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

"how to" videos --- 》》》>> about tactic

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[AGRES]
Players
146 posts
9,127 battles

we have plenty WG  videos about in-game technic 

 

but WG leaves standart of battles on the lowest level, and did never education tactic video

 

tictac we have:)) thats  yes.. everyday

 

70% of battles in random: 

 

- showing broadside (even after ap hits)

 

- losing on points somewhere in map corner --- no fight for a cap

 

-  torping with bb and cruisers -

again> showing broadside

 

- no even basic support for DDs

 

- scary from enemy in cap, and never go to fight in cap.>> but opposite action always yes..running from battle. 

 

my picture only includes catastrophic random reality, how hopeless desperate it is, when  CV used to get some cap...

 

 

cv cap.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,463 posts
13,983 battles

I don't think videos done by WG or anyone else would be enough, if you wanted a system that tries to raise the quality of gameplay, that system would need to be built into the game itself.

 

The problem with "how to" videos is that they address the part of the player population that is already interested enough to improve to have looked them up. These people are not the problem - they are putting in the effort to learn and improve, and they would have found videos that help them do that regardless of them being published by WG itself or some CC.

 

The problem is the "JuSt FoR fUn" crowd that is unwilling to put any effort in. This is why I always heavily disagree when someone presents the notion that the economy should be made even easier than it is; it's already extremely forgiving, and it's entirely possible to fail your way to top tiers very easily. The game needs to be designed to incentivize learning and improvement, and as we've seen, merely giving out more credits and xp for better performance isn't enough of an incentive for most of the player base that seems content just sailing around shooting at stuff and admiring pretty explosions.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
80 posts
8,239 battles

If WG wants to encourage better game-play and teams playing to win the game they need to reconsider the win multiplier (currently 1.5) or the way base XP is calculated.

 

Take 100 games and a dismal average score of 800 Base XP (your winning scoreboard score will be 1200) with a phenomenal 75% win rate.  I think we can agree that this person knows how to play to win games, the damage output might be suspect resulting in a "low base xp" but they are winning games. After those 100 games you would have (800 x 1.5 for the win x 75 winning games) + (800 x 1 for the loss x 25 loosing games) = 90000 + 20000 = 110 000 xp

 

Now take 100 games and a better average score of 1 000 Base XP (your winning scoreboard score will be 1500) with a pathetic 25% win rate.  I think we can agree that this person does not care about the games outcome but does enough damage to at least score a reasonable base xp but they have no interest in winning. After those 100 games you would have (1000 x 1.5 for the win x 25 winning games) + (1000 x 1 for the loss x 75 loosing games) = 37 500 + 75 000 = 112 500 xp

 

Why should the stupid player that yolos in, gets a kill and dies but has a negative impact on the average chance of winning the game get better long term rewards than the person that is having a positive impact on the teams average winning potential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,465 posts
8,816 battles
2 minutes ago, SquibSurefire said:

If WG wants to encourage better game-play and teams playing to win the game they need to reconsider the win multiplier (currently 1.5) or the way base XP is calculated.

 

Take 100 games and a dismal average score of 800 Base XP (your winning scoreboard score will be 1200) with a phenomenal 75% win rate.  I think we can agree that this person knows how to play to win games, the damage output might be suspect resulting in a "low base xp" but they are winning games. After those 100 games you would have (800 x 1.5 for the win x 75 winning games) + (800 x 1 for the loss x 25 loosing games) = 90000 + 20000 = 110 000 xp

 

Now take 100 games and a better average score of 1 000 Base XP (your winning scoreboard score will be 1500) with a pathetic 25% win rate.  I think we can agree that this person does not care about the games outcome but does enough damage to at least score a reasonable base xp but they have no interest in winning. After those 100 games you would have (1000 x 1.5 for the win x 25 winning games) + (1000 x 1 for the loss x 75 loosing games) = 37 500 + 75 000 = 112 500 xp

 

Why should the stupid player that yolos in, gets a kill and dies but has a negative impact on the average chance of winning the game get better long term rewards than the person that is having a positive impact on the teams average winning potential?

 

Sounds good in theory, but noone will have 75% WR and get 800 base XP on average. Unless you play T2-3 maybe?

On the other hand, i do agree thats its actually viable for below average players to yolo speed grind their way through the tiers. They wont earn high amounts of XP regardless how long they survive. If they die before 5 min mark, doing something stupid and getting 500 BaseXP on average, leaving the battle and starting the next one will result in more XP / time than playing properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,046 posts

It's not Wargamings duty to teach players tactics or strategies.

 

Even if they did and made videos for every map and how each shipclass in the game plays best on it, with every player watching and following those suggestions, we would get really boring matches. And soon after new strategies and tactics are made up by the more skilled players to counter the default ones, leading to the same situation we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×