Jump to content


Does WoT need a competitive game mode?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Noowin #1 Posted Yesterday, 12:06 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27212 battles
  • 3,168
  • Member since:
    05-06-2012

I'm sure everyone's seen all the fear-mongering about WoT... maybe some of it is founded, maybe some of it isn't. However, I think we can all agree on one thing: competitive WoT is a dumpster fire. WGL is cancelled and the barrier of entry for Clan Wars and Strongholds is higher and less accessible than it needs to be imo. 

 

Now, if we look at other big titles: League/DOTA/HotS, StarCraft, CS:GO, Rocket League, Overwatch... they're as big as they are from esports, and that's dragged in a bunch of more "casual" players. WoT, though? The developers themselves know they're targeting a casual audience... and I think that's a big mistake. The current state of the game is not very conducive to competition, and that's a bad thing.

 

RNG plays too big of a role in the game. Arty is an equalizer that should not be necessary. Premium ammo has essentially no downsides. New trees always seem to be broken. Maps have slowly lost complexity. 

 

But what can WG do to change it? Here's my proposal:

 

A new accessible, competitive game mode that WG will push forwards, something like what Hearthstone has with their ranked play. How?

 

  • 7v7 gameplay. Allows up to a group of 7 on either team, but will be matched accordingly (so we don't have a group of 7 playing individuals). This reduces queues. Allows for single-tier matching, hopefully. Not necessarily 7v7, but something. The idea is to reduce the complexity of users watching the game, while also highlighting more coordinated plays from teams. 
  • Ranked system: Tiers like Ranked Battles, with a "super" tier at the top so that the top players can compete for #1. Maybe, at the ultra high end, the teams get smaller (or bigger), or something, if WG thinks that players will get too pissed off by getting dragged down by their teams. 
  • Reduced RNG, and no arty. In a new game mode, WG can push for new changes. Likewise, rebalance premium ammo to maybe sacrifice alpha for penetration.
  • Monetize skins heavily. WG needs to shift their monetization model away from primarily separate tanks (which you can only sell one of) to separate skins (which you can sell a ton of). 
  • Improve rewards for skilled play. Maybe through gold, maybe through other things. Who knows? WG needs to reward the top of the top players. 
  • Rebalance tanks with a focus on the top 1%. Everything else will fall into place. 
  • No stupid long breaks between seasons. At most 1 week breaks between seasons. Preferably less.

But, the grandness of the game is still incredibly important. 15v15 and 30v30 games are still a really important aspect of the game, especially for casuals, but there needs to be a competitive solution that's APPEALING to normal people. Hell, maybe something like Frontlines.

 

But what about Clan Wars?

  • I think it may be worthwhile to change the Clan Wars dynamic as a whole. 
  • We need to push people into joining clans that are competitive. As a heavily team-centric game, every game mode will require coordination. Coordination is best in a clan. Push clans. Clans good.
  • What are the rewards? There needs to be rewards

 

Frankly, game design is hard and the ideas above are not fully thought out. Please contribute, though. I'd like to hear what the community wants from a competitive game mode in WoT. Maybe WG will listen? I don't think Clan Wars and Strongholds alone are a good enough way of pushing competitive gameplay, and I don't think Ranked Battles are accessible enough (I've never been able to time my play time). I think WG NEEDS a mode where competitive players can play against other competitive players, and one where the ultra-competitive have a place to shine. With esports, I can see WoT being very successful even this long after release. Without it? The playerbase is going to keep shrinking. We need an influx of players interested in becoming the best of the best. We need maps and modes that allow for complex and dynamic gameplay that will let competitive players shine. 


Hell, maybe we need competitive Frontlines. The casual mode is what we had before. Maybe then competitive WoT can involve: one side defending one flank for one game while the other attacks, then the next game switching positions. Letting both teams blacklist some number of tanks. WG needs to pay attention to balance on maps, then, but...

Damn, I miss Frontlines. I think Frontlines has a ton of potential for competitive gameplay. Hell, it opens up a new idea for Clan Wars: attack/defend Frontlines.

 

Anyway, what does the community think? Does WoT need a competitive game mode? What would it be?



dominator_98 #2 Posted Yesterday, 12:42 AM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 3,652
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

The future of gaming is esports. Sure, you can make good money cranking out a new Defender every few months, but getting the Houston Rockets to pay you $10 million to sponsor an esports team is where the real money is. 

 

Frankly, this game will never be good for esports because of the RNG involved. As long as it's possible to snapshot ammorack a tank from 400 meters, nobody will take competitive gameplay with millions of dollars on the line seriously. Removing RNG from the game wouldn't change the game, it would completely reinvent it to the point that casual players who like the RNG slot machine would leave the game. 

 

This game is simply not able to become esports compatible, and with esports being the future of MMO gaming, WoT will forever be stuck in the past. I've come to this realization over the last few weeks, and with the recent success of League, I'll be giving that game a shot. I wish this game could solve its issues, but when it takes a company six months to nerf the Bobject, it's clear that they're putting free xp sales over quality of gameplay.



Seditious #3 Posted Yesterday, 12:47 AM

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 199 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    12-24-2017

WoT needed a competitive mode six years ago.  I think now it is too late.  WoT was not, but now is. an older gentleman's game.  WG even says so.  How much market is there for old dudes in e-sports?  None really.  But what about as spectators?  There is possibly some money there, but you truly have to have a competitive mode that is being played by all skill sets.  Everyone at every level still has to 'feel' like they are playing the same game, that can only help viewership.

 

I think the requirements would have to be even tighter than what you listed.  Maybe a set of competitive tanks that had a maximum for crew perks (3?), equipment only (no food) and only one type of premium round (no HEAT).  Also there would have to be a very close look at the maps for balance, or even use the unused bilateral map.

 

Personally I would love to see it and I would watch televised top tier competition.  I know I am in the minority though.



GeorgePreddy #4 Posted Yesterday, 01:21 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 10,390
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostNoowin, on Dec 08 2018 - 20:06, said:

I'm sure everyone's seen all the fear-mongering about WoT... yeah, dumb ain't it... but as long as controversy "sells papers" there will be fear mongering. People have been saying "the game is dying for years... and some day far in the future, it will die. So what, everything dies.

 

...the barrier of entry for Clan Wars and Strongholds is higher and less accessible than it needs to be imo. There are practically zero barriers to enter clan wars... must have a tier 10 tank. Strongholds ?  Must have a tier 6. That's pretty much it.

 

RNG plays too big of a role in the game. No it doesn't. Where it is now is a good place. !/3 of all shots are 11 to 25%, but 2/3 are 0 to 10%. A lot of players don't know that fact.

 

Arty is an equalizer that should not be necessary. I'm cool with arty removal... or not... whatever... I've never touched it, not once.

 

??  New trees always seem to be broken.  ??   My trees are fine

 

??  Maps have slowly lost complexity.  ??   My maps are OK

 

Anyway, what does the community think?   I think players have very little say in what changes WG will make because they are not on the Board of Directors, or company executives or even stockholders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



tod914 #5 Posted Yesterday, 02:06 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 60031 battles
  • 4,479
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
They need a Non RNG Foch mode, coupled with a Non Corridor Map mode.

BaconMeLoveIt #6 Posted Yesterday, 02:12 AM

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 13897 battles
  • 1,988
  • [-STN-] -STN-
  • Member since:
    06-10-2016

That game mode has been suggested numerous times but the suggestion seems to fall into deaf ears.

 

I posted a similar topic before. If my memory serves me right, one of the forum members stated that Wargaming declined to lower the RNG value in the game.

 

I already posted these statements or something similar.. Wargaming's attention was split into two-the Wargaming League and Clan Wars. If Wargaming had focused on developing and promoting Clan Wars by making it into multi-region tournament, then each clan would have had the chance to develop its own player members. And each region's winning Clans gets to participate in the "World Stage".

 

Correct me if I am wrong. I think sponsorship was not allowed on the WGL. Hence, the prize pot is too low taking into account each team has numerous number of players. WG did not allow third-party company logo to be on tank camouflage paint. No third-party company would want to sponsor something if the company logo is not shown during the game play.

 

EDIT: And no.. I still think Random Battles is not a competitive mode even if some players do consider Random Battles as competitive.


Edited by BaconMeLoveIt, Yesterday, 02:14 AM.


TheManFromKekistan #7 Posted Yesterday, 03:18 AM

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 16 battles
  • 1,170
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017
Doesn't the game already have a ton of organized play modes? The clan map, team battles, stronks and tournaments?

WhineMaker #8 Posted Yesterday, 03:54 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34745 battles
  • 4,167
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostSeditious, on Dec 08 2018 - 15:47, said:

WoT needed a competitive mode six years ago.  I think now it is too late.  WoT was not, but now is. an older gentleman's game.  WG even says so.  How much market is there for old dudes in e-sports?  None really.  But what about as spectators?  There is possibly some money there, but you truly have to have a competitive mode that is being played by all skill sets.  Everyone at every level still has to 'feel' like they are playing the same game, that can only help viewership.

 

I think the requirements would have to be even tighter than what you listed.  Maybe a set of competitive tanks that had a maximum for crew perks (3?), equipment only (no food) and only one type of premium round (no HEAT).  Also there would have to be a very close look at the maps for balance, or even use the unused bilateral map.

 

Personally I would love to see it and I would watch televised top tier competition.  I know I am in the minority though.

 

Watching someone play a video game and being an older guy, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sounds as boring as watching the bark grow on trees... :sceptic:

 

 

 

The bolded portion is a start to designing your very own tank game. Run with it, or as is obviously your choice, come to forums and repeatedly whine and cry how WG fails at game design. From the amount of money WG has brought in over the last 7+ years, WoT is quite successful with the direction they have taken WoT. It must be unnerving not to be WG's targeted playbase. Just might be, us older guys have disposable income, that WG likes to acquire... :ohmy:



Seditious #9 Posted Yesterday, 05:00 AM

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 199 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    12-24-2017

View PostWhineMaker, on Dec 09 2018 - 03:54, said:

 

Watching someone play a video game and being an older guy, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sounds as boring as watching the bark grow on trees... :sceptic:

 

 

 

The bolded portion is a start to designing your very own tank game. Run with it, or as is obviously your choice, come to forums and repeatedly whine and cry how WG fails at game design. From the amount of money WG has brought in over the last 7+ years, WoT is quite successful with the direction they have taken WoT. It must be unnerving not to be WG's targeted playbase. Just might be, us older guys have disposable income, that WG likes to acquire... :ohmy:

 

Not really interesting that you took that tack, just shows your more interested in derision than discussion.  Obviously your better at the one than the other.  Although not really good at that one either huh old man?

 

I never stated WoT wasn't successful.  Depends on the metric you use however.  Get one of your grand kids to explain what that means.  If you said it made the most money out of any game ever, you would be wrong.  If you said it had the largest esport audience ever, you would be wrong (although your plainly used to being wrong and it doesn't seem to bother you a lick, good show).  If you want my opinion so you can deride it, I think WoT is/was/will be an enormously successful company.  They found a niche and catered well to it.  My opinion on their esports viability is very different.

 

I played Ice Hockey (caps intended), I pay to go to NHL games, I watch NHL hockey on TV.  I have been told there is also a very large audience for American Football and that they make a great deal of money.  Obviously there is capital in attracting viewership.  I find the NFL boring, too long a break between bursts of action.  That is my opinion, obviously they are doing quite well without my support.  I surmise your angst for viewing WoT professional play stems from your love of the clickmobile, watching a view from the back of it's turret would yes be very boring indeed.  By comparison, watching from the view of a LT or MT turret might be quite exciting.  Perhaps an overhead view.  Or, maybe, they could switch views.  What a novel thought.  They could have some person or persons responsible for switching to different views during the match, someone that say, produces a more enjoyable viewing experience.  We could even call them producers.or a production team as it were.  You could even have people talking to the audience, announcing and commentating on the action being watched.  We could call them commentators (announcers sounds too upper crust).  Am I going too fast for you?  Esport viability, heck all sports viability, does not depend on your viewership or financial input (or mine as it were), and good thing.  I know I am odd, I embrace it.  You just aren't as honest with yourself.  Small of you to put down what others choose for entertainment.  But then, these exchanges could be your source of entertainment.  World's kind of creeping in on you isn't old man?

 

Anyway, open another can of bean dip, grab the Fritos, load up the G.W. Tiger P and hit BATTLE old man.

 

 

 

 

P.S.  Could you at least try counter battery?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users