WoWS, Philosophy & Freedom: A comment on 'Video worth watching' thread and WoWS 'Original Sin'

[ArIskandir]

Disclaimer: This is a comment on what's being discussed on the thread 'Video worth watching', but not a specific reply to any of the posters there. 

There has always been a lot of angst among WoWS players in regards of player performance 'quality', a problem that naturaly can only increase over time as the gap between veteran and newbie grows wider and wider with each sucesive addition of new content. I won't enter into the finer details of 'the problem' or whose perspective is right or wrong, intead I will focus on the root cause of 'the angst' or what I call the 'original sin' of WoWS. 

In my opinion, the 'original sin' of WoWS (and a general WG design philosophy) is pooling all the players together in the same 'basket', with no segmentation of any kind. Players with very dissimilar experience, ability, perspective and goals are all lumped together and 'forced' to interact with each other. At this point I think it is important and worthy to stop and think about this 'forced interaction' being a good or bad design choice; the answer you give to that question rest more on your personal philosophy and way to understand life. 

To summarize the argument supported by many: Players with low/bad performance are a detriment to the enjoyment of the game, to the point 'better' players become frustrated and quit, and that's not even accounting for the frustration of the 'bad' players themselves for a negative/lackluster experience. The logical inference is a separation must exist between players with dissimilar experience, ability and goals; that's indeed what many other games do... but, is it the right thing to do?

Enters a philosophical approach to 'understanding' WoWS. I think there's an ideological undercurrent beneath the 'controversial' design choice in question, one that reflects the original developers of this game not being 'western'. To put it in simple words, the play space in WoWS has at its core a 'communist' structure; all players (citizens) are 'equal' to the game, same rights and freedom to do as they want on a 'battle space' that belongs to all on equal measure. The idea of restricting access to segments of the game is understood in this game (MM) as an absurd. There's no privileged 'class' of player that 'owns' a specific game space, everything can be achieved through hard work (grind) regardless of your base talent level and money won't buy a successful performance by itself. Even more, the game will pair you and force you to interact and cooperate with that 'dissimilar other', to find a way to understand each other, to tolerate each other and share the common experience of playing the game. 

WoWS deliberately takes the opposite road from building 'safe spaces' for its different subgroups of population. Very unceremoniously the game lumps everyone together and lets them fend for themselves and cope with the harsh reality of facing and dealing with the 'dissimilar other', something we have grown so accustomed to do on 'western capitalist' societies that subconsciously assume it is 'the way'. WoWS takes the deliberate decision of forcing us into interacting with 'dissimilar others', that's something I not only respect but deeply believe is of paramount importance for all of us humans... we need to learn how to deal with the 'dissimilar other', they can't be suppressed, segregated, ignored or assimilated. They will exist whether you like it or not, you'll share the 'space' with them whether you like it or not, they will impact your experience and you'll impact theirs, we are interlinked. The 'deeper' game is learning how to interact with the 'dissimilar other' in a positive way for both parties. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

Growing-up, I played baseball as a pre-teenager and a teenager.
The leagues were local and amateur.  
The coaches adhered to the principle of "everybody plays".
Everyone gets a "turn at bat".  Everyone gets to try various positions on the field (during my early years, at least.  Later, players would specialize somewhat on their own initiative.  But, if necessary, they'd fill a vacant position without complaint.)

Interesting that you touched on the "all citizens are equal" concept, from a communist perspective.  🙂 
Equality is supposed to be at the core of many nations' political foundations, and not all of those nations are communist.

Sometimes I wonder where the "I shouldn't be grouped with *them*" attitudes are originating.

 

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

26 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Sometimes I wonder where the "I shouldn't be grouped with *them*" attitudes are originating.

 

There has always been an element of "this group is superior to that group" throughout human history. Call it elitism or racism etc, these are all aspects of the superior/inferior.

My opinion is the polarisation has been ramped up with social media, and at the same time the ability to overlook difference has been eroded. Also influenced by social media.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Enters a philosophical approach to 'understanding' WoWS. I think there's an ideological undercurrent beneath the 'controversial' design choice in question, one that reflects the original developers of this game not being 'western'. To put it in simple words, the play space in WoWS has at its core a 'communist' structure; all players (citizens) are 'equal' to the game, same rights and freedom to do as they want on a 'battle space' that belongs to all on equal measure. The idea of restricting access to segments of the game is understood in this game (MM) as an absurd. There's no privileged 'class' of player that 'owns' a specific game space, everything can be achieved through hard work (grind) regardless of your base talent level and money won't buy a successful performance by itself. Even more, the game will pair you and force you to interact and cooperate with that 'dissimilar other', to find a way to understand each other, to tolerate each other and share the common experience of playing the game. 

I don't think this is true at all.

Ranked, clan, brawls, other modes all segment the playerbase.

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

WoWS deliberately takes the opposite road from building 'safe spaces' for its different subgroups of population. Very unceremoniously the game lumps everyone together and lets them fend for themselves and cope with the harsh reality of facing and dealing with the 'dissimilar other', something we have grown so accustomed to do on 'western capitalist' societies that subconsciously assume it is 'the way'. WoWS takes the deliberate decision of forcing us into interacting with 'dissimilar others', that's something I not only respect but deeply believe is of paramount importance for all of us humans... we need to learn how to deal with the 'dissimilar other', they can't be suppressed, segregated, ignored or assimilated. They will exist whether you like it or not, you'll share the 'space' with them whether you like it or not, they will impact your experience and you'll impact theirs, we are interlinked. The 'deeper' game is learning how to interact with the 'dissimilar other' in a positive way for both parties.

Also not true.

Protected matchmaking.

Co-op.

Superships.

WG has created multiple safe spaces.

So, in summary...I think your examples and hypothesis is completely unfounded.

[Andrewbassg]

5 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

In my opinion, the 'original sin' of WoWS (and a general WG design philosophy) is pooling all the players together in the same 'basket', with no segmentation of any kind. Players with very dissimilar experience, ability, perspective and goals are all lumped together and 'forced' to interact with each other. At this point I think it is important and worthy to stop and think about this 'forced interaction' being a good or bad design choice; the answer you give to that question rest more on your personal philosophy and way to understand life. 

 

I LOVE deep dwelling discussions about 'wows" which  then can "take off" in different "directions".

That being said, is important to understand that "communism" never existed. True communism (for what  marxism "advocvates" ) is akin to what life in kibbutzes and monasteries are. A way of life devoid of self interest. The fundamental tenet of marxism  (as a humanist philosophy!!) is that " No man should exploit another man". Then the political ideology ( i.e how to implement that) hijacked it and transformed into "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as an enforceable and enforced rule. And because Marx couldn't attack human nature directly ( coz mostly that's how we are) he came up with an elaborate ( and completely false)  premise called dialectical materialism, which basically casts humans into classes and  into two opposing categories: opressors/opresssed, exploiters/exploited. He also needed this, so he could make a pretence, as to being 'scientifical". Now, once this is removed, the whole thing simply falls apart, as a valid  "scientific" thesis.

Niot gonna continue with this, but was needed to clarify some things.

Again, that being said the URSS and its satellites were never communist.That includes China. We call them as such for the sake of convenience, tho is completely wrong. The URSS was a totalitarian autocracy and because its premise was based on "science" (i.e marxism)and because Marx's theories and his numerous thesis were considered scientifically proven facts  (on par and like with the Earth being "round" ) questioning the validity of the state's actions was considered  proof of insanity and those who did it, ended up in asylums. Or worse if they were considered enemies of the worker's class.

Hence, the "comparison" with Wows and the reference to "their" background, reflecting their (devs)  false sense of superiority and lack of listening skills towards the playebase.

That being said, mixing various skill levels has its advantages, like people learning from each other. BUT in order for that to work, requires a healthy balance of the various skill levels. And everything Wedgie did in the last 3 years undermined that balance .

And here we are.....

 

Edited June 14 by Andrewbassg

[Silence_CN]

6 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

The logical inference is a separation must exist between players with dissimilar experience, ability and goals; that's indeed what many other games do... but, is it the right thing to do?

Well...
Due to the fact that english is not my language, I'll try to  give a short generic answer. Answer reflecting MY opinion.

To the question hereabove, words are important : you wrote "dissimilar experience, ability and goals".
The latter is the most important as far as I am concerned : we all see the game through the prism of our personnal experience, feelings, mood of the day. But what do we play for ?
Some are attracted by competition and try to give the best of themselves, giving the game an importance it has not for others.
Some like competition too but certainly do not want to enter a contest. They try to learn, they try to adapt and, above all, have respect enough not to be the ball and chain of the team.
Others play just because ships are pretty well designed and have big guns to punch big holes in opponents.
Others play just because they need to have a decompresion time after a (good or bad) day at work...
Others, just because it's on of the few games with ships.
Others, because the lenght of games is a good format, allowing them to play a bit before going to dinner...
Some just play for playing. To spend time, not even willing to win...
To sum it up : this kind of question will have as many answers as there are players, I fear.

The question here is "can all play together or should there be levels" ? (I hope I did not make a countersense)

A long time ago in another life, I used to practice fencing (15 years) finishing at a more than correct level.
And from  MY (once again) experience : I learned far more and much, much faster every time I had to fight more skilled, more trained  opponents, the kind of ones who stand much higher than Average Joe.
So, yes, I think anyone can play...Provided one wants to learn a minimum.
Would it be only for the fact that you learn more by playing with better players. These ones can bring you something valuable and will drag you upwards.
If you permanently confront only bad players, these will only give you the feeling that you are a giant among dwarves... but I bet you will probably sweat a bit if you stumble across a unicum 🙂 

Once again the only question is : "Do some really want to learn" ?
Clearly the answer is no, according to what is seen in the game.
And we go back to :  as many answers as players.

Adding to this : how could you define the level of a player ?
Win rate can be one thing but I would rather trust a player with 10K battles and 55% WR in tier X than a players with a higher WR... in tier I and II (already found one like that two years ago).
Talking about level, I have no illusions about mine. The difference is that I can enjoy when I get spanked by far better players : it's always instructive. 😄 
At least I know I will sink but, if I can do it with a bit of panache...
Some other players don't see things the same way and prefer to hide in A1. Of course, the chat in game can also give you an idea of whom you're playing with.

So ? Levels ? Playing in random is de facto a form of level : all mixed in a team. Deal with it. Summed up in "adapt or die"... 🙂 
Believe it or not : humans are not equals. 🙂 
 

[torino2dc]

8 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

In my opinion, the 'original sin' of WoWS (and a general WG design philosophy) is pooling all the players together in the same 'basket', with no segmentation of any kind.

I find it hard to call this a "sin" since it is a direct and logical result of their other priorities. These are:

- 12 vs. 12 gameplay

- 4 (later 5) different classes, many with restrictions on how many can be in a match.

- 10 (later 11) tiers, of which maximum 3 can be in a battle at the same time.

- Ship class and tier generally must be mirrored.

- Reasonable queue times.

----

Just with those limitations in place, the matchmaker is already struggling to keep its head above water. Bucketing the players by skill would make that challenge an order of magnitude worse.

An interesting question to ponder is: which of those priorities would you sacrifice to remove the "original sin"? 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Well.. one way of looking at this would be a kind of skill based tiering to match the ship tiering, like the belts are in martial arts. The problem here, though, is probably that it would split the player base and unless we'd have a fairly even distribution of people in the various 'belt color' tiers, queue times would go up. Still, the players would be more evenly matched, so the battles might feel more rewarding to play.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

58 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Still, the players would be more evenly matched, so the battles might feel more rewarding to play.

The problem is that it causes an improper shift in winrates. A 40% WR player in the open pool might become a 60% player when thrown into a 20-40% bracket; but if you take his new rating and put him in with the people who used to be 60% unicums, he's shark bait.

[Admiral_Karasu]

25 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

The problem is that it causes an improper shift in winrates. A 40% WR player in the open pool might become a 60% player when thrown into a 20-40% bracket; but if you take his new rating and put him in with the people who used to be 60% unicums, he's shark bait.

Yes, there would be all sort of problems. As for the WR, it's not enough of an individual stat (more of a reflection of team performance), so it couldn't be used as the basis of the tiering. There'd have to be some completely individual rating for this measuring battle efficiency, by what percentage does the player contribute to team performance or something along those lines. If we were talking about damage, there would be the individual percentage and then the total performance or total achievable damage. In essence, it would get very difficult to create a consistent, reliable metric that would actually reflect player ability objectively enough to be able to place them not only in the correct tier, but also handle the potential demotions or promotions as well.

Still, it's a nice concept in theory, isn't it?

[Wolfswetpaws]

36 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Still, it's a nice concept in theory, isn't it?

The concept appeals to some people.
Others, as indicated by their responses in this topic, feel differently.

I prefer the "sand-lot baseball" principle of "everybody plays".  
Imagine a neighborhood of children from 7 years old to 17 years old.  Imagine they get together to play a game of baseball or football/soccer for the fun of it.
They pick teams and play according to the rules of the sport.
The more experienced children lead by example and occasionally spend a few moments to teach the less experienced children some aspects of the game, here & there.

The players who are most capable of playing well should also be capable of coping with such an "unpredictable" environment (wherein the younger children do cute and hilarious things by accident or because they're still learning).
The bad-aft players should be capable of "carrying" a game, on occasion.  Such occasions should be looked upon as opportunities to demonstrate their skills.  🙂

A random battle should be a fun time, for everyone.  There's no need to be upset about the variety of player capability and competency.
It's a learning experience.

Let "kots" or other tournaments be where people take things more seriously and recruit, trade or dismiss players on teams according to their ability.

Edited June 14 by Wolfswetpaws

[Ensign Cthulhu]

24 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

There'd have to be some completely individual rating for this measuring battle efficiency, by what percentage does the player contribute to team performance or something along those lines.

I'm not sure an automatic system has the sophistication to work that out completely, and it may not do so for some time, because there are some things (e.g. smoking up team-mates, causing an enemy to quit a cap by radaring them) that the system can't assess.

If you wanted to  make a start on coding that in now, how would you do it? For example, I can imagine a hypothetical situation in which a stealthy DD captain routinely does minimal damage but wins the battle for his teams by taking all the caps, spotting hundreds of thousands of HP in damage and even allowing most of the team's kills by virtue of what he alone can see.¹ There's your team player right there, and these are things which the game measures and presents to you at the end of the battle. No further information gathering is needed. I'm sure most of those metrics are already forming part of the Base XP equation, but at the moment I'm guessing they're dumped at the end of each battle as no longer being needed. 

Conversely, a co-op DD captain needs to be the opposite; he needs to get in there and do all the damage, sinking his opposite number early and then pushing forward to annoy or frag one or two cruisers or BBs before the end.

 

1. I think a case can be made for introducing a kill-assist ribbon, given out for when a kill someone else made was solely because of your spotting. 

Edited June 14 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

1. I think a case can be made for introducing a kill-assist ribbon, given out for when a kill someone else made was solely because of your spotting. 

Reminded me of the term Assist in the game of hockey...
https://icehockeycentral.com/what-is-an-assist-in-hockey-learn-the-rules-and-techniques-here/

Quote

"... What Is An Assist In Hockey?

An assist in hockey is given to the player(s) who made the preceding passes to the scorer of a goal. It is the act of passing the puck to a teammate, giving them an opportunity to score a goal. A player can only be credited with an assist if their pass directly contributes to the goal being scored.

There are two types of assists: primary and secondary. A primary assist is awarded to the player who made the final pass to the person who scores the goal. A secondary assist goes to the player who passed the puck to the primary assister.

Why Are Assists Important In Hockey?

Assists are essential in determining a player’s contribution to the game. They reflect the teamwork and coordination required to score a goal. A player may not have put the puck into the net themselves, but their assist shows their impact on the play, making a significant contribution towards the team’s success.

Assists also serve as a tiebreaker for players when it comes to individual awards such as league MVP or leading point scorer at the end of a season. If, by chance, two or more players finish with the same number of total points over the course of a regular season, then the player with more assists will be deemed the winner.  ..."

https://icehockeycentral.com/what-is-an-assist-in-hockey-learn-the-rules-and-techniques-here/

 

[ArIskandir]

10 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I don't think this is true at all.

Ranked, clan, brawls, other modes all segment the playerbase.

Also not true.

Protected matchmaking.

Co-op.

Superships.

WG has created multiple safe spaces.

So, in summary...I think your examples and hypothesis is completely unfounded.

WoWS is not a propaganda product ruled by ideology, it is a commercial product (with some ideological undertones) that has to abide to some of the standards of the market. As such, Game Modes diversify the offer and experience provided by the Game, but they don't aim to segment the playerbase on different 'classes'. Each and every player is free to access and play every game mode without restriction, some Game Modes are structured in pseudo-competitive formats but only Clan Battles have a real skill segmentation (with very soft boundaries btw), which is an unavoidable standard practice on competitive formats. The different Ranked leagues are accesible to almost anyone, as long as the player is willing to apply 'hard work' to progress (as in sinking enough time); Brawls follow a very loose MM rule that in no way represents an actual segmentation of the player base.

Protected MM for newbies is the most basic concession to segmentation for the purpose of introduction to the game, it carries no major impact on the greater game dynamics and is a very specific, short term event. 

Superships are the culmination of a manipulative monetization mechanic and we have talked extensively about them on other occasions. They are not intended to benefit the players but to exploit them, far from the idea of being a 'safe space' to isolate yourself from interacting with the 'dissimilar other', you'll still be 'forced' into such interactions. 

It's funny you consider Coop a 'safe space' when by design it is articulated as a support function for PvP. Whatever segmentation exist there is 100% 'player-made' and imo was never envisioned as such by the Devs... but they grossly underestimated the player desire for PvE environments. 

[ArIskandir]

11 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

I LOVE deep dwelling discussions about 'wows" which  then can "take off" in different "directions".

That being said, is important to understand that "communism" never existed. True communism (for what  marxism "advocvates" ) is akin to what life in kibbutzes and monasteries are. A way of life devoid of self interest. The fundamental tenet of marxism  (as a humanist philosophy!!) is that " No man should exploit another man". Then the political ideology ( i.e how to implement that) hijacked it and transformed into "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as an enforceable and enforced rule. And because Marx couldn't attack human nature directly ( coz mostly that's how we are) he came up with an elaborate ( and completely false)  premise called dialectical materialism, which basically casts humans into classes and  into two opposing categories: opressors/opresssed, exploiters/exploited. He also needed this, so he could make a pretence, as to being 'scientifical". Now, once this is removed, the whole thing simply falls apart, as a valid  "scientific" thesis.

Niot gonna continue with this, but was needed to clarify some things.

Again, that being said the URSS and its satellites were never communist.That includes China. We call them as such for the sake of convenience, tho is completely wrong. The URSS was a totalitarian autocracy and because its premise was based on "science" (i.e marxism)and because Marx's theories and his numerous thesis were considered scientifically proven facts  (on par and like with the Earth being "round" ) questioning the validity of the state's actions was considered  proof of insanity and those who did it, ended up in asylums. Or worse if they were considered enemies of the worker's class.

Hence, the "comparison" with Wows and the reference to "their" background, reflecting their (devs)  false sense of superiority and lack of listening skills towards the playebase.

That being said, mixing various skill levels has its advantages, like people learning from each other. BUT in order for that to work, requires a healthy balance of the various skill levels. And everything Wedgie did in the last 3 years undermined that balance .

And here we are.....

 

My friend, thanks for the clarification on 'communism'. When I use the term, of course I refer to 'theorical communism' and not the historical manifestations that have appropiated the name and as you well explain "were never communist". Nonetheless, there are some parallels to reality in the way they operate like in the disregard of the individual (player) opinion and feelings in order to achieve the goals determined by the hierarchy. 

 

 

Edited June 14 by ArIskandir

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

27 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As such, Game Modes diversify the offer and experience provided by the Game, but they don't aim to segment the playerbase on different 'classes'.

Not true. The whole tier structure aims to segment the playerbase.

27 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Each and every player is free to access and play every game mode without restriction, some Game Modes are structured in pseudo-competitive formats but only Clan Battles have a real skill segmentation (with very soft boundaries btw), which is an unavoidable standard practice on competitive formats.

Also not true.

Ranked segments the playerbase by time in the mode.

Protected matchmaking segments the playerbase by time in game.

Clan battles segments the playerbase by clan affiliation.

Brawls segments the playerbase by its rudimentary skill criteria.

29 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

 

The whole foundation of your premise is based on an obviously flawed viewpoint of how the game works.

Since you have 'been expecting me', can I ask if your position is in any way informed by discussions with WG staff or the Discord?

Because if so, it sounds a lot like the BS marketing spiels that come from their CMs.

[ArIskandir]

7 hours ago, Silence_CN said:

The question here is "can all play together or should there be levels" ?

 

7 hours ago, Silence_CN said:

Once again the only question is : "Do some really want to learn" ?
Clearly the answer is no, according to what is seen in the game.
And we go back to :  as many answers as players.

Indeed that's the million dollar question. Not just "can all play together?" as a query but 'all HAVE to play together' as a mtter of fact, even those who are not willing to learn. 

We struggle to adapt systems to our preferences at the expense of other's preferences, when the only viable path is to adapt oneself to the common experience of harmonizing our 'dissimilarities' .

[Ensign Cthulhu]

10 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

That being said, is important to understand that "communism" never existed.

No, communism exists because an inhumane dumpster fire is the final form it takes every time when tried IRL at the national level, and this is why the long-term fringe of living memory in Western nations wants no part of it. Sure, that first Pokemon looks cute, but not so much so after a couple of evolutions. It's why I don't want "communist" principles anywhere near this game.

14 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

To put it in simple words, the play space in WoWS has at its core a 'communist' structure; all players (citizens) are 'equal' to the game, same rights and freedom to do as they want on a 'battle space' that belongs to all on equal measure.

That comes across to me as more libertarian than communist. 

Communism everywhere has a single, uniting thread: the rights of the individual are the first to vanish.

[palestreamer]

15 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

There's no privileged 'class' of player that 'owns' a specific game space, everything can be achieved through hard work (grind) regardless of your base talent level and money won't buy a successful performance by itself. Even more, the game will pair you and force you to interact and cooperate with that 'dissimilar other', to find a way to understand each other, to tolerate each other and share the common experience of playing the game. 

The only way to improve in this complex game is to play against players who are better than you, so you can learn.

So the more experienced players will have to accept the fact of sometimes playing with "noobs".

There are blowouts, but in my experience there are many tense and exciting games, this means to me the balance is all pretty good.

[ArIskandir]

6 hours ago, torino2dc said:

I find it hard to call this a "sin" since it is a direct and logical result of their other priorities. These are:

I call it a 'sin' only as a way to represent a point of view I'm actually critizicing, my actual perspective on the issue is expressed here:

15 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

WoWS takes the deliberate decision of forcing us into interacting with 'dissimilar others', that's something I not only respect but deeply believe is of paramount importance for all of us humans.

Beyond the pragmatical need to force 'dissimilar' players togheter, I actually support that on an ideological level. 

6 hours ago, torino2dc said:

- 12 vs. 12 gameplay

- 4 (later 5) different classes, many with restrictions on how many can be in a match.

- 10 (later 11) tiers, of which maximum 3 can be in a battle at the same time.

- Ship class and tier generally must be mirrored.

- Reasonable queue times.

----

Just with those limitations in place, the matchmaker is already struggling to keep its head above water. Bucketing the players by skill would make that challenge an order of magnitude worse.

An interesting question to ponder is: which of those priorities would you sacrifice to remove the "original sin"? 

Now, supposing those were issues that actually needed to be solved: 

1. I see no major issue on reducing teams down to 10 vs 10 if needed (maps could be reworked to accomodate smaller teams) or even extending the bot filler policy to higher tiers (that genie is already out of the bottle anyway). 
2. The tier system 'problem' is entirely of their own making, the moment they link tier progression with 'by tier MM' they became 'doomed' to spreading the cheese too thin. Long term, It would be wiser imo to have a reduced number of MM pools acting somewhat independently from the progression tree. 
3. The mirrored comp condition is sound in theory but the practical experience shows it is not an strict requirement, matches frequently become asymmetrical on first contact, modes like CB promote non-mirrored comps to good effect. 

To answer your question, I would sacrifice points 1 and 3. Point 2 I would be more than willing to sacrifice but it would imply a radical redesign of the game.

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Since you have 'been expecting me', can I ask if your position is in any way informed by discussions with WG staff or the Discord?

I was expecting you because you have a very dialectic approach to understanding the game: the 'have' and 'have not' confrontation paraded as F2P vs Premium players, the emphasis on 'finding' P2W mechanics within the game, Coop vs PvP players paraded as defined factions, etc. My position is informed by my own analysis, I'm not one for parroting other's ideas without providing my own take on them. 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Not true. The whole tier structure aims to segment the playerbase.

The tier structure aims to create a progression ladder that can be monetized, the end goal being moving as many players as posible to the top of the ladder, where the monetization is maximized. They don't aim to have an homogeneous segmentation of players across tiers, they aim to have a concentration of players on the tiers with maximum monetization potential, without any skill/performance discrimination factor.

[tangofan]

3 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I'm not sure an automatic system has the sophistication to work that out completely, and it may not do so for some time, because there are some things (e.g. smoking up team-mates, causing an enemy to quit a cap by radaring them) that the system can't assess.

If you wanted to  make a start on coding that in now, how would you do it? For example, I can imagine a hypothetical situation in which a stealthy DD captain routinely does minimal damage but wins the battle for his teams by taking all the caps, spotting hundreds of thousands of HP in damage and even allowing most of the team's kills by virtue of what he alone can see.¹ There's your team player right there, and these are things which the game measures and presents to you at the end of the battle. No further information gathering is needed. I'm sure most of those metrics are already forming part of the Base XP equation, but at the moment I'm guessing they're dumped at the end of each battle as no longer being needed. 

Conversely, a co-op DD captain needs to be the opposite; he needs to get in there and do all the damage, sinking his opposite number early and then pushing forward to annoy or frag one or two cruisers or BBs before the end.

 

1. I think a case can be made for introducing a kill-assist ribbon, given out for when a kill someone else made was solely because of your spotting. 

I don't see this as a big problem. It would be a ranking system like ELO in chess. Matchmaking for Random battles would try to team up players with an "ELO" score reasonably close together. A win against a team with higher ELO than your team would give you less "points" and less of an increase in your "ELO" number than a win against a team with a lower "ELO". And that "ELO" number is the one that would matter, not your win-rate, which becomes irrelevant at that point. 

I would expect (but cannot confirm) that some version of this has already been implemented by some of the aspiring competitive multiplayer shooters that exist.

The nice this in this system is that there is no ambiguity. It rewards the stealthy DD captain, if his actions contribute to the win, i.e. make a win more likely. Obviously such a system is not suited for co-op, but then I don't think we need a ranking system for co-op. Too much depends just on the ship that your sailing.

 

Edit: Perhaps I spoke too hastily, when I said that this isn't a big problem. It has some subtleties that I need to think about more, but the basic premise to weigh your wins and losses against the "quality" of your opponents holds.

Edited June 14 by tangofan

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

communism exist

It does not. There are all sorts of people tho very few, who advocates for it, however being a form of societal organisation... it does not.

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

It's why I don't want "communist" principles anywhere near this game.

Nobody wants it, yet its not up to you or me. 

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

living memory in Western nations

Ouuch....... this can go really ugly, real fast......

I'm EEU. U suggest that the western nations....  deserve better/more coz they are ......somehow..... "superior" and...... "special"?

Well newsflash, nobody wanted communism in Warsaw Pact countries, except a loud minority, exactly the same as in those "western countries". it was forcibly imposed on us, by the victors of WW2, wasn't a choice. Actively by the URSS  (Stalin wanted a buffer so a/the surprise attack wont happen again)  and passively by the rest, which yes, included the US.

 

Emojis indicate that I'm non confrontational and I'm having fun 🙂 

Edited June 14 by Andrewbassg

[ArIskandir]

52 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

That comes across to me as more libertarian than communist. 

Libertarian principles prime the individual liberty over equality, and have no issues about having extreme degrees of inequality within the society if 'fixing' them implies infringing individual freedom. Communism (the theorical form) accepts there must be some restrictions to individual freedom (in particular to private property of the means of production) in order to achieve a more equal society. 

59 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Communism everywhere has a single, uniting thread: the rights of the individual are the first to vanish.

Yes, Communism primes the whole social body over the individual rights. On a personal level I think that's as unhinged as priming the individual rights over the health of the community. 

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

It's why I don't want "communist" principles anywhere near this game.

Are you sure about that? 

Take the following 3 principles of Communism that can be applied to the game: 

• Classless society: The ultimate goal is to create a society where social classes do not exist, and all individuals have equal opportunities and access to resources . 

• Equitable distribution of goods: A fair distribution of goods and resources is sought, ensuring that each person receives according to their needs and requiring a proportional effort. 

• Planned economy: Communism advocates an economy controlled and planned by the State, instead of free market competition

Does it rings any bells? 

[Wolfswetpaws]

Whatever the system, communism or libertarianism, the problem is when some feel "entitled" to harm others or infringe upon their rights?