change "sink ships" missions please!

[cobrazax]

I keep seeing missions that demand a certain amount of ships sunk, and i think its a bad idea.

this promotes players to just kill steal and not really focus on the battle. its annoying and frustrating as well.

these missions should promote active and good gameplay and not focus on kills only.

 

I personally think they should be changed into damage% percentage missions, which will encourage players to deal as much damage as possible, percentage based.

If only damage points will be used, many would not target destroyers and will focus battleships more for the missions, and thats not good.

with damage percentage, destroyers will be good targets as well, even when they are much harder to hit.

 

for example, if you do 100% damage to a destroyer, you gain 100% for the mission. if you do 50% damage to a battleship, you gain 50% for the mission.

 

what do you guys think?

[Aroru1]

Most damage dealt to a sunken ship would be best.

[ColonelPete]

There is no kill stealing.

[Samurai__]

There is no kill stealing.

 

 

This ^^^^^^^

 

 

Just play your game and the kills come, unless you are a complete numbnutts

[Hardrider2010]

Five allied ships fire at one enemy - it explodes and one fool starts to cry - you stole my kill.

 

How idiotic is that?

There is no kill stealing. Just shooting and killing. This time you sink him, next time maybe its me.

[aboch]

There is no kill stealing.

 

 

 

This ^^^^^^^

 

 

Just play your game and the kills come, unless you are a complete numbnutts

+1, no such thing as kill stealing. Just play like always, do your job and you get the kills anyway soon or late. The better you are, the sooner you get the kills of course. 

 

Just generally, sometimes someone else makes the final shoot and sinks a ship you are fighting with, the next time you make a final shoot. In generally it's easy, the sooner an enemy ship is sunk, the better. Many times if someone else makes the final shoot/kill it safes you of being hit by another salvo from the nearly sunk enemy ship.

 

And one more thing, it's even an unwritten rule to focus first on the low HP ships. The logic is elementary, the sooner the own team sinks an enemy ship the less gun barrels can shoot on your team. It's as well called "Focus Fire".

[OldGrandad]

Confused as the OP is actually a pretty decent player who has no problem killing ships. Kill stealing? not here. They already do damage amassed for some of the missions so getting kills is just a small part of the equation.

[Egoleter]

I'd like to vote: I don't care either way.

 

Kills will come by, simply by playing the game. Intentionally looking for low hitpoint targets, holding your fire for just the right moment to make the kill shot, comes with problems of its own.

 

If you search for those low hitpoint targets you might be traveling over the map for nothing as someone who is already engaged with that enemy has a far better chance to sink him first.

 

If you hold your fire for just the right moment, a team mate you didn't account for opens fire and adds to the damage flow already in progress, or one of the others shooting the target will deal exceptional damage, or the RNG will place your shots in a way that will not harm the target.

 

There are so many points of failure in attempted kill stealing within this game that simply playing normaly is probably way more effective in securing kills.

[Bismarck_chan]

At this point I'm in favor of changing the missions to "X hits done" or "X damage done", just to get rid of such threads and whining in chat. Got nearly teamkilled yesterday by a BB for daring to sink a Kutuzov that was engaging me at close range. And I was even running Flakpatrol for that guy.

[cobrazax]

i still think that promoting kills only isnt helpful, but promoting damage to the enemy, especially % damage, is better.

you can have a great game with 0 kills, and a bad game with several kills, as skill isnt that important for kills. but doing a LOT of damage is based on your skill much more than kills alone, especially % damage which is important for engaging destroyers.

it should promote an active and skillful play much more than kill missions, beyond the fact that you can gain kills gradually, and i think that should be the purpose of those missions.

[Seikin]

There is no kill-stealing...   until these events appear.

 

Imho, the best current measure of good play in the game is XP earned. its based on %dmg done so already balances damaging those low-hp, hard to hit ships with those big-hp, easy to hit ships. Also balances slower firing, hard hitting vs fast-firing, weak-hitting ships.. (which hits landed wouldn't do). It even includes some team-based stuff like defending bases and capping..    So, why not have it based on total XP earned?

[Black0rchid]

Well for Cruiser players and DD players there is in fact no kill steal, mostly because cruisers can finish faster that way. Yesterday I played a couple games with both the Nagato and the Fuso, and it was annoying as heck that I'd get a ship to very low Hp and instantly a Cruiser would pop up firing like crazy to get the kill....most of the times they were focusing on another target before my target became low hp. Stupid mission and stupid people, they are so focused on accomplishing the mission that they forget the game objectives, game strategy etc.....what really maters is getting the kills out of the way.

 

 +1, no such thing as kill stealing. Just play like always, do your job and you get the kills anyway soon or late. The better you are, the sooner you get the kills of course. 

 

If there is no such thing as kill stealing ....then there should not be a problem with making it a dmg only mission...after all everyone can make damage...but oh wait that actually takes skill and not just spam fire focul on low hp target.

 

[makhot]

Pure damage only missions could be unfair also as on mid-tiers DD's tend to require almost pure luck to deal decent damage with. With BBs and CCs those would be fine. Maybe sink+sink assist would work. You'd get sink assist after causing some n% damage to a sinked ship.

[Eberious]

Best to have kills really, what would they replace the damage caused challenges with?

 

And omg!, don't want to derail topic. But kill stealing is a thing, to say its not is totally absurd. Way more obvious during these 'get X amount of kills' missions. 

 

Good example.  me and one other cruiser against one CA, me and the enemy exchange fire. Kept an eye on my so called ally during this fire fight, not a single shot. I didn't miss anything, would of seen and heard shots coming from him/her as they were right beside me. About to get the kill and they open up and take it. I was almost dead, now facing another CA, they turn around and flee, I engage as what the hell. I die. 

 

This happens a fair amount. Not the above example exactly but I see enough of it, and I'm able to tell the difference between a ships that been focused fire and not.  

 

yes yes, I get the xp for damage caused, great. But its kinda good to get the kill you have been working on solo. anyways, nuff said. Sorry for the slight off topic. 

[cobrazax]

There is no kill-stealing...   until these events appear.

 

Imho, the best current measure of good play in the game is XP earned. its based on %dmg done so already balances damaging those low-hp, hard to hit ships with those big-hp, easy to hit ships. Also balances slower firing, hard hitting vs fast-firing, weak-hitting ships.. (which hits landed wouldn't do). It even includes some team-based stuff like defending bases and capping..    So, why not have it based on total XP earned?

 

seems like a good idea, added this option to the poll.

i still think damage % is better, but XP is a good option!

[cobrazax]

Pure damage only missions could be unfair also as on mid-tiers DD's tend to require almost pure luck to deal decent damage with. With BBs and CCs those would be fine. Maybe sink+sink assist would work. You'd get sink assist after causing some n% damage to a sinked ship.

 

its not pure luck...if you can lead your torps properly and anticipate target maneuvering, you can land good hits. still its usually harder as its against more skilled opponents.

many DDs can get kills with guns too, especially against other DDs, and sometimes by setting fire to larget vessels. flooding can also help get kills, but fire and flooding are not consistent and can easily be killstolen.

 

if you see a BB in a bad position near islands, you can easily get a kill, but the DAMAGE should be the focus, not kills. doing damage shows your skill, not getting some last hits...

[cobrazax]

Best to have kills really, what would they replace the damage caused challenges with?

 

And omg!, don't want to derail topic. But kill stealing is a thing, to say its not is totally absurd. Way more obvious during these 'get X amount of kills' missions. 

 

Good example.  me and one other cruiser against one CA, me and the enemy exchange fire. Kept an eye on my so called ally during this fire fight, not a single shot. I didn't miss anything, would of seen and heard shots coming from him/her as they were right beside me. About to get the kill and they open up and take it. I was almost dead, now facing another CA, they turn around and flee, I engage as what the hell. I die. 

 

This happens a fair amount. Not the above example exactly but I see enough of it, and I'm able to tell the difference between a ships that been focused fire and not.  

 

yes yes, I get the xp for damage caused, great. But its kinda good to get the kill you have been working on solo. anyways, nuff said. Sorry for the slight off topic. 

 

i agree, these kill missions promote bad play and killstealing focus. without those, there would be no incentive for these actions.

their goal should be to promote active and skilled play and nothing else. so focusing them on damage, damage %, and xp, would be MUCH MUCH better!

[piritskenyer]

I for one think kill missions are okay as long as they are not directed for or against any one class. Directing kill missions for one class could force people to play a class they don't do well in or are not comfortable with, while directing kill missions against a a class may cause people to latch onto targets of lesser importance and ignore higher value threats (like ignoring an almost dead BB 3.4km away just so they can shoot at the full HP DD 5 km away).

[slipzen]

And omg!, don't want to derail topic. But kill stealing is a thing, to say its not is totally absurd. Way more obvious during these 'get X amount of kills' missions. 

 

Good example.  me and one other cruiser against one CA, me and the enemy exchange fire. Kept an eye on my so called ally during this fire fight, not a single shot. I didn't miss anything, would of seen and heard shots coming from him/her as they were right beside me. About to get the kill and they open up and take it. I was almost dead, now facing another CA, they turn around and flee, I engage as what the hell. I die. 

 

This happens a fair amount. Not the above example exactly but I see enough of it, and I'm able to tell the difference between a ships that been focused fire and not. 

 

But what would be the point of that? You wont get more kills by only try to time in the last shot.

[Black0rchid]

 But what would be the point of that? You wont get more kills by only try to time in the last shot. 

 

And that is were you are wrong sir....

[slipzen]

 

And that is were you are wrong sir....

 

I dont see how though. Trying to get the last shot in isnt exactly easy. Sure, if you're a DD who waits until your ally BB has shot his salvo, but a CA trying to get the last killing shot while another ally CA shooting on the same target?

 

It's one thing, the scenario in your earlier post: Changing target to the one with low HP. But i was talking about not shooting at all, until the very last moment. Seems really hard. (hard in the sense of that you'll probably get less kills overall)

[cobrazax]

 

I dont see how though. Trying to get the last shot in isnt exactly easy. Sure, if you're a DD who waits until your ally BB has shot his salvo, but a CA trying to get the last killing shot while another ally CA shooting on the same target?

 

It's one thing, the scenario in your earlier post: Changing target to the one with low HP. But i was talking about not shooting at all, until the very last moment. Seems really hard. (hard in the sense of that you'll probably get less kills overall)

 

the point is that when many do that to get more kills for the mission, it hurts the gameplay. the point is to promote skillful play and NOT killstealing,

these missions do the opposite by basing them on kills alone.

[slipzen]

 

the point is that when many do that to get more kills for the mission, it hurts the gameplay. the point is to promote skillful play and NOT killstealing,

these missions do the opposite by basing them on kills alone.

 

Well, MY point was that the thing you call kill stealing seems like a very inefficent way to get kills. What is the point in not shooting at targets just for the off chance that you'll hit for the last 500-1500 hp or whatever.

 

I'm sorry if i come of as rude, but regardless of what you say there are still 2 "camps" regarding this: The ones who does, and the ones who doesnt believe that kill stealing is even a thing. I lean more towards the latter.

[aboch]

Well for Cruiser players and DD players there is in fact no kill steal, mostly because cruisers can finish faster that way. Yesterday I played a couple games with both the Nagato and the Fuso, and it was annoying as heck that I'd get a ship to very low Hp and instantly a Cruiser would pop up firing like crazy to get the kill....most of the times they were focusing on another target before my target became low hp. Stupid mission and stupid people, they are so focused on accomplishing the mission that they forget the game objectives, game strategy etc.....what really maters is getting the kills out of the way.

 

 

If there is no such thing as kill stealing ....then there should not be a problem with making it a dmg only mission...after all everyone can make damage...but oh wait that actually takes skill and not just spam fire focul on low hp target.

 

 

As said, there is NO kill stealing, maybe about 0.5% of the players may have such tactic but why the hell should a mission get changed to the absolute minority? 

 

Look, i personally have no problem with it. Neither with missions that ask for kills, shoot down planes, damage, 1.000.000 damage or you call it. I'am fine with everything and so is every good player, easy as that. 

 

Me personally is even for harder missions so not everybody can make them. After you are that much about damage, than lets make it 1.000.000 damage in 10 games, not? I would love to have such missions too. 

 

Even the poll says that the majority is ok like it is? I doubt they are all so called kill stealers. 

 

 

But what would be the point of that? You wont get more kills by only try to time in the last shot.

 

I can not see any point either. I have even no idea how it should work SUCCESSFULLY in the long term. Firing every salvo out when loaded has a bigger chance of making a kill having in mind it raises the chance of a citadel or detonation multiple times than not doing anything.

Some expert in mathematics could make a formula at how much longer you wait that less chance you have to make the kill .... It's just logical. Not even talking about the one that sets a ship on fire bevor that, he has always a good chance to get the kill when it burns down .... Simply and easy as that, there is no logic and no high success rate at waiting for a kill and i bet whatever you want, no average/good player has any need of that and i'am pretty sure that every player using such tactics has a negative sunk ships ratio.

 

 

[aboch]

Actually again thought about it. I guess the players that have a "kill stealing problem" are mostly the once that play more passive. An more agressive player that looks more for close combat/below mid range neither will get such feeling that someone has stollen his kill.