Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Azrael_Ashemdion

Even the Community Contributors know you're *edit, WG.

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
360 posts
17,480 battles

Dudes, you have had what, four seasons of people telling you this now?  What kind of *edit on when TWO YEARS go by with people telling you what a bunch of *edit   you're being with your *edit   scoring model?  

Seriously guys, I'm going to GamesCom this year - and I'm finding a new game.  You guys have a serious case of *edit .  

 

@MrConway - the moment for being civil was past a long while ago.  Your crew just don't have a goddamned clue.  

 

  Az
 

 

Edited by Jbnn
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,242 posts
10,755 battles

As I'm going to bed now I'll open up the discussion with a nice idea (remember it's only an idea): Like in overwatch people can vote for players.

 

Let's make it: Vote against players. If a player get's 4 (or more) "NO" from his team he's either not gaining a star (if he's on the winning team) or losing a star (if he's on the losing team, but in top XP position, in that case the 'not-losing-a-star' option get's passed on to the next player).

 

But yeah, I know why I spent the least amount of time in ranked because it's becoming the worst game mode that this game has ever created.

 

 

And if WG-staff thinks that's too harsh, onesided or only raging: I'll gladly expand on it, in my usualy QP manner, if you want me to do so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,189 posts
4,658 battles
19 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

As I'm going to bed now I'll open up the discussion with a nice idea (remember it's only an idea): Like in overwatch people can vote for players.

 

Let's make it: Vote against players. If a player get's 4 (or more) "NO" from his team he's either not gaining a star (if he's on the winning team) or losing a star (if he's on the losing team, but in top XP position, in that case the 'not-losing-a-star' option get's passed on to the next player).

 

But yeah, I know why I spent the least amount of time in ranked because it's becoming the worst game mode that this game has ever created.

 

 

And if WG-staff thinks that's too harsh, onesided or only raging: I'll gladly expand on it, in my usualy QP manner, if you want me to do so.

Unfortunately, I think a vote system would be too complicated for the average ranked player to understand. It would be great if WG could just fix the XP system to properly reward those who are actually sticking their neck out and making an effort instead.

 

Beyond the XP system being being pretty pants-on-head (which goes for WoWs as a whole, not just Ranked), and the decision to make T10 irrevocable, I don't think it's Ranked that's the problem. It's the players!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
5,741 posts
24,924 battles
1 hour ago, Azrael_Ashemdion said:

Your crew just don't have a goddamned clue.

 

They don't care. The community team is here to lay a smoke screen over the incompetence of the design team. As long as WoWS has no competition they don't even need to make an effort, people are going to keep playing no matter what because of a lack of alternatives.

How many times has the community, including CCs, been ignored when they raised valid balancing problems? The reaction of WG was always the same -> "we know better than the community how to balance ships". The end effect is clear, Conqueror, Asashio, Graf Zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

I’m just gonna throw some more flame onto the oil well blowout and say that The Mighty Jingles recently did a community event with fractured space, not a WG title.

 

I hope WG doesn’t forget that there are alternatives out there, that there are other similar games out there which are seeking to improve every day. And other better games.

 

I mean, it’s the year 2018. Quantum computers exist. You’d think after a whole 9 seasons, they’d figure out how to make ranked not induce ragequit after 5 games. (This season of ranked ended for me after encounters with clicker zeppelins.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
5,611 posts
10,189 battles
11 hours ago, Azrael_Ashemdion said:

Dudes, you have had what, four seasons of people telling you this now?  What kind of *edit on when TWO YEARS go by with people telling you what a bunch of *edit   you're being with your *edit   scoring model?  

Seriously guys, I'm going to GamesCom this year - and I'm finding a new game.  You guys have a serious case of *edit .  

Is there an english translation available for people not suffering from an urgent temper tantrum?!

 

Or does he just need some cookies and a glas of warm milk?

Spoiler

milk-soaked-cookies-await.jpg.655451270b9eff3b4cd67390f3163395.jpg

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
124 posts
593 battles

to be fair War Thunder is getting pretty close to be a proper competitor to WoWS since they added cruisers on their latest naval test. Gaijin entertainment has also had a long term issue not listening to playerbase feedback but is now actually working towards that after 5 years of ignorance of player feedback. There are things WG could do for example hire player moderators to moderate player suggestions in the forums and share the best suggestions to the WG staff, atleast this is how War Thunder usually does to save staff and resources to implement new content and do balancing changes. Think wargaming could atleast have a suggestion section in the forum for constructive criticism and content/balance discussions that is easy to follow and not lost in general discussion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T2FTW]
Beta Tester
241 posts
19,508 battles

Completely true and only for one reason ..no compettion for WG in ships .

Was playing tanks and not anymore for more then 2 yeras why I play warthunder  ... tried to play warplanes and immeadetly jumped to warthundr also for planes ...

No proper ship games yet so still here from time to time till my nerves breakdown and I give a break ...

Waiting for warthunder to make proper ship game :D or any other company ... 

couse this game is getting seriously not fun anymore ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,168 posts
5,842 battles

Oh boy. Again someone wandered into the asylum expecting sanity. I understand wanting to get the jolly roger and all, but the way it is designed out turns the game into a hardcore grinding job. Had the same mess in wot when campaigns first came out there. The final mission for the t55a took me 300 games alone. Miss me with that crap. Cw feels way better because you can actually set up tactics before hand and have quality mates.

 

Stupid players aren't wgs fault, however, I would recommend to abstain from the madness once it gets grindy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, Players
5,335 posts
35,510 battles
1 hour ago, Carrier_Graf_Zeppelin said:

to be fair War Thunder is getting pretty close to be a proper competitor to WoWS

not even close , better go play wt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,588 posts
6 hours ago, Aragathor said:

The end effect is clear, Conqueror, Asashio, Graf Zeppelin.

Belfast, Khabarovsk, Black...

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ROT8]
Players
2,799 posts

How the fack can you get so wound up about a bloody game Ash? Seriously? I really don't get it. If you don't like it pack it in. :Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TC1S]
Players
2,655 posts
14,015 battles
3 minutes ago, Skyllon said:

Belfast, Khabarovsk, Black...

You're putting khaba in the list? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles
6 hours ago, Aragathor said:

"we know better than the community how to balance ships". The end effect is clear, Conqueror, Asashio, Graf Zeppelin.

 

What happened to Conqueror? Nerfed into the ground like Khaba thanks to CCs seal clubbing in random battles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,338 posts
13,095 battles
5 hours ago, Carrier_Graf_Zeppelin said:

to be fair War Thunder is getting pretty close to be a proper competitor to WoWS since they added cruisers on their latest naval test. Gaijin entertainment has also had a long term issue not listening to playerbase feedback but is now actually working towards that after 5 years of ignorance of player feedback. There are things WG could do for example hire player moderators to moderate player suggestions in the forums and share the best suggestions to the WG staff, atleast this is how War Thunder usually does to save staff and resources to implement new content and do balancing changes. Think wargaming could atleast have a suggestion section in the forum for constructive criticism and content/balance discussions that is easy to follow and not lost in general discussion.

The problem with that thread is that suggestions are 'lost in the pile', so to say. It has nothing to do with WG or with warships, I see this happen on a lot of forums.

Couldn't some people maybe keep a list of all the more interesting suggestions?

I have been somewhat keeping a private list of all threads that are about suggested tech trees, maybe such a collection topic with links to all the suggestion threads would be nice to have here?

 

Though...it would be nice to know if some of the suggestions are actually sensed by WG staff so we also have a better sense of direction in what feedback they are looking for?

 

4 hours ago, Skyllon said:

Belfast, Khabarovsk, Black...

Flint, Kamikaze, Saipan

 

Btw, I did watch the video. The Montana was actually at the front at the beginning and it may have been there where the Montana had gotten (at least part of) its damage from.

Somewhat at the end the Conq is said to have been holding its fire and only after some more waiting finally decided to shoot the cruisers, but it probably couldn't have fired earlier as it was behind and island (which can be said was its actual fault).

I do agree with the tone of that video, or at least partially. Don't forget that these parrticular videos are also partially just entertainment.

 

The Conq was sitting at the back for almost all the real match. I had a match kinda similar like this one yesterday when playing my Hindi in Lands of Fire.

Both teams had only 1 DD with their DD being an Asashio and that Asashio was at the left side of the map while I was at the island at the right side of the map, taking hits and doing the scout work as our DD was also on left side of map. And what happens?

 

After a couple minutes a Rich tries to cap, but basically gets focussed to death, and 3 other BBs were sitting in the back sniping damage The.Whole.Time!

 

I was risking myself, taking up position for those campers just so they could farm more damage. I left my spot (Rich was almost dead, he received +1 from me have a nice day) and basically said "Go use your HP or something, what are you guys doing hiding behind me?" and "There.is.no.DD there! What are you waithing for?" and the 3 BBs decided to follow me so they could be behind me again? What?!?! They left their positions and tried to find a new position behind me! So then I moved further back into our hinterlands and they kept following me....

Unbelievable. Most games BBs are not so campy and most will actually try to kinda do their thing, but not this match of mine :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,563 posts
32,400 battles
1 hour ago, creamgravy said:

What happened to Conqueror? Nerfed into the ground like Khaba thanks to CCs seal clubbing in random battles?

 

Well that is an overstatement. In the last week on EU Conq is second BB by win rate, first by damage, on NA is third by win rate, first by damage, on SEA is first by both win rate and damage. Khaba is first, second and third by win rate on NA, EU and SEA respectively and first by damage on all three servers. True they are nerfed but not 'to the ground'. Khaba only lose to YY but I guess we can expect it nerfed sooner or later.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GBF-]
Players
769 posts
3,667 battles
3 hours ago, Carrier_Graf_Zeppelin said:

to be fair War Thunder is getting pretty close to be a proper competitor to WoWS since they added cruisers on their latest naval test. Gaijin entertainment has also had a long term issue not listening to playerbase feedback but is now actually working towards that after 5 years of ignorance of player feedback. There are things WG could do for example hire player moderators to moderate player suggestions in the forums and share the best suggestions to the WG staff, atleast this is how War Thunder usually does to save staff and resources to implement new content and do balancing changes. Think wargaming could atleast have a suggestion section in the forum for constructive criticism and content/balance discussions that is easy to follow and not lost in general discussion.

 

War Thunder is no were near close to being a proper competitor it's the most unbalanced game going it really is. WG is a gem compared to Gaijin. I have been playing WT since it was first launched and it has just gotten worse and worse over the past few years. 

 

Anyhow WG needs to teach BB drivers than unless they are in an RN BB they should be firing AP and that pushing is good. They also need to sort out ranked battles too.....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,312 posts
4,034 battles
3 hours ago, DanottiTR said:

Completely true and only for one reason ..no compettion for WG in ships .

Was playing tanks and not anymore for more then 2 yeras why I play warthunder  ... tried to play warplanes and immeadetly jumped to warthundr also for planes ...

No proper ship games yet so still here from time to time till my nerves breakdown and I give a break ...

Waiting for warthunder to make proper ship game :D or any other company ... 

couse this game is getting seriously not fun anymore ...

Amd WT is bringing ships to the game starting with Italian and RN light cruisers

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
124 posts
593 battles
23 minutes ago, GhostRider_24 said:

 

War Thunder is no were near close to being a proper competitor it's the most unbalanced game going it really is. WG is a gem compared to Gaijin. I have been playing WT since it was first launched and it has just gotten worse and worse over the past few years. 

 

Anyhow WG needs to teach BB drivers than unless they are in an RN BB they should be firing AP and that pushing is good. They also need to sort out ranked battles too.....

 

What you are speaking is true, Ive been playing WT since 2013 and I know how they got worse in time. But they only recently eliminated the communication problem they been suffering between developer and player and hence why they are now drastically making changes to Navy branch of the game by bringing in much bigger ships such as cruisers, they also been now changing matchmaking ratings based by player feedback when they present their suggested changes. I can confirm this such as I been one of the vocal players who been trying to push in changes and they been finally heard. I just hope to see Wargaming to improve their communication with the playerbase and not repeat the same mistakes as their younger competitor has been suffering for past 5 years, before they finally wake up that player feedback is very important for the success of their own game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

Imho the biggest problem of the scoring system is the all or nothing idea behind. Win and you get a star, regardless of how well you did. Lose and you lose a star, unless you're topscorer of the losing team (which was a decent concession to make, but given how biased the scoring system is to raw damage dealing, it's more often than not NOT the actual teamplayers that get rewarded for their work, but the selfish damage farmers that may not have done much to actually help the team to a potential victory).

 

Imho the system should be scaled with ingame actions:

You get one star base for winning the game.

You capture a cap, you get a star.

You sink a ship, you get a star.

You get a cap's worth of cap defenses, you get a star.

You block a cap for the time it would need to capture it, you get a star.

You get heroic achievements (Confederate, High Caliber, Kraken Unleashed, Witherer, Dreadnought ... *cough*Solowarrior*cough*), you get a star for each.

 

Same rules apply to the losing team, except that instead of getting star, you lose one star base. Note that this is a very rough basic idea just to illustrate the thought. Personally I'd rather tie the stars for frags to dealing damage equal to the enemy team's average ship HP to avoid people just going for easy kills for stars, but at the same time, taking out a ship is very important regardless of who delivers the final hit ...

 

Naturally the necessary amount of stars to gain ranks should be adjusted accordingly, otherwise it would be too easy to fly up the ranks with just a few good games (players are supposed to be consistently good after all).

Also, no irrevocable ranks. So safe havens for people to rely on. The only permament rank should be the final, first rank, everything else you can win or lose depending on your performance.

 

 

Ranked is allegedly about individual skill. Why the progression system then completely puts you at the mercy of the luck of draw regarding your teammates is something I can't understand. Reward personal performance. Let people who play the objectives advance up the ranks faster and people who do the absolute bare minimum (i.e.: being on a team that wins) are welcome to grind their way up the ladder of statistical propability.

 

 

 

I'm not even going to adress the bigger problem with Ranked though, which is the average player skill. WG can't fix stupid. But with a reward system like the one proposed right here, even if a player utterly gets let down by MM and put into a team of potatoes or selfish damage farmers, he should at least be able to compensate for the flat loss of a start upon defeat if he plays the objective, or even gain one or some stars if he plays really well, regardless of how hard the other 6 players of the team are throwing the game. And it would be much more case-sensitive than just top-scorer of the losing team (which more often than not is simply one of the blokes that hanged back and farmed damage all game long, not the ones who got their noses beaten bloody for trying to play the objective).

 

Maybe I can get @MrConway, @Tuccy and @Sub_Octavian to take a look at this.

  • Cool 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GBF-]
Players
769 posts
3,667 battles
7 minutes ago, Carrier_Graf_Zeppelin said:

 

What you are speaking is true, Ive been playing WT since 2013 and I know how they got worse in time. But they only recently eliminated the communication problem they been suffering between developer and player and hence why they are now drastically making changes to Navy branch of the game by bringing in much bigger ships such as cruisers, they also been now changing matchmaking ratings based by player feedback when they present their suggested changes. I can confirm this such as I been one of the vocal players who been trying to push in changes and they been finally heard. I just hope to see Wargaming to improve their communication with the playerbase and not repeat the same mistakes as their younger competitor has been suffering for past 5 years, before they finally wake up that player feedback is very important for the success of their own game.

 

You and I must have played two different games then........the WT I know is nothing like that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
124 posts
593 battles
1 minute ago, GhostRider_24 said:

 

You and I must have played two different games then........the WT I know is nothing like that.....

These changes are very recent, if you haven't played within 2-3 months you probably wouldn't have noticed. Since they are even finally now addressing the long time problem that people had with premium P-47s and P-47s in general. They also were wanting to increase the Me-262 rating even further but based by player feedback in the forums these changes didn't happen. Their shift of listening to feedback is very noticeable now as they even have Q&As on every Shooting Range video shows they are actively reading and answering feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

I was considering doing a breakdown of that video... even for Jingles standards there's so so much he gets wrong :fish_palm: Easy to criticize when you are clueless about what you're talking about

 

9 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

Let's make it: Vote against players. If a player get's 4 (or more) "NO" from his team he's either not gaining a star (if he's on the winning team) or losing a star (if he's on the losing team, but in top XP position, in that case the 'not-losing-a-star' option get's passed on to the next player).

I'm getting yelled at my incompetent teammates for being "bad" "useless" "garbage" and so on 9 games out of every 10. At a similar rate I tend to end up being one of the top 2 XP earners that game being far ahead those who trail behind.

 

The average potato doesn't have enough intelligence to understand what and why you are doing, so this would make a bad system worse. (Best example - I think there wasn't a single Amagi game where I was kiting half of the enemy team without getting called a "useless retard who's only running away" by half of mine).

 

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

first by damage

Which means absolutely nothing since you show complete ignorance to HOW it gets that damage (which more than explains why it's higher up and why that is meaningless)

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

Well that is an overstatement. In the last week on EU Conq is second BB by win rate, first by damage, on NA is third by win rate, first by damage, on SEA is first by both win rate and damage. Khaba is first, second and third by win rate on NA, EU and SEA respectively and first by damage on all three servers. True they are nerfed but not 'to the ground'. Khaba only lose to YY but I guess we can expect it nerfed sooner or later.  

 

Both are now extremely narrow damage farmers with no flexibility. Conq has a bad WR and Khaba only gets average stats with a small amount of dedicated players (3000 games in the last 2 weeks compared to 15,000 of Gearing etc)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×