The WoWS community has a serious toxicity problem

[torino2dc]

 

On 10/11/2023 at 2:09 AM, Zaydin said:

having an unpopular opinion

There's having an unpopular opinion, and then there's spamming an unpopular opinion to the point where mods have to get involved. 

[Jakeshuffle]

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

 

There's having an unpopular opinion, and then there's spamming an unpopular opinion to the point where mods have to get involved. 

 

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. (lots of sarcasm here)

[Admiral_Karasu]

42 minutes ago, Jakeshuffle said:

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. (lots of sarcasm here)

Technically speaking, I don't there are right or wrong opinions. Opinions tend to work along both X and Y axis, ranging from biased to unbiased, and informed to uninformed, respectively.

In case anyone is wondering, my opinions are often heavily leaning towards the biased, but on the other axis I'm trying to push them more towards the informed end of the scale as much as possible.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

On 10/11/2023 at 1:48 AM, Zaydin said:

It was that smoke firing needs another look at because at the moment it smoke is a 'free damage' button. Without radar, there is no guaranteed way to flush a smoked up ship out of smoke. Torpedoes can do it but they can also get lucky and completely avoid the torpedoes. Blind firing the smoke is inconsistent at best and regardless exposes you to the enemy teams counterfire.

One guy kept insisting that hydro counters smoke which I thought was adorable; the only way hydro counters smoke is if there is an island between you and the smoke cloud. Otherwise it's a high risk tactic given the odds of eating a wall of skill grow the closer you get to the smoke cloud.

The idea that hydro counters smoke damage is laughable for a number of reasons.

A limited number limited duration consumable is a counter to nothing.

But furthermore, WG does not consider the use of counters in their game design.

There are entire tech tree lines designed around smoke firing damage...and this is done for memes, NOT for game equity...as is most 'balancing' in the game.

The fact that this bothers you is evidence that the problem you have with the game is your own expectations not being met. WG has been pretty clear they have no interest in developing a properly balanced game.

I would also recommend you abandon posting on discord. It is a poorly moderated mess and will only grow bitterness in you about the game.

Far better to ignore that and focus on what you like and your personal well being.

[Asym]

54 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But furthermore, WG does not consider the use of counters in their game design.

I thought about the "counters" because, there was a discussion years ago with a staff member that sort of went along the "we don't have them because they slow down the game.  And, faster games means more games and more games generates more money...."   or, a competing thought was suggested that "an arcade shooters simply has to be fast - to keep the attention of the kids playing it...."

I suspect both are a root cause of a lot of tension and tension leads to anger and anger leads to conflicts....

It's oxymoronic to expect adult behaviors in a game designed for 10 year olds with mommy's credit card....

[HogHammer]

3 hours ago, Jakeshuffle said:

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. (lots of sarcasm here)

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. 

The vast majority of opinions are usually based on an individual's collection of facts and the sources they draw upon.  One may differ in those opinions, again based on their own collection of facts and sources of information.  This can lead to a good discussion if individuals are open to differing views or at least open to the prospect that their views could change or be persuaded based on that discussion.

Oftentimes, we are set in our opinions and won't budge.  This is totally acceptable. However, one should at least accept/acknowledge that their opinions may not be shared by all.  At that point, one can move on or at least respectfully agree to disagree.  It should not become an I'm right, and you're wrong back and forth spat.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

I thought about the "counters" because, there was a discussion years ago with a staff member that sort of went along the "we don't have them because they slow down the game.  And, faster games means more games and more games generates more money...."   or, a competing thought was suggested that "an arcade shooters simply has to be fast - to keep the attention of the kids playing it...."

I suspect both are a root cause of a lot of tension and tension leads to anger and anger leads to conflicts....

It's oxymoronic to expect adult behaviors in a game designed for 10 year olds with mommy's credit card....

I mostly just think WG isn't interested in investing the amount of skill (which costs them money) and effort (which costs them money) trying to build and maintain an actually e-sports quality game balance...

...when the game is pretty clearly designed as an arcade game whose appeal lies in the memes one can do...and whose profitability is based on the free2play/pay2win loot crat model.

There is nothing in that for WG. It will cut profits to do so...and it will detract from the core of the business model as WG wants to run the game.

We should stop being offended that WG refuses to balance the game to be actually equitable. It never has been...it never will be....because that is not the kind of game WG is interested in running.

[Asym]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I mostly just think WG isn't interested in investing the amount of skill (which costs them money) and effort (which costs them money) trying to build and maintain an actually e-sports quality game balance...

...when the game is pretty clearly designed as an arcade game whose appeal lies in the memes one can do...and whose profitability is based on the free2play/pay2win loot crat model.

There is nothing in that for WG. It will cut profits to do so...and it will detract from the core of the business model as WG wants to run the game.

We should stop being offended that WG refuses to balance the game to be actually equitable. It never has been...it never will be....because that is not the kind of game WG is interested in running.

Agree and well said !

[MnemonScarlet]

10 hours ago, torino2dc said:

There's having an unpopular opinion, and then there's spamming an unpopular opinion to the point where mods have to get involved. 

The real problem is when people aren't looking for actual discussion and entertaining the possibility that they can be wrong, but are instead looking for validation of their opinion at any cost. So they'll ignore or attempt to argue down anything to the contrary of what they want to believe is true. Not just an occurrence in this game either lol.

[Nevermore135]

Just now, MnemonScarlet said:

The real problem is when people aren't looking for actual discussion and entertaining the possibility that they can be wrong, but are instead looking for validation of their opinion at any cost. So they'll ignore or attempt to argue down anything to the contrary of what they want to believe is true. Not just an occurrence in this game either lol.

There are also the times when someone puts forward a controversial or unpopular opinion with no intention to engage in constructive dialogue, but simply to stir the pot. The same individuals also tend to pop into otherwise constructive threads, drop a few incendiary posts, and then abandon the thread. You start to see patterns if you know what to look for.

[MnemonScarlet]

55 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

There are also the times when someone puts forward a controversial or unpopular opinion with no intention to engage in constructive dialogue, but simply to stir the pot. The same individuals also tend to pop into otherwise constructive threads, drop a few incendiary posts, and then abandon the thread. You start to see patterns if you know what to look for.

Yeah, that happens. In this case I don't think it's trolling, just frustration.

[Nevermore135]

3 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Yeah, that happens. In this case I don't think it's trolling, just frustration.

Agreed.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

I have no issues with people having a different opinion ...

... as long as they are right.

There are things that you can't argue over, which are typically highly subjective or a matter of taste. But when it comes to opinion, a person better have a good case to make. If they are right about at least part of their views, that is imo respectable. The part where it becomes toxic is when people are arguing over blatantly wrong facts. This may be the case for "having an opinion that differs from the majority". If a person argues that e.g. cars grow on trees, they may victimize themselves over experiencing a so-called toxic reaction. The issue, tho, is not the toxicity, but the absurd idea. This is what we see in the WoWs-community a lot.

We saw this especially in the old EU-forum. Somebody created a topic, making all sorts of accusations and hypothesizing over conspiracies. Then ofc the community got a good laugh out of it and the person stomped on the ground like a child and said they would never post anything again, cause the community is toxic.

Very rarely we saw topics of people asking for explanations within the existing mechanics for whatever they experienced in the game and couldn't understand. I really hope we see a lot less of these tinfoil ideas here.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I have no issues with people having a different opinion ...

... as long as they are right.

Then you have issues with people having a different opinion.

Because this very easily becomes 'Only my opinion is right' self delusion.

[That WoT Player]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I have no issues with people having a different opinion ...

... as long as they are right.

Then you have issues with people having a different opinion.

Because this very easily becomes 'Only my opinion is right' self delusion.

Maybe something was lost in translation? Not everyone here has English as a first language. 

[SunkCostFallacy]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Then you have issues with people having a different opinion.

Hang on ... if you read the post @HMS_Kilinowskigives an example

 

5 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

If a person argues that e.g. cars grow on trees, they may victimize themselves over experiencing a so-called toxic reaction.

Clearly that's factually incorrect ... i.e. Cars do NOT grow on trees.

I get where he's coming from, in that I've had arguments over the years with people who are asserting things with are blatantly ludicrous and completely false-to-fact. An excellent example is a former neighbor who reported me to the local council complaining that my dog was barking all the time. The only problem was ... I didn't HAVE a dog. I had told the idiot I didn't have a dog. But he was absolutely convinced that the barking that he claimed was waking him up at night was coming from my place regardless of the fact that I didn't have a dog.¹

There's nothing wrong with being frustrated with people who have opinions which are completely divorced from reality.

 

1. To complete the story - I showed the council officer through the entire place and pointed out that there was no evidence that I had any pets, much less a dog and he rolled his eyes and went back and made his report. And when I moved out a couple of years later the idiot from next door smugly announced that he would be able to sleep now,  because I'd be taking my dog with me. I should have gone back a month later and asked him if my non-existent dog was still keeping him awake

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

Hang on ... if you read the post @HMS_Kilinowskigives an example

 

Clearly that's factually incorrect ... i.e. Cars do NOT grow on trees.

I get where he's coming from, in that I've had arguments over the years with people who are asserting things with are blatantly ludicrous and completely false-to-fact. An excellent example is a former neighbor who reported me to the local council complaining that my dog was barking all the time. The only problem was ... I didn't HAVE a dog. I had told the idiot I didn't have a dog. But he was absolutely convinced that the barking that he claimed was waking him up at night was coming from my place regardless of the fact that I didn't have a dog.¹

There's nothing wrong with being frustrated with people who have opinions which are completely divorced from reality.

 

1. To complete the story - I showed the council officer through the entire place and pointed out that there was no evidence that I had any pets, much less a dog and he rolled his eyes and went back and made his report. And when I moved out a couple of years later the idiot from next door smugly announced that he would be able to sleep now,  because I'd be taking my dog with me. I should have gone back a month later and asked him if my non-existent dog was still keeping him awake

 

It's an interesting example...but it doesn't represent what this thread is about...critical OPINIONS of WG.

It's in irrelevant example.

Plus, we can go further...in many of these instances, it is the complainer at WG with the legitimate grievance...and the defender of WG the person who is blatantly wrong.

Far better, IMO, to allow venting...than to try to stifle complaints... particularly in the case of a company with as negative a past as WG.

 

[SunkCostFallacy]

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It's an interesting example...but it doesn't represent what this thread is about...critical OPINIONS of WG.

It's in irrelevant example.

 

No. Just no.

The crux of @HMS_Kilinowski's post was that he (or she) has no problem with people having different opinions, as long as the opinion has some connection with reality. Hence the 'cars growing on trees' point.

I posted an excellent example of why it's perfectly logical and rational to find it a problem when someone has an opinion which isn't rooted in reality. The fact that you claim it's irrelevant leads me to believe that you are arguing in bad faith.

 

58 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Plus, we can go further...in many of these instances, it is the complainer at WG with the legitimate grievance...and the defender of WG the person who is blatantly wrong.

 

And in some cases the complaint is flat out stupidity. @HMS_Kilinowski's point that not all complaints about WG are legitimate is an important one, which apparently you're unwilling to concede in your haste to assume the worst.

And finally ... your post claiming that @HMS_Kilinowski has an issue with people having differing opinions was not only non sequitur, it was quite rude and insulting.

 

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

The crux of @HMS_Kilinowski's post was that he (or she) has no problem with people having different opinions, as long as the opinion has some connection with reality.

Not what he said.

2 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

which apparently you're unwilling to concede in your haste to assume the worst.

Not what I said.

Want to discuss based on the reality of the conversation?

[SunkCostFallacy]

38 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Want to discuss based on the reality of the conversation?

I would ... but given that your every response has been in bad faith, I see little point.

I'll just note that, as is fairly normal for you, you haven't addressed any of the salient points I've made and therefore it's not been a conversation ... it's been a farce.

And on that note, it's bedtime.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I would ... but given that your every response has been in bad faith, I see little point.

I'll just note that, as is fairly normal for you, you haven't addressed any of the salient points I've made and therefore it's not been a conversation ... it's been a farce.

And on that note, it's bedtime.

 

 

 

 

Good night.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

10 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Then you have issues with people having a different opinion.

Because this very easily becomes 'Only my opinion is right' self delusion.

I thank @SunkCostFallacyfor defending the point I made, but in a way both of you misunderstood the part that was quoted here. The example given was a separate point. And thanks to @That WoT Playerfor already hinting at that.

What I was trying to say with me not having a problem with a different opinion ... as long as it's right, was exactly that I am not linking myself to being right and judging an opinion being right by either agreeing with me or not.
I was rather pointing out, that I appreciate different opinions, if they are legit and by being legit shift my perspective on a subject. If I'm right, I'm right and anybody with a different opinion is wrong. If someone with a different opinion is right, I am wrong or at least not looking at the big picture. Such an exchange of opinion allows me to grow intellectually. And that is imo one of the main reasons for bothering with a forum, to exchange views and learn from others.

I hate discussions where everybody compulsively needs to be right and cannot admit any flaws in their ideas for pages over pages. We had that a lot in the old forum, especially in the german sub-forum, people linking cheap arguments around any loose end of people arguing against their ideas. That kind of stuff is toxic for every forum.

 

[MnemonScarlet]

5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Plus, we can go further...in many of these instances, it is the complainer at WG with the legitimate grievance...and the defender of WG the person who is blatantly wrong.

So, there is railing against outright broken mechanics, and then there's railing against mechanics that are sorta cheesy but mostly within the bounds of what qualifies as 'you can handle this if you just apply some effort toward learning how to counter it'. The latter should not be encouraged to be grouped with the former.

14 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Very rarely we saw topics of people asking for explanations within the existing mechanics for whatever they experienced in the game and couldn't understand. I really hope we see a lot less of these tinfoil ideas here.

What changed was only the venue, not the playerbase, so I think you will be disappointed. The playerbase is full of people who would rather remain hobbled and have their out-of-the-door opinions validated than try to grow as players.

[Pugilistic]

22 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

The real problem is when people aren't looking for actual discussion and entertaining the possibility that they can be wrong, but are instead looking for validation of their opinion at any cost. So they'll ignore or attempt to argue down anything to the contrary of what they want to believe is true. Not just an occurrence in this game either lol.

 

21 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

There are also the times when someone puts forward a controversial or unpopular opinion with no intention to engage in constructive dialogue, but simply to stir the pot. The same individuals also tend to pop into otherwise constructive threads, drop a few incendiary posts, and then abandon the thread. You start to see patterns if you know what to look for.

These describe different flavors of the same disingenuousness. 

[Zaydin]

On 10/16/2023 at 6:44 AM, Jakeshuffle said:

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. (lots of sarcasm here)

Yeah, unless it involves factual matters (I.E, the Earth is round, climate change is real, vaccines work), opinions by definition cannot be wrong or right. They are just an opinion.

There are people who think DDs are underpowered and need considerable buffs while I think they are tumors that ruin the game for battleships and cruisers due to their permaspotting and the fact that DDs needed to be given absurd stealth fields to survive in the game is all the more proof that they shouldn't be in the game.

My opinion is neither right nor wrong; it is just how I personally feel on the subject.

Now if only others could be that mature.

You are free to disagree with me; that is the nature of opinions. But if your first/only response is to mock me without a rebuttal, you are giving a tacit admission that you have no rebuttal.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Zaydin