Jump to content

New game modes (suggested)

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

slaughterhousepig #1 Posted Apr 22 2019 - 19:39


  • Players
  • 17183 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:

I have two game mode ideas I'd like to see developed:


1) Hunger Games (Fortnite) meets WoT. Call it: Ironman Survivor 

On a map the size of Frontline (or larger if your servers can handle it), drop 100 tanks stripped of everything and have them fight it out to the last tank. Drop equipment and supplies randomly and allow for minor building of defenses. Set up the reward structure so that platooning.team play would be a net loss for the group. (I.E. First place gets exp/credit payout, but places 2-9 get nothing, 10 and on get more.) Meaning that if you set up a team to seal club everyone, only one player on your team gets any kind of reward, everyone else loses, bigtime)


2) Front Line. But not how WG has it now. Call it: Meat Grinder 

Design a super long map with a rolling front line where the destroyed tanks respawn on the losing side, making advancement increasingly more difficult, especially if you also make the map easier to defend as the winning team advances and have resupply centers well back behind your line. (meaning you can't advance on your own without running out of fuel/ammo) Supply lines win battles, I would like that to play a role in WoT. 


Thoughts? Or better still, hey WG, message me, I have these ideas far more flushed out that what I've written here.  

latvius #2 Posted Apr 22 2019 - 19:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 31162 battles
  • 469
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:

#1 You would need enough players to participate that it would be random teams, otherwise players will still team up unofficially with comms and "seal club".  I would play it without the drops, maybe extra ammo drop since not all tanks are equal in ammo size.  Having other supplies would make it way too long.  On that big of a map once you got down two 2 or 3 you could drive around for a long while trying to spot people and don't forget this game is loved by campers who will sit in a bush the entire time, bore fest....


#2 The name alone makes me want to stay away.  I like 15 minute or less.

slaughterhousepig #3 Posted May 04 2019 - 19:08


  • Players
  • 17183 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:

Taken in reverse:

#1) Appellations are about taste. There is no right and wrong. For example, your name 'latvius' sounds like a venereal disease, but I assume you have an affinity for it. :)


#2) I address the 'seal club' issue in my original post. I do so wish you had not just skimmed it before moving on to opine, but i'll elaborate: You make the reward structure so as to cost colluding players overall. First place pays big experience and credits but places 2-9 pay zero so the cost to play for the group is not worth it overall. That said, people often pair up in these situations organically and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. 

Edited by slaughterhousepig, May 04 2019 - 19:09.

Cheshil #4 Posted May 04 2019 - 20:46


  • -Players-
  • 14109 battles
  • 89
  • [RDDT6] RDDT6
  • Member since:

WG already tested a battle royal mode, i'm mostly sure it didn't turn out well.

On a map the size FrontLine, i would say at most, maybe 50 people can free-for-all. (or 50 Duos, this would allow 100)

something like a battle royal in this game has proven very difficult to pull off effectively, because of the view range, tank types and roles being so diverse.

Edited by Cheshil, May 04 2019 - 20:47.

BadCorps #5 Posted May 06 2019 - 20:51


  • -Players-
  • 10457 battles
  • 231
  • [4PLDG] 4PLDG
  • Member since:
I pray to science that neither of these game modes become reality because my computer (and I'm sure others) could even BEGIN to handle the amount of information required for these.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users