Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
alexf24

WG why do we have to have bots in Randoms?

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,071
[INTEL]
[INTEL]
Members
7,577 posts
33,822 battles

Played T4 and T5 (unusual for me) and found half the team were bots. Seriously WG? Why?

I do not mind coop, when you know the whole read team are bots and a few green ones too so watch your back for bot blind torps.

Now in Randoms we have to determine if the opponent is a bot or not? What is wrong with WG? <displeased>

Mind you this was not on off hours. Even though I would much prefer a 5x5 or similar if MM can't fill. No bots in randoms please!

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,037
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,845 posts
4,871 battles

wargaming why you got to have unicum in random? they belong in co-op

 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,744
[TBW]
Members
9,953 posts
16,768 battles
31 minutes ago, alexf24 said:

Played T4 and T5 (unusual for me) and found half the team were bots. Seriously WG? Why?

I do not mind coop, when you know the whole read team are bots and a few green ones too so watch your back for bot blind torps.

Now in Randoms we have to determine if the opponent is a bot or not? What is wrong with WG? <displeased>

Mind you this was not on off hours. Even though I would much prefer a 5x5 or similar if MM can't fill. No bots in randoms please!

Mostly because CVs have ruined the game at those tiers so they need to fill them with bots because no one wants to play them anymore.

  • Cool 12
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[WOLFG]
Members
454 posts
11,154 battles

Good way to pad your achievement numbers. I played 2 games since they added bots and got at least 3 achievements both games, with both games getting Kraken, lol. Sank 9 in one battle.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,692 posts
21,936 battles

Blame you're fellow seal clubbers who complained they couldn't get games at those tiers and didn't want 4 v 4s, etc.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[TBB]
Members
375 posts
3,514 battles

Those tiers are for people to learn, so wouldn't recommend that if you want real players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
236 posts
14 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Blame you're fellow seal clubbers who complained they couldn't get games at those tiers and didn't want 4 v 4s, etc.

Some of us are still grinding out new lines, and have to play at those levels.  4v4 isn’t fun when 2 of those 4 players are CVs.  However, there are too many bots in each battle.  I’d rather have 6v6 with 2 bots per side than 12v12 with 8 per side.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,441
[WOLF7]
Members
12,544 posts
1 hour ago, alexf24 said:

Played T4 and T5 (unusual for me) and found half the team were bots. Seriously WG? Why?

I do not mind coop, when you know the whole read team are bots and a few green ones too so watch your back for bot blind torps.

Now in Randoms we have to determine if the opponent is a bot or not? What is wrong with WG? <displeased>

Mind you this was not on off hours. Even though I would much prefer a 5x5 or similar if MM can't fill. No bots in randoms please!

Not enough new players to fill the queues. WG seems to think it's a problem. :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,692 posts
21,936 battles
2 minutes ago, SeaGladius said:

Some of us are still grinding out new lines, and have to play at those levels.  4v4 isn’t fun when 2 of those 4 players are CVs.  However, there are too many bots in each battle.  I’d rather have 6v6 with 2 bots per side than 12v12 with 8 per side.

It's more XP to grind quicker either way. I know it may not be liked by some but WG was reacting to the complaints. They'll need some time to see if it's worth reverting or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[BRSI]
Members
54 posts
2,259 battles

I like bots in randoms, it cuts down on the timidness and the hiding behind islands. The sub battles were like that and I had a blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,258 battles

Whatever the reason - the inclusion of co-op Bot players into  T 1 - 4 Random Battles is a disaster & you already have someone posting here how they can EXPLOIT battle awards.

WG Dr Jekyll has got to stop Igor from running the lab - Mr Hyde is getting meaner & uglier with each update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,102
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,623 posts

Wouldn't the need for bots to fill the ranks be based on maybe two factors?

1) New player intake is down. 

2) Too much seal clubbing. 

Seems one or both could be the logic, with or without CVs being involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[SPTR]
Members
3,765 posts
764 battles

Does it matter? It's not like there aren't players that are indistinguishable from bots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,916
[DDMAF]
Members
2,807 posts
16,070 battles
4 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Wouldn't the need for bots to fill the ranks be based on maybe two factors?

1) New player intake is down. 

2) Too much seal clubbing. 

Seems one or both could be the logic, with or without CVs being involved. 

So, here's where you''re going with this: there aren't enough players at low tiers because there are too many good players "seal clubbing" and so inexperienced players are...playing tier 9 now?? Yeah, that doesn't hold water.

New player intake is not necessarily down. There is new protected MM for them for 500 games, so the "seal clubbers" can't beat up on them. So newbs are in a whole, separate queue

Players (seal clubber or otherwise) that played low tier often are now actively avoiding it because of the insane prevalence of CVs at those tiers. Instead of fixing the root of the problem and removing the cancer (limit 1 CV per side) they have taken the low tiers to the spring at Lourdes (added bots) and said, "see? all healed up now. we worked another miracle!"

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,548 posts
33,845 battles

You do realize Alex that the bots already complained that: why are humans in Randoms?

No players show and occasionally bots want a challenge. They are curious about the human players. WG helps them with that curiosity. Bots want to improve and compete.

I would be wary of Haus. Haus is quite ambitious. He sank 5 in co-op a few times. He is a serious unicum bot player.

Rumor has it some clans want to recruit and WG is considering streaming Haus. The thematic working title is Haus is on Fire.

Soon to be a household name, Haus is making waves and covering quite a base. Current sponsors are Glidden paint and a certain brick and mortar home improvement store.

Haus has denied he is a CC, but WG just might consider it. His only other thing on his resume is an acting gig on a TV show called Bonanza.

Will he be popular? Maybe, but his addiction to chrome polish is becoming an obstacle. He also called Mr Conway a chrome dome. That is being on thin ice in my opinion.

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
939
[EQRN]
Members
1,930 posts
16,171 battles

WG could have done something to save low tiers, i.e., force T4 CVs into co op, or hard limit one CV per side, but low tiers aren’t where the $$ is, so die on the vine it is.  Next up - Scenarios.  

Only newbs and unicums play low tiers?  If I didn’t want to finish every line, that’s where I’d rather be, and I’m neither unicum nor newbie.  WG can take their gimmicked high tier fsckfest and stick it up their vodka’d arses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[DUD]
Members
706 posts
2,460 battles

Because Cvs.   Yesterday, I wanted to try out my Rhein which I just got.   Couldn't...  10 Cvs in queue and 5 actual players queued up for BB, CA, and DD in total.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,446
[O7]
Members
1,464 posts
10,414 battles

crazy there was never a shortage of players at low tiers before cv rework.

image.png.14cd8630ca2350981e4fcb5936143a65.png

good thing wargaming is making the game as dull and easy as possible to appeal to new players!

 

Edited by ITZ_ACE_BABY
  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,686 posts
5,943 battles
4 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Wouldn't the need for bots to fill the ranks be based on maybe two factors?

1) New player intake is down. 

2) Too much seal clubbing. 

Seems one or both could be the logic, with or without CVs being involved. 

I'm sure the seal clubbing doesn't help but seal clubbing has been around since the beginning of the game and it wasn't until the CV vs no AA thing that WG needed introduce bots to replace all the players the CVs ran off.  :P

That said, I do think new player intake is down and WG vastly misoverestimated the amount of traffic that NTC/RB would generate into those tiers.  That's definitely a big factor as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,059
[JMMAF]
Members
2,013 posts
6,668 battles
1 hour ago, WernerHerzdog said:

for some reason players are avoiding tier 4, only god knows why though!

i must have checked to see if i was in coop 10 times the first time i entered a T4 random battle lately. nope. we got slaughtered, and it was over fast. which was a really good thing.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
998 posts
8 hours ago, alexf24 said:

Played T4 and T5 (unusual for me) and found half the team were bots. Seriously WG? Why?

I do not mind coop, when you know the whole read team are bots and a few green ones too so watch your back for bot blind torps.

Now in Randoms we have to determine if the opponent is a bot or not? What is wrong with WG? <displeased>

Mind you this was not on off hours. Even though I would much prefer a 5x5 or similar if MM can't fill. No bots in randoms please!

It is my opinion this happens because WG Screwed the pooch with the CV fiasco.

It send all the regular players to Co-Op and Scenarios who didn't want to play randoms with bad MM's.

The "Spreadsheet" Says we Love CV's so just to make it interesting they Add CV's as Bots.

WG places CV's now in Co-OP to drive them back to play Randoms.

So IMHO WG will keep the Bots in Randoms and Let you suffer just to prove the "Spreadsheet" Is right.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,031
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,517 posts
4,934 battles
2 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Mostly because CVs have ruined the game at those tiers so they need to fill them with bots because no one wants to play them anymore.

Is it CVs?  Or is it the fact that the daily tasks can only be done in Tier V and higher ships?  Or that new players have had their protected mode extended from 50 matches to about 200 matches? Or a combination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[--K--]
Supertester
1,112 posts
10,018 battles
9 hours ago, legozer said:

So, here's where you''re going with this: there aren't enough players at low tiers because there are too many good players "seal clubbing" and so inexperienced players are...playing tier 9 now?? Yeah, that doesn't hold water.

New player intake is not necessarily down. There is new protected MM for them for 500 games, so the "seal clubbers" can't beat up on them. So newbs are in a whole, separate queue

Players (seal clubber or otherwise) that played low tier often are now actively avoiding it because of the insane prevalence of CVs at those tiers. Instead of fixing the root of the problem and removing the cancer (limit 1 CV per side) they have taken the low tiers to the spring at Lourdes (added bots) and said, "see? all healed up now. we worked another miracle!"

200 games according to the latest patch notes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×