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

Clan battles summary

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles

I decided to create general summary of clan battles and create discussion about some changes and suggestions we need to improve gameplay of this gamemode.

It would be nice if you comment or up-vote if you agree with following post but please be constructive as much as you can. I hope that devs take it into account and make it better.


We got already around 1 month to try clan games and I think everyone have already some opinion and conclusion about this gamemode.

My goal is to describe most of pros and especially cons and I think we should start with some pros.

 

Pros

 

First of all existance of clan battles itself is very big pros simply because this is the only "regular" game mode with possibility to create own team and play versus other players. This is something that many players have been waiting for and thank you that it exists whatever the form is.

 

Credit reward for the game - finally after few years, wargaming decided to reward all players equally in team. For me this is something great becuase you are rewarded for WIN not for damage, spot etc. Thanks to this, players can focus on winning only and it does not matter how much damage you did.

 

Lack of aircraft carriers - this is something for separated thread and we can argue night and day why this is good or bad but CV's with current balance would be very strong in clan wars game and destroyers would be in my opinion completely unplayable. I completely agree with argument that this is excluding CV players etc. but everyone knows how good CV players changes the gameplay so this is for me good thing.

 

 

Cons

 

Map rotation - simply speaking, playing whole month or more on only 4 maps is real joke. Especially when you get good RNG and I remember days we did around 12 games and all games we got on literally two maps only. Personally I don't understand why we didn't get in last update or next update even 1 map. Having 5 or 6 maps would be completely different experience and for me this is big fail. Is it really hard to follow this "triple-base pattern" and create something like this?

I67XNA4.jpg

 

Ammo rack explosion - I can understand when ship explodes in random game, it is still stupid mechanics yet I understand it but explosion fo ammo in clan wars? People don't have unlimited number of detonation flags and everyone can get only up to 6 flags per day from clan wars task. Detonation should be off or we should get detonation flag for every game. WG you wanted to create "professional" game mode or random circus? This is very bad especially combined with next point.

 

Team size - this is not actually real con but I think we can count it becasue some reasons. 7v7 has got one big failure, if one of the ships get non lucky and get killed by detonation, magic balanced Montana salvo or any other random event, enemy team gets very big advantage especially if you kill dd with destination to cap. At this moment you can only yolo push or camp and lose in most cases. The idea of number of players was already tested zilion times in world of tanks on global map - 15v15 is tactical game and battles 7v7 are very random and even potato team can win vs very strong enemy because RNG. Of course i understand that there are many factors like clan size, number of players etc.. and creating bigger team can lower amount of clans playing this game mode but I think it would be nice and it should be possible to see teams in 9v9 format size simply because we get smaller impact of RNG and big tactical facilities.

 

Battleships constraint - we know bb's are very strong and can delete any ship in one salvo sometimes but I belive we see it just wrong. It would be possible to make limit 2 per game but current map setups can't allow it. Ofc the easiest way is to balance BB class but otherwise we can put more caps (like 5) for example on the map and it just increase role of dd's and cruisers and taking 2 bb's would be even mistake. Anyway we should be allowed to take any setup we want and this should make sense. The problem now is that every map works exactly in the same way so there is only "one right setup". If we add more caps or make it more complicated we can get way more variations and one setup is good for one map, other setup beats other map - current meta is "rush B and def C" or vice versa.

 

Maps balance - in general maps are rather balanced but as I said in previous point, all maps got the same meta and this results in the same setups on both sides aka: Montana, Des Moines, Des Moines, Moskva, Hindenburg, Gearing, Z-52.

We can see probably other setups in "potato league" but this is only result of lack of ships. Also I should add that some places arenot balanced equally like Ice islands cap C or also C cap on mountain range.

 

Clan evaluation system - One of the worst things in clan wars now. Many people expected clan battles to be something bigger, more organised thing, giving the possiblity to evaluate strengh of the team but we got something more like normal teamplay mode. League system give us very poor information about clan strengh. It is not possible to create any rating system, WoWs API don't give us any important info about clans, we don't have any elo system, hall of fame, clan recrutation station - just nothing. Win rate of clans means completely nothing because it is related to enemy you get and as you probably know if you create clan now, and start play clan wars atm you going to get very high WR because all strong enemies are in the highest league now. In general people wants to get any rating system giving real informations. It is not like league system is bad and must be removed - its rather some additional rating or some kind of factor proving that clan A is stronger than B.

 

Clan battles prime time - too short. It is simply too short. Many people says about "if you want to play in team then play clan wars" but we can't because we can do it only at exact time and day. It is understandable WG want big attendence and it is way easier for MM to find teams but current time is simple short. Some people are in different timezones and for them clan wars starts at 18:00 and ends at 21:00 when the largest number of players is in game. I would vote to add at least 1 extra hour to current prime time to make it for eg. 19:00 - 23:00.

 

I hope I did not forget any important thing.

 

 

TLTR:

Nice that we got any clan wars game mode and the current one is actually enjoyable but boring because we got only 4 maps, with the same meta and this results in mirror teams with mirror strats.

Also we don't have any clan evaluation tools because league system says almost nothing about real clan strengh.

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,542 posts
6,477 battles

Before anything:

 

"We should be allowed to take any set up we want"

 

What, like being able to bring a CV for CV captains? Excluding a whole line out of clan battles was simply wrong and still is. Let's be brutally honest here, there isn't a lot of really good CV players so excluding them saves those clans that 1) dont have great CV captain 2) don't even have tier 10 CVs. WG should make it work, period. Can you imagin the uproar if they left BBs or even DDs out of clan battles because they couldn't make it work? WG would get linch mobbed.

 

You have even said it yourself about good CV players. if you don't have one? Tough.  Like if clans don't have good DD players? Tough.

 

Its not directed at you at all m8 and nearly all of what you have said I agree with :Smile_great: . Well, maybe not more BBs as even one can turn a game round unless like you have said, they increase the team AND map size.  

 

Its just that 3/4 of all DD/BB players will ALWAYS be against CVs in clans, whatever the argument is.  People don't think about the other people that would like to play their preferred line and are only out for themselves. Its not even about not being able to pick their preferred ship, but a whole bloody line!!

 

CVs worked in both Rank and Tier 8 Clan battles but they wont in this? Please :Smile_facepalm:

 

There would be a lot less Mosks and Mons camping behind a rock bow on for 3/4 of the game, alternating radar. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,223 posts
6,782 battles

Nice post m8!:cap_like:

I do agree with most of what you said - the map rotation definitely needs so more thrown in, and 3 of the 4 maps play exactly the same (with the last one being different because of the 2 caps in 1 spot), the prime time should be extended as those 3 hours don't give us a lot of time to play AND people still do have work, which most obviously in the case of UK can mean they miss at least the 1st hour if not more of CB, and the fact that even if you detonate you don't get the achievement with flags... :cap_money:

 

And yet, I'd like to have CVs, everyone now is running hydro and radar making DD gameplay not exactly the most fun they could have

Also the team size - while I think that 7v7 is fine, what about 9v9? And give an option -> 2 BBs or CV + BB for example. Altho I guess everyone would run the CV in that case anyway :cap_hmm:

And then as for ship selection - while that mentioned is the core, there still are quite viable variations out there. People are making Conquerors, Yamatos, Shimakazes, Zaos, HIVs work. It's not quite 1 guaranteed setup, but it's quite unfortunately close to it :cap_old:

 

Also why can't just some "ranking officers" lead CB team? Why can't just anyone do it? Never really understood that one :cap_wander:

 


7 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

1) dont have great CV captain 2) don't even have tier 10 CVs.

I mean, most people don't have jsut a good captain overall, not just one specific capt :cap_haloween:

And the lack of tier 10 CV is already solved - we do get the rentals, don't we? So instead of 3 rental classes we would get all 4 :cap_hmm:

9 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

Can you imagin the uproar if they left BBs or even DDs out of clan battles because they couldn't make it work?

:cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn:

11 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

There would be a lot less Mosks and Mons camping behind a rock bow on for 3/4 of the game, alternating radar

There would be a lot less camping overall with a good incentive to move flying around :cap_haloween:

Then again... everyone could just group up in a big AA bubble to make sure CV can't touch them :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSW]
Players
3,790 posts
7,737 battles
1 hour ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

And yet, I'd like to have CVs, everyone now is running hydro and radar making DD gameplay not exactly the most fun they could have

 

 

while most of what has been said in here has merit (whether I fully agree with each specific point or not doesn't matter, there is at the very least a kernel of truth to it), this is something that I feel like I have to comment on.

Have you ever played T10 competitive with CVs allowed? I have, and let me tell you: Playing a DD when the enemy has a competent AS Hakuryu is probably the least fun experience you can imagine. You can pretty much not go anywhere away from your team's AA blob, because there's a high high chance that there will be planes there - and while they won't necessarily kill you, they will spot you (and your torps, so good luck hitting anything... much less likely than with Hydro...). And that doesn't just affect DDs. When there's a Haku around, there are very few ships that you could ever send off on their own to flank somewhere... Hindenburg... and that's pretty much it. Others dont have the AA to fend of a strike (BBs, Moskva, to an extent Henri... Des Memes doesnt even want to go flank usually^^), or they want to rely on their Concealment (hello Zao or Conqueror...), which flat out does not work when the enemy has a Hakuryu. And yes, you might say "but your team has a CV too - he can protect everything!" Yes, most of the time - but competitive will always be about minimizing ressource expenditure and risks, so sending ships that need heavy protection is just not economical most of the time. Having clear skies opens up quite a few extra possibilities for pretty much all the other classes.

So while I fully agree that it sucks for CV players big time, having played both, I have to say that in my opinion and experience T10 competitive gameplay is much much better off without Carriers (at least in their current state... who knows what the mythical CV rework might bring...).

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
1 hour ago, Redcap375 said:

What, like being able to bring a CV for CV captains? Excluding a whole line out of can battles was simply wrong and still is. Let's be brutally honest here, there isn't a lot of really good CV players so excluding them saves those clans that 1) dont have great CV captain 2) don't even have tier 10 CVs. WG should make it work, period. Can you imagin the uproar if they left BBs or even DDs out of clan battles because they couldn't make it work? WG would get linch mobbed.

 

Thats why I said people can argue long time about it.

 

CV is not allowed and should not be allowed because it completely break gameplay of all ships especially dd's. At the moment as @Tyrendian89 said dd is completely unplayable when enemy get half decent CV because he can spot you without any effort and your torps. It is like CV would completely perm break your main guns in BB, so you can only watch how enemy killing you. Moreover CV can spot almost all the time all ships you want in result tactical value of surprise attacks etc is almost 0 because everyone knows what enemy do. Trust me playing vs 7 radar and hydro cruisers is more funny for destroyers than playing vs CV.

 

This is simple and everyone understand that excluding whole ship class (acutally 2 ships) is stupid but this class breaks balance in game currently  more than make it balanced.

For me including CV to clan game is the same as excluding DD class.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BTS]
Players
1,064 posts
4,867 battles

CBs were unenjoyable for me, but it's my fault as I'm a T 8 peasant. God forbid you're in a clan centered around a common interest and RL friendships with a lot of new or weak players: CB hooligans wanted our boss to evict players, begin mandatory CB drills and adopt "minimum CB presence" quotas to be allowed to stay in the clan. Took me quite an effort to stop this madness and we lost a good player that was among the CB mujahiddens.

 

TL;DR: great event if you're in an hardcore clan, for lesser clans it could mean hell breaking loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,769 posts
12,134 battles
7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Pros

 

existance of clan battles

Agreed

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Credit reward for the game

Agreed, but trust me, if people would just be playing for their own stats, clans would just not take them into games anymore. But then again, you can't use this in randoms cause there needs to be at least some incentive to play and not yolo rush/borer hug...

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Lack of aircraft carriers

In current 7vs7 setup: agreed

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

 

Cons

 

Map rotation

Agreed and same RNG feeling

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

 

Ammo rack explosion - I can understand when ship explodes in random game, it is still stupid mechanics yet I understand it but explosion fo ammo in clan wars? People don't have unlimited number of detonation flags and everyone can get only up to 6 flags per day from clan wars task. Detonation should be off or we should get detonation flag for every game. WG you wanted to create "professional" game mode or random circus? This is very bad especially combined with next point.

Disagree, as in any competitive mode, these detonation flags are just mandatory. Put them on your ship and be done with it. DOn't have any? Put the module on for serious reduction and play randoms to obtain them ( would have been nice if they were included in the flags you gained though ).

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Team size

Disagree that 7vs7 isn't tactical, it very much is. Yes if one ship messes up, winning is harder ( but not impossible and it doesn't Always require a yolo push). It does indeed mean that ou as a player need to be more aware of your surroundings and you'll need to be able to adapt because 7 players isn't enough to block every avenue of aproach an enemy team could take in their plays.

If you want to go for bigger teams: 10vs10 - 12vs12 or whatever then we'll need to look at the balance of shipclasses again, and it such a case the prohibition of CVs is no longer valid imo. So be careful what you whish for.

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Battleships constraint - The problem now is that every map works exactly in the same way so there is only "one right setup". If we add more caps or make it more complicated we can get way more variations and one setup is good for one map, other setup beats other map - current meta is "rush B and def C" or vice versa.

Disagree, one BB in 7vs7 is more than enough. Get bigger teams and you can add more BB. More caps in current format is imo not viable, you need more players. If you want a more dynamic gameplay they could maybe rotate the cap locations on maps? So there's at least some variations there meaning teams will need to adapt their tactics from time to time?

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Maps balance - in general maps are rather balanced but as I said in previous point, all maps got the same meta and this results in the same setups on both sides aka: Montana, Des Moines, Des Moines, Moskva, Hindenburg, Gearing, Z-52.

We can see probably other setups in "potato league" but this is only result of lack of ships. Also I should add that some places arenot balanced equally like Ice islands cap C or also C cap on mountain range.

Disagree that one setup is fixed. We've been playing setups with one DD, with two DD, with Montana, with Monqueror ( seen a substantial amount of Yamatos as well, GK not so much ). We've mostly been playing with only 1 DM, sometimes with a Henri, sometimes also with a Zao, with a shima . Honestly, there are still variations in team setup ( but ofc less than in randoms ).

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Clan evaluation system

Put it this way, if you create a clan now you might start winning a lot of games and quickly rise in the leagues. Untill you reach the league where you'll start encountering teams equal to yours: you'll start losing as well and in the end you won't rise in leagues anymore?

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

Clan battles prime time - too short. It is simply too short. Many people says about "if you want to play in team then play clan wars" but we can't because we can do it only at exact time and day. It is understandable WG want big attendence and it is way easier for MM to find teams but current time is simple short. Some people are in different timezones and for them clan wars starts at 18:00 and ends at 21:00 when the largest number of players is in game. I would vote to add at least 1 extra hour to current prime time to make it for eg. 19:00 - 23:00.

Honestly, this all depends on where you live and how your rl looks like. For people who need to get up early in the morning ending it early is better. For people who don't have such constraints it matters less. Cause make no mistake: if you increase the timeslot people will probably play more, so it becomes more of a grinding fest.

By limiting the timeslot you get: short queu times (excellent), mostly teams of your league (excellent) and a clear timeslot to allocate in your familytime.

Not saying I disagree with you, just saying that WG will never be able to make a "good" choice here.

 

7 hours ago, Griva said:

 

TLTR:

Nice that we got any clan wars game mode and the current one is actually enjoyable but boring because we got only 4 maps, with the same meta and this results in mirror teams with mirror strats.

Also we don't have any clan evaluation tools because league system says almost nothing about real clan strengh.

 

Mirror teams with mirror stats equals temas with same strength?

What else would you like to see to judge clan strength, or better: what is clan strength according to you?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,542 posts
6,477 battles
8 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

 

while most of what has been said in here has merit (whether I fully agree with each specific point or not doesn't matter, there is at the very least a kernel of truth to it), this is something that I feel like I have to comment on.

Have you ever played T10 competitive with CVs allowed? I have, and let me tell you: Playing a DD when the enemy has a competent AS Hakuryu is probably the least fun experience you can imagine. You can pretty much not go anywhere away from your team's AA blob, because there's a high high chance that there will be planes there - and while they won't necessarily kill you, they will spot you (and your torps, so good luck hitting anything... much less likely than with Hydro...). And that doesn't just affect DDs. When there's a Haku around, there are very few ships that you could ever send off on their own to flank somewhere... Hindenburg... and that's pretty much it. Others dont have the AA to fend of a strike (BBs, Moskva, to an extent Henri... Des Memes doesnt even want to go flank usually^^), or they want to rely on their Concealment (hello Zao or Conqueror...), which flat out does not work when the enemy has a Hakuryu. And yes, you might say "but your team has a CV too - he can protect everything!" Yes, most of the time - but competitive will always be about minimizing ressource expenditure and risks, so sending ships that need heavy protection is just not economical most of the time. Having clear skies opens up quite a few extra possibilities for pretty much all the other classes.

So while I fully agree that it sucks for CV players big time, having played both, I have to say that in my opinion and experience T10 competitive gameplay is much much better off without Carriers (at least in their current state... who knows what the mythical CV rework might bring...).

 

So you are telling me that the Moskva, Des Mons, Monta and Henri doesn't have the ability to shot down IJN planes in their droves? Your kidding me right...."*doesn't even want to go flank usually*", well my friend that is a choice we all have to make.  You might not like the choice but its a choice, like smoke or radar.  

 

So you are saying that having a CV in game isn't fun for a DD? Now you know what it feels like when as a CV player,  you go up against nearly all ships with the defensive AA consumable in a clan and guess how many ships in tier 10 can have the defensive consumable?  Do you know what that's like to play in? Its exactly the same thing and do you think that's fun?  We just live with it an adapt, no complaints.

 

Like you have stated, you also have another CV player (on your side). Its not the enemies fault if might be better than yours? Same as any line, some players are always going to be better.

 

You are a good player and play with a good clan so respect and its not a personal assassination.  Its just that alot of the views regarding CV's are *PERSONAL FEELINGS* towards a certain class (CV) and not based on facts.  If i play DD's i don't want a CV in the game.  If i'm a cruiser player i don't want BBs in the game and so on, round and round.  People saying things like ships couldn't function on their own is ludicrous as i too have the Hindenburg and the Mino, both of which can easily deal with IJN planes.  The Des Mon even more so! 

 

So do people think they will will have a problem when the new version of the Midway is released with TIER 8 planes? A bloody KIDD can annihilate tier 8 planes, never mind a Hindy, Des, Moskia, Mon, Henri or even a gearing.  As you know, even a Gearing can have the Defensive aa now with an increased aa damage (per last patch).

 

WG failed in that they left out a whole line of ships.  They failed to make it work.  Hell, they could have even had tier 8 CV's instead of tier 10 ones but they didn't.   And why? To keep the masses happy and yes i'm talking about DD and BB players (of which i am one also). It has nothing to do with balance, its keeping the majority of players happy.   

 

Excluding the minority in any form is unacceptable.

 

8 hours ago, Griva said:

 

This is simple and everyone understand that excluding whole ship class (acutally 2 ships) is stupid but this class breaks balance in game currently  more than make it balanced.

For me including CV to clan game is the same as excluding DD class.

 

 I take it your a DD player in Clan right? So i understand your concerns, but do you really think it breaks the balance? Or does it make your life easier? There is a massive difference. 

 

Look, I know i'm fighting a losing battle here as there are far more dedicated DD, CA and BB players but its about people not wanting CV's in Clan, not that it would break the balance. Evidence? Take a look at Ranked and tier 8 friendly Clan battles and now tell me that there is a balance problem? Nope, nothing to see here and not one person has complained about them.  Suddenly there is competitive Clan battles and they are left out? Please, it stinks. 

 

Both Flamu and Femenennly are right:

 

 

this entire line;

Besides, there are still very few high-tier carriers in the game, and it's quite difficult to learn how to play them well.

Yeah you know what will really help the rapidly dwindling CV player base? EXCLUDING THEM FROM THE ONLY COMPETITIVE GAME MODE.

Once again WG is catering to the absolute lowest [edited]denominator. We had the German BB line, then they followed it up with the RN BB line. Making the game simpler and simpler and dumber and dumber. Now they literally exclude a class from the "competitive" mode because it's "too hard" for the average glue-eater.

Jesus [edited], yes I'm mad. Can you [edited]stop shitting on my favorite game WG?

edit: This [edited]quote from that text. This [edited]quote.

All Tier X ships are well-balanced across the board. Each Tier X ship has very distinct strengths and weaknesses, and can fit its own niche in every team.

Confirmed, WG also sampling that tasty glue.

 

And do we all remember what WG said on the matter:

 

This reduced battle variability and the role of torpedo attacks, while the small number of high-tier carriers and the high skill ceiling to play them well left their potential role even more lopsided. Also, the battles are in a "contest" mode where all ships are fully researched and upgraded in an anti-aircraft configuration, so carriers are primarily expected to provide reconnaissance, before overloading and exhausting enemies. 

 

Chaps :cap_tea: may i remind you that half of this isn't about ship balance at all, but player balance...I mean....Really! (without swearing) .  If Flamu and Femenennly could see through this why cant other people?

 

Respect.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
12 hours ago, Griva said:

Maps balance - in general maps are rather balanced but as I said in previous point, all maps got the same meta and this results in the same setups on both sides aka: Montana, Des Moines, Des Moines, Moskva, Hindenburg, Gearing, Z-52.

We can see probably other setups in "potato league" but this is only result of lack of ships. Also I should add that some places arenot balanced equally like Ice islands cap C or also C cap on mountain range.

 

 

 

it is not the maps fault for this kind of setups. people take them cause it is ideal setup with island huggers that can radar caps(DM), roaming radar (moskva),flanker/range ca( hindenburg ), smoke dd (gearing) and sonar dd for contesting caps (z52) and also montana cause it is probably best bb against ca. but i have seen setups that worked with 1 dd or even without dd (example twa, home). also saw conqueror, yamatos, henris and zaos and they all worked if you had good tactic..

 

12 hours ago, Griva said:

Clan evaluation system - One of the worst things in clan wars now. Many people expected clan battles to be something bigger, more organised thing, giving the possiblity to evaluate strengh of the team but we got something more like normal teamplay mode. League system give us very poor information about clan strengh. It is not possible to create any rating system, WoWs API don't give us any important info about clans, we don't have any elo system, hall of fame, clan recrutation station - just nothing. Win rate of clans means completely nothing because it is related to enemy you get and as you probably know if you create clan now, and start play clan wars atm you going to get very high WR because all strong enemies are in the highest league now. In general people wants to get any rating system giving real informations. It is not like league system is bad and must be removed - its rather some additional rating or some kind of factor proving that clan A is stronger than B.

 

CB already has bastardized version of elo system. you lose more points against teams with lesser standing than you and you also win less points from them, while you win more points against teams that are better than you on ladder. and how would you measure clan strength? when you have 1st, second and third teams in some of the clans. is that strength of 1st team or is is overall strength of the clan? or how to measure first team when sometimes players in it arent fixed?

think that overall CB ranking is good, cause going full elo system wouldnt net you so many teams in platinum league. and wg wants players to get some of the rewards while having competitive battles.

 

overall i would only add one more con. you cant finish campaign/missions in clan battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3 posts
7,467 battles

Hi all,

 

I lurk on here from time to time rather than post however Girva’s post has enticed me to blurt out some of my own thoughts (whatever dubious value they may have).

 

Positives:  

 

Regarding the existence of CWs and the universal rewards for being on a winning side I fully agree these are great!

 

Enabling rental ships for those not fortunate enough to own tier X vessels is also worth commending, although allowing players who use such ships to at least put basic camouflages on them would be good.  Making the life accessible for more people is welcome indeed.

 

Lack of CVs . . . given the current format of CWs with its limited team size to me this is only a good thing.  No other class of ship can dictate the pace and flow of the game like a CV (competently captained of course) whose dominance would only be exacerbated by the current seven vessel teams.  

Competitive matches with CVs are fun and have a very dufferent dynamic than CWs.  Having different formats is fun and allows for different approaches to the game that would not be possible with CVs present.  I for one applaud Wargaming for making this choice.

 

CAs getting their time in the sun.  The BB limit in CWs allows CAs to really shine and has provided opportunities to really explore some of the nuances of the vessels and build strategies around their strengths.  I for one have never been into CAs to any extent but CWs has sent me down three additional CA lines which I am finding fun.  

 

Team size/composition

- 7v7 is an interesting format and feels about right for even smaller clans to regularly be able to field a team.  With regards to the maps and spacing the number of vessels involved allows for more expansive gameplay without the maps feeling congested.  The loss of vessels is felt keenly but if you are doing so to ensure cap control and positioning advantage then sacrifices can sometimes be worth it.  

 

- composition is very nuanced in the current format with there being a multitude of class and vessel combinations that have game in the meta.  The cookie cutter build in the initial post is not necessarily the strongest despite it being the most common.

 

 

 

Negative:

 

As others have stated a larger map pool would be awesome.  I would even like to see some of the lower tier maps utilised with interesting cap positioning as with the smaller team sizes this could be intriguing.  

 

Detonation - agree with the OP this has no place in any kind of competitive mode where you have clanmates relying on you.  Casual random battles I don’t mind too much.

 

P.S. Thank you to all of the TWA guys for carrying my useless [edited]through CWs . . . my contributions have been dubious at best!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Disagree, as in any competitive mode, these detonation flags are just mandatory. Put them on your ship and be done with it. DOn't have any? Put the module on for serious reduction and play randoms to obtain them ( would have been nice if they were included in the flags you gained though ).

Yes, everyone should buy flag package (P2W) or go into randoms to get some detonations xD? Really, read what you wrote - how do see it, running game to get ammo racked?

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

If you want to go for bigger teams: 10vs10 - 12vs12 or whatever then we'll need to look at the balance of shipclasses again, and it such a case the prohibition of CVs is no longer valid imo.

Not 12vs12 but 9vs9 and in this setup 1 CV can be ok.

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Disagree, one BB in 7vs7 is more than enough.

In current one it is. The point is these maps favoring BB becuase you can atack only 2 points on the map. If there are more caps, BB is a little bad, because it can't go around all the time, rotate guns etc.

Taking many BB's is mistake if you have 5 caps to cap because you need more mobile firepower.

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Disagree that one setup is fixed. We've been playing setups with one DD, with two DD, with Montana, with Monqueror ( seen a substantial amount of Yamatos as well, GK not so much ). We've mostly been playing with only 1 DM, sometimes with a Henri, sometimes also with a Zao, with a shima .

This is obvious people use a little changed setups but this is your problem if you use useless shimakaze and don't try to explain that shima is strong ship in CB - it is not. There is a reason that only small percentage of clans use other ships.

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Untill you reach the league where you'll start encountering teams equal to yours: you'll start losing as well and in the end you won't rise in leagues anymore?

Yes but before you reach it, your WR will be way higher and if you do small number of games you can rig your WR to very high value.

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

For people who need to get up early in the morning ending it early is better. For people who don't have such constraints it matters less.

It is something like "I can't play longer so you can't too". WG can do this and they did already in WoT so I don't see big problem.

 

10 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Mirror teams with mirror stats equals temas with same strength?

What else would you like to see to judge clan strength, or better: what is clan strength according to you?

 

Yes, most of teams are in 90% mirrored, mostly with only 1-2 cruiser type difference. If you play always vs random enemy, you will win more games for example i you play well. In curent system you are punished for high WR by advancing to higher league with stronger enemy - in result your WR is lowered.

Simple example, clan [ASEET] has 54% wr in clan battles and they are in the same league currently, my clan also have 54% wr, does it mean we are strong equally?

 

 


 

 

6 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

 If i play DD's i don't want a CV in the game.  If i'm a cruiser player i don't want BBs in the game and so on, round and round.

Maybe but as DD player I can steal deal with CA, as BB I can steal easly deal with DD's and as CA still can deal against BB's. The problem is you can't deal with CV in DD, CV put minimal effort to make your whole gameplay completely useless.

 

6 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

I take it your a DD player in Clan right? So i understand your concerns, but do you really think it breaks the balance? Or does it make your life easier? There is a massive difference. 

 

Look, I know i'm fighting a losing battle here as there are far more dedicated DD, CA and BB players but its about people not wanting CV's in Clan, not that it would break the balance. Evidence? Take a look at Ranked and tier 8 friendly Clan battles and now tell me that there is a balance problem? Nope, nothing to see here and not one person has complained about them.  Suddenly there is competitive Clan battles and they are left out? Please, it stinks. 

 

Both Flamu and Femenennly are right:

[...]

I play all classes, also CV and yes I think it breaks the balance. Life of DD is hard enough already without CV and if you include it - this is horror. You don't play DD's or rather you didnt play on higher tier so you maybe don't understand how hard it is. Comparing gameplay on tier 6 and 10 is just stupid. If you are CV player it means you should understand that you probably very often just go into caps and killing DD in the first minutes of the game completely without effort and this poor DD can do almost nothing with it (can pray for good RNG). People don't like CV as much as artyllery in tanks simply becuase you can't give back.

 

About ranked, all games in ranked when I got CV were really nightmare and when I got CV I did around 0 dmg every game (on DD) simply because hitting anything or surviving was real chellenge. Just understand that DD become useless when CV is around and no, DDs can't play whole game around cruisers becuase CV, how you can cap or torp if you are close to your fleet? PS people complained about them thats why they disabled them.

 

Last thing I really don't like something like you did - we talking about your opinion or opinion of your favorite youtuber? I don't even know who is this Femenennly.

First of all no one care what WG said, what do you expect them to do, admit ofically that game is not balanced?, they always talking crap from more than 7 years already.

Second - most of people with brain already know this is about balance, also you admiting it by this text :cap_like:- decide finally this is not balanced or "make life easy" because I don't understand now xD

 

Anyway it is pointless to argue here anyway, it's not our fault, WG created CV's and they balanced them - they should just balance whole class fast. Everyone know that excluding class is stupid as an idea but it is good they did it and i'm really sure you agree with this because you know CV's are strong but you can't do this because you are CV player and you wan't to play CV. It is simple.

 


 

6 hours ago, robihr said:

but i have seen setups that worked with 1 dd or even without dd (example twa, home). also saw conqueror, yamatos, henris and zaos and they all worked if you had good tactic..

true that but I think you got the point. Everyone use these setups because they know how enemy team will looks like.

 

6 hours ago, robihr said:

how would you measure clan strength? when you have 1st, second and third teams in some of the clans. is that strength of 1st team or is is overall strength of the clan? or how to measure first team when sometimes players in it arent fixed?

Yeah this is a problem but also it is not our fault if clan got super unicum setup #1 and team #2 plays like potatoes. The idea is you don't have to change current league system but just add additional separated factor being some king of real strengh. If it is not possible then just change whole system. I just want a tool to say for example: [SCRUBS] is top 20 clan for example and prove it. It is not possible to prove it because we dont have any real time ranking system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
10 minutes ago, Griva said:

 

Yeah this is a problem but also it is not our fault if clan got super unicum setup #1 and team #2 plays like potatoes. The idea is you don't have to change current league system but just add additional separated factor being some king of real strengh. If it is not possible then just change whole system. I just want a tool to say for example: [SCRUBS] is top 20 clan for example and prove it. It is not possible to prove it because we dont have any real time ranking system.

 

when scrubs played with first team we were in top10. we won against TWA, OMNI, TTT and some other top10 clans. but we also lost against them. and our ranking showed our deserved position. last week we had second team playing of which most were not experienced in CB and we dropped with our position alot cause they had losing streak. why change ranking when it is already more or less correct? it is already based on elo ( but much more forgiving version), so rankings are more or less correct.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,769 posts
12,134 battles
16 minutes ago, Griva said:

Yes, everyone should buy flag package (P2W) or go into randoms to get some detonations xD? Really, read what you wrote - how do see it, running game to get ammo racked?

Really, read what you wrote. You want to be exempt from a game mechanic because you don't like it. Most people call that whining. Rest assured, WG confirmed they're not too happy with it either, so maybe they'll come up with a solution for the ENTIRE game and not just for the happy few playing CW.

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

Not 12vs12 but 9vs9 and in this setup 1 CV can be ok.

Do keep in mind that some smaller clans cannot field 9 players on a regular basis ( but then again, some can't field 7 either, so ok ).

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

In current one it is. The point is these maps favoring BB becuase you can atack only 2 points on the map. If there are more caps, BB is a little bad, because it can't go around all the time, rotate guns etc.

Taking many BB's is mistake if you have 5 caps to cap because you need more mobile firepower.

And what will happen, clans will take two caps and make sure the third cannot be capped. Same as today, take one and prevent the third one from being capped. The only way to get more dynamic gameplay is move caps around and add more maps.

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

This is obvious people use a little changed setups but this is your problem if you use useless shimakaze and don't try to explain that shima is strong ship in CB - it is not. There is a reason that only small percentage of clans use other ships.

Or maybe you just haven't found a way to make shima work. It works for our tactics. Also double the mandatory double DM you posted is something I rarely see. In the end, whatever works works. We've tried multiple things and it all depends on your tactics.

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

Yes but before you reach it, your WR will be way higher and if you do small number of games you can rig your WR to very high value.

So what, people are allready too obsessed about player WR and now we need to start the same fuss about clan WR?

Statistics 101: numbers prove whatever you want them to prove, it all depends on the story behind the numbers.

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

It is something like "I can't play longer so you can't too". WG can do this and they did already in WoT so I don't see big problem.

And as I said, WG will never be able to make a good choice. No matter what they do, making it longer might upset people living in the East cause that's too late for them, starting early will upset people in the West cause they're still at work. This is a loose loose situation for them. ( yes and not win win, as those opposed are always more vocal, welcome to the wonderful world of online gaming )

 

16 minutes ago, Griva said:

Yes, most of teams are in 90% mirrored, mostly with only 1-2 cruiser type difference. If you play always vs random enemy, you will win more games for example i you play well. In curent system you are punished for high WR by advancing to higher league with stronger enemy - in result your WR is lowered.

Simple example, clan [ASEET] has 54% wr in clan battles and they are in the same league currently, my clan also have 54% wr, does it mean we are strong equally?

Read my WR comment above.

As I asked you, how would you measure clan strength ( does it mean being able to field 2 teams every day, does it mean being able to field 2 good CVs, .... ) I dont know, what would be a good system for you? Cause saying it isn't good is one thing, at least be constructive and come up with a proposal as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
51 minutes ago, robihr said:

so rankings are more or less correct.

This ranking says that my clan is stronger than yours at the moment. What is rather not true...

 


 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Really, read what you wrote. You want to be exempt from a game mechanic because you don't like it. Most people call that whining. Rest assured, WG confirmed they're not too happy with it either, so maybe they'll come up with a solution for the ENTIRE game and not just for the happy few playing CW.

You are very not objective. It is not I don't like it, I never was detonated in clan game and as I remember no one in my clan was detonated. The problem is if you want competetive game mode then make it random - what is competetive and fair in random ammo detonation? No one have tree with Juliet Charlie fruits and why should I pay money to don't fuk up in clan battle? Seriosuly this is ok to you?  Pure skill play.

 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Do keep in mind that some smaller clans cannot field 9 players on a regular basis ( but then again, some can't field 7 either, so ok ).

I know it, I wrote it, this is my personal opinion but I know it can be not possible. At the moment as you can see in randoms, many clans didn't even try to play one game. First of all this is endgame content so if clan can't find 9 online players then... and most important it is not clans fault but WG creating default 30 players limit. In world of tanks limit was 100 and 95 members clans had around avarage 20-30% online people around 20-21. Comparing here 20-30% from 30 is 6-10 people so you really need very active people to play CB.

 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

The only way to get more dynamic gameplay is move caps around and add more maps.

 

For exmaple maps like this:

ozookMA.jpg

Made in 5 minutes so maybe not very balanced :D but the idea is to force people to make more diffrent teams.

You can put caps in zilion ways.

 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Or maybe you just haven't found a way to make shima work. It works for our tactics. Also double the mandatory double DM you posted is something I rarely see. In the end, whatever works works. We've tried multiple things and it all depends on your tactics.

Please don't try argue that shima is better than other dd please. People changing only cruisers in genral but mostly they always keep 2 radars + hindi, zao or henri and its always like this. I remember only 3 games that enemy got 3 dds for example. The point is team is almost always the same.

 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Statistics 101: numbers prove whatever you want them to prove, it all depends on the story behind the numbers.

This exactly the point of what I said. Because you story for all numbers are completely different you can't compare it.

 

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

And as I said, WG will never be able to make a good choice.

This is most real fact in whole universe XD they always fail :cap_cool: Anyway - read again not move but add. Just add additonal hour. So what again, because some people can't play we should not add longer prime time because reasons?

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Read my WR comment above.

As I asked you, how would you measure clan strength ( does it mean being able to field 2 teams every day, does it mean being able to field 2 good CVs, .... ) I dont know, what would be a good system for you? Cause saying it isn't good is one thing, at least be constructive and come up with a proposal as well?

Sorry, It was obvious for me. I mean if I take clan A and clan B I can say clan A is stronger it means will win more games than clan B.

but I would be also happy with any rating calculating alos active players and and other important factors.

I cant propose anything because we have no real data to make it work, as I said WR in clan battles means nothing so how we can do it? Thats the point of my words.

//edit if you really don't know what i mean check for exmaple this: https://eu.wargaming.net/clans/wot/leaderboards/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,207 posts
10,378 battles

I agree with most parts, except for the increase in BBs (just no, 1 is enough in 7v7) and the removal of detonations.

 

I agree most with an extended "prime time"; some of us have a life (i.e. need to work) and get home too late to decently participate in the CBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,230 posts
7,319 battles
1 hour ago, lup3s said:

I agree most with an extended "prime time"; some of us have a life (i.e. need to work) and get home too late to decently participate in the CBs.

 

I don't think we are supposed to have a life next to WoWs according to WG...

So I have a choice between work and playing CB... I really want to play competitive teams, but I also really want to buy the next premium (or food, ya know).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
1 hour ago, Loran_Battle said:

 

I don't think we are supposed to have a life next to WoWs according to WG...

So I have a choice between work and playing CB... I really want to play competitive teams, but I also really want to buy the next premium (or food, ya know).

 

you scrub, who needs food... just live from air and play CB :Smile_trollface:

 

3 hours ago, Griva said:

This ranking says that my clan is stronger than yours at the moment. What is rather not true...

 

 

 

then how would you rate clans when they start losing battles? OMNI was at one point 12th this evening. does that mean it is a weak clan? no. it just means it had a losing streak cause second or third team was playing to earn stalin and they probably didnt practice or played CB earlier. that seems ok to me cause it represents their strength atm.

 

or do you want permanent fixtures for clans like OMNI in top 5 even though they start losing lots of battles? cause i dont see any other way to show "strength" of the clan.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
2 hours ago, robihr said:

then how would you rate clans when they start losing battles? OMNI was at one point 12th this evening. does that mean it is a weak clan? no. it just means it had a losing streak cause second or third team was playing to earn stalin and they probably didnt practice or played CB earlier. that seems ok to me cause it represents their strength atm.

 

or do you want permanent fixtures for clans like OMNI in top 5 even though they start losing lots of battles? cause i dont see any other way to show "strength" of the clan.

 

OMNI is still 66% wr (we are 54%). Anyway if you starting to lose it rather team fault, ofc this happen but still it's your team who play battle.

//edit I mean WR can't be changed so much even if you fail few games in a row, it's avarage but current CB WR is bad because it is affected by leagues - this is only a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
15 hours ago, Griva said:

 

OMNI is still 66% wr (we are 54%). Anyway if you starting to lose it rather team fault, ofc this happen but still it's your team who play battle.

//edit I mean WR can't be changed so much even if you fail few games in a row, it's avarage but current CB WR is bad because it is affected by leagues - this is only a problem.

 

if it was random wr i would agree with you. but it isnt. same WR from different leagues have different meanings. cause of MM we are constantly being matched against teams such as TWA, OM, OMNI, TTT and all other top 10-20 teams. having 54-55% WR isnt same as having 54-55% WR of some team in gale(silver) league.

 

CB use version of elo system. so if you are ranked better than some team you will earn less points, but if you lose you will lose much more points. example yesterday we won against some gale league team (idk wtf MM was thinking) and we won only 10 points (probably minimum points gained for win). we won OMNI last week and we won 28 points. if we lost against that team in gale league we would have lost 30-40 points, but if we lost against omni we would have lost some 15 points. so you gain/lose points depending on who you are matched against and that gives you more or less accurate result regards to clan standings. if you only watch WR you will get totally wrong picture. imagine team that had 10 battles against top 5 teams and had 40% WR. does that mean it is bad team cause it only had 40% WR?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMNI]
Players
773 posts
11,597 battles

Your problem lies in what you determine as "Clan Strength". The rating shows "Clan strength for CBs". The rating isn't only built on WR. Number of battles matters a lot.

 

Currently we have TWA who unless i am mistaken play with a single team each day and perform in a very consistent manner maintaining their top spot. Fewer games compared to other clans but more "quality".

Then we have OM currently second. Worse WR but as a Clan they have a huge pool of players that allows them to field even 3 teams at times. And all their teams can perform at a high enough level to keep a standard that allows them to steadily build points.

 

So the rating reflects good understanding of the tactics and setups involved like TWA displays but also it reflects the overall quality of all your members and the clans ability to have a complete and more uniform (in quality) roster like OM.

Personally i find it extremely fair and a true depiction of current strength of each clan in Clan Battles.

Keep in mind that so far you have only seen clans battle it out in Tier 8 tournaments. Tier 8 has very little to do with Tier 10. There are clans with players that rarely or never touch tier 10 that can perform much better at T8 and there are clans that haven't mastered T8 but are very skilled at T10. Finding your clan higher than OMNI or ALN or other clans that you considered strong doesn't mean the rating is wrong. It means that so far in clan battles your clan is performing better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
1 hour ago, robihr said:

same WR from different leagues have different meanings

but this is what i say all the time.

WR has no meaning in general and position in league can change very fast after 4 lost games - you can for example drop to lower league or group so this is also a little bad.

 

The point is I give you example of factor that cannot be changed drasticly after 3-4 games. In previous post we said that league is also bad factor, ofc if you are typhoon and someone is storm it means something but its not very accurate anyway - especially in highest league.

 

2 hours ago, robihr said:

imagine team that had 10 battles against top 5 teams and had 40% WR. does that mean it is bad team cause it only had 40% WR?

 

Small correction - WR for elo system don't work exactly the same as in random. If you are in typhoon league it is not possible to have WR lower than 50% simply because if you lose you drop to lower league.

Even if you have 0% wr from 5 recent games vs best teams your WR can't change very much if you did at least 100 games.

In other words WR is rather stable factor but its influenced by league so it means way less than normal WR - it is not accurate. If we assume that every clan started at the same time and did exactly the same number of games then it would means something but as we know these conditions are not fulfilled so.. heah :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
17 minutes ago, Spithas said:

The rating isn't only built on WR. Number of battles matters a lot.

exactly

 

18 minutes ago, Spithas said:

Personally i find it extremely fair and a true depiction of current strength of each clan in Clan Battles

It is fair in general, becasue winning is the target

 

19 minutes ago, Spithas said:

Keep in mind that so far you have only seen clans battle it out in Tier 8 tournaments. Tier 8 has very little to do with Tier 10. There are clans with players that rarely or never touch tier 10 that can perform much better at T8 and there are clans that haven't mastered T8 but are very skilled at T10. Finding your clan higher than OMNI or ALN or other clans that you considered strong doesn't mean the rating is wrong. It means that so far in clan battles your clan is performing better.

I know what do you mean but be honest - It does not matter, random 58% wr clan can't play better because "people don't play tX". You probably played events in wot and the only reason why potato clans winning games on t6 and sometimes on t8 is higher factor of RNG. Also you probably know what I mean, there ary many sites and ratings to evaluate clan strengh in wot and I don't think that the league system can be compared to other systems.

It is not like this system is not fair - just not accurate enough in my opinion.

I don't say this because i see what happens in ranking but this is mathematical conclusion, this is what statistics says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_FIN_]
Players
87 posts
2,470 battles

It was puzzling for WG to introduce clan wars yet have creating clans cost doubloons. 

 

They could, however, do this:

1. All teams to have 10k initial "cash" to spend in ships. For example, taking a Shimakaze for 1k and a Montana for 2k would leave 7k for the rest of the fleet.

2. Above means possible clan wars ship setups utilize different number of players, making it easier for smaller clans to participate assuming they are fine with a reduced setup pool. There would be no more need for ship type restrictions. It also means a team could use ships from lower tiers because the cash system can be used to balance for the fact. E.g., a T8 Tirpitz could be added to the line-up for a 1,2k.

3. Could even create new maps (or initial map setups rather) for clan wars that give a specific advantage to one side (asymmetrical battles should be nicer than purely symmetrical). The idea I had was that each team would have to choose, e.g., 3 maps they want to play with their ship setup before entering the battle. Then, for example, the team that had the most leftover cash (after ship expenditures) gets the advantageous side but the enemy team chooses which of the opposing team's three maps is going to be played.

 

Would it be more fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
292 posts
8,707 battles
On 23.11.2017 at 5:42 PM, IVemo said:

It was puzzling for WG to introduce clan wars yet have creating clans cost doubloons. 

 

They could, however, do this:

1. All teams to have 10k initial "cash" to spend in ships. For example, taking a Shimakaze for 1k and a Montana for 2k would leave 7k for the rest of the fleet.

2. Above means possible clan wars ship setups utilize different number of players, making it easier for smaller clans to participate assuming they are fine with a reduced setup pool. There would be no more need for ship type restrictions. It also means a team could use ships from lower tiers because the cash system can be used to balance for the fact. E.g., a T8 Tirpitz could be added to the line-up for a 1,2k.

3. Could even create new maps (or initial map setups rather) for clan wars that give a specific advantage to one side (asymmetrical battles should be nicer than purely symmetrical). The idea I had was that each team would have to choose, e.g., 3 maps they want to play with their ship setup before entering the battle. Then, for example, the team that had the most leftover cash (after ship expenditures) gets the advantageous side but the enemy team chooses which of the opposing team's three maps is going to be played.

 

Would it be more fun?

 

It is kind of points system you can spend X points and all ships cost a little. Im not sure it is balanced if you pick 2 crusiers more it can be HE spam so hard that it is better to pick more ships than 1 good ship. Simply quantity > quality.

Advantage for one team is stupid, everyone should get the same chance, it is your problem that you did not use all points you got :cap_tea:

Side selection mechanism make whole system even more complicated and WG will not implement it and the idea maybe is not that bad but it can't work in this form.

Also WG already used points system by tier sum number so for example you pick VIII and VI or 2 times VII.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
2,949 posts
14,953 battles
On 22.11.2017 at 1:05 AM, Tyrendian89 said:

 

while most of what has been said in here has merit (whether I fully agree with each specific point or not doesn't matter, there is at the very least a kernel of truth to it), this is something that I feel like I have to comment on.

Have you ever played T10 competitive with CVs allowed? I have, and let me tell you: Playing a DD when the enemy has a competent AS Hakuryu is probably the least fun experience you can imagine. You can pretty much not go anywhere away from your team's AA blob, because there's a high high chance that there will be planes there - and while they won't necessarily kill you, they will spot you (and your torps, so good luck hitting anything... much less likely than with Hydro...). And that doesn't just affect DDs. When there's a Haku around, there are very few ships that you could ever send off on their own to flank somewhere... Hindenburg... and that's pretty much it. Others dont have the AA to fend of a strike (BBs, Moskva, to an extent Henri... Des Memes doesnt even want to go flank usually^^), or they want to rely on their Concealment (hello Zao or Conqueror...), which flat out does not work when the enemy has a Hakuryu. And yes, you might say "but your team has a CV too - he can protect everything!" Yes, most of the time - but competitive will always be about minimizing ressource expenditure and risks, so sending ships that need heavy protection is just not economical most of the time. Having clear skies opens up quite a few extra possibilities for pretty much all the other classes.

So while I fully agree that it sucks for CV players big time, having played both, I have to say that in my opinion and experience T10 competitive gameplay is much much better off without Carriers (at least in their current state... who knows what the mythical CV rework might bring...).

hello? full AA built Zao? Zaos AA is not a thing to underestimate if its AA built. even full AA built HIV combined with his speed can manage planes. so you would have 3 ships to pick for flanking and  they wouldnt need "heavy protection" against the planes like you said. 

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.

×