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

_Zero___ #21 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 20:17


  • -Players-
  • 42483 battles
  • 113
  • Member since:

View PostWinterpeger, on Jun 07 2018 - 19:23, said:


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


Socking is totally fine. The only time they care is if money is involved. They have stated this many times.

dominator_98 #22 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 21:55


  • -Players-
  • 18950 battles
  • 3,110
  • Member since:

View PostSilversound, on Jun 07 2018 - 11:23, said:

Egos will never let this happen.


View PostDa_Vinci, on Jun 07 2018 - 12:18, said:

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


I feel like this summs up the main problems with the idea. Too many leaders is not a good thing, and many of the players who put in 50+ battles still wouldn’t make some sacrifices to get a tank.

kier321 #23 Posted Jun 07 2018 - 22:25


  • Players
  • 17161 battles
  • 1,922
  • Member since:
Or just join a decent clan? I missed 5 days, and PUBBY didn’t even have a full team day 1. We started the clan up 5 days before the campaign, and yet I finished 1100, with some players finishing 800~. We got 21 of 22 players who showed up and wanted the tank the tank, the other guy is 20 places out, and due to the NICO thing, most likely will be pushed in making it 22 for 22. You can spam battles, all you want, without decent callers and players, you won’t get the tank. All those clans with 100+ battles and 30% w/rs with no tanks proves that. Putting them all into one doesn’t change that. It’s also the fact that their officers obviously didn’t read into the campaign, as bidding onto the advance front gave automatic x5 multipliers, and a win would easily double your bid. None of those clans I saw bid onto it, house leaving members with rarely getting x5 battles. I’d also guess these where the clans who didn’t invest any game in order to try and gain as much as possible, which doesn’t work. 

Vallanor #24 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 04:30


  • Players
  • 24014 battles
  • 3,022
  • Member since:
they can leave and join an active clan 

Fluffylittlekitten #25 Posted Jun 10 2018 - 15:53


  • Players
  • 23317 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:

First merging clans hardly ever works the way it is intended.  The reason why is EGOs and the fact that people just don't mix well with others. You get used to playing with your core group of friends and ignore the others.  And then do it as only as a temp measure for a campaign? Nah. One of two things will happen.  The new clan will fall apart during the campaign because people aren't meshing well, or the old clans will fall by the wayside because the "new temp" clan did amazingly well and they have decided to stick together.


Joining a top competitive clan is not always easy. Stat requirements are insane and the need for at least 3 meta tier 10s.  Not everyone is going to meet those requirements so they are going to be stuck with maybe less then active clans.
How about just focus on recruiting during the off season? Make sure you have enough people active that you can field at least 2 teams comfortably during cws. Use strongholds/Advances to get used to playing together, focus fire, etc.


Now personally what I would love to see wargaming do is another 6/8/10 campaign. Make it to where the 6/8 fronts only reward you with camo and gold and the 10 front is for the reward tank.
Or do where you might have to play 5 games on 6 to unlock the 8, 5 games on 8 to unlock the 10.  Continue with the advance front for 10s so you can get your 5xs
But you have to make sure you can't compete on all maps at the same time. So you can't own land on a 6s and then do battles on an 8 or 10.
I just think it would add a nice change to clan wars. Clans wars is just that.. challenge against other clans, doesn't say you have to be an elite clan.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users