Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Freyr_90

Future Clan Battles [idea]

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Players
641 posts
12,009 battles

So.. a few days ago we were talking about clan battles on Discord when I thought I had come up with a decent idea for a future season. To put it simply, each team gets a a number of points and has to distribute these among different tiers, e.g. a T10 ship could be 10 points, a T6 would be 6 points, etc. 

I was promptly advised that there was already something similar in WoT, so the idea isn't mine, or new at all (sad) 

What do you think, can it be applied to WoWs as well? Would it bring more diversity and give us a chance to once again be torpedoing Yamatos in Umikazes? Or would it be dull with a few preferred compositions? 

:etc_hide_turtle:

 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
370 posts
2,921 battles

I also had a similar idea, but then to make it a tournament as the ShipStorm RQL tournament. 
I couldn't really figure out how to balance it though, because tier 10s are pretty powerful. 

I also wanted to give T10 the cost of 10 points, but perhaps it needs to be more expensive and made into 12 points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,074 posts
17,364 battles

Not very useful, it would only allow small clans to bring in tier 9 ships when they dont have enough tier 10s.

Bringing tier 8-7-6 in a tier 10 battle is too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,940 posts
7,767 battles
29 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Not very useful, it would only allow small clans to bring in tier 9 ships when they dont have enough tier 10s.

Bringing tier 8-7-6 in a tier 10 battle is too bad.

:Smile_facepalm:

the idea would of course be that you don't have enough points to bring a full team of T10s, you'd have to decide which area to sacrifice in.

 

I don't think this idea is all that well suited for CBs though, for two main reasons.

1) the power spike from T9 to T10 is, as others have said, indeed massive - I think this would work better at, say, T7+6 (T8 again brings a powerspike in the form of the concealment module).

2) requires a lot of coordination and specific ships in port - not ideal if you want to keep CBs somewhat accessible for everyone. Better suited for a community-organized tournament methinks, where this idea is indeed already in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COSTS]
Players
34 posts
5,969 battles

There was something similar in WoWp a while ago (before 2.0, ofc.): some community-organised tournaments where the tier of the planes selected was equal to the same amount of points.

F.ex. a tier 8 = 8 points.

 

The general idea was that a team of 6 players had f.ex. 45 points, and could pick most regular planes.

A team could then f.ex. bring tier 8+8+8+8+7+6 = 45 points, or 8+8+8+7+7+7 or whatever met the requirements of not exceeding 45 points.

 

It was really great fun, and could be awesome to see if a similar structure could be applied in a WoWs cb-tournament.

Perhaps with a higher number of points (allowing higher tiers) and more participants on a team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
796 posts
8,346 battles

@Freyr_90 I like the idea. This has been the fourth season and something has to change in order to keep things fresh and interesting. If the format stays the same for the next season a lot of people might refrain from playing entirely. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
387 posts
11,031 battles

So in this CB system Belfast is worth same points as yorck? Kutuzov same points as edinburgh? Loyang same points as Kiev?

There would be even more discrepancy between clans that have particular ships and those that don't have it.

I agree that CB could use freshening up, something different, but I'm not sure this is the right idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,940 posts
7,767 battles
13 minutes ago, quickr said:

So in this CB system Belfast is worth same points as yorck? Kutuzov same points as edinburgh? Loyang same points as Kiev?

There would be even more discrepancy between clans that have particular ships and those that don't have it.

I agree that CB could use freshening up, something different, but I'm not sure this is the right idea.

 

can also be adressed by, for example, making each Radar and/or each Smoke cost 1 point, or any other factors the organizers deem necessary to get the meta they want. At the end of the day, you can more or less make this as complex as you like^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,004 posts
11 hours ago, Freyr_90 said:

(...)

What do you think, can it be applied to WoWs as well?

(...)

 

Anything that brings variety and doesn't break immersion or ballance, is automatic 'yes' for me.

In case of doubts, WG can always try 'test' season first, before going full in.

 

1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:

(...)

1) the power spike from T9 to T10 is, as others have said, indeed massive - I think this would work better at, say, T7+6 (T8 again brings a powerspike in the form of the concealment module).

 

Everyone would have to sacrifice something in order to accomodate T10. Total number of ships per side could've been flexible to address it.

You could've just had few higher tier ships or larger number of lower tiers. Even consumables could count toward total number of points spent as well as Premium ships requiring more points.

It definitely would make things way more complicated and for average player too difficult to comprehend, but would lead to large number of fun encounters.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:

2) requires a lot of coordination and specific ships in port - not ideal if you want to keep CBs somewhat accessible for everyone. Better suited for a community-organized tournament methinks, where this idea is indeed already in use.

 

True, though any competitive gameplay on high enough level requires lot of coordination and analysis.. Hence different leagues. Those better at it just advance further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
387 posts
11,031 battles
3 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

can also be adressed by, for example, making each Radar and/or each Smoke cost 1 point, or any other factors the organizers deem necessary to get the meta they want. At the end of the day, you can more or less make this as complex as you like^^

Making it more complex means even more balancing issues. Who decides how much "points" yorck is worth and how much is belfast? And how many seasons does it have to pass to get the balancing right?

But even that is not the main issues. Main issue is, like I said in earlier post, you are bringing ships that some long lasting players have but those that are new to the game can hardly obtain. (missouri, kutuzov, belfast...)

Playing field should be leveled, equal to all, not biased towards one group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,595 posts
6,879 battles

Umikaze - 4.87km detection

Tachibana - 4.71km detection

Smith - 5.03km detection

Strozhevoi - 5.03km detection

V-25 - 4.71km detection

Meda - 4.71km detection

Longjiang - 4.71km detection

 

Just saying :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
978 posts
7,801 battles
2 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Umikaze - 4.87km detection

Tachibana - 4.71km detection

Smith - 5.03km detection

Strozhevoi - 5.03km detection

V-25 - 4.71km detection

Meda - 4.71km detection

Longjiang - 4.71km detection

 

Just saying :Smile_trollface:

Just bring a Graf Spee with 5km hydro man :Smile_trollface: 

I'm now also wondering how quickly low tier DD's would melt to a radar; but they're all so tiny and low in the water the high tier ships might just miss them! XD 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,595 posts
6,879 battles
1 hour ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

Just bring a Graf Spee with 5km hydro man :Smile_trollface: 

I'm now also wondering how quickly low tier DD's would melt to a radar; but they're all so tiny and low in the water the high tier ships might just miss them! XD 

Can't kill what you can't hit :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
2,242 posts
2,242 battles
4 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Umikaze - 4.87km detection

Tachibana - 4.71km detection

Smith - 5.03km detection

Strozhevoi - 5.03km detection

V-25 - 4.71km detection

Meda - 4.71km detection

Longjiang - 4.71km detection

 

Just saying :Smile_trollface:

 

It would be mega-LOL to field 12 Tachibanas vs 4 T10 BBs... :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,595 posts
6,879 battles
2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

It would be mega-LOL to field 12 Tachibanas vs 4 T10 BBs... :Smile_teethhappy:

Umikazes get the 8km torps :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
2,242 posts
2,242 battles
Just now, wilkatis_LV said:

Umikazes get the 8km torps :Smile_trollface:

Yeah but I do not have that... would probably take Smith anyway (it's nuts, and I have the faster torp reload on it). 

Or how about Tenyu with IFHE and CE... :cap_wander_2:

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
118 posts
8,464 battles
10 hours ago, quickr said:

So in this CB system Belfast is worth same points as yorck? Kutuzov same points as edinburgh? Loyang same points as Kiev?

There would be even more discrepancy between clans that have particular ships and those that don't have it.

I agree that CB could use freshening up, something different, but I'm not sure this is the right idea.

 

Beacuse we now have balanced stalingrad=Hindenburg and Azuma=Zao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×