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

Campaigns And Bad Team Performance

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles

Is it just me or is there a correlation between a general drop in quality of teams (as can be seen both in-game and in the resurfacing of multiple bad-team threads in the forum) and these new campaigns/free ship marathons. A correlation, that I suspect is caused by the latter.

I've certainly realised a certain zombification of YOLO tactics since last week (more than usual that is), where people just throw themselves in front of the enemy's guns and either one or the other team just melts in the first 10 mins.

The last time I can remember when things took a turn for the worse was when the Gold of France campaign came online. Before that, it was the Aigle marathon and before that, it was the Battle of the North Cape... The list goes on.

I've always voiced my opposition to WG making type specific mission like "score 10 torp hits with a DD and win the game" because I strongly believe they incentivise and encourage reckless, selfish and bad gameplay. However, this latest revelation (if true, which I imagine it is) can definitively show that these campaigns and the missions included in them are affecting the gameplay in a negative way.

Does that make sense to you? Have you also noticed a similar trend with each new campaign/marathon?

Share your thoughts.

Edited by yacskn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Selfish Play is common.

Campaigns have strict guidelines to achieve the end game.

Missions have deadlines to fulfil the end game.

As long as we want these things with Nice rewards this will be the Norm.

There are those how have already received their Rewards for the Admiral Halsey Campaign {Nice accomplishment Congrats to them}

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
848
[STW-M]
Members
2,346 posts
6,242 battles

Edit: accidentally posted in the wrong thread (some off-topic one)

But yeah, as Cluch_Cargo stated above, the fact that these tasks are oftentimes very specific and have a deadline, combined with a nice award means that people will play differently, sometimes stupidly, in order to complete those tasks.

Edited by Avenge_December_7
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
606
[ARRGG]
Members
4,766 posts
7,712 battles
14 minutes ago, yacskn said:

Is it just me or is there a correlation between a general drop in quality of teams (as can be seen both in-game and in the resurfacing of multiple bad-team threads in the forum) and these new campaigns/free ship marathons. A correlation, that I suspect is caused by the latter.

I've certainly realised a certain zombification of YOLO tactics since last week (more than usual that is), where people just throw themselves in front of the enemy's guns and either one or the other team just melts in the first 10 mins.

The last time I can remember when things took a turn for the worse was when the Gold of France campaign came online. Before that, it was the Aigle marathon and before that, it was the Battle of the North Cape... The list goes on.

I've always voiced my opposition to WG making type specific mission like "score 10 torp hits with a DD and win the game" because I strongly believe they incentivise and encourage reckless, selfish and bad gameplay. However, this latest revelation (if true, which I imagine it is) can definitively show that these campaigns and the missions included in them are affecting the gameplay in a negative way.

Does that make sense to you? Have you also noticed a similar trend with each new campaign/marathon?

Share your thoughts.

I’ve thought the same thing  you can remember when you had to sink 3 German ships as part of the campaign, to advance,you sink 1 and then German ships disappear for 10 -15 games than 1 showed up and just about every player is out to sink it .. me included winning be dammed ..

it continues today with the many campaigns requiring this or that and if you want to excel in damage to get one of them fancier emblems by damage done over 100 games it quickly becomes apparent that to do this you have to be on a loosing team and survive till the end we’re you have more targets to do damage to 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles
24 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Selfish Play is common.

Campaigns have strict guidelines to achieve the end game.

Missions have deadlines to fulfil the end game.

As long as we want these things with Nice rewards this will be the Norm.

There are those how have already received their Rewards for the Admiral Halsey Campaign {Nice accomplishment Congrats to them}

 

 

 

 

Thank you for stating the obvious.

The question is whether you think these missions have a negative impact on the overall gameplay, which it sounds like you do.

The next step is to generate a consensus on it and take it up to WG so that they can do something about it. So that these are no longer the norm.

Explaining the process for something we're already familiar with is redundant, wouldn't you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
2 minutes ago, yacskn said:

Thank you for stating the obvious.

The question is whether you think these missions have a negative impact on the overall gameplay, which it sounds like you do.

The next step is to generate a consensus on it and take it up to WG so that they can do something about it. So that these are no longer the norm.

Explaining the process for something we're already familiar with is redundant, wouldn't you say?

You state you need a consensus  of the Obvious.

WG will do nothing, mainly because they can't Change People or the way they play the game.

The process is in itself redundant.

You can lead a horse rings true in WoWs.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles
27 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

You state you need a consensus  of the Obvious.

WG will do nothing, mainly because they can't Change People or the way they play the game.

1

I stated no such thing.

I said we need a consensus on the correlation between frequency of bad teams and new campaigns/marathons, not on the obvious; which was your explanation of how missions work.

They absolutely can change people or the way they play the game. Ever heard about social engineering?

All their sales tactics, increasing purchase and service costs for sequential tiers, premium consumables, camos, purchasable flags, campaigns, marathons, artificial scarcity of ships, exchangeable currency, redistributable points, all the grind, even free stuff they give away and a whole boat-load more are designed to nudge people towards spending money to bypass the grind and make the game easier.

The missions are a product of this as well. Grindy and frustrating as much as possible to make buying crate-packs more attractive.

However, if we make it clear to them that the way they design these missions are detrimental to the health of the game, they would have to re-evaluate their mission design approach in order to preserve player engagement.

The first step in that process is to have people realise that one of the major reasons they're experiencing these terrible teams and keep losing their games, is because everyone is trying to complete their mission and ease their suffering through the grind, often to the detriment of gameplay.

WG can and will do something, if they realise people are unhappy and it's hurting the game.

 

Edited by yacskn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
4 minutes ago, yacskn said:

I stated no such thing.

I said we need a consensus on the correlation between frequency of bad teams and new campaigns/marathons, not on the obvious; which was your explanation of how missions work.

They absolutely can change people or the way they play the game. Ever heard about social engineering?

All their sales tactics, increasing purchase and service costs for sequential tiers, premium consumables, camos, purchasable flags, campaigns, marathons, artificial scarcity of ships, exchangeable currency, redistributable points, all the grind, even free stuff they give away and a whole boat-load more are designed to nudge people towards spending money to bypass the grind and make the game easier.

The missions are a product of this as well. Grindy and frustrating as much as possible to make buying crate-packs more attractive.

However, if we make it clear to them that the way they design these missions are detrimental to the health of the game, they would have to re-evaluate their mission design approach in order to preserve player engagement.

The first step in that process is to have people realise that one of the major reasons they're experiencing these terrible teams and keep losing their games, is because everyone is trying to complete their mission and ease their suffering through the grind.

WG can and will do something, if they realise people are unhappy and it's hurting the game.

 

Keep Dreaming

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles
Just now, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Keep Dreaming

I always do. Worthless to breathe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
9,377 battles

Having been here since the beginning, I noticed this as soon as all these various missions were added.  Once in a while someone will actually admit it in chat, i.e. "I'm only going for..." insert whatever challenge or mission.  I said long ago that I believe this only dilutes the already weak random team cohesion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
9,377 battles
1 minute ago, BullHalsey said:

Having been here since the beginning, I noticed this as soon as all these various missions were added.  Once in a while someone will actually admit it in chat, i.e. "I'm only going for..." insert whatever challenge or mission.  I said long ago that I believe this only dilutes the already weak random team cohesion.

You give a potato One Thing he has to do to be rewarded and he might achieve it, at the cost of team play.  But, balance right?  Something has to offset those of us that know how to play and actually play to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,011
Members
4,680 posts
6,861 battles

Most players are not really very good. Don't matter what mode you are playing. Simple truth. And I am hardly one to be critical. Well over 50% are quite average and many more are well blow average. Just how it is. Always has been.  Won't change. Ever. Never. Deal with it. 

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[PVE]
Members
2,008 posts
18,485 battles
1 hour ago, yacskn said:

I said we need a consensus on the correlation between frequency of bad teams and new campaigns/marathons,

I think you are missing the point that Clutch was making...that is the obvious...it always has been the obvious...& if WG doesn't dangle carrots they will lose more players than the few that get upset by the results of players trying to achieve those carrots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
606
[ARRGG]
Members
4,766 posts
7,712 battles
48 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

I think you are missing the point that Clutch was making...that is the obvious...it always has been the obvious...& if WG doesn't dangle carrots they will lose more players than the few that get upset by the results of players trying to achieve those carrots.

This is true , no denying that the direction Wows is going in effects gameplay but there’s also no denying that it keeps the game interesting rather than have the win be the ..be all to end all ..so to speak ..

we do campaigns for fun and to get rewards so we can load up our ships with Camo, flags,special Captains so we can make our ships OP and win ... rinse and repeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles
7 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

I think you are missing the point that Clutch was making...that is the obvious...it always has been the obvious...& if WG doesn't dangle carrots they will lose more players than the few that get upset by the results of players trying to achieve those carrots.

 

6 hours ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

This is true , no denying that the direction Wows is going in effects gameplay but there’s also no denying that it keeps the game interesting rather than have the win be the ..be all to end all ..so to speak ..

we do campaigns for fun and to get rewards so we can load up our ships with Camo, flags,special Captains so we can make our ships OP and win ... rinse and repeat

It sounds like you guys read my post and thought; "this guy wants to remove campaigns/missions".

Nope. I'm saying remove type specific missions. So instead of "citadel ships 10 times with a cruiser", we get "citadel ships 10 times".

I just think this kind of approach would make it less likely for cruiser captains (in the above instance) to rush in up close right at the start to score a few citadel hits and die in the process. It would also decrease instances of people switching classes into something they're not good at, just to finish a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[MASSD]
Members
418 posts
15,342 battles
7 hours ago, dmckay said:

Most players are not really very good. Don't matter what mode you are playing. Simple truth. And I am hardly one to be critical. Well over 50% are quite average and many more are well blow average. Just how it is. Always has been.  Won't change. Ever. Never. Deal with it. 

1

Look at my signature and tell me I'm not dealing with it.

I'm not doing this for myself. I'm doing it to decrease the salt both in-game and in forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,011
Members
4,680 posts
6,861 battles
3 hours ago, yacskn said:

Look at my signature and tell me I'm not dealing with it.

I'm not doing this for myself. I'm doing it to decrease the salt both in-game and in forums.

You doing fine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[PVE]
Members
2,008 posts
18,485 battles
22 hours ago, yacskn said:

Is it just me or is there a correlation between a general drop in quality of teams (as can be seen both in-game and in the resurfacing of multiple bad-team threads in the forum) and these new campaigns/free ship marathons. A correlation, that I suspect is caused by the latter.

I've certainly realised a certain zombification of YOLO tactics since last week (more than usual that is), where people just throw themselves in front of the enemy's guns and either one or the other team just melts in the first 10 mins.

The last time I can remember when things took a turn for the worse was when the Gold of France campaign came online. Before that, it was the Aigle marathon and before that, it was the Battle of the North Cape... The list goes on.

I've always voiced my opposition to WG making type specific mission like "score 10 torp hits with a DD and win the game" because I strongly believe they incentivise and encourage reckless, selfish and bad gameplay. However, this latest revelation (if true, which I imagine it is) can definitively show that these campaigns and the missions included in them are affecting the gameplay in a negative way.

Does that make sense to you? Have you also noticed a similar trend with each new campaign/marathon?

Share your thoughts.

It's kinda hard to determine if somebody just potatoed or if they potatoed because they were trying to accomplish some sorta task. When "looking" for a trend it's easy to see a trend even if the results had nothing to do w/the trend. Potatoing is standard enough that unless the person actually stated in chat that's why they did it it's impossible to tell. This is coming from one of the russets btw. I too have potatoed while trying to complete a task but I've potatoed so many other times just generally that nobody would know why in any particular instance...as for noticing a trend...not that I would be able to definitively attribute no...but I'm sure there is...just gets lost in the haystack though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[4HIM]
Members
1,956 posts
4,786 battles

People start playing to the task, rather than playing to win.  In one game last night had two Scharns and another BB hiding and sniping from behind an island at the spot reserved for the "BB Back-of-the-Map Cocktail party.  And two DD's hugging the edge of the map.  The BB's were hoping to snipe their two kills and hope the team carried them to a win.  The DD's must have been drinking Rum and singing pirate songs or something.  So that was five team members essentially taking themselves out of the game.  I was in the "Duck-in-a-toaster" and the only green ship that even so much as touched a cap until there were two minutes left in the battle.  Three guesses on how that one ended.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
571
[KP]
Members
2,066 posts
19,183 battles
22 hours ago, yacskn said:

I stated no such thing.

I said we need a consensus on the correlation between frequency of bad teams and new campaigns/marathons, not on the obvious; which was your explanation of how missions work.

They absolutely can change people or the way they play the game. Ever heard about social engineering?

All their sales tactics, increasing purchase and service costs for sequential tiers, premium consumables, camos, purchasable flags, campaigns, marathons, artificial scarcity of ships, exchangeable currency, redistributable points, all the grind, even free stuff they give away and a whole boat-load more are designed to nudge people towards spending money to bypass the grind and make the game easier.

The missions are a product of this as well. Grindy and frustrating as much as possible to make buying crate-packs more attractive.

However, if we make it clear to them that the way they design these missions are detrimental to the health of the game, they would have to re-evaluate their mission design approach in order to preserve player engagement.

The first step in that process is to have people realise that one of the major reasons they're experiencing these terrible teams and keep losing their games, is because everyone is trying to complete their mission and ease their suffering through the grind, often to the detriment of gameplay.

WG can and will do something, if they realise people are unhappy and it's hurting the game.

 

I have almost 17K battles over the last 3 years, crappy teams and dumb people are there whether there is some mission going or not. The missions and campaigns have nothing to do with the overall level of game play in the grand scheme of things. It wishful thinking on your part to think it will be otherwise. Most at WGing don't even play there own game or play it very little so there is literally zero incentive at the top for them to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[WOLF9]
Members
3,360 posts
23 hours ago, yacskn said:

Is it just me or is there a correlation between a general drop in quality of teams (as can be seen both in-game and in the resurfacing of multiple bad-team threads in the forum) and these new campaigns/free ship marathons. A correlation, that I suspect is caused by the latter.

I've certainly realised a certain zombification of YOLO tactics since last week (more than usual that is), where people just throw themselves in front of the enemy's guns and either one or the other team just melts in the first 10 mins.

The last time I can remember when things took a turn for the worse was when the Gold of France campaign came online. Before that, it was the Aigle marathon and before that, it was the Battle of the North Cape... The list goes on.

I've always voiced my opposition to WG making type specific mission like "score 10 torp hits with a DD and win the game" because I strongly believe they incentivise and encourage reckless, selfish and bad gameplay. However, this latest revelation (if true, which I imagine it is) can definitively show that these campaigns and the missions included in them are affecting the gameplay in a negative way.

Does that make sense to you? Have you also noticed a similar trend with each new campaign/marathon?

Share your thoughts.

   I didn't put much thought into WHY it was happening, but I have noticed a trend in really annoying play.   Yesterday was the absolute worst in a while- game after game ended in record time due to extreme yolo tactics.  Causing the reds to be wiped out so fast,  many had no chance to even contribute before it was over.   Never had so many low damage games or net credit losses in a single day that I can recall in forever.   And these were all wins!

   Even in low tier games, people were playing this way.   Extreme aggression leading to either some really stupid situations, or an insta-win.

  These were all ops or Co-op matches, So I'm not sure the missions had anything to do with it.   The only Co-opable Halsey missions are just grinding credits and captain xp- and those are 1 star apiece.   You need 9 to unlock the main mission.   The dailies are play a game in one of 3 German ships, and another equally easy one.   None really inspires that drastic a change in tactics.   It did leave me wondering why many of these people were bothering with Co-op- farming is far more lucrative in other modes, lol.

  Really causing me to burn out on this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,880 battles

This is why so many of the tasks in the current event have winning or survival as a condition. It's to encourage you NOT to YOLO, but to try to play for the task in a way that doesn't shaft the team as a whole. Most of the tasks in the Indy marathon are quite sane. Most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,091
[SYN]
Members
14,625 posts
10,955 battles

I am seeing a lot of T9/10 DDs smoking up on cap and staying in it, smoking up and blocking friendly LoS and not spotting...

One would normally expect these mistakes to be made at T5 and under, not T10.

 

Although, to be fair, I did see a lot of this stuff in ranked too.

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×