Player stupidity

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

The problem with the abysmall low skill players and massive RNG in all of Wargaming's titles is that compared to other multiplayergames a good player does not have the same ability to carry a game alone. Wargaming's titles are the only multiplayer games i have tried where a sigle gifted player can not consistently outplay and dominate the enemy team if that is made up from players with a lower skill level if his or her team is abysmally bad and that is where Wargaming fails miserably.

None of Wargaming's games allow for single player carry unless under rare circumstances and being able to single carry is the cornerstone of displaying internet gaming provess and for WG 's titles to be worth watching as esports their games' core mechanics have to change to allow for a far higher degreee of single player carry ability from the very best of players based on the simple reason that competive games are only interesting if the outcome of the game is clearly determined by individual player skill and not random factors.

[Syrchalis]

Wargaming's titles are the only multiplayer games i have tried where a sigle gifted player can not consistently outplay and dominate the enemy team if that is made up from players with a lower skill level if his or her team is abysmally bad and that is where Wargaming fails miserably.

succeeds spectacularly*.

 

Matter of perspective. I don't like it either, but they make casual games for casual players and casuals don't like getting their butt handed to them by good players.

[Aotearas]

succeeds spectacularly*.

 

Matter of perspective. I don't like it either, but they make casual games for casual players and casuals don't like getting their butt handed to them by good players.

 

WG is a bit two-faced then if they want to make their games into Esports.

 

That or people are misinterpreting the game's target audience to fit the evidence, rather than the intent (which may or may not be properly realized within the games' current frameworks).

[deadly_if_swallowed]

It would by hypocritical of me to say that I didn't have some experience with subpar player populations *cough*XPbonuseventsonweekends*cough*, but it would also be hypocritical if I claimed not to derp out spectacularily sometimes and people who'd be the witness of that would have every right to judge my behaviour as monumentally stupid given the situation.

 

That said, everyone should be aware that any such judgements are biased perception. Players typically tend to overestimate their skills (yes, even humble players will do that, albeit typically to a lesser extent, but they are no exception!) and set the bar to evaluate others equally high.

 

Just a small anecdote from a random game on 10.07.

Player p4nix was sailing his Arizona, I think he took her for a spin for the first time after he got her the day before. Our team got butchered and he was the last survivor because Arizona's speed couldn't keep up with the fleet and her range denied good shots on enemies. Some folks from my team called him a noob and he should learn to play before getting a T6 prem.

Said player, p4nix, got Arizona by winning a contest. Yes, it was Crysantos' Iron Man contest. And yes, p4nix was the first one to reach Rank 1 by only playing Atlanta from Rank 15 to 1

 

So yes, it is all biased and subject to one's own view on things. However, I do think that ranting and shaming has reached a fairly dangerous level by now. I would welcome some more galantry and sportsmanship from players but those virtues seem lost nowadays.

[Aotearas]

 

So yes, it is all biased and subject to one's own view on things. However, I do think that ranting and shaming has reached a fairly dangerous level by now. I would welcome some more galantry and sportsmanship from players but those virtues seem lost nowadays.

 

I disagree that such manners are getting more rare. I'd rather say the vocal nature of such whiners just makes them seem more prominent.

 

Though that would be hard to prove, so I'll just let this float in the room as my personal opinion.

[Allied_Winter]

 

WG is a bit two-faced then if they want to make their games into Esports.

 

That or people are misinterpreting the game's target audience to fit the evidence, rather than the intent (which may or may not be properly realized within the games' current frameworks).

 

The question that comes to my mind is: Does the claim to suit casual players as well as to make WoWs an e-sport exclude each other?

 

 

Greetings

[Aotearas]

 

The question that comes to my mind is: Does the claim to suit casual players as well as to make WoWs an e-sport exclude each other?

 

 

Greetings

 

When it comes to the extent of some game mechanics, yes.

 

Randomisation like shell dispersion can be used to balance out the playing field so that people with good aim can't just wreck people with less good aim because they won't hit every salvo. But for competitive gameplay, too much RNG is a design that disincentivizes precision in favour for volume of fire.

Likewise, random deaths, see the detonation mechanic. If a random HE shell can detonate you regardless of your health, that's bad game design if you intent to promote skill. And as I've recently seen a dev mention (forgot where exactly, so I can't quote), it's impossible to truly negate the chance of detonations. The Anti-Detonation flag is no guarantee, it just makes the odds very, very unlikely. I very much doubt Counter Strike would've become such a successful Esports title if you could kill a player by having a lucky RNG roll after grazing his toe with a pistol bullet.

 

Now, that doesn't constitute a mutually exclusive relationship by definition of course. But the current way they look, I personally wouldn't see WoWs to be a game well designed to work as a succesfull Esports game. Exactly what would have to change how much would be open to debate.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

For that the game would need to stop being so RNG-dependent. Right now there is so much margain of error when doing placement matches due to that, that you wouldn't get any proper MMR for half the players.

 

Well I would consider a league mode where proper MM develops over time based on your performance and stats in that mode. It would be continuous. over time RNG would have less and less impact. You could even use modules system to combat RNG and have "RNG compensating" modules for league mode. 

 

Whatever - I think WG could develop two modes - arcade and league - thus differentiating from WT which has arcade and realistic. Would be interesting. 

[BlueMoon51]

Having played 13k plus WoT battles I can honestly say I would sooner beat my head open with a dull teaspoon than watch another minute of WoT's esport 

[Allied_Winter]

 

When it comes to the extent of some game mechanics, yes.

 

Randomisation like shell dispersion can be used to balance out the playing field so that people with good aim can't just wreck people with less good aim because they won't hit every salvo. But for competitive gameplay, too much RNG is a design that disincentivizes precision in favour for volume of fire.

Likewise, random deaths, see the detonation mechanic. If a random HE shell can detonate you regardless of your health, that's bad game design if you intent to promote skill. And as I've recently seen a dev mention (forgot where exactly, so I can't quote), it's impossible to truly negate the chance of detonations. The Anti-Detonation flag is no guarantee, it just makes the odds very, very unlikely. I very much doubt Counter Strike would've become such a successful Esports title if you could kill a player by having a lucky RNG roll after grazing his toe with a pistol bullet.

 

Now, that doesn't constitute a mutually exclusive relationship by definition of course. But the current way they look, I personally wouldn't see WoWs to be a game well designed to work as a succesfull Esports game. Exactly what would have to change how much would be open to debate.

 

Thanks for the explanation!

 

 

Iirc, when teambattles started most YTers (at least those I watch) said, that the coordinated team work negates allmost completely the RNG. It still exists, but the team effort surpasses the "downsides" of RNG.

 

I never played enough TBs to make a stable conclusion, but from what I saw in those battled, comes close to those statements.

Well, we'll see.

 

 

Greetings

[mtm78]

 

Just a small anecdote from a random game on 10.07.

Player p4nix was sailing his Arizona, I think he took her for a spin for the first time after he got her the day before. Our team got butchered and he was the last survivor because Arizona's speed couldn't keep up with the fleet and her range denied good shots on enemies. Some folks from my team called him a noob and he should learn to play before getting a T6 prem.

Said player, p4nix, got Arizona by winning a contest. Yes, it was Crysantos' Iron Man contest. And yes, p4nix was the first one to reach Rank 1 by only playing Atlanta from Rank 15 to 1

 

So yes, it is all biased and subject to one's own view on things. However, I do think that ranting and shaming has reached a fairly dangerous level by now. I would welcome some more galantry and sportsmanship from players but those virtues seem lost nowadays.

 

In your particular example the only 'naming and shaming' which was done was by those caling him a noob not knowing that he actually by any definition in the book, most certainly is not. 

 

Also, I see this behavior very very rarely, if not seldom, in WoWs. Fire up World of Tanks, and it's every other battle

 

Gallantry and sportsmanship certainly exist, what helps is being communicative when the game starts, wish people luck, through around some poi and people will usually be much kinder in chat ( and you might get some more teamwork out of randoms as well! ). But yea it's gone down since CBT ended, but that always happens with f2p games. Still, there is a old core which is sticking through it and there certainly also are some of the new people who been showing how online gaming can be. 

[Ishiro32]

Indeed mtm, there was much more Poi in CBT which in hindsight must have been the reason why community worked so well.

[lup3s]

 

Randomisation like shell dispersion can be used to balance out the playing field so that people with good aim can't just wreck people with less good aim because they won't hit every salvo.

 

Tbh the RNG is the thing I like the least about WoWS (but it does give a very good feeling when RNG favours you ).

 

But that's maybe because I was used to playing FPS-games (e.g. old CoDs and BFs) and because I think I have a good aim. I wouldn't have played these games nearly as much as I did if RNG would mess with my shots "to balance the playing field". I want my shots to (consistently) hit where I'm aiming; other players should just learn to aim better if they don't want to get wrecked.

 

[Aotearas]

Indeed mtm, there was much more Poi in CBT which in hindsight must have been the reason why community worked so well.

 

Feel free to chat me up ingame for divisions. I'll poi you all you want!

 

 

In regards to RNG:

 

 

 

 

Tbh the RNG is the thing I like the least about WoWS (but it does give a very good feeling when RNG favours you ).

 

But that's maybe because I was used to playing FPS-games (e.g. old CoDs and BFs) and wrecking most opponents I met in public matches. Private matches and clanwars were another story (more challenging), as these were usually held by equally skilled players. I think I would've played these games nearly as much as I did if RNG would mess with my shots.

 

I just like to consistently hit where I'm aiming, especially because I think I have a quite good aim in shooter games. AIM FOR THE HEAD !!!

 

 

Same here. I just gave a reason how game mechanics can be made to suit a more casual gameplay vs more skill-based gameplay. I'd personally prefer a bit less RNG, but that also mean that some ships would require a rebalancing in some ways (think how awfully OP BBs would be if their guns were considerably more accurate/less RNG dispersion).

[lup3s]

 

Same here. I just gave a reason how game mechanics can be made to suit a more casual gameplay vs more skill-based gameplay. I'd personally prefer a bit less RNG, but that also mean that some ships would require a rebalancing in some ways (think how awfully OP BBs would be if their guns were considerably more accurate/less RNG dispersion).

 

True, I agree.

 

Btw I like this game way too much for RNG to make me stop playing it

[BabyAdmiral]

Why is the variation in [edited] so much higher in WOWS than other games, there are some truly awful players in this game, arguably worse than both [edited].

 

I don't think it's related to intelligence at all.

 

Especially older people, with perfectly functioning brains, are often having a harder time in tactile oriented computer games. I've met some truly awful players that are "grown men" who are more into military history than actual gaming.

 

On the other side of the spectrum we have immature and frankly, quite stupid people who seem to really get the hang of this game.

 

It takes all kinds as far as I see it.

[Userext]

 

WoT is much harder to learn than WoWs when you are a noob. WoTs game mechanics,the spotting system for example,are more complex.

WoT is definetly not a noob friendly game,the skill ceiling is vry high in tanks.

 

 

 oh wait yo are serious 

 

 

[Xevious_Red]

 

 oh wait yo are serious 

 

 

Well he is correct that the spotting system is more complex.

In ships you have set values that are easy to remember/work out. So any ship within range will spot you

In tanks, the spotting tank has a view range, which is different for each tank, can be changed by different turrets, and is adjusted by skills, commander training level and equipment. The equipment is a percentage increase, so higher view ranges get a greater bonus. This is then reduced by a percentage based on the opposing tank's camouflage rating, equipment, skills, paint, bushes, and if it's moving or not.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

True, I agree.

 

Btw I like this game way too much for RNG to make me stop playing it

 

regarding RNG...

 

I think its fine generally... and by generally, I mean until tier 9/10, at which point things (in my view) start to go awry, especially with Battleships... But thats another thread for me to start...

[EsaTuunanen]

That said, everyone should be aware that any such judgements are biased perception. Players typically tend to overestimate their skills (yes, even humble players will do that, albeit typically to a lesser extent, but they are no exception!) and set the bar to evaluate others equally high.

Hasn't it been studied that people actually good in something are actually more prone to underestimate their skills while worser ones are the more likely to overestimate their skills?

Kinda like those cruisers rushing far ahead of slow USN BB and then blaming that player for running too far from support.

 

Though that makes it harder for skilled players to watch some player do not only one bad decision but keep doing them in row.

Or watch one player to sail straight into torpedo ambush only for next ship to do the same.

[xenopathia]

Playing in Map Trap with my Kutuzov. 

After a good game with 4 kills and 90k damage got killed by a Tirpitz around the B Cap. 

 

Last 2-3 minutes of the game. We have all 3 caps and 3 ships remaining (Colorado, Pensacola & Tirpitz).

The opponents have one Tirpitz and a point advantage (970 to 850). All our team has to do is stay alive.

The Colorado 70% health and a heavily wounded Pensacola 30% at A cap.  Our Tirpitz is around A cap because he capped - He is smart.

 

The last alive opponent the brave Tirpitz that also killed me rushes in to A cap.

Our Pensacola puts the island in between him and the Tirpitz - He is smart.  Our dumb Colorado player shows a perfect broadside, gets citadeled and dies on the second salvo from Tirpitz. We lose.

 

Can you imagine the frustration.

One guy lost the game for the whole team. He did the only thing he could do to lose.

 

I checked his stats after the game. The guy is a total loser. 2k games 46% WR 0.63 KD as if he is playing the game to lose.

 

But, sh-t happens.

 

 

[Allied_Winter]

Hasn't it been studied that people actually good in something are actually more prone to underestimate their skills while worser ones are the more likely to overestimate their skills?

Kinda like those cruisers rushing far ahead of slow USN BB and then blaming that player for running too far from support.

 

Dunning-Kruger-effect

 

 

Greetings

[Userext]

Well he is correct that the spotting system is more complex.

In ships you have set values that are easy to remember/work out. So any ship within range will spot you

In tanks, the spotting tank has a view range, which is different for each tank, can be changed by different turrets, and is adjusted by skills, commander training level and equipment. The equipment is a percentage increase, so higher view ranges get a greater bonus. This is then reduced by a percentage based on the opposing tank's camouflage rating, equipment, skills, paint, bushes, and if it's moving or not.

 

he meant wot game mechanics are more complex compared to WoWs and gave spotting as an example. Spotting is the only more complex thing about wot and that isnt even complex at all. 

[ajappat]

 

 oh wait yo are serious 

 

 

 

You should know the best.

[AnotherDuck]

In regards to RNG:

 

To be fair, Poi (a.k.a. Yuudachi) has a lot more reason to blame RNG. If you think RNG is heavy in this game, try KanColle. That's all about RNG (then again, it's also a semi-idle game, so no skill whatsoever, but there is strategy).