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

Long term ship campaigns - a suggestion

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,461
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
10,537 posts

No doubt I'll get a ton of incoming over this but I'd like to suggest a change in these long term, "Win a ship" contests, specifically those tasks that require a "win" to complete it. 

As an example, the trigger for this post is the "Win a battle, get a Hits to Citadel ribbon and destroy one ship" combat mission. 

I have done two out of three of those in FIVE matches straight. This morning, when I got sunk in my bama, we had 3 minutes remaining, outnumbered the reds six ships to three and were leading. Yup, pretty solid odds of a win. Nope, we lost. One guy ran away, at the SAME TIME telling people "my internet went down". LMBO on that one... but yea, we lost. 

I think what I'm suggesting is they be turned more towards the individual player than the team obtaining a win. The team is not winning a ship - the players, individually, are working their way to a ship. Random is not operations - there, it's expected the team wins/loses the "prizes/rewards" as a team. 

So I do hope any such future missions for ships will remove the requirement of a win cause dammit Jim, I'm just a doctor, not a coach. 

tiafyc

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,612
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,388 posts
10,928 battles
Just now, RipNuN2 said:

The idea for the win is so players dont just yolo for the objective.

Yeah but win and do x and in this case also y impact play with extreme levels of frustration when you keep meeting only some of the requirements. An alternative path would help with that game changing frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,612
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,388 posts
10,928 battles
3 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

I just play as normal.

It can be hard to put the requirements out of your mind and I usually seem to finish those missions as soon as I get mad and give up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,136
[TBW]
Members
7,444 posts
13,600 battles

I don't have any of them finished, I just do the easy ones till I get to the end. Some day, not any time soon I will get the achievements for finishing the whole campaigns, if I live that long that is. The ones that require CVs to complete are stupid. Half of the population doesn't ever even play them. Maybe after the CV reboot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[-AA-]
Members
1,756 posts
6,674 battles

 

Winning must be part of it imo. 

Edit; I usually play worse when I have “coaches” in my team. Makes me care less and do the opposit, depending on how they bring it.

Edited by LemonadeWarrior
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,612
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,388 posts
10,928 battles
2 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

 

Winning must be part of it imo.

I doubt anyone has an issue with the win requirement. It is the additional x,y,z requirement that needs to come at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[AAA]
Members
498 posts
8,183 battles

All missions except for damage dealing/plane kills should have the win criteria so that selfish players don't yolo to achieve the objective. Past few missions are enjoyable because WG has added the win criteria and no missions felt like a grind. It forced people to play the objective while achieving the mission objectives all of which were in some way a lesson to teach how battles should be fought :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
744
[NWNG]
Members
2,785 posts
4,654 battles

I think the win condition needs to stay, HOWEVER: "Over any number of wins, do x and y"

The win condition is still there, but now it doesn't have to happen in a single battle. Less frustrating in my opinion.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

I got 21 of 21 missions done. Got the Ship, And Quit Playing WoWs.

I don't Mind doing Missions that I choose what ship and tier I use to complete them.

I play what I want when I want is the enjoyment I look for.

Being Told I can only use X ship from X nation is total Toro Poop.

WTG WG Turn the fun into a JOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,718
[PVE]
Members
14,935 posts
9,477 battles
4 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

No doubt I'll get a ton of incoming over this but I'd like to suggest a change in these long term, "Win a ship" contests, specifically those tasks that require a "win" to complete it. 

As an example, the trigger for this post is the "Win a battle, get a Hits to Citadel ribbon and destroy one ship" combat mission. 

I have done two out of three of those in FIVE matches straight. This morning, when I got sunk in my bama, we had 3 minutes remaining, outnumbered the reds six ships to three and were leading. Yup, pretty solid odds of a win. Nope, we lost. One guy ran away, at the SAME TIME telling people "my internet went down". LMBO on that one... but yea, we lost. 

I think what I'm suggesting is they be turned more towards the individual player than the team obtaining a win. The team is not winning a ship - the players, individually, are working their way to a ship. Random is not operations - there, it's expected the team wins/loses the "prizes/rewards" as a team. 

So I do hope any such future missions for ships will remove the requirement of a win cause dammit Jim, I'm just a doctor, not a coach. 

tiafyc

 

3 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

The idea for the win is so players dont just yolo for the objective.

 

1 hour ago, Counter_Gambit said:

I think the win condition needs to stay, HOWEVER: "Over any number of wins, do x and y"

The win condition is still there, but now it doesn't have to happen in a single battle. Less frustrating in my opinion.

 

I like the daily coal challenges with Win and x amount of base XP over any number of battles. Something high skill players can do in a winning battle and lower skill players can do in a few winning battles. Less frustration and less yolo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[LEGIT]
Members
1,685 posts
24,558 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

I doubt anyone has an issue with the win requirement. It is the additional x,y,z requirement that needs to come at the same time.

     You know, it is really frustrating.

     I've started the Yamato legendary captain grind.  I've been close to getting the 97K emblem using my Musashi and the Yamato, and by my spreadsheet with a moving 100 game avg. I should have it but don't.  Oh well.  So I have to play the Yamato to get the captain skill , and figured I'm only a 50% WR guy in it, and I'm going to play it exclusively to get the 107K (or whatever it is) emblem.  I figured shelve the emblem damage goal for a while to get the legendary captain skill.

     And guess what I found out?  Over the last 2 days I won 13 straight games in the Yamato, which took my WR from 50% to 52% (probably temporarily).  I wasn't trying to get kills, or citadels, or cap or defend this or that.  I wanted WINS, because that's how you get the most XP  for the 1st part of the grind, and most money for the 2nd.  Even though I wasn't getting the damage points, I was actually enjoying winning.  And even though I had a few games with 40K - 80K damage we won, and that was the main thing.  Much more fun than trying to get the damage points to the exclusion of a win. 

     My point is, it can be matter of luck to put the individual goal of the kill, torp hit, fires, etc. together with the win.  I understand that the win is there to prevent the YOLO for the individual goals, but it is frustrating a times.  I've decided, at least as far as the emblem thing goes, to not worry about it and just play for the win.  (Though we'll see how I feel when I get my Hindenburg...)  There's no time limit for those things.  And I really like my raccoon pal patch anyway. 

     But for the Indianapolis tasks, it's not such an easy decision given the limited time periods.  I got lucky and got my Indianapolis the 1st day the win, kill, cap ribbon thing started.  But that was it.  I got lucky putting them all together.
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[LEGIT]
Members
1,685 posts
24,558 battles
50 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

WTG WG Turn the fun into a JOB.

Yes.   Instead of fun it can be annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[B-W-M]
[B-W-M]
Members
465 posts
5,294 battles

Or more like the first ARP mission. I'll say no thanks and try to work better with my teammates, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,718
[PVE]
Members
14,935 posts
9,477 battles
56 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

WTG WG Turn the fun into a JOB.

 

5 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

Yes.   Instead of fun it can be annoying.

 

The 5 stages are earn 100,000 XP, earn 8M credits, earn 15k FXP, Win 15 battles, and earn 40k base XP.  With the exception of stage 4, where it is easier to do it in co-op, just play and you will get the module eventually. It only has to be work if you want to make it work. Otherwise, just play and let it be a surprise when you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[LEGIT]
Members
1,685 posts
24,558 battles

Good thing they didn't make those 15 wins like in ranked.... That would have been rally popular with all concerned.  Win a game, lose a game lose a win..ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,612
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,388 posts
10,928 battles
Just now, slokill_1 said:

Good thing they didn't make those 15 wins like in ranked.... That would have been rally popular with all concerned.  Win a game, lose a game lose a win..ugh.

I would be fine with a 15 win requirement instead of the win and do x,y,z missions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,461
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
10,537 posts

I agree with @BrushWolf

I tried again tonight and yup, added number six to the total of coulda woulda shoulda have won but didn't for the Indy mission. So I had a glass of orange juice, you know, juiced up. 

I stepped on the Montana and off we went. 

Spoiler

shot-18_07_07_23_17.39-0718.thumb.jpg.68603730e11a0970b3ac08494e97eabe.jpgshot-18_07_07_23.18_07-0046.thumb.jpg.1aee13040bfced265983099fc6cf6274.jpgshot-18_07_07_23_18.14-0622.thumb.jpg.39e3d6339be270e7b211e0ea64dca1e9.jpgshot-18_07_07_23_18.14-0622.thumb.jpg.39e3d6339be270e7b211e0ea64dca1e9.jpg

This too was a close one. But it finally came together in the last two minutes. It ended with four of us alive versus one red, a DD. 

Thank goodness you don't have to SURVIVE as well as Win and Cit. Now I can play some fun missions!

Some very good counterpoints were made  against my original post. I kinda knew writing the OP those counters existed and have merit - but got to say, as a player, my opinion is it's enough stretching it out over a certain number of days. Of course I came to play those missions every time they came up. So you'll get the players by stretching it out. 

This one mission took far more effort than it should have taken. I normally cit, destroy and win a battle without an issue at least once a day. So can't explain why it took so long. But it's done. 

Wrapping it up, for me, I think they are really close to getting it dialed in, on the money. Just this one "style" of mission needs a tad of rethinking. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×