Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
SkullCowboy_60

Marathon with Gifts? Not for Coop.

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

399
[-TCO-]
[-TCO-]
Members
802 posts
6,307 battles

Yea, the mission for coal and the Epoch containers that comes from the new code? Randoms, Ranked and Asymmetric only. :cap_old:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,885
[PVE]
Members
7,321 posts

I'm not sure why someone would give a snoozy face reaction.  I suspect that person would be upset if they were locked out of earning rewards.  Yet they think its fine to lock someone else out because they only like to play lowly co-op. 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
[PVE]
Members
1,528 posts
43,323 battles

They are base xp so there is no point to make them for coop.

1500 bxp I don`t think it has ever been done.

My best is 1144.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,885
[PVE]
Members
7,321 posts
2 minutes ago, cecill611 said:

They are base xp so there is no point to make them for coop.

1500 bxp I don`t think it has ever been done.

My best is 1144.

I've never even managed to break a thousand BXP. 

It wouldn't be hard for WG to make a different set of requirements for co-op.  It would be dead easy to say, or earn X amount of base XP (not in a single game) in co-op.  I'd be fine with it if WG set the amount of BXP to be fairly high so you actually had to work for it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,636 posts
45,353 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'm not sure why someone would give a snoozy face reaction.  I suspect that person would be upset if they were locked out of earning rewards.  Yet they think its fine to lock someone else out because they only like to play lowly co-op. 

That's because it's often described as "lowly co-op".

That is about as mean as saying "you people" from where I come from.

I think there is a problem much bigger than just missions. It's the idea of not respecting co-op players.

I don't know who started it. It's probably forgotten by time 5 years ago. But I am sure some co-op players are fed up with it.

But co-op players can and do have their own fun.

Fun without drama is well, fun.

Randoms makes the salt. That has been the case from the beginning.

I played Randoms and other modes. They offer some version of fun.

But you can't even put Randoms as#1 in terms of fun. Just look at the streamers now and tell me how many have had a 40 game win streak with the silly grin to prove it.

The days of streaks like that in Randoms is over. It has been for a while now. Even sync drop won't guarantee anything for clans.

It's good WG offers something for everyone in different modes.

Because if it was just Randoms, I would have been gone after week 3. The language, the "shenanigans" of those early days.

Thankfully WG fixed those shenanigans with patches, counters, and other deterrence.

And the game is better for it.

Assymetrical is just a mode. It doesn't count much. Try it out. It's fun.

I noticed since I tried it yesterday that the top clans won't play it much. I only spotted one purple. And I think he had fun. He didn't care about the outcome. He wanted to explore the mode.

I am befuddled about why more top clans won't try it, but perhaps because the MM would screw them over every time as you will not streak in it right now.

It's too chaotic, never a dull moment. Just adrenaline fueled aggression and no camping. I guess some players can't play it because there are no campground spots. It takes away any plans as the map drop is also a mixed bag.

Since it is a new mode, I wonder if it affects that fangled PR stat?

Because it sure seems to me it does. I can only count on one hand anyone of note. A lot of no shows.

It's way better than subs and you can't get bored. 

But that is just my observation.

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[HELLS]
Members
2,843 posts
31,482 battles
1 hour ago, SkullCowboy_60 said:

Yea, the mission for coal and the Epoch containers that comes from the new code? Randoms, Ranked and Asymmetric only. :cap_old:

Try the campaign for low tier ships. It can all be done in co-op..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
399
[-TCO-]
[-TCO-]
Members
802 posts
6,307 battles
2 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Try the campaign for low tier ships. It can all be done in co-op..

Am doing so. But that really isn't the point. 2500 coal would be nice too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
[PVE]
Members
1,528 posts
43,323 battles

I don`t see this as a big thing WG now adds coop to alot of stuff when before  coop was left out of everything.

I would of been pissed off if WG would of added coop to this knowing there is no way you could do it in coop.  { like achievements }                                                                                                                                    

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,279
[CO-OP]
Members
3,367 posts
30,026 battles
32 minutes ago, cecill611 said:

I don`t see this as a big thing WG now adds coop to alot of stuff when before  coop was left out of everything.

I would of been pissed off if WG would of added coop to this knowing there is no way you could do it in coop.  { like achievements }                                                                                                                                    

^^This.  I've come to terms with this.  I'll play for what I can get, and not sweat the stuff that I can't.  But to their credit they have made big strides towards including co-op in things.  Campaigns used to be locked behind random requirements, now we have a full campaign achievable in co-op.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,672
[SALVO]
Members
26,304 posts
30,265 battles
3 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I've never even managed to break a thousand BXP. 

It wouldn't be hard for WG to make a different set of requirements for co-op.  It would be dead easy to say, or earn X amount of base XP (not in a single game) in co-op.  I'd be fine with it if WG set the amount of BXP to be fairly high so you actually had to work for it.

I wouldn't be  so quick to assume that a different set of requirements isn't hard.  For crying out loud, only recently have I seen them create tasks with split requirements, i.e. do X for this set of BBs *OR* do Y for a different set of BBs.  It may be a tad more difficult to make the split across game modes.

That said, I wouldn't want base XP requirement tasks in coop.  It can be very difficult to get a decent BXP result in coop when you're all competing against each other to see who can farm the fastest.  It would seem to encourage coop players to play late at night in the hope of having very few live players on the player team, since that's when you have a good chance to farm so real BXP.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,885
[PVE]
Members
7,321 posts
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I wouldn't be  so quick to assume that a different set of requirements isn't hard.

It might take some thought to get the requirements right if we were talking about something like the dockyard where WG is trying to monetize the event.  But we're talking about a combat mission for collection creates.  If the balance is a little off one way or the other it makes no real difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,672
[SALVO]
Members
26,304 posts
30,265 battles
1 minute ago, Slimeball91 said:

It might take some thought to get the requirements right if we were talking about something like the dockyard where WG is trying to monetize the event.  But we're talking about a combat mission for collection creates.  If the balance is a little off one way or the other it makes no real difference. 

I didn't mean it in that way when I was talking about assuming that something was hard.  I was talking about the difficulty of making a mission requirement split where the split was based on game mode, rather than ship type and perhaps even individual ships.  They may have created the algorithms for the latter, but perhaps creating the algorithms for game mode based mission requirement splits is a more difficult to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[4-FUN]
[4-FUN]
Members
195 posts
10,018 battles

We obviously we have some elitist, entitled Random players in the PVE folder, hence the vote downs OP.

Anyway, back to feedback for the devs.

In future devs, if you are going to exclude COOP mains at least state the battle type in your adds for anniversary events so you don't get the hopes up for COOP mains.

Or even better, give COOP mains a smaller reward option that fits in with your "we want everyone to PVP" business model, ie, give COOP mains an option to get 1k coal instead of the 2,500 coal. So no double dipping, once you get one either the 1k from COOP, or 2,5k from Random, you can't get the other. That should keep the elitist PVP mains happy.

Cheers
CC123

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,440
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
9,763 posts
25,521 battles
11 hours ago, SkullCowboy_60 said:

Yea, the mission for coal and the Epoch containers that comes from the new code? Randoms, Ranked and Asymmetric only. :cap_old:

Thanks for the heads up Skull. 

I suppose there isn't anything that co-op players can do about it other than not subscribe or unsubscribe from Wargaming's YouTube channel since we are left out of the rewards. Seems fair enough, hope it does not hurt their numbers and keep the PvP players from getting the "big" reward mission. 

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.

×