A Dog's-Eye View of CW. Can we go back?

KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have locking. Initially, I had been willing to wait and see how locking panned out. I figured 'it hurts everyone equally, so maybe it'll shake up the strats a bit more?' It's been a few months, and I have concluded that locking has entirely stripped out the ability of B-list and C-list CW clans to punch above their own category. Top level clans with a wealth of tanks have benefited from neighbors afraid of locking tanks. The complete abolution of CW skirmishes between friendly clans with stable plots of land because they can't stand to have their central-to-strat tanks locked out has been a detriment to the game. And the effect of clans skipping over anyone without at least 3 tanks has made for a less-inclusive clan environment for talented-but-new players. I would like to suggest an amendment to locking: Playing 10 random or platoon battles in a vehicle unlocks it. Or some other arbitrary number. Or maybe every game you play in it cools it down by 10 hours? As it stands: Locking: Thumbs-down.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have riot zones. I liked the concept of riot zones, but feel that the execution could use a tweak. Rather than the current system which encourages greater collaboration one-chipping at each other to zero out riot chances, and throwing counterspies around (preventing gold from going to clan members), I would prefer to see an arbitrary number of RZs that will be scattered around no matter what. Say, for example, there were 20 RZs every day. Then one of two scenarios could occur. 1) First, the game scans through to place RZs on as per current method, then the remainder get randomly tossed around the map. 2) All of them simply get randomly assigned every day, so that the more land you have, the higher your chances of an RZ or two. Riots: Could use adjustment.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have the Americas map. The Americas map where half of the stuff is named wrong, and the other half is named after the tiniest backwoods hamlet in the region. Where there is only a 3-timezone spread in which to fight, rather than the 7-hour spread we were treated to in Europe. Please please please give us back a wider spread, with several LZs in each time zone. We have fewer maps to play on, clumped up in larger clusters of the same map (IE: 5 connected Karelias in Utah, 13 connected Highways through central USA, 4 connected Mountain pass in the northern Canadian prairies, 15 Siegfried Lines and 13 Fjords in Greenland (2 maps account for 67% of the entire region). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE scramble up the maps after Campaign Number Two. There are 36 maps, please let us play on them. Scramble them up until they resemble a potato salad, where it's only through the sheerest of chance that two of the same map border each other. I don't care that we have a snow map in Texas and a desert map in Greenland and a port map in Nebraska. That's fine! The regions are just pixel-borders on an arbitrary map, they don't have to reflect what's actually there, and in most cases they already don't. San Diego is not an Italian villa. North Alberta is not mountainous. New Brunswick doesn't even HAVE paved highways! The highways near Detroit would not have un-stolen pumpkins and cars laying around all over the place. So what's the harm in giving us all of the maps to play on? We also have no sandbox (no pun intended) for little clans to cut their teeth on and build up experience fighting each other, the function that Africa used to provide on the previous map. We have high-yield America, middle-yield Canada, mid-low Greenland... And then nothing like what Africa used to be. Why not open up the great ice sheets of Greenland as like 50 24-gold provinces? Why not open up the Central America and Carribean as low-yield provinces? Crappy clans need a pot of sandy dirt in which to grow and flower. America Map: Thumbs-down.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have random, arbitrary, SECRET changes to the headquarters mechanics. Seriously, wtf is up with changing that without telling anyone? If you must change it, a memo in a prominent place such as a "CW changes as of x/x/2013" would not be amiss. The change between 72 and 24 hour headquarters resets wasn't a big deal, but now the HQs are locked during primetimes. Much like locking, this change severely hampers the ability of lesser clans to engage greater clans with any degree of success, and also prevents more gold from being realized by the CW players. SECRET changes, current frozen-HQ mechanic: Thumbs-down.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have ransacking. I am of the Yankee school of thought on this one. When you sack, you reduce the overall gold going out. This is the only reason that I personally oppose this mechanic. I would be entirely on-board for it in either of the two following scenarios: 1) You ransack, receive 3 days of income from the province. The province yields no income for 3 days. 2) You ransack, receive 3 days income from the province. The province's income is halved for 6 days, during which it cannot be sacked again. Ransacking: Could use adjustment.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA did not have campaigns. The map was continuous for something like two years, and that continuity was wonderful. During Rise of the Americas, we at least had the option to remain in the European segment of the map and not participate. We had CHOICE in the matter, which was key. If you didn't like how WG was handling the RotA, you simply stayed in Europe and played with everyone over there. This latest campaign completely pooched CW for 2 months for anyone that wasn't in one of 34 clans, which means that it sucked all manner of chrome off a bumper for 90% of the CW population. Not the loudest 90%, but certainly a numerous 90%. The fact that the other 10% of us rub it in at any opportunity hasn't helped matters. Interesting things can be done with CW campaigns... But it really would be great if we had some sort of separate arena in which to do such things. Preferably one in which all the top clans are already fighting anyways. For example, future campaigns could be constrained to the 48 contiguous US states, during which the borders are closed off. Everything north of 49 or south of the Rio Grande could simply continue on as before without spilling into or out of the main campaign. All parties can decide which side of the line they want to be on. Campaigns: Needs opt-out.


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: PNPA had a crappy broken map... Still does. Could we incorporate the two "regions" of north America into a single map please? Being near the split really sucks. Could we at LEAST overlap the maps more so that if you're in the split region, you can use either map to view stuff instead of having to switch back and forth between them just to look over your situation? Third party sites did this wonderfully (I miss wotconquest), why can't "one of the largest game companies in the world"?


KingAlphyn, on Aug 26 2013 - 00:08, said: Make a few random islands into LZ-only islands. These lands cannot be held, they can only be landed on. If your team (and you can only apply if you have no land, just like every other LZ) makes it all the way to the top and wins, you get a daily pot of gold, say 500 into the clan treasury. Small reward, sure, but a nice thing to keep the new clans interested, without locking their tanks. Bermuda and Hawaii would be great for this. Tourney for gold, every day, minimal maintenance, open to all the lesser clans that don't get enough love. Ideally, there'd be about a half-dozen of these, at different times, maybe even a couple for people that work nights. The big clans won't bother with em, not for 300 or 500 gold, but little clans would enjoy these immensely, I think.