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

Ahskance Reacts: "Where Is This Game Heading?"

498 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

762
[KSC]
Members
840 posts
11,429 battles

So a few folks have popped in during streams and asked for my thoughts/response to Flamu's recent video featuring an MVR.

A long time viewer burned some channel points to have to "review a CV player", which ended up being the enemy CV in the recent Flamu video.  This is the first time I've done something like this, and honestly it took me awhile to find my footing as to what I was being asked to do.  Ultimately, I ended up evaluating the enemy CV's strikes and the impact they had vs the resources burned for the first 8-10 minutes of the match.

I haven't yet learned the ancient art of video editing, so this is just a raw cut from the stream.  So, for those interested in my take... here it is.

and for those who are unaware of the video in question, it can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFTkdm4-tiY

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 17
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 7
  • Meh 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,714
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,104 posts
6,077 battles

Good video, worth the watch IMHO.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,474
[REVY]
Members
8,157 posts
6,118 battles
1 minute ago, Ahskance said:

To be honest, I'm not really reviewing Flamu.  I really spend more attention on the CV's plays and how to understand what's going on for those that don't have the CV perspective.  Mostly in the sense of what resources were expended and how the trades were.  A lot of my video is spent explaining mechanics or charting resources in paint, if I recall.

That's a distinction that might not be recognized by Flamu himself, especially if he doesn't bother watching your video and instead just reads the title.  Who knows, Flamu always has the initiative when he wants to start a fight.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,680
[WORX]
Members
11,957 posts
19,495 battles

My only disagreement with the video.. Was the comment starting at 44:15 to 44:30 min mark.

Must of the CV players left to the China server to get their RTS CV fix.. In the recent event, lower tiers lacked a lot of population (its beginning to look like WOWP).

I dont know what growth you were referring to... But the changes were very noticeable from this time last year (the last time I had done an event).

Could it be, our level of evidence needed to convince ourselves of a problem is at different levels? I cannot say with a straight face and a conscious, the game is even "maintaining" let alone growing.

I've seen less and less old timers playing with Nikos and Iwaki alphas.. I seen more Random battles with Ai's then humans, resembling Co-op battles... 

Based on these observations... I can't agree with you the game is growing..

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,474
[REVY]
Members
8,157 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

 

 

Also in response to video, you skip a whole section of Flamu's video which leaves a lot of questions open.  It's not just the anti-air component, the MVR begins to cap B and Flamu lands 179 shells hits on it and barely does any damage.  Where is he suppose to aim, what is he supposed to do?  By Flamu's own calculations, it would have taken 11 minutes of not stop 100% hit shooting to take down a full health MvR with the Halland's guns.  He started 3 fires on the MVR and does exactly 0 damage.  Flamu was even greatly concerned over the MvR's secondaries that could have destroyed him in the end, the last slugging match at the end of the game was both MVRs slugging it out with secondaries and you just skipped over that.  What can a DD player do in such situations where the guns just cannot harm the CV?  Are DDs just suppose to just not do anything to the CV?

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762
[KSC]
Members
840 posts
11,429 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

Also in response to video, you skip a whole section of Flamu's video which leaves a lot of questions open.  It's not just the anti-air component, the MVR begins to cap B and Flamu lands 179 shells hits on it and barely does any damage.  Where is he suppose to aim, what is he supposed to do?  By Flamu's own calculations, it would have taken 11 minutes of not stop 100% hit shooting to take down a full health MvR with the Halland's guns.  He started 3 fires on the MVR and does exactly 0 damage.  Flamu was even greatly concerned over the MvR's secondaries that could have destroyed him in the end, the last slugging match at the end of the game was both MVRs slugging it out with secondaries and you just skipped over that.  What can a DD player do in such situations where the guns just cannot harm the CV?  Are DDs just suppose to just not do anything to the CV?

Yeah, I really did just focus on the enemy CV's plane usage over the first few minutes.  When he started striking outside of Flamu's visual range, I stopped the analysis as it would become inconsistent.

As to Halland guns vs MvR, the MvR is a German ship, I didn't see that part then nor have I watched it now.  What I can say to that, however, is that German ships have a national gimmick of being armored in the game, and the MvR is no exception.  She has a 50 mm deck and a smattering of 150mm on the sides, though there's a healthy amount of 19mm that's on the side below the deck.  Also, her turning radius is horrible, so she's open season for torps.

If the Halland's guns are bad against armored targets, there are a plethora of other armored targets in the game.  Armored battleships, armored cruisers... it is what it is.  If the game was down to the wire with two GK's left spamming each other with secondaries, is there a massive difference in what the Halland guns would be adding?

  • Cool 6
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762
[KSC]
Members
840 posts
11,429 battles
17 minutes ago, Sventex said:

<snip>

Just for reference, I checked the armor profile of the CV.  The light armor on the bow is 19mm, the light armor on the main hull above the secondaries is 21mm with some 25mm plate sewn in.  Halland's base HE pen is 20mm, so that leaves him a small section on the bow to hit (which is exceptionally hard) or the superstructure.  Otherwise, AP is needed on the 21mm and 25mm.

As to HE ammo, one the 1 minute Damage Con is down, there's 90 seconds to light fires which deal triple damage.  CV fires burn at 1% hull/sec for 5 seconds, as opposed to the .3% for many seconds.

Picture of armor attached for reference.

 

MvR Armor scheme.png

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,474
[REVY]
Members
8,157 posts
6,118 battles
21 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

If the Halland's guns are bad against armored targets, there are a plethora of other armored targets in the game.  Armored battleships, armored cruisers... it is what it is.  If the game was down to the wire with two GK's left spamming each other with secondaries, is there a massive difference in what the Halland guns would be adding?

39:53 You specifically talked about game design.  What can the player do?  You justify that defensive fire doesn't just get to own...

You criticized RTS CV AA because a no fly zone means there's nothing for the player to do against that ship.  Well that about Flamu vs that CV?  What does he do?  Why does the CV just get to have immunity against DDs?  Even as the CV throw away planes like trash, he's still very formidable even in the last second of the game because he is still a physical presence with secondaries, a huge HP pool and tough armor.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762
[KSC]
Members
840 posts
11,429 battles
Just now, Sventex said:

39:53 You specifically talked about game design.  What can the player do?  You justify that defensive fire doesn't just get to own...

You criticized RTS CV AA because a no fly zone means there's nothing for the player to do against that ship.  Well that about Flamu vs that CV?  What does he do?  Why does the CV just get to own against DDs?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

"You justify that defensive fire doesn't just get to own..." is probably in relation to the RTS CV version, where Defensive Fire was effectively an auto-win, because it -had- to be an auto-win, because the throw weight of CVs in RTS was hideous.

---

As to "Well that about Flamu vs that CV?  What does he do?  Why does the CV just get to own against DDs?", I'm again confused.  The Halland can kill him with torps.  The Halland can hit his 19mm bow and superstructure, or AP his 21mm and 25mm side plating.  If Flamu has IFHE on the Halland (which would be weird), he could HE the side plating.

...

I suppose I'm confused on why this is so strange?  If Flamu spams HE at a Wooster with 25mm, he only scratches the Superstructure... because DD guns typically pen 20mm (unless you have IFHE).  Is shooting the superstructure of a CV so different then only being able to pen superstructure on any non-ultralight cruiser or DD somehow surprising?

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,474
[REVY]
Members
8,157 posts
6,118 battles
12 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

"You justify that defensive fire doesn't just get to own..." is probably in relation to the RTS CV version, where Defensive Fire was effectively an auto-win, because it -had- to be an auto-win, because the throw weight of CVs in RTS was hideous.

---

As to "Well that about Flamu vs that CV?  What does he do?  Why does the CV just get to own against DDs?", I'm again confused.  The Halland can kill him with torps.  The Halland can hit his 19mm bow and superstructure, or AP his 21mm and 25mm side plating.  If Flamu has IFHE on the Halland (which would be weird), he could HE the side plating.

...

I suppose I'm confused on why this is so strange?  If Flamu spams HE at a Wooster with 25mm, he only scratches the Superstructure... because DD guns typically pen 20mm (unless you have IFHE).  Is shooting the superstructure of a CV so different then only being able to pen superstructure on any non-ultralight cruiser or DD somehow surprising?

The difference is that a Wooster has far less HP then a MvR and the Worcester also has to sail in predictable course to keep it's gun viable in order for torpedo spreads to have effect.  When a CV can sail any possible direction and still be 100% effective in offensive power, it's a total crapshoot to land a torpedo on a CV.  I myself can easily hold my own against a Wooster in a DD, I cannot say the same against a MvR.  In a one on one match, I can maintain concealment against a Worcester even if he has radar or hydro in a smokeless DD, I cannot say the same of a CV which has so many offensive options against a DD along with the ability to strip away concealment which often renders torpedo salvos moot.  If the CV knows I'm there, he's dodging because why wouldn't he, he has nothing to lose dodging.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762
[KSC]
Members
840 posts
11,429 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

The difference is that a Wooster has far less HP then a MvR and the Worcester also has to sail in predictable course to keep it's gun viable in order for torpedo spreads to have effect.  When a CV can sail any possible direction and still be 100% effective in offensive power, it's a total crapshoot to land a torpedo on a CV.  I myself can easily hold my own against a Wooster in a DD, I cannot say the same against a MvR.  In a one on one match, I can maintain concealment against a Worcester even if he has radar or hydro in a smokeless DD, I cannot say the same of a CV which has so many offensive options against a DD along with the ability to strip away concealment which often renders torpedo salvos moot.  If the CV knows I'm there, he's dodging because why wouldn't he, he has nothing to lose dodging.

I really shouldn't be awake at this point, so I'm not going to be doing any deep-sea diving into all the different possibilities of what DDs can and can't do.

As far as the Halland killing the MvR hull... it's an armored hull.  It's German.  They do the armored hull gimmick.  AP the 21/25mm, HE the nose/superstructure, and torp the side because the hull has horrible turning.  The MvR secondaries could hurt the Halland, but it's planes aren't going to do much.  AP rockets are chip damage and torps are able to be dodged.  I'm sorry, maybe I'm just very tired but I don't understand what else there is to say.

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,474
[REVY]
Members
8,157 posts
6,118 battles
1 minute ago, Ahskance said:

I really shouldn't be awake at this point, so I'm not going to be doing any deep-sea diving into all the different possibilities of what DDs can and can't do.

As far as the Halland killing the MvR hull... it's an armored hull.  It's German.  They do the armored hull gimmick.  AP the 21/25mm, HE the nose/superstructure, and torp the side because the hull has horrible turning.  The MvR secondaries could hurt the Halland, but it's planes aren't going to do much.  AP rockets are chip damage and torps are able to be dodged.  I'm sorry, maybe I'm just very tired but I don't understand what else there is to say.

The MvR basically has a the equivalent of "defensive AA" against DDs is what I'm saying.  Armor to resist shells, ability to spot DDs close to it very easily and no cost from changing course.  Because of it's ability to negate DD weapons so cheaply and easily, they might as well bring back the old "defensive AA" that will wipe out all planes, it would only be fair at this point.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[CMFRT]
Modder
984 posts
2,391 battles

While I understand your math, as a person watching this video, and having seen that game live (and having lived that game in a situation similar to the Des Moines), your math doesnt actually matter, despite it being correct. It rarely does when it comes to video games like this.

 

The enemy CV was effective until the very end of that match. he was effective through out the entire match (he ended up with 1.8k base XP on a loss, in a CV). It literally did not matter how many planes he lost, because he had enough planes to continually strike at ships, upto and including the end of the match, where he was still throwing out half strength squadrons. For all intents and purposes, he functionally had unlimited planes. Not only that but he played in ways that, had it been any other ship in the game, would have resulted in a quick death and returning to port. That first strike, leaving aside how quickly into the match it was able to happen, is the functional equivalent of a DD charging 4 ships, dumping a a rack of torps, and getting away with a broken torpedo launcher. Or a BB charging 4 ships unloading a broadside and then getting away with a single broken turret. Theres no ship in the game that yolos 4 ships, and doesnt die in a blaze of glory if the enemy team has 2 brain cells to rub together. But the CV? The CV gets to do it. And then gets to do it over and over again and for the most part, you dont even have to be good to do it. And for everyone else it feels like nothing you do actually matters. That Des Moines, a ship that long ago could be a no fly zone for CVs (making it dangerous to attack it), now just gets blapped, whether its grouped with others or trying to engage in the playstyle that is suited for the ship (as could be seen in the video).

 

EDIT: Also to your point of "What percent of the player base logs on to the forums, or posts on reddit?" that would be a fine question if those places were the only two places where we see complaints, but I see them in game all the time as well. And we know that clans, in general, hate them.

  • Cool 18
  • Thanks 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,229
[ARGSY]
Members
22,351 posts
16,264 battles
7 hours ago, Sventex said:

For my troubles, I got a congrats!! from NoZoupForYou for joining the "shat-shamed by Flamu" club. 

That reminds me of something that used to happen in chess. Viktor Korchnoi, unsuccessful challenger for the world title on several occasions against Anatoly Karpov, had a thing called the $400 club. To become a member you had to beat Karpov in tournament play, whereupon Korchnoi would mail you his compliments and a $400 cheque. (Source: Winning Chess Brilliancies, by Yasser Seirawan - himself a member of the club.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
471
[-BCO-]
Members
1,250 posts
2,399 battles
9 hours ago, Ahskance said:

So a few folks have popped in during streams and asked for my thoughts/response to Flamu's recent video featuring an MVR.

A long time viewer burned some channel points to have to "review a CV player", which ended up being the enemy CV in the recent Flamu video.  This is the first time I've done something like this, and honestly it took me awhile to find my footing as to what I was being asked to do.  Ultimately, I ended up evaluating the enemy CV's strikes and the impact they had vs the resources burned for the first 8-10 minutes of the match.

I haven't yet learned the ancient art of video editing, so this is just a raw cut from the stream.  So, for those interested in my take... here it is.

and for those who are unaware of the video in question, it can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFTkdm4-tiY

Thank you for this video. It was very informative. That was the good part. Now the "bad" part :).  Nothing I've seen in this video  changed my mind regarding Cv's. I consider them the most dishonest class in wows by design .I will explain.

Thank you for bringing up the PvP aspect of this game( otherwise I would have ). The very basis of EVERY PvP shooter game is the fair chance principle.Meaning that " I can get a piece of him and he can get a piece of me". Cv's undoubtedly break that. I don't think that I have to explain why, but... if in order to do dmg to a Cv I have to kill the entire other team, is just..... b.s.Because it is a PvP environment NOT a PvE  one where the Cv's is supposed to be some kind of hard achievable objective. 

The often brought up argument that surface ships shoot down planes ( well....) and therefore deal dmg is NOT a valid argument. Planes are actually mere consumables, they have no relation whatsoever to the Cv's HP. Why is that important? Two things. One of the win conditions of this game is to cap. An alive Cv can very much still cap and win the game, vs a ship which is...well dead and can't do it.The second win condition is to gather points. I'm sure that I don't have to explain how that can be done. Again an alive Cv is still present his points are not gone vs when a surface ship is gone his point are gone and represent a minus to the team. Cv's are just an incredibly sloppy game design. But wait, I'm not done yet:).

7 hours ago, Ahskance said:

... was effectively an auto-win, because it -had- to be an auto-win, because the ....

I'm glad that you are aware of what an auto-win means. Now some statistics (well...sort of..): last time I checked Cv's held an 70-80% defense rating which even if it isn't 100%( which is impossible  because of the three caps) it is de facto an auto-win. Other statistics I would not discuss because PR and dmg is up to individual skill, and WR is statistically meaningless ( I'm pretty sure you know why). Survival rate...hm...that could be brought up because it is pertinent to what I said earlier.  

So, that's why I consider Cv's, as I said, a dishonest class by design. Just sloppy and bad game design. I would LOVE to see them properly implemented and even to play them in  PvP. For now, PvE only ( Ops).

Edit: I almost forgot the spotting, which I consider the most toxic effect of them, to the game. One can say that dd's spot too, but, they have associated health risks to their actions and Cv's...not. And that is pertinent to the first part of my comment.

Edited by Bandi73
  • Cool 10
  • Thanks 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[OO7]
Members
619 posts
7,660 battles
23 minutes ago, Bandi73 said:

Thank you for bringing up the PvP aspect of this game( otherwise I would have ). The very basis of EVERY PvP shooter game is the fair chance principle.Meaning that " I can get a piece of him and he can get a piece of me". Cv's undoubtedly break that. I don't think that I have to explain why, but... if in order to do dmg to a Cv I have to kill the entire other team, is just..... b.s.Because it is a PvP environment NOT a PvE  one where the Cv's is supposed to be some kind of hard achievable objective. 

Thank you and well said!

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
738
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
895 posts
7,049 battles
8 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

My only disagreement with the video.. Was the comment starting at 44:15 to 44:30 min mark.

Must of the CV players left to the China server to get their RTS CV fix.. In the recent event, lower tiers lacked a lot of population (its beginning to look like WOWP).

I dont know what growth you were referring to... But the changes were very noticeable from this time last year (the last time I had done an event).

Could it be, our level of evidence needed to convince ourselves of a problem is at different levels? I cannot say with a straight face and a conscious, the game is even "maintaining" let alone growing.

I've seen less and less old timers playing with Nikos and Iwaki alphas.. I seen more Random battles with Ai's then humans, resembling Co-op battles... 

Based on these observations... I can't agree with you the game is growing..

Happa literally talked about how player population is not shrinking.

People play games and move on. You don't see my playing red alert 2 or roller coaster tycoon anymore. Yeah people don't want to play lower tiers for a reason so you see less there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,445
[SALVO]
Members
2,681 posts
6,793 battles

 

8 hours ago, Sventex said:

 It's not just the anti-air component, the MVR begins to cap B and Flamu lands 179 shells hits on it and barely does any damage.

Whenever watching Ahskance argue about CVs I just think he approaches it from this entirely alien perspective where having a complete upper hand is cool and justified because the other side also has 1 guy with a complete upper hand. 

It really struck me during the debate video with El2azer .  In it they negotiate their way to a point where Ahskance likens CV strike mechanics to instant use cards in Magic the Gathering. IE you spend points from a pool to do damage. In the WoWs case they liken planes to the points spend on the attacks. He  uses the MTG instant cards as a way to justify how carrier mechanics work, since it is a fair mechanic in MTG and that it is OK from a gaming perspective because both teams have 1 carrier.   

To me this seems like it completely ignores that in MTG is 1v1  and no player gets excluded from bringing such cards, I don't know MTG in depth so there might be decks without instant card access. However it is always a players choice in how their build their decks. Where in WoWs you are playing with 12 people per side and only 1 or 2 out of the twelve get to bring only instant cards. In the WoWs case the 11 who don't get the instant mechanics and pretty much get shafted against the guys who do.    

Edited by eviltane
  • Cool 13
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,821
[A-I-M]
Members
3,579 posts
14,473 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

That reminds me of something that used to happen in chess. Viktor Korchnoi, unsuccessful challenger for the world title on several occasions against Anatoly Karpov, had a thing called the $400 club. To become a member you had to beat Karpov in tournament play, whereupon Korchnoi would mail you his compliments and a $400 cheque. (Source: Winning Chess Brilliancies, by Yasser Seirawan - himself a member of the club.)

Now there’s three names I haven’t heard in a couple of decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
415
[CDOH]
Members
646 posts
7,660 battles

I think wargaming is taking the game where ever they can to make the most money .   At least at the highest levels, this is really the only criteria which is driving the company. 

Carrier redesign introduced a new line of ship, which are noob friendly, which they can sell premium ships for.  The same will be true for submarines.  The same is true by limiting what CCs say about new premium ships before release.  Selling T10 premiums for cash.  The new Captain skill change will be much more grindy forcing people to use dubs for respec and for qualification. 

Wargaming has clearly changed their mindset on how to earn revenue from this game over the last year or so. 

Its likely the game has plateaued and is no longer growing.   It is also possible that the game is showing signs of retracting in popularity and is now falling down the product life cycle curve.   If either are true, in business, maximizing profits while you can is a common strategy in product life cycle.

I don't know if anyone has growth numbers. It would be interesting to see the growth numbers over time compared to the timing of the decision stated above.

Edited by Rothgar_57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
471
[-BCO-]
Members
1,250 posts
2,399 battles
23 minutes ago, Merc_R_Us said:

Happa literally talked about how player population is not shrinking.

Hm....with all due respect to Happa...that's not nearly as clear cut as one would think. For example.I recently joined here on NA but I play a bit over a year on EU. The recent incentive (500 dbl) for recruiters is a clear cut indication otherwise.

23 minutes ago, Merc_R_Us said:

People play games and move on. You don't see my playing red alert 2 or roller coaster tycoon anymore. Yeah people don't want to play lower tiers for a reason so you see less there.

I very much want this game to flourish. I LOVE this game. I'm not a gamer per se, I love naval stuff and there not many this kind of games out there.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[GRETA]
Members
444 posts
16,417 battles

When a CV screws up he loads up a different type of plane and goes on fighting, if he screws up really bad, he has short squads and keeps playing with limited offense that he can apply anywhere on the map. Is he doing  what he got into the match for? And he is still playing with 4 minutes left and probably at full health but has squads with very few planes.    Is he having fun with 4 minutes left?

In the surface ship you screw up you take damage. If you play right you will minimize or eliminate damage.  Unless its a CV attacking. If you dodge the first strike (unlikely to work effectively) you are at peak vulnerability to the second strike as well as a high chance of presenting your most vulnerable side to the other ships.  If you group up you simply hope you aren't the target of the first strike. 

If he continues to be attacked by the CV with more squads he is prevented from doing any of the things he got into the match for and is making a sandwich with 12 minutes left in the game. Is he having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[WOLFG]
Members
31,346 posts
9,637 battles
22 minutes ago, eviltane said:


Whenever watching Ahskance argue about CVs I just think he approaches it from this entirely alien perspective where having a complete upper hand is cool and justified because the other side also has 1 guy with a complete upper hand.   

It's not an entirely alien perspective, it's WG's perspective, and always has been. If you understand that, their stance on various issues makes more sense. If you don't, you'll think them complete idiots that know nothing.

I mean, why else would they make an MM that matches ship types and tiers, and leaves it at that, while stonewalling calls for SBMM of some sort? Why else refuse to have same-tier MM?

There is only so far they are going to depart from their Day One philosophy to conform to what they view as our alien perspective.

And to be fair, even if we don't like that approach, it doesn't make it an invalid one. It is the foundation of how they do things, and any deviation of that for the purposes of placation, (because that's the only reason they'd go against their philosophy) is not going to be any larger than absolutely necessary, or any more well thought out than a bandaid needs to be.

That's the takeaway, that WG is not going to move much in the direction of individual fairness. Any moves in that direction are likely to be small and slapped together. And that's not because they delight in tormenting us, it's because it's their game and their vision, and if we want to approach the game with a conflicting mindset, we'll have issues 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

That's the takeaway, that WG is not going to move much in the direction of individual fairness. Any moves in that direction are likely to be small and slapped together. And that's not because they delight in tormenting us, it's because it's their game and their vision, and if we want to approach the game with a conflicting mindset, we'll have issues 

You can make gold plated shark tank money monetizing cheap shots where you can risk bankruptcy providing a perfectly fair playing field where skill is all you need to dominate.  

It's mostly on the demand that WG is serving.  They are just the middleman in this arrangement.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×