Killquest ruin the average players game experience

[zgrssd]

When the game was still young your development wisely steered away from the biggest cause of frustration I had in WoT: Kill quests.
Kill X enemies. Kill X enemies in one battle. Do Y and then kill X specific class of enemies in one battle. That kind of stuff.

 

But now practically any Event mission is "kill X enemies". And it is driving me nuts. I am an average player. Win quota around 49-51% is average if I ever saw it.
But my chances to actually land the killing blow appear to be around 5%.
I literally just had a match where I was the 2nd best by XP. And I got 0 from 8 kills my team made. Palce 1+3 got 3 each.

 

These kill quests don't favor casual or average players like me. They frustrate us to no end.
They favor those that can memorise every ships armor or people that can figure out the upgrade state of ships just by looking at the HP bar.
They favor those that already make most of the kills, even if they do not much for the team winning while racking them up.
They force people to play egoistically (only looking for thier own highscore in kills). Killquests are the absolute opposite of teamplay in any Multiplayer or PvP game.

 

Those that already make kill will finish them way to quickly to cause much interest.
Average players like me get persistently kills taken on the last 1% HP even if we did 90% of the work. So we never make any progress even if we get into the top 5.
I don't mind loosing or slow progress on some missions. But this crapis frustrating me straight out of the game.

If I play with somebody else against bad odds and he get's all the kills I don't want to congratulate him for it. I hate him for blocking me any chance of progress. For progress in a quest he propably already finished anyway.

 

While this game is not pay to win, it appears to be on the straight track to cater to the "kill whales". Wich are propably also the people spending the most money on the game (income whales). And that path is a death sentences for F2P games:

The results will be the same: Kill Whales blaze through the content (like kill quests) way to fast to keep them interested. Personal score becomes more important then teamplay or fun for both sides. Average player just get frustrated out of the game.
Average players are part of the content for the kill whales (indeed that is how I always understood F2P to work since I started it with SWTOR). So they too leave the game.

 

You were on such a good track regarding engagement with the Daily Challenges (after you added the reroll option). And with the improoved XP for Capping/defending/cap blocking.

But the second you added kill quests for the longer missions you threw that all into the trash. You had avoided all icebergs on the northpole, only to suddenly turn around 180° because the captain got mad and suddenly wanted fresh norhtpole ice for his drink.

[Xevious_Red]

I'd have to agree about kill quests: I at least tried to use an appropriate ship (hunting DD in a gunboat DD rather than a BB), so that I was fulfilling my normal role, but you can end up tunnel visioning to kill that cruiser on low HP instead of getting stuck in on the BB who's threatening your team.

[Jethro_Grey]

It is a bit anoying, i do however prefer when it happens in Random rather then Ranked.

Random can be considered a lost cause, and WG should not allow that any missions, events can be completed in Ranked.

[Aotearas]

I'd have to agree about kill quests: I at least tried to use an appropriate ship (hunting DD in a gunboat DD rather than a BB), so that I was fulfilling my normal role, but you can end up tunnel visioning to kill that cruiser on low HP instead of getting stuck in on the BB who's threatening your team.

 

That's precisely the problem! Such missions screw with target priorizations as people. I've had matches where an entire team would fire at the same as-good-as-dead CA even though there were a couple other enemy BBs around that were a much more immediate threat, especially considering the CA was already burning and going to die in the next couple seconds to another CA or DD anyway.

 

That may not sound bad, but when that includes several BB who wasted all their shots on that target and now have to wait another 30 seconds to reload ... when there were several enemy BBs around who are a much bigger threat, it can end disastrous for your team. Plus people will regularily disengage their target just to try and get the killing shot on another target, again reducing the effective damage the team is dealing to the enemy.

 

It should never be "Kill X number of BlahBlah". If at all, it should be "Cause X amount of damage to BlahBlah". That would probably alleviate the worst of it.

[T0byJug]

Kill quest are a pain true ! But WOWS is not too bad for it!! of the 21 Project R quests 6 are kills.... of the ARP challenges 2 of the 6 are for kills.. Of the  daily mission in rotation cant think of any that require kills. (could be wrong on this)

his is hardly over the top...

[Jammin411]

I'm curious what types of missions you all would like to see?  Kill challenges could go either way, but curious how you would solve the "problem".

[Xevious_Red]

I'm curious what types of missions you all would like to see?  Kill challenges could go either way, but curious how you would solve the "problem".

 

-Do X amount of damage over any number of games

-Get X number of citadels

-Earn X xp over any number of games

[Jammin411]

 

-Do X amount of damage over any number of games

-Get X number of citadels

-Earn X xp over any number of games

 

Those are good suggestions.  I like the number of citadels.  Would push more players to play big ships like BB's and such.  XP over # of games is good as well.  So I also assume you are ok with the missions of kill X number of planes or score X number of torpedo hits?

[D7v]

I agree it shouldnt be implemented I am sick of players who do nothing but waiting for the last hit and it started happening all the time lately... Missions based on dmg dealing are much better.

[Ferry_25]

I agree with all above statements. Yes the KQ are whithin reason. I just have objection to introduce KQ on the lower tiers as in the pearl quests. Usually there are beginners on that tier (no offense meant: I've been there myself). If they get butchered away by the more xp-ed players, I'm sure it will scare them off. When I was sailing my Chester I was just figuring out how to aim a little bit correctly and did know [edited] about angling, what ammo to use and where, not sailing in straight lines, chaning speeds or watch for islands. And usually I was forgiven on those levels. I learned those things in the T5+ ranges (yeah, all the hard way... I made a scuba dive attraction paradise with 100's of wrecks!!0. I know I would have quit if I was overwhelmed by T10 veterans, swatting everybody in order to get their 10 kills... My suggestion is to let go of the tier requirement and just ask x-kills for x-pearls. So everyone can stay more or less in their habitat. I'm in the T8-10 range right now and I deliberately avoid the lower tier kill missions just for that reason: don't want to scare off potential formidable allies and enemies in the future to engage with or against me!

[Jammin411]

I agree with all above statements. Yes the KQ are whithin reason. I just have objection to introduce KQ on the lower tiers as in the pearl quests. Usually there are beginners on that tier (no offense meant: I've been there myself). If they get butchered away by the more xp-ed players, I'm sure it will scare them off. When I was sailing my Chester I was just figuring out how to aim a little bit correctly and did know [edited] about angling, what ammo to use and where, not sailing in straight lines, chaning speeds or watch for islands. And usually I was forgiven on those levels. I learned those things in the T5+ ranges (yeah, all the hard way... I made a scuba dive attraction paradise with 100's of wrecks!!0. I know I would have quit if I was overwhelmed by T10 veterans, swatting everybody in order to get their 10 kills... My suggestion is to let go of the tier requirement and just ask x-kills for x-pearls. So everyone can stay more or less in their habitat. I'm in the T8-10 range right now and I deliberately avoid the lower tier kill missions just for that reason: don't want to scare off potential formidable allies and enemies in the future to engage with or against me!

 

I like how you pointed out that T10 players are encouraged to play lower levels and just dominate.  I'll admit it, I do like to play low level matches every now and then, not to seal club, but rather because of the in your face action that comes along with lower tiers.  Maps are smaller, ships don't do as much damage, and you can generally have a lot of fun duking it out.  Upper tiers turn into long range battles and somewhat favors the ships with a longer range.  I'm rambling now, I like that you brought up a valid point about higher tier players potentially running off lower tiered players in an attempt to complete the missions.  A valid point I feel.

[Babykim]

In my opinion, "ruin" is too strong. Of course they influence the behavior, but not as much as to make the game unplayable. Besides you do get prizes for the awkwardness. So, yes, if we had this all the time it would be rather inconvenient. And, as far as I understand, the Arpeggio challenge might be active for the better part of 2016. I hope it does not mean: the worse is yet to come.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

 I'm rambling now, I like that you brought up a valid point about higher tier players potentially running off lower tiered players in an attempt to complete the missions.  A valid point I feel.

 

Considering that my highest ship is a T8 Mogami I don't see myself as a "high tier" player, but once in a while I get matched with T9/10 ships. And I must say, that I do not see a great difference between the teams I have when playing T5/6/7 to when playing T8/9/10. Many "High Tier" players play as dumb tactically handicapped as those on lower tiers...

 

Or to say it different:

Who would be the more dangerous opponent in a T5 match

1. a T10 ship owner, who has a 45% (total) WR and managed to get to T10 by doing just the needed number of matches in the lower tiers to advance or
2. a player who never got higher than T5, but has a 60% WR in the 5000 battles he had on T5 alone?

 

---

 

And about the Kill Quests...

I don't have any problem with them. Might be because I don't play any different for those missions. It's normal for me to scan the area around my ship for "easy targets" and ships that could be taken out with a single shot/salvo, as every opponent sunk is a step on the way to victory.

[Aotearas]

I want to emphasize that "Kill X number of ships in ship class/tier Y" is a good objective, despite being a killquest. It just means people play another ship class or tier than usual, but they'll still try to play it to its strengths. "Kill X number of Y ship classes" however is bad, because it doesn't incentivize the player the freedom to play his/her ship to its strength as players are habitual beings and don't always change their playstyle to accomodate a mission that optimally requires playing differently; example:

 

-If a BB player does a mission to kill X number of ships in a tier V ship, he'll just pick his Kongo/New York and do his usual stuff.

-If a BB player does a mission to kill X number of DDs, you get BBs wasting their valuable damage potential on DDs rather than fighting the enemy BBs and CAs as they should.

 

A well designed mission should set the framework and let the player dictate his actions.

A badly designed mission sets a goal and dictates the players' actions.

[Ferry_25]

 

I like how you pointed out that T10 players are encouraged to play lower levels and just dominate.  I'll admit it, I do like to play low level matches every now and then, not to seal club, but rather because of the in your face action that comes along with lower tiers.  Maps are smaller, ships don't do as much damage, and you can generally have a lot of fun duking it out.  Upper tiers turn into long range battles and somewhat favors the ships with a longer range.  I'm rambling now, I like that you brought up a valid point about higher tier players potentially running off lower tiered players in an attempt to complete the missions.  A valid point I feel.

 

My point exactly! I like to engage in lower tier battles now and then too. But on those occasions I have the feeling I'm being the only "veteran" around. That way the newcomers can learn a few tricks here and there, whithout disbalancing the entire match. I always make it a point to compliment the enemy who managed to sink me if that happens (in the chat and in the aftermath section).

[Myrmix]

Don't forget the BB's shooting HE to get fires. Kinda funny to have them as enemies tho

 

[red_eye1980]

Yes strange things happen because of kill quests. Yesterday I was in my emden with low health being chased by a kolberg while a friendly st louis was close by but didn't fire one shot till I was dead. Then he finished off the kolberg with a few salvos. I know it's not illegal but if it wasn't for those missions I'd still be alive. It makes players antagonize not just against the enemy team but also against their own

[__Danger___]

I don't like kill missions as well. I like damage/xp ones as they are affected purely by my performance. Or if they really want to do these missions, it should work for kill & assist, where assist would be damage equal or higher than 20% of the enemy ship's HP.

[zgrssd]

I'm curious what types of missions you all would like to see?  Kill challenges could go either way, but curious how you would solve the "problem".

XP is so far the best metric for performance. Asuming that metric itself is not skewed towarsd kills. Putting all the quests on the XP metric might just put too much strain on that one mechanic.

I consider damage or "hit's" to be almost as bad as Kill quests. They entice players to seek sure hits, rather then role appropirate teamplay.

 

Big problem is, it is really hard to put a proper "value" on Teamplay. The game can only focus on ingame events like hits, damage, damage blocked by armor. It can not measure intangible factors like the BB's guns threathening the Cruisers from advancing. Or DD having the enemy BB on the run. Or one front chasing the enemy (without hitting much)/binding the superior force, so the other side can win the game. Maybe if there was some kind of shared XP/damage based XP based on proxmity? That might allow stuff like "DD torpedo salvo misses, but forces cruiser to expose citadel to a allied BB" to be translated to XP and thus progress.

 

 

I like how you pointed out that T10 players are encouraged to play lower levels and just dominate.  I'll admit it, I do like to play low level matches every now and then, not to seal club, but rather because of the in your face action that comes along with lower tiers.  Maps are smaller, ships don't do as much damage, and you can generally have a lot of fun duking it out.  Upper tiers turn into long range battles and somewhat favors the ships with a longer range.  I'm rambling now, I like that you brought up a valid point about higher tier players potentially running off lower tiered players in an attempt to complete the missions.  A valid point I feel.

I prefer to play low tiers in part because the ships are easier, less extreme.

AP shells still mater a lot. Ranges are a lot shorter. The "getting sniped across the map" problem does not appear. For me Tier 1-4 is decidedly the better part of the game. But even there I feel that I am only winning because I am fighting beginners half the time.

 

And about the Kill Quests...

I don't have any problem with them. Might be because I don't play any different for those missions. It's normal for me to scan the area around my ship for "easy targets" and ships that could be taken out with a single shot/salvo, as every opponent sunk is a step on the way to victory.

 

Even if I do perform good at kill quests, I feel shitty about it.

1) because the game forces me to focus on kills, rather then teamplay. Something I am actually good at.

2) because every kill after the 1st I make, means one ally that is no longer able to make any kills at all. I resent having kills almost as much as having a nearby ally take all the kills.

3) Because I often only perform that good on lower tiers, where I feel like I am only picking on weak/new players.

 

Right now kill quests are a Lose (I get no kills)/Lose (I get kills, but feel annoyed)/Lose (if I get a lot of kills, I feel like a bad player).

 

I want to emphasize that "Kill X number of ships in ship class/tier Y" is a good objective, despite being a killquest. It just means people play another ship class or tier than usual, but they'll still try to play it to its strengths. "Kill X number of Y ship classes" however is bad, because it doesn't incentivize the player the freedom to play his/her ship to its strength as players are habitual beings and don't always change their playstyle to accomodate a mission that optimally requires playing differently; example:

I agree "Kill in class" quests are better then "kill off class" quests.

They still have one issue: Not every player is good with every type of ship. I am objectively terrible with BB. Shooting and killing enemies on 15-20km just is not my thing.

 

Actually expecting a BB to make kills in the first place is a bad idea in itself. Getting the killing blow is pretty much based on doing a lot of damage events (so your's is "the one" that breaks the camles back). BB have a terrible Rate of Fire and they suffer even more from dispersion.

So the designers expect them to play lottery, but they are only alowed 1/2 to 1/10 of the number of tickets as any other class using HE? No wonder BB restort to firing HE, the fire based DoT is the only way they have a remote chance to even make kills.

 

BB's are not the only class with that issue. Any DD with focus on the Torps (long reload time; few guns and fire chance) has the same issue. Or any german Cruiser for that mater (clear AP focus over HE in damage numbers).

Wich Multiplayer game designer would make a class being based on luck with random numbers (like the crit chance, to hit chance) but only few rolls? Randomness only even out after a lot of rolls:

[Cheradanine]

Think we are missing one of the key issues here - kill hunting is generally bad play. How many times have you been engaged against an enemy, trading shots, hoping to get upper hand, while some other guys are in range and not firing (and the main reason you went into the 1v1 was that you would have some backup). Lo and behold enemy reaches 1 hit range and suddenly everyone finds M1. Of course you have just taken a fair amount of damage in your 1v1 encounter weakening team for later in match more than is necessary.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am fairly accepting of the so called "kill steal". It occurs in pretty much any online multiplayer game involving knocking opponents out. Just a shame when you lose a match due to people holding fire just to preserve a chance of last hit. I would say that as a rule its (KS) not even a thing - killing enemy as fast as possible is generally a plan. This is fine as long as everyone is keeping firing as fast as they are able. Anyway, rant over.

[Flukeyluke]

oh i fully agree, haveing 3 above average players in tx come down to t2 boats with 20 point captains and working as a team must be so much fun to play against for someone who has just finished the tutorial and knows nothing about the game mechanics

 

also these kill x amount of ships once again promote holding fire untill you can ensure the kill can be secured eg only fireing after you allies have done most the work or put another way, promotes kill stealing

[Sadeburgh]

 

-Do X amount of damage over any number of games

-Get X number of citadels

-Earn X xp over any number of games

 

Could add also:

- Capture points

- Defend points

- Airplanes shotted down by cruisers, bb:s, dd:s everyone ofc different numbers (need cv:s which can be problem) but also could encourage for escorting -> more teamwork. 

- Also distance traveled by cv:s ;)

- cause incapable things x amount.

 

- Could also be some division based things for something (For credits or something)

 

Personally dont mind kill certain mount of ships or certain ships. But knowing human mind, it can cause situation where  someone is only shooting when they have change to get sinking shot.

[WarJagger]

I dont mind the kill quests. Im an average/below average player and I dont really play any different because of the quests. Yes I might pick a different class or a lower tier ship because of the quest but I play the way I play. I do play for the win and for my pleasure. Yeah I might ´steal´ an opportune kill but other then that its regular gameplay. 

[f2k]

I agree with this.

 

Personally, I don't think there is "kill stealing" in this game (or in World of Tanks, for that matter). You get XP based on the damage done and a dead ship is a dead ship, no matter who fired the last round.

 

But, as others have pointed out, these quests have had a marked influence on how the games are played. Suddenly, you see a handful of cruisers hunting a wounded destroyer, trying to get the last hit in... Suddenly, you see ships holding their fire until they know the can one-shot the enemy...

 

I had several games like that yesterday. Got some good games in, did a respectable amount of damage, ended up in the top part of the team... And I didn't have a single kill to my name in those battles. 

 

It shouldn't matter... It really shouldn't... But it does get somewhat annoying to have a cruiser shadowing you, doing nothing until he's sure he can one-shot the enemy. Or seeing half the team suddenly racing off in pursuit of a single destroyer.

[Procrastes]

Repeating what others have already said, here - but I must add my voice and hope that WG listens to the player base. Missions that encourage players to play the game in a way that is harmful to the general objective of winning the battle, are just plain bad for the game. Killquests, or any quest that promotes focus on certain enemies with no correlation to actual tactical considerations in the battle at hand, are typical examples of this. The suggestions above, such as to make mission objectives based on damage dealt, or number of citadels, capture points and defend points, would be far better for the game.

 

REMOVE THE KILLQUESTS!