Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

WTF? What massive douchebags.

 

Business as usual in the clan lands...

 

 

The two clans made a deal over who got the province, and once the word got pushed to all the green guys they stood down and let red cap out.

 

That's as may be, but there was no need to be such dicks about it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Call me an uninitiated noob but I had no idea this kind of thing happened in Clan Wars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3pIPR4bFA . Guess I am insulated in the pubbie world but I am actually shocked/upset. :wacko:

 

Scott

 

Guess since I'm the local Forge/Anvil guy, I'll explain:

 

Revolt is part of the Burning Legion (Havok, Hav0k, No Vacancy, Bad Brotherhood, and Revolt), who are really, really close with Forge (Actually closer than Guerrillas since Forge came initially from Havok, but this is a matter of degree).

 

When we got word of the North American map came out, we all got together and agreed to not step on each other's toes, and to clear for each other. Forge would get a clear shot to take the southwest quadrant, Havok northwest, -G- Southeast, and Northeast a free-for-all, with Anvil getting priority if we got to the final, because Anvil is the top second clan of the three. We would also burn chip stacks clearing for each other, and when we ran into the clan slated to try to take the quadrant, you go AFK and stand down.

 

Well, Revolt gets to face Forge... and they ignore orders and tried to fight. BarrooM is the head of Forge, so when he says in battle to stand down because he's got a deal with Havok when we all knew what was going down... you need to stand down. Apparently heads rolled at Revolt after that.

 

And it's stuff like that that has all of the scrubs raging on the forums that WG is in cahoots with Forge, Havok, and G about the landing. We all agreed to not get in each other's way and clear for each other because we wanted to take land to prove yet again that the top clans are up top because, well, we're kind of good. The top clans wanted it to be a Tier 10 event, but stopped complaining so the smaller clans could get their wish because apparently we are only good because we have top tier tanks. We mop the floor with all of them no matter what tank they have, and they cry that we're in top secret negotiations with WG for them to give us the land is the reason why we won.

 

TL;DR: Revolt goofed, got called on it, and Forge, G, and Havok are the reason for all of World of Tanks ills. Oh well.

 

 

[edit: clarify]

Edited by FlyingCanOpener
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, color me unimpressed. Sounds like CW needs some work (ok, I know that's not a revolutionary statement) so there's less of this political garbage and more, you know, fighting. :glare:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to prevent collusion between clans so WoT takes the stance that it's not only allowed but encouraged. The good thing about it is that if you don't play clan wars it doesn't affect you. The other take away is that big organized clans will always pound smaller or unorganized clans in the long run when it comes to clan wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why there should be CW tiers, I mean, take the CW map and call it top tier, give current gold rewards on it, give it to top clans to play on, then make another instance, call it lower tier, reduce gold rewards a little, give it to average clans, and then you could do a lowest tier instance with low gold rewards for small/starting clans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give out gold then the limitations won't matter, the big organized clans will rule all the tiers. They might have different clan names and the player accounts may be different but it would still be the same clans top to bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give out gold then the limitations won't matter, the big organized clans will rule all the tiers. They might have different clan names and the player accounts may be different but it would still be the same clans top to bottom.

 

Not really. We never cared about Africa, and the long-standing joke was that clans who were bored would map themselves and go "on safari" and rampage across Africa leaving terribad clans strewn about in their wake, as seen by PBKAC and Reddit wiping out entire alliances in a matter of days.. We've mentioned to the devs how it might be best to have lower provinces have tier caps for tanks and clan members and make them worth credits to allow smaller clans to practice on their own, but were told we don't know what we are talking about. Never mind the fact that the only thing that could pry Moscow from G's cold hands was Wargaming wiping the map clean. I mean, why would they go after a 120-gold province in Africa when they were sitting on 16k gold per day? When the map was wiped Forge and Anvil were sitting on 9k per day each.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give out gold then the limitations won't matter, the big organized clans will rule all the tiers. They might have different clan names and the player accounts may be different but it would still be the same clans top to bottom.

 

Not really. We never cared about Africa, and the long-standing joke was that clans who were bored would map themselves and go "on safari" and rampage across Africa leaving terribad clans strewn about in their wake, as seen by PBKAC and Reddit wiping out entire alliances in a matter of days.. We've mentioned to the devs how it might be best to have lower provinces have tier caps for tanks and clan members and make them worth credits to allow smaller clans to practice on their own, but were told we don't know what we are talking about. Never mind the fact that the only thing that could pry Moscow from G's cold hands was Wargaming wiping the map clean. I mean, why would they go after a 120-gold province in Africa when they were sitting on 16k gold per day? When the map was wiped Forge and Anvil were sitting on 9k per day each.

 

The big clans don't care about Africa today because the income isn't worth bothering about, but I suspect that if there were 3 tiers of clan wars (8-10, 7-5, 1-4) that they wouldn't turn their nose up at bringing in an extra 8k gold a day (assuming the income was halved at 7-5) for owning the same territories in the mid tier map. So long as the Russian server (from what I've seen max US concurrent users is just a rounding error for the Russian server) is happy with clan wars as it is it won't change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why dont they just remove 215B, and bump the others up a tier? Then between Black Prince and Caernavon, they put in A45. Then put in a seperate line that requires elements of heavy and medium lines to unlock (a 'universal' line), and give a tier10 Chieftain in that. Remove the tier10 Medium (which appears to suck where it is) then drop 40 Ton Cent into the 'universal' tier 9 slot before Chieftain. Thats arguably where it belongs. Maybe replace it in the tier10 slot with the Vickers Main Battle tank Mk3, which used elements of Centurion and Chieftain.

 

Alright, I know they WONT do that, for a variety of reasons. But its a bit bizarre A45 had got missed out entirely, and this at least rectifies that major mistake.

 

But what does A45 bring to the table than caernarvon doesn't? It would need access to the 20 pounder, because 17-pdr at T8 would be painful. This would screw over the caernarvon unless it got the conqueror-turm and L1, which begs the question of what is the conqueror for? Devs don't like a TX HT with only 130mm upper glacis either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the rear or front transmission of E-50, this pdf posted by alejandro here is very interesting. See p.5.

 

It's the part of the never endable debate (since E-50/75 remained rather sketchy), sketches of E-50 found by Doyle don't leave space for rear transmission (considering powerplants planned); moving the transmission to the rear would have to shift turret to the front akin to French post-war projects... or at least like Ausf. M ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the problem is? It's just clan diplomacy, business as usual. Why the uproar?

Simple. I play WoT because I want to drive and fight in tanks. If I were to to jump into CW I'd want to do the same. I'm not here to see half-ass politics be played.

 

Watching that video, and going off of what several on here have said about CW, it's clear that the premise is just broke. There's too many games being played, with too harsh of consequences, and too little reward.

 

The top tier of the game should be about the game, not some wannabe-Game-of-Thrones political BS which limits the actual fighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the rear or front transmission of E-50, this pdf posted by alejandro here is very interesting. See p.5.

 

It's the part of the never endable debate (since E-50/75 remained rather sketchy), sketches of E-50 found by Doyle don't leave space for rear transmission (considering powerplants planned); moving the transmission to the rear would have to shift turret to the front akin to French post-war projects... or at least like Ausf. M ;)

 

Yes, and the deletion of the torsion bars, and the transmission shaft, in E-50 Ausf. M left a hull that is practically as deep as the one in E-50... :D

Edited by sunday
Link to post
Share on other sites

More dev talk:

 

 

The ones I'm most interested in (and my comments in parenthesis):

- 30vs30 battles are really badly playable, especially in random battles (I hope this means they never implement it... what a terrible idea for pub games)

- a system is being prepared where everyone will be able to deselect 1 map (for all that is good and right in the universe, please implement this and bump that number up to 2-3)

- Komarin won't return in 0.8.4 (good... kill that map, kill it with fire already)

- there will be hightier premium meds for all nations (nice, now I don't have to wait for the 59 to go on sale again)

- WG will buy rights for some mods and implement them in game (glad to hear, though I'm curious what's taken so long)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the problem is? It's just clan diplomacy, business as usual. Why the uproar?

Simple. I play WoT because I want to drive and fight in tanks. If I were to to jump into CW I'd want to do the same. I'm not here to see half-ass politics be played.

 

Watching that video, and going off of what several on here have said about CW, it's clear that the premise is just broke. There's too many games being played, with too harsh of consequences, and too little reward.

 

The top tier of the game should be about the game, not some wannabe-Game-of-Thrones political BS which limits the actual fighting.

 

So stick to pubs. Which is what I'm doing. You can't have something like Clan Wars without diplomacy and the whole shebang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have something like Clan Wars without diplomacy and the whole shebang.

Sure you can. It's clear that WG has no interest in trying, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you proposing?

 

Organized battles without diplomacy = company battles.

 

If you want the current CW sans diplomacy, well there is no way you can limit communication and arrangements outside the system. Two clans can make a deal, keep mum about it, do battle, the designated loser can play just a touch worse than usual and make it a nice close loss and nobody can prove they lost on purpose. There's no way to enforce this.

 

You'd need a completely different CW system and if you prefer one with absolutely no diplomacy and no arrangements you'd find yourself in the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you proposing?

A couple things come to mind off the top of my head.

 

Instead of the never-ending-CW we have now implement 'seasons' like other games. Limit gold rewards till the end of the season. If you use the current landing system they have now you'll still have diplomacy at the start as the bigger clans carve out their holdings, but as the end of the season approaches there's now incentive for these larger clans to engage.

 

Another idea is the same season idea as above but clans apply to be put on the map and they're seeded randomly throughout the continent. Once your clan's last holding is eliminated you're done for the season. Would have a similar results as the NCAA tournament where 'Cinderella' clans could get a good lucky spot at the start so they have a chance to get bigger and the big ones could end up near each other and we'd see some action early. Same as above withhold the rewards till the end of the season (or give just a fraction of the rewards as the season progresses). Could also have it be last clan standing.

 

Limit battles, too. Make them less frequent but more rewarding. You could then turn this aspect of these seasons into something others could watch (again, like other games out there).

 

These ideas aren't hard to come up with. Look at all the other games out there (you'll note the recurring theme here). The fact that the game rewards the big clans from not fighting each other currently is absurd.

 

You'd need a completely different CW system and if you prefer one with absolutely no diplomacy and no arrangements you'd find yourself in the minority.

If that's true then the top clans really are bullies rather than competitive gamers.

 

Find me another game where they reward players for not fighting each other. The only one off the top of my head is EVE (and that has no competitive leagues or e-gaming) and some of the lowest shit I've ever heard come out of the gaming world has come from there. Not the greatest company to be associated with. :glare:

Link to post
Share on other sites

S'alright, start on the 17 pounder, and work up to 105mm. It would have done if they had kept it instead of A41 anyway. In fact, you know what, drop the tier 10 heavy, and leave the british line as it is. Give Black prince a tree, that leads onto a 'heavy' medium line, consisting of A45, Conway, 40ton Cent and latterly Chieftain. At least that has some resemblance to how it really worked.

 

See, Im annoyed they even have a separate tank for Caernavon. It was never for anything more than driver training, so frankly if it was a choice between it and A45, id go with A45. That arguably was the first British 'universal' tank, and so of more significance. After all, all the Caernavons got upgraded into Conqueror anyway. Why not start Conq with a Cent turret and work up?

 

Ooh, I'd forgotten about the possibility of the L7 on heavies. What's conway doing it there though? surely it would make a better T8 TD from the challenger line leading to fv4005? BP -> A45 -> 4202 -> chieftain sounds good to me, but where would the conq fit (a branch from A45 to the FV215b at the top of the TD tree makes me happy, but WG would never allow it - there would be no reason to grind TD's when you can grind HT's and get two TX's)?

 

BTW, have any of the Centurions have the Active X turret included? Am I right in thinking they dont?

 

Wut dat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...