Wedgie's reward system is full of it (and not the right stuff)

[Andrewbassg]

 

 

More so, i can't believe how much the  babbie crowd likes, quite shamefully, to project.

 For years I've been hearing about "DD maffia dis and Dd mafia dat. And "if Cv's won't spot Dd"s will roam freely"

LMAO, if anything  it is the other way around.

 

[SolitudeFreak]

Secondary hits and damage are rewarded more than main gun and torpedo hits and damage now. Because reasons.

The scoring system has issues.

[Verytis]

DDs have always been the lowest in dmg output, and they lack the time to rack up chip dmg in brawls.

Same with their vision control, useless when everyone is at each other's necks.

 

If anything, the shown scoreboard accurately reflecting the contribution of each member.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

DDs have always been the lowest in dmg output, and they lack the time to rack up chip dmg in brawls.

Same with their vision control, useless when everyone is at each other's necks.

 

If anything, the shown scoreboard accurately reflecting the contribution of each member.

Well....those are good points, however still no.

Firstly, if Dd's indeed were on the lower side of the dmg output scale, then why Wedgie altered the deal even more? Secondly  why we heard for years that "DD mafia dis and that"? Thirdly, Dd's are arguably the least survivable  class, ergo they take the most risks, yet that is NOT reflected  in the rewards. And not at least if the MM would look like 2 BB's, 3-4 cruisers and the rest dd's, it would reflect RL fleet compositions and also would justify current reward system.

Yet that's not the case, so I still call bull on Wedgie's reward distribution.

 

And also no for battle contribution.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IYH6JJ3KEQWzr3piASDFblgKo-ptn3Pc/view?usp=drive_link

I actually played the objectives, in a smokeless dd.  We were winning with two caps taken. But ofc, for reasons, we lost.

 

Edited January 7 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Dd's are arguably the least survivable  class,

LOL

Just because people play them poorly.

[Andrewbassg]

32 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

LOL

Just because people play them poorly.

Well,  again yes and no. Generally, when objectively evaluating the various ships various capabilities, subjective factors (aka human factors) are best left out. I mean If a ship's survavibility is solely dependent on skill vs actual capability...yep here we go.

I know that you know what i'm talking about 🙂 A more folksie approach would be suggesting a showdown, an open water engagement (gunboating) between a Yugumo and a Pom Pom, to...... "determine" the "winner" 🙂 

Edited January 7 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well,  again yes and no. Generally, when objectively evaluating the various ships various capabilities, subjective factors (aka human factors) are best left out. I mean If a ship's survavibility is solely dependent on skill vs actual capability...yep here we go.

I know that you know what i'm talking about 🙂 A more folksie approach would be suggesting a showdown, an open water engagement (gunboating) between a Yugumo and a Pom Pom, to...... "determine" the "winner" 🙂 

Mostly just the reality that DDs have a high skill ceiling but a higher skill floor.

Battleships don't get you killed immediately if you do something daft...whereas DDs and some light cruisers can be very unforgiving of poor play.

I do indeed know what you mean, and was hoping to be adding a light jest to your point.

🙂

[Snargfargle]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

DDs... can be very unforgiving of poor play.

I was just in a match where we lost our four DDs and two subs in the first three minutes of the game because they all ran directly into caps in front of the enemy's heavy and light cruisers and a healthy dose of torpedo spam into the caps from the enemy DDs.

For those who might want some advice on how to DD, here is a good video.

 

[Verytis]

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Firstly, if Dd's indeed were on the lower side of the dmg output scale, then why Wedgie altered the deal even more? Secondly  why we heard for years that "DD mafia dis and that"? Thirdly, Dd's are arguably the least survivable  class, ergo they take the most risks, yet that is NOT reflected  in the rewards. And not at least if the MM would look like 2 BB's, 3-4 cruisers and the rest dd's, it would reflect RL fleet compositions and also would justify current reward system.

• I wouldn't know anything much about this "DD Mafia". Usually I skip over such nonsense.
• Some ships naturally have higher risks involved, whether due to role or hull. But that alone doesn't mean they perform more than others.
• IRL fleet compositions hold on ground here.

 

As for the match itself

• Yes, you capped the middle, but it alone was of limited value when the enemy just pushed right into it after.
• However, what it does is allow your BBs to set camp with your spotting support, as it now fell onto the enemy to make a move.
• Except lacking any awareness, they rejected your support as a DD, and threw the game.
• The scoreboard then only counted dmg % dealt and assigned your scores accordingly.

 

TBH, I'd recommend you to not play that "simplistic" mode if you want to see tactical awareness and teamwork.

It's designed to remove all the barriers preventing BBs from crashing into each other like bots. Naturally, you're likely to encounter its intended audience for teammates.

[SolitudeFreak]

6 hours ago, Verytis said:

If anything, the shown scoreboard accurately reflecting the contribution of each member.

Because they have weighted scoring around things they are currently trying to incentivize the use of.

All things being equal, the secondary battleship will score higher than a main gun battleship. I get that they did that because of the randoms meta, but it doesn't make it feel any less arbitrary and stupid.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Mostly just the reality that DDs have a high skill ceiling but a higher skill floor.

Battleships don't get you killed immediately if you do something daft...whereas DDs and some light cruisers can be very unforgiving of poor play.

I do indeed know what you mean, and was hoping to be adding a light jest to your point.

🙂

Light and jest are always welcomed. We are just discussing things, experiences, opinions.

47 minutes ago, Verytis said:

• I wouldn't know anything much about this "DD Mafia". Usually I skip over such nonsense.
• Some ships naturally have higher risks involved, whether due to role or hull. But that alone doesn't mean they perform more than others.
• IRL fleet compositions hold on ground here.

 

 

It was an EU/NA "thing". Provided a form of justification, to resist changes/shut down discussions. As for the second point, it also doesn't mean that they should be rewarded less. The problem is the imperfection of the current model coupled with the artificial ( i.e unwarranted and not justifiable) altering ( more rewards for sec hits, less rewards for MB hits, for defence ribbons, etc) of the rewards.

56 minutes ago, Verytis said:

• The scoreboard then only counted dmg % dealt and assigned your scores accordingly.

Which was the point. Them throwing and still getting more. 

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

TBH, I'd recommend you to not play that "simplistic" mode if you want to see tactical awareness and teamwork.

Cruiser main here, hence the venture into that mode, in that class. And also some snowflakes were involved . 🙂 

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

I was just in a match where we lost our four DDs and two subs in the first three minutes of the game because they all ran directly into caps in front of the enemy's heavy and light cruisers and a healthy dose of torpedo spam into the caps from the enemy DDs.

Yeah, on NA good players tend to play BB's. Dd's are not really to spoke about, tho I've met good DD players, still very sparingly.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

You got no kills, and the thing you should be explaining is why you did not come last. I'm guessing the Mogador got a kill secure. 

[Helstrem]

Not all damage is equal in value.  Doing 1000 damage to a Shimakaze is worth more than 1000 damage to a Yamato.  Taking a Shimakaze from 100% to dead and taking a Yamato from 100% to dead is worth the same amount.

DDs are much better at damaging enemy DDs.  DDs have less health, so the damage totals of DDs are usually less than that of BBs that are shooting at large, easier to hit targets that have a lot of health.

Whining about which type of ship has the highest damage numbers without even considering context is pathetic.  Stooping to using childish names like baBBies absolutely discredits the OP and paints them as an unreasoning fanatic.

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Not all damage is equal in value.  Doing 1000 damage to a Shimakaze is worth more than 1000 damage to a Yamato.  Taking a Shimakaze from 100% to dead and taking a Yamato from 100% to dead is worth the same amount.

 

Oh......plot twist nr1, I know how the damage reward system works. But that wasn't the point. 

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

DDs are much better at damaging enemy DDs.  

Some DDs are much better at damaging enemy DDs.   Corrected the imperfect formulation  

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

  DDs have less health, so the damage totals of DDs are usually less than that of BBs that are shooting at large, easier to hit targets that have a lot of health.

 

Yes.  That is part of the reasons why they are less survivable, than other classes. But that wasn't the point. 

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Whining about which type of ship has the highest damage numbers

Plot twist nr 2,  that wasn't the point 🙂. I suggest rereading  the original post, also all the follow up posts, to ....better understand the context. Pun very much intended . Still.... I wouldn't consider your post pathetic. Mildly entertaining, yes, pathetic.... no.

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Stooping to using childish names like baBBies absolutely discredits the OP

The only thing that could have discredited what I was saying is, if I would have been unreasonable and uncomprehensible, both in formulation, as in the points. Somethin' like "REE!! Nnerf Dd's!! No one can hack that WASD wizardry to avoid torps!! Torp soup everywhere!! REE!!"

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

..paints them as an unreasoning....

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

fanatic

 Yoo.... I want the game to be.... better. Wazz wrong with dat? 

Edited January 8 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Personally, I have often wondered whether WG doesn't tweak the rewards system on a semi-regular basis...since it is not one of the systems that is explicitly laid out...and therefore WG has no actual requirement to record changes in a dev-blog.

It would make sense to be tweaking things on a semi-regular basis as game modes come into and out of the patches...and also to help encourage certain types of play.

Any thoughts on that as it impacts the OP's post?

[Helstrem]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Oh......plot twist nr1, I know how the damage reward system works. But that wasn't the point. 

Some DDs are much better at damaging enemy DDs.   Corrected the imperfect formulation  

Yes.  That is part of the reasons why they are less survivable, than other classes. But that wasn't the point. 

Plot twist nr 2,  that wasn't the point 🙂. I suggest rereading  the original post, also all the follow up posts, to ....better understand the context. Pun very much intended . Still.... I wouldn't consider your post pathetic. Mildly entertaining, yes, pathetic.... no.

The only thing that could have discredited what I was saying is, if I would have been unreasonable and uncomprehensible, both in formulation, as in the points. Somethin' like "REE!! Nnerf Dd's!! No one can hack that WASD wizardry to avoid torps!! Torp soup everywhere!! REE!!"

 Yoo.... I want the game to be.... better. Wazz wrong with dat? 

"WAAAAAAAAAAA"

Different types of ships have different reward values and different costs.  Deal with it.  Or don't and whine.  Or quit. 

I don't see BB players balling their eyes out that they don't get much XP for spotting damage.

You're not asking for it to be better.  You're asking for DDs to be buffed because "baBBies" get stuff your DDs don't.  

[clammboy]

11 hours ago, SolitudeFreak said:

All things being equal, the secondary battleship will score higher than a main gun battleship. I get that they did that because of the randoms meta, but it doesn't make it feel any less arbitrary and stupid.

Look no matter what people do other people are going to complain about it. Secondary BB's are very hard to play in todays meta but god forbid they have a good game because then there unfair and get to many points . But play bad and get deleted quick and your a idiot for playing them and suiciding in the game .

Ninety percent of the time it's the captain not the ship not the build not the consumables but the captain of the ship. When he's good any ship in his hands are usually good. You win you get the reward you lose you get the left overs.

 

Edited January 8 by clammboy

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

9 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Look no matter what people do other people are going to complain about it. Secondary BB's are very hard to play in todays meta but god forbid they have a good game because then there unfair and get to many points . But play bad and get deleted quick and your a idiot for playing them and suiciding in the game .

Ninety percent of the time it's the captain not the ship not the build not the consumables but the captain of the ship. When he's good any ship in his hands are usually good. You win you get the reward you lose you get the left overs.

 

Ah, but the distribution of rewards is ENTIRELY the responsibility of WG.

Blaming the players is the wrong take to make here.

[SolitudeFreak]

11 minutes ago, clammboy said:

todays meta

Today's meta is a result of WG balancing the game. And instead of incentivizing through game play(making certain builds/ships more viable organically), their response here is to incentivize play styles with XP only. That doesn't make anything more or less balanced. It's an arbitrary shove in a certain direction based on how they want us to vary our play.

 

14 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Look no matter what people do other people are going to complain about it.

That by itself doesn't demerit an argument. If you want to use that logic, why even discuss anything? After all, people are going to complain no matter what, so just ignore everything.

[Andrewbassg]

12 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You're not asking for it to be better.  You're asking for DDs to be buffed because "baBBies" get stuff your DDs don't.  

Oh yes. i talk about and advocate for equality of chances. In a PvP game, which, while inherently unbalanced from the get go, is increasingly pushed towards a non equality of outcomes model. Coz reasons. 

And you missed the part where I said, me not DD main.  it just happened that i played a battle in one and instantly struck me, how playing the objective is not rewarded. 

25 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I don't see BB players balling their eyes out that they don't get much XP for spotting damage.

But they can earn Combat Scouts, right? RIGHT? Which is perfectly fine.

52 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

"WAAAAAAAAAAA"

Curious, I don't recall you being of the activist variety.

 

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Personally, I have often wondered whether WG doesn't tweak the rewards system on a semi-regular basis...since it is not one of the systems that is explicitly laid out...and therefore WG has no actual requirement to record changes in a dev-blog.

It would make sense to be tweaking things on a semi-regular basis as game modes come into and out of the patches...and also to help encourage certain types of play.

Any thoughts on that as it impacts the OP's post?

Other than the so called "happy accidents"  and some not so happy accidents.... didn't noticed. 

By happy accident I mean, when the sec mounts become indestructible for a patch and not so happy when they removed the rewards for achievements, instantly also nerfing the BXP earnings in both PVP as In PVE. 

[Andrewbassg]

29 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Look no matter what people do other people are going to complain about 

That's true.

30 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Secondary BB's are very hard to play in todays meta but god forbid they have a good game because then there unfair and get to many points .

That's not the point. However, it is unreasonable that a largely automated mechanic should reward more than playing the objective, regardless of class. And it is Wedgie who gimped the meta, not the players.

34 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Ninety percent of the time it's the captain not the ship not the build not the consumables but the captain of the ship. When he's good any ship in his hands are usually good. You win you get the reward you lose you get the left overs.

 

That's largely true, but that wasn't the point. As for the rewards, that's the issue, them being unfairly distributed, coz reasons.

[Snargfargle]

11 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

sec mounts become indestructible for a patch

I believe that there is a module now that makes secondary mounts indestructible.

Edited January 8 by Snargfargle

[Andrewbassg]

12 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I believe that there is now a module now that makes secondary mounts indestructible.

No.... In a nutshell, every module has its own HP, all of which are integrated in the ships overall HP. When the HP reaches zero, both the module and also the ship is considered destroyed.

So +100% means that if a module had, lets say,300 Hp  (coz we talk about sec mounts) it would have 600 HP instead . But the module still very much can reach zero HP, ergo could be destroyed.

Modules being : AA/sec mounts

                           torp tubes

                           main battery guns.

Edited January 8 by Andrewbassg

[Snargfargle]

19 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

No.... In a nutshell, every module has its own HP, all of which are integrated in the ships overall HP. When the HP reaches zero, both the module and also the ship is considered destroyed.

So +100% means that if a module had, lets say,300 Hp  (coz we talk about sec mounts) it would have 600 HP instead . But the module still very much can reach zero HP, ergo could be destroyed.

Modules being : AA/sec mounts

                           torp tubes

                           main battery guns.

You are right. I guess I didn't see the "plus" sign.

Edited January 8 by Snargfargle