Jump to content


50 clans and 1800 players complains about some Issues in Global Map

Global Map Clan wars lag gold ghostclan rules translation awards price

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Nupetiet #1 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 01:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 42193 battles
  • 103
  • [PROF] PROF
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
Dear Admins:

We are a growing group of over 1800 active players that we have collectively called ourselves "UCLA" (Union of Latin American Clans). We belong to the NA servers and are distributed in more than 50 clans, with presence in 10 countries in Latin America.

The purpose of this note is to seek a formal line with the administration of WG to propose a situation that has been making us very difficult to play at the last time (and still play) World of Tanks, which relation with the Global Map and the Clan Wars.

The reduction in the amounts, how to distribute the gains in gold and the number of provinces available in the maps tier 6 and 8 has generated various problems and disincentives for clans that are between 500 and 100 in the ranking of WG place. Some of these problems, with which we have to deal with daily are:

a) Migration of players: the low availability of gold in the treasuries of the "small" clans prevents that they can distribute prizes even "symbolic" and can not retain the most talented players, generating frustration and tremendous stress over commanders clans.

b) Little mobility and competitiveness in the upper tiers: as you see in ther previous argment, we can see that the first 100 clans (strongly supported economically) feed active and talented players from the minor-ranked clans, generating resentment and frustration over lack of recognition in small clans. These clans have not gone neither up or down the ranking significantly in years and constantly insult and despise the small clans.

c) Double awards clans: Much of the resources of the Global Map rewards only covers the top 40 tier 8 and 10 clans, leaving aside tier 6, which only rewards with that little amount earned daily to own provinces. This will cause global map resources end up in a very small group of clans, probably less than 40 of them (since nothing prevents a clan finish among the top tier of both tier 8 and 10). We understand the efforts of WG for the map to be competitive and simultaneously allow clans to develop, but in these circumstances in the map we go back to Global Map 1.0 with the inconvenience this had: a very small group of clans handing out the map and its resources.

Additionally we would like to mention two issues that make it difficult to have a good experience WoT in Latin America. These are:

d) Deficient translation of Global Map seasons rules: which are not being clear for the Portuguese and Spanish speakers, also published in a late date.

e) Punish the "ghost Clans" A significant amount of Clans top 100 currently have a false clan, with few players and very low personal score, which apply to tier 8 without even having the tanks to play for, thus delaying battles when they have enough staff at a specific time. For this WG has no solution, despite having reported through the regular channels several times this malpractice.

f) Lag in the nodes of the city of Houston, Texas, USA: So far, the tracking of data packs from several countries in Latin America by multiple systems have revealed a bottleneck in the US, apparently on a node in the city Houston, which creates a bad experience playing in many Latinamerican players, independent his IPS.

In our efforts to help improve the game and grow the community of players of this game (that we all want so much) it is that we express these concerns. Thanking you in advance the time taken for consideration of these facts Yours sincerely,


"Nupetiet" - Commander Clan PROF- Speaker UCLA.

 

CheekiBreeki_ #2 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 01:37

    Major

  • Banned
  • 47135 battles
  • 3,989
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012
??????????

Kamahl1234 #3 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 01:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 18396 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

Well for one, your point F) isn't a WG issue, you'd have to contact your ISP and give them the data you've collected about that node.

 

WG can't do squat about that. 



kier321 #4 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19128 battles
  • 1,971
  • [PHASE] PHASE
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
uninstall for being bad will help

HI_FIVE #5 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 45987 battles
  • 3,458
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012

race card?

 



Nupetiet #6 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 42193 battles
  • 103
  • [PROF] PROF
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostKamahl1234, on Oct 26 2016 - 20:47, said:

Well for one, your point F) isn't a WG issue, you'd have to contact your ISP and give them the data you've collected about that node.

 

WG can't do squat about that. 

 

In fact WG could do it. ISPs use wiring and networks that are not owned by them and/or do not have a contract that allows (for example) forcing a "in-middle" network owner to improve his node. If WG changed the East server to another city such Miami, the lag of 30% of the players (Latinos) would improve without ruining the player's speed in the US.

 

 

View Postkier321, on Oct 26 2016 - 21:20, said:

uninstall for being bad will help

 

View PostHI_FIVE, on Oct 26 2016 - 21:23, said:

race card?

 

 

Entering a post just to throw crap like baboons says it all. In any case it was expected of "big clans".

 


Edited by Nupetiet, Oct 27 2016 - 02:37.


Guest_Heldar_* #7 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:36

  • Guest
Are you seriously asking for punishment to puppet clans?  Arent the latin american clans the ones most notorious for doing that?

Nupetiet #8 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:39

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 42193 battles
  • 103
  • [PROF] PROF
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostHeldar, on Oct 26 2016 - 21:36, said:

Are you seriously asking for punishment to puppet clans?  Arent the latin american clans the ones most notorious for doing that?

 

Even if so, should not you agree with the measure rather than against it? ....

scoh671 #9 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:42

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14270 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    10-01-2013

-UCLA...

hahaha, Nice try I guess



KiSuKe_ARG #10 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 02:50

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 18627 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    08-05-2014

i agree, my people have a lot of problems in global map



Guest_Heldar_* #11 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 03:12

  • Guest

View PostNupetiet, on Oct 26 2016 - 19:39, said:

 

Even if so, should not you agree with the measure rather than against it? ....

 

No, I agree with it, I just found it humorous.

Kamahl1234 #12 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 03:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 18396 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostNupetiet, on Oct 27 2016 - 01:32, said:

 

In fact WG could do it. ISPs use wiring and networks that are not owned by them and/or do not have a contract that allows (for example) forcing a "in-middle" network owner to improve his node. If WG changed the East server to another city such Miami, the lag of 30% of the players (Latinos) would improve without ruining the player's speed in the US.

 

Well, the problem is if the node is part of the main backbone, then you'd have to move pretty far to change the route, and all it would mean is others would encounter the problem instead. 

 

We're talking something that isn't easily avoidable, like the node in Ontario owned by Level3 which will often drop packets due to congestion. 



__Ice #13 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 04:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22620 battles
  • 424
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostNupetiet, on Oct 26 2016 - 18:32, said:

 

In fact WG could do it. ISPs use wiring and networks that are not owned by them and/or do not have a contract that allows (for example) forcing a "in-middle" network owner to improve his node. If WG changed the East server to another city such Miami, the lag of 30% of the players (Latinos) would improve without ruining the player's speed in the US.

 

Well, you are most likely stuck with that path. How else will it get to DC? Your ISP says we need these packets to DC and it is just taking the shortest/ fastest way possible. Now it is not right, but it is the way it is done. 



MultiGabitox #14 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 04:49

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 25219 battles
  • 3
  • [HUMO] HUMO
  • Member since:
    04-12-2014
I Agree, looks great.

Diegoyow #15 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 04:50

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18502 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    04-27-2014
I Agree.

lion59 #16 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 04:55

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 28601 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
I agree

abollador #17 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 05:33

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 21879 battles
  • 1
  • [PROF] PROF
  • Member since:
    02-01-2014
i agree, [edited]lag and MM

Charlie_The_Cat #18 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 05:49

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14950 battles
  • 1,036
  • Member since:
    05-06-2015

View PostNupetiet, on Oct 26 2016 - 19:29, said:

...
f) Lag in the nodes of the city of Houston, Texas, USA: So far, the tracking of data packs from several countries in Latin America by multiple systems have revealed a bottleneck in the US, apparently on a node in the city Houston, which creates a bad experience playing in many Latinamerican players, independent his IPS.

 

 

Hmm, I would be very surprised that the carrier in Houston is the issue.

 

You may see that point on the hops as a bottleneck, but the real problem is between the carrier in SA that goes to Houston and the one receiving it in Houston.

Lots of unsolicitated traffics come from SA carriers towards the US and that cost you guys lots of latency because it's getting purged.

 

Also, if you know telecom a bit, you know then that even if you have an OC192 dedicated just for yourself but with a latency of 500ms (for example), the maximum throughput you'll reach will be around 23Mbs.

Latency is your main issue from SA, not the speed of the links or the carriers.



Tolos #19 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 06:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,847
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010
So basically the OP wants to punish other clans for doing exactly what the latin clans do....

rikkhard #20 Posted Oct 27 2016 - 10:40

    Private

  • Players
  • 47967 battles
  • 2
  • [KEEP] KEEP
  • Member since:
    02-21-2013
Latin American players request for sama NA server conditions and opportunities




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users