Jump to content


Time to shift rewards


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

SGarv #1 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 02:39

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32658 battles
  • 70
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Its past time to shift or at least redistribute rewards on the CW tiers. While the top clans on the tier 8 map are sitting at 800,000+ VP, the tier 10 clans enjoy the big rewards for singing kumbaya together with 100,000 for the top clan. How about at least giving Clan camo for the winners at tier 8?

Wirbelfeld #2 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 03:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19962 battles
  • 1,055
  • [R-7] R-7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSGarv, on Apr 08 2017 - 01:39, said:

Its past time to shift or at least redistribute rewards on the CW tiers. While the top clans on the tier 8 map are sitting at 800,000+ VP, the tier 10 clans enjoy the big rewards for singing kumbaya together with 100,000 for the top clan. How about at least giving Clan camo for the winners at tier 8?

 

Why dont you come attack us and take our land then? Nothing is stopping you :)

Yankee #3 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 18:55

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 34016 battles
  • 9,853
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010
I do not have a degree in mathematics, but I am reasonably certain that 10 is greater than 8. 

Roccandil #4 Posted Apr 08 2017 - 21:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 257
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

The OP has a good point: the VP potential at T10 is lower than at T8.

 

At T8, mission and segment gold are within reach of a clan new to T8. My clan moved to T8 this season, and we've made far more gold and VPs than we ever did at T6, simply by doing landing tourneys. Clearly, many clans have recognized this, and T8 landing tourneys are often packed during segment week. These large tourneys represent VP potential to good clans willing to play the landing tourney game and fight a lot of battles.

 

At T10, however, I see fewer clans in landing tourneys, and one reason might be that the segment race only pays gold to the top 10 instead of the top 35 (like at T8). Were WG to extend the T10 segment gold award to, say, the top 25, I suspect that more clans would be attracted to T10, simply to play in landing tourneys.

 

That would increase the VP potential at T10, while, more importantly, getting more clans experience at T10.



SGarv #5 Posted Apr 09 2017 - 21:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32658 battles
  • 70
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
My point is, T10 is dominated by clans that are both very good and do not compete with each other. They harvest vast sums of gold just for being who they are. I'm advocating spreading the rewards for real competition to clans that are actually competing. It doesn't have to be gold, but it can be something cool like clan camo.

Yankee #6 Posted Apr 10 2017 - 18:54

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 34016 battles
  • 9,853
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010
Punishment for being too strong to be attacked effectively, or because clans feel they can be more effective directing the efforts elsewhere is a bizarre concept.

enjineer #7 Posted Apr 10 2017 - 20:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41947 battles
  • 2,431
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010
How about just ridding the game of tier 6/8 CW and go back to just tier 10 CW 1.

Roccandil #8 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 01:15

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 257
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

Revolts and no-show penalties for defenses hamper attacking by landowners. If we really want to see more war in clan war, I'd remove the no-show penalty for defenses and revisit revolts, maybe removing them entirely.

 

Revolts both soak up teams, restricting border fighting between clans, and provide a VP revenue stream for landowners who are otherwise "sitting still". Without revolts, landowners would have to do border wars to get any VPs at all. (With a big enough map, the practical limit on simultaneous teams should be enough to keep a single clan from overrunning everything.)

 

While I'm suggesting big changes, I'll add I'd like to see meeting engagements where if two provinces simultaneously attack each other, they have a tourney-style battle to decide which division gets to continue on to attack the enemy province.

 

@OP, I wouldn't object to the T8 winners getting special clan camo, either. ;)



Fulcrous #9 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 06:11

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 28981 battles
  • 4,250
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012
I can assure you if any of the top clans played as much as claws did (484 battles at a 59% wr), you would see 1M+ VP.
For instance, using Mahou as an example (240 battles at 88% wr and 570k VP) would equate to 1.14M VP had they had the same number of values and maintained a similar victory rating threshold.

Edited by Fulcrous, Apr 11 2017 - 06:41.


Roccandil #10 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:24

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 257
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostFulcrous, on Apr 11 2017 - 00:11, said:

I can assure you if any of the top clans played as much as claws did (484 battles at a 59% wr), you would see 1M+ VP.
For instance, using Mahou as an example (240 battles at 88% wr and 570k VP) would equate to 1.14M VP had they had the same number of values and maintained a similar victory rating threshold.

 

Is that many battles a practical possibility for a landowner? I get the impression that CLAWS is playing the landing zone game, not the landowner game, and a lot more battles are available via landing zone tourneys. We've played 350 battles this season in T8 landing zones. No way we could do that if we were landowners, even if we allocated exactly the same number of teams per night to attacking.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users