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

What does the spreadsheet say?

86 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

190
[ANK-A]
Members
437 posts
13,410 battles

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

  • Cool 14
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 10
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KERMT]
Members
1,003 posts
1 hour ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

If you are talking about 'new' players starting at tier 1-4, they don't.
I come across it a lot where the person has bought a tier 8 premium and some how that is his first random battles game 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,900
Alpha Tester
6,440 posts
3,249 battles
1 hour ago, SatansOilcan said:

I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

Maybe that's just it. Maybe Ilya Bryzgalov was right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[TDRB]
Members
5,123 posts
13,731 battles
3 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

People are different, I'd rather play blowouts than lose a 15 minute or longer close battles. Playing a chess game with 12 people moving the pieces does not sound like fun.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,083
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,022 posts
11,568 battles
3 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.

The counter play exists - dodge, use sectors, AA, etc. Problem is that across the board - Wargaming is looking at spreadsheet, and are so out of touch they don't realize what the numbers mean without proper context. And when they do listen, namely on CV's - they are listening to the wrong people, the 'uneducated masses' for lack of a better term right now that frankly have no clue what they are talking about. Case in point - nerfing Hosho TB's the last 3 times. They are responding to symptom, people notice, but not the cause. The cause of Hosho's TB's seeming OP is the lack of properly balanced AA at the tier by any margin - an issue that goes through the tiers. A Dev was literally on this forum over a year ago in a thread, people were talking about plane losses and at one point his response was 'If damage, potential damage, and winrate are good why do plane losses matter?'. 

Look at a spread sheet, see 50% WR, 60k damage, and 150k potential on average - well, that may seem balanced on paper. Context is important because in the above point - plane losses are important to all 3 of those numbers. If, when paired against +2 the Winrate is 70%, damage is 90k, and potential is 225k, and -2 it's 30%, 30k, and 75k - that's not balanced, it's two extremes generating a balanced number. 

If you don't understand why a number is the way it is, then it's meaningless.There was a time when the Kami clones were considered inferior to Minekaze because of the shorter torpedo range, but they still outperformed them, look at most premiums that are near if not duplicates of tech tree ships, many still perform better. Part of that is simply the captains - people more often throwing 10+ point captains into premiums, that have then better stealth, more HP, more consumables, etc than a tech tree ship more likely to have a lower point captain as a player progresses. Between that and more likely outside collectors those who buy and actively play it will likely be those who are most comfortable with that style, as opposed to someone trying a tech tree out where that ship or that line doesn't fit them. Which skews the stats upwards a bit for them, downwards for tech tree ships, so two ships that might normally be at 50% may be at 48% and 52%. Hell even Camo/colours can be a factor (some of the brighter ships in terms of camo/skin actually have lower stats than counterparts likely due to being easier to see against things and land hits when aiming). 

A spreadsheet on it's own is just as unreliable a player feedback on it's own - you need to use both to have a better picture, and understand that if the numbers say one thing but the players another, that the numbers may be created by an issue that the players are complaining about, not simply unfounded whining.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,327
Members
1,423 posts
7,116 battles
5 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

The game has become full of everyone deserves a trophy baddies. High tiers are full of players who average 12-20k damage in tier 8-10 ships with 20% survival rates. The game has always had bad players but many of the good players have bailed from playing randoms and filling the void is more baddies. Like I have said before the game is no longer about what team has the best players, but what teams baddies will fail first.

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,437 posts
6,489 battles
7 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

Spreadsheet says..average NA server population for last 1.5 years is showing  stable to slight growth for 1st time in a long time....  Someone is enjoying it.   Our own reality or experience does not always reflect that of the masses, though, that sentiment is quite uncommon on these forums.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[SALVO]
Members
4,357 posts
3,781 battles
4 hours ago, kgh52 said:

People are different, I'd rather play blowouts than lose a 15 minute or longer close battles. Playing a chess game with 12 people moving the pieces does not sound like fun.

 

I'm curious on the reason why do you play the game?

I like to play the game, in blowouts sometimes I'm barely able to do it, the game is over just when the "action" is starting. I don't like blowouts because they prevent me or severely shortens the effective playing of the game.

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
829 posts
5,758 battles
7 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun".  Nearly every game is a complete blowout for one team.  Talent, through randomness is largely, statistically one sided.  The gaming experience is just becoming crap.  Wargaming gives surveys about would I recommend this game, but no text field to describe why.  It used to be an absolute yes, but I would never ever recommend this game to anyone based upon the play experience today. 

I need somebody with some business acumen to help me understand the model they are using.  New player experience is terrible with the "just dodge" saturation of CVs that can't be counterplayed.  Experienced players have widely become disenchanted with 90% of the games predetermined by matchmaker staking talent on one team.  I don't see how this game is fun for anyone save the very small number of players that don't care about competing for a win. 

 

 

At this point the only reason I linger around is the money I’ve invested but that’s come to a stop. The quality of teams and randoms where I usually play is awful. Even taking breaks from this game doesn’t really work any more. I take a break for a month or two, come back, and immediately go back to not playing. Player numbers don’t really indicate health in my book. I’m sure WG would disagree but burning up good will with your vets to pull in new players will reduce the level of play for everyone. I’ve downplayed what that meant in the early days of CV rework but now see how wrong I was. Luckily I found other better games.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers, Volunteer Moderator
278 posts
6,152 battles

What do you all consider a "blow-out"?   That term itself can be misleading.   If I lose with 8 left on the enemy team but they are all below 1/4 health, that wasn't a blow-out... it was a screw up not concentrating fire and knocking guns out of the game, but not a blow-out based off the damage and fight my team put up.    

I just get concerned that "blow-out games" is being thrown around too much.   I can't say much lately as I've been playing more co-op than randoms due to doing directives... but I just never see a ton of blow-out games when I play randoms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[TDRB]
Members
5,123 posts
13,731 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

I'm curious on the reason why do you play the game?

I like to play the game, in blowouts sometimes I'm barely able to do it, the game is over just when the "action" is starting. I don't like blowouts because they prevent me or severely shortens the effective playing of the game.

To answer your question, to be entertained and have some fun.

I also realize there will always be more blowouts than tightly contested bouts.

 We complain about several losses in a row but say very little when we are on a win streak. I believe it is safe to assume that the vast majority of complaints about blowouts come from players suffering a streak of losses. The real cause of anger is not the blowouts but the losing streak.

You complain about losing on the forum you receive a lot of criticism & "get gud" replies. You complain about blowouts & the potatoes that caused them & many support your view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[TIMT]
Members
639 posts
3,404 battles
31 minutes ago, DEWEY_96_ said:

What do you all consider a "blow-out"?   That term itself can be misleading.   If I lose with 8 left on the enemy team but they are all below 1/4 health, that wasn't a blow-out... it was a screw up not concentrating fire and knocking guns out of the game, but not a blow-out based off the damage and fight my team put up.    

I just get concerned that "blow-out games" is being thrown around too much.   I can't say much lately as I've been playing more co-op than randoms due to doing directives... but I just never see a ton of blow-out games when I play randoms.  

For me there is no clear cut definition, but usually it is when one team clearly dominates and crushes the other team. Games often last in the 6-12 minute range, but often they are 'over' after only 5-8 minutes because a significant portion of one team has died. Given that the first 2-3 minutes are often just people getting into position this means the first encounter between ships is decisively won/lost, that everything after this just feels meaningless.

You are right, there are instances where the final score of survivors after a long game is something like 9-0, where the other winning team was just better at focusing and preserving firepower. This happens more in higher tiers because ships in general are far 'deadlier' than in lower tiers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[MHG]
Members
228 posts
16,679 battles
28 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

To answer your question, to be entertained and have some fun.

I also realize there will always be more blowouts than tightly contested bouts.

 We complain about several losses in a row but say very little when we are on a win streak. I believe it is safe to assume that the vast majority of complaints about blowouts come from players suffering a streak of losses. The real cause of anger is not the blowouts but the losing streak.

You complain about losing on the forum you receive a lot of criticism & "get gud" replies. You complain about blowouts & the potatoes that caused them & many support your view.

One look at your survival rate and I see why you are not concerned with blowouts. Blowouts are matches where your team falls like dominoes in quick succession. Anyone who plays to win, tries to contribute to bring about a win and effect the match will not like a blowout. I do not even like blowouts where I'm on the winning side, because it means more often than not, that I was unable to exert my presence on the match. Very close long matches? I love those. Especially when I'm alive and able to contribute during that time. But I can see why one would not want 20 minute matches when they consistently die within the first 5 minutes. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
452
Members
430 posts
4 hours ago, USMC2145 said:

The game has become full of everyone deserves a trophy baddies. High tiers are full of players who average 12-20k damage in tier 8-10 ships with 20% survival rates. The game has always had bad players but many of the good players have bailed from playing randoms and filling the void is more baddies. Like I have said before the game is no longer about what team has the best players, but what teams baddies will fail first.

 

He is right.png

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,783
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,214 posts
9,340 battles
6 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

The counter play exists - dodge, use sectors, AA

None of these make for a credible counter-play against CVs. And did you just write "JuSt DoDgE RoCkEtS" non-ironically? :cap_wander:

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,187 posts
11 hours ago, SatansOilcan said:

We all know the spreadsheets say we're having "fun"

What spreadsheet say is WeeGee making money, thats only spreadsheet WG cares about

Edited by bosco1111
missed word
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,416 battles
7 hours ago, kgh52 said:

a 15 minute or longer close battles.

This is exactly the type of battle a particular player group wants - a close, enjoyable fight W or L & this was the type of battle seen a lot in the early game.

 Now WF caters to the attention span challenged kiddie krowd so you, kgh52, ought to be satisfied.

  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[TDRB]
Members
5,123 posts
13,731 battles
3 hours ago, OnociTsalk said:

One look at your survival rate and I see why you are not concerned with blowouts. . Anyone who plays to win, tries to contribute to bring about a win and effect the match will not like a blowout. I do not even like blowouts where I'm on the winning side, because it means more often than not, that I was unable to exert my presence on the match. Very close long matches? I love those. Especially when I'm alive and able to contribute during that time. But I can see why one would not want 20 minute matches when they consistently die within the first 5 minutes. 

 

2 hours ago, Antean said:

This is exactly the type of battle a particular player group wants - a close, enjoyable fight W or L & this was the type of battle seen a lot in the early game.

 Now WF caters to the attention span challenged kiddie krowd so you, kgh52, ought to be satisfied.

Both opinions are supported by insults. One insults using the 3rd person while the other is content with the "in your face" approach. Such attitudes are a major contributing factor in the hostility we see in this game and show they have nothing valid to support their opinion.

The hostility in randoms is one reason why I play ops & coops far more often than PVP battle modes.

While there are a very,very small percentage (<1% I'd say) of people that enter a battle to create grief, the overwhelmingly vast majority,  enter battle with hopes of winning.

Players hoping to win go into battle hoping to sink several red ships before they are sunk themselves or other teammates are sunk. This can be a long drawn out affair or a rather quick job. But the only way to insure a 12 to 20 minute battle is to let enemy ships survive when you have them pinned. That is contrary to "trying to win". 

Quick wins greatly reduce the opposing team's ability to recover & grab a win out of the jaws of defeat.

One points to "the early game". It is well known the "good ol' days" are far more fantasy than reality. We humans tend to forget the bad & remember the good.

 

 

 

Edited by kgh52
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[MHG]
Members
228 posts
16,679 battles
52 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

 

Both opinions are supported by insults. One insults using the 3rd person while the other is content with the "in your face" approach. Such attitudes are a major contributing factor in the hostility we see in this game and show they have nothing valid to support their opinion.

The hostility in randoms is one reason why I play ops & coops far more often than PVP battle modes.

While there are a very,very small percentage (<1% I'd say) of people that enter a battle to create grief, the overwhelmingly vast majority,  enter battle with hopes of winning.

Players hoping to win go into battle hoping to sink several red ships before they are sunk themselves or other teammates are sunk. This can be a long drawn out affair or a rather quick job. But the only way to insure a 12 to 20 minute battle is to let enemy ships survive when you have them pinned. That is contrary to "trying to win". 

Quick wins greatly reduce the opposing team's ability to recover & grab a win out of the jaws of defeat.

One points to "the early game". It is well known the "good ol' days" are far more fantasy than reality. We humans tend to forget the bad & remember the good.

 

 

 

Wasn't meant as an insult. Anyways, the strategy of rushing does not work. For the first 1000 games or so, I would just rush in with DDs trying to get torpedo hits because torps gives more damage. Over time, playing with better players and trying to learn the game you figure out that YOLO rushes do not work. It is important to deal damage to the right targets for the longest possible time. 

I just want to mention one more thing. When discussing with clan mates/friends about strategies with playing ships, be it going stealth torp build/ gun boat build on say the Grozovoi or taking range/reload mod on certain high tier cruisers, we discuss what we are currently using, compare the results we obtain with others, maybe test out what the other guy is doing and see if that works for us. I have over time changed many things about how I go with captain skills and upgrades after seeing that there either better builds or at least builds that are more suited to my style of play. And the foundation of this lies at looking and understanding what results we obtain with said strategies/builds. 

Similarly, I would urge you to either ask other players who are a lot better than me or watch some good streamers. Compare their results, in terms of wins, kills, damage and everything else that is tracked. You just might find that staying alive is a key component to all players who have good results, not the only one though. Again, not trying to insult, but asking you to just take a look at what makes other successful players do well consistently.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[TDRB]
Members
5,123 posts
13,731 battles
17 minutes ago, OnociTsalk said:

Wasn't meant as an insult. Anyways, the strategy of rushing does not work. For the first 1000 games or so, I would just rush in with DDs trying to get torpedo hits because torps gives more damage. Over time, playing with better players and trying to learn the game you figure out that YOLO rushes do not work. It is important to deal damage to the right targets for the longest possible time. 

I just want to mention one more thing. When discussing with clan mates/friends about strategies with playing ships, be it going stealth torp build/ gun boat build on say the Grozovoi or taking range/reload mod on certain high tier cruisers, we discuss what we are currently using, compare the results we obtain with others, maybe test out what the other guy is doing and see if that works for us. I have over time changed many things about how I go with captain skills and upgrades after seeing that there either better builds or at least builds that are more suited to my style of play. And the foundation of this lies at looking and understanding what results we obtain with said strategies/builds. 

Similarly, I would urge you to either ask other players who are a lot better than me or watch some good streamers. Compare their results, in terms of wins, kills, damage and everything else that is tracked. You just might find that staying alive is a key component to all players who have good results, not the only one though. Again, not trying to insult, but asking you to just take a look at what makes other successful players do well consistently. 

My comments are in the context of having fun. I'm rather be on the winning team and the quicker we win the more I like it. If I wanted a chess match I would study the chess masters & play that game.

 

I have NOT! made any comment remotely related to game strategy.  But since you brought it up I will say this.

Far, far more important than strategy is situational awareness & how quick we react. 

There is a time to play passive & a time to be aggressive. The better you understand when you do one or the other the better you play. Of course in PVP the enemy can counter any move you make. 

You most likely heard the old adage "no plan survive 1st contact with the enemy. What matters is how quickly the leaders (in this game we as there are no leaders) adapt.

The quicker we react with the better move the quicker the battle is over.

 

I'll take your word that you were not trying to insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,992 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

Far, far more important than strategy is situational awareness & how quick we react. 

There is a time to play passive & a time to be aggressive. The better you understand when you do one or the other the better you play. Of course in PVP the enemy can counter any move you make. 

The problem with all the blowouts is that neither the newbies or the returning oldies have somewhere to learn how to not be so bad.  And even the unicum skills suffer as a result of having such poor play dominate the game.

I think it was Jack Nicholson who said to always play with people who are better than you.  That's how you get better.  This is a team game and it's randoms so that's pretty hard to replicate here. 

But I think the concept of poor play leading to poorer play remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,083
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,022 posts
11,568 battles
4 hours ago, vak_ said:

None of these make for a credible counter-play against CVs. And did you just write "JuSt DoDgE RoCkEtS" non-ironically? :cap_wander:

Both Ironically and non-ironically at the same time actually.

Dodging all ordnance, even rockets, is possible - though harder on larger, less mobile ships. 

DD's can use an additional layer of stealth - by the time a CV spots you with AA off he's too close to initiate an attack run (other than maybe a long shot if your both going the same direction and he slams the breaks hard and fast enough) with rockets, maybe a rushed one with bombs. Which with what few DD's have good AA is an extra trap given the extended time to circle back for an attack run. To say nothing of a CV can not see you in smoke unaided - any hits are either luck, well educated guesses, or an approximation based on AA fire - that still otherwise does not give away position like it used to.

AA when balanced right, especially combined with sectors, is quite effective at reducing damage by forcing a squadron away to preserve numbers or by destroying aircraft. The problem is right now Wargaming's balance is ll over the place with most tier 3-7 ships needing AA buffs and many tier 8-10 ships needing nerfs though even a few of them like Yamato need buffs. Which on one balance too low they seem ineffective while on something like Minotaur's that is absolutely broken (and I say this as a Minotaur owner) the other way being way too strong - it's an absolute plane shredding nightmare that re-verifies the fact CV's only have TECHNICALLY unlimited planes, but PRACTICALLY still run out of them. 

To say nothing of actually working with the team, in which groups will usually deter attacks, not to mention make them harder because it is hard to aim when flak from a second ship obscures the target to say nothing of the damage taken if you aren't still dodging bursts or the loss to accuracy by doing so. 

Despite what people think - CV's have limitations, just like any other class. Their just different from others where you can't hide behind an island spraying IFHE, or use your heavy armour, etc. And most people will never fully get it because they refuse to move past tier 4 and formerly 5 - which confirms their viewpoint despite any rational CV player acknowledging that low tier balance has been an issue for years and some of us have been fighting to get it corrected. But as you get to 6 and 8 now and start having to deal with certain ships, the static group gameplay, etc - it's a whole different ballgame. 

Yeah, I play CV's, not nearly as much as I once did because the new gameplay is boring af to me. But I play the other classes just as much (more in the case of BB's) as I do them, and I play every line. And I have few issues using these - other than situations in which the problem is actually balance. But then again because I play CV's - I know at what range they'll start the attack run and so time my dodges right as he has to start it, or adjust course to remove an attack angle with islands, let the first strike through so that I hammer them after they pass over and have to come around for a second strike, etc.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[TDRB]
Members
5,123 posts
13,731 battles
6 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

The problem with all the blowouts is that neither the newbies or the returning oldies have somewhere to learn how to not be so bad.  And even the unicum skills suffer as a result of having such poor play dominate the game.

I think it was Jack Nicholson who said to always play with people who are better than you.  That's how you get better.  This is a team game and it's randoms so that's pretty hard to replicate here. 

But I think the concept of poor play leading to poorer play remains the same.

The problem is outside of 7 man divisions in ops & clan battles there are no teams. It randoms we have 2 groups of 12 individual players tossed together by the MM mechanic battling each other.

The concept is good players need to be challenged to keep their skills honed to a sharp edge. It does not work in reverse. Not all poor players are the same, some are better than others. they, in fact, help players labeled as potatoes improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,518
[HINON]
Members
13,243 posts

 Blowouts have always been a thing in a shooter game like this with no respawns or comeback mechanics. Once snow starts rolling it's hard to stop the avalanche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
204
[PN]
Members
217 posts
9,393 battles
7 hours ago, kgh52 said:

To answer your question, to be entertained and have some fun.

I also realize there will always be more blowouts than tightly contested bouts.

 We complain about several losses in a row but say very little when we are on a win streak. I believe it is safe to assume that the vast majority of complaints about blowouts come from players suffering a streak of losses. The real cause of anger is not the blowouts but the losing streak.

You complain about losing on the forum you receive a lot of criticism & "get gud" replies. You complain about blowouts & the potatoes that caused them & many support your view.

Ahem.  I call bull**** on this.

 

Winning blowouts is JUST as bad, if not moreso.  You win, but you can barely do any damage, get a kill, etc.  For those of us who are invested in the game enough to try and be good at it (I see you're not, and that's fine) we can't stand blowouts in ANY fashion.

 

What this game needs if a mode for people who just want to go shoot something and have fun, and stay out of random games where many of us care about quality games.  Wait.  There is one.  It's called coop.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

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.

×