Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
dionkraft

Who do we have to wait to continue after being sunk?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles

Is there any techical problem that exists that prevents us from starting a new battle with the same ship you got sunk in but that game has not concluded yet?  I would think that if you could the 'churn' rate would dramatically increase how many fold by 50% or more maybe higher.  Has this even been considered or mentioned?    Now lets say that there are some monetary or mathematical concerns that have not been calculated on the new battle because the old battle has not been finalized.  Would a projected number/credits/equipment  be calculated some how for the 2nd battle while the original rages on? 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,162
[TBW]
Members
10,581 posts
18,120 battles

If you stay alive until the battle ends there is no problem.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
995
[WOLFC]
Members
1,995 posts
10,434 battles

I believe the current system was implemented to prevent players from spamming battles in which they yolo charge at the beginning of the match to get some xp, rinse, and repeat, all the while screwing over their teams. This would likely be the fastest way for unscrupulous players to grind a ship.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,962
[HINON]
Members
13,732 posts
11 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I believe the current system was implemented to prevent players from spamming battles in which they yolo charge at the beginning of the match to get some xp, rinse, and repeat, all the while screwing over their teams. This would likely be the fastest way for unscrupulous players to grind a ship.

This ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
18 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

If you stay alive until the battle ends there is no problem.

Thats not an answer to what was asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
13 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I believe the current system was implemented to prevent players from spamming battles in which they yolo charge at the beginning of the match to get some xp, rinse, and repeat, all the while screwing over their teams. This would likely be the fastest way for unscrupulous players to grind a ship.

Yeah..Good point..I didn't even think of that!    I GROUND all the ships I wanted so it did not think of that shrewd angle - Good post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
4 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

This ^

Yeah..NOW I see the WHY on this question....sounds good.- Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles

Now this begs the question on WHY doesn't WOWs issue duplicate ships as in ship A and Ship much like the Terpitz and the Terpitz B so tha when your dead in Terpitz you jump into Terpitz B and keep on a goin' ? Of course you cannot like transfer the captains skills, camo and signals to the other ship but have to buy them.  I dunno...maybe WOWs should have a half off sale so you can maybe  for duplicate ships.  I just find it that sometimes waiting and wanting to play the SAME ship duplicate would be more fun in the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,439 posts
14,392 battles

1.  it makes you want to do better in that ship - each game matters more if you know that the ships locked to that battle for the entirety regardless what you do.

2.  Keeps the game a bit more diverse - you can't just spam the OP ship of the day.

3.  it is at least a "little' accurate...your ship is currently in a battle afterall.

4.  It prevents people from power grinding, as stated above.

5.  It prevents people from just ditching an unfavorable game and taking the ship into another.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
21 minutes ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

1.  it makes you want to do better in that ship - each game matters more if you know that the ships locked to that battle for the entirety regardless what you do.

2.  Keeps the game a bit more diverse - you can't just spam the OP ship of the day.

3.  it is at least a "little' accurate...your ship is currently in a battle afterall.

4.  It prevents people from power grinding, as stated above.

5.  It prevents people from just ditching an unfavorable game and taking the ship into another.

Some interesting points you have written but I just can't see it that way. Not saying YOUR wrong..just a point of view but let me say this...

Your already dies even if it was a mistake or your got a dev strike or detonated...no sense in wating time - just bail and go play another ship...lets say its a ship that similar to the one you just played. What difference would that be in the long run ?   I mean if it was a duplicate ship there are difference as the cost is double of course

As for spamming the ship...WG wants you to play as many battles to keep the  'Churn rate" (revenue stream) so it depleats your credits and doubloons.  Thats their main objective.

As for the "Little accurate" yeah....I don't know what would be the calculation would be (if implemented) if my idea was to be realized - good point on that as you mentioned.

Grinding or Power Grinding..yeah thats a concern but having duplicate ships would stop that and make it more expensive..NOT that I want o duplcate ship but it would be nice to duplicate some ships as an option.  I have a couple of Duplicate ships but hardly played them if ever.

As for ditching the game - yeah...but then again they would have to ram or suicide themselves in order to do just that, ...yeah i'm on the fence on that...but good possibility.  Then on the other hand how do we not know some have been inflicting self death but we didn't detect or know this?   That item can be interpreted both ways I suppose.

But thanks for bringing up some interesting angles for me and others to consider.  As they say WOWs is an evolving game and some things did or get changed and some stay the way they are. 

 

I type this response as I just died in a game and just WINDOWed out to the internet...multi-tasking at its best...now to see what the score was!

Edited by dionkraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,940 posts
22,691 battles
1 hour ago, dionkraft said:

Yeah..NOW I see the WHY on this question....sounds good.- Thanks

Another aspect is you may have torps in the water or a consumable plane up that may get a hit/kill (torp) or plane kills (plane) after you have exited to port & it would be too hard for the game to need to store that extra data (especially w/all the possible boosts to XP/CXP/FXP/ECXP/etc) & then be able to add it to the next battle especially if something like that happened multiple times (odds on it happening multiple times is a stretch but even twice) in a row.

Also mission/challenges/campaign tasks/etc all get effected by those stats so determining if a certain mission objective was finished in 1 battle or another (as they are each computed as a battle finishes not just when you leave it) would get too confusing to program in.

As far as Tirpitz & Tirpitz B (& all the other B ship options) they each have their own stats so it's not like you are building stats up on the Tirpitz when you run the B ship or vice verse so those scenarios don't affect those issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
1 minute ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Another aspect is you may have torps in the water or a consumable plane up that may get a hit/kill (torp) or plane kills (plane) after you have exited to port & it would be too hard for the game to need to store that extra data (especially w/all the possible boosts to XP/CXP/FXP/ECXP/etc) & then be able to add it to the next battle especially if something like that happened multiple times (odds on it happening multiple times is a stretch but even twice) in a row.

Also mission/challenges/campaign tasks/etc all get effected by those stats so determining if a certain mission objective was finished in 1 battle or another (as they are each computed as a battle finishes not just when you leave it) would get too confusing to program in.

As far as Tirpitz & Tirpitz B (& all the other B ship options) they each have their own stats so it's not like you are building stats up on the Tirpitz when you run the B ship or vice verse so those scenarios don't affect those issues.

Nice explanation and analysis...let me throw this out at ya...I guess the REAL solution would be to have duplicate ships a A and a B.  And I guess each ship would have to be equipped with their own captain and their own choice of (if any) optional choices of consummables.  And whatever choice of camo and flags...if there is enough left from the first ship LOL!  

I'm thinking if WG could meld the consummables into a bank for both ships - kinda a joint account if you know what I mean. As for the Captain...thats more complicated I guess. Could be that can't be duplicated unless it also becomes some kind of bank but it looks more a no go.    Well, maybe the only possible way is to have created more duplicate ships. I don't think WG would mind ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,940 posts
22,691 battles

But even w/B options for all ships they would all have their own individual stats so no benefit to building up stats on the B ships while the A ships were still in battle...at least no extra benefits to the A ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
38 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

But even w/B options for all ships they would all have their own individual stats so no benefit to building up stats on the B ships while the A ships were still in battle...at least no extra benefits to the A ships.

Yeah true..each ship has their own stats but with duplicate ships it would be nice if WG could meld the stats into one stat is where I am going at. If WG did allow this then you just go and keep playing and by the time your done on the 2nd battle the 1st battle should have concluded and then you play it again.  Basically I am proposing a way to save time for the player and probably make more money for WG as the consequence to this idea.   I mean I can see a option from WG to meld the stats from two duplicate ships into one if you agree.  Those two duplicates can draw from their common bank of camo and signals as an example. Now the Captain...I guess he could be duplicated at some cost...maybe half price from the original one assigned...thats up in the air! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,940 posts
22,691 battles
51 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

Yeah true..each ship has their own stats but with duplicate ships it would be nice if WG could meld the stats into one stat is where I am going at. If WG did allow this then you just go and keep playing and by the time your done on the 2nd battle the 1st battle should have concluded and then you play it again.  Basically I am proposing a way to save time for the player and probably make more money for WG as the consequence to this idea.   I mean I can see a option from WG to meld the stats from two duplicate ships into one if you agree.  Those two duplicates can draw from their common bank of camo and signals as an example. Now the Captain...I guess he could be duplicated at some cost...maybe half price from the original one assigned...thats up in the air! 

Combining the XP would fall into the problems of having to store all the extra data for all battles for all players at the same time in regards to an after exiting the battle a torp killed another ship giving you more XP than you had that might have finished a mission (that you didn't finish w/out the torp hit) but now before that battle even ended you have run it's B version & finished that battle (quick steam roll) before the A ship battle even finished (went the whole 20 minutes) but didn't get enough XP in the B battle to finish the mission.

Does it wait until the A battle (which you started 1st for that ships XP totals) to finish & give you the completion before adding in the B battle stats (& count them towards the next stage of the mission) or count the B battle stats & then the A battle stats are just overkill wasted for finishing the earlier stage of the mission.

& all of that needs to be stored in memory longer if you take the B ship out on another steamroll battle & finish it before the A shop battle ends.

Too much extra data for too many  players at once for the system to keep track of (especially if during 1 of the B battles another scenario w/torps killing (or even just daging) another ship occurs for the system to need to keep track of.

Or does the system just cut off any extra XP earned once you exit battle regardless of how much extra you might have accidentally farmed unbeknownst to you.

& I'm just using "XP" as a place holder...there may be any number of different combinations of task/directives/missions/challenges/etc all going on at the same time w/any combination of different parameters (ship kills/ribbons/fires/CXP/etc etc etc) that the game would need to keep a placeholder for calculating all at the same time.

Ideally as it would be they decided to keep that aspect simple from the start so people can't farm the system (because they will figure out a way to do it) & so support doesn't need to watch possibly multiple battles of replays to determine if a player really did earn that 1 ramming signal for that mission earlier than the game said he did (extreme example but there are players that would troll support even if they knew they didn't earn it just to be trolls).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Combining the XP would fall into the problems of having to store all the extra data for all battles for all players at the same time in regards to an after exiting the battle a torp killed another ship giving you more XP than you had that might have finished a mission (that you didn't finish w/out the torp hit) but now before that battle even ended you have run it's B version & finished that battle (quick steam roll) before the A ship battle even finished (went the whole 20 minutes) but didn't get enough XP in the B battle to finish the mission.

Does it wait until the A battle (which you started 1st for that ships XP totals) to finish & give you the completion before adding in the B battle stats (& count them towards the next stage of the mission) or count the B battle stats & then the A battle stats are just overkill wasted for finishing the earlier stage of the mission.

& all of that needs to be stored in memory longer if you take the B ship out on another steamroll battle & finish it before the A shop battle ends.

Too much extra data for too many  players at once for the system to keep track of (especially if during 1 of the B battles another scenario w/torps killing (or even just daging) another ship occurs for the system to need to keep track of.

Or does the system just cut off any extra XP earned once you exit battle regardless of how much extra you might have accidentally farmed unbeknownst to you.

& I'm just using "XP" as a place holder...there may be any number of different combinations of task/directives/missions/challenges/etc all going on at the same time w/any combination of different parameters (ship kills/ribbons/fires/CXP/etc etc etc) that the game would need to keep a placeholder for calculating all at the same time.

Ideally as it would be they decided to keep that aspect simple from the start so people can't farm the system (because they will figure out a way to do it) & so support doesn't need to watch possibly multiple battles of replays to determine if a player really did earn that 1 ramming signal for that mission earlier than the game said he did (extreme example but there are players that would troll support even if they knew they didn't earn it just to be trolls).

What you say is pretty convincing...ALL that data being deferred then combined to two entries  in is quite a work load instead of addding up one battle then proceeding with the next as it is done now. 

I admit HOW MM does the math is conjecture and not fully explained - that I know of LOL! - but your projections seem to be sound and informative. Certainly better than MINE!  I'm thinking that MM is keeping track of many tasks that show as results but not really fully appreciated I suppose.  Lastly the ability of players to game the system.  That is always a wild card and must always be considered because some will always find a way and test the system for vulnerbilities as you said.  Well, lots to rethink my idea and thank you for your indepth analysis .  Was explained quite nicely.  Thx

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,940 posts
22,691 battles
46 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

What you say is pretty convincing...ALL that data being deferred then combined to two entries  in is quite a work load instead of addding up one battle then proceeding with the next as it is done now. 

I admit HOW MM does the math is conjecture and not fully explained - that I know of LOL! - but your projections seem to be sound and informative. Certainly better than MINE!  I'm thinking that MM is keeping track of many tasks that show as results but not really fully appreciated I suppose.  Lastly the ability of players to game the system.  That is always a wild card and must always be considered because some will always find a way and test the system for vulnerbilities as you said.  Well, lots to rethink my idea and thank you for your indepth analysis .  Was explained quite nicely.  Thx

Haven't been able to play for awhile unfortunately so have had time to conjecture a lot of concepts out.

Somebody (in a "skill based MM" thread) asked me how he (a unicum stat person) would be balanced against the rest of the 23 players for balancing & after trying to figure out anything but a basic example of an "all the same tier" battle I figured out what a lot of people consider to be "easy" is actually way harder that changing "a few lines of code".

Ever since that I've really stared to think abut all the different parameters of things that would actually need to be changed whenever somebody conjectures a concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
7 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Haven't been able to play for awhile unfortunately so have had time to conjecture a lot of concepts out.

Somebody (in a "skill based MM" thread) asked me how he (a unicum stat person) would be balanced against the rest of the 23 players for balancing & after trying to figure out anything but a basic example of an "all the same tier" battle I figured out what a lot of people consider to be "easy" is actually way harder that changing "a few lines of code".

Ever since that I've really stared to think abut all the different parameters of things that would actually need to be changed whenever somebody conjectures a concept.

I think that this game can get close to 'Balanced' but if were are looking for some number it's not going to be someting wholly accurate.  Even in battles with same tier - your ship equipment varies which gives advantages to some players.  So no matter if your driving your 6 cyl car..you may be racing someone with a V8 so to speak if you allow my automotive analogy!   Although it would be interesting to have a true battle amongst same tier ships using same point captains and no signals, no optional consummables as a true test of the skill of players. But then...games are designed so that they offer 'purchased options/equipment' to give you a small advantage over another player and/or advantage on one item but a small debit on another.  But thats how the game companies with these micro transactions have to do in order to pay the rent/expenses.  But getting back to where we are...I don't think that I experienced more polarization of those who love/hate CV and upcoming SUBs  as compared to when this game launched some 4 years past.  The game has evolved considerably - some good and some not so depending on your perspective.   Of course there is the issue of game burnout and maybe thats a good thing to consider other options or a renewal/consideration of the present status.   Oh well...so WHEN are you going to dive in and play some ?  I don't play as much as I used to so I am angling to obtain that new natural buoyancy so i don't blow a fuse so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,940 posts
22,691 battles
4 hours ago, dionkraft said:

Oh well...so WHEN are you going to dive in and play some ?  I don't play as much as I used to so I am angling to obtain that new natural buoyancy so i don't blow a fuse so to speak. 

It's not a choice (& I'm jonesing)...living conditions changed a bunch lately to places w/no WiFi to places w/WiFi that drops you out every other (if lucky) or every battle multiple times. But even that was preferable to present w/no WiFi.

A truck that didn't want to smog (but finally did about a week ago) has been soaking up resources for many many months.

WHEN...SOON™...maybe...hopefully...I don't know for sure...saving up $ for a new place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,429 posts
6,898 battles
56 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

It's not a choice (& I'm jonesing)...living conditions changed a bunch lately to places w/no WiFi to places w/WiFi that drops you out every other (if lucky) or every battle multiple times. But even that was preferable to present w/no WiFi.

A truck that didn't want to smog (but finally did about a week ago) has been soaking up resources for many many months.

WHEN...SOON™...maybe...hopefully...I don't know for sure...saving up $ for a new place.

Yeah..good your saving for that new place - Best of luck as thats a top priority fer sure!    Some vehicle expenses can be high if it fails smog depending on the issue and code it spits out.  Luckily our county in Utah doesn't have smog emissions testing but they say it might !  As for WIFI thats not consistent  can be a frustrating experience especially when your in battle and looks like your gonna go for the kill !  Hopefully your new local will not be in that situation.    FYI - check this site on vehicle problems for your vehicle or vehicle you are interested in: carcomplaints.com 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×