Request for Wargaming to remove "kill x cruisers/destroyers/battleships" missions

[Sanjuro_UK]

I have no problem with missions asking us to destroy x numbers of ships/planes, deal x amounts of damage, set x amount of fires, etc. But I am pleading with Wargaming to remove the "kill x numbers of one type of ship" requirements.

 

I've found that with these new Arpeggio missions, teams are refusing to help each other and are becoming more selfish. For example, if they're in tier 5 ships they refuse to shoot at destroyers unless there's nothing else to shoot at. Cruisers are prioritised massively, which makes it hard if you're in a cruiser (e.g. because you're trying to do dailies or whatever).

 
There is no need to have missions which reward players for just shooting at one type of ship. By all means, ask players to kill 30 ships or even 40. But don't encourage people to start acting like jerks more than usual.

[cherry2blost]

I have no problem with missions asking us to destroy x numbers of ships/planes, deal x amounts of damage, set x amount of fires, etc. But I am pleading with Wargaming to remove the "kill x numbers of one type of ship" requirements.

 

I've found that with these new Arpeggio missions, teams are refusing to help each other and are becoming more selfish. For example, if they're in tier 5 ships they refuse to shoot at destroyers unless there's nothing else to shoot at. Cruisers are prioritised massively, which makes it hard if you're in a cruiser (e.g. because you're trying to do dailies or whatever).

 

There is no need to have missions which reward players for just shooting at one type of ship. By all means, ask players to kill 30 ships or even 40. But don't encourage people to start acting like jerks more than usual.

I did 25 Cruisers in last nights session, is a bit unfair to cruiser drivers but TBH makes a change from Cruisers just Burn Battleships down because.... they can....

[Sanjuro_UK]

I did 25 Cruisers in last nights session

 

I am not saying the requirements are impossible or even super hard, I'm saying that it encourages bad teamplay.

 

TBH makes a change from Cruisers just Burn Battleships down

 

As a cruiser my priority is always destroyers and other cruisers. I don't like firing at battleships unless I have lots of help because it often means I get targetted for citadel practice.

[Kedo]

so I checked those missions for you and there is completion date of 29.2. That's 2 months. Why wouldn't anyone be able to complete those objectives by standard gameplay instead of class focussing? No, imo it's not about objectives but players and I don't think WG can change mentality of players.

[Atris2nd]

I've pretty much strayed away from my favorite class, that being cruisers, for these missions as in tier 10 two Shimakazes flat out told me ''Don't play cruisers. DDs will go for you instead of battleships.''. Not that this is a problem for me, I know how to handle my cruisers but it's not especially fun when the moment you're spotted, you see a Yamato, a North Carolina and a Tirpitz turn their guns towards you instead of the other BBs. 

 

So now I just play Warspite at tier 6 and bully other ships cause Warspite is good at that. And it fulfills the mission requirements as well. These missions kinda break the flow of the game, and cause extremely spontaneous behavior. Someone earlier suggested something like: "Do <X> amount of damage to a ship type.'' which I found to be really good. Even if I'm almost done with the missions currently, I'd honestly prefer that over the current ones.

[Xevious_Red]

Thing is, it depends at what stage people are on. Currently people are shooting at cruisers and dd as they're stage 1. When it comes to starting 300 fires, those easy to hit BB will be the target of choice since they are the easiest to hit in 4 separate locations.

Same with stage 3: if someone is trying to rush through doing 1m damage, the destroyer with 8k health left is going to be less tempting than the slow BB or the CV piñata 

[_x_Acheron_x_]

Just play as normal. You've got 2 months to complete this.

[Sanjuro_UK]

Just play as normal. You've got 2 months to complete this.

 

Did you even read my two posts? I said the mission requirements encourage bad teamplay. I got 4 cruiser kills in my last game - do you think I'm complaining that I'm finding it hard?

 

Someone earlier suggested something like: "Do <X> amount of damage to a ship type.'' which I found to be really good. Even if I'm almost done with the missions currently, I'd honestly prefer that over the current ones.

 

+1.

 

No, imo it's not about objectives but players and I don't think WG can change mentality of players.

 

Wargaming has been in this business long enough to know how to influence players. They don't have to change their mentality, just not prod them towards focusing on objectives that might ruin the game for their team.

[wremise]

I try to play normal, but with a focus of playing more mogami (easyier to kill DD).

But i really dont want to "steal" the kills other are doing, but im also feeling that more kills from me get stealed. There isnt anymore that target fire on an single enemy and who get the kill i dont care... now they wait until the enemy has >10 % live, and THEN they "help" me....

 

i think it would be better if they make something like a "point system"

do 1000 dmg and you earn 1 point, do a kil and you earn ~15 points, and you have to earn about 500 points to finish the mission.

[_x_Acheron_x_]

 

do you think I'm complaining that I'm finding it hard?

 

 

 

No, you're just complaining about something that doesnt need to be complained about.

 

WoWs was hardly the shining beacon of teamplay before this challenge. It has changed nothing.

[Sanjuro_UK]

WoWs was hardly the shining beacon of teamplay before this challenge. It has changed nothing.

 

I disagree. Destroyers used to be prioritised significantly more because people wanted to win and they recognised they were a threat. In the lower tier games I've noticed they're getting away with a lot more if there is a cruiser (on their team) nearby.

[_x_Acheron_x_]

 

I disagree. Destroyers used to be prioritised significantly more because people wanted to win and they recognised they were a threat. In the lower tier games I've noticed they're getting away with a lot more if there is a cruiser (on their team) nearby.

 

Dont people need to destroy cruisers and destroyers for the APR challenge?

 

I thought thats maybe why they gave two challenges spread across two different classes to kill, so everyone didnt spend the game chasing that last remaining mahan.

[txtspeak]

I saw something like this with the emden mission.

set 30 fires?

you mean you want me to spam HE in my phoenix?

want to switch to AP.... gotta switch to AP...

MUST. FIRE. HE! MUST. SET.FIRES!

its painful to play like this

[Sanjuro_UK]

Dont people need to destroy cruisers and destroyers for the APR challenge?

 

Destroyers only apply if you're in a tier 6+ship, so tier 5 ships are encouraged to ignore destroyers.

 

And even at higher tiers it's easier to hit a cruiser than a destroyer, so that's another reason to go for the former instead of the latter.

[Catch_022]

I would change the requirement to do x ammount of damage against cruisers, etc. 

 

This makes it more fair Imo. 

 

Alternatively, decrease the ammount of kills required, but change the ship restriction to promote good play. For instance:

 

Kill 5 dds (restriction using dd and cruiser) 

Or

Kill 5 bbs (restriction using dd and bb) 

 

Something like that. Then you could actually tweak the meta in a fun way rather than promoting selfish play. 

[ArcheonSRF]

I am personally in favour of any missions, regardless of the requirements.  We should never complain about added free stuff (rewards)

 

I have yet to see anyone playing overly stupidly to meet requirements.

[Flukeyluke]

I am personally in favour of any missions, regardless of the requirements.  We should never complain about added free stuff (rewards)

 

I have yet to see anyone playing overly stupidly to meet requirements.

 

you aint seen me then threw a fuso away to ram a DD and kill a cruiser before the flooding sunk me

(i was already on low hp when i rammed the DD and already had several fires so was dead either way)

[SkollUlfr]

the mission design is antithetical to the game and its reward system, and are reintroducing the problems the reward system fixed.

which prompted me to post this in another thread;

 

the problem here is how the missions are set up in the first place.

the games score system iirc rewards damage over kills, so at the very least the reward system should count players having dealt the majority of damage to a target rather than the kill.

 

all the other issues would be solved be having a "and finish in the top 5(or top 50%) of your team by points" clause to register the progression.

 

that way the simple cause and effect of the system wouldnt result in the breakdowns

 

 

even if such a system could allow 2 people to get credit for one kill, the metrics being rewarded by the game would let WG know by what % to adjust the kill req's for the mission.

[albinbino]

Destroying ships is part of this game. It is not like before 12 random people were acting as a team perfectly. If you want to that then you need to division with friends for a battle. And for team play and kills, just make sure you stay alive in battle long enough and kills will come. I just finished 30 cruisers kills, for DD i have 12. Will take more time for DDs. I think these missions are fun and rewarding.

[Zathras_Grimm]

so I checked those missions for you and there is completion date of 29.2. That's 2 months. Why wouldn't anyone be able to complete those objectives by standard gameplay instead of class focussing? No, imo it's not about objectives but players and I don't think WG can change mentality of players.

 

Thats just the first part of one ship mission. Next its the destroy 150 aircraft (can you have 12 vs 12 CVs with fighter loadout lol).

[Atris2nd]

Super exciting game I had just now in the Fuso. Crippled a Mutsuki and approaching it for the ram kill as it's only a kilometer away, Cleveland takes it. Okay, shoot a Hatsuharu and cripple that - Cleveland decides to shoot them. Alright, wreck a Myoko-- Ok, that too. Sheesh, I need assistance against 2 enemy BBs that are broadside on and would be perfect for sustained fire damage - nope, cleveland's shooting at a low health Konigsberg 12km away.

[_Zeromancer_]

Can't wait for next ranked season to start, so I can play teambattles with somewhat teamwork again.

I'm not saying these missions are hard to do, or that they change the normal random gameplay that much (I think these missions blend in with the normal play pretty well), but WarGamings missions do tend to make some players selfish and forget about the game objectives.

For instance, I stopped playing WoT when the personal missions where released, since they totally ruined the little teamwork that was in that game.

Hopefully WG will not do the same mistake with WoWS..

[Ferry_25]

I totally agree with this 1. X number of ships killed for a mission step? OK. But not a specific type. What's the point in that anyway?

[Sanjuro_UK]

Can't wait for next ranked season to start, so I can play teambattles with somewhat teamwork again.

I'm not saying these missions are hard to do, or that they change the normal random gameplay that much (I think these missions blend in with the normal play pretty well), but WarGamings missions do tend to make some players selfish and forget about the game objectives.

For instance, I stopped playing WoT when the personal missions where released, since they totally ruined the little teamwork that was in that game.

Hopefully WG will not do the same mistake with WoWS..

 

What this guy said.

[Kurbain]

Just play as normal. You've got 2 months to complete this.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't stop players from focusing on the missions since they want to complete them as quickly as possible.

I'm quite eager to unlock the ARP ships myself.