He is so right!!

[hgbn_dk]

 

[ColonelPete]

Not really...

[_Teob_]

How is he right? He has totally unfounded complains and makes straw-man arguments.

 

So his gripes are:

1) The community is mean. 

I don't know what his expectations are. Yes people can be out of line occasionally but overall  the community is one of the better I've seen. 

Not saying insults are acceptable when they do happen but some people simply are rude. Anyone who has ever driven a car knows that there are people who are simply rude.

Also, I would argue that allowing people with 19pt captains and thousand of battles of experience to play exclusively at low tiers hurts new players a lot more. I don't know about anyone else but when I start a new online game, I can ignore the foaming at the mouth idiots throwing expletives around but I sure as hell can't ignore getting stomped into the ground and not understanding why that happened.

 

2) People are running optimal builds.

So first of all, I find it ironic is that he complains about not being able to do anything while torpedoing the crap out of a Fletcher. He's all like "you can't do literally anything" while deleting 90% HP of another player's health. 

Secondly, people run very heavy AA builds because if you do come up against a carrier and you don't have a lot of AA you just get farmed for damage.

Thirdly, complaining that people min-max is dumb. Of course people do that. While would they run a sub-optimal build? There is quite a bit of variation and several builds work on most ships but there is a range of viability. Or rather a range where you can achieve optimal performance. The further you stray from this range the more difficult you make your own life. The alternative would be for all of us to run IFHE on Des Moines or something useless like that.

But saying that there's only a single spec is a blatant lie. 

(that's not to say that ships like the MK or Belfast weren't too good and, in the case of the MK, overused in competitive - but this is why they were removed from the shop)

 

3) People complain when you are wasting their time

Doing "original" stuff in an online game is controversial. It basically means that you think everyone else is there for your benefit. When you are part of a team, you should try your best. It's simple as.

Otherwise while you are running around with your Smoke Screen Expert IFHE Des Moines with the acquisition module and fighter plane instead of radar, trying to cap D on North, you are handicapping 11 other players. You are basically saying my 20 minutes of goofing around are more important than 11 * 20 minutes of someone else's time. Are people supposed to just accept the special unique snowflakes that waste their time?

And the great part is that you can do that. The game doesn't stop you in any way. So to me, whining about the fact that people might not be happy with that is really pointless.

On a related note, people don't usually complain when you make mistakes. Those happen and most players are understanding. People complain when you make dumb mistakes (like torpedoing from the second line) or when you do really dumb things (like going off solo in a t10 BB to the middle of nowhere).

 

 

He's just making exaggerations and looking at things only through his perspective. It's amazing how we judge other people on their actions but we judge ourselves on our intentions. 

[dasCKD]

It a level of skill to recognize that a tactic is a good one, and more skill to execute and utilize components of the game requires more yet. A game that has any level of skill progression will ultimately create a game client. All he's complaining about is people being mean to people to do things that are objectively poor for the relevant ship such as using the Khabarovsk as a torpedo destroyer. Admittedly the option of being able to do stupid things like that is a problem in the first place, but acting like only those with the knowledge and the skills to utilize it is at fault is just poor form.

[Kevbar]

I agree with a lot of Notser's sentiments. The other day in my Minotaur I was raged at by a dead Shimakaze because I had the audacity to have a 'general build' instead of 'AA spec'. Yes I struggled at the end against their top tier CV (who played a really good game and got the better of me) but not before I had played a significant part in the battle against DD's and 2 BB's whilst simultaneously giving support and smoke cover to our focussed BB. Just before I died, the Shim asked in chat for everyone to "report the noob Minotaur".

 

Post battle results showed that not only had I been complimented by the BB I had been supporting but also, whilst the di ck in the Shim came 3rd for XP, I actually came 2nd.

 

It annoys me that some people are willing to judge others on what they see at that moment but have no actual idea what they may have done up to that point. I took great satisfaction in seeing the results screen, with hindsight I wished I'd opened up a chat with him to see what he though afterwards, but probably it would have been to gloat just a little bit!!

[Tungstonid]

Is he really?

While I can see his points and some of them are true, most of them are either exaggerated or assume a false reason for what is happening.

 

He speaks about how the community (of every MMO) is elitist, toxic, offensive and don't want the new players to learn about the game, hence ruining the experience for a lot of players.First off, I think it is fair to say that - at least on the forum - most people would be happy about new (and old) players who actually want to learn. Nobody says anything about someone with 500 games who states a question here as long as he/she doesn't outright rant and insults left and right. The players who come here and prove to be completely learn-resistent are the problems and the ones who usually get mocked.

Else... well, guess what. That's human nature. Most people lack the ability to put themselves into the position of the player they just cursed. We are not controlled by a hive mind, every man and woman has his or her own plans for the battle and expectations. When they are not met then some will throw out offensive statements. It is not nice but as always: It really helps to grow a thicker skin. And I'd like to add that WoWS is way less toxic than what I know from other MMOs.

 

His second point is that he can't really test the Midway in PTS because everyone maxes the AA of the ships, that people are obnoxious towards other players about what ships/skill builds others should use and why WG implements a system which encourages this (i.e. only one valid build for characters/tanks/ships). I personally have never seen anyone who got insulted in the battle because he used a certain consumable or loadout, besides maybe the strike vs fighter setup on the USN CVs and the very rare CA which uses a fighter plane instead of radar. Sure, there are discussions here about which ship should use what skills but I'd say that there usually is more than one valid option, although this might be different for a more competitive scene than random battles where every member of a team has to rely on the others to get the most out of their ship. That said, why are there certain "maxed out" builds for characters, ships and tanks and is it really WG's fault? I'd say it comes down to the individual ship stats (and some gameplay rules) which are there to provide a certain diversity.  Without this diversity you can't really motivate players to start new lines other than for an aesthetic reason which in turn is bad for WG. However, this diversity also provides every ship with certain strengths and weaknesses which can be enhanced (or balanced) by captain skills and upgrades. So as long as you don't make every ship of a class (and tier) the same, people will always be able to max them out, i.e. to find a skill build which gets the most out of it or lets it play its role even better. A Shimakaze will always be better suited in a role as a stealthy torpedoe boat than a Khabarovsk which is more of a harasser and DD hunter. There is no real point in giving a Khaba TAE or AFT to a Shima (although this might be a matter of discussion for some) because both compensate for weaknesses/inferior stats that will only in rare situations if at all.

 

So he got some good points but all in all there is nothing really that (I see) could be done if you don't want to throw out half of the offensive community and have one ship performe as the next.

[wilkatis_LV]

Let me guess, it FEELS to you like he's right?

Lost my respect to Notser a long time ago, all this "feels like it's like that" always leads to nothing.

[Oppressor_]

1 hour ago, Teob_VG said:

 

Otherwise while you are running around with your Smoke Screen Expert IFHE Des Moines with the acquisition module and fighter plane instead of radar, trying to cap D on North, you are handicapping 11 other players. You are basically saying my 20 minutes of goofing around are more important than 11 * 20 minutes of someone else's time. 

 

I am pretty sure that the "grave truth" is that actually there are people who do that (or some alternative version of it) regularly and intentionally ignore the facts.

 

Piscem natare doces.

[stewie533]

He really disappointed me in that video.

People are mean on the internet, true. But in this game this is so much less true. Sure, there are jackasses around. Word are being spoken in the heat of battle. But come on. This community is some of the best communities I have seen around. Just check the WoW or LoL community.

His complaints about min-maxing. That is what he did/does himself as well! He maximized the strengths of his ship in order to get the best results out of it. Why would anyone not do that? Why should I not mod and skill my Fletcher to its best abilities? If I didn't do that I would just be handycapping myself. And for what reason? So another can have a bit more fun at the expense of my fun? And if I get an opponent like that against me I don't feel happy because he isn't min/maxed, I would feel sad for that reason. I can't afford to let him live, he will surely kill me when he gets the chance. So I am forced to kill someone who, for whatever reason, is less advantaged then I am.

The thing that pissed me off the most is his complaints about his Midway testing. This is so wrong on so many levels. 1st of all, in the game itself you see a LOT of AA maxed ships as well. Just look at most Minotaurs, Des Moines, Gearings, Fletchers, Grozovois, Montanas, Iowas, Baltimores, etc. All the ships can and will be up against. 2nd of all. The idea of testing is to give WG feedback on the ships. So if you loose planes on every strike, this will show in the stats. So if you cannot get a single strike off in any of your matches. Your damage will suffer. And this is ALL checked in the stats that WG gets out of this. By not playing this 'frustrating' ship, you are not contributing to the tests and thus not giving WG any data. So they might release ships that are imbalanced because the only players that tested them were players with [edited]ton of experience. "The only thing you can test is can I get in the queue" This is so horse crap. If you cannot affect anything in a game because your planes get swatted out of the sky, than that is a problem and shouldn't get released into the normal game. Does that hurt in the player playing the test ship? Sure. But that is why its the test server.

[_Teob_]

1 minute ago, Exohoritis said:

 

I am pretty sure that the "grave truth" is that actually there are people who do that (or some alternative version of it).

 

Yup. I even saw a fighter plane Des Moines in team battles.

 

But my point is, you can do that and nobody can stop you. But insisting that people respect that and even be happy and supportive of your unique tactics is totally silly.

[Loran_Battle]

43 minutes ago, Tungstonid said:

 

He speaks about how the community (of every MMO) is elitist, toxic, offensive and don't want the new players to learn about the game, hence ruining the experience for a lot of players.First off, I think it is fair to say that - at least on the forum - most people would be happy about new (and old) players who actually want to learn. Nobody says anything about someone with 500 games who states a question here as long as he/she doesn't outright rant and insults left and right. The players who come here and prove to be completely learn-resistent are the problems and the ones who usually get mocked.

 

Yeah, I used to try and help people in the game by just stating what they were doing wrong. Nothing negative, just a "hey X, if you shoot AP, you can delete Y in one volley" for example. But since most players respond to that with a "FU, I know what I'm doing you noob", I completely stopped doing that. Yeah, its just the unicums that are toxic...

And here on the forums if someone actually asks for help instead of going full retard ranting they always end up being helped by everyone, but that doesn't count right.

 

I was pretty annoyed by that video when i watched it. Notser basically says all unicums are something I cannot type here. And he says we don't want new players to learn anything? Just look around at the forums here, A LOT of us are complaining that this game does not have good tutorials and that new players are left in the dark. Most of us want them to learn. Ugh.

 

He lost all of my respect tbh through that video. It felt like someone said something to him that triggered him and now he is pissed off at everyone.

 

Also regarding builds and consumables... So we are not allowed to laugh at a guy that takes air superiority in his BB "cause he then gets 2 fighter planes"? or the DM player that does not even know what radar is? Or reversed (what happened to me a week ago): get reported by a kagero because you are clearly cheating when using radar. (and I got a lot of stuff thrown at me from him, he was the toxic guy).

[ImperialAdmiral]

Seems like someone never played a game with build in voice chat.

[_Teob_]

24 minutes ago, Loran_Battle said:

[...]

Notser basically says all unicums are something I cannot type here. [...]

 

He's had an axe to grind with the unicum community since the Des Moines IFHE debacle.

 

[stewie533]

33 minutes ago, Loran_Battle said:

[...]

And here on the forums if someone actually asks for help instead of going full retard ranting they always end up being helped by everyone, but that doesn't count right.

[...]

Even at times when someone starts an OP he will also get pointers and tips from some players that recognise that that particular OPs frustration stems from lack of knowledge of the fact that he lacks knowledge of the game. While the rant gets a LOT of abuse and mockery as well. The thread will always have 1 or 2 people actually helping out. Even after someone raged.

 

It is just so insulting to see a well known Youtuber discredit everything I try to do to make myself and the game better as much as I can.

 

5 minutes ago, Teob_VG said:

 

He's had an axe to grind with the unicum community since the Des Moines IFHE debacle.

 

I haven't heard of this. Do tell (or PM me where I can find it)

 

EDIT : Well.... guess this is applicable to me : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=notser+ifhe+des+moines

[DreadArchangel]

Yeah have to agree wi him, tired of the amount of games, where  the coms are really toxic in game, its not a good atmosphere.

[_Teob_]

11 minutes ago, stewie533 said:

I haven't heard of this. Do tell (or PM me where I can find it)

 

EDIT : Well.... guess this is applicable to me : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=notser+ifhe+des+moines

 

I PM'd you anyway. 

[stewie533]

2 minutes ago, Teob_VG said:

 

I PM'd you anyway. 

Yeah, thanks for that. I should've just Googled it myself to start with. But I appreciate that you actually took the effort to write that. <3

[JaiFoh]

Notser is right here, although on a different scale and this is something that affects the whole of the internet.

From online forum communities, social media, video games the works. 

Humans are naturally inquisitive creatures and we flock to things that we find interesting and challenging, we are also social creatures and create communities on social means, but then we also develop those communities to a certain point.

This is where the problem lies.

Human nature is competitive and we fight each other for resources as our base nature is that of survival, and in the true state of nature is Hobbesian in nature as the internet has become out of the comprehension of the human mind.
 
Our brains are not hard wired to deal with the community of this scale. We can deal with our street and our families, but getting to know towns where there are thousands of people. That is impossible and we build barriers within our Brain. 

The Warships community has its factions and some of them can be the very definition of unpleasantness as do all online communities. 

Indeed the very definition of Hobbesian describes online multiplayer games perfectly.
Hobbesian: Involving unrestrained, selfish, and uncivilized competition among participants

i doubt anyone can say blowing the frack out of each other counts as civilized behavior.
The civilized part is that we are doing it in virtual space as opposed to reality. 

The ability to look beyond this is a challenge to all, and even i know i can loose my patience and resort to my base human nature and as it is impossible to resort to violence over the internet it resorts to name calling, to come back from the brink takes even greater and when i reach that point i will walk away and then go back to it later. 

If i am in the right i report to the Sovereign as the works of Leviathan are especially relevant for the internet, as there is always a supreme authority on the internet, (usually the person who pays the bills) 

We have a sovereign that wields supreme power, and that is Wargaming forum team with their management team above them going all the way up to the Board. 

will they act? 
If it is laid down in black and white (hell even shades of grey) then they will. 

Notser has pointed something out that many people do not like to hear and never have done in 15 years of online gaming that this has always existed, but at the same time we do not want to go the full opposite and reach a point where airing a view that is controversial results in censorship (eg safe spaces in universities)

We have got another few tens of thousands of years before we evolve past this.

and with that Philosophy Jai is out

Tip your waitresses, for further reading i suggest Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.     

[Miessa3]

10 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

Notser is right here, although on a different scale and this is something that affects the whole of the internet.

From online forum communities, social media, video games the works. 

Humans are naturally inquisitive creatures and we flock to things that we find interesting and challenging, we are also social creatures and create communities on social means, but then we also develop those communities to a certain point.

This is where the problem lies.

Human nature is competitive and we fight each other for resources as our base nature is that of survival, and in the true state of nature is Hobbesian in nature as the internet has become out of the comprehension of the human mind.
 
Our brains are not hard wired to deal with the community of this scale. We can deal with our street and our families, but getting to know towns where there are thousands of people. That is impossible and we build barriers within our Brain. 

The Warships community has its factions and some of them can be the very definition of unpleasantness as do all online communities. 

Indeed the very definition of Hobbesian describes online multiplayer games perfectly.
Hobbesian: Involving unrestrained, selfish, and uncivilized competition among participants

i doubt anyone can say blowing the frack out of each other counts as civilized behavior.
The civilized part is that we are doing it in virtual space as opposed to reality. 

The ability to look beyond this is a challenge to all, and even i know i can loose my patience and resort to my base human nature and as it is impossible to resort to violence over the internet it resorts to name calling, to come back from the brink takes even greater and when i reach that point i will walk away and then go back to it later. 

If i am in the right i report to the Sovereign as the works of Leviathan are especially relevant for the internet, as there is always a supreme authority on the internet, (usually the person who pays the bills) 

We have a sovereign that wields supreme power, and that is Wargaming forum team with their management team above them going all the way up to the Board. 

will they act? 
If it is laid down in black and white (hell even shades of grey) then they will. 

Notser has pointed something out that many people do not like to hear and never have done in 15 years of online gaming that this has always existed, but at the same time we do not want to go the full opposite and reach a point where airing a view that is controversial results in censorship (eg safe spaces in universities)

We have got another few tens of thousands of years before we evolve past this.

and with that Philosophy Jai is out

Tip your waitresses, for further reading i suggest Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.     

No the problem is not that our brain can't handle the internet, it is that we can do these things anonymously and hence avoid direct social backlash.

Basically it is the rotten human nature of desire.

If murder were truly "allowed" (read: without consequences both socialy and by law) the numbers would go up rapidly.

 

P.S. I doubt we humans survive another thousands of years while going on like we do today........

[JaiFoh]

8 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

No the problem is not that our brain can't handle the internet, it is that we can do these things anonymously and hence avoid direct social backlash.

Basically it is the rotten human nature of desire.

If murder were truly "allowed" (read: without consequences both socialy and by law) the numbers would go up rapidly.

 

P.S. I doubt we humans survive another thousands of years while going on like we do today........

The anonymity of the internet is not as great as people think, a good example that has been brought up in scholorly articles in comparison is the football hooliganism firms of the 1970's to 1990's. 

With things such as the 6.57 crew, the County lunatic fringe etc they were anonymous in the eyes of the local law enforcement wherever they traveled but known to the local law enforcement which is why many many crimes committed by them were able to be gotten away with many times. 
To quote a relative who was part of one of these firms in the 70's & 80's (maybe paraphrased a bit but it was 9 years ago and sadly he is no longer with us)

"You were not known back then so as long as you out ran the booby you got away with it, until it became national scandal and the govt finally got involved when Thatcher was PM"
 

Although generally agreed as Hobbs States, base human nature as you describes is Nasty, Brutish but mercifully short. We can be nasty individuals if we allow our base instincts to rule our thinking. 

[Miessa3]

18 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

The anonymity of the internet is not as great as people think, a good example that has been brought up in scholorly articles in comparison is the football hooliganism firms of the 1970's to 1990's. 

With things such as the 6.57 crew, the County lunatic fringe etc they were anonymous in the eyes of the local law enforcement wherever they traveled but known to the local law enforcement which is why many many crimes committed by them were able to be gotten away with many times. 
To quote a relative who was part of one of these firms in the 70's & 80's (maybe paraphrased a bit but it was 9 years ago and sadly he is no longer with us)

"You were not known back then so as long as you out ran the booby you got away with it, until it became national scandal and the govt finally got involved when Thatcher was PM"
 

Although generally agreed as Hobbs States, base human nature as you describes is Nasty, Brutish but mercifully short. We can be nasty individuals if we allow our base instincts to rule our thinking. 

I didn't say they are infact anonymous, it is enough if they think they are and don't have to face backlash/consequences.

As soon as a human doesn't fear any consequences that human will just follow his desires which will get ugly most of the time.

That is why someone without anything left to lose and out for vengance is so dangerous.

[JaiFoh]

15 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

I didn't say they are infact anonymous, it is enough if they think they are and don't have to face backlash/consequences.

As soon as a human doesn't fear any consequences that human will just follow his desires which will get ugly most of the time.

That is why someone without anything left to lose and out for vengance is so dangerous.

Ah apologies,
Although as a counter point it dials back to the Sovereign in that there is consequences in our community in that you can be thrown out of the "tree house" and in general society the govt is finally catching up with the internet trolls.