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

When even the CC's know you are ignoramuses, you know you're headed for the trash bin

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
358 posts
16,867 battles

Well, since @Jbnn couldn't handle a little salt, and decided to commit one of the classic Logical Fallacies and tried to shut me up because he was too much of a fragile snowflake to handle a little bit of heat, here's the version that uses eloquent language to explain what a total case of rectal craniosis is afflicting the WG product mangement crew.  

This is the third season I have complained / commented on this.  I observed similar complaints for at least two seasons prior. 

 

But this is the first season I've seen CCs chip in and say "Dudes, you guys who define what success means, you guys don't have three neurons to rub together."  

 

That is TWO YEARS of people telling you to get your [expletive deleted] together.  What, too much vodka and not enough brainpower getting you down, guys?

 

Now, even your CCs are telling you this.  Let me give you guys at WG a little hint:  take the message.  Act on it.  Don't let your [expletive-deleted] admins shut it down.  They are only interested in making you feel good, and if it means giving you a happy blow, they'll do it.  

 

But of course, two years, four seasons of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" might make for some inertia.  In which case, don't be surprised when accounts like mine suddenly start playing like dogcrap, stats in the toilet, because we decided to sell them.  After all, that's what happened to WoT.  But I wonder....can you afford an implosion of that sort?

 

Really guys, fix it.  I'm out of ranked now.  Never going to play it again.  Leaving the game soon.  UNLESS you can get your crap together and fix your retarded scoring model.

 

  Az

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,470 posts
19,696 battles

This thread is going to get closed. No constructive response will be given. This is still WG.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
4,742 posts
5,280 battles
Just now, Aragathor said:

This thread is going to get closed. No constructive response will be given. This is still WG.

Reposting a thread that has been previously closed happens to be also against the forum rules last time I checked..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,418 posts
10,953 battles

Well, the reason for closing previous thread was the dirty wording - and I really didn't understand why moderator edited out the wording AND closed the thread. As a punishment? The bad words were removed. 

 

Regarding "not constructive" argument - sorry, I don't buy it

1) this is very subjective, and often looks just as censorship 2) most of the forum content doesn't produce any consensus, and even if produces one, it is not forwarded or accepted into the game...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,971 posts
12,852 battles
1 hour ago, lafeel said:

Reposting a thread that has been previously closed happens to be also against the forum rules last time I checked..

 

This is, indeed, true but it doesn't make him wrong. The way that rewards are skewed in favour of damage rather than for actually playing the objectives is ridiculous. Not just in ranked either.

 

One of the biggest complaints that people have with this game is that the ships that should be up front, the BBs (you know, the tanky ships that should be tanking damage) are so frequently the ones furthest from the fight. People say this is due to cowardice or not wanting to get their paintwork scratched but the reality is that WG have made the rewards system such that this is usually the most effective way to earn rewards in this game. Players will always find a way to optimise their gains in a game and so BBs sitting far from anywhere farming damage rewards is the result. WG have, through either design or incompetence, created the gameplay we see daily. BBs are probably the most popular class and they earn their rewards specifically through not playing the objectives but by sitting at the back farming damage. When you put this principle into a ranked scenario where the highest XP earner on the losing team keeps a star it leads to people sitting as safe as possible, as far away as possible, just farming damage points.

 

WG know this, they have been told it so often and yet they are too stubborn to listen. It's a shame but that's the way they are, I guess.

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
4,742 posts
5,280 battles
8 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

This is, indeed, true but it doesn't make him wrong. The way that rewards are skewed in favour of damage rather than for actually playing the objectives is ridiculous. Not just in ranked either.

 

One of the biggest complaints that people have with this game is that the ships that should be up front, the BBs (you know, the tanky ships that should be tanking damage) are so frequently the ones furthest from the fight. People say this is due to cowardice or not wanting to get their paintwork scratched but the reality is that WG have made the rewards system such that this is usually the most effective way to earn rewards in this game. Players will always find a way to optimise their gains in a game and so BBs sitting far from anywhere farming damage rewards is the result. WG have, through either design or incompetence, created the gameplay we see daily. BBs are probably the most popular class and they earn their rewards specifically through not playing the objectives but by sitting at the back farming damage. When you put this principle into a ranked scenario where the highest XP earner on the losing team keeps a star it leads to people sitting as safe as possible, as far away as possible, just farming damage points.

 

WG know this, they have been told it so often and yet they are too stubborn to listen. It's a shame but that's the way they are, I guess.

There are better ways to get your point across than by swearing. And while I agree with you on the rewards it is easier to identify a problem than to find a solution to it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[F-R-M]
Beta Tester
96 posts
3,102 battles
13 minutes ago, lafeel said:

There are better ways to get your point across than by swearing. And while I agree with you on the rewards it is easier to identify a problem than to find a solution to it.

For that matter better ways than just being outright rude to people. While we all do get frustrated at times, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion of your argument you should hold yourself to a better standard.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,470 posts
19,696 battles
13 minutes ago, lafeel said:

And while I agree with you on the rewards it is easier to identify a problem than to find a solution to it.

That's the role of the design team, they are being paid for it. Customer's should not be expected to do the problem solving themselves. By giving feedback the customer does the designers a favor, by telling them what doesn't work and should be fixed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,869 posts
9,434 battles

When the only effort made on a topic is trying to cram as much inflammatory language and insults into it as possible, you know you're headed for the trash-bin.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[7DSF]
Beta Tester
1,470 posts
4,557 battles
2 hours ago, Azrael_Ashemdion said:

....... Leaving the game soon .....

 

Ok, bye!

Don't forget to close the door behind you!

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,844 posts
14,993 battles
57 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

... People say this is due to cowardice or not wanting to get their paintwork scratched but the reality is that WG have made the rewards system such that this is usually the most effective way to earn rewards in this game...

I believe this to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Ranked is Ranked. It's a test of your mind set as much as it is your ability as you need tolerance to advance.

 

I'm still laughing at the loser who said they fell from R6 to R10 in a day right at the start of a game then said they were only going to farm stars instead of cap.

 

Needless to say we lost that game hard but I kept my star by playing constructively. I took another star from them about an hour later as they were throwing on the other team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,367 posts
16,858 battles

Well Mongerror and tanking don't really go together well. Des Moines is better at tanking in the open.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
3 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

I believe this to be true.

I don't because as a BBs player who pushes you not only do more damage (except when you get trolled hard by your guns), you also get rewards for tanking and you pose a greater threat to the enemy team. Not to mention that you increase your chance of winning which significantly rises your rewards even further. The problem is not necessarily cowardice but people seeing the big guns with their long range and go "Well, not that I have 25 km range, you should use it to the fullest". There is more to it, instead of just people doing it either for option A or B.

 

3 hours ago, Aragathor said:

That's the role of the design team, they are being paid for it. Customer's should not be expected to do the problem solving themselves. By giving feedback the customer does the designers a favor, by telling them what doesn't work and should be fixed.

I'd go so far and say that some problems can't be solved properly. Or in reward terms, how do you want to reward non-quantifiable actions during the battle with an automated system. Damage is a number you can tack rewards to, so is tanking, spotting, taking a cap and shooting down aircraft. But how do you want to (automatically) rate actions like opening opportunities for the rest of your team, "fear factor", saving allies (e.g. bei smoking them up), maybe even self sacrifice?

Sure, atm they all come into play for wether you win or not but they don't increase your exp and credits in a direct way.

 

Then again, I don't have any experience in game design, besides that I have played a ton of video games over the years. But for the love of me, I don't see how this should work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
5,416 battles
33 minutes ago, Tungstonid said:

I don't because as a BBs player who pushes you not only do more damage (except when you get trolled hard by your guns), you also get rewards for tanking and you pose a greater threat to the enemy team. Not to mention that you increase your chance of winning which significantly rises your rewards even further. The problem is not necessarily cowardice but people seeing the big guns with their long range and go "Well, not that I have 25 km range, you should use it to the fullest". There is more to it, instead of just people doing it either for option A or B.

 

I'd go so far and say that some problems can't be solved properly. Or in reward terms, how do you want to reward non-quantifiable actions during the battle with an automated system. Damage is a number you can tack rewards to, so is tanking, spotting, taking a cap and shooting down aircraft. But how do you want to (automatically) rate actions like opening opportunities for the rest of your team, "fear factor", saving allies (e.g. bei smoking them up), maybe even self sacrifice?

Sure, atm they all come into play for wether you win or not but they don't increase your exp and credits in a direct way.

 

Then again, I don't have any experience in game design, besides that I have played a ton of video games over the years. But for the love of me, I don't see how this should work.

The problem is that damage isn't really rated as class specific. Percentage damage yes, but dealing 90k in a dd is far more contribution than doing the same in a bb. And that's where the problem lies. This is also what makes a lot of bbs shoot each other, because there is more total damage to be gained. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,657 posts
11,770 battles

While XP and usefulness to the team USUALLY correlates quite a bit, the current rules - with the huge advantage of being #1 and ONLY #1 basically can't be salvaged, even if XP rewarding were to be improved - because many things simply can't be gauged properly.

 

In the first season where this happened, the rules were actually a bit different - at that time capping gave much more XP than it does now. What it meant, however, was that a DD lucky enough to get into an uncontested cap was at a huge initial advantage. And even if you say "it's all about caps" that still wasn't fair because contesting a cap (making it harder for enemy to cap while trying to secure cap yourself) was extremely dangerous and usually not very well rewarded. An "empty" cap, on the other hand, gave lots of XP at no risk.

 

Then the rules were changed so that capping became less decisive as far as XP goes - but that, on the other hand, screwed DDs over since their main job (besides capping) was to spot and smoke. Farming damage, on the other hand, became much more effective - and it's not farming damage that we want to reward with not losing a star, now is it.

 

My point is: the idea of top XP player not losing a star is flawed at the very core. It doesn't matter how exactly XP is granted - it's impossible to adequately gauge the effort put into victory by each team member. And it's impossible to create a system that doesn't serve as an incentive to play for yourself rather than team. And, what's even worse - I remember the pre-toop-loser-saves-star system. On some maps there were "jobs" that rewarded you with nothing but were necessary. The North map had a cap where you could sit on one side of the island, the enemy on the other - almost impossible to push through but necessary to block the cap with one ship while the rest of each team fought for the other cap. It might not be the best map design, as the cap-blocking wasn't exactly a fascinating job but, the thing is - there always was someone willing to do that. Because that was an important thing to do if you wanted to win. But the player doing that almost always came as one of the last 2 places - can you imagine people actually doing that for their team with current rules? Another example of the side-effect of the previous system vs the current one: someone doing quite a lot and then dying early. Old system? When something like this happened to me, I sat watching the rest of the battle and hoping against hope that my team wins, no matter how bad the situation is. Now? Well, if they seem to have an advantage or a good chance of winning, I'm rooting for them, but if they're significantly behind? I find myself literally rooting for the enemy. It's nasty, sure, but it smells like a defeat and I want to keep my star, alright? I want my "allies" to spontaneously detonate, if possible! And I can't help it - I feel dirty for thinking like this, but the game tells me that that's how I should be thinking: after all, in my best interest (once the victory doesn't seem possible) is to see allies dying ignominiously.

 

Current system is toxic. It poisons team spirit of the Ranked mode that should be (and once was) extremely uplifting in this aspect - sure people were mad at teammates' mistakes but every wanted to win and winning - as a team - was the only goal people thought of.

 

 

 

Now, currently we have the disaster we have. I understand that WG wants to promote people who do something and getting high on the team list indeed does correlate with doing something. But making it a "#1 saves a star thing" is just not the way.

If we have to have something like this, I'd much more enjoy a slightly different system: every time you're in top 5 of your team (win or lose) you get a tiny pin for your effort. Every time you accumulate 10 pins, your next defeat is "forgiven" - 10 pins are consumed instead of a star. There could be a limit (can't accumulate more than 10 pins a day) to make it less advantageous for people who just spam battles all day long.

A system like this would have several advantages:

1. Being at the very top doesn't necessarily mean you were the most useful. Being at the bottom almost always means that you failed to help your team.

2. Being instrumental in victories is rewarded too - and, in fact, on won matches the top spots better correlate with usefulness than top spots on a defeat.

3. The average "star generation rate" stays more-or-less as it is now - on average we get one star appearing out of nowhere every match.

4. Having high XP isn't really important anymore - not sucking too much is what gives you a pin AND even if you fail at being top 5, that's just 1/10th of a star you failed to save, not a whole one.

 

The system wouldn't be perfect, of course. But I have a strong feeling that it would, at the very least, be much better than what we have now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,196 posts
14,119 battles
7 hours ago, Azrael_Ashemdion said:

Well, since @Jbnn couldn't handle a little salt, and decided to commit one of the classic Logical Fallacies and tried to shut me up because he was too much of a fragile snowflake to handle a little bit of heat, here's the version that uses eloquent language to explain what a total case of rectal craniosis is afflicting the WG product mangement crew.  

This is the third season I have complained / commented on this.  I observed similar complaints for at least two seasons prior. 

 

But this is the first season I've seen CCs chip in and say "Dudes, you guys who define what success means, you guys don't have three neurons to rub together."  

 

That is TWO YEARS of people telling you to get your [expletive deleted] together.  What, too much vodka and not enough brainpower getting you down, guys?

 

Now, even your CCs are telling you this.  Let me give you guys at WG a little hint:  take the message.  Act on it.  Don't let your [expletive-deleted] admins shut it down.  They are only interested in making you feel good, and if it means giving you a happy blow, they'll do it.  

 

 

 

Someone who does not know that insults are not allowed on the forum and get deleted, even after he got told that would happen, does not seem to be the bightest star in the sky...

 

Btw, bye bye!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles

 

7 hours ago, lafeel said:

Reposting a thread that has been previously closed happens to be also against the forum rules last time I checked..

I am pretty sure discussing moderation is also very much against the forum rules too.

5 hours ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 BBs are probably the most popular class and they earn their rewards specifically through not playing the objectives but by sitting at the back farming damage. When you put this principle into a ranked scenario where the highest XP earner on the losing team keeps a star it leads to people sitting as safe as possible, as far away as possible, just farming damage points.

That is why in that video the DM came top on xp right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ROT8]
Players
2,730 posts
52 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

dealing 90k in a dd is far more contribution than doing the same in a bb. 

Why is that then? It's still only 90k of the enemy team total whoever gets it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,274 posts
10,039 battles
1 hour ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

The problem is that damage isn't really rated as class specific. Percentage damage yes, but dealing 90k in a dd is far more contribution than doing the same in a bb. And that's where the problem lies. This is also what makes a lot of bbs shoot each other, because there is more total damage to be gained. 

So capping in a BB is contributing more to a victory then when you cap in a DD? :Smile_hiding:

I get what you are saying and I agree that its harder to do the same amount of damage in a DD then in a BB consistently but if you take one battle 90k dmg is 90k dmg. Doesnt matter if that is done by CV,CA,DD or BB.

 

Im not sure about this, but does doing dmg (lets say you dev strike a ship from 100% hp to 0) give more xp in a DD then a BB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
19 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

So capping in a BB is contributing more to a victory then when you cap in a DD? :Smile_hiding:

I get what you are saying and I agree that its harder to do the same amount of damage in a DD then in a BB consistently but if you take one battle 90k dmg is 90k dmg. Doesnt matter if that is done by CV,CA,DD or BB.

 

Im not sure about this, but does doing dmg (lets say you dev strike a ship from 100% hp to 0) give more xp in a DD then a BB?

A dev strike is a dev strike, I don't think the system differentiates what the firing ship was.

 

That said I think he worded it badly as doing 90k to BB's in a BB scores less than doing 90k to DD's or Cruisers, the scoring system is weighted towards the percentage of the HP of the target ship you've done, so where as 20k is not much of a blip to a BB target it will wipe out (or close to it) a DD. Heals possibly have an effect as well, but I don't know just how much or how.

Since DD's are often fighting other DD's in caps their damage can be more meaningful in impact to the game, but that's very generalised as later on in the game they're often torpedoing BB's.

The same is true for any ship of course - shell a DD to near death for 18k scores more than setting 18k in fires on a BB.

I'm sure you already know this, but some people reading the thread may not.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
5,416 battles
34 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

So capping in a BB is contributing more to a victory then when you cap in a DD? :Smile_hiding:

I get what you are saying and I agree that its harder to do the same amount of damage in a DD then in a BB consistently but if you take one battle 90k dmg is 90k dmg. Doesnt matter if that is done by CV,CA,DD or BB.

 

Im not sure about this, but does doing dmg (lets say you dev strike a ship from 100% hp to 0) give more xp in a DD then a BB?

When you got a 17 ton broadside every 30s it is far easier to deal this damage. When looking at the average damage for classes there is a clear difference. What I'm trying to say is that it takes a lot more to score that damage with torps and he spam than it takes to do so by shooting super structures etc. I average about 75k on two of my three t10 dds. For the class those numbers are good, now imagine a guy with that average on a yamato. Which do you think takes more work/competence/understanding/skill?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,189 posts
4,658 battles
3 hours ago, Tungstonid said:

I'd go so far and say that some problems can't be solved properly. Or in reward terms, how do you want to reward non-quantifiable actions during the battle with an automated system. Damage is a number you can tack rewards to, so is tanking, spotting, taking a cap and shooting down aircraft. But how do you want to (automatically) rate actions like opening opportunities for the rest of your team, "fear factor", saving allies (e.g. bei smoking them up), maybe even self sacrifice?

The problem is that instead of improving what can be improved, WG does nothing. Spotting damage XP is something that can easily be improved. Spotting is an integral part of the game and cruisers most ships completely rely on it. Yet, this crucial teamwork dynamic is ignored by WG. They've had a very long time to fix it, but they choose not to.

 

Other dynamics such as firing and doing damage while obscured by smoke from someone else is also something that could be rewarded, but isn't. In terms of programming, it seems very easily implementable.

 

Instead of designing missions and other objectives such as badges that reward a wide range of positive behavior, WG is one-dimensionally focusing on rewarding doing damage, sinking ships and gaining xp - all of which are tied only to dealing damage.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,971 posts
12,852 battles
4 minutes ago, Tubit101 said:

The problem is that instead of improving what can be improved, WG does nothing. Spotting damage XP is something that can easily be improved. Spotting is an integral part of the game and cruisers most ships completely rely on it. Yet, this crucial teamwork dynamic is ignored by WG. They've had a very long time to fix it, but they choose not to.

 

Other dynamics such as firing and doing damage while obscured by smoke from someone else is also something that could be rewarded, but isn't. In terms of programming, it seems very easily implementable.

 

Instead of designing missions and other objectives such as badges that reward a wide range of positive behavior, WG is one-dimensionally focusing on rewarding doing damage, sinking ships and gaining xp - all of which are currently tied only to dealing damage.

That is one of the parts of WG "logic" that I just cannot get my head around. They have a tendency to "fix" things that were never broken (the division window change screams at me for this one) and ignore the things that are.

 

When they do make changes they seldom, if ever, revert them if they turn out to be duds.  (Again - division window)

 

On the face of it the decision to allow the top loser to retain a star was a laudable one. The idea being that someone who worked there 'llocks off trying to carry a crap team should not be punished because he got stuck with a load of players with the combined incompetence of, well, the WG design team was a good one on papaer. However it rapidly became clear that this was not what was happening. Feedback from the first season of its implementation showed that it was just encouraging the "mongs" to camp harder and farm more. Great idea but didn't achieve the desired effect. At that point WG should have gone back to the drawing board. Did they? Did they phuq! No instead they just left it as was and carried on  with their obsession of changing things for change's sake. (Like the frigging division window).

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

×