What you think are the problems of the game.

[Type_93]

The biggest problem the game has is the playerbase and its resistance to change. Every point all of you have made is based on a change in the game. Things have to change be it new ships and gimmicks, game modes, or game play changes. If the game was the same it had been at launch it would be dead. It would be a stagnant sea of the same ships doing the same things over and over and over again. 
The rub is that once players get used to the game being in a certain state for a while, they get complacent and are either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changes. 

[AdmiralThunder]

31 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

From a technical point of view you are right. As far as the game mechanics go, the camos became useless. They only have a cosmetic 'function' (which isn't a real function) and some credit value. I might also need reminding did we lose something in terms of value for the permacamos we had bought because we lost the dispersion bonus, didn't we? So if we did lose in terms of value, we got a little bit cheated in the process but .... I don't really remember the details that well any more.

The NA CM you mention wasn't entirely wrong, in my opinion, because I think some camos under certain map conditions make it harder to see the targetin detail. The benefit is marginal only, and since it's only visual does not impact the game mechanics side in any way. It may cause a slight delay for the aiming, or it might not, depending on the reaction speed and skill of the opposing player targeting you. Obviously this only applies to historically accurate or historically inspired camos that have the actual ability to visually function like real camo patterns.

They kind of sort of did a fair job overall on perma camos in the rework although it is debatable, to a degree, if those who had multiple perma camos for the same ship didn't lose some value. During the rework, WG took the best perma camo you had for a given ship and used those bonuses on the new perma economic boost package you got for the ship in the new system.

So let's say you had Kii for example with it's standard perma camo (comes with ship) and you also bought the Kobayashi perma camo for it. The Kobayashi camo had T10 perma camo bonuses vs the standard T8 bonuses the default camo has. So that player made out as they were given the improved bonuses in their economic boost package. In the new system you only get 1 perma economic boost package so both of the camos (default and Kobayashi) use the improved boost package vs 1 having an improved set of bonuses and 1 using the standard bonuses in the old system. Win for the player and a rare value increase from a WG move (last few years).

Standard perma>standard economic boost package compensation is where there can be an argument made for some value loss to players with multiple perma camos in the old system. For some players like me you might have had 5,6,7+ perma camos for the same ship. In the rework you only get the 1 economic boost package as said. We didn't really lose anything bonus wise in game as you only get the 1 perma economic boost package now p/ ship as said. So if you had 1 or 7 perma camos for a ship, as long as they all had the same bonuses you come out the same in the rework. You can use any of your perma camos on the same perma economic boost package so technically it is the same as before. Where it is a bit questionable is when you factor in many (or all for some - varies) of those alternate/extra perma camos were purchased with real $$$. Part of that purchase was the camo/visual aspect and part was the bonuses they gave. Only getting credit for the 1 set of bonuses means you lost some value for money spent. Yes, you get to use the ship's economic boost package for them all but it is still a bit of lost value because they just wiped out something you paid for (sort of kind of). I wish, just for good faith, those extra bonuses from the perma camos that weren't going to be used had applied to your pool the one time use boost came from.  Like have them count 10X or 20X per bonus given for the pool so that we at least got a little something for the money we spent on them. In the end we got to use them the same but it just "feels like" we lost something in the process.

Don't know if that is clear? Hard to describe.

As to in game camo working like IRL. I said "90% of the camos are garish brightly colored monstrosities that in no way hide the ship" and 90% is probably overly generous. There are a few that can help a little (like an all white camo on an ice/snow map or a dark colored solid camo in shadows) but the CM's assertion that camos actually work like they did IRL and thus are still valuable was laughable. The vast majority have nothing to do with camo. They are event themed and/or designed to be attractive. I have horrible vision due to a medical condition. It is so bad at times I struggle to see AP shells fired and usually use a mod that makes them bright blue just so I can see them against the map backgrounds and sky. Even with my bad eyes I have no trouble seeing ships wearing camo; not even the historically accurate ones.

Edited August 26, 2023 by AdmiralThunder

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

The biggest issue and problem with the game, frankly, are those who make the decisions on how it is being developed and have got it to where it is with their multitude of bad choices. While I still enjoy the game the dev's have changed course and have gone down a path where the stealth/griefer classes, with little if any real counterplay against, have taken over. It has altered the game in a negative way.

So I could do a bunch of individual reasons with long explanations like Subs and their BS mechanics and coddling, CV rework and the total neutering of AA, Capt skill rework (diversity of build my butt - just more grind for less return on pts for us), Economic rework (income nerfs, camos made useless, and so forth), trying to fit special event modes into the normal game rotations (just stop WG for the love of god), long standing bugs and glitches ignored, constantly lying to and disrespecting the players, overly aggressive monetization of the game content, and on and on. The list is long for sure.

But, in the end, it always comes back to the same thing and that is the people who are running this game and making the decisions are the biggest single thing that is tearing it apart and going to kill it. 

The biggest problem with WOWS = WG!

I'd like to expound on this, because I agree with *most* of it.

The pace of which they have gone about it, too.  I'm not a big sub-hater but I do think the mechanics are farcical.  There are far too many currencies and way too many silly gimmicks.  Loot box and Information overload.  Hybrids are silly, even if they can be fun to play :-) 

The multitude of bad choices doesn't extend to the art team which does a masterful job.  

I differ in that I personally, and please don't hate me, like the cammo rework, but as is usually the case, not so much how they went about it.  I'm glad they are just cosmetic now.  I won't pay for any non-historical cammo myself.  I like some, hate others.  e.g. I hate the wooden Cleveland and the carry overs from Halloween or obnoxious neon junk.  Not enough to turn on a filter though :-)

There is so much to love, and so much to hate.  In certain modes, it's still a really good game, especially when you get a good MM.

[Asym]

49 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Even the card game known as "Uno" has a rule-book.  🙂
Game of pool/billards?  Yeah, you can pick it up with some observations and verbal instruction, but there is a rule-book, and there are training videos on youtube for the advanced aspects of play.  🙂

Funny things about "rules and combat"....  Rules equal expected behaviors and repetitive behaviors are templates to how complex systems work and detail the processes....

So, if templates are a bad thing militarily.........what does that say about hard and fast rules....

Here's a historical interview with Fred von Graf, SS Major, 1 LAH in 1969:

•     “Americans have two leadership styles: aggressive and unreasonable.  They are usually aggressively unreasonable or unreasonably aggressive.  Either way, their Leaders are unpredictable; promote "chaos" and call it "creativity;” are truly dangerous to themselves and others in any condition; and, are not inclined to follow any military, international or ethical doctrine they subscribe to: if not given a wide berth…"

45 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Real men don't read manuals! Well.. at least not until they've effed up and have to...

Or, making it up as they go simply is a cultural imperative....

And, a Historical vignette is:

• In all of my discussions, planning and negotiations with the Americans, they always produce a list of 'things to do. '  It is not in this list that my concerns, frustration and feelings of impending doom grow; it is in the fact that Americans feel no moral obligation to follow that list and it's the 11th item of a 10 item list that keeps me sleepless...."     Comments attributed a senior British Officer in an meeting with Eisenhower in November of 44 (Just after the 28th ID got waxed in the Hurtgen Forrest)

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Asym

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

I won't pay for any non-historical cammo myself.

😊

There's  a mod that I used for years.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/134405-126-simply-grey-paint-historical-camouflage-v1/

That's how it looks.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/159604-historically-accurate-camo-mod-or-perhaps-just-very-good-lookin/?tab=comments#comment-4130323

The downside : it works only for the personal client

Edited August 26, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

😊

There's  a mod that I used for years.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/134405-126-simply-grey-paint-historical-camouflage-v1/

That's how it looks.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/159604-historically-accurate-camo-mod-or-perhaps-just-very-good-lookin/?tab=comments#comment-4130323

The downside : it works only for the personal client

Yeah, I use Aslains and have used it before.  They don't bother me that much, they're just ugly IMO.  It's subjective.

[Andrewbassg]

29 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

Yeah, I use Aslains and have used it before.  Th

I don't think this is that one. As far as I recall NOT included in Aslain's...

[clammboy]

5 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

The biggest issue and problem with the game, frankly, are those who make the decisions on how it is being developed and have got it to where it is with their multitude of bad choices. While I still enjoy the game the dev's have changed course and have gone down a path where the stealth/griefer classes, with little if any real counterplay against, have taken over. It has altered the game in a negative way.

So I could do a bunch of individual reasons with long explanations like Subs and their BS mechanics and coddling, CV rework and the total neutering of AA, Capt skill rework (diversity of build my butt -

This is a +1 IMHO the rest I dont know about but this ^^^^^^ is a problem.

[Taylor3006]

Honestly I think Wargaming is mostly out of good ideas. Every once in a while they get it right like Asymmetric battles and new random Operations but then they have to go screw around with it. They just can not find it in themselves to be happy with success and snatch failure out of the jaws of victory every time. Removing AB and fiddling around with OPs rewards were just more fixing of things that were not broken. 

Wargaming needs to clean house. They need new management, probably middle management too. They need community people who are charismatic. They need a sales team with sales experience. They need community managers with PR and management experience. They really need changes at the very top, otherwise they will destroy their products. Their team is pretty awful and it shows in their product.  The fact that their games are still fairly successful is in spite of their interference, not because of their input. At its core, the game is still good, it is all the crap they keep globbing on that is choking the life out of it. They are pissing off their customers and that rarely ends well. They have doubled down on the gambling mechanic and that is probably not going to end well either. 

[SunkCostFallacy]

I have to preface this, as always, when I enter this topic by stressing that I play COOP, and COOP only. I played Asymmetrical Battles when they were available as well ... but I don't know if they'll be back.

I fully understand that Randoms is the primary game mode of WoWS. I fully understand that the majority of players when they enter this topic are referring to Randoms or other PVP modes. But others need to remember that I'm talking about COOP and therefor my mileage WILL vary. I hope that's fair enough.

From my perspective the biggest problem in the game is that WG (or whatever they call themselves at this point) use COOP as a place for Random players to complete events. The entire meta of COOP is always set for that.

To give you a perspective of what I'm talking about:  

Generally, when things are 'normal', I can manage 80k to 100k damage in any given COOP match in my Salem. Leaving aside the couple of weeks when COVID was knocking me around, that's been pretty much the way of it for well over 18 months.

EXCEPT when I spawn in on a flank behind TWO Marceaus or similar torp spammers.  Then the game will go very differently ... both DDs will move forward, but make sure that I get the focus fire. The red team that can shoot at me will start doing so and those two will then rush in, dump a LOT of torps and quite possibly die in the process. But they will have got their goal (torp hits and flooding) and there's nothing left for me to shoot at.

Or it might be I'm in my GK and even though I show good map awareness and head towards where the bots are going to go ... the Random players all spam so many torps that the entire red team is vaporised in 2 minutes.

Events mean that WG keep the AI in COOP dumber than they could be ... so that the Random players who flood COOP for events are able to achieve their goals without having to deal with opposition that might challenge them. Events mean that those of us who actually prefer COOP have to deal with floods of players from time to time with a decided YOLO approach which turns the feeding frenzy even more frenzied.

But it's COOP ... and it's always been like that so I accept it for what it is. Until we get a taste of how it could be as we did in Asymmetric Mode and I admit I'd like to see COOP treated with a bit more respect by the devs.

I suppose, to be completely up front, I need to say for me Dockyards are the event that are the worst. They last for ages so the bring the Randoms in to COOP for weeks and as a F2P player I have never actually pursued one to it's completion. Truth to tell, since they stopped putting a 'lessor' ship in as a prize along the way the only thing I get from Dockyards now that I put any real value in is free premium time.

@SureBridge made the point that suggestions for solutions would be cool. Unfortunately my suggestion would be dependent on WG ... I'd like to see more COOP style modes like Asym battles where the bots are actually semi-decent at least. I'd like to see them in rotation ... a week of Asym, a week of 'better bots', etc.

But I rate that as highly unlikely and so I just keep on blatting bots in COOP because, as of right now, it's still fun for me. Just not as much fun as it could be.

 

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

1 hour ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I have to preface this, as always, when I enter this topic by stressing that I play COOP, and COOP only. I played Asymmetrical Battles when they were available as well ... but I don't know if they'll be back.

I fully understand that Randoms is the primary game mode of WoWS. I fully understand that the majority of players when they enter this topic are referring to Randoms or other PVP modes. But others need to remember that I'm talking about COOP and therefor my mileage WILL vary. I hope that's fair enough.

From my perspective the biggest problem in the game is that WG (or whatever they call themselves at this point) use COOP as a place for Random players to complete events. The entire meta of COOP is always set for that.

To give you a perspective of what I'm talking about:  

Generally, when things are 'normal', I can manage 80k to 100k damage in any given COOP match in my Salem. Leaving aside the couple of weeks when COVID was knocking me around, that's been pretty much the way of it for well over 18 months.

EXCEPT when I spawn in on a flank behind TWO Marceaus or similar torp spammers.  Then the game will go very differently ... both DDs will move forward, but make sure that I get the focus fire. The red team that can shoot at me will start doing so and those two will then rush in, dump a LOT of torps and quite possibly die in the process. But they will have got their goal (torp hits and flooding) and there's nothing left for me to shoot at.

Or it might be I'm in my GK and even though I show good map awareness and head towards where the bots are going to go ... the Random players all spam so many torps that the entire red team is vaporised in 2 minutes.

Events mean that WG keep the AI in COOP dumber than they could be ... so that the Random players who flood COOP for events are able to achieve their goals without having to deal with opposition that might challenge them. Events mean that those of us who actually prefer COOP have to deal with floods of players from time to time with a decided YOLO approach which turns the feeding frenzy even more frenzied.

But it's COOP ... and it's always been like that so I accept it for what it is. Until we get a taste of how it could be as we did in Asymmetric Mode and I admit I'd like to see COOP treated with a bit more respect by the devs.

I suppose, to be completely up front, I need to say for me Dockyards are the event that are the worst. They last for ages so the bring the Randoms in to COOP for weeks and as a F2P player I have never actually pursued one to it's completion. Truth to tell, since they stopped putting a 'lessor' ship in as a prize along the way the only thing I get from Dockyards now that I put any real value in is free premium time.

@SureBridge made the point that suggestions for solutions would be cool. Unfortunately my suggestion would be dependent on WG ... I'd like to see more COOP style modes like Asym battles where the bots are actually semi-decent at least. I'd like to see them in rotation ... a week of Asym, a week of 'better bots', etc.

But I rate that as highly unlikely and so I just keep on blatting bots in COOP because, as of right now, it's still fun for me. Just not as much fun as it could be.

 

I dunno, I just think you might be reading a little too much into the tea leaves.  

Asymmetric Battles were hugely popular and I'd be very surprised if they don't come back soon.  Why wouldn't you want any mode that brings more players and activity to your game? 

I'm guessing it's more about the numbers online. They don't have enough people playing and I'm seeing more and more bots on Green. So more players were being drawn to Asymms from Randoms and Co-op, especially off peak hours.  That's just speculation on my part though.  I sure hope they bring it back, I liked it too, a lot.  

[Sailor_Moon]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Is WOWs fun to play?  Yes, I think so.

Could Wargaming change things to better balance the game overall and make it even MORE fun to play? I believe so.

[SunkCostFallacy]

21 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

I dunno, I just think you might be reading a little too much into the tea leaves.  

Asymmetric Battles were hugely popular and I'd be very surprised if they don't come back soon.  Why wouldn't you want any mode that brings more players and activity to your game? 

I'm guessing it's more about the numbers online. They don't have enough people playing and I'm seeing more and more bots on Green. So more players were being drawn to Asymms from Randoms and Co-op, especially off peak hours.  That's just speculation on my part though.  I sure hope they bring it back, I liked it too, a lot.  

Mate,

I would be MORE than happy to be wrong.

I really would love to see Asymmetrical as a regular appearance. But as you noted, it was very popular and perhaps it diverted people from the chosen game mode of Randoms.  And while I can't comment, personally, on how Randoms are doing I do note that I see a lot of complaints about that mode ... especially in terms of the MM so it may be that other popular game modes don't get the 'air time' they deserve.

I guess it's a case of wait and see ... and one of the upsides of WoWS for me is that I rarely feel a need to rush things.

[clammboy]

8 hours ago, Type_93 said:

The biggest problem the game has is the playerbase and its resistance to change. Every point all of you have made is based on a change in the game. Things have to change be it new ships and gimmicks, game modes, or game play changes. If the game was the same it had been at launch it would be dead. It would be a stagnant sea of the same ships doing the same things over and over and over again. 
The rub is that once players get used to the game being in a certain state for a while, they get complacent and are either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changes. 

This is a point well taken and I am all for change. But not all change can be lumped together as good just because we need it for the game to grow. Some change can be counter productive and we cant lump it all together as being good or blame people for not liking it all. I really feel like some of the changes and additions to the game honestly stink. Some I love though and this is just IMHO. I still love playing the game but I find myself being very frustrated at times and needing a break.

Edited August 27, 2023 by clammboy

[CriMiNaL]

13 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well...as per the title.I will start

Cv rework.

Ops rework.

Sub implementation

Interclass balance.

We can expand on them, if there is interest. 

There are many issues with the game, none of which we have any sway over, as far as subs or cv's, I would rather have the current iteration of cv than the old rts system as a good player would kill a bb in 1 pass.

As far as subs goes, theyre fine, to many people complain about subs without having played or at least grinded through the teirs of the different nations to reach t10, its at that point if people havent at least done this, then they have no clue that a sub is much harder to play well, than any ole BB (not dissing the BB but it is a fact)

As far as interclass balance goes, you get a new class of ship yet you want it to be different than the ones we currently have, with that can come an advantage over the other classes as people get used to it, but if you have noticed for instance when smaland came out every man and his dog was using it, but it then became just a normally used ship, as others still have their appeal.

When a new ship is constantly played by the player base, and racking up large results all the time then this is where the balance issues come into play, as after wg gather their data and change a ship, we get a lot of crying over that they nerfed it, when in fact they corrected an issue with the ship and brought it into line with its tier rating.

Instaed of making it about problems, it should be more about improvements that are fair and balanced across all ship types, including subs and cv, not a blanket they suck approach.

For instance, I beleive a cv should have a 30 seconds delay if the operater F keys out an attack, but if their squadron is wiped out then they do not receive this penatly, this prevents the cv from popping from one side of the map to the other in short time to affect what is going on there with different types of squadrons.

The cv should not have automatic fire prevention or flooding, and should be able to be pinged by a sub, all other ships suffer through the same things, and it comes down to how well you are at using your dcp.

What I have said above is not an attack on the cv but a mere balance point they should have.

eg.. some dd has a 9km radar, some many find this excessive and the reasons why, or why not it should have this ability over its other features that it may be lacking vs other dd?

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by CriMiNaL

[Frostbow]

3 hours ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

Asymmetric Battles were hugely popular and I'd be very surprised if they don't come back soon.

Bring Asymmetric Battles Back!

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, CriMiNaL said:

Instaed of making it about problems, it should be more about improvements that are fair and balanced across all ship types, including subs and cv, not a blanket they suck approach.

You are missing the point. Like I said in the other thread, nobody can solve a problem, if it doesn't see it as a problem. And what remains if a problem is solved? The good stuff 🙂

[Yedwy]

9 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

Honestly I think Wargaming is mostly out of good ideas. Every once in a while they get it right like Asymmetric battles and new random Operations but then they have to go screw around with it. They just can not find it in themselves to be happy with success and snatch failure out of the jaws of victory every time. Removing AB and fiddling around with OPs rewards were just more fixing of things that were not broken. 

Wargaming needs to clean house. They need new management, probably middle management too. They need community people who are charismatic. They need a sales team with sales experience. They need community managers with PR and management experience. They really need changes at the very top, otherwise they will destroy their products. Their team is pretty awful and it shows in their product.  The fact that their games are still fairly successful is in spite of their interference, not because of their input. At its core, the game is still good, it is all the crap they keep globbing on that is choking the life out of it. They are pissing off their customers and that rarely ends well. They have doubled down on the gambling mechanic and that is probably not going to end well either. 

This, so much this

[Andrewbassg]

14 hours ago, Type_93 said:

The biggest problem the game has is the playerbase and its resistance to change. Every point all of you have made is based on a change in the game. Things have to change be it new ships and gimmicks, game modes, or game play changes. If the game was the same it had been at launch it would be dead. It would be a stagnant sea of the same ships doing the same things over and over and over again. 
The rub is that once players get used to the game being in a certain state for a while, they get complacent and are either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changes. 

Nah......change for the sake of change is st....hkhmm .... not wise. Indeed progress is necessary, but mindlessness is NOT a requirement.  This is NOT "save the planet"  (tho even there...), this is a game, so the primary deciding factor should be ...FUN.

You know, games and generally artistic or entertainment creations have appeals. This  is what attracts people or drive them away. Every single change I listed...messed with said appeal, either game wide, or of a specific mode, or mechanic, within the game.

WarGambling is incredibly obtuse to this crucial(!!) factor, tho, this is entirely unsurprising given the historical background of the evolution of the hosts society and culture . Appeal is all about personal experience and free choice, which.....yeah.....

They didn't had, nor have a gaming culture and an entertaining industry ( I exclude vodka  🙂 ) or see a value in it( well, other than dollar 🙂  ). They  had, for almost 100 years, only  "robota"( i.e work) and everything was subordonated to it.

Just look at how they insist on shoehorning Airship into randoms, when its primary appeal is being a separate mode, different from randoms.

Yeah....

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Utt_Bugglier]

15 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

My personal favorite during the whole economic/camo rework mess on the NA forums was an NA CM telling me camos are still very useful for their intended purpose; as camo. He insisted that using camos made the ship harder to see in game, thus making aiming harder, and thus working as intended. I laughed so hard at that I almost pee'd my pants. 90% of the camos are garish brightly colored monstrosities that in no way hide the ship. Instead they scream HERE I AM SHOOT ME! LOL

WG employee telling me in game camos work like IRL camo and are thus valuable...

I remember that. New heights of ridiculousness were attained.

[Utt_Bugglier]

9 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

…From my perspective the biggest problem in the game is that WG (or whatever they call themselves at this point) use COOP as a place for Random players to complete events. The entire meta of COOP is always set for that.

 

Or it might be I'm in my GK and even though I show good map awareness and head towards where the bots are going to go ... the Random players all spam so many torps that the entire red team is vaporised in 2 minutes.

Well, WG could make event missions revert back to being doable in randoms only, but I recall that when it was like that, co-op mains were put out about being frozen out.

[SunkCostFallacy]

6 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

Well, WG could make event missions revert back to being doable in randoms only, but I recall that when it was like that, co-op mains were put out about being frozen out.

Heh - that was before my time and I'm sure that was NOT popular 😄

No ... as I said, I accept that events result in a flood of Random players into COOP. I will note, however, that the number of events seems to be climbing pretty steeply. I don't recall us ever having so many 'temporary' currencies as we recently had.

I still think that leaving COOP as it is now, leaves room in the PVE sphere for other modes like Asymmetrical etc on rotation.

Edited August 27, 2023 by SunkCostFallacy

[Yedwy]

7 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

Well, WG could make event missions revert back to being doable in randoms only, but I recall that when it was like that, co-op mains were put out about being frozen out.

This

[Utt_Bugglier]

13 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I will note, however, that the number of events seems to be climbing pretty steeply. I don't recall us ever having so many 'temporary' currencies as we recently had.

Yes, they are at an all-time high. Not confusing, but annoying and wearisome.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Utt_Bugglier

[Admiral_Karasu]

15 hours ago, Type_93 said:

 It would be a stagnant sea of the same ships doing the same things over and over and over again.

You do know the real reason for this is that we got the same maps over and over and over again?

BTW, there's one PvE mode in which you cannot do all the missions, just some, and there's been complaints about not being able to complete missions in Operations... but based on what @SunkCostFallacy is saying about Coop, I'm less sure if it would be a good idea to turn the operations into 'mission ground'. Actually, now that I start thinking about it why so many of the operations now end up failing dismally might be because some missions are doable in operations.