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

Dear WG: Please stop incentivizing bad play

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,194
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,777 posts
13,627 battles

WG devs, I thought that after the ARP mission fiasco of 2016, you had learned your lesson about making missions with completion criteria that cause players to play in dumb, farmy, or otherwise suboptimal ways. But I'm beginning to think you've forgotten.

So here's a reminder. Nobody wants a teammate who chain yolos in British CLs because they need to complete this silly thing...

j3pcy2t.png

And nobody wants a teammate who spends 100 games farming damage in destroyers instead of capping and spotting in order to get this...

w1xrbIv.png

So PLEASE. Stop. Making. Missions. With requirements to play stupidly!

Edited by Edgecase
  • Cool 17
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NOBUL]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles

It seems evident that not only has WG ignored these lessons, but don't even see them as being failures and have taken the opposite tack. They have openly embraced the things that such asinine missions require us to do.

They clearly don't give a rat's bleeding anus, if you ask me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[NGAGE]
Members
4,242 posts
6,142 battles

I fully agree.  It seems like every time there is campaign, mission or event going on, it has a massive impact on gameplay and leads to players doing some really really odd stuff.  I know WG is trying to find ways to make campaigns either challenging or interesting, but any mission that forces players to go our of their way to complete it is usually a bad idea.  
 

24 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

 

And nobody wants a teammate who spends 100 games farming damage in destroyers instead of capping and spotting in order to get this...

w1xrbIv.png

On a slightly unrelated note, I couldn't help but think that this particular task would be beyond stupidly easy to complete with a Khabarovsk.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,810
[RLGN]
Members
9,611 posts
19,084 battles

Never mind... (edited my own post...)

Just; whatever WG...

 

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,195 posts

I read many times that WG wants to encourage teamwork, yet they still come up with stupid missions like these. I seriously doubt they will ever make up their bloody minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,733
[SIM]
Members
3,169 posts
4,955 battles

Out of upvotes OP, but I agree. These missions should all have two criteria: one specialized condition (as in the examples given) and a second that just involves accumulating XP or hitting an XP average in a ship or class. The first would be there for folks skilled enough to pull it off, while the second, grindier one would exist for people who don’t want to be or can’t be bothered to satisfy the first condition.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,194
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,777 posts
13,627 battles
27 minutes ago, yashma said:

On a slightly unrelated note, I couldn't help but think that this particular task would be beyond stupidly easy to complete with a Khabarovsk.

Yeah, and that's how I plan to do it, but... seems like a pretty big FU to "elite" captains of other lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,703 posts
2,612 battles
Just now, Edgecase said:

WG devs, I thought that after the ARP mission fiasco of 2016, you had learned your lesson about making missions with completion criteria that cause players to play in dumb, farmy, or otherwise suboptimal ways. But I'm beginning to think you've forgotten.

So here's a reminder. Nobody wants a teammate who chain yolos in British CLs because they need to complete this silly thing...

So PLEASE. Stop. Making. Missions. With requirements to play stupidly!

My stats in Hood still haven't recovered from the "Sink the Bismarck" Hood mission to kill DDs.  You can see from my stats that I don't entirely suck, but the bevy of~10k damage, mostly losses due to my team losing a Tier VII BB (my Hood) to a YOLO at the nearest enemy DD really sucked.  I felt bad for screwing my teams like that too, but I work very long hours and I can't assume that I'll get the play time to just get the kills naturally.

(I the case of the Hood mission I felt particularly bad because the battle after I completed the DD kills I got two DD kills naturally while playing to win.  In my defense, I did try it while trying to win for 5 games or so before switching to YOLO tactics due to not scoring a single DD kill fairly.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
742 posts
5,330 battles
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:

WG devs, I thought that after the ARP mission fiasco of 2016, you had learned your lesson about making missions with completion criteria that cause players to play in dumb, farmy, or otherwise suboptimal ways. But I'm beginning to think you've forgotten.

So here's a reminder. Nobody wants a teammate who chain yolos in British CLs because they need to complete this silly thing...

j3pcy2t.png

And nobody wants a teammate who spends 100 games farming damage in destroyers instead of capping and spotting in order to get this...

w1xrbIv.png

So PLEASE. Stop. Making. Missions. With requirements to play stupidly!

 

1 hour ago, xDiaboliquex said:

I couldn't agree more. It's like they don't play their own game...

 

1 hour ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

It seems evident that not only has WG ignored these lessons, but don't even see them as being failures and have taken the opposite tack. They have openly embraced the things that such asinine missions require us to do.

They clearly don't give a rat's bleeding anus, if you ask me.


ALL OF THIS.

Ive been saying ALL of this since the end of beta.

The sad part is this would all be VERY easy to fix -- make the missions doable in Coop and Scenario. Presto, most of these missions would get hammered out without being major hindrances on the team.

But,  Like oh so many easy fixes possible to this game, I doubt itd ever happen.....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[AP]
Members
1,196 posts
12,688 battles
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:

w1xrbIv.png

on a slightly unrelated note............

when will WG understand the concept of %HP

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
731
[0456]
[0456]
Members
2,809 posts
7,992 battles
1 hour ago, xDiaboliquex said:

I couldn't agree more. It's like they don't play their own game...

Funny that you mention it since I think most of the Folks who play it from wg are barely average at it. Wonder if that's tilting the initiatives a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[ZR]
WoWS Wiki Editor
662 posts
5,339 battles
18 minutes ago, Gascan75 said:

Funny that you mention it since I think most of the Folks who play it from wg are barely average at it. Wonder if that's tilting the initiatives a bit. 

WGRU managed Typhoon 1 last CBs season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,586 posts
4,261 battles
1 hour ago, yashma said:

I fully agree. It seems like every time there is campaign, Mission or event going on, it has a massive impact on gameplay and leads to players doing some really really odd stuff. I know WG is trying to find ways to make campaigns either challenging or interesting, but any Mission that forces players to go our of their way to complete it is usually a bad idea.
 

On a slightly unrelated note, I couldn't help but think that this particular task would be beyond stupidly easy to complete with a Khabarovsk.

should be stupidly easy with any t10 dd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
661
[WOLFB]
Members
2,230 posts
9,756 battles

I don't really mind the damage mission but yeah, mission like "Be the first to spot X ship with a cruiser or BB" , "Kill X ship" ... are stupid. It just add more salt to the game.

 

On the other hands mission like "earn 75k XP" or "Do 90k torps damage with a DD or CA" should at least rewards you with 3-4 star and some good premium consummable or module. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
Members
4,094 posts
15,015 battles
56 minutes ago, YukonHunter said:

 

 


ALL OF THIS.

Ive been saying ALL of this since the end of beta.

The sad part is this would all be VERY easy to fix -- make the missions doable in Coop and Scenario. Presto, most of these missions would get hammered out without being major hindrances on the team.

But,  Like oh so many easy fixes possible to this game, I doubt itd ever happen.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
742 posts
5,330 battles
1 minute ago, ReddNekk said:

 

Not for lack of effort on my part. Solely lack of listening on WG's part - something to which anyone that isnt in their precious little clique can attest to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
Members
4,094 posts
15,015 battles
7 minutes ago, YukonHunter said:

Not for lack of effort on my part. Solely lack of listening on WG's part - something to which anyone that isnt in their precious little clique can attest to.

That what I was referring to in that post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
742 posts
5,330 battles
Just now, ReddNekk said:

That what I was referring to in that post. 

Id give props if i had any left for that. :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[OO7]
Beta Testers
621 posts
7,240 battles
6 hours ago, yashma said:

I fully agree.  It seems like every time there is campaign, mission or event going on, it has a massive impact on gameplay and leads to players doing some really really odd stuff.  I know WG is trying to find ways to make campaigns either challenging or interesting, but any mission that forces players to go our of their way to complete it is usually a bad idea.  
 

On a slightly unrelated note, I couldn't help but think that this particular task would be beyond stupidly easy to complete with a Khabarovsk.   

Its beyond stupidly easy even with regular DDs like Z-52 without "playing stupidly".

 

I mean, i average 87,000 damage a game over 75 battles with a 78.67% winrate in Z-52, and i consider myself a poor DD player. 

 

In fact, of my T10 DDs, only Grozovoi falls in at under 64k average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,113
[ARGSY]
Members
8,735 posts
5,902 battles
5 hours ago, YukonHunter said:

The sad part is this would all be VERY easy to fix -- make the missions doable in Coop and Scenario.

The funny thing is, that's EXACTLY what they did with Taste of Blood (HMAS Vampire) and many of the New Year missions. The only part I did in Randoms for TOB was grind out the 25K XP (a far easier proposition, even for an Emerald captain). The best thing about TOB was that Tier IV ships were also eligible, so I could swap to the Danae whenever my Emerald was being... um... raised and repaired, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[-_W_-]
Banned
135 posts
13,811 battles
8 hours ago, Edgecase said:

WG devs, I thought that after the ARP mission fiasco of 2016, you had learned your lesson about making missions with completion criteria that cause players to play in dumb, farmy, or otherwise suboptimal ways. But I'm beginning to think you've forgotten.

So here's a reminder. Nobody wants a teammate who chain yolos in British CLs because they need to complete this silly thing...

j3pcy2t.png

And nobody wants a teammate who spends 100 games farming damage in destroyers instead of capping and spotting in order to get this...

w1xrbIv.png

So PLEASE. Stop. Making. Missions. With requirements to play stupidly!

psssssss careful i got chat banned because i have say in the chat that those mission was stupid.......  yeah that realy happened :fish_happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,194
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,777 posts
13,627 battles
4 hours ago, grizzly95 said:

Its beyond stupidly easy even with regular DDs like Z-52 without "playing stupidly".

The real problem isn't whether it's achievable with normal play or not; the real problem is that the requirement is set up using a metric that incentivizes damage farming. Why wouldn't they use Base XP instead?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,113
[ARGSY]
Members
8,735 posts
5,902 battles
3 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Why wouldn't they use Base XP instead?

IIRC Base XP is tier-dependent as well as achievement-dependent, and if that's the case then using base XP would bias the metric in favour of higher-tier ships and (statistically at least) lock the lower-tier players out.

At least damage done to enemy ships is beneficial to one's own team, although I see that this can be skewed by players who go out of their way to set fires on enemy ships solely so they can leave them to burn, under circumstances where they are just as easily capable of deleting those ships from the game. Sometimes setting a couple of fires at a distance is all you can do (low-tier destroyers), and at least it leaves DCP on cooldown for your allies to take advantage of, but if you can get an insta-delete or add a finishing torpedo salvo instead, yeah... not so cool. Except maybe in low-tier co-op. I admit to enjoying low tier fire-farming in US destroyers and the Vampire because my main line is British cruisers, but I generally go down to co-op for that stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
721
[R-F]
Members
1,025 posts
7,235 battles
11 hours ago, yashma said:

On a slightly unrelated note, I couldn't help but think that this particular task would be beyond stupidly easy to complete with a Khabarovsk.   

11 hours ago, Edgecase said:

w1xrbIv.png

 

Average damage done by tier X DDs, according to na.wows-numbers.com:

Khab 59,556

Yueyang 59,502

Shimakaze 46,458

Gearing 44,862

Z-52 43,743

Grozovoi 43,066

 

So you have to be a slightly above average player in a Khab or a Yueyang, but if you're doing it with one of the others you need to do 50% more damage than an average player.  Warships-today has average distributions for each ship, but unfortunately the site is being wonky as it frequently is.  With that, you could tell exactly what percentage of players of each ship would qualify for the badge.

I'm surprised the Yueyang is up that high.  I guess those deep water torps really are doing the job... or perhaps it's because, as a new line, only the pretty dedicated players  have ground up the pan-asian line that far yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×