Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
rudrigu_1

suggestion: battle duration time

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4 posts
565 battles

Hello  .. the game WOW is pretty cool but something is spoiling it: the battles are too short, if we increase the game's winning score to 2000 points or at least 30 minutes it would improve well, because the way it is, in most matches the game barely starts, full of alive ships on both sides or  is in the best of the hunt, and ends up suddenly in a thousand points, or in 20 minutes , (looking like the match was interrupted in the middle) this is very frustrating, the coolest thing is the combat and not the score and beyond that,  with short battles like this, we are wasting a lot of time having to reconnect to start again ...  please send this suggestion to the developers of this game .... thank you

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,076
[PVE]
Members
7,284 posts
23,158 battles
2 hours ago, rudrigu_1 said:

Hello  .. the game WOW is pretty cool but something is spoiling it: the battles are too short, if we increase the game's winning score to 2000 points or at least 30 minutes it would improve well, because the way it is, in most matches the game barely starts, full of alive ships on both sides or  is in the best of the hunt, and ends up suddenly in a thousand points, or in 20 minutes , (looking like the match was interrupted in the middle) this is very frustrating, the coolest thing is the combat and not the score and beyond that,  with short battles like this, we are wasting a lot of time having to reconnect to start again ...  please send this suggestion to the developers of this game .... thank you

The zero out points are the issue in stomps not the 1000 point victory condition.

Giving each team more start points (as they did in co-op) would be the solution to stomps ending battles quickly & leaving points on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,082
[SALVO]
Members
25,826 posts
28,153 battles
1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

The zero out points are the issue in stomps not the 1000 point victory condition.

Giving each team more start points (as they did in co-op) would be the solution to stomps ending battles quickly & leaving points on the board.

Increasing the number of victory points each team starts with would help avoid quick massacres, but so long as the victory condition is 1k points, it would just make attaining the 1k that much quicker.  What they'd need to do is increase both the starting points AND the number of points needed to win for the change to really work properly.

Regardless, this all fails to address the entire reason for ending battles early (i.e. when reaching 0 victory points), and that's that battles end early to avoid punishing the remaining players on the losing team and tempting them to exit to port when battles seem like certain losses.  There's a certain amount of schadenfreude involved in trying to make massacres last longer,  because the players on the (soon to be) winning team want to keep pounding on the (soon to be) losing team's players for their own personal gain (i.e. XP and credits).

I've long said that I think that the players on the winning team should all gain a share of the credits and XP for the remaining ships on the losing team so that the winners don't feel like they  were gipped by the battle ending early.  This share could either be for all players on the winning team, or for all surviving players on the winning team, since clearly any winning team players who were sunk prior to the end of the battle wouldn't have had a chance to damage and/or sink those remaining enemy ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[PYK]
Beta Testers
211 posts
2,445 battles

I love your idea. Shorter doesn't mean better. From what I'm reading about the planned captain skills rework, WG is heading in the opposite direction by removing survivability skills for BBs. World of Tanks is a good example of the disastrous effects of making everything faster where games rarely last longer than 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,076
[PVE]
Members
7,284 posts
23,158 battles
16 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Increasing the number of victory points each team starts with would help avoid quick massacres, but so long as the victory condition is 1k points, it would just make attaining the 1k that much quicker.  What they'd need to do is increase both the starting points AND the number of points needed to win for the change to really work properly.

Regardless, this all fails to address the entire reason for ending battles early (i.e. when reaching 0 victory points), and that's that battles end early to avoid punishing the remaining players on the losing team and tempting them to exit to port when battles seem like certain losses.  There's a certain amount of schadenfreude involved in trying to make massacres last longer,  because the players on the (soon to be) winning team want to keep pounding on the (soon to be) losing team's players for their own personal gain (i.e. XP and credits).

I've long said that I think that the players on the winning team should all gain a share of the credits and XP for the remaining ships on the losing team so that the winners don't feel like they  were gipped by the battle ending early.  This share could either be for all players on the winning team, or for all surviving players on the winning team, since clearly any winning team players who were sunk prior to the end of the battle wouldn't have had a chance to damage and/or sink those remaining enemy ships.

Not a bad proposal...but gives the campers (referring to the behind the islands where they can't even shoot at targets all battle...not the ones that use islands to mitigate damage from an area while participating in the areas they can reach) that hardly participated a big buff on a "hide all battle" performance.

Thinking an in game notification to all new players about how post battle service costs work (same amount if full life or sunk based solely on tier) would lessen some of the end of battle apathy that causes players to run by letting them know the extra XP & credits they can get for trying instead of running comes at no extra cost to them & can actually make a loss less of a loss by farming more XP & credits.

That might make the "punishment" more bearable & may even increase the amount of Solo Warrior achievements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
44 posts
On 12/1/2020 at 4:05 PM, Crucis said:

I've long said that I think that the players on the winning team should all gain a share of the credits and XP for the remaining ships on the losing team so that the winners don't feel like they  were gipped by the battle ending early.  This share could either be for all players on the winning team, or for all surviving players on the winning team, since clearly any winning team players who were sunk prior to the end of the battle wouldn't have had a chance to damage and/or sink those remaining enemy ships.

 

Problem with rewarding only surviving members is that it may lead to more passive players who are unwilling to risk their ship because if they sink, they don't get the juicy bonus. There have been plenty of instances in WoWs where players have died but were also major contributors to their team's victory. It would be unfair not to reward this when such an action may very well be the reason your team won.

Edit: It's the same as someone who plays more passively on the losing team because they don't want the possibility of paying a higher bill for sinking

Edited by Panzer_Mac_W126
added content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,082
[SALVO]
Members
25,826 posts
28,153 battles
20 minutes ago, Panzer_Mac_W126 said:

Problem with rewarding only surviving members is that it may lead to more passive players who are unwilling to risk their ship because if they sink, they don't get the juicy bonus. There have been plenty of instances in WoWs where players have died but were also major contributors to their team's victory. It would be unfair not to reward this when such an action may very well be the reason your team won.

Edit: It's the same as someone who plays more passively on the losing team because they don't want the possibility of paying a higher bill for sinking

1. If players play more passively, they increase the chances of losing due to that passive play.

2. There is no higher bill for being sunk.  The service fee that all players pay after the battle is exactly the same, whether one is sunk or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
44 posts
42 minutes ago, Crucis said:

1. If players play more passively, they increase the chances of losing due to that passive play.

2. There is no higher bill for being sunk.  The service fee that all players pay after the battle is exactly the same, whether one is sunk or not.

I know the bill is the same for a loss, I just used that as an example since that's how human psychology tends to work. It would be the same for not rewarding the dead players on the winning team. They would see less benefit in taking risks because if they die, they won't get the rewards. Even if their actions result in a victory, which will likely result in players feeling cheated because they did the work but others get the bonus just because those players survived. You need to reward players who take those risks or they will not want to do so since there is no reward from doing it.

I have had plenty of wins where I survived till the end but did not accomplish as much as the players who did not. As such I should not be rewarded for living when someone on my team died but took three ships with them. Any reward should be distributed fairly because as I said the teammates who died may very well be the reason your team won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
565 battles
 o fato é que esse sistema de pontuação  de 1000 pontos ou tempo de 20 minutos esta na maioria das partidas terminando e interrompendo o jogo na sua melhor parte como se a pontuação fosse o mais divertido e importante, aposto que ninguem joga esse jogo por causa desses mil pontos e sim pelo combate , mas esse sistema de tempo não esta dando tempo para o combate rola beleza, vamo aumenta esse tempo ai galera !   
Edited by rudrigu_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,082
[SALVO]
Members
25,826 posts
28,153 battles
1 hour ago, Panzer_Mac_W126 said:

I know the bill is the same for a loss, I just used that as an example since that's how human psychology tends to work. It would be the same for not rewarding the dead players on the winning team. They would see less benefit in taking risks because if they die, they won't get the rewards. Even if their actions result in a victory, which will likely result in players feeling cheated because they did the work but others get the bonus just because those players survived. You need to reward players who take those risks or they will not want to do so since there is no reward from doing it.

I have had plenty of wins where I survived till the end but did not accomplish as much as the players who did not. As such I should not be rewarded for living when someone on my team died but took three ships with them. Any reward should be distributed fairly because as I said the teammates who died may very well be the reason your team won.

Ships that die before the battle is over stopped being contributors the instant they died.  Maybe not being rewarded for dying would incentivize them to play a little more intelligently and not throw away their ships in the theory that they killed more ships than they lost (i.e. their own).  I'm not impressed by some dork who yolo charges into the enemy and happens to torp two ships to death only to lose his own ship.

And yes, there will be those who hide and camp.  But they increase their team's chances of losing if they don't make substantial contributions to the team's efforts.

And yes, there are times when a player is trying to be useful but has a lackluster game (think of torp DDs not having any luck landing his torps because the enemy has been good at avoiding them).  This doesn't mean that such a player can't contribute in other ways, i.e. spotting, doing some crucial damage at a critical point in the  game, finishing off an enemy ship or 2 even if said player doesn't have a high damage game, and so forth.  Carriers can be pretty good at the last one, because they have the ability to seek out and strike badly wounded enemy ships to finish them off or spot them so that a team mate can do the deed.

 

Also note that this idea is  particularly relevant for massacres, where it's rather likely that your team has lost very few ships, so it's not that big a deal.

My problem with your objections is that it rewards what I see as far too overly aggressive bad play that leads to far too many foolish defeats.   I'd rather reward intelligent play that focuses on defeating the enemy while keeping your own ships alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
44 posts

The problem with your logic is that it doesn't account for people who died holding the line. There are still plenty of games that are won because part of your team held the enemy off from encircling everyone or denied them capture points but just didn't live to the end.

A good example I can present is a battle I had with the Imperator Nikolai where I did in fact sink three ships in addition to preventing them from capturing our base. I obviously died in this match but it was just the distraction my last surviving teammate (a destroyer with about 200hp left) needed to capture the enemy base and win the game for us. I died, but had I not turned around to defend the base, and die doing so, we would have lost as the enemy had started capturing our base first. By your logic, I don't get rewarded for my contribution to the team because I didn't survive. Not everyone who dies does so because they have an aggressive play style.

If you want to punish the YOLO player then you need a more through system than just this person lived and this other person did not. It doesn't factor in people who just had a spot of bad luck in the deployment, or maybe the CV grabbed hold of them and wasn't going to let them go. Plenty of players in destroyers experience that one on a regular basis. They could also be new to that line, or ship and are still learning how to play it. Or they did know what they were doing but thanks to changes made by WG, they now have to ignore what used to work, and learn what works now. Those are things every player has to deal with, and they will die in game while they figure it out.

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.

×