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

How to solve the lack of team play, scrub player issue and a whole lot more

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

290
[WTAF]
Members
514 posts
16,774 battles

 

We've all watched WoWS degrade over the last 3 years from an outstanding game to the travesty it is today. This is due to a bunch of factors, however, the vast majority of them can be fixed with some very simple changes. Below is a partial list.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We all know how bad the player base has become with the complete lack of player skill at high tiers and the lack of teamwork/people doing their jobs. This is so easily solved it disgusts me that it hasn't been done.

1. Change the scoring base to 250 XP for the losers, 2,500 for the winners. Add in camo/flags after that for a final score. This code already exists in Clan Battles; no one can successfully argue that it isn't fair.

2. No score or credit additions for achievements. They already give flag rewards; rewarding them with score/creds makes it too tempting to say "screw the team". This one is optional, but implementing it can only do good.

3. The losing team gets no achievements. This is a no-brainer. We've all seen dozens if not hundreds of games where a player threw away a win to try for HC, Kraken or Confederate. This prevents that.

4. Voluntary team-based in-game chat. One of the core reasons why Randoms are so frustrating to play is the lack of communication, but we all know how messy it would get if everyone had to type, which is exactly why people don't communicate. I constantly hear "Player X lost the game for us because he did (X) or didn't do (X)". You can't expect a player to read minds; if you don't tell people what YOU plan on doing, it's on YOU, not the other players. I always do so, every game. Sure, you get the occasional idiot who calls you an armchair admiral, but those are the people who aren't team players to begin with, and they'd change their tune quickly with this system. And obviously anyone who doesn't get in chat will quickly develop a reputation. While this won't stop them from hopping in games and yoloing, there are other ways to penalize those players. They could, for example, get a red flag for not being in chat. Enough red flags and you are pinked.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The current pinky system sucks, plain and simple. We've all been penalized for damaging a teamie, and while there SHOULD be a penalty for TKing, it should never be automatic. Solving that problem is so simple it is ridiculous.

1. You are not pinked for damaging a bot. Bots are stupid, albeit less so than most Random players.

2. If you damage a teamie, you are not automatically pinked. The damaged player has the option to report you via right-click for TKing. THEN you are pinked, with the appropriate penalty. The mechanism for that is already in place, and would just need a few lines of code to make it happen.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As far as the utter lack of skill for most players, another easy solution.

Players aren't allowed into Random Battles for higher tiers until they have achieved a certain number of Randoms in lower tiers. Here's a model:

   A. T6 ships require 350 Random games or 230 Random wins.

   B. T7 requires 500 or 330 wins.

   C. T8 requires 700 or 460 wins.

   D. T9 requires 850 or 560 wins.

   E. T10 requires 1,000 or 660 wins.

Alternately, the model can be changed by removing the minimum game criteria and just basing it on wins, i.e. 230 lets you play T6, 330 lets you play T7 etc. I'd even entertain the idea of setting the bar to include double the number of Co-op battles, either as a replacement for Randoms or as an alternate requirement.

Since their goal is to manipulate players into spending real money/doubloons to get to high tiers, if players are foolish enough to hop on the grinding hamster wheel, most will spend money to get tons of flags and camo to better their odds of a win, as well as buying premium ships to have an edge (even though premium ships rarely give much of an edge, which makes one wonder why people buy them). By the time they are able to play T10's, they'll have enough skill at playing that they won't impact the play and score of players who DO know what they're doing.

Another way of doing it would be to allow tier play based on Random WR. I don't favor this system, but it is better than nothing. If this was the criteria, it would be better to have MM based on WR.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Everyone hates the 2 tier spread for Randoms. It has been brought up thousands of times, with no response from WG. Their lame excuse of "it promotes diversity" is a baldfaced lie, plain and simple. There is no legitimate reason for it; no one wants it. Get rid of it. One tier is fine, two is ridiculous and has caused some players to quit the game entirely.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Start listening to the player base again. This used to be the case, and when they implemented the stealth fire nerf, despite 90% of the player base not wanting it done, it kicked the ball downhill and it has been rolling ever since. Every successful business model in the world is based on giving the customer what they want. Most UNSUCCESSFUL ones are due to the company either ignoring their customer base's desires or basing their product on what THEY want. It is a surefire way to kill a company. A great example is Apple Inc. Steve Jobs was known for finding out what customers wanted and making it happen. Apple did well when he was with them, then they ousted him and nearly died off. They brought him back, and before he croaked he made them into what they are today.

Roboresponses to tickets are a horrid idea. Over and over again the world has proved that automated responses to customers is a terrible business idea. People want to know that their questions and concerns are being addressed by something with lungs, a heart, a humanoid physique and a functioning brain, something that they can identify with. This is why so many companies suffered revenue loss when they outsourced their tech support to a well-known country whose tech support consists of reading questions off a scorecard and having little or no knowledge of the product or potential/actual issues.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Get rid of the idiotic "first place loser in Ranked saves a star". Another mechanic that no one wants. Again, there has never been an explanation for why this exists, or why the player base has been ignored and it hasn't been removed.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FIX THE PT SYSTEM. The current system is an utter joke. Nothing is really "tested" on the PT servers. Allowing "supertesters" to bring unreleased ships into Random games is grossly unfair to the players, and accomplishes nothing. If you want to test ships properly, pick random players to test them and reward them accordingly. You'll get a truly reliable test, because it is these very players who will end up using/buying the ships. And for God's sake do not allow employees to play the game. Not only does that leave a huge opening for people to accuse a company of developing product for their own desires, it looks super-shady. It's a downright horrible policy.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bring down the prices of products. Pricing a mid-tier ship at the cost of 2-3 entire PC games is crazy. Only a fool would pay $40 for a Duke of York when he can buy three or more games on Steam for that price, especially when the premium ships are purposefully weakened in order to achieve "balance". If I were to pay $40 for a ship, I would and should expect it to be much better than a tech tree ship. Otherwise, what's the point of buying it? To make extra credits? I can do that by spending money on premium time, which allows me to play ANY ship and get the same rewards. And get rid of the bundles, dress-up commanders with no perks, and other overpriced crap that no one even wants and that is just there for the occasional fish to nibble at.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stop thinking you are smarter than the player base. When you lie to the players, you WILL be outed, plain and simple. This policy has caused thousands of players to quit. The lies aren't even good ones; for example, when stealth fire was nerfed, several premium ships, which players paid for, were nerfed. Hell, Blyskawica was SOLD base don stealth fire, it was in the description in the premium shop. It could have been exempted from the nerf, but the lie was "it is a blanket nerf, so it can't be exempted". Complete bullcrap, as evidenced by the implementation of CV fighters being penalized by losing a plane if they broke off a dogfight EXCEPT for the Saipan.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Implement these things and overnight the game changes. There is no way anyone can successfully argue that these system aren't better than the current ones. WG had a goose that laid golden eggs, and has systematically stripped its feathers, decapitated it, stuffed it and is about to shove it in the oven. Make these changes and maybe one of the eggs will hatch into another goose. Fail to do so and you'll have a cooked goose. You'll eat well for a while, but in the end you'll have a pile of bones and no more eggs.

 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 6
  • Boring 24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,359
[SALVO]
Members
8,341 posts
6,181 battles

Dude, the only real, effective and tested method:

FIX YOURSELF AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS AND WHAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[WTAF]
Members
514 posts
16,774 battles
22 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Dude, the only real, effective and tested method:

FIX YOURSELF AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS AND WHAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE

This is so ridiculous I'm angry at myself for taking the time to post how ridiculous it is.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,792 posts
23,987 battles

I stopped reading after "the vast majority of them can be fixed with some very simple changes".

It's a different player base now. The early players cared about strategy, tactics, etc. The current population wants to be out for a joy ride and don't care for learning the game.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,359
[SALVO]
Members
8,341 posts
6,181 battles
14 minutes ago, War_Maggot said:

This is so ridiculous I'm angry at myself for taking the time to post how ridiculous it is.

Dude, I commend you on your effort of posting such a lenghty proposal. I'm sorry you are only getting as feedback my mostly unrelated post, but truth is your proposals really are not worth a thorough discussion.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[D33P6]
Members
572 posts

You'll never get actual teamwork in random.  You might find some or very little in ranked.  You'll only find it in Clan Battles with the use of voice comms.

You might find some team work in random as some players are willing to communicate through chat or pings on the map but its extremely rare.

A lot of players want to get in a battle, finish it quickly and get into the next.  You ever notice those players that sail straight into cap/enemy, stop and die?  They don't want team work, they want a possible free win, some experience and another battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,618
Members
1,527 posts
7,165 battles
11 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

 

It's a different player base now. The early players cared about strategy, tactics, etc. The current population wants to be out for a joy ride and don't care for learning the game.

 

And this is the reason for the downfall and even death of many games. When the player base stops caring about the game or learning how it works the devs have to keep dumbing it down to the point of it being so boring none want to play it. The CV rework is an example of dumbing down the game and that dumbing down made things worse. 

 

Edited by USMC2145
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[WTAF]
Members
514 posts
16,774 battles
1 hour ago, USMC2145 said:

And this is the reason for the downfall and even death of many games. When the player base stops caring about the game or learning how it works the devs have to keep dumbing it down to the point of it being so boring none want to play it. The CV rework is an example of dumbing down the game and that dumbing down made things worse. 

 

Exactly. Most players know the reason for the game's downfall. Apparently WG doesn't seem to care enough to address it.

I didn't post these as fodder for a discussion, Arlskandr. And what sneakydevil and Headsplit posted just reiterates that the changes I listed are necessary. The game as it stands caters to and encourages meatheads who rush from game to game yoloing and never learning how to play. The changes I listed prevent that from happening.

Here's the skinny: The players that are willing to pay to play this game are not the "rush in, die, rinse and repeat" crowd, who are mostly composed of kids. They are the adult crowd, who for the most part DO want to learn how to play and DO invest time and money. Out of those two demos, who do you think even HAS the money to spend? It is the latter. The people that are complaining about the current state of the game? Again, the latter.

If this game continues to devolve into one where the kiddies are the dominant player base, it is doomed. They're not the ones paying the bills.

One thing I left out: Cheating has to be cracked down on, HARD. They used to do that, and lately they not only don't bother, they actually condone it. They've known about people reskinning ships to show citadels for a long time, and instead of addressing it they actually say "it's only a small percentage". In other words, as long as only a few people (in their minds) are cheating, it's OK to cheat. How stupid can a company be? Aimbots, in-depth cheat programs and the like are becoming commonplace, to the point where some clans brag about their cheats being outed and that they'll have a new one in place within a month. This started on the Asian sever (shocker, I know) and was pretty much limited to there. Then WG came up with the brilliant and as-yet unexplained (as far as reasoning) idea to allow accounts to transfer to other servers. If you give it any thought, it's obvious that this was pushed by Asian server players. Go look at the metrics: how many NA players migrated to the Asian server? How many migrated from Asian to NA? Any idiot could figure out the motives, and I make a living doing just that.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
[OIL-1]
Members
1,522 posts

The goal is to get a group of people to show up at the park.

Offering #1. Free hamburgers for the kids.
Not many people showed up.

Offering #2. 50 cent hamburgers for the kids.
A lot of people showed up.

It's called Marketing 101.
While the first offer is clearly the better deal, the second offer reflects the herd mentality,
which is that they want a good deal, but they still want to spend money.

While your proposal is well thought out, it lacks any realistic buisness aspects,
which is the top concern when you have to meet payroll & executive bonuses.

I give you an A for effort, but your proposal is going straight into the shredder.
Better luck next time.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[PVE]
Members
8,507 posts
24,689 battles
2 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

...tech consists of reading questions off a scorecard and having little or no knowledge of the product or potential/actual issues...

...And for God's sake do not allow employees to play the game. Not only does that leave a huge opening for people to accuse a company of developing product for their own desires, it looks super-shady. It's a downright horrible policy.

How (pray tell) is tech supposed to get "knowledge of the product or potential/actual issue" if they "(for God's sake) do not allow employees to play the game"?

SUCCESSFUL business step #1: Find something YOU enjoy doing & DO IT!!!

I'll give you credit...this is definitely a 180° deviance from all the "WG devs obviously never play their own game" threads (which is just as bad as it also assumes just because it's not the way they want it to be that it's obviously wrong)...but your credit is short lived when you suggest that enjoying making money off of something you enjoy doing is "super-shady" & a "downright horrible policy".

Who cares if WG only developed products for their own desires as long as they allow anybody that wants to to play for free (OMG... did I just spoil your whole "super shady" conspiracy theory by pointing out that spending money is optional).

_ (<---I've provided that line for you to fill w/examples about all the different "shady"/underhanded/gambling/etc money grubbing policies because that one letter's worth is even more than I care about them). F2P is an option...if you choose any other course & aren't satisfied...I don't care.

& that is coming from somebody that bought the Atlanta & the perma camo for Gearing to grind ECXP between the 2 only to have the very same stealth firing removal you were whining about removed shortly afterwards making me need to remove AFT from the Gearing commander & thus making the commander the worst possible option on the Atlanta (a few have argued against this but personal preference I say)...& I still don't care...their game...they can do what they want.

WG is in the process of trying to make a change in the game that the devs have wanted to make since day 1...the inclusion of subs (along w/CVs & the other 3 ship types)...& they do not care how many don't want them because since day 1 they have been making a game they enjoy playing...they have offered it for free for any that wish to join & if you enjoy it they are happy for that.

If you do not they will attempt to make changes to make the player base happy as long as it conforms to their vision of what they wish the game to be (or at least doesn't greatly differ from it) but if you think making a single rant post w/over 1/2 a dozen things that all need to be changed to make the game "good" for you then you must be short sighted to not realize what is best for them is to just see you move on because you have shown that no matter what they may change you are never gonna be anything other than somebody that complains & what company in their right mind wants to keep customers like that around...no matter how much you enjoyed the game 3 years ago?

& No...not taking the bait on the follow up: only people that pay are dedicated enough to get better/"remove cheaters" post...yawn.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,191 posts
6,243 battles
5 hours ago, USMC2145 said:

And this is the reason for the downfall and even death of many games. When the player base stops caring about the game or learning how it works the devs have to keep dumbing it down to the point of it being so boring none want to play it. The CV rework is an example of dumbing down the game and that dumbing down made things worse. 

 

To be fair, the game can't be full of "elite" players - there has to be a constant pool of casuals to keep the queues filled.

League of Legends and MOBAs run on that mentality - there are the cream of the crop and the people who want to blow some steam off at the end of the day.

Though I played in the Alpha, I'm more of the latter than the former. 

The only thing you can really do is improve your own personal game and help your team push the objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[WTAF]
Members
514 posts
16,774 battles

Square 1: If you don't make a product OTHER PEOPLE want to pay for, you sell nothing. They can have whatever pie-in-the-sky vision they like, and sit there playing their game 24x7. That isn't going to make people open their wallets. Allowing employees to play the game in a non-developer mode encourages them to make and implement changes based on what they like, which brings us right back to square 1. Only an idiot hands over cash for something they don't like or don't want. Subs? Let me quote: "You will never, ever see submarines in WOWS". Want to take a guess at who said that?

Your successful business step #1 isn't even close. Step #1 is Find a void and fill it. How do I know? Because I did just that when I started my own business. Anyone who owns a successful business will advise you never to try to make a living at doing what you like. When you do, it no longer becomes a hobby. You have to do what the customer wants, otherwise your business tanks. why? Right back to square 1.

Go ahead and do what you enjoy. Expect people to pay for it and it's a whole different ballgame. And the whole "who cares as long as it's free" line doesn't fly. The minute they start selling ANYTHING it is not free. Selling something and subsequently changing the product is shady business practice at best, and is illegal in some countries. Your lack of business knowledge is evident, as is your lack of reading comprehension. As I said in the post, the points I made are not even debatable. They are what the CUSTOMER has been asking for, plain and simple. If you're stupid enough to have the "it's their game, they can do what they want" attitude after having spent money on it, you're the dream customer of every business. In fact, I have a bridge you might be interested in...........

Answer this, Z9: Which hamburger table would YOU go to? Are you claiming you are different from the herd? That has to be the most egotistical, self-centered thing I've heard in these forums yet, and is an insult to pretty much everyone.

His concept that more people will show up to pay for hamburgers than will show up for free hamburgers is, well, idiotic. He is attempting to reference a very old business philosophy, which didn't work before the Internet came to be, and sure as shizzle doesn't fly now. You sell a widget online for $1 when there are 3 other sites selling it for 5 cents, guess how many you're going to sell?

Neither of you have argued that the changes I listed weren't going to benefit the game. You both tried to come after me with the same old lame old crap; you merely enjoy hate posting and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. You'd benefit immensely from writing your posts and then reading them with an objective eye before you hit "submit reply".

I'm not going to bother checking replies to this thread. I merely put into words what 90% of the player base thinks. I have no desire to get in a contest of wits with either of you; you're unarmed, and I believe in fair play. 

 

 

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[NES]
Members
256 posts
5,529 battles

You want to fix the game? Make a casual matchmaking mode and a competitive one. Competitive will put only people of the same rank and 1 rank above or below against each other. Casual mode any of any rank can be in a game together. Do away with the current rank season system and do it that way and you'll have more consistent play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,910
[FML]
Members
4,186 posts
16,213 battles
8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

1. Change the scoring base to 250 XP for the losers, 2,500 for the winners. Add in camo/flags after that for a final score. This code already exists in Clan Battles; no one can successfully argue that it isn't fair.

I dont think this is going to fix any problem you stated.  Rubbish players will be carried to a win and receive 2.5k base XP for doing essentially nothing, and thus have no idea why their actions did not contribute to victory. Similarly, good players who go all out to force a team to win despite their best efforts will only receive 250 base XP, at which point its barely worth trying. 

In fact, I think what you propose is going to make the problem worse.  Instead, WoWS should implement more of the systems they have in WoWP, where there is even more instaneous response between action and reward to encourage new players to do more of those things that generate rewards.  

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

2. No score or credit additions for achievements. They already give flag rewards; rewarding them with score/creds makes it too tempting to say "screw the team". This one is optional, but implementing it can only do good.

3. The losing team gets no achievements. This is a no-brainer. We've all seen dozens if not hundreds of games where a player threw away a win to try for HC, Kraken or Confederate. This prevents that.

4. Voluntary team-based in-game chat. One of the core reasons why Randoms are so frustrating to play is the lack of communication, but we all know how messy it would get if everyone had to type, which is exactly why people don't communicate. I constantly hear "Player X lost the game for us because he did (X) or didn't do (X)". You can't expect a player to read minds; if you don't tell people what YOU plan on doing, it's on YOU, not the other players. I always do so, every game. Sure, you get the occasional idiot who calls you an armchair admiral, but those are the people who aren't team players to begin with, and they'd change their tune quickly with this system. And obviously anyone who doesn't get in chat will quickly develop a reputation. While this won't stop them from hopping in games and yoloing, there are other ways to penalize those players. They could, for example, get a red flag for not being in chat. Enough red flags and you are pinked.

All of these things are bad ideas.  Seems the only thing you seem interested in is punishing bad players who throw a battle, but in doing so you're working over literally every other player in a match for no actual gain.  Bad players throw battles because they are bad - not because they know they are just about to receive a HC, Confederate, Witherer or Dreadnought award.  The only thing they would know in advance is a Kraken, and thus the potential benefit of your suggestion is almost nil because how often do bad players get krakens in randoms? 

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

This used to be the case, and when they implemented the stealth fire nerf, despite 90% of the player base not wanting it done, it kicked the ball downhill and it has been rolling ever since.

Lies.  A huge proportion of the playerbase was calling for stealth fire to be changed or abolished.  Only a tiny number of skilled/experienced players knew and understood the mechanic, and thus used it to great effect.  It was also a terrible mechanic, as there was literally nothing a (eg) battleship could do about a DD OWSFing at them because a BB couldnt catch up to that DD.  Its the same reason why people complain about CVs now, and will complain about SS in the near future.  Mechanics like that are bad and should be avoided. 

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

Allowing "supertesters" to bring unreleased ships into Random games is grossly unfair to the players, and accomplishes nothing. If you want to test ships properly, pick random players to test them and reward them accordingly. You'll get a truly reliable test, because it is these very players who will end up using/buying the ships.

Wrong again.  The PTS meta usually does not reflect the 'true' meta of random battles on live servers - the numbers and quality of players in particular are lacking on PTS.  New ships need to be balanced to how they will work in the 'real world' of the live random servers.  And just because a ship is new doesnt mean its OP.  And STs are deliberately picked to be at a range of skill levels. And the new ships are rare.  So no, its not grossly unfair.  Get a grip on reality, would you please. 

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

As far as the utter lack of skill for most players, another easy solution.

Wow, great way to be condescending to the playerbase.  Instead of your proposal, I think all players who do not have a 53% WR or above should be able to play randoms, which would exclude you.  

More seriously, the number of battles (even the number of wins) does not reflect individual skill.  There are large numbers of players who have thousands or tends of thousands of battles in the 48-52% WR range; delaying their progress would achieve nothing. 

And all the bad players arent just put on your team - they are also put on the enemy team, giving you big broadsides to shoot at.  Again, get over it and yourself, tough guy.  

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

There is no way anyone can successfully argue that these system aren't better than the current ones.

Again, lies. 

As I have just demonstrated. 

 

8 hours ago, War_Maggot said:

Stop thinking you are smarter than the player base.

I think you should take up your own advice right here, champ.  

Edited by UltimateNewbie
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,280 battles

Maybe what's changed isn't "overall player skill", but rather your own skill and ability to spot (and be annoyed by) bad play and poor teamwork?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,810
[KWF]
Members
6,413 posts
7,157 battles

So, someone tries to carry the carcass of a losing team, manages to have a monster battle yet loses and gets the same XP as the guy that died in the first 2 minutes.

Pretty sure this is an excellent way to drive more people off the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,910
[FML]
Members
4,186 posts
16,213 battles
19 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

So, someone tries to carry the carcass of a losing team, manages to have a monster battle yet loses and gets the same XP as the guy that died in the first 2 minutes.

Pretty sure this is an excellent way to drive more people off the game.

Agreed 100 per cent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,126 posts
7,633 battles
3 hours ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

the scrubs at t10's problem isn't lack of games, its lack of brains.

Yes.  I can is this.  Plenty branes.

I is Smolensk in da fluffy smokes.  :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[VAST_]
Members
230 posts

How do people have time to make posts like the OP’s? And if they do, why not spend it playing the game into which they seem so emotionally invested? Do they think WG is going to read it and say “Well said, loyal customer, we are going to take your brilliant suggestions and implement them immediately, we wish we had done it this way from the start...” ?

I just can’t relate I guess. Full time job even during the virus crisis, I barely have time to get in an hour of WoWS a night and a few on days off. Sure there’s plenty of aggravating stuff but ...it’s a video game, dude. Only reason I’m writing this much is because I’m on a break at work sipping coffee for a few minutes and browsing the forums and am just astonished at these walls of text.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,792 posts
23,987 battles
3 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

So, someone tries to carry the carcass of a losing team, manages to have a monster battle yet loses and gets the same XP as the guy that died in the first 2 minutes.

Pretty sure this is an excellent way to drive more people off the game.

It's clear the OP never considered the unintended consequences of his proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,438
[SALVO]
Members
3,509 posts
7,402 battles
5 hours ago, UltimateNewbie said:

I think you should take up your own advice right here, champ.  

That is very much what I got out of that dudes posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,438
[SALVO]
Members
3,509 posts
7,402 battles
19 minutes ago, sirwill1972 said:

How do people have time to make posts like the OP’s? And if they do, why not spend it playing the game into which they seem so emotionally invested? Do they think WG is going to read it and say “Well said, loyal customer, we are going to take your brilliant suggestions and implement them immediately, we wish we had done it this way from the start...” ?

I just can’t relate I guess. Full time job even during the virus crisis, I barely have time to get in an hour of WoWS a night and a few on days off. Sure there’s plenty of aggravating stuff but ...it’s a video game, dude. Only reason I’m writing this much is because I’m on a break at work sipping coffee for a few minutes and browsing the forums and am just astonished at these walls of text.

You know. Retired people , people without jobs, people on days off. People who do have free time.  People who make the free time.  Ops post is wrong in oh sooo many ways. But atleast he has a point. Don't really see what the point of your post is though beyond [edited] about other people posting on forums.     

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[VAST_]
Members
230 posts
1 hour ago, eviltane said:

You know. Retired people , people without jobs, people on days off. People who do have free time.  People who make the free time.  Ops post is wrong in oh sooo many ways. But atleast he has a point. Don't really see what the point of your post is though beyond [edited] about other people posting on forums.     

My point? That I don’t get why people want to propose a slew of bad changes that are obviously not going to be implemented anyway. Why spend all the time and effort writing these voluminous posts? I was both asking a rhetorical question and registering my disagreement with the OP. 
 

*Edited because I feel my original post was a bit more sarcastic sounding than I intended.

Edited by sirwill1972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×