Jump to content


No tank locking? -_-


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

HI_FIVE #21 Posted Jan 30 2017 - 23:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40149 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012
Yes we have been dealing with 4k subclan,rebel and ca3ra nightly. Tank locking needs to come back, It gives players no incentive to grind towards more tier 10 tanks

ff8ff8 #22 Posted Jan 31 2017 - 10:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16023 battles
  • 874
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    05-24-2012
From some earlier wording it seems like only the 15 minute offset battles were intended to have no locking. But seems like WGNA messed up and just rolled with the mistake.

Roccandil #23 Posted Jan 31 2017 - 23:48

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5315 battles
  • 66
  • [MILKY] MILKY
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View Postff8ff8, on Jan 29 2017 - 03:29, said:

^
We just beat a clan 14 times in a row (out of 14 battles).

After the second night it just became annoying and sad, and a waste of everyone's time.


And this has been on top of them trying to schedule things at the same time as our WGLNA games and exhibition matches. So they're losing to our B.5 team.

 

If they're not actually trying to learn, then sure, I can see it being a waste of time. If after every loss they're evaluating, making adjustments for the next battle, and trying to improve, though, I applaud their effort.

 

For my clan's part, WG has made it easy to move up to T8 from T6. We're now giving T8 a shot, and we expect to lose a lot, but we also expect to learn a lot. Seems like that's the point of the task/gold/tank-lockout changes, to accelerate/kickstart movement from T6 to T8 and from T8 to T10.

 

Curiously, I had the impression that's what at least some of you all wanted. :)



DannyS76 #24 Posted Feb 04 2017 - 16:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15603 battles
  • 68
  • [_CIA_] _CIA_
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013
We may be a lower rated clan for clan wars at present, but everyone has to start some where. We won't stop coming, so watch out. We are getting better, we are recruiting better players, and our newer players are working hard to get tier ten tanks themselves. If we don't beat you the first, second, or third time....we learn. We will beat you eventually.

Engage #25 Posted Feb 05 2017 - 17:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 71601 battles
  • 665
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    10-26-2011

View PostBeachouse21, on Jan 12 2017 - 23:54, said:

I get that it may be nice to not lock tanks in the next upcoming clan war season but for me personally I don't like this, because you can just bring the same tank every night into clan wars. Also there is no counter play to this because if the same clan attacks you for more than one night you can lock them out and they wont stop until they stop trying or get your land. Last thing i see is that people waste time grinding tanks that may be needed if a tank gets locked out. I understand you use different tanks on different maps but still. It just seems like you need one tank per tier now if clans really wanted...

This is just my opinion hopefully it gets changed if not i completely understand.

 

"You go to war with the army you have not the army you want." Sec. of Def. Rumsfeld

I suggested a repair time of 1 HP every 2 min for both the winner and loser. This would force teams to use different tanks and try different Strategy.



Roccandil #26 Posted Feb 05 2017 - 18:29

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5315 battles
  • 66
  • [MILKY] MILKY
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

I like no tank-locking, and I would rather fix "spam" from lower clans by redesigning the location of permanent landing zones. Make all the border provinces around the map landing zones, with none in the middle. I suspect, as a result, something like the following would happen:

 

Good clans will fight to hold land in the center, away from the turbulent border zones. To even get to the bigger clans, a smaller clan would have to win a landing zone and fight their way through the not-as-good clans holding the less-desired provinces next to the landing zones. I could see some interesting wars/diplomacy going on as a result (especially since there would be no backing up against a border to protect a flank).

 

Of course, maybe the good clans would just partition the whole map and sit there collecting gold, but in that case I think they would probably deserve to be spammed. :)



Engage #27 Posted Feb 05 2017 - 18:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 71601 battles
  • 665
  • [-TDU-] -TDU-
  • Member since:
    10-26-2011

View PostRoccandil, on Feb 05 2017 - 12:29, said:

I like no tank-locking, and I would rather fix "spam" from lower clans by redesigning the location of permanent landing zones. Make all the border provinces around the map landing zones, with none in the middle. I suspect, as a result, something like the following would happen:

 

Good clans will fight to hold land in the center, away from the turbulent border zones. To even get to the bigger clans, a smaller clan would have to win a landing zone and fight their way through the not-as-good clans holding the less-desired provinces next to the landing zones. I could see some interesting wars/diplomacy going on as a result (especially since there would be no backing up against a border to protect a flank).

 

Of course, maybe the good clans would just partition the whole map and sit there collecting gold, but in that case I think they would probably deserve to be spammed. :)

First Bigger and Smaller clans is not correct.  It is Great players, Good players and Average players.

You are not going to beat Great players without tank locking. I believe Great players would accept a tougher tank locking system. Who wants a game where everyone wins.

If a group of lesser skilled clans wants to take on a clan of Great players I can't see anyone Great player shacking in his boots.

 

Ps: their are some suck players


Edited by Engage, Feb 05 2017 - 18:46.


Roccandil #28 Posted Feb 05 2017 - 21:55

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5315 battles
  • 66
  • [MILKY] MILKY
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostEngage, on Feb 05 2017 - 12:45, said:

First Bigger and Smaller clans is not correct.  It is Great players, Good players and Average players.

You are not going to beat Great players without tank locking. I believe Great players would accept a tougher tank locking system. Who wants a game where everyone wins.

If a group of lesser skilled clans wants to take on a clan of Great players I can't see anyone Great player shacking in his boots.

 

Ps: their are some suck players

 

By big clans and small clans I was actually thinking of capability of holding territory; a big clan has a lot of provinces, a small clan has one or two. Nomenclature differences aside, however, my response on this thread was prompted by a great player (I assume) describing the annoyance of being attacked repeatedly by a lesser-skilled clan, due to no tank locking.

 

In that case, at least, I don't get the impression that it's the lesser-skilled clan being hurt by no tank locking. :)

 

Even if no tank-locking does have its downsides for lesser-skilled clans, I'll take them, because the upsides, in my perspective, far outweigh the downsides. My clan has been able to get a lot more people involved this clan war season and learn a lot more than we would have otherwise.

 

The ability to simply run more battles is, of course, an obvious boon to learning. Additionally, however, if you can field the meta tanks over and over again, you've eliminated the variable of non-meta tanks affecting your battle performance, providing the opportunity to better isolate and identify the problems with your tactics and skills.

 

Finally, using tank-locking to "beat" great players, is, in a sense, an exploit. If you're all for allowing exploits to beat great players, then I can probably think of some more WG could add. :)



Silvers_ #29 Posted Feb 05 2017 - 23:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 37737 battles
  • 4,815
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

Problem is though you are "new" and don't really have a grasp on how CW was. In 1.0 there were fights, and usually lots of them. Several major wars were fought as well. Even had a WGNA sponsored "Sever War" where the top what 30 clans took over most of the NA map and had at it. Prizes were awarded, Each team sumbitted "MVP's" who then fought in a second set of battles for fame, gold and tanks.

 

Was the last "good CW" thing WG did IMO. The point behind tank locking was to wear down an opponent and make them change their strategy. no real exploit behind it. Was a war of attrition more than anything else and forced people to grind other "meta" tanks. It's why clans changed their recruitment requirements for 3+ "viable" CW tanks.

 

Problem is they need to do away with t6 like EU/RU did and make it T8 and T10. No need for T10 "lite" just combine both and make the map bigger, give out more gold and let teh clans have at it.



Roccandil #30 Posted Feb 06 2017 - 07:09

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5315 battles
  • 66
  • [MILKY] MILKY
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostSilvers_, on Feb 05 2017 - 17:26, said:

Problem is though you are "new" and don't really have a grasp on how CW was. In 1.0 there were fights, and usually lots of them. Several major wars were fought as well. Even had a WGNA sponsored "Sever War" where the top what 30 clans took over most of the NA map and had at it. Prizes were awarded, Each team sumbitted "MVP's" who then fought in a second set of battles for fame, gold and tanks.

 

Was the last "good CW" thing WG did IMO. The point behind tank locking was to wear down an opponent and make them change their strategy. no real exploit behind it. Was a war of attrition more than anything else and forced people to grind other "meta" tanks. It's why clans changed their recruitment requirements for 3+ "viable" CW tanks.

 

Problem is they need to do away with t6 like EU/RU did and make it T8 and T10. No need for T10 "lite" just combine both and make the map bigger, give out more gold and let teh clans have at it.

 

True, I only have experience with CW 2.0, but I -have- had experience in 2.0 both with tank-locking and without, and I prefer without. Grinding one T10 is hard enough for the normal player, but having to grind multiple is a significant barrier to entry, 2.0 or not.

 

I can see that there are downsides, but I suspect the upsides help significantly more players than the downsides hurt, and if nothing else, drawing more players into CW is probably good for business.



The_Original_Baddie #31 Posted Feb 26 2017 - 01:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 47780 battles
  • 3,226
  • [REBEL] REBEL
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011

View PostHI_FIVE, on Jan 30 2017 - 17:47, said:

Yes we have been dealing with 4k subclan,rebel and ca3ra nightly. Tank locking needs to come back, It gives players no incentive to grind towards more tier 10 tanks

 

you do know we in rebel have many members with 20 some tier ten tanks right? Tank locking doesn't bother us and we, in fact, love tank locking.  Just an FYI

 

also if you don't like being hit then stay off the map problem solved or at least don't hold a lz maybe write to serb ask him for a self-entitled safe space I mean this is a war game after all.


Edited by The_Original_Baddie, Feb 26 2017 - 01:14.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users