and then choose things to do that has not much sense.
      Neglecting clan logs while putting in effect many things less important but more time consuming proves that.

      Tanks are balanced a bit better then scharthak suggests - Maus is useful - on few maps.
      The trick is, Scharthak is unable to play on those maps where maus is useful without moving to the completely different region. Because in 15 provinces he can reach he has 5 maps in total.
      Bigger differentiation in maps is neccessary part of solving the problem.


      The "offensive" clan wars is right now near impossible since you have a limited number of tokens. Pushing forward in any direction is impossible without solid buckup from all other sides because you will really fast run out of tokens.

      Introducing no landing rule lead to a solid stalkemate on EU server because clans that fought a war realised they can't continue that without giving away their other territories for free.
      ATM on EU in western europe we have clan turmoil not clan wars.
      The outcome of battles is decided mostly by which alliance is able to get more landing zones.
      Because of that advancing to eliminate good member of enemy alliance makes no sense, because that means they will be soon back on the landing zone, invulnerable for us and posing bigger threat then they are now.

      The sollution could be freezing lost HQ for longer - 4 or even 5 days.
      That way, eliminating enemy clan would be enough advantage to take risks in order to achieve it and would allow to subsequently use this advantage to knock out another clan in the time given.

      Delete
  43. Could you try to eliminate the Gaussian bullshit for CW? ... and maybe the crew skills?
    In this way you would put more accent on player's skills instead of "fun" as you like to call it. CW is however an organized game and if you eliminate the "luck" +-25% and to aiming as well you would give equal chances to all of the players , and making a single kind of ammunition you would value the player's skills even more.

    ...penetration...enemy's hit...that was close...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It just doesn't f***ing matter how good i play 'cuz my enemy will always play better due to his 2k+ battles he has on his tank/crew. He can even shoot from moving with a T92 and always aiming right a moving target(and i won't cuz i have just 200 battles on my tank/arty/crew). To the hell with this! ...please eliminate any Gaussian factor and crew skills for CW.

      Delete
    2. Again, have you ever thought that there is far more randomization within your aiming circle than anywhere else?

      Delete
  44. Like it was said before, more tiered instances, our clan is good at tier 6 TC, beginner in T8 and I think it will never be capable of playing T10 CW, so it's a whole part of the game we cannot touch...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Besides reducing timezones down to 2-3 to increase activity, I'd like to see the chip system as it currently stands done away with, and in place a logistics system put in. Have clans earn logistics points through territory control, natural build up and winning battles, with battles providing greater logistical earning.

    Then have all tanks cost logistics points, with a base cost of 20 points for a tier ten tank, adjusted upwards or downward based on distance from headquarters and actual usage in clan wars - this way even perceived "weak" tanks get used simply because they become so cheap to field for a specific campaign. This may also bring in T9 tanks as well if you want to run a clan dirt cheap. Further, don't limit deployment of forces on landing zones, simply double the cost for land holding clans - such forces can be considered "Paratroopers" or "Marine Expeditionary Forces", and handled accordingly. This removes the safety net some clans have from each other due to not sharing borders, while preventing a NASA style strangehold because the logistical cost would be astronomical.

    Logistics won't allow clans to control the entire map either, as scaling costs will outrace even the most active of clans, and even if you removed clan member limits (which I am in favor of).

    Logistics can be complimented by mercenaries, which cost nothing to field, but any fights the mercs win causes the mercs to gain all the resources. This way a clan can't be swarmed but it'd be poor return to use mercenaries to swarm since you'd get little economic benefit.

    As for mercs themselves, allow them to come in small 15 man companies, which do not hold land. Individuals are unlikely to be picked up due to disorganization, but a functional 15 man group will be snapped up since you can count on them to function as a group and not a random team of pubbies. Further, merc companies need a track record - better functioning mercs get better pay for winning battles (and are also more likely to get hired, so it's positive reinforcement). When mercenaries win battles, they should get half the provinces value in gold, and the other half in credits, with slight but exponential adjustments depending on the merc companies success and track record.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continued...

      Next, implement economic alliances. Any number of clans can join in on an economic alliance, and they do not need to share borders. Clans take advantage of economic alliances by increasing their natural rate of logistical growth and by drawing even more gold from a "Global Victory Gold Pot", which is ~50% of the maps total gold output. When clans within an economic alliance win battles, they gain a greater share of the global gold pot, by having their provinces increase in value. The clan[s] actively battling gain the greater share (60%) with 50% of all winnings accruing wherever their headquarters is placed, and the remaining 50% across their remaining territories.

      In this way, economic alliances promise greater returns for working together, but with diminishing returns as you add more people to the alliance. Further, they're naturally offensive in nature, as they reward those who are fighting rather then farming, without truly penalizing anyone - either settle down and deal with what you have, or keep fighting for even more reward.

      Economic alliances should work in council like fashion, with the original creator or "Chairman" having 2 votes to everyone elses 1 vote. The council can then decide on whether to allow members in or to eject them, while any EA member can choose to leave voluntarily at any time. This allows them to self-regulate while potentially sparking political intrigue and start server wars when someone feels they have been unjustly kicked from an EA.

      Next, add in military alliances, which allow sharing of territory as far as movement, and adds an alliance logistical pool that allied clans can draw from, but ONLY to move armies, not to place them. Again, such alliances have diminish returns with more members as you have more clans drawing from the limited pool, preventing everyone from abusing it.

      Add a new game mode, Skirmish. Skirmishes are similar in concept to random battles with a menu interface in which you select a clan to play for - anyone can do so from the garage, and all tanks are accepted. Once you select a clan, if that clan has any battles scheduled, you'll end up playing on one of their scheduled maps. Winning the game will add points to a territory control meter for your selected clan. When battle times roll over, the clan with the most territory control points has all costs associated with a clan battle halved.

      Skirmishes are designed to draw in the more competitive players and help them grind towards end tier tanks faster while allowing to help and root for their [favorite] clan.

      As for some other features
      -reduce timezones down to 2-3
      -add better social features to help monitor and control the clan
      -better integrate clanwars into the client, such as having a global map tab ingame, with things such as countdown timers for scheduled battles.
      -add an calender ingame along with a clock
      -add an ingame tactical planner for clan wars
      -add a more indepth voip, which allows those who are FCs and DCs to have priority speaker.
      -add a proper commander and observer modes.

      Delete
  46. Why is the island of Crete called "South Aegean" and not "Crete"? This doesn't make any sense. The South Aegean is the body of water around the island; Crete is the island which is occupied.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This may have been said but i'll give a try.

    - Oil fields, we all know that oil plays a big part in wars, you can't move your vehicle if you dont have fuel. Those could replace some gold areas and provide oil so you can move your chips(tanks) around the territory more further.

    "Oil Fields" could be usefull to move chips(tanks) far away from the capital without actually moving the capital itself.
    It should work this way, when you get the oil field territory you need to use gold to create "Oil Pumps" to extract oil from the ground. You can still move chips without oil, however you won't be able to move them far away.

    For example, an long term war (like the war on EU server in Europe) would require lots of oil fields to be able to move from Russia to Spain.

    It's simple,and could be actually easy to implement and does not require any scientists to make it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot, max amount of oil should be 1000 or 1500.
      Every chip movement far away from the capital would require 200 oil everytime it's moved.

      Oil Pumps would provide 50 oil each day,so.. you would need an balanced amount of oil fields AND gold territories to be able to sustain an long-term war far away from your capital.

      Delete
  48. My idea of CW:
    As i did read that comment about Oil i liked that idea so copy paste here:

    "Oil Fields" could be usefull to move chips(tanks) far away from the capital without actually moving the capital itself.
    It should work this way, when you get the oil field territory you need to use gold to create "Oil Pumps"

    I like this idea. Maybe we could change it littlebit too?
    As you are pumping oil you could be selling oil to gold?
    (50 barrels 100gold? Creating tower 1k gold?)
    And then in countries as Finland there is no way there is oil we all know this.
    So why not able to create mines there?
    - Gold
    - Iron
    - Other metals

    If you would find Country with iron it would give you benefits in CW with lowering repair costs as you have raw materials to fix.

    If you would find Country with Gold it would automatically create some gold to Clan bank.


    As my idea is that there would be dynamic selling too what would be famious +/- 25%
    As there would be lot of clans pumping oil but not selling it automatically oil price would go higher but if there would be lot of selling oil price would go down.
    This would cause that moving in CW map would be more active due getting different benefits.

    This idea is still at so raw that it would need so much more thinking...
    Maybe we could have "scouting" in CW too? Send 1 chip away from your CW and get information [What could fail too] from part of map what is next of your owned province?

    Different benefits as owning different province?
    Some places would have Crew training 10% faster some place would have 5% cheaper modules.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The territories should get something extra than gold.
    Different types of resources, spread ed out between the territories.
    With those resources, the clan can build for example:
    -Reinforcement buildings to help them defend their province. Like walls or big camouflage nets etc.
    -spawn a new tank if one dies, in the middle of combat. As attacker or defender.
    this will give and edge to the battle and also fresh tactics in the middle of combat.
    -bonus to all your tanks in the game like +10% camouflage or reload or HP.

    These resources should not be traded between the clans. And should not be easy aquiered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. As an actual CW player I would say do not listen to any one sayign they want tier 5 battles, it would ruin the game completly. CW is end game and end game should be with the best tanks. Also do not give bonuses to attakcer/defender. It should be played fair and even for both sides.

    To improve the CW experince and make it less of a job that will drive players away start with things that help leaders of a clan, with out them there is no clan and CW will die.

    Logs for people joining and leaving. Also tresury payments, this will also keep morale up for every one in the clan, when every one can see that gold is not stolen.

    A better map but you said it was coming. :D Make shure it's fast and do not crash during prime time.

    More landing zones: Not close to current landing zones, it is needed where provinces is 5-6 zones in like russia on the EU server and central africa. There are provinces that can be held to easy when they do not have a landing zone close.

    Time zones on EU server mignt need a little tweaking. 18:00 got way to few clans fighting, it's to early for GMT +1-+2 people is still not home. It should be removed. make it 19:00 instead. It's a good one for GMT+2 players and move the 20:00-19:00 border a little to the right on the map but not to much. EU got plenty of players at GMT +1 that need some space.
    This would mean more fighting in russia on EU server and that is good.

    It would be nice if provinces could earn credits instead of gold so the clan can help to pay for tanks. But it need to be the clans choise if it wants gold or credits.

    Also one thing not CW related: Fix penetration no damage shots. It's not fun to aim good and get a nice hit with a 200+ pen weapon straight on a 50mm side armor and hear penetration and still see the tank roling on with full hp. If it hit and go thrue armor it should do damage. And tracks shuold not absorb 400 damage more then once.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lower barrier of entry. Provinces with tier limits, like company battles. You guys mentioned you were considering adding special "command" tanks; Would love to see those. And any way that smaller/more casual groups of players can get in on the action.

    I would also personally like to see a version of it that has players and clans fighting for each of the in-game nations on a global map, instead of fighting for a hundred independent clans. As it stands, success in clan wars is very difficult if you're not a part of one of the big-name clans/alliances. I feel that it's much more conducive to a healthy gameplay experience if players sign up to fight for predetermined sides a-la planetside, instead of it becoming a game of "who can find the most internet friends", or as is just as often the case, big internet communities ruling over territory.

    Frankly I'm sick of seeing the same alliances crop up in games; somethingawful goons, redditors, 4channers, etc.

    Now, whether each nation/side would be limited to only tanks that are from that nation/side, is another question. It would be neat to see, but I wouldn't mind if it was just unrestricted.

    ReplyDelete