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

Could Go Navy have been Differently Organized?

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,645
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,451 posts

Sharks vs. Eagles is a blow-out for Sharks and this doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. Even a 50% "multiplier" can't stem the tide. So how could the event have been organized differently to make it a real contest?

  • Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.
  • Matches should have been all sharks on one side and all eagles on the other, not intermixed.
  • Teams should have been balanced -- in the current event a handful of "unicums" on one team that play constantly can blow the other team out of the water due to kills, heroic awards, and wins.
  • Teams should have been randomly assigned.
  • The ability to switch teams was a mistake, I believe.
  • CVs should have been disallowed -- the current state of CV play is woefully imbalanced. A handful of experts run roughshod over the majority of players in nearly every single game they are in. For instance, I was in a match today where one CV had 75% wins and the other 38% wins. Who do you think won?

 

 

  

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[CYPHR]
[CYPHR]
Members
131 posts
10,532 battles

i feel that it should have been like the fire and water event

no option to bail the team your on now all u see is sharks getting more and more eagles to join there side o in the end no eagle team wil be left to make a win even if they get 100% more multiplier

Edited by thepigeonmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,307
[D-PN]
[D-PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,483 battles

Of course it could But no CVs is just plain Bull Hockey!

All tiers eligible would be a great idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles
5 minutes ago, thepigeonmaster said:

i feel that it should have been like the fire and water event

no option to bail the team your on now all u see is sharks getting more and more eagles to join there side o in the end no eagle team wil be left to make a win even if they get 100% more multiplier

The herd instinct is drawing players to Sharks. As already stated the ability to switch teams may have been a mistake.  I dunno....but maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,346
[KWF]
Members
3,927 posts
5,915 battles

No team changing. They could have handed out loyalty for anyone earning a set quantity of points each day for a number of days.

I went with sharks, but purely because I prefer the camo colour, no other factors involved.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,108 posts
9,327 battles

Anything can be done differently - anything.  May not change the outcome and frankly - no way to know if the outcome would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,981
[HINON]
Members
12,656 posts

Seems fine to me as the difference in winning is minuscule and if you really dont like it you can switch.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles
36 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Sharks vs. Eagles is a blow-out for Sharks and this doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. Even a 50% "multiplier" can't stem the tide. So how could the event have been organized differently to make it a real contest?

  • Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.
  • Matches should have been all sharks on one side and all eagles on the other, not intermixed.
  • Teams should have been balanced -- in the current event a handful of "unicums" on one team that play constantly can blow the other team out of the water due to kills, heroic awards, and wins.
  • Teams should have been randomly assigned.
  • The ability to switch teams was a mistake, I believe.
  • CVs should have been disallowed -- the current state of CV play is woefully imbalanced. A handful of experts run roughshod over the majority of players in nearly every single game they are in. For instance, I was in a match today where one CV had 75% wins and the other 38% wins. Who do you think won?

 

 

  

Your first point may indeed be a somewhat of a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[RCB4]
[RCB4]
Beta Testers
555 posts
21 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Seems fine to me as the difference in winning is minuscule and if you really dont like it you can switch.

this +

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[BBP]
Members
341 posts
7,528 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

 

  • Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.

 

 

  

I'm American and support the flag, the eagle, etc...

But as long as I keep getting free stuff being a shark, I'm gonna be a shark.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[NG-NL]
Members
6,140 posts
9,801 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

Sharks vs. Eagles is a blow-out for Sharks and this doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. Even a 50% "multiplier" can't stem the tide. So how could the event have been organized differently to make it a real contest?

  • Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.
  • Matches should have been all sharks on one side and all eagles on the other, not intermixed.
  • Teams should have been balanced -- in the current event a handful of "unicums" on one team that play constantly can blow the other team out of the water due to kills, heroic awards, and wins.
  • Teams should have been randomly assigned.
  • The ability to switch teams was a mistake, I believe.
  • CVs should have been disallowed -- the current state of CV play is woefully imbalanced. A handful of experts run roughshod over the majority of players in nearly every single game they are in. For instance, I was in a match today where one CV had 75% wins and the other 38% wins. Who do you think won?

 

 

  

Agree w/ all except disallowing CVs. Switching teams is for the loyalty factor--if your team wins, loyalty bar seems to increase the containers from their win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,645
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,451 posts
Just now, Reymu said:

Agree w/ all except disallowing CVs. Switching teams is for the loyalty factor--if your team wins, loyalty bar seems to increase the containers from their win.

CVs should have a skill-based matchmaker, even in random games. There is such an imbalance between a CV newbie and expert in regards to the team that it's ridiculous to have the matchmaker place a 35% win rate CV against a 75% win rate CV just because they are both tier X. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[NG-NL]
Members
6,140 posts
9,801 battles
1 minute ago, Snargfargle said:

CVs should have a skill-based matchmaker, even in random games. There is such an imbalance between a CV newbie and expert in regards to the team that it's ridiculous to have the matchmaker place a 35% win rate CV against a 75% win rate CV just because they are both tier X. 

And if it's skill-based w/ few CV players in queue, what then? Add a bot CV instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[WOLF9]
Privateers
12,483 posts
4,602 battles

See my theory as to why it was designed the way it is:

 

As for your design changes, half of them involved major alterations to MM.  That's a non-starter.  (The battle split by teams is intriguing, though.)  The rest I pretty much agree with.  Wolverines vs. Barracuda.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,722
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,531 posts
12,810 battles

This is a new format for them.  They tried to do something similar to the clash of elements, but improve on it.  They let you switch  teams so you can be on the same team as your friends, which is smart.

The problem is, the majority of people went to one side.  I saw it posted here on these forums and reddit before the event even started that "I'm going sharks".  It's no surprise that sharks are dominating; most of the best players had already decided on sharks prior to the event.  I don't really think there is a good way to run events like this.  Those who don't care, just join the team doing the best and get the rewards.  I can't fault them for that.  If I were smart, I'd do it too; I am just stubborn and would rather be on the losing team (which I don't really care about) than be a front runner.

They added an event.  That's good.  I think the format is poorly designed, but I also think it's not worth crying over.  I complain about plenty of things in this game, an event like this that's supposed to be fun?  Meh, not worth complaining about.  In this case, I'll be happy they are trying to do cool things, and even though I think they kind of dropped the ball, it's not harming my fun.  No blood, no foul.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
Members
4,406 posts
17,679 battles
2 hours ago, dmckay said:

The herd instinct is drawing players to Sharks. As already stated the ability to switch teams may have been a mistake.  I dunno....but maybe. 

IMHO, it is a big mistake. The "must be on the winning side" types are, not surprisingly, bailing Eagles and swarming to Sharks. Of course the Sharks are always winning because the majority of players are Sharks. More Sharks, fewer Eagles every day. Didn't it occur to anyone at Wee-Gee that this would happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
56 posts
8,299 battles
3 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Sharks vs. Eagles is a blow-out for Sharks and this doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. Even a 50% "multiplier" can't stem the tide. So how could the event have been organized differently to make it a real contest?

  • Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.
  • Matches should have been all sharks on one side and all eagles on the other, not intermixed.
  • Teams should have been balanced -- in the current event a handful of "unicums" on one team that play constantly can blow the other team out of the water due to kills, heroic awards, and wins.
  • Teams should have been randomly assigned.
  • The ability to switch teams was a mistake, I believe.
  • CVs should have been disallowed -- the current state of CV play is woefully imbalanced. A handful of experts run roughshod over the majority of players in nearly every single game they are in. For instance, I was in a match today where one CV had 75% wins and the other 38% wins. Who do you think won?

 

 

  

Or go for the simple solution and don't base the winner on the total points earned, but on the average points earned per player. That way it doesn't matter how many players a team has.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,578 battles

There should have been 3 teams team Shark,Kraken, and Orca and no team switching. Having three teams distributes the players more and allows for more montization for Wargaming. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[KOOKS]
Alpha Tester
2,859 posts
4,861 battles

I think that the multiplier has to be tiered accordingly as such that one side cannot win forever and a semblance of balance can be established.

Flat 50% as of now will guarantee that Sharks win D+x to nil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
100 posts
2,505 battles

I think the multiplier should apply to the player’s points and count towards earning containers and placement on the leaderboard. There’s no incentive to play the losing team, but being on the winning team gets you an extra container each day. In fact, you get two containers if you start on the losing team for a few battles and then switch. That will maximize your total rewards if I am reading the rules correctly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,624
[ARGSY]
Members
17,442 posts
12,103 battles
3 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Mascots shouldn't have included a national symbol in a multinational game. Sharks versus Kraken or Orca would have been better.

I beg to differ. This event is part of the American arc, and the Eagle is one of its inseparable symbols. If you can't deal with that, that's not Wargaming's problem; that's your preciousness talking. If the developers were American, you might have a point. But they're not; they're Russians. If anything, you'd think they would tone that stuff down. We got Marianne and all sorts of other French iconography rammed down our throats in February/March; it's now the turn of the Americans; later this year it will probably be Great Britain's turn. Deal with it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles
55 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I beg to differ. This event is part of the American arc, and the Eagle is one of its inseparable symbols. If you can't deal with that, that's not Wargaming's problem; that's your preciousness talking. If the developers were American, you might have a point. But they're not; they're Russians. If anything, you'd think they would tone that stuff down. We got Marianne and all sorts of other French iconography rammed down our throats in February/March; it's now the turn of the Americans; later this year it will probably be Great Britain's turn. Deal with it.

By golly anyone who uses a word like "preciousness" must know what they are talking about. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×