Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Valdez_Raptor

Suggestion: Stop requiring "win a battle" missions with other requirements

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
474 posts
8,398 battles

Win a battle fine, I am okay with that, but I am sick and tired of meeting the battle requirements of the missions and you did well, you tried hard and the team?  Just fails you.  Again, and again, and again, and when you win?  Can't get the requirements for the life of you.  I know I am not the only one with this problem.  So please STOP the requirements that ALSO include win a battle.  It really sucks out the fun when you do well yet, you see that the team on the other half of the map was 7vs. 4 and you were fighting against the odds on your side, and the next thing you know, the enemy still has their 4, and your team has only 1-2 ships left alive over there and quickly running away.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,965
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,722 posts
7,354 battles

I actually agree with this, for this simple reason: The rewards WG gives out are simply too few and too small to warrant the effort required to "earn" them. They're digital, they aren't real, so the stress and time that goes into them is really beyond absurd.

 

More, the focus should be on winning the round, not checking every few seconds to see if you've met a requirement, and taking a blast to the side for the split second you weren't paying attention.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles
1 minute ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

More, the focus should be on winning the round, not checking every few seconds to see if you've met a requirement, and taking a blast to the side for the split second you weren't paying attention.

That is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,078
[SIM]
Members
2,429 posts
4,060 battles
2 minutes ago, mrmariokartguy said:

ahem

 

getgud.png

Ahem, your response is completely asinine, and the OP’s point is salient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,407 posts
6,070 battles
9 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

More, the focus should be on winning the round, not checking every few seconds to see if you've met a requirement, and taking a blast to the side for the split second you weren't paying attention.

If anyone is checking the requirements at all in the game - they kinda deserve what they get, if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,270
[HINON]
Members
8,800 posts

The win requirement is there so we don't blindly chase after the other requirements to the detriment of our teams odds of winning. I know it can be frustrating to have a good match and still lose.  However I prefer reasonably challenging missions over ones that people could just Yolo die and complete.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
10 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

I actually agree with this, for this simple reason: The rewards WG gives out are simply too few and too small to warrant the effort required to "earn" them. They're digital, they aren't real, so the stress and time that goes into them is really beyond absurd.

 

More, the focus should be on winning the round, not checking every few seconds to see if you've met a requirement, and taking a blast to the side for the split second you weren't paying attention.

Some missions do have very good rewards.  However, there are simply times when they're tying secondary requirements to winning that are often so difficult to achieve that you spend more effort working on achieving those secondary requirements than on focusing on playing to win.

For example, on the current "Get Ready for pan-Asia" mission, part 4, you have to win a battle while doing 20k damage with ship torps and 2k of flooding.  Well, doing the 20k of torp damage isn't all that difficult, particularly if you're playing an IJN DD and get a few hits.  And if you keep trying, you'll eventually get a win and probably the 20k damage.  The problem is the 2k of flooding damage.  It's a real pain, because not only do you need to cause flooding in the first place (hardly a guarantee), but you also have to have hit a target (and not killed BTW) that doesn't have a DC party ready to use, because it's a rare thing that a ship that takes torp hits and has flooding, doesn't immediately use a DC party.  It might just be that the best way to do this mission is to div up with someone who can start fires on a target and force the target to expend a DC party.  Maybe a cruiser, maybe an HE spamming RN BB, maybe a CV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

This came from WoT.  When personal missions first went in they didn't have a requirement to win the game. So you would downy plays like heavy tanks sitting there getting shot, or a medium spending the whole game trying to ram or whatever stupid mission they were working on.

 

It contributed almost nothing to the team, but the person finishing a mission didn't care.  So then, kill a tank by ramming... And win the game. Or block 3000 damage with your armor... And win the game.

 

Generally it's a good idea.  I don't like it when it's something like "sink 30 enemy ships" or "earn 30 defense ribbons". Anything that's a single game achievement should have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

 Well, doing the 20k of torp damage isn't all that difficult, particularly if you're playing an IJN DD and get a few hits.  And if you keep trying, you'll eventually get a win and probably the 20k damage.  The problem is the 2k of flooding damage.  It's a real pain, because not only do you need to cause flooding in the first place

It makes me so happy when I flood someone and the player completely ignores it making my damage numbers rise up in seconds lol. But it is a very rare situation.

At the same time my mind buzzes "what are you doing!?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
2 minutes ago, Grizley said:

This came from WoT.  When personal missions first went in they didn't have a requirement to win the game. So you would downy plays like heavy tanks sitting there getting shot, or a medium spending the whole game trying to ram or whatever stupid mission they were working on.

 

It contributed almost nothing to the team, but the person finishing a mission didn't care.  So then, kill a tank by ramming... And win the game. Or block 3000 damage with your armor... And win the game.

 

Generally it's a good idea.  I don't like it when it's something like "sink 30 enemy ships" or "earn 30 defense ribbons". Anything that's a single game achievement should have it.

Honestly, I don't agree.  Oh, I get what you're saying about not wanting to see people completely ignoring attempting to win the game.  OTOH, some of these types of missions are sooooo damned difficult that if you don't ignore winning the game so that you can focus completely on fulfilling the other requirement, you'll often never achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
1 minute ago, Silver_kun said:

It makes me so happy when I flood someone and the player completely ignores it making my damage numbers rise up in seconds lol. But it is a very rare situation.

At the same time my mind buzzes "what are you doing!?"

When I'm playing my carriers in coop, it's ridiculously easy to game the bots' programming to get them to flood out.  Just nail them with the DB's first, get a fire, which their bot programming will instantly put out, then hit them with torpedoes, get a flood or 2, and watch them flood out.  Live players are considerably smarter, and will hold their DC parties if there's a threat of an immediate followup attack that might generate additional DoT's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

When I'm playing my carriers in coop, it's ridiculously easy to game the bots' programming to get them to flood out.  Just nail them with the DB's first, get a fire, which their bot programming will instantly put out, then hit them with torpedoes, get a flood or 2, and watch them flood out.  Live players are considerably smarter, and will hold their DC parties if there's a threat of an immediate followup attack that might generate additional DoT's.

Yeah the bot programming is true they instantly put it out. I was talking about a situation where the player definitely had his consumable present and was in no immediate threat, flooding just does Soo much damage over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,370 posts
7,948 battles
17 minutes ago, Valdez_Raptor said:

I am good, so your argument is just a vain attempt to troll something more serious than that.

 

Be glad just because you have good stats that you've really only gotten one of those so far. I brought this up before UK BB's were out because they started adding too many and's after winning and some insane requirements and basically all I got was "Git Good Scrub" and "well it should be a challenge" and the like. 

 

An example I think is good, is phase 1 of the current Pan-Asia mission - the 3 wins, 3 kills, torp hits. Yes, it's a farm, but it still encourages doing so to win, your just not screwed if the team loses and make progress. Ones like this are fine, I'd like to see more of them. But phase 3 and 4? Win a battle in the top 5 with 2 kills, at best that is pushing it. 5k damage to all types but CV, must be in top 3, AND must have your team win, I'm sorry but no, no mission should be like that. If I had to farm 5k and only wins counted, or even 50k, that'd be one thing but 15k across 3 ship types, while being one of the best players, and your team has to win, no. This works for things like WoT's personal missions for the tanks, or the PERMANENT campaigns, because there is no time crunch, no urgency, if it takes 4 months for the stars to align it doesn't mater, albeit it can be annoying. For things like this where you got a week? No, it should be win and a maximum of ONE (1) and. Unless it's again, "get x wins, x damage, x objective, y objective over any number of battles"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[TF16B]
Members
8,051 posts
16,991 battles
4 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

This works for things like WoT's personal missions for the tanks, or the PERMANENT campaigns, because there is no time crunch, no urgency, if it takes 4 months for the stars to align it doesn't mater, albeit it can be annoying. For things like this where you got a week? No, it should be win and a maximum of ONE (1) and. Unless it's again, "get x wins, x damage, x objective, y objective over any number of battles"

 

Well; i've been saying that WoWs mission requirements are starting to look like WoT's so-called 'Daily' missions; where it often seems like only 5-year veteran players have any chance of finishing said missions in a 'day.'

 

The conclusion I've reached is that the WoT mission writers must have been seconded to WoWs to write missions for it... :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
750 posts
6,832 battles

I remember trying one of those "Do XXX and win the game" missions on the PT server and losing 6 in a row, while scoring top XP in 5 of them, then just giving up and logging off.

I can understand the pain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[DARTH]
Members
532 posts
11,365 battles

The 2K flooding one is bit of a pain, and probably explains why there's been sooooo many destroyers about lately.  Bring out your Japs, or in my case, Brits, and sooner or later you'll get it.  It helps if you're tossing torps at someone who's already been focused by a cruiser's HE.

Or maybe div up with an HE spamming cruiser, light 'em up, then torp 'em.

in my case, it was a frantic mess at the enemy's cap circle, and when it was all over, I was one of the few left afloat and got all the torps and flooding.  Huzzah.

But yeah, I would have preferred "do 50K damage with torps & win" to the flooding requirement.  Raw damage is much easier to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
3 hours ago, Korval_BB55 said:

The 2K flooding one is bit of a pain, and probably explains why there's been sooooo many destroyers about lately.  Bring out your Japs, or in my case, Brits, and sooner or later you'll get it.  It helps if you're tossing torps at someone who's already been focused by a cruiser's HE.

Or maybe div up with an HE spamming cruiser, light 'em up, then torp 'em.

in my case, it was a frantic mess at the enemy's cap circle, and when it was all over, I was one of the few left afloat and got all the torps and flooding.  Huzzah.

But yeah, I would have preferred "do 50K damage with torps & win" to the flooding requirement.  Raw damage is much easier to get.

A  couple of thoughts.

I was just in a tier 7 battle in my KamiR.  I had only 2 torp hits for 17k damage, but also had 20K in flooding damage.  I hit a Gneisenau with a single torp in 2 successive full spreads, and the second torp hit induced flooding, which he clearly couldn't stop because he'd used his DC party, probably on the previous torp hit.

My point is that if I'd have been working on that get a win, do 20k torp damage, and 2k flood damage, I'd have been screwed.  Honestly, I think that it would have been better for the mission requirement to have been something like do 30k damage from a combination of ship torpedoes and flooding.  This way, if you have a bad luck game and do a crapton of torpedo damage but little flood damage, you're good.  Or if you had a game like I just had, you'd still be good.

One of the problems with torp and flood damage is that, aside from the issue of need to catch a target with plenty of HP and an expended DC party, you also don't want to get soooo many torp hits that you just plain blast him out of the water.  But if the mission was a combo of torp damage and flood damage, it would be more flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[WOLF5]
Members
439 posts
18,160 battles
3 hours ago, Korval_BB55 said:

The 2K flooding one is bit of a pain, and probably explains why there's been sooooo many destroyers about lately.  Bring out your Japs, or in my case, Brits, and sooner or later you'll get it.  It helps if you're tossing torps at someone who's already been focused by a cruiser's HE.

Or maybe div up with an HE spamming cruiser, light 'em up, then torp 'em.

in my case, it was a frantic mess at the enemy's cap circle, and when it was all over, I was one of the few left afloat and got all the torps and flooding.  Huzzah.

But yeah, I would have preferred "do 50K damage with torps & win" to the flooding requirement.  Raw damage is much easier to get.

 

2nd week of the PADD missions requires DDs. That's why you're seeing 4/6 dd's and only 1/2 CA/CLs. It'll probably also be that next week when the PA line is released since the final rewards for the PADD missions requires winning 5 games to get the 129k commander XP (enough to get a 9 pt capt) and 15x +100% XP boost rewards. 

 

Of course we've got alot of players that aren't great in them so DD play has been very spotty lately. I got TK'd in my Z-46 by a Kidd where ALL 5 of his torps hit me. Yes he was that close and I wasn't broadside to him - heard one set of torp warning beeps and boom. The sad thing was he followed me into the cap so it's not like he didn't know I was in front of him. 

 

I went 5/14 in the Z-46 before I got tired of it and pulled out the Yug and Fletch to finish off the last 20K flood and final 2 stages. I think the hardest thing was stage IV where you have to do 5k damage to DD + CL/CA + BB AND finish in the top 3. I had 3 games where I'd miss the dd requirement by under 200 or finished 4th or 5th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles

Well, turns out that the "get a win, do 20k ship torp damage and 2k flood damage" task wasn't so difficult.  I just ran my shimmy for the first time in quite a while, and got a win, did 92k torp damage, 6k flood damage (and 113k overall damage). 

So this PanAsian mission is now complete.  Time to start the next one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
474 posts
8,398 battles
9 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Well, turns out that the "get a win, do 20k ship torp damage and 2k flood damage" task wasn't so difficult.  I just ran my shimmy for the first time in quite a while, and got a win, did 92k torp damage, 6k flood damage (and 113k overall damage). 

So this PanAsian mission is now complete.  Time to start the next one.

 

I've gotten the damage and flood 3 times in 10 battles too bad my team LOST 8 of those battles which includes those three.  Along with some other bad luck.  Decided maybe a CV would count, did it on my CV, nope.  event hat took two battles because of horrible teams.  I've done 90% of all their missions ever, this one takes the cake at how retarded it is.  And it needs to be known they should NOT do this idiocy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
22 minutes ago, Valdez_Raptor said:

I've gotten the damage and flood 3 times in 10 battles too bad my team LOST 8 of those battles which includes those three.  Along with some other bad luck.  Decided maybe a CV would count, did it on my CV, nope.  event hat took two battles because of horrible teams.  I've done 90% of all their missions ever, this one takes the cake at how retarded it is.  And it needs to be known they should NOT do this idiocy again.

FYI, it does say "ship torpedoes" in the task listing. But I do feel your pain.

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.

×