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

3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
14 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

I think what chewonit is arguing is that raw damage done is a reasonably good way to judge BB player performance, but not so good for other classes.  So they've developed a judging system that is appropriate for BBs but not for other classes.  I think there's some merit to that argument.  

 

I'd still argue that base XP is a better metric to use than damage, even for battleships. For instance, when a DD is lit for the team to shoot at, I want my allied BBs shooting at him instead of holding the shot for a 15k salvo on a battleship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,865
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,180 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, DingBat said:

So much this. 

 

I did an informal study on "player toxicity" in game in WoT. My findings were:

  • Red players were pretty much oblivious and were hardly toxic at all
  • Yellow players pretty much understood they sucked and were more interested in getting friendly help than anything else
  • Purple players just pretty much treated all other players as sources of frustration and, as a result, ignored everyone
  • Blue and Green players were, by far, the most toxic of all the groups. 

The data set size was large enough to say that the results were "interesting". Informal study is informal. 

This is largely because blue players are skilled enough to recognize bad play, but not skilled enough to pick up the extra slack caused by it.

 

This can be a very frustrating position to be in.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[-IA-]
Beta Testers
91 posts
3,496 battles
22 hours ago, DingBat said:

I agree on the use of metrics that conflict with longer term goals. 

What's worse is they force people to do it in Random or, even worse, Ranked, where the impact is magnified. Why not let people do it in Co-Op?

Just have to be careful because any goals based on xp or earnings are going to be severely limited due to the 50+ percent reduction in co-op.

If they built the missions based on the strengths of the different modes then it would be feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,549
[ARGSY]
Members
9,441 posts
6,209 battles
On 19/01/2018 at 4:07 PM, CHBanger said:

Just have to be careful because any goals based on xp or earnings are going to be severely limited due to the 50+ percent reduction in co-op.

If they built the missions based on the strengths of the different modes then it would be feasible.

Oh granted, but then you pick your hills to die on appropriately. When I went for the Vampire, I was driving an Emerald and a Danae, and getting into a Random match was the quickest way for me to die inside five minutes. OTOH, regardless of this, it was also the fastest way to pick up XP because I could cycle back and forth between the two ships as they were sunk; there was rarely a time when both of them were unavailable, and then I had lots of other things I could amuse myself with.

All the rest? Far easier in Co-op. Granted, Taste of Blood was a very strictly staged mission so you were not chasing multiple tasks at once, but even so, as a non-premium player I cannot take on more than two tasks - so focusing on the easy kill, torp-strike or damage-accumulation tasks would be the first thing to do, and let the XP be what it may. Then turn around and go for the XP and money task(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×