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

'playerbase *Edited & balancing?

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PARAZ]
Players
46 posts
15,183 battles

I briefly read some of the posts and found a reoccuring issue that ALL! threads about the gameplay have. Essentially there were some issues where we all tried to find solutions, but at the same time you could also fill in another argument aswell. It is debatable, 'That the majority of the playerbase is *Edited doesn't pose a balancing problem.' (cited from another forum as a sarcastic statement)

 

What he meant was, e.g. Stalingrad OP. Well migth be true, but you cannot test its strength based on players,  *Edited ones, don't know how to play against it. And we all can agree that to some degree we can mitigate an enemy Stalingrad, but you cannot balance a ship around the guys who cannot play against it. [Well I take it back- BBs with underwater citadels...]. And just the argument that he can punish you at max distances does not mean that it is unfair/unbalanced since it certainly is not skill dependent that you sailed broadside to him, even at 20km range... Aswell as we have BBs that can be sniped off by any CV if they play solo and complain about balance. Or as another example CVs. We all can agree that in randoms the more skilled CV player makes a huge deal. And you all may wonder, how do you 'fix' CVs? Another way of seeing this is, the only reason this is a deal, is because >75% of CV players have no clue how to play them. I see CVs in T10 that are doomed to lose all their planes to a single strafe. If, on the other hand, they would know what to do; let's say I as a unicum player complaining about CVs, who does not how to strike well, would be paried against a good CV player, well then he would have more impact on the game by dealing more damage than me, but other than this, because I know which targets to focus, to spot dds etc. it would be not game decisive. And we all would accept the better CV player just the same as 'they got OMNI BB' but that is it and nothing more, which is exactly how it is intended to be. And as for CVs, I won't blame WG for not rewarding 'correct' play, you play correct because that is how you win the game, not because that gives you fake money.

 

So basicly the question is, when you (let's stay honest, WG, but we might have some influence on it if we all can agree on a note here) balance mechanics, do you go for the objective gameplay (like if 2 good players play against each other, it should be an equal fight), or do you prefer to go for the majority (CVs are OP because I cannot camp at the 10 line alone any more, Stalingrad is OP because I have to be more careful than I am right now). We know WGs reason to tend to the 2nd option, but for us, as a playerbase, and the playerbase that WG gets some money from aswell; how do WE deal with this issue?

So the thread of the topic is- all of you know encountered retarded players, like BBs going 9-10 line on Northern lights, when they don't get that they are out of fight for 5+ mins, while the rest of the team has to play without 2 Top Tier BBs. DDs that go off not spotting, because it is 'too dangerous'. Or my favourite is 'B is a trap' and exactly therefore noone of our team going there, meaning they can cap this so called trap with no risk at all. Or the map Trap and all the guys lemming towards A...

What I was trying to do, and pls leave the HAMI jokes aside, I was telling my teammates in randoms, always when playing solo, what to do. At least a suggestion, at the start of the game, same as I do in clanwars. If there are questions, I am fast enough in the first 2 minutes to explain why. My experience was quite often they do listen. Also, e.g. if you say 'ALL BC' on Ice of Islands (which is admittedly not the very best, but the best would depend on setups, ship composition, fine tuning, ... then just the easy ALL BC would do the deal most of the times), people having success with it often repeat the statement next time on the map. So giving them general instructions are benefitial. 
But then there are [edited]. Like guys who sail 9-10 line on Northern lights. Even if there is no D cap. And when I try to explain anything (in Hope we will never do that again, I get reported). I got chatbanned doing non-raging explanation *Edited, after which my solo game (which relied on communicating with teammates) sucked. Not just strategy, but just asking a dd if he can smoke ahead is a huge deal... This is what gets me most- correct a fool and he will hate you.

So back to the topic, I think the biggest problem with WOWs is the playerbase. If you could correct it somehow many of the issues we discuss would be solved. And it is less the question of skill. I honestly, do not mind a player to be bad, as long as he is doing his best and thinks reasonably, reacts on arguments and suggestions, I am completely fine. What I am not fine is an ashashio as only dd not going to spot, because 'asashio is bad fighting dds, that is why he goes wide' against a kiev that capped! and radar cruisers using spotter planes (ty yuro) and staying on their opinion even after I explain them calmly the benefits for the team of having a radar. Anyone might have a point of doing something, and it is fine until you are proved otherwise. All I am asking the playerbase in randoms is just to use the brain a bit, listen to me if I have a point and admit it's mistakes to perform better next game. But so far, sadly, the majority of the playerbase is braindead after all. 

Regarding this, if you agree with me, do you just accept the fact or should we try to change that a bit. I mean if we can change 10% it would be enough already, like making some tutorial videos on youtube about why you don't go a on ice if islands, and (advanced) when it is a good option, but never for a lemmingtrain.
If you just accept that statement and do nothing about it, then there is no reason to talk about stalingrad balance, or CVs etc, since the main point are the '[edited]' that cannot play against it and suffer, and we suffer having them on our side. You will never be able to balance a 'braindead' player on your side from the perspective of developers.
And if you disagree with mine (or rather the author of the line), why do you think so? Why is the attitude *Edited, team ignorant actions not harmful to randoms? Since all you want to have is a game when you can show your skills. Which most of the times do not happen because your friendly team already threw it away in the first minutes, not by individual mistakes, but by collective force.

Edited by Nohe21
*Please mind your language when posting on the Forums.
  • Cool 10
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,413 posts
8,111 battles

It's more difficult for newer players than it ever has been. They have more ship lines to deal with, more consumable inspired game play strategies to learn to counter, a more experienced player base to face in opposition, and things like clans and divisions which allow the concentration of skilled players and op ship combinations. 

 

If we could play our 2015 selves, used to two lines of ships without radar, smoke meta and all the rest, we'd probably think our old selves were brain dead potatoes too. 

 

The solution is to give those high skilled players more to do by way of Ranked and Clan battles, where there is more of a level playing field, and let Random games be more about casual play and levelling/learning. 

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,675 posts
15,336 battles

No no, my friend.. Quite the contrary, my potato-self was quite ingenious and highly intelligent. But of course absolutely sucked at WoWs as the opposite to current me, who is somewhat better at Wows, but otherwise senile / braindead.:Smile_Default:..@invicta2012

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,246 posts
15,793 battles

Problem with ships like the Stalingrad is its AP is very strong. And easy to land a huge broadsides hits  on "idiots", leading to more landslide losses.

 

They think they might know how to angle but it has usn autobounce angles , and idiots will get utterly rekt by it.

 

It has no HE , but does that really matter, i know what these types of ap shells can do with my experience in the DM accept this ship doesn't have floaty arcs..

 

This is the kind of stuff that hurt good players in the long run , making stuff that "oblitarates braindead" players is causing landslide victories/defeats  and is almost impossible to play solo high tier and have any sort of fun

 

Don't get me started on the Okinawa map , they always goes to A giving up all map control, this map got me banned for 8 days :Smile-angry:

 

I think one solution would be that WG needs to completely rework some of their maps , to be less "open" , so potatoes can camp more and stay alive a little longer to do something usefull like a yolo ambush lol , not sure but these maps are not for idiots

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
309 posts
5,654 battles
56 minutes ago, DataDemon said:

 Since all you want to have is a game when you can show your skills.

Well, speak for yourself. You should keep in mind that the competitive playerbase is probably a minority.

Not saying that casual players should always get preferential treatment, by the way. Or else we'll end up with a smartphone-class game...

 

More on topic, if I understand correctly your long wall of text, you just want more skill selection in the competitive modes (ie ranked, since CW seem a bit better on this aspect) ?

 

Edit: basically, what @invicta2012 said ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Alpha Tester
3,252 posts
7,272 battles
32 minutes ago, Ysterpyp said:

 

I think one solution would be that WG needs to completely rework some of their maps , to be less "open" , so potatoes can camp more and stay alive a little longer to do something usefull like a yolo ambush lol , not sure but these maps are not for idiots

 

we had map "corridor" rework in wot

its one way road to hell, you dont want that

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
152 posts
4,302 battles

The playerbase will never change.
It cannot change unless players actively try to change and improve.And i am only speaking about the game mechanics here and not map strategies which for most, are super advanced stuff.
Force feeding information and tutorials in game is not an option.Every one will just dismiss the video that poped on his screen and go on to his first match of the day.

About the inmatch communication:
-Personally i will follow what som1 calls except if its super stupid in my personal opinion. In that case i will fast explain why i will not follow it, will tell em what my plan is and proceed with my game.-2 or -3 karma follows.
-Midgame, its hard to follow chat because wg still hasnt introduced tabs in chat. 1 tab that will show only the fast f-messages that no1 cares to read and another that will show only actual player chat.

The biggest problem of the game(regarding randoms + ranked), besides people not being able to communicate in English is people not knowing basic mechanics like angling and also the disadvantage a player running without mods has versus someone that runs with mods.
The second part can easily be address by wg by including in vanilla game mods like : navigator, minimap ship lines, zoom out, side-panels with health etc. These alone will boost the average players performance by at least 10-20%. At least that was the performance increase i saw in my self when i started using them close to my 600 battles.

Now about the first part of the above paragraph.
So far to advance tiers you only need to grind xp and nothing else.
Imagine if after you unlock each new ship tier you had to pass a scripted test where it would teach you some new mechanic or tactic or playstyle specific to the ship line you are currently playing.
Angling for example since i mentioned it before.
You enter your solo "test" in a tier 5 Kongo.
10km from your broadside is another bb that fires and does scripted damage.
You are stationary, heal up and the other ship moves to another angle where it shoots again. And that is repeat 3-4 times for various angles.
Meanwhile a voice that matches your client language explains stuff.
Interactive, not overly boring and most importantly without pressure at all.

Same thing could be scripted for baiting radars, smoke shooting, map awareness, push or kite tactics etc.
Other than that, i can see no other way to "forcibly" explain to a potato what he does wrong and what he ignores.

To give a real example how ignorant some player are.
I have a real life friend who after 800 matches still thinks that destroyers have citadels.
Prefers to play at max range with bb because he is afraid of fires and is yolo rushing with cruisers because its fun.
Thinks that when a destroyer torps, it has to appear on his screen.
Blames his team for whatever absurd reason but never himself.
Has no idea what those tiny yello exclamation marks that occasionally pop on his screen mean(you really need to either change them or freaking make em bigger).
Played a bit of ranked for the rewards.
40% wr and avg dmg ofr 15k on everything.
That attitude does not easily change.And that guy, who i really love, will eventually get to tier 10 playing a yamato with 40k avg dmg.



 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP]
Beta Tester
260 posts
18,065 battles

Its randoms. what do you expect :P
Im already happy WG implemented Clan wars for this particular reason.

theres not in a billion years a way to explain a potato what he does wrong since potatoes will not listen to your words.Simply because "its the internet and on the internet, im always right"

 

i would love to see WG balancing skill. But since there are divisions, it will be way harder for a MM to balance that out.
Beside that... Lemmings to A have showed me its an interesting tactic to take 2/3 down and then steamroll the rest with massive firepower ;)

 

Imagine what Alexander the Great wouldve done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
7,119 battles
20 minutes ago, Ouzo11 said:

To give a real example how ignorant some player are.
I have a real life friend who after 800 matches still thinks that destroyers have citadels.
Prefers to play at max range with bb because he is afraid of fires and is yolo rushing with cruisers because its fun.
Thinks that when a destroyer torps, it has to appear on his screen.
Blames his team for whatever absurd reason but never himself.
Has no idea what those tiny yello exclamation marks that occasionally pop on his screen mean(you really need to either change them or freaking make em bigger).
Played a bit of ranked for the rewards.
40% wr and avg dmg ofr 15k on everything.
That attitude does not easily change.And that guy, who i really love, will eventually get to tier 10 playing a yamato with 40k avg dmg.

 

That rings a bell and is very true.  We have 2 players like this, both BB players to be honest.

 

No matter how much we tell them, they do the same thing and are afrade of taking hits.  What's more funny is they keep asking what Premium is best to get :cap_fainting:

 

That sums up alot of players who play this game.  Rightly or wrongly, that's what the game has to work with most of the time. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,299 battles

I don't think we have a right to judge what other people do for fun. Many people play this game just to relax, for immersion, because they like historical ships. They don't know their stats, or care. It's easy for us to call them braindead but no matter how much they annoy us we don't have the right to make that judgement. They're simply choosing to enjoy the game in a different way and that's fine.

 

As for whether we should balance around them, I would personally say not, because it doesn't matter to them. If they don't understand basic game mechanics, and don't care that they don't understand, then it makes no difference if the game is balanced in their favour or not. They will always be farmed by those who play the game to win, but they'll have their brand of fun regardless.

 

Now, of course the game could do better to keep competitive players happy in their own modes while splitting casuals more. Actually it already does this quite well with co-op and operations. The only thing it could do better is run ranked seasons longer and with shorter breaks between. If ranked was a more or less permanent mode, and if it was balanced so that ranks actually meant something and you couldn't fail your way to the top, then I think a lot of competitive players would be much happier.

 

The other thing the game could do better is a bit more intuitive tactics. I'm not asking for full realism, the game already captures and condenses many aspects of naval combat very well in my opinion. Unfortunately, it also blows others out of the water. This is why there is so much friction between casual players who just want to relive a bit of history and play accordingly (right or wrong) and competitive players who have mastered the abstract counter-intuitive tactics required to play the game well as a game. This is a controversial topic I know and this isn't the place for a detailed proposal. But I will say I do believe there are several ways to make the game more representative and intuitive from a historical perspective without removing the aspects of fast paced action and skill.

  • Cool 8
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
6,009 battles
Just now, VC381 said:

I don't think we have a right to judge what other people do for fun.

 

And people should not put their "fun" in front of other peoples "fun".

If you like yoloing, by all means do that, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 players.

If you like "sniping" from the back with your BB, that is fine, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 people over.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,417 posts
7,912 battles

I can relate to some people simply not having it in them. I also got a RL friend and he played up to tier 6 or so I think? But he has a hard time grasping that it's a bad idea to start capping in a BB at the start of the match :Smile_teethhappy::Smile_facepalm:

He wants to enjoy, but this game isn't the easiest to get good in.

I ended up recommending him to play cruiser as it's the least harmfull way to yolo and still be the least unuseful (hey I tried to make it kinda work, please bear with me lol). With the other classes it seemed to me that playing bad would hurt the team more.

 

And some players (like this friend of mine) didn't like the veeery slow turret traverse of BBs and is more for the quick action, in which he fails miserably (so bad idea to make this game more fast pace, like in WoT).

 

It took a long time for me to become as good as I am now while playing mostly tier 8 these days, I think new players (often without a clan even) who play reasonably and are basically anonymous and die without anyone noticing...these are some of the most useful in the game as they also never complain and get toxic towards other teammembers.

 

They are kinda the forgotten ones and I sometimes end up chatting to one of them after a battle. They often have trouble getting around the UI and don't really understand how to ping the map etcetera (which to me is perfectly understandable as it took a long while for me to find out too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,299 battles
30 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

And people should not put their "fun" in front of other peoples "fun".

If you like yoloing, by all means do that, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 players.

If you like "sniping" from the back with your BB, that is fine, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 people over.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

 

So... If their idea of fun is playing badly in randoms, what right do we have to put our fun in front of theirs and tell them to only play co-op? What if I said you should only play ranked if you care so much about everyone around you playing "properly"? See, your argument doesn't work. It's much easier to ignore how other people play, live with it, adapt, farm them on the other team and have your fun. If ranked was permanent and really skill based, then there you would be right. Randoms is for everyone, for better or worse.

 

18 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

but this game isn't the easiest to get good in.

 

In the nicest possible way... really?! I keep seeing people saying this, advising others that they need a few thousand games to understand the game properly. I honestly don't think so and I don't mean to offend those that have put more hours into this game than me. A hard game to get good at would be League of Legends. And I'm not saying I was particularly good at that or that I'm amazing here, but it didn't take me particularly long to grasp warships once I accepted a couple of abstract game elements.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,036 posts
8,115 battles

wall of text ... gonna have to read it on my day off bud :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TEACH]
Alpha Tester
2,431 posts
9,444 battles

Too many unverified figures / statements in the OP's statement, thus very subjective, but that's ok. 'Not being able to balance a ship around guys who cannot play it' is understandable, but how true is it really in the sense that the situations facing most players are far more complex that a 1v1 scenario - there are more variables at play in each and every game.

 

The questions are 'how are the ships tested, who tests them, how 'qualified' are the testers, what are the balancing factors and how does WG justify the balancing mechanics?

 

It sounds rather like some people want to defend the possible OP'ness of a certain ship since they possess it and want to continue to have an advantage and people who don't possess the ship and are angry / jealous that others have a perceived advantage over them....the best way to overcome all of this  to and from BS is to look at the ship itself, for all parties to drop their bias and in the spirit of true fairness assess the ship in a fair and just way, but because of the above biases people won't do this because of greed, jealousy, fear of losing ones stats since it defines who they are (shame), anger, pettiness, childishness and a lack of sportsmanship because some people's fragile sense of confidence depends on how important they look in a game.

 

Was I too harsh to all parties? Blame my lack of lunch.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,417 posts
7,912 battles
23 minutes ago, VC381 said:

In the nicest possible way... really?! I keep seeing people saying this, advising others that they need a few thousand games to understand the game properly. I honestly don't think so and I don't mean to offend those that have put more hours into this game than me. A hard game to get good at would be League of Legends. And I'm not saying I was particularly good at that or that I'm amazing here, but it didn't take me particularly long to grasp warships once I accepted a couple of abstract game elements.

Maybe I should reword it a bit, I was trying to say that it takes a while to at least get to a reasonable level of understanding this game.

It may take thousands of games to get good in it, but it takes far less to be able to get average in it, provided one is willing to learn.

 

I agree with your last bit (regarding myself, I thank Flamu for that :Smile_great:).

 

I would like to mention that having an understanding of the game is not the same as being good at the game (and I'm not implying that you said this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
371 posts
10,591 battles
29 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

So... If their idea of fun is playing badly in randoms, what right do we have to put our fun in front of theirs and tell them to only play co-op? What if I said you should only play ranked if you care so much about everyone around you playing "properly"? See, your argument doesn't work. It's much easier to ignore how other people play, live with it, adapt, farm them on the other team and have your fun. If ranked was permanent and really skill based, then there you would be right. Randoms is for everyone, for better or worse.

 

 

In the nicest possible way... really?! I keep seeing people saying this, advising others that they need a few thousand games to understand the game properly. I honestly don't think so and I don't mean to offend those that have put more hours into this game than me. A hard game to get good at would be League of Legends. And I'm not saying I was particularly good at that or that I'm amazing here, but it didn't take me particularly long to grasp warships once I accepted a couple of abstract game elements.

If you join a team in a soccer match,  that team will expect you to play soccer with them, not basketball.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
309 posts
5,654 battles
2 hours ago, Juanx said:

 

And people should not put their "fun" in front of other peoples "fun".

If you like yoloing, by all means do that, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 players.

If you like "sniping" from the back with your BB, that is fine, but do it in coop, where you will not be screwing other 11 people over.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

Clear, yes, and actually *very* debatable.

You want to ban casuals from randoms ? I'd rather ban hardcore players from randoms.

You already have ranked (well, if it were better done) and CW for competitive games.

edit: once again, ninja'd by @VC381

 

@Lieut_Gruber, I've had several great games of 'football' that had little to do with the actual rules.

Maybe we should accept the fact that randoms are meant to be rather chaotic.

(note that I also occasionaly rage when a good game is ruined by a (worse) potato (than me). Just, let it be)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,299 battles
40 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Maybe I should reword it a bit, I was trying to say that it takes a while to at least get to a reasonable level of understanding this game.

It may take thousands of games to get good in it, but it takes far less to be able to get average in it, provided one is willing to learn.

 

I agree with your last bit (regarding myself, I thank Flamu for that :Smile_great:).

 

I would like to mention that having an understanding of the game is not the same as being good at the game (and I'm not implying that you said this).

 

Yup, sorry if I came across too harsh before. Yes, it will take longer to be really good (also depending on how much you like to dabble in multiple lines) but it shouldn't be difficult to get to a stage where you aren't a burden to your team.

 

Of course, if you refuse to try to learn then playing more won't help anyway.

 

But just to steer back on topic, I don't think individual ships should be balanced to the lowest common denominator but the prevalence of so-called potatoes to me says there's a small but significant barrier to entry somewhere. We got over it but others haven't.

 

What worries me is that it's not newbies just doing the "right" thing badly. That can be easily solved. It's that experienced players define a "right" way to play that is actively counter-intuitive to newcomers.

 

36 minutes ago, Lieut_Gruber said:

If you join a team in a soccer match,  that team will expect you to play soccer with them, not basketball.

 

That analogy works fine in Ranked or CW. But randoms is more like: some people are just throwing a ball around randomly for fun and you join in.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,733 posts
9,234 battles
30 minutes ago, AmiralPotato said:

Clear, yes, and actually *very* debatable.

You want to ban casuals from randoms ? I'd rather ban hardcore players from randoms.

You already have ranked (well, if it were better done) and CW for competitive games.

edit: once again, ninja'd by @VC381

 

@Lieut_Gruber, I've had several great games of 'football' that had little to do with the actual rules.

Maybe we should accept the fact that randoms are meant to be rather chaotic.

(note that I also occasionaly rage when a good game is ruined by a (worse) potato (than me). Just, let it be)

 

 

Actually it's not.

This isn't a pick-up football match with buddies. It's an organized match with 12 players who don't know each other per side having to play within said rules.
If you go to a football field, see people playing, ask to join then start having a giggle picking up the ball, you'll be asked to leave, because when around strangers, you play by the rules.

And that's exactly the point: you're around strangers, so you play by the rules.
If you want to play the game in a way that actively screws over 11 other people, you are griefing 11 people, and essentially telling the world and demanding that your fun be held to a higher estime than 11 other people's. A problem when those 11 players think the same.


Random can be chaotic, but they also have to be played with the rules of the game in mind, IE: play your ship to the best of your ability and try to win.

A DD going around the map , spamming 4km torpedoes at targets 12km away isn't playing a ship to the best of your ability and trying to win.
A BB at the back of the map sniping to avoid getting damage in order to survive as long as possible to farm XP

A CV repeatedly launching waves of planes at a Des Moines joined by a Minotaur isn't playing the ship to the best of your ability and trying to win.
A CL with no torpedoes rushing forward, showing broadside to 3 enemy BBs an dying in 2 minutes flat  isn't playing the ship to the best of your ability and trying to win.

There is a WORLD of difference between playing for fun even if it's not optimal, and actually sabotaging your team of 11 strangers online because you can't be arsed to have 15 minutes of basic sportsmanship.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, VC381 said:

That analogy works fine in Ranked or CW. But randoms is more like: some people are just throwing a ball around randomly for fun and you join in.

 

That is categorically false.
Randoms operates within the very same basic rule set of CW: you play in order to try to win.

There are clear goals to achieve and deny the opposite team.
It is NOT a mindless "do what yo want lol" sandbox.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
309 posts
5,654 battles

@Exocet6951

Well, even if you say that, it does not make it true (admittedly, it goes the same for me).

On a side note, I completely agree for what you said ... for ranked battles.

 

I think WoWs really needs a non-ambiguous distinction between 'competitive' and 'casual' modes.

In other words, it would be better for everyone if WG stated clearly what random games are supposed to be...

(btw, even in random behaviours such as teamkill and afk are punished, so it's not complete chaos either)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,733 posts
9,234 battles
Just now, AmiralPotato said:

@Exocet6951

Well, even if you say that, it does not make it true (admittedly, it goes the same for me).

In other words, it would be better for everyone if WG stated clearly what random games are supposed to be...

 

Alright, easy test: does Random battle mode have defined goals, with set MM rules and rewards for being on the victorious team?
Let's run through the checklist: yes, yes and yes.
Random battles are thus not a sandbox free for all fun mode, but an actual competitive mode which pits 24 random people split into 2 teams fighting for victory.


I'm really not sure why having very specific rules, goals and victory conditions+rewards with 23 other people in this match makes people think "this is a fun mode where anything goes, so I'm entitled to screw over 11 people out of rewards just for my specific entertainment"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
309 posts
5,654 battles

Well, it seems neither of us will convince the other. Fair enough.

Now go play ranked and leave my random as it is :D

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,299 battles
37 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

Alright, easy test: does Random battle mode have defined goals, with set MM rules and rewards for being on the victorious team?
Let's run through the checklist: yes, yes and yes.
Random battles are thus not a sandbox free for all fun mode, but an actual competitive mode which pits 24 random people split into 2 teams fighting for victory.


I'm really not sure why having very specific rules, goals and victory conditions+rewards with 23 other people in this match makes people think "this is a fun mode where anything goes, so I'm entitled to screw over 11 people out of rewards just for my specific entertainment"

 

The difference is the extent to which winning matters relative to other factors. In actual competitive modes, winning is the only goal and therefore only a narrow set of ships are played is strictly defined roles and patterns. This is normal.

 

In random, how you win matters to a lot of people just as much as actually winning. Some people want to try their thing until it works, or just use certain ships in different ways. They want to experience every ship, competitive or not, and get their kicks in many ways, with winning being basically a bonus. Sure everyone's playing by the same rules but that's where the similarities end. Saying "you must play ship X in Y style because we must win" is basically anathema to the spirit of randoms. It's an attitude that is in itself griefing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,248 posts
11,609 battles
5 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

The difference is the extent to which winning matters relative to other factors. In actual competitive modes, winning is the only goal and therefore only a narrow set of ships are played is strictly defined roles and patterns. This is normal.

 

In random, how you win matters to a lot of people just as much as actually winning. Some people want to try their thing until it works, or just use certain ships in different ways. They want to experience every ship, competitive or not, and get their kicks in many ways, with winning being basically a bonus. Sure everyone's playing by the same rules but that's where the similarities end. Saying "you must play ship X in Y style because we must win" is basically anathema to the spirit of randoms. It's an attitude that is in itself griefing.

 

You are making the mistake of not realising that the word "Random" in Random Matches pertains only to the way your team-mates are selected, ie randomly, and instead are assuming that the word "Random" is some kind of indication of how the mode should be played, ie randomly. This is not the case.

 

Random matches is not the same as Casual mode, Co-Op is the casual mode. Prior to the introduction of Ranked and Clan battles, random matches were the only PVP mode available in game. Ranked and Clan battlea added a new layer of organised, competitive PVP but their inclusion does not mean that the original PVP mode suddenly becomes casual. Co-op is still casual mode and players can go there and try all the things you described in your post, nobody is stopping them, but if they want to join a team-based PVP mode they should be prepared, know their ship and to play to win.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×