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

.

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

873
[SF-3]
Members
3,177 posts
8,358 battles
3 minutes ago, BelgaraththeSorcerer said:

Why are you so toxic that it requires people to band together to get you to stop screaming obscenities at them?

Why can't people band together and win games instead? They are toxic on a whole different level, but I can't ban them for their toxic gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,787
Members
9,966 posts
Just now, Peregrinas said:

Why can't people band together and win games instead? They are toxic on a whole different level, but I can't ban them for their toxic gameplay.

 

This is a casual game, most of the players are casual. The problem is your refusal to admit this to yourself.

Embrace your impending doom, knowing that unless you throw them over your shoulder, all is lost...Just accept the fact, screaming at them won't solve anything. :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,089
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor
6,246 posts
3,106 battles

And how many games did it take you to get chat-banned this time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,793
[SALVO]
Members
17,055 posts
17,693 battles
53 minutes ago, awiggin said:

 

This is a casual game, most of the players are casual. The problem is your refusal to admit this to yourself.

Embrace your impending doom, knowing that unless you throw them over your shoulder, all is lost...Just accept the fact, screaming at them won't solve anything. :Smile_teethhappy:

No, it's a competitive game.  "Competitive" games don't on a competitive level of clan battles, ranked battles, or tournaments all the time for them to be competitive.  To me, the only mode here that's casual is coop.  If you're in random, people expect to play to win.

To me, anything that's called a game where it's one or more players vs a similar number of players is inherently competitive.  If it's not competitive, then it's just an activity.  Games are played for the sake of competition. Activities are played for the sake of playing.

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,793
[SALVO]
Members
17,055 posts
17,693 battles
1 hour ago, Peregrinas said:

Why can't people band together and win games instead? They are toxic on a whole different level, but I can't ban them for their toxic gameplay.

Peregrinas, I can't say that I've played with you recently.  I don't remember all that many forumites' names, so I often don't even realize when I'm playing with a regular forumite.  Regardless, I don't know what you define as "toxic gameplay".  After all, you're a unicum, and some unicums are so elitist that anyone not up to their level gets attacked and insulted.  I'm not saying that this describes you, though I am left to wonder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,787
Members
9,966 posts
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, it's a competitive game.  "Competitive" games don't on a competitive level of clan battles, ranked battles, or tournaments all the time for them to be competitive.  To me, the only mode here that's casual is coop.  If you're in random, people expect to play to win.

To me, anything that's called a game where it's one or more players vs a similar number of players is inherently competitive.  If it's not competitive, then it's just an activity.  Games are played for the sake of competition. Activities are played for the sake of playing.

 

You're absolutely right, it is meant to be a competitive game, but if the player base isn't there, it really doesn't matter...does it?

If we had a competitive player base, would Team battles have failed? Would we see more than about 600 players ranking out? (about 1/10th of one percent of the player base)

Would clan battles be so severely limited in time and scope? Would bottom clan leagues be pitted against Typhoon?

The evidence of who plays this game is displayed daily, and no amount of wishing will change that...:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
900
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles

"Toxic gameplay."


As if people are required to play a certain way, or to meet your expectations in general. I'm sure that's what they think before they play. "I'm going to meet the expectations of Peregrinas today!"

 

That, or, you know, they play in the way they enjoy.

Edited by Elegant_Winter
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,793
[SALVO]
Members
17,055 posts
17,693 battles
10 minutes ago, awiggin said:

You're absolutely right, it is meant to be a competitive game, but if the player base isn't there, it really doesn't matter...does it?

If we had a competitive player base, would Team battles have failed? Would we see more than about 600 players ranking out? (about 1/10th of one percent of the player base)

Would clan battles be so severely limited in time and scope? Would bottom clan leagues be pitted against Typhoon?

The evidence of who plays this game is displayed daily, and no amount of wishing will change that...:Smile_teethhappy:

awiggin, personally, I didn't like team battles for a couple of reasons.

1. I didn't like that it was only at tier 6.  Playing the same tier repeatedly gets boring.  Worse, it could get really, really unfun.

In my first clan (an unofficial one before clans were officially in the game), there were some guys who loved playing WoWS but really didn't like random battles so much and were constantly begging people to play Team Battles.  But after the shine wore off Team Battles, they got increasingly boring and then become unfun as those guys kept begging clan mates to play team battles because of how much they hated random battles and wanted to play battles with reliable team mates.  But damn, playing tier 6 incessantly was boring.  And worse, having to play this exact ship or that exact ship because it was demanded of you made it vastly worse and vastly more boring.

 

2. I didn't like that it was set up like a ranked tournament.  I would have vastly preferred that it be set up like tank companies in WoT, where there was no ranking, no fixed teams, no worrying about W-L records.  Tank companies were simply a way to fight some battles of same tier tanks, often with teams composed of clannies, but sometimes non-clan members, as a way to have some good competitive (but not in in a structured tournament setting) fun.  It was also a great way for clans to do a little bit of recruiting and checking out potential recruits in a team setting.

I really wish that the devs would bring team battles back but in the WoT tank company model.  Or put another way, it could be like clan battles without the ranking structure, and with the ability to bring in non-clannies as well.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,793
[SALVO]
Members
17,055 posts
17,693 battles
1 minute ago, Elegant_Winter said:

"Toxic gameplay."


As if people are required to play a certain way, or to meet your expectations in general. I'm sure that's what they think before they play. "I'm going to meet the expectations of Peregrinas today!"

 

That, or, you know, they play in the way they enjoy.

Winter, I ... probably ... have much lower standards than Peregrinas on this.  All I want is for people to play like they're trying to win.  Oh, it's nice if they don't do truly stupid stuff, like sitting still in a BB broadside to the enemy.  But usually, most people learn not to do that kind of thing.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[O7]
Members
4,933 posts
8,945 battles

Is this the return of the perry thread spam during ranked season? I thought you got over it, must be a relapse. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[KFL]
Members
689 posts
5,603 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

No, it's a competitive game.  "Competitive" games don't on a competitive level of clan battles, ranked battles, or tournaments all the time for them to be competitive.  To me, the only mode here that's casual is coop.  If you're in random, people expect to play to win.

To me, anything that's called a game where it's one or more players vs a similar number of players is inherently competitive.  If it's not competitive, then it's just an activity.  Games are played for the sake of competition. Activities are played for the sake of playing.

 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×