Unsportsmanship conduct by DDs en-masse in Brawl due to Dockyard mission requirements... :-(

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Jakeshuffle said:

Teammates just throwing themselves into the fray isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence in online games. People are dumb, I would know 'cause I'm a People.

 😄 

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

That's why we have this.

 😄 

[USMC2145]

21 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

Look at the in-game chat msgs., rarely does anybody talk about where they intend to go or what to expect. 

There are two big problems with trying to teach players where to go and what to do it.

1- Many players do not care and do not want to hear it. Some even get mad that you brought it up. 

2- Many players have the turn off battle chat option turned on so they do not hear it at all. 

Edited May 26 by USMC2145

[Andrewbassg]

On 5/25/2024 at 12:22 PM, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

Unsportsmanship conduct by DDs en-masse in Brawl due to Dockyard mission requirements... 😞

 

Yuk.

 

 And I got one on my side.... 

[Wolfswetpaws]

14 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yuk.

 

 And I got one on my side.... 

Dockyard missions and player behaviors reminded me of the following quote.

 
"If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it." - Ronal Reagan

[Leo_Apollo11]

HI all,

8 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yuk.

 

 And I got one on my side.... 

Yep... same experience as me... 😞

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Admiral_Karasu]

Hey, it only now dawned on me that you can also say it this way:

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a mission requirement.

[GandalfTehGray]

On 5/25/2024 at 9:00 AM, ArIskandir said:

What's WG's fault here?... Having missions to acomplish specific tasks?

They certainly are not at fault for player stupidity

Having poorly designed missions that go counter of "good" gameplay. It also square peg to round holes some cruisers/dds that don't always necessarily fill that mission tasks. 

We know they can make missions that say complete this or complete that to finish. (DD task example for a "long mission", 100 torp hits or 5000 shell hits) I'd like to see more of those in dockyard missions while also never seeing potential damage or base xp again. 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

Having poorly designed missions that go counter of "good" gameplay

I'm not sure what you mean by "good" gameplay.

For example ...
Games are more lively when players push forward and don't sit behind islands at the back of the map.

[ArIskandir]

31 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

Having poorly designed missions that go counter of "good" gameplay. It also square peg to round holes some cruisers/dds that don't always necessarily fill that mission tasks. 

We know they can make missions that say complete this or complete that to finish. (DD task example for a "long mission", 100 torp hits or 5000 shell hits) I'd like to see more of those in dockyard missions while also never seeing potential damage or base xp again. 

 

Missions have the underlaying objective of providing aditional challenge and purpose to your ordinary gameplay, also to take you out of your comfort zone and nudge you to play different ship types and different roles. While taken on their own, some missions might not make too much sense or look like going counter of "good" gamplay (and I agree potential damage is the worst offender here), they fit into the 'larger scheme' of promoting or nudging you out of your comfort zone. 

All the different types of missions fulfill a specific purposes. The 'skill based' missions (get X amount of Y on Z type of ship) depends heavily on the ability of the player, for the most skilled they can be very easy (I guess that's why you like them) but for the less skilled they could take a lot of time to accomplish. For that reason, this type of missions are difficult to 'standarize' in terms of difficulty/matches played. 

Then there's the 'fixed income' missions, like base XP. This type of mission is much easier to 'translate' into X amount of time/matches played, they are difficult to 'cheat' with skill and make perfect sense as 'gate' conditional to phase transition. Otoh, these missions are more 'egalitarian' for players of different skill levels while still rewarding good play, while they 'guarantee' a predictable play time requirement to be accomplished. They are very useful from a planning/design perspective.

About potential damage I have little positive to say as personally I loath them, but I guess they try to incentivize learning how to tank damage, which is a useful skill to master. Also may nudge some players into playing BBs I guess.

[Wolfswetpaws]

17 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

About potential damage I have little positive to say as personally I loath them, but I guess they try to incentivize learning how to tank damage, which is a useful skill to master. Also may nudge some players into playing BBs I guess.

A while ago I did a potential damage mission while sailing the Iwami.

As you know, potential damage means getting "shot at", but not actually "hit".

And the "tankiness" of a ship helps it survive the percentages of ordnance that do hit.

So getting the Iwami (or any other battleship of one's choice) to "wiggle" and dodge long-range gunfire and short-range torpedo salvos was a bit of work, even if mostly done in Co-op.

Personally, it was a milestone in my WOWs career and served as the basis for one of my creative-writing posts.

Quote

Personal Log February Eleventh in the year 2023  

The Iwami and her crew have completed the two "potential damage" missions assigned to us.

Other ships and crews were contenders for the assignment.
But, among the high tier Battleships, especially those equipped with torpedoes, such as the Kii, the Tirpitz, the Odin and the Pommern, the Iwami was deemed most suitable by the Alpha of the Port.

This is the most action we've seen in our careers, so far.
Numerous Co-op battles were entered into, during a number of days.
I'm still feeling sore from all the "aft wiggling" maneuvers we did.

In the past I was Captain of the Asashio and only saw occasional forays.
Since becoming the Captain of the Iwami, the duty schedule has been only marginally more busy, until this assignment.

While I can't say that we endured what the Izumo and her crew survived, it does feel like we've emerged from a "cage match" marathon.

Tonight, the Alpha of the Port is coming aboard and is treating us to a tea ceremony followedby a saké tasting.

It seems the Alpha is at least as pleased with the ship & crew's performance as I am.

Signed,
ARP Musashi
Kaigun Daisa in the Fleet of the Port

P.S. This assignment prompted me to consider the benefits of Yoga.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "good" gameplay.

For example ...
Games are more lively when players push forward and don't sit behind islands at the back of the map.

This post betrays a fundamental ignorance of high tier gameplay.

Games are shorter and more one sided when the less skilled are encouraged to push forward.

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Missions have the underlaying objective of providing aditional challenge and purpose to your ordinary gameplay, also to take you out of your comfort zone and nudge you to play different ship types and different roles. While taken on their own, some missions might not make too much sense or look like going counter of "good" gamplay (and I agree potential damage is the worst offender here), they fit into the 'larger scheme' of promoting or nudging you out of your comfort zone. 

All the different types of missions fulfill a specific purposes. The 'skill based' missions (get X amount of Y on Z type of ship) depends heavily on the ability of the player, for the most skilled they can be very easy (I guess that's why you like them) but for the less skilled they could take a lot of time to accomplish. For that reason, this type of missions are difficult to 'standarize' in terms of difficulty/matches played. 

Then there's the 'fixed income' missions, like base XP. This type of mission is much easier to 'translate' into X amount of time/matches played, they are difficult to 'cheat' with skill and make perfect sense as 'gate' conditional to phase transition. Otoh, these missions are more 'egalitarian' for players of different skill levels while still rewarding good play, while they 'guarantee' a predictable play time requirement to be accomplished. They are very useful from a planning/design perspective.

About potential damage I have little positive to say as personally I loath them, but I guess they try to incentivize learning how to tank damage, which is a useful skill to master. Also may nudge some players into playing BBs I guess.

The above may be WGs intention, but the effect has been quite different.

WGs refusal to deal with the reality of the playerbase response to the missions is their own fault.

Whats worse, is that this reality check being ignored was easily predictable...

WG should be encouraged to learn from these mistakes...instead of blaming the players from behaving logically.

[ArIskandir]

54 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This post betrays a fundamental ignorance of high tier gameplay.

Games are shorter and more one sided when the less skilled are encouraged to push forward.

The above may be WGs intention, but the effect has been quite different.

WGs refusal to deal with the reality of the playerbase response to the missions is their own fault.

Whats worse, is that this reality check being ignored was easily predictable...

WG should be encouraged to learn from these mistakes...instead of blaming the players from behaving logically.

As someone who doesn't compromise my own judgement, actions or designs on third party illogical behavior, I can understand and support WG's stance. I'm on the firm belief that it's up to the person to step up for the task, not for the designer/author/artist to dumb down content to foolproof state in order to pacify some 'substandard' users. 

 

[GandalfTehGray]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Missions have the underlaying objective of providing aditional challenge and purpose to your ordinary gameplay, also to take you out of your comfort zone and nudge you to play different ship types and different roles. While taken on their own, some missions might not make too much sense or look like going counter of "good" gamplay (and I agree potential damage is the worst offender here), they fit into the 'larger scheme' of promoting or nudging you out of your comfort zone. 

 

Then there's the 'fixed income' missions, like base XP. This type of mission is much easier to 'translate' into X amount of time/matches played, they are difficult to 'cheat' with skill and make perfect sense as 'gate' conditional to phase transition. Otoh, these missions are more 'egalitarian' for players of different skill levels while still rewarding good play, while they 'guarantee' a predictable play time requirement to be accomplished. They are very useful from a planning/design perspective.

I'm comfortable in everything though, all those really achieve is my choosing the best ship for the particular task which is frustrating if it takes me away from the ship lines I'm actually trying to play. 

And as Daniel mentioned if they choose the mission parameters poorly they are going to have people in pvp modes that are more worried about tasks than winning. 

[Kruzenstern]

Well, I just did it. I normally don't PvP anymore, but for that silly dockyard mission, I (ab)used brawls to get my 15 DD caps.

Coop is too unrealiable for this, and asymmetrics are regrettably gone again, so what choice did I have rather than PvPing...

So I was primarily in there for the caps, but after I got them, I tried to pull my weight (I am a terrible DD player though, and even worse when I don't have smoke, so I actually did honor to the name of LeTerrible which I of course used because of its speed advantage.)

My observations:

- I won a whooping 2 out of 10 battles. You'd think that would be due to me sabotaging my team. But:

- I was #1 on my team 2 times, #2 6 times, #3 2 times and not even in the one battle where I did 0 damage was I last. If anyone could be accused of unsportsmanslike conduct, it would be my braindead teammates who accomplished absolutely nothing while trying in the right ship. While I accomplished a lot more while only halfheartedly trying in the wrong ship.

- The mode is completely dominated by secondary BBs, preferably with torps on top. That is perfectly fine, it is a brawl after all, but makes it hard to shine in a gun DD without smoke.

- The matchmaker is completely bonkers. Best example was this:

I mean really, how hard would it have been to make it 2DDs 2BBs on each team rather than 4DDs on one and 4 BBs on the other? Suffice to say we had no chance at winning. There is neither enough room nor enough time for DDs to sink all those BBs with just torps. At least I got two completely uncontested caps and ended up #1...

 

- The fast capping on most maps makes it ideal for this annoying mission, so I am thankful I got the opportunity despite all the misgivings.

Edited May 31 by Kruzenstern

[3LUE]

On 5/25/2024 at 3:03 PM, Justin_Simpleton said:

It seems to me the good players want to play the good players for the challenge and bragging rights.  It's hard to tolerate the potato behavior when you are the one who knows better.  So, the good players try to avoid the potatoes and thus a divide occurs where the potatoes don't get the information about 'proper' gameplay and are forced to learn by trial and error never knowing what the proper way of doing things are but discovering what works (sometimes).  

There should be more emphasis placed on teaching how to position yourself at spawn.  I have noticed an improvement in this regard in current videos but, the older videos were universal in describing the ship characteristics during the first couple of minutes of the game but never talking about why they chose to go where they did and how fast, what shells to load, what ships to expect, etc.  Look at the in-game chat msgs., rarely does anybody talk about where they intend to go or what to expect. 

There is lots of information out there on places like YouTube. The problem is that there are lots of places for these folks to learn, but getting them to make the effort to do so is another thing.