WG Please stop torpedo missions.

[CVbot]

Nowadays, Torpedo missions are making too many selfish idiots.

They are not interested in Winning battles, but torpedeing to Battleships.

10 Shimakaze on the one battle? That's not matter, if they just do their roles.

I can't understand the purpose of this missions.

If WG just want to make missions hard, Here is many other ways. (Get potential Damage, Get spot Damage, base defense... and so on)

hopefully, I don't want to see this idiot situation next thursday.

Thanks 

 

[ColonelPete]

Hard? They are easy. That is why I do not understand this suicidal focus.

 

[Butterdoll]

yeap, stop torps mission, they suck.

[Turnipsi]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Hard? They are easy. That is why I do not understand this suicidal focus.

 

This. It's also infuriating seeing your DD's trying to torp something that would die in a single gun salvo.

 

Meanwhile, I got the torpedo mission with Charles, playing like I would always play.

[beercrazy]

personally I think a lot of the missions are pushing players into doing the most insane gameplay that you wouldn't do if you was playing just for fun

 

[13Ninjas]

1 hour ago, CVbot said:

Nowadays, Torpedo missions are making too many selfish idiots.

They are not interested in Winning battles, but torpedeing to Battleships.

The simple solution to your problem would be, if they added to the mission terms,

- Win the game,

- You have to stay alive,

The missions are fun, adding these 2 terms would make it tougher, but fairer on the rest of the team.

[Hedgehog1963]

1 hour ago, CVbot said:

Nowadays, Torpedo missions are making too many selfish idiots.

They are not interested in Winning battles, but torpedeing to Battleships.

10 Shimakaze on the one battle? That's not matter, if they just do their roles.

I can't understand the purpose of this missions.

If WG just want to make missions hard, Here is many other ways. (Get potential Damage, Get spot Damage, base defense... and so on)

hopefully, I don't want to see this idiot situation next thursday.

Thanks 

 

 

Because obviously trying  to the game win by torpedoing the big enemy ships when your ship's primary armament is torpedoes is wrong...

[Caughtintherain]

2 minutes ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

 

Because obviously trying  to the game win by torpedoing the big enemy ships when your ship's primary armament is torpedoes is wrong...

 

If you could have actually won the game by not charging across the map at the last BB and capping the base 100m to your right then yeah, it's wrong.

[Butterdoll]

7 minutes ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

 

Because obviously trying  to the game win by torpedoing the big enemy ships when your ship's primary armament is torpedoes is wrong...

the problem it's when your primary armament it's not torps and you got to do it anyways.

[Vaderan]

In WoT, most regular "missions" are like "play (enter random number) of matches with (enter specific class, tier or vehicle), win the game and belong to the top (enter random number from 3 to 10) players of your team.

 

I don´t understand, why WG does not follow this policy in WoWs. I think, the WoT way encourages for much better teamplay and contributional playstyle than "sink 3 cruisers with a BB" or "hit BBs 12 times with torpedoes", which primarily encourages selfish, achievement orientated gameplay...

[Butterdoll]

18 minutes ago, 13Ninjas said:

The simple solution to your problem would be, if they added to the mission terms,

- Win the game,

- You have to stay alive,

The missions are fun, adding these 2 terms would make it tougher, but fairer on the rest of the team.

a simple solution it's not making everyone do the same requirements in the same stage of a mission.

yeah we would lose the usual MM floods of a type of ship.

But  it would keep everyone on track.

And not force people to play a certain type of ship in a massive numbers.

e.g.

In that 25 torps mission.(for the French collection)

I made it through with my cruisers, the few games I made with my destroyers I limited myself to kamikazes attacks and I wasn't the only one.

when I finished I put my relieve in the chat and also I found out that I wasn't the only one.

 

 

 

[AnotherDuck]

30 minutes ago, 13Ninjas said:

The simple solution to your problem would be, if they added to the mission terms,

- Win the game,

- You have to stay alive,

The missions are fun, adding these 2 terms would make it tougher, but fairer on the rest of the team.

On one hand, winning the game makes it more of a lottery (which can probably be balanced by slightly lower requirements for the mission to begin with), but on the other, it does promote playing to win the game rather than to complete some random objective at the cost of winning.

 

Staying alive for the duration of the game is sometimes not optimal, as that excludes some forms of aggressive but effective gameplay. And lots of players, when told to stay alive, will do so at any cost, which means camping, and trying to complete the mission from base camp.

[Hedgehog1963]

28 minutes ago, Caughtintherain said:

 

If you could have actually won the game by not charging across the map at the last BB and capping the base 100m to your right then yeah, it's wrong.

 

Why aren't you capping then?

[krazypenguin]

If there are loads of DDs and fewer BBs why not just play CAs and farm all those DDs?

 

Or play a DD yourself and enjoy a good old fashioned knife fight - a close range DD vs DD rumble is great fun.

[Wildf1re]

On nooooo, BBs are dying out, pls release more BBs ... 

[Caughtintherain]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

 

Why aren't you capping then?

I'm too busy charging across the map to torp the last BB.

[Nechrom]

When the missions are this easy you can't really complain about the requirements, even if they are specific.

It's not something you have to bend over backwards in order to complete. If someone is playing stupid because of it, then that person is the type who would do so either way. 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

Yeah, please stop torpedo missions. It's bad enough when BaBBies sail around in BBs, but when they try to torps something in a DD they are even uselesser than usual.

[eliastion]

8 hours ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

 

Because obviously trying  to the game win by torpedoing the big enemy ships when your ship's primary armament is torpedoes is wrong...

That's not the point, though.

If you're trying to win the battle by torpedoing big ships with your own ship's primary weapon - sure, that's kinda your job.

Problem is that some missions encourage people to kinda get the order wrong: they aren't torping enemy ships to win the battle anymore. They're torping enemy ships to score torpedo hits. And such approach leads to, to put it mildly, sub-optimal tactical decisions.

[Hedgehog1963]

10 minutes ago, eliastion said:

That's not the point, though.

If you're trying to win the battle by torpedoing big ships with your own ship's primary weapon - sure, that's kinda your job.

Problem is that some missions encourage people to kinda get the order wrong: they aren't torping enemy ships to win the battle anymore. They're torping enemy ships to score torpedo hits. And such approach leads to, to put it mildly, sub-optimal tactical decisions.

The anti torpedo bias on this forum never ceases.  To illustrate I'm going to copy your quote but substitute citadels for torps.  Here we go.

 

"That's not the point, though.

If you're trying to win the battle by citadel-ling big ships with your own ship's primary weapon - sure, that's kinda your job.

Problem is that some missions encourage people to kinda get the order wrong: they aren't citadeling enemy ships to win the battle anymore. They're citadeling enemy ships to score citadel hits. And such approach leads to, to put it mildly, sub-optimal tactical decisions."

 

 

So now maybe you understand how it sounds.

[Hedgehog1963]

6 hours ago, Nechrom said:

When the missions are this easy you can't really complain about the requirements, even if they are specific.

It's not something you have to bend over backwards in order to complete. If someone is playing stupid because of it, then that person is the type who would do so either way. 

 

 

Exactly. It's not the mission... it's the players and they're with us whether or not.

[lup3s]

56 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Yeah, please stop torpedo missions. It's bad enough when BaBBies sail around in BBs, but when they try to torps something in a DD they are even uselesser than usual.

^

This.

 

I was already wondering if the BB-potato-virus had spread to DDs ..

[Butterdoll]

41 minutes ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

The anti torpedo bias on this forum never ceases.  To illustrate I'm going to copy your quote but substitute citadels for torps.  Here we go.

 

"That's not the point, though.

If you're trying to win the battle by citadel-ling big ships with your own ship's primary weapon - sure, that's kinda your job.

Problem is that some missions encourage people to kinda get the order wrong: they aren't citadeling enemy ships to win the battle anymore. They're citadeling enemy ships to score citadel hits. And such approach leads to, to put it mildly, sub-optimal tactical decisions."

 

 

So now maybe you understand how it sounds.

that's nothing to do with anti torp bias, if that is a thing.

 

 

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

The anti torpedo bias on this forum never ceases.  To illustrate I'm going to copy your quote but substitute citadels for torps.  Here we go.

 

"That's not the point, though.

If you're trying to win the battle by citadel-ling big ships with your own ship's primary weapon - sure, that's kinda your job.

Problem is that some missions encourage people to kinda get the order wrong: they aren't citadeling enemy ships to win the battle anymore. They're citadeling enemy ships to score citadel hits. And such approach leads to, to put it mildly, sub-optimal tactical decisions."

 

 

So now maybe you understand how it sounds.

Well, sounds about right. Although I'd get rid of the "big" adjective - it implies primarily battleships that (due to superior armor) aren't a very good source of citadels. Other than that, I completely support the quote with substitution - I certainly wouldn't want to, for example, see my allies overextending to get that juicy broadside of one of the (usually relatively few) cruisers to farm citadels. I must admit that making mistakes because I needed a citadel (or a bunch of them) is something that happened to me too, although I usually make sure to focus on such things only if the match seems to be already won (or already lost). But it's kinda hard to expect all players to show similar restraint.

 

So, what was your point again?

[Hedgehog1963]

4 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Well, sounds about right. Although I'd get rid of the "big" adjective - it implies primarily battleships that (due to superior armor) aren't a very good source of citadels. Other than that, I completely support the quote with substitution - I certainly wouldn't want to, for example, see my allies overextending to get that juicy broadside of one of the (usually relatively few) cruisers to farm citadels. I must admit that making mistakes because I needed a citadel (or a bunch of them) is something that happened to me too, although I usually make sure to focus on such things only if the match seems to be already won (or already lost). But it's kinda hard to expect all players to show similar restraint.

 

So, what was your point again?

 

 

Point is:  No one would ever write that.