Jump to content


A suggestion for the 800-1000 ELO clans regarding the next campaign


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

dominator_98 #1 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 17:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18950 battles
  • 3,110
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

Being able to field multiple teams at once is huge when it comes to campaigns. They’re very grindy, and more teams means more clan fame points to use for personal fame boosters, which helps a lot more people earn tanks. The problem is 800-1000 ELO clans can usually only field one team. I’ve pulled stats for this discussion at random from a few clans in the ELO range. 

 

5D played 105 battles, and none of their members got tanks. Assuming 15 minutes/match to ready up and fight, they put in almost 400 cumulative hours of time for 10,000 gold and a handful of camos. They only had about 13 guys that I’d say really wanted that tank (50+ battles).

 

You see the same story in the numbers of a dozen of these clans. (EXIL3, SHIRE, MUG-W, and D-DAY to name a few). About one team’s worth of people trying to get a tank, and mostly without success because their clan wasn’t active enough to earn higher personal fame boosters. Even with the higher winrate my clan experienced, I would have been much closer to the edge of 2600 if we’d had 1-2 teams instead of 2-3.

 

My suggestion to the commanders of these clans is this: Take your most dedicated players who have both the tanks and the time, and form a new, temporary clan. Create a puppet account that all the commanders have access to to lead the clan, and move in 90-100  active, dedicated players from many clans. I see no reason why a clan created this way wouldn’t be able to field at least 4 teams a night, if not more. Many of you were very close to a tank with one team’s worth of fame boosters. Imagine what you could have done with four.

 

Many people seem to have a strong tendency against dropping tags even temporarily in the more social clans, but campaigns only last two weeks, and then you just drop back to your original group and commence playing with your friends who either didn’t want a tank or were too busy. Clans in that ELO range could get a lot more tanks for the people who want them if they worked together.

 



Silversound #2 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 37867 battles
  • 4,292
  • [-P-] -P-
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

Egos will never let this happen.

 

This thread also smells of humblebrag.



MacDaddyMatty #3 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 18:33

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23354 battles
  • 5,320
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    10-07-2016

We had 1 solid team with 1/2 doz stand-bys.

1 night we had 2 solid teams most of the night.

 

Our scramble was when we had won too many and then needed to suddenly field 2 teams.

This meant scrambling to grab members who were running pubs, grabbing the cell and calling up the reserves.


 

I can see some merit in the idea.

The issue would be ego - mostly:

- getting the chippers to work together

- trusting callers

- griefing from being swapped for someone else in queue.


 

I think it would work IF it was done in a compartmentalized fission (EXIL3, SHIRE, MUG-W, and D-DAY all supply 1 team with their own caller and chipper and a few reserve guys), and if the chippers all got along.


 

Spoiler


 



UtahUtes_1 #4 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 18:34

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 19710 battles
  • 26
  • [PIXY] PIXY
  • Member since:
    10-11-2014
The issue I see is that participation in these types of clan activities are often what clans use to recruit.  If the top players vacated to form temp clans, it would leave a lot of those other players feeling somewhat abandoned.

1Sherman #5 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 18:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 3,287
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

ELO clans? This is the only ELO I've ever heard of.

 



_Zero___ #6 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 18:59

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 42463 battles
  • 112
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    10-21-2014

View Postdominator_98, on Jun 07 2018 - 17:51, said:

Being able to field multiple teams at once is huge when it comes to campaigns. 

 

This right here is very true. I've seen it from many perspectives and having teams is huge (Mahou could field 4 teams). The next step is to win battles which can be done at all levels because of the ELO system. I wish everyone all the best for the next campaign! GL and HF



Bob_5000 #7 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32603 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
The previous campaigns were longer than 2 weeks. So I wouldn't say definitively thats the length of campaigns. Why this was a sort of mini-campaign I dont know. And I dont know if that is how it is going to be from now on. 

Blaze_terror #8 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14230 battles
  • 1,203
  • [N0RAD] N0RAD
  • Member since:
    05-17-2013
My clan is just starting out 110 days old  with 43 members and just 20 or so members able to make it for battles. We went in to this campaign  to getting our feet wet competing in tier 10 as a clan.  Not for tanks but to help us in our growth.    We only played 41 campaign battles placing us at 88th at the end . It was a success in our book tank or no tank. So I agree with op  if we had the numbers and the ability to drop for more battles no telling where we would have placed joining forces with another clan temporarily comes down to who will run the ship and that a hard road to achieve.     So for N0RAD the next campaign will be a different story with more numbers.     Congrats to those who placed  and gg to the clans we fought against. 07

MacDaddyMatty #9 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23354 battles
  • 5,320
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    10-07-2016

View PostSilversound, on Jun 07 2018 - 12:23, said:

Egos

 

OH YES, that reminds me, the new clan would need to be called [D-DAY]

:trollface:



Devildog_8 #10 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 9863 battles
  • 5,602
  • [BOLTS] BOLTS
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
Tho I think your Idea sounds ok this will not end good for the clans releasing members to this temp clan, if the temp clan is doing well they may decide to hold it together instead of returning to the clans they left which will hurt the clan they left, I dont really seeing any good coming from it except taking good members from a clan that needs them on the promise they might return after.

F4U_wingman #11 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 73678 battles
  • 561
  • [MUG-W] MUG-W
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013

Looks like I played 92 battles and was on and off for a tank.

On the last day we played more battles on the Advanced Front and I get a tank. :)



Da_Vinci #12 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35688 battles
  • 614
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    10-01-2011

If you really, really want a tank, consider joining a more competitive clan wars clan. 

 

Otherwise, I'd just stick with whatever clan you're in right now and work to make it better, long before the campaign starts. If you like being in the clan for whatever reason, don't abandon ship just for a tank.

Depending on your view, the tank may or may not be worth leaving your current clan for a couple weeks.

 

A conglomerate of several clans to field teams is a bad idea not because of pride but b/c there will be a lot of teamwork issues that need to be smoothed out in advance. Clan members will likely be more used to their own callers and people in charge may not get along with people from other clans.

 

Too many problems with this idea to make it work.

 

 



Blaze_terror #13 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14230 battles
  • 1,203
  • [N0RAD] N0RAD
  • Member since:
    05-17-2013
Agree +1  

Winterpeger #14 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 51228 battles
  • 2,099
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View Postdominator_98, on Jun 07 2018 - 10:51, said:

My suggestion to the commanders of these clans is this: Take your most dedicated players who have both the tanks and the time, and form a new, temporary clan. Create a puppet account that all the commanders have access to to lead the clan, and move in 90-100  active, dedicated players from many clans. I see no reason why a clan created this way wouldn’t be able to field at least 4 teams a night, if not more. Many of you were very close to a tank with one team’s worth of fame boosters. Imagine what you could have done with four.

 

Are you suggesting that players violate the EULA that now indicates that account sharing is not allowed?



MacDaddyMatty #15 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23354 battles
  • 5,320
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    10-07-2016

View PostWinterpeger, on Jun 07 2018 - 13:23, said:

 

Are you suggesting that players violate the EULA that now indicates that account sharing is not allowed?

 

I think he's saying have an alt - which is ok to do.

StainlessRat #16 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32437 battles
  • 50
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    07-18-2013

The idea itself has some merit. However. There are a lot of issues that would have to be resolved. If you do not have officers who can thoroughly understand what wargaming’s intent with the rules are it won’t matter if you have enough teams. Unfortunately that is something that takes experience having dealt with wargaming‘s rules before. There are people that are willing to help you with things like this such as I wrangle emus.

It’s also very likely that you could have an organizer who spends more time organizing then actually playing. They get no benefit from this and they be doing it for a clan they don’t necessarily call “home”.

I think the complexity of resolving the issues of teamwork and trust and such a limited time make this very impractical to implement. It may work for really good players who were all jumping plans frequently but not for your average player that finds a community and considers it home.

 

 Another thing to consider is the fact that no matter how well something is organized with the best possible outcome being planned for the members that are participating some people are going to feel left out. Dthey would be more likely to rage quit from a clan that they have no ties to then a clan that they have an established relationship with. We had plenty of guys that just hung out to help out if they were needed but I don’t see that happening with the temporary pclan 



Winterpeger #17 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 51228 battles
  • 2,099
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostMacDaddyMatty, on Jun 07 2018 - 12:34, said:

 

I think he's saying have an alt - which is ok to do.

 

I would agree, if he had just said 'Create an alt account that you would use to move players in, etc", but he said "Create a puppet account that ALL the commanders have access to to lead the clan", that by it's self implies account sharing.  

 

 



Bolted_On #18 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 19:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 59538 battles
  • 708
  • [SFL] SFL
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012
Maybe if "PARTICIPATION RIBBONS" were awarded you would feel better ?

RogerClark #19 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 20:11

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24713 battles
  • 319
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    10-05-2011

View PostWinterpeger, on Jun 07 2018 - 19:46, said:

 

I would agree, if he had just said 'Create an alt account that you would use to move players in, etc", but he said "Create a puppet account that ALL the commanders have access to to lead the clan", that by it's self implies account sharing.  

 

 

 

Oh please! That is so petty! This "puppet acct would never be used except to move the ex-commanders to XOs. None of them would actually play the acct bc it has no tanks! Its main purpose is to fill a spot everyone wants and thereby appease all the ex-coms so they don't feel they are inferior to the other ex-coms. Also the acct doesn't "belong" to any of them so the acct sharing rules technically don't apply. The whole reason for prohibiting acct sharing, as I understand, is so everyone has to have their own acct and grind their own tanks. Therefor, more money for WG. GL HF!

dominator_98 #20 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 20:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18950 battles
  • 3,110
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostBolted_On, on Jun 07 2018 - 12:49, said:

Maybe if "PARTICIPATION RIBBONS" were awarded you would feel better ?

 

I got a tank with a few hundred positions to spare. No need for participation ribbons, they already have summer digi for the top 75%. I’m just sort of thinking aloud about ways for people who play hundreds of battles to have a better chance to pick up a tank. Maybe actually read the post and look at stats instead of spamming some half-thought reply next time.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users