Jump to content


The problem with bonds for "reward" tanks


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Ironmike11B #1 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28807 battles
  • 1,707
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

This is only my opinion.

 

Everyone is pissed about having to pay bonds for a tank we earned. We shouldn't be forced to survive a 22 day campaign just to have to grind out bonds. I've got 685 bonds right now and am getting 1k from the campaign. January will be real painful.

 

One of the biggest problems I see if how few bonds you can earn in a Grand battle or all T10 round, and that's if you win as a loss nets you nothing most of the time. Getting 5 or 10 (or in the teens more if you play well) means they add up very slowly. I dare say not many would be complaining if you got 100-200 per round. At that rate, we MIGHT even be able to afford the improved equipment.

 

Given how badly Ranked battles turned out, I think maybe WG needs to adjust how many bonds can be earned in pubs.



heavymetal1967 #2 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 60989 battles
  • 15,268
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

Bond member has issues with bonds. :P

 

;) JK OP couldn't resist.   And just going by forum osmosis, it seems much of the community agrees.

 

Here, a recompense of sorts.  Along with a plus one.

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/565078-songs-about-bonds-music/page__p__11402124#entry11402124

 

 



Xeraux #3 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 20728 battles
  • 9,912
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

I think the bond requirement should be lowered. Considering how many people were making during the campaign, 3k or 2.5k seems much more reasonable. 

 

Their bit about why bind equipment costs so much, why bonds are hard to earn, is that they were designed for use by the top players, the ones who can grind them out and take advantage. 

They forget that everyone with the opportunity to buy a reward tank is a top (3,000) player. 



atf2901 #4 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15723 battles
  • 154
  • [NEWBI] NEWBI
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011
We understand but this is where this comes into play. Play better. Get better and get into a top clan. That's why I left BOND because no offense I knew I wasnt going to get anything there. So I played better and got into a clan I really enjoy and is number 8

Buttknuckle #5 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 41737 battles
  • 1,747
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
How about a revised rampage rigger mode where you earn 1 bond for every 100 xp of damage dealt, win or lose. With respawns of course.

Ironmike11B #6 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28807 battles
  • 1,707
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View Postheavymetal1967, on Dec 21 2017 - 13:05, said:

Bond member has issues with bonds. :P

 

;) JK OP couldn't resist.   And just going by forum osmosis, it seems much of the community agrees.

 

Here, a recompense of sorts.  Along with a plus one.

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/565078-songs-about-bonds-music/page__p__11402124#entry11402124

 

 

 

+1 to you sir!

Ironmike11B #7 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28807 battles
  • 1,707
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View Postatf2901, on Dec 21 2017 - 13:06, said:

We understand but this is where this comes into play. Play better. Get better and get into a top clan. That's why I left BOND because no offense I knew I wasnt going to get anything there. So I played better and got into a clan I really enjoy and is number 8

 

True. We did ok. Had 19 get a tank and another 20 get camo.

ClydeCooper421 #8 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13025 battles
  • 2,720
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

View Postatf2901, on Dec 21 2017 - 11:06, said:

We understand but this is where this comes into play. Play better. Get better and get into a top clan. That's why I left BOND because no offense I knew I wasnt going to get anything there. So I played better and got into a clan I really enjoy and is number 8

 

Not everyone can join one of the best clans. And if only the members from the top 15 clans get tanks, nobody will want to play the campaign. Clan wars will be dead soon enough if WG keeps it up like this. 

 

I played  almost every night of the campaign and my clan placed 21, but I'm still 1.8K bonds away from getting a tank. 



JakeTheMystic #9 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 20:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19225 battles
  • 409
  • [UQ] UQ
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011

I agree that the bond requirement should either be lowered or removed, otherwise it seems like the only purpose of making bonds during the campaign was to pay off the tank, not to actually keep them as rewards. 

 

Besides, the only people who are fine with the bond requirement are; A: People who stockpile bonds. Or B: People who placed in the top 5 clans during the campaign. 



steelrain97 #10 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 21:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 41132 battles
  • 1,107
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View Postatf2901, on Dec 21 2017 - 13:06, said:

We understand but this is where this comes into play. Play better. Get better and get into a top clan. That's why I left BOND because no offense I knew I wasnt going to get anything there. So I played better and got into a clan I really enjoy and is number 8

Getting better and playing better have nothing to do with the bond issue. The bond issue is a failed in-game currency economy. The number of players that finished the campaign with a bond balance sufficient to buy the reward tanks is very very small. That right there is the core issue. It takes 4 times as many bonds as you could receive from the campaign to buy one of the reward tanks. That is far to significant of a difference. Limiting the number of tanks to 3000 And then forcing purchase using bonds is ridiculous. I will give some examples of sensible alternatives.

 

1. The top 1000 players get their choice of a reward tank or 6k bonds. The top 1001-4000 players get the chance to buy the tank for 4k bonds. But 1001 place pays out 2500 bonds and scales down to 750 bonds for 4000 place. In this example, your argument of get better would apply. Since this is CW, the top 10 clans get an additional 1k bonds as a payout for clan success. You could scale that down from there so 800 for 11-15, 500 for 16-20 or whatever. Add in a bonus of 500 bonds for top 5 in each stage.

 

2. Everyone gets a chance to buy the tank for 4k bonds as long as they play at least 15 battles in the campaign. Since this is CW, give bonds primarily based on Clan success. 2k for 1st, 1.5k for second, 1k for third at the end of each stage. 6k for first overall, and scale down to 4k for 10th overall. 11-15 get 2.5k. 16-20 get 2k. Payout down to 35th place and ties at 500.  

 

The common denominator in all this is that the campaign itself pays enough bonds to buy the tanks for a significant number of players and the others have the option to buy by grinding/ saving bonds. Also, right now, even the best/most active players on the server will be draining their bond accounts to buy a reward vehicle. So it's really not a CW reward, it's a 2 seasons of ranked, spamming tier 10 battles for months, plus, no-lifeing a game for 5 weeks of a campaign reward. There was literally no reason to play the campaign unless you had a bond balance going in of 3k+. That is what will happen in the future if these events keep going this way is that you will see next to no one participating because they will gave zero chance of getting a tank at the end.



MacDuff48 #11 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 21:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22582 battles
  • 39
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostClydeCooper421, on Dec 21 2017 - 19:39, said:

 

Not everyone can join one of the best clans. And if only the members from the top 15 clans get tanks, nobody will want to play the campaign. Clan wars will be dead soon enough if WG keeps it up like this. 

 

I played  almost every night of the campaign and my clan placed 21, but I'm still 1.8K bonds away from getting a tank. 

 

So to save us  time WG should just get rid of CW altogether; announce the current top 10 clans will get a reward tank,  and we win with more free time to do something else outside of tanks.

Bad_Oedipus #12 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 21:29

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 33951 battles
  • 1,023
  • [PL1AD] PL1AD
  • Member since:
    08-09-2014
Speaking of the devil, when do they usually pay campaign rewards?

Conner_Kell #13 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 22:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17967 battles
  • 40
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    11-17-2013

     I think the core issue arises from a theory I saw in another thread.  The rules are just a copy and paste from the RU and EU rules.  WGNA did not bother to scale the prizes to the smaller NA population.  

     For example: During this season, the EU had 36,579 ranked players and a total of 50,220 total participating players, while the NA server had 6,704 ranked and less than 9,000 total.  When you look at the total number of clans taking part, the story is the same, with EU having 731 and NA only 139.

     So what does this mean?  In order to make the top 3000 player list, on the EU server, you must be in the top 8% with a minimum payout of 800 bonds.  By comparison, the top 3000 on the NA server is only 45%.  I will not even attempt to break down clan bonuses.  But in the end, the rules and the prize percentages were written for a much larger player population than exists on the NA server.  The original intent Was for tank earners to also collect a much higher bond total.  

      Is the above theory true?  I have no idea, but it does make some sense.  The real question is, why is WG even messing with bonds to begin with?  Creating a new currency does not solve any problems or make the game any better.  But instead just makes things worse and alienates loyal players.  WG please take all of your un-vectored energy and bad ideas and fix the things that are lacking, such as crew skills for example.



SlyGuy_2 #14 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 22:27

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18106 battles
  • 8
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View Postatf2901, on Dec 21 2017 - 20:06, said:

We understand but this is where this comes into play. Play better. Get better and get into a top clan. That's why I left BOND because no offense I knew I wasnt going to get anything there. So I played better and got into a clan I really enjoy and is number 8

 

Not exactly....I sure hope you guys are thanking MAHOU for your place in the campaign because you wouldn't have been there without them

SlyGuy_2 #15 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 22:31

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18106 battles
  • 8
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostMacDuff48, on Dec 21 2017 - 21:28, said:

 

So to save us  time WG should just get rid of CW altogether; announce the current top 10 clans will get a reward tank,  and we win with more free time to do something else outside of tanks.

 

That would be one of the worst was of doing it. CW is one of the reasons clans exist and getting rid of it would push more players away who enjoy that kind of gameplay. That would lose them more players, money, and would require them to fix their rating system(something they should do anyway but who knows). Limiting it to the top clans would isolate the best players from the great players and be an unjust way to reward commitment, skill and activity.

Bad_Oedipus #16 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 22:46

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 33951 battles
  • 1,023
  • [PL1AD] PL1AD
  • Member since:
    08-09-2014

View PostConner_Kell, on Dec 21 2017 - 16:16, said:

     I think the core issue arises from a theory I saw in another thread.  The rules are just a copy and paste from the RU and EU rules.  WGNA did not bother to scale the prizes to the smaller NA population.  

     For example: During this season, the EU had 36,579 ranked players and a total of 50,220 total participating players, while the NA server had 6,704 ranked and less than 9,000 total.  When you look at the total number of clans taking part, the story is the same, with EU having 731 and NA only 139.

     So what does this mean?  In order to make the top 3000 player list, on the EU server, you must be in the top 8% with a minimum payout of 800 bonds.  By comparison, the top 3000 on the NA server is only 45%. 

From EU Gambit rules:

https://worldoftanks...bit-rules-regs/

10.1.1. The "Operation Gambit" event provides the following awards: bonds, unique badges, digital camouflages, and unique medals. In addition, the 11,000 best players of the "Operation Gambit" event will be able to exchange bonds for a Tier X vehicle, which was previously awarded for victories on the Global Map

 

 

Looks like they did scale 907 to fit USCentral


Edited by Bad_Oedipus, Dec 21 2017 - 22:47.


LpBronco #17 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 22:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 37456 battles
  • 2,148
  • [_F_] _F_
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

I don't care how good your clan was rated during the campaign. The idea that you can get a full winners share with as few as 11 games is beyond ludicrous.

 

The expectation should have mirrored that anyone making the list should have received sufficient bonds to, at MINIMUM, purchase the "reward" tank. If you ranked higher then you receive more bonds and more players would have participated in the event. It wasn't a lack of players that skewed the results but the asinine rules that limited the players.

 

"Nuff said!


Edited by LpBronco, Dec 21 2017 - 22:53.


Conner_Kell #18 Posted Dec 21 2017 - 23:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17967 battles
  • 40
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    11-17-2013
Thank you finding that rule.  I was wondering how many reward tanks were to offered on the EU.  So is the theory of scaling proven false?  11,000 is just 30% of the EU ranked participants compared to 45% on NA.  I would have to say it is.  There is no difference in bond reward between 30 and 45%.  I still pose the question, why include bonds at all?

novam1a #19 Posted Dec 22 2017 - 00:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 30912 battles
  • 12
  • [RDDT3] RDDT3
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012
at least they can give an alternative for the bonds somehow . its not possible for me to grind them out everyday . to much to do in real life.

MacDuff48 #20 Posted Dec 22 2017 - 02:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22582 battles
  • 39
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostSlyGuy_2, on Dec 21 2017 - 21:31, said:

 

That would be one of the worst was of doing it. CW is one of the reasons clans exist and getting rid of it would push more players away who enjoy that kind of gameplay. That would lose them more players, money, and would require them to fix their rating system(something they should do anyway but who knows). Limiting it to the top clans would isolate the best players from the great players and be an unjust way to reward commitment, skill and activity.

 

​I was being sarcastic, but sadly it is close to reality.  The top clans earn the bonds; get the tank.  The rest of us are just wasting time; but I did enjoy the tournament.  It was my first; it just sucks about the change in the way the tanks are bought.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users