Jump to content


Fixing CW Campaigns

Campagin Clan Wars

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

HLS30 #1 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 04:22

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

The Problem: The specific issues that people have with campaigns are numerous. Campaigns are known for breaking clans, being aggravating as hell to be in, difficult to figure out if you're getting a tank, not good times for west-coasters or late shift east coasters to get the required battles in, etc. This isn't a secret. When you have clans that are (lets be honest) guaranteed to get the tanks mad about how these campaigns are run, you know you have a problem. And WG knows they have a problem. As evidence: No campaign ever has the same system for distributing tanks. They're trying to fix it. But that's the problem. We don't need a fix, we need a completely new system.

 

The Proposal: This is going to seem like heresy to some, but hopefully what follows will make it clear. Keep the Fame Points. Keep the Tank Licenses. Just change what they actually mean.

Fame Points: Under the new system, these would have zero relevance to if you get the tank or not. FPs would determine if you got camo, emblems, consumables, gold?, personal reserves, etc. Basically, the stuff that's cool to get, but honestly, it's not why we're playing the campaign, we're playing for the tank, and that's where the Clan Tank Licenses come in.

 

Clan Tank Licenses: Tanks would be distributed purely on a clan license system. However, rather that only the X number of top clans getting Y licenses, Every clan would get a single license for each game they win. To be eligible to receive a license, you would have to have been in a winning game with the clan.

 

"But why?" I hear you ask. "Clearly clan licenses are stupid, since that favors the better clans to win". Well. yes. The clans that are full of great players aren't going to have any problem getting licenses, but that's already the situation. Running two full teams? Hit two landings in an early time zone, and two in a later. 4-5 battles per landing, if you win them all, means that day one a clan could have 16-20 licenses. If they run more teams, or hit more landings, they obviously will get more. However, The teams that are doing that day one? Lets be honest, they probably were going to be getting tanks no matter what system is used. Where this system starts to show it's benefits is later on. Say a few days have passed, and all the top clans have tanks. At that point, they're probably going to go from hitting landings to just holding land for the gold. That lets the 2nd tier of clans start getting wins, then the third, etc. There's no solid cap on the number of tanks given out on this system, just a cap on the time you have to get it done. This gives smaller clans, and people that have less time to play, an actual incentive to keep trying for the tank.

 

T6/T8/T10 combination campaigns would also be more rewarding for smaller clans, and give them incentives to actually play. Say WG has three premiums that will be given out for the campaign. A T6, 8, and 10. THe 6/8 could be tanks that already exist. The campaign starts, and the T6 map is open. Clans fight, big clans get licenses, smaller clans get some. Then T8 opens. Instead of shutting down T6 completely, WG could leave it open for the smaller clans to fight over the remaining battle to get the T6 reward tank. Those clans that already have the T6 or don't care about it are now fighting on the T8 map for the 8 reward tank. Then T10 opens, and the T8 stays open still for those that want to fight for that tank. To get the T10, you still have to work for it, and your clan has to be at least decent, but smaller clans will have an incentive to actually play all the way to T10, and those that don't want to can still be in the campaign. It could be setup so that T6 closes when T10 opens, if WG wants to cut the number of tanks being given out.

 

Benefits of the proposed system:

- People that were going to get the tanks no matter what still get them.

- Smaller clans that usually don't have a chance, actually have a reason to participate in the campaign, since they can still get tanks if they play well enough.

- Easier for clan officers to track progress in the campaign. Rather than juggling fame points, guessed cutoff points, etc. It's a simple "How many licenses do we have or need, and how many players have won a battle".

- Encourages clan play and strengthens clan bonds, since you don't have to fight for the last few battles worth of FP during a campaign.

- People who aren't able to play during the most common times can still contribute and get a tank.

 

Disadvantages of the proposed system:

- Companies that manufacture blood pressure medications will see decreased profits.

- Moderators on this forum will have to work harder to find people breaking for the forum rules by swearing.

 

 

TL:DR: The CW Campaign system is broken. Instead of patching it, build a whole new reward system.



Absolute_Mad_Lad #2 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 04:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18896 battles
  • 995
  • [PIX3L] PIX3L
  • Member since:
    01-02-2013
Seems Like a interesting idea on most parts especially for smaller clans such as my own who only do tier 6 or 8 clan wars +1

Bsan77 #3 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 04:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14516 battles
  • 1,152
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Interesting and well thought out idea. I think someone more experienced on the clan wars map and how campaigns work can better judge how well this would work but I think it's something that deserves being given a closer look(even if you didn't give any real negatives which almost all ideas have :P).

HLS30 #4 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 05:02

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

Well, realistically, the two negatives that I've come up with (if they can be considered such by anyone other than WG) is that there will be more reward tanks in circulation, and the top clans will actually have an easier time of getting tanks.

 

HOWEVER. More tanks? the time for a campaign can always be cut down, which will reduce the number of tanks available, or extended, which will make more available. And as for the easier time for top tier clans getting the tanks: They're gong to get them anyways. I don't think anyone is doubting that, this will open it up to other clans that maybe aren't hyper-competitve, but still want something to play for.



LastoftheFallen #5 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 05:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35087 battles
  • 654
  • Member since:
    02-17-2013

I can see another issue that needs to be considered...

 

If each win generates 1 tank for the clan, who gets to decide which of the 15 (or less if it's 10v10 or 7v7) clan members that fought in that winning battle is the one person who will receive the award?  If it's the clan commander, then I see one happy player and 14 guys pissed off at the commander.  This issue obviously goes away after enough wins, but what if the clan doesn't achieve enough wins to grant reward tanks to each clan member that was on a winning team?



OdaZONE #6 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 05:21

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 23353 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013
I kinda like the idea. Although If you give people plenty of time to do it and just about anyone can have it, What makes this tank Special anymore? Is it a Reward or a Participation Trophy? It just takes away the Special Value of it when you don't set how many come out. 

kevin_hitman #7 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 05:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15806 battles
  • 488
  • [_AKA_] _AKA_
  • Member since:
    09-27-2012
I HATE Campaigns . Everyone gets upset and butt hurt .

lamplight #8 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24654 battles
  • 1,874
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011
This is obviously an awesome idea that would benefit every level of clan, player, etc. but WG would never go for it because they're A) stubborn and ignorant and B) greedy and would never allow the players to decide how many tanks they gave out. That would go directly against everything they stand for as a company.

HLS30 #9 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:05

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

View PostLastoftheFallen, on Apr 01 2016 - 20:12, said:

I can see another issue that needs to be considered...

 

If each win generates 1 tank for the clan, who gets to decide which of the 15 (or less if it's 10v10 or 7v7) clan members that fought in that winning battle is the one person who will receive the award?  If it's the clan commander, then I see one happy player and 14 guys pissed off at the commander.  This issue obviously goes away after enough wins, but what if the clan doesn't achieve enough wins to grant reward tanks to each clan member that was on a winning team?

 

That makes people just as much as if they don't get the battles needed for their FP requirements. One you get pissed at the CO before the battle starts, the other after the battle ends.

HLS30 #10 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:15

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

View Postlamplight, on Apr 01 2016 - 21:03, said:

This is obviously an awesome idea that would benefit every level of clan, player, etc. but WG would never go for it because they're A) stubborn and ignorant and B) greedy and would never allow the players to decide how many tanks they gave out. That would go directly against everything they stand for as a company.

 

I honestly think part of the issue is that WG started with FP as the way to get tanks, and corporate inertia means that they haven't really considered the possibilities of flipping it. like I propose.

TexasTech111 #11 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11529 battles
  • 1,858
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
Fame points are so stupid, they turn clan member against clan member.

HLS30 #12 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:39

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010

View PostSurprisedPatrick, on Apr 01 2016 - 21:24, said:

Fame points are so stupid, they turn clan member against clan member.

 

*sigh*, yes, thank you for posting the same thing everyone else always says. That's why my proposal would remove the relevance of them for anything other than window-dressing

TexasTech111 #13 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 06:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11529 battles
  • 1,858
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013

View PostHLS30, on Apr 02 2016 - 17:39, said:

 

*sigh*, yes, thank you for posting the same thing everyone else always says. That's why my proposal would remove the relevance of them for anything other than window-dressing

 

basically tl;dr

Med8 #14 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 07:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15156 battles
  • 390
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View PostLastoftheFallen, on Apr 02 2016 - 04:12, said:

I can see another issue that needs to be considered...

 

If each win generates 1 tank for the clan, who gets to decide which of the 15 (or less if it's 10v10 or 7v7) clan members that fought in that winning battle is the one person who will receive the award?  If it's the clan commander, then I see one happy player and 14 guys pissed off at the commander.  This issue obviously goes away after enough wins, but what if the clan doesn't achieve enough wins to grant reward tanks to each clan member that was on a winning team?

 

The answer to your question is simple. Clan X holds all tags for tanks till the end of CW rewards are based on attendance and how many tags. It's no different then getting paid from the CW map. Players who have 100% attendance through a phase get a choice of whatever tank when its time hand out rewards. If you have two players that want the same tank but you only have one to give out, you go by in clan date. Senior member gets the clan or how every the CC wants to work it out. For those who didn't get a tank, you pay them out with your gold winnings. 

I really feel its a win, win for everybody and worth a try. This could be the change for the community itself to change as whole. Get back to having clan loyalties and really start to see some clans grow again rather getting on the forums every week and reading about another clan falling apart.



Med8 #15 Posted Apr 02 2016 - 23:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15156 battles
  • 390
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
Guys, if you want to see a change to the FUBAR system that currently in place and you feel like this is way better idea. Share this link we your friends. Even if all they do is give the post a thumbs up. Lets bring some attention to this one. 

The_Toastmaster_General #16 Posted Apr 03 2016 - 03:13

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21171 battles
  • 227
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-23-2015

I think it's a pretty good idea, certainly worth the time it takes to read it.

 

Will WG implement it? Probably not.

 

Will they consider it, or consider something similar? Hopefully.

 

 



Med8 #17 Posted Apr 03 2016 - 05:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15156 battles
  • 390
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View PostThe_Toastmaster_General, on Apr 03 2016 - 02:13, said:

I think it's a pretty good idea, certainly worth the time it takes to read it.

 

Will WG implement it? Probably not.

 

Will they consider it, or consider something similar? Hopefully.

 

 

 

Your probably right. However if we get the message out and the majority of the forum posters get behind a single idea like this. Sooner or later, one would assume the "powers to be"  would give some type acknowledgement.

 

Find out what they see as the pro's and con's. 



smol_geezer102 #18 Posted Apr 05 2016 - 16:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 35960 battles
  • 131
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012
Ha, you give them way too much credit.

Med8 #19 Posted Apr 05 2016 - 21:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15156 battles
  • 390
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View PostKhaine102, on Apr 05 2016 - 15:28, said:

Ha, you give them way too much credit.

 

Apparently I did not give them enough. I'm happy to report this morning I received a ticket from WG that HLS30 thread topic has been forwarded on to the developers. At this point and time I ask that those following or reading the post, get with your clans and friends and ask them to support and keep light on the topic. The more reads and comments the topic the receives the more light given.

 

John T.,
Thank you for contacting Customer Support.

I have forwarded your information to the developers. Thank you for helping WOT become a better game.

Players like you mean the most to us and we appreciate the time and thought put into each line of text.

We appreciate you contacting Customer Support, If you have any further questions of concerns please don't hesitate to contact us again,
Tank On!

Best Regards,
Alex Murphy

Wargaming America Support You can always check your ticket status by logging into our Support Portal: https://na.wargaming.net/support/ Please don't forget to fill out our survey once your ticket has been completed

 

 



HLS30 #20 Posted Apr 07 2016 - 05:06

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 42658 battles
  • 665
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    07-11-2010
Or you gave them too much credit. They went with a system that they know is broken :(





Also tagged with Campagin, Clan Wars

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users