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

Playing based on current state vs playing based on desired state

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
567 posts
75 battles

I see a lot of conversation about conflict / struggles players have with certain elements of the game and I think it boils down to how much an individual player decides to adapt their play style based on how the game works today versus playing how they feel the game should be played even if that results in considerably lower performance. 

Classic example is DDs charging the cap at the start of battle without care or consideration of the number or location of enemy radar ships because they believe caps matter in the first three minutes. And dying consistently before 5 min with a win rate in the 30s is justifiable because "playing the objective."

In reality, they're playing the objective of the game sometime in the future if WG got rid of radar to such a degree that capping that early would be successful far more than not. But the game hasn't reached that meta, nor does it look like it would any time soon.

So then the next reasonable question to ask is are they continuously suiciding themselves in a defiant act of rebellion of the current meta thinking doing so would pressure WG to make changes more desirable to the player? Or is it insanity (doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result)?

Politics are similar. Some people think government should pass legislation that would drive us closer to some form of Utopian dream but it would only work if the human race evolved to a level we're no where near today, while other political ideologies are more grounded in reality and recognize human strengths and weaknesses and push for legislation that makes sense based on today's current climate.

Overly aggressive players (who swear they aren't but their performance history clearly shows otherwise) fit in this mold as well. And their perception might reasonably be skewed because they came from faster paced games where you spawn, die in two minutes and respawn again. The concept of slower gun reload times requiring you to stay alive longer to be effective is foreign to them. And perhaps again they are rebelling against the current meta thinking somehow if they keep playing their way, the game will change in their favor.

Just curious what the community thinks. Do they find themselves making decisions, even if just once in awhile, that are more suitable for a different, more desired meta than the current one?

Edited by A_Crying_Hipster
  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,827 battles
23 minutes ago, A_Crying_Hipster said:

I see a lot of conversation about conflict / struggles players have with certain elements of the game and I think it boils down to how much an individual player decides to adapt their play style based on how the game works today versus playing how they feel the game should be played even if that results in considerably lower performance. 

Classic example is DDs charging the cap at the start of battle without care or consideration of the number or location of enemy radar ships because they believe caps matter in the first three minutes. And dying consistently before 5 min with a win rate in the 30s is justifiable because "playing the objective."

In reality, they're playing the objective of the game sometime in the future if WG got rid of radar to such a degree that capping that early would be successful far more than not. But the game hasn't reached that meta, nor does it look like it would any time soon.

So then the next reasonable question to ask is are they continuously suiciding themselves in a defiant act of rebellion of the current meta thinking doing so would pressure WG to make changes more desirable to the player? Or is it insanity (doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result)?

Politics are similar. Some people think government should pass legislation that would drive us closer to some form of Utopian dream but it would only work if the human race evolved to a level we're no where near today, while other political ideologies are more grounded in reality and recognize human strengths and weaknesses and push for legislation that makes sense based on today's current climate.

Overly aggressive players (who swear they aren't but their performance history clearly shows otherwise) fit in this mold as well. And their perception might reasonably be skewed because they came from faster paced games where you spawn, die in two minutes and respawn again. The concept of slower gun reload times requiring you to stay alive longer to be effective is foreign to them. And perhaps again they are rebelling against the current meta thinking somehow if they keep playing their way, the game will change in their favor.

Just curious what the community thinks. Do they find themselves making decisions, even if just once in awhile, that are more suitable for a different, more desired meta than the current one?

You make a great point, for the first 3500 games in Warships I never paid attention to stats and just played hyperaggressive with a do as much damage as you can before you die. I played with people who had the same mentality and we were average 1000 WTR 50% players. I had back surgery and took a year off, during that time I was still watching a lot of Warship videos on youtube and decided I needed to change how I played if I wanted to get better. Since I came back in February I adopted a more conservative approach, learning more about the current game mechanics and figuring out what works and what doesn't. I ADAPTED to the current meta and have watched my stats skyrocket.  I learned that playing solo all the time MatchMaker played a huge part in determining your individual success so I went on a quest to find some friends who were good players and start playing with them all the time. My stats took another huge leap, people will call it stat padding, being carried, or whatever nonsense they want to but I have been winning at a 75-80% win rate every day ever since, some days it can be 90-100%. Three good players can overcome bad teams, radar, or whatever game mechanic people are complaining about this week the majority of the time.

Edited by Belthorian
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,373
Members
3,254 posts
9,531 battles

tl;dr stop complaining about broken mechanics and adapt.

Just like people had to adapt to OWSF and smoke fire and torps and slow BB turning....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

There has been may changes to the game but at the same time I have not noticed them. Part of the reason I add the Update Version to my videos is so that I could compare and contrast the changes of how I have played... even though I don't do that... Otherwise compare them and see how much I have changed and how little I have changed. I am not too sure on how much I have changed but I suspect:

  • Fubuki became more cautious
  • Ryujo became more likely to hold off on a torpedo run until a perfect attack run

Tier VI Fubuki Update 0.7.5.0

Spoiler

 

Tier VIII Fubuki Update 0.5.14.0

Spoiler

 

Tier VI Ryujo Update 0.7.3.0

Spoiler

 

Tier VI Ryujo Update 0.5.14.0

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
3,399 battles

The answer is... Sometimes. 

The thing is the meta is dynamic. The way the game has been played the last 100 matches might change on the 101st. Moreover how many repeats of the 101st is match need to happen before its the new meta? 

Every time you hear "Battle Stations" is a brand new match full of promise. It can be what you want to make it OR what you allow to happen. Case in point was a match last night. Solid T8 match with only a cpl T7s in it & only one DD per team & he wasnt on my side of the map. I run a concealment build on my Mogami so I kinda adopted a DD role in spotting & steam ahead towards the cap. Behind me a few km I have Colorado & a Bismark. I detect 3 enemy ships heading towards the cap from the other direction. A Pensacola, New Orleans & a Lyon. To my way of thinking this coming engagement is solidly in our corner so I signal to focus the Pensacola & open fire on him myself. I see 2 other splashes near him so I know the BBs fired at him. Long story short I took out the Pensy & NO by myself before the Lyon got me. Meanwhile BOTH BBs behind me started kiting right after their 1st shot. Reds took the cap & we never did get it back. Oh & the Lyon never did go down. My whole team seemed to be of a mind that avoiding getting shot was preferable to shooting. 
Dont get me wrong, their is a time & place when discretion is the better part of valor & playing defensively is prudent. However there is also very much a time to be aggressive & put the enemy team on the defensive. Had those 2 BBs stayed with me I am very confident we could have carried the cap with little to no loses. 

In order to do damage you have to be willing to take it. Kiting at the 1st sight of the enemy should be your last option & not your 1st. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,198
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,596 posts
9,000 battles
1 minute ago, MizzenMast said:

The answer is... Sometimes. 

The thing is the meta is dynamic. The way the game has been played the last 100 matches might change on the 101st. Moreover how many repeats of the 101st is match need to happen before its the new meta? 

Every time you hear "Battle Stations" is a brand new match full of promise. It can be what you want to make it OR what you allow to happen. Case in point was a match last night. Solid T8 match with only a cpl T7s in it & only one DD per team & he wasnt on my side of the map. I run a concealment build on my Mogami so I kinda adopted a DD role in spotting & steam ahead towards the cap. Behind me a few km I have Colorado & a Bismark. I detect 3 enemy ships heading towards the cap from the other direction. A Pensacola, New Orleans & a Lyon. To my way of thinking this coming engagement is solidly in our corner so I signal to focus the Pensacola & open fire on him myself. I see 2 other splashes near him so I know the BBs fired at him. Long story short I took out the Pensy & NO by myself before the Lyon got me. Meanwhile BOTH BBs behind me started kiting right after their 1st shot. Reds took the cap & we never did get it back. Oh & the Lyon never did go down. My whole team seemed to be of a mind that avoiding getting shot was preferable to shooting. 
Dont get me wrong, their is a time & place when discretion is the better part of valor & playing defensively is prudent. However there is also very much a time to be aggressive & put the enemy team on the defensive. Had those 2 BBs stayed with me I am very confident we could have carried the cap with little to no loses. 

In order to do damage you have to be willing to take it. Kiting at the 1st sight of the enemy should be your last option & not your 1st. 

This, there is a time to be aggressive and a time to be less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
8 minutes ago, MizzenMast said:

The answer is... Sometimes. 

The thing is the meta is dynamic. The way the game has been played the last 100 matches might change on the 101st. Moreover how many repeats of the 101st is match need to happen before its the new meta? 

Every time you hear "Battle Stations" is a brand new match full of promise. It can be what you want to make it OR what you allow to happen. Case in point was a match last night. Solid T8 match with only a cpl T7s in it & only one DD per team & he wasnt on my side of the map. I run a concealment build on my Mogami so I kinda adopted a DD role in spotting & steam ahead towards the cap. Behind me a few km I have Colorado & a Bismark. I detect 3 enemy ships heading towards the cap from the other direction. A Pensacola, New Orleans & a Lyon. To my way of thinking this coming engagement is solidly in our corner so I signal to focus the Pensacola & open fire on him myself. I see 2 other splashes near him so I know the BBs fired at him. Long story short I took out the Pensy & NO by myself before the Lyon got me. Meanwhile BOTH BBs behind me started kiting right after their 1st shot. Reds took the cap & we never did get it back. Oh & the Lyon never did go down. My whole team seemed to be of a mind that avoiding getting shot was preferable to shooting. 
Dont get me wrong, their is a time & place when discretion is the better part of valor & playing defensively is prudent. However there is also very much a time to be aggressive & put the enemy team on the defensive. Had those 2 BBs stayed with me I am very confident we could have carried the cap with little to no loses. 

In order to do damage you have to be willing to take it. Kiting at the 1st sight of the enemy should be your last option & not your 1st. 

Watching 5 BBs hide behind a island because they are scared of a Cleveland and a IJN DD that already expended its torpedoes while I (Ryujo) already have the entire enemy team exposed (i.e no DDs except for that one)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,786 posts
5,663 battles

Since Radar this game has improved, DD's got scared and ran away for a while but now their coming back and playing smarter. In fact not rushing these caps DD's seem to last to the end of the game. The jewel of this game is the changing environment and how to adapt. Just like in WW2 as new equipment and strategy's changed so did warfare...Bravo WG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
2 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

Since Radar this game has improved, DD's got scared and ran away for a while but now their coming back and playing smarter. In fact not rushing these caps DD's seem to last to the end of the game. The jewel of this game is the changing environment and how to adapt. Just like in WW2 as new equipment and strategy's changed so did warfare...Bravo WG

Or fail like Japan (I still like them though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[SBS]
Members
2,463 posts
2,253 battles
6 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

This, there is a time to be aggressive and a time to be less so.

That's how the game is balanced now.  As was mentioned in the OP the new players are coming from other fast paced, hyper aggressive games.  WG has noticed and we will see changes to the game (take a look at the new proposed game modes as an example).  There will be plenty of old players that will not like these changes, and plenty of new player that probably will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,198
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,596 posts
9,000 battles
56 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

That's how the game is balanced now.  As was mentioned in the OP the new players are coming from other fast paced, hyper aggressive games.  WG has noticed and we will see changes to the game (take a look at the new proposed game modes as an example).  There will be plenty of old players that will not like these changes, and plenty of new player that probably will. 

We had that from the very beginning with most coming from other much faster paced games. They either adapted to the slower pace of naval combat or they left and it will always be that way. If you go speed up the ships like they did in Steel Ocean you end up with tanks on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[RCB4]
[RCB4]
Beta Testers
468 posts

its true OP that people get frustrated and make a statement with their battle performance

you see that alot 

ive done with my cv after the last cv patch cause i was pissed off till i just said to myself the hell with it not playing my cv no more

i do it sometimes when i get aggravated at all the camping meta and ill just rush in guns blazing

has far has that behavior having a impact on wargaming and the game has a hole i doubt it

but sometimes it helps to vent off the frustration instead of being a cancer in chat there is way too much of that in this game thats for sure

so to me if someones wants to charge the cap cause his last match he lost cause of a team camping for example

knock yourself out it dont bother me none

but for me when im at that point i go do something else And play some other time to be considerate to the others i guess

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[ONAVY]
Members
772 posts
6,284 battles
6 hours ago, MizzenMast said:

The answer is... Sometimes. 

The thing is the meta is dynamic. The way the game has been played the last 100 matches might change on the 101st. Moreover how many repeats of the 101st is match need to happen before its the new meta? 

Every time you hear "Battle Stations" is a brand new match full of promise. It can be what you want to make it OR what you allow to happen. Case in point was a match last night. Solid T8 match with only a cpl T7s in it & only one DD per team & he wasnt on my side of the map. I run a concealment build on my Mogami so I kinda adopted a DD role in spotting & steam ahead towards the cap. Behind me a few km I have Colorado & a Bismark. I detect 3 enemy ships heading towards the cap from the other direction. A Pensacola, New Orleans & a Lyon. To my way of thinking this coming engagement is solidly in our corner so I signal to focus the Pensacola & open fire on him myself. I see 2 other splashes near him so I know the BBs fired at him. Long story short I took out the Pensy & NO by myself before the Lyon got me. Meanwhile BOTH BBs behind me started kiting right after their 1st shot. Reds took the cap & we never did get it back. Oh & the Lyon never did go down. My whole team seemed to be of a mind that avoiding getting shot was preferable to shooting. 
Dont get me wrong, their is a time & place when discretion is the better part of valor & playing defensively is prudent. However there is also very much a time to be aggressive & put the enemy team on the defensive. Had those 2 BBs stayed with me I am very confident we could have carried the cap with little to no loses. 

In order to do damage you have to be willing to take it. Kiting at the 1st sight of the enemy should be your last option & not your 1st. 

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,324
[CUTE]
Members
5,202 posts
3,461 battles
17 hours ago, Raven114 said:

Since Radar this game has improved, DD's got scared and ran away for a while but now their coming back and playing smarter. In fact not rushing these caps DD's seem to last to the end of the game. 

That's not it. What you're seeing is DD captains raising their play along with the skill floor that is actually a staircase you never stop walking up as a DD player in this game.. 

Soon enough DD will have another nerf thrown at them when they overcome the newest kink in their game play. WG knows they can change DD to appease the other classes now (nerf Peter to buff Paul), precedent has been set. DD "adapts" and they do it well. BB? Not so much. So who you gonna nerf? The guys that can have whole elements of their game play changed multiple times, or the guys that freak out when you almost nerf their bow armour?

If the game changed as much for some classes as it has for others there would probably be no game left.

Radar is a garbage button click, bereft of skill. I understand its utility and the game "needs" it because DD is too high skill for the taters to deal with, but don't turn a garbage mechanic into gold here.

So yeah, DD adapt like always and then we will be onto the next thing we gotta nerf you know "for the good of the game".. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
567 posts
75 battles
5 hours ago, Taichunger said:

 

You and clutch keep using that word elite to define a basic standard of performance because that's all I've ever ask of players to strive to stay at or above, nor have I ever said or even hinted that I consider myself among the elite players and far too many of my posts specifically say there are far better players than I for you to miss. So you can keep playing your one string banjo all you want but you look ridiculous when my post history clearly shows you're perpetuating a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,695
Members
18,198 posts
5,196 battles

OP has a point. I know if a tactic annoys me, and seems to not fit in a naval game, I use it sparingly, if it all.

For example, if I'm playing NC, yes, I'll try to bow tank your shots. No, I won't stop or back up while doing so.

Or if I'm not spotted, and by holding fire for a few seconds, I can slip behind an island and THEN shoot, and remain unspotted, I'll do that, but I'm not going to purposely try to find spots where I can do that, or stop so I can take multiple shots from that position.

But that's alright, my desire to feel like I'm driving a ship supercedes my desire to succeed, and I'm ok with that. Although it would only help my immersion if nobody did things I consider "weird", I'm certainly not going to try and insist that others conform to my vision of the game, especially at the expense of their results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×