Jump to content


You Ask, We Reply: Clans and Ultimate Conquest Answers


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
84 replies to this topic

Tanitha #21 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 12:36

    Major

  • WG Staff
  • 2405 battles
  • 4,723
  • Member since:
    08-20-2010

View PostCaddoPuma, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:15, said:

Quote 2 seems to contradict Quote 1. For clarification: Will CW schedule for US time zones ever be different than it is now? Will CW schedule for Asian time zones ever be different than it is now? I think I am beginning to understand: It appears the CW schedule will depend upon the timezone in which the contested province lies, not upon the timezone in which the contestants reside. I still feel more clarification is needed, please.



P.S.: It was I who voted -1 to all of the above replies. Reason? All they do is whine about the information instead of actually adding anything substantive to the conversation.

Some answers refer to changing the current map and current system, some answers refer to plans further down the road.

The end goal is to have a full world map, with battles scheduled for the timezone of the land, fought for by the three servers.

So East USA land being at east USA primetime, West USA land being at west USA primetime.
Europe land being at Europe primetime, west Russia and Asian land being at west Russia and Asian timezones, aast Russian and New Zealand land being at east Russian and New Zealand timezones.

So the Oceania clans would be the ones who have it rough, since Russia is on a similar timezone.

Europeans and Russians fighting for NA land would be fighting outside of their primetime and during the NA clans primetime. So inter server clanwars is possible, but attacking other timezones would be inconvenient compared to defending your own land in your own timezone.

Vallter #22 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 13:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10 battles
  • 1,521
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostNoblePlatoon, on Oct 04 2011 - 02:40, said:

SO...monopolies continue.  Alliances between monopolies continue.  And a clan cannot compete unless they have several dozen Tier 10's.  Great job, W.o.T.   :blink:

View PostFaustianQ, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:01, said:

So basically, they want large alliances, a stagnant map as people are punished for battling, do not care or are utterly blind to smaller clans, and only want people with multiple T10 tanks to compete in UC.

That's what I took away from this.

A clan can make an alliance with another clan and be more competitive. If players are good in diplomacy, we see no reasons in punishing them. BUT big clans holding with a big amount of provinces will suffer from riot and freezing system. For example, the riot will be in the heart of their territories. They will have to move chips to it and defend it. After the defense, tanks, which were destroyed or damaged during the battle will be locked for certain time. Bigger the clan is - more riots happen within their lands. And each riot is a minus in amount of their fighters and their tanks.

Why do we implement tank locking system without riots? I'll answer you. Though we want to make it hard to control big amount of provinces, our intention is to make it much more competitive, but not impossible. That is why we want to balance and test the 'locking' feature before introducing riots. And after that introduce riots and balance them, before adding other feature. Unfortunately, I have to remind you, that Clan Wars are still in Beta, because all updates performed to it have be balanced only after the implementation, since they are changing core tactics and mechanics.

View PostDrakenred, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:58, said:

I dont know, maybee the plan is for tanks that are frozen can only be repaired at the rate of 1 tank per owned productive provice per day and the que placment is autmatic based on when your tank gets hit or something.(Ie Eventualy even the mega clans will run out of repaired tanks)

We for sure look through different variants.

View PostGeneralGeorge, on Oct 04 2011 - 07:01, said:

YOU NEED to REVISE your thinking on #12 & #13

10pm EDT start of a battle for 2/3rds of the USA is to late!!  Then expect to goto 1am next day is outragious.

People DO WORK and goto school...................


8pm EDT is more reasonable

Probably, we will start a thread regarding timezones and will try to solve this issue before uniting the servers.

View Postxamichee, on Oct 04 2011 - 11:15, said:

In regards to the alliance situation that dominates the current map, the issue is that it's far too easy to control large areas due to the limited number of landing spots. You are planning to address part of that issue by not allowing clans that own territories from applying for landing applications. I expect the clans which are part of the current alliance can overcome this change by creating ghost clans to monopolize the landings as they are currently doing. Why not simply make every coastal territory available for landing? At present, it's far too easy to control large territories with a very small group of players. The control of large numbers of territories, should require large numbers of clans, which isn't the case at present. Without some changes that make it harder for a relatively small number of players to control large sections of the map, clan wars--which is the only real reason to play WoT in the longer term--will become a joke. Unfortunately, clan wars isn't competitive at all, which will be an issue that plagues the continued growth of the player base.

About the coastal territories - we will think about it.

Why are we not afraid, that big alliances will just create lots of ghost clans? Because in this manner they will receive chips, but not accounts and soldiers for their war. They will have to transfer people and accounts from one clan to another. After this, all accounts will be locked for 48 hours from changing a clan. This means, that land of the main clan will be much more vulnerable for the next 48 hours. And normally, main land gives much more gold.

ijazR #23 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 14:06

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 16278 battles
  • 167
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
i think a important question is missing

if im right tank freezing is not implemented to the landing battles
so small clans will not get effected

i dont know  i may be wrong

Tanitha #24 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 14:33

    Major

  • WG Staff
  • 2405 battles
  • 4,723
  • Member since:
    08-20-2010

View PostijazR, on Oct 04 2011 - 14:06, said:

i think a important question is missing

if im right tank freezing is not implemented to the landing battles
so small clans will not get effected

i dont know  i may be wrong


As far as I'm aware, tank locking will not occur on the landing battles.

Katukov #25 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 15:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 71989 battles
  • 3,286
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    11-27-2010

View PostGeneralDirection, on Oct 04 2011 - 01:50, said:


12. Are the current formats for the landing schedules going to change in an effort to reduce the prep time between battles?

There are no changes of this kind planned, because we are satisfied with current schedules.
This is very unfortunate. I suggest before and are trying to suggest one more time.
Could you guys freeze battle with owner time? That would be no difference for the server, but huge difference for people. Currently with uncertainty of the battle end time it is very hard because you never know when it ends 11:30PM or 1:30AM.
You can change scheduler depend on number of teams(start early or later)

Kirkland #26 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 15:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14514 battles
  • 340
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
If you are good, but don't want to be part of "the blob", it sounds like mercenaries might be your thing.
If you are bad, and can't join any of the good clans, it sounds like random-mercenary is your way to be involved in a meaningful way.

I am very much looking forward to seeing the changes to the map with 7.0.  I believe that Fog of War will be very interesting.

rckgunny #27 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 15:35

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 35381 battles
  • 229
  • [SP3AR] SP3AR
  • Member since:
    09-18-2010

View PostFaustianQ, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:01, said:

So basically, they want large alliances, a stagnant map as people are punished for battling, do not care or are utterly blind to smaller clans, and only want people with multiple T10 tanks to compete in UC.

That's what I took away from this.

yep that my take on this too !!

PTE_Molgat #28 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 17:14

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 17780 battles
  • 7
  • [3-MC] 3-MC
  • Member since:
    12-11-2010
You said in answer 10. "10. Why is Europe so much more profitable than Africa?

Because Africa is mainly sand and desert-) Talking seriously, we intended to make Africa a region for new and small clans to train their skills, before trying their forces on the rest of the Map. Because of the small revenue big clans are more interested in the European provinces and do not fight for Africa, leaving it to the smaller clans."


Have you guys taken some geo-morphology or geography courses??? In Sudan there is a huge reserve of Oil. In Libya the same. From the middle of the continent to its southern part there is an abundance of gold and diamond mines. Have you never heard of blood diamonds?? If I was from an African country I would take offense to the comments you just made about the Continent of Africa. You should really consider revising some of the comments you make about parts of the world!

here are some of them : http://www.mapsofwor...mineral-map.htm

get some knowledge before making comments please!

dommo #29 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 17:21

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8286 battles
  • 223
  • Member since:
    10-31-2010
There is many good things on this list.


But

Destroyed tanks freezing on Global map really stinks.


It will hurt small clans LOTS more than the big clans.

Puncha #30 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 23:16

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 20265 battles
  • 68
  • [3PZG] 3PZG
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010
What gets me is how wargammers raves on it has 300 dev staff yet its so damn slow to get anything done.

Clan wars should of been expanded months ago.

All these rules should of been in UC beta day 1 not months down the track . clanwars times zones should of been to suite the US server from the start of beta not a year down the track.

All I see from Wargammers is ways to suck funds out of the player base with little coming back in the way of expansion to the clan wars arena or the game in general.

Lack of end game content has killed off many games before they really got started far as Ive seen so far Wargammers with WOT is no different.

Seachest #31 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 23:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8916 battles
  • 299
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010

Quote

Clans, which have the provinces on the continent, cannot apply for landing.

So, an example of what could happen with this is the following:

Clan B lands on Clan A's LZ, Clan B wins the LZ Tournament.  Clan B drops HQ and spams chips in all directions while keeping chips on the LZ.

After all the province battles, Clan B still only has the LZ, Clan A still has all of its in-land territory.  24-48 hours later, a repeat of above happens, because Clan A is not allowed to land on the LZ to take out Clan B's HQ.

Yes, this makes CW more of a risk, but what is being said here is that you have to be completely knocked off of the map if you want that LZ back.

Dont say tank locking will take care of this, because if Clan A has 300+ CW Tanks, and Clan B has 75 CW Tanks, they can throw all 75 at them in one night, and Clan A will still be sitting with a much higher number of CW Tanks.  By the time Clan B's tanks come out of cooldown, Clan A's Tanks will be out of cooldown also.  Thus you end up with the problem again.

Here are two polls that were made by a clanmate.

Landing Restriction: http://forum.worldof...-yes-or-no-why/
Tank Freezing: http://forum.worldof...-yes-or-no-why/

Personal Opinion:

Remove/Change the Landing Restrictions or make it to where you CANNOT put an HQ on a Landing Zone, this means they can only hit one province and they have to get an in-land province before they can drop their HQ.

FaustianQ #32 Posted Oct 04 2011 - 23:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostVallter, on Oct 04 2011 - 13:58, said:

A clan can make an alliance with another clan and be more competitive. If players are good in diplomacy, we see no reasons in punishing them. BUT big clans holding with a big amount of provinces will suffer from riot and freezing system. For example, the riot will be in the heart of their territories. They will have to move chips to it and defend it. After the defense, tanks, which were destroyed or damaged during the battle will be locked for certain time. Bigger the clan is - more riots happen within their lands. And each riot is a minus in amount of their fighters and their tanks.

Why do we implement tank locking system without riots? I'll answer you. Though we want to make it hard to control big amount of provinces, our intention is to make it much more competitive, but not impossible. That is why we want to balance and test the 'locking' feature before introducing riots. And after that introduce riots and balance them, before adding other feature. Unfortunately, I have to remind you, that Clan Wars are still in Beta, because all updates performed to it have be balanced only after the implementation, since they are changing core tactics and mechanics.

Yea, and no one says they shouldn't, however diplomacy is waged not on empty promises but the ability to properly back your allies. My clan can currently fullfill those duties, because we will ALWAYS have clanwar ready tanks when needed. When you implement tank locking, my small but dedicated clan will become a weak link in the chain because we need multiple T10 tanks for each player. Our allies won't be hurt quite as much as we would, and since we can't hold up our end of the bargain anymore, why even talk to us?

The very concept of tank locking won't work, a better way must be found to cripple larger clans if that is what you are after, because as of right now, large clans will be immune to it and small clans will be wiped off the map. You're going about it wrong, punish players instead of rewarding them. have you seen my logistics suggestion? It works in a sense the same way, creating situations where T10's cannot be fielded and a clan can become weak.

Basically, supply points are awarded for victories, and supply points allow you to field tanks. The more territory you own, the more supply points you lose per turn maintaining all that territory. Large, stagnant clans which use NAPs and fight a minimum of battles won't have large pools of supply points, while smaller clans who are dedicated and fight well will have a large number of supply points. Large clans are humbled by this, small clans are not. Clans that don't fight and don't war are hurt by this, clans which fight each night and are dedicated aren't. is this not EXACTLY what you want?

It even fits in within the framework which you are already trying to establish - supply points are drained by territory, and by that territory's unrest. The fewer chips stationed there the greater the drain. So one cannot have large undefended swaths of territory without having a potentially negative effect on what they can field. If you want to bring Volunteers/Mercenaries into this, you can as well - they would be totally exempt from supply point limitations. Large clans that want to keep all that territory will then NEED Volunteers/Mercenaries, and virtually EVERYONE can get in on clan wars, and EVERY feature is used, not just gamed around like they are now.

Look, Vallter, I have no grudge against WG or it's staff, but a lot of people, me included, think it's just going about it the wrong way. We WANT to help, for FREE. We WANT input, the ability to help SHAPE the game so it can be the BEST game period, no competition. CROWDSOURCE US. Get our input, make us MORE THEN METRIC DATA. I would slave away, day in, and day out, wrack my brain and destroy my schedule, learn every bit of programming code needed, I would DO ANYTHING NEEDED to make this game succeed, and I am 100% positive there are many more like me.

Valkeiper #33 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 00:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostNoblePlatoon, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:53, said:

I appreciate you telling us who/why the neg.  And I did add something of substantive nature...I asked one of the questions that they answered, and gave reasons for why I thought a change was needed.  The fact that they feels no change is needed, and are allowing monopolies to dominate CW, tells me that no more logical input is warranted.  They won't listen.  Therefore, I am expressing my deep disappointment.

and this is a surprise?

These are the same devs who think the Massively MisManaged MisMatch Maker for random battles is working fine.

Valkeiper #34 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 00:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostFaustianQ, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:56, said:

Maybe you should check the other parts of the forums, or even do a search? A lot of this was brought to light and the devs simply ignored the players. There is nothing to add to the conversation, if there is one. WarGaming has made their decision, and only metrics will make them change their decisions. And whining? Get real, voice of dissent is more like it. None of their decisions are satisfactory, and such measures as Tank Freezing knock small but dedicated clans off the map, and push people towards simply NAPing or absorbing into larger clans, just to get the gold, just to keep their territory. At that point Company Battles makes more sense since it's less stressful and small clans essentially get the same reward, same results.

These Q&A threads? You're not going to get much real information out of them that hasn't been asked and either curtly answered or brushed off. You want to change minds? Not going to happen in this thread, not going to happen in any thread you make. The reality of the situation is that there is the "Developer Vision", and the game isn't going to change course from that. The mere fact that despite everyone trying to tell how tank lockouts would effect they game, they continued on and ignored us.

and exactly why has this surprised anybody?

exactly what will happen when US and/or European companies release their the games directly competing with the format WoT opened?

Valkeiper #35 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 00:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostDrakenred, on Oct 04 2011 - 03:58, said:

I dont know, maybee the plan is for tanks that are frozen can only be repaired at the rate of 1 tank per owned productive provice per day and the que placment is autmatic based on when your tank gets hit or something.(Ie Eventualy even the mega clans will run out of repaired tanks)

Ok, so you had a tank knocked out in a battle; couldn't you participate in the next battle using another tank from your garage?

This would mean you need to have a more robust field of tanks in your garage; but it could be done.

Valkeiper #36 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostImWithStupid, on Oct 04 2011 - 06:17, said:

Hey devs, tank locking does not effect everyone uniformly. Many threads on this already if you bothered to read them... but ignore 90% of your player base, it's cool.

no true surprise... not with this company, at least.

and they want us to vote them a 'Good Community relations' award.

Nah.

Valkeiper #37 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 00:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View Postyovelzack, on Oct 04 2011 - 09:50, said:

Doesn't it mean that a clan with 50 competitive tanks will still be able to gather a team and a clan with 20 competitive tanks will not?

exactly; but what do we players know?

it's our money filling their coffers, after all.

and it's our money that'll pass 'under the table' to buy that 'Good Community Relations' award they want. (there's no other way they'll get it)

Valkeiper #38 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 01:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
why can't the "fog of war" be in random matches or company matches?

Too many decisions are being made according to the 'enemy roster display' as it is.

Valkeiper #39 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 01:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostDocSpanky, on Oct 04 2011 - 23:16, said:

What gets me is how wargammers raves on it has 300 dev staff yet its so damn slow to get anything done.

Clan wars should of been expanded months ago.

All these rules should of been in UC beta day 1 not months down the track . clanwars times zones should of been to suite the US server from the start of beta not a year down the track.

All I see from Wargammers is ways to suck funds out of the player base with little coming back in the way of expansion to the clan wars arena or the game in general.

Lack of end game content has killed off many games before they really got started far as Ive seen so far Wargammers with WOT is no different.

actually, WoT is just the opposite.

WG.net has focused on adding game content (new tanks, new maps, ect) without fixing the problems of the system.

As somebody in another thread stated, it's like a restaurant adding more items on the menu when the waitress are rude and the cooks are lousy.

darkstar3d #40 Posted Oct 05 2011 - 13:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27774 battles
  • 26
  • [OC] OC
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011
This is why I don't do CW anymore.

1. I'm east coast and I'm a student with a job.
2. CW starts and you see 8 IS-7s for attack force, 5 Maus for defense force, and 2 T9 arty for GP.
3. If you are not one of the biggest tanks in your clan, you can forget getting into many matches after all that waiting.

Now, I play random and platoon, sometimes company. The game is fun again.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users