Jump to content


CW 2.1 R.I.P. tank locking and chip spamming


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

blackfalconjc #1 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7404 battles
  • 1,996
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

While I realize many top clans were not a fan of tank locking and being chip spammed by multiple smaller clans, it's kinda sad to realize the the Global map is going to be carved up into big blocks again where the bigger clans can just sit and farm gold again. 

 

As a long time ago former CW player for a tiny clan that was forced to grind away night after night in the Arctic circle, fighting for a landing zone in hopes of maybe taking one piece of land for a day.That is until it was taken away from us by a larger/better clan, and also having to defend it from other smaller clans fighting their way up from the landing zone. It was frustrating to see huge blocs of clans and their sub-clans sitting on massive gold pots (and filling up their treasuries), where any interlopers with dealt with by the subclans (or the big clan if they managed to make it too far). I've fought long and hard to crawl up from the smaller clans, and work on improving myself as well in the mean time. 

 

Tank locking and chip spamming added a political aspect to the map, where those alliances and strangleholds could be torn apart by smaller clans which ganged up and kept hitting an larger clan, bleeding off tanks and influence, which they could maintain (if they wanted) by running more teams, a lot of tier 10's in their garages, and a lot of SH to keep up with the influence loss. My thought was that this was by design, it rewarded more dynamic and saavy play on the Global map by injecting some anarchy, and promoted strategic alliances because no one or two clans would be "strong" enough to stand up to a constant onslaught. I realize for a number of top 10 clans, they felt like this meant they had a 2nd job to grind when they got home to protect what they'd built, but that was kinda that point, it was supposed to force you to act strategically and realize you could be vulnerable by yourself.

 

As of last night, we heard through the grapevine that the top few clans have made it very clear they want/will take 20+ pieces on the Tier X global map each now, and GL-HF if you want to rumble with them. Since no mechanism exists now to dislodge them besides beating at their own game against what are literally the best players with years of experience who can continually use their best tanks/crews and don't have to field more than 2 teams. Sure, we might be able to beat them occasionally now, our clan has been working hard on improving and been yielding decent results. But beating them consistently is statistically not in our favor, and even less in the cards for many, many other clans. Sure any of the Top 10 could take on another, but why would they when they've all carved out a lovely little gold filled nest for themselves and work together to keep out interlopers? I'm having a hard time seeing how this is a productive change and not just catering to some very specific clientele on WG's part.



ViolentViolet #2 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 46388 battles
  • 3,062
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
You can still spam people that own 20 territories. And they would have to field More than 2 teams. The lack of tank locking, actually benefits the smaller clans who could only spam once or twice before running out of tanks. Now they can endlessly spam. Nothing has changed except giving clans that have limited tank depth (usually new or smaller clans) an advantage. The reduction of influence on the map also benefits smaller/less active clans that do not have the power to grind out insane amounts of influence to stay on the map.

FeelMy_APCR #3 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28787 battles
  • 779
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

So basically you're crying because you cannot improve and join a top clan?

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the lack of tank locking benefits more BOTTOM clans not top clans. Think about it.



BaerenGott #4 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22313 battles
  • 3,033
  • [7CR] 7CR
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
OP has a valid argument...one which cannot be refuted by any of the dozens(hundreds) of top-clan players who will be trollposting.  The bottom line is if you're not very good, and if you're not in a clan with at least 74 other very good players who can be ready every night, you're going to find achieving success in CW very difficult.  When there was only one CW map, NA players had to deal with a bit of lag, but there was much more diversity on the map.

Edited by BaerenGott, Jan 20 2017 - 18:34.


blackfalconjc #5 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7404 battles
  • 1,996
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostFeelMy_APCR, on Jan 20 2017 - 12:26, said:

So basically you're crying because you cannot improve and join a top clan?

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the lack of tank locking benefits more BOTTOM clans not top clans. Think about it.

 

Lol, last time I checked, GOONZ was #10 in the global rating... That's up from the 30-20's when I first joined. But, yes, I have a lot of improvement left to do, never said otherwise! :D

 

And tank locking was a boom and bane. If you coordinated with other clans, you could lock out all of a big clans good tanks, and they were forced to adapt strategies for different tank compositions which led to odd wins and more variety in gameplay (versus a herd of T110-E5's or Batchat/Grille swarm). For smaller/newer clans, it actually was an incentive for players to collect more Tier 10's so they could keep on attacking. 



mereelskirata #6 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 47154 battles
  • 2,487
  • [RUSHB] RUSHB
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

Removing tank locking helps smaller clans. In Bulba we only lose a few tanks when we win, even against top 10 clans. And since most of us have a lot of tier 10 tanks we are in no danger of running out of tanks.

 

 

If we even played CW for anything other than campaigns*


Edited by mereelskirata, Jan 20 2017 - 18:48.


liamcraig1245 #7 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29598 battles
  • 262
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    02-23-2011
CW's are nearly dead the nerf to gold along with the increase in time commitment for even less gold than before have driven more and more people away from the game.

lamplight #8 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 18:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23895 battles
  • 1,870
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011
Tank locking doesn't really affect top clans, though. Every player has a good 10+ viable T10s, more than enough to sustain them indefinitely against as many inferior opponents as can throw themselves at them. If anything, locking only hurts smaller clans who don't have the same tank resources, so your logic is just twisted.

Sovereign_m #9 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 19:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 26420 battles
  • 336
  • Member since:
    10-26-2011

new cw meta. bring A team. smash everything, stay on land enough to erect HQ then defend one or two nights, BURN IT TO THE GROUND leave and have a small pile of cash for the month, rinse repeat next month. 

 

simple Idea. land grab, build a base, blow it up, leave, come back same time next month... kind of like a really messed up vandalism favoring time share.... 



FeelMy_APCR #10 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 19:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28787 battles
  • 779
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 20 2017 - 19:33, said:

 

Lol, last time I checked, GOONZ was #10 in the global rating... That's up from the 30-20's when I first joined. But, yes, I have a lot of improvement left to do, never said otherwise! :D

 

And tank locking was a boom and bane. If you coordinated with other clans, you could lock out all of a big clans good tanks, and they were forced to adapt strategies for different tank compositions which led to odd wins and more variety in gameplay (versus a herd of T110-E5's or Batchat/Grille swarm). For smaller/newer clans, it actually was an incentive for players to collect more Tier 10's so they could keep on attacking. 

 

Since when does wargaming rating matter?

So, if you coordinated attacks with smaller clans that barely have any tier tens against a clan where each player has a dozen you'd win? Your logic is extremely flawed.



sidewinderwill #11 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 19:06

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 46045 battles
  • 93
  • [SIDE] SIDE
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013
T6 map should be for lower than 8k clan ranking T8 and above play at your own risk That being said the Clan ranking is screwed up a clan of 50 7-8k Pr ranked players can have a clan ranking of below 6k and be successful on the t6 map. Watching the top clans earn 400k gold a month clearly makes it seem like something is out of balance but i'll let the haters smash this post. Most of us play this game for enjoyment.

BoilerBandsman #12 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 19:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11370 battles
  • 1,133
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postsidewinderwill, on Jan 20 2017 - 13:06, said:

T6 map should be for lower than 8k clan ranking T8 and above play at your own risk That being said the Clan ranking is screwed up a clan of 50 7-8k Pr ranked players can have a clan ranking of below 6k and be successful on the t6 map. Watching the top clans earn 400k gold a month clearly makes it seem like something is out of balance but i'll let the haters smash this post. Most of us play this game for enjoyment.

 

How to enable seal clubbing alt clans in 1 easy step. 

Hellsfog #13 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 19:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 30150 battles
  • 3,674
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

Tank locking only hurt up and coming clans, which is a point many of the best players have been making for years. Between clans of relatively equally player/caller skill, tank locking can be important, eventually. However, between the OP's clan and say BULBA, the gap in player skill level is so large that BULBA could probably show in tier 9's and win. As for chip spam, my understanding of the complaints are that it's boring beating the crap out of the same trash night after night and the clans doing the spamming don't want to win, they want a technical victory which isn't the same thing. 

 

As for the rest of the OP, CW's as always been based around the idea that if your clan thinks it deserves more land, go take it. Nothing has changed about that. 



RoyalGreenPC #14 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 20:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16781 battles
  • 1,035
  • [R-7] R-7
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 20 2017 - 13:33, said:

 

Lol, last time I checked, GOONZ was #10 in the global rating...

WG's clan rating means nothing..



Demonic_Angel_of_Death #15 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 2142 battles
  • 3,461
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

No tank locking?

 

Now theoretically a clan with 15 people could hold their own in CW as long as they don't get their battles mixed up... sounds good to me...



Yankee #16 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 20:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 33064 battles
  • 9,650
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010

View PostSovereign_m, on Jan 20 2017 - 13:01, said:

new cw meta. bring A team. smash everything, stay on land enough to erect HQ then defend one or two nights, BURN IT TO THE GROUND leave and have a small pile of cash for the month, rinse repeat next month. 

 

simple Idea. land grab, build a base, blow it up, leave, come back same time next month... kind of like a really messed up vandalism favoring time share.... 

It doesn't work that way. You needed to ransack immediately after taking a territory 



sidewinderwill #17 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 20:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 46045 battles
  • 93
  • [SIDE] SIDE
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013
Like Seal clubbing is not real already?

Anakins_Betrayal #18 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 20:37

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18849 battles
  • 157
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015
Good thing I'm in VILIN

ViolentViolet #19 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 21:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 46388 battles
  • 3,062
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

View PostYankee, on Jan 20 2017 - 11:21, said:

It doesn't work that way. You needed to ransack immediately after taking a territory 

 

Not anymore Yankee. Just have to do it  before you drop an HQ. It use to be that you had to do it before that turn was over, but it changed right before the last campaign. You can only ransack 1 territory every 24 hours though. Nonetheless that makes the mentioned plan even less doable. That is why you may see clans near you purposely leaving an HQ undefended. They have something they want to burn.

Roccandil #20 Posted Jan 20 2017 - 22:41

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 240
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

If a few clans have "too" much territory, and you've got a bunch of small clans working together, why not on the revolt days stack landing tournies across time zones to cause seven-plus battles to pop at the same time for a big clan?

 

If the big clan chooses to battle with fewer than fifteen tanks to cover extra battles, well, you've at least increased your chances of winning. If they only cover six battles, then at least one lucky clan will be guaranteed a victory and a shot to ransack a nice chunk of gold!

 

Anyhow, I feel like revolts are -supposed- to be the answer to clans taking a lot of territory (though I'm not saying the revolt mechanic actually has that effect). Perhaps the answer would be tweaking revolts, not tank locking. (I'm enjoying no tank locking, by the way. :) )






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users