Jump to content


Dear Wargaming.... Make "Personal Reserves" work by "# of Battles" rather than by H...


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

leeuniverse #1 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 05:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 29109 battles
  • 6,683
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

You are screwing those of us who have to do other things, stop and then play one or two games, go back to our work, then stop, etc. over and over again.

 

I can't use my Reserves because of this, I feel like they are being wasted if I do use them.

 

Set a Reserve like the 1 Hour one to work for "6-8 Battles" or something, whatever the average # of games people play games in an hour.

The 2 and 3-hour ones etc. would work the same, 16 battles, etc.

 

I know you maybe want to encourage longer play to have more people playing, but the reality is people will play according to what they can, and so the above is more reasonable and would work for everyone rather than exclude those of us who can't spend an hour+ to play.

 

Thanks



ClydeCooper421 #2 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 05:55

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11562 battles
  • 2,481
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015
meh. i have so many personal reserves idec. 

leeuniverse #3 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 05:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 29109 battles
  • 6,683
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

I have a ton too, but I want to use them like they are supposed to be used to get the benefit others get.

 

BTW, didn't we used to have "credit" Reserves?  Did they get rid of them, that sucks.



Doomslinger__ #4 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:03

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21 battles
  • 243
  • Member since:
    10-09-2017

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 10 2017 - 00:59, said:

I have a ton too, but I want to use them like they are supposed to be used to get the benefit others get.

 

BTW, didn't we used to have "credit" Reserves?  Did they get rid of them, that sucks.

 

I won 8, 50% 1 hour credit booster from tank rewards. But, sometimes I have to stop playing for some reason when boosters are running so it would be nice if they lasted for a certain number of battles instead of time. The average battle lasts for 7 minutes or something I think? How about have the 1 hour boosters be changed so that they are good for 10 battles and 2 hour boosters are good for 20 battles?

_Tsavo #5 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 37891 battles
  • 14,005
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

They make the rules, we gotta follow them.  

 

Personal reserves would be much more preferred in the manner you describe, I agree.  However, I think most are probably in a similar boat as me here, I cannot spend them fast enough to ever run out, unless I pop them and then log out.  Even then it'd be many days before I run out, probably weeks.



GaussDeath #6 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51269 battles
  • 810
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
I prefer the timed version. Sure, sometimes you have to quit early, but you get so many of them that it almost never matters. 

Doomslinger__ #7 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:22

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21 battles
  • 243
  • Member since:
    10-09-2017

View PostGaussDeath, on Nov 10 2017 - 01:19, said:

I prefer the timed version. Sure, sometimes you have to quit early, but you get so many of them that it almost never matters. 

 

The xp ones yes but the credit boosters one and even the free xp and crew xp ones are not as plentiful. They should keep the xp ones timed and the other ones that last for a certain number of battles.

Mazati #8 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:25

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4888 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 10 2017 - 04:54, said:

You are screwing those of us who have to do other things, stop and then play one or two games, go back to our work, then stop, etc. over and over again.

 

I can't use my Reserves because of this, I feel like they are being wasted if I do use them.

 

Set a Reserve like the 1 Hour one to work for "6-8 Battles" or something, whatever the average # of games people play games in an hour.

The 2 and 3-hour ones etc. would work the same, 16 battles, etc.

 

I know you maybe want to encourage longer play to have more people playing, but the reality is people will play according to what they can, and so the above is more reasonable and would work for everyone rather than exclude those of us who can't spend an hour+ to play.

 

Thanks

 

I suggest you write WG rather then post this here it wont be read and considered by WG employees who are the only people that can make this happen - and write to the russian branch because NA just does what they get from the russian branch as far as I know

leeuniverse #9 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 06:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 29109 battles
  • 6,683
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostGaussDeath, on Nov 09 2017 - 22:19, said:

I prefer the timed version. Sure, sometimes you have to quit early, but you get so many of them that it almost never matters. 

 

I think it might matter....

 

We get them what every 3 games or something?

So if we are using 3 at a time, then, in theory, we could be using them every game and ultimately use them all.

I think another reason many might have so many is we might not be activating the reserves every game, so we then build more and thus it seems like we have too many to use.

 

Also, don't the reserves depend on player skill?  So most players may not get as many and thus a # of battle version would be better for most I think?



GaussDeath #10 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 08:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51269 battles
  • 810
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostDoomslinger__, on Nov 09 2017 - 22:22, said:

 

The xp ones yes but the credit boosters one and even the free xp and crew xp ones are not as plentiful. They should keep the xp ones timed and the other ones that last for a certain number of battles.

 

I agree that they are not as plentiful, but when I have the following, does it matter?


Tank Exp: 510hours
Crew Exp: 361hours
Free Exp: 217hours
Credit: 52hours
(And I never run tanks without running reserves.)

I prefer timed, if they were per battle I would quickly run out. The proposal would take me from more than enough to constantly running out. 
Why? Because Wargaming would hand them out a few battles at a time.
Thus, people like me who play for a constant hour (or 2) would run out because we would be burning them at a rate of 6-10 per hour. 



GaussDeath #11 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 08:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51269 battles
  • 810
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 09 2017 - 22:51, said:

 

I think it might matter....

 

We get them what every 3 games or something?

So if we are using 3 at a time, then, in theory, we could be using them every game and ultimately use them all.

I think another reason many might have so many is we might not be activating the reserves every game, so we then build more and thus it seems like we have too many to use.

 

Also, don't the reserves depend on player skill?  So most players may not get as many and thus a # of battle version would be better for most I think?

 

A # of battle version would be even worse for most. Assuming wargaming handed them out at a rate of 1 battle for 1 hour, that would be absolutely worse for most. 
Even if it were 3 battles for 1 hour that is still worse for many. 

To make it worthwhile for the majority, the majority would have to play fewer games per hour than what WG would hand out. 
So if the majority play 1 game per hour (doubtful) then it would be an equitable exchange.
If the majority played 3 games per hour then it would be an equitable exchange only if WG handed out 3 battle reserves for every 1 hour reserve. 
For those people that play 6+ games per hour (grinding, like many do) then there is probably no exchange that would be equitable because I very much doubt WG would be handing out 6+ battle reserves for every 1 hour reserve.

It is my belief that the majority sit down for at least 30 minutes and get in at least 3+ games.
Do I have data? No. Just experience running into the same people in match after match. 

In short, moving to a 'per battle' reserve would be to placate feelings of 'wasting reserve time'. Not because it makes more sense (unless WG was truly generous and gave out 6+ battle reserves in place of a 1 hour reserve). 

leeuniverse #12 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 21:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 29109 battles
  • 6,683
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostGaussDeath, on Nov 10 2017 - 00:11, said:

 

I agree that they are not as plentiful, but when I have the following, does it matter?


Tank Exp: 510hours
Crew Exp: 361hours
Free Exp: 217hours
Credit: 52hours
(And I never run tanks without running reserves.)

I prefer timed, if they were per battle I would quickly run out. The proposal would take me from more than enough to constantly running out. 
Why? Because Wargaming would hand them out a few battles at a time.
Thus, people like me who play for a constant hour (or 2) would run out because we would be burning them at a rate of 6-10 per hour. 

 

Uh....  You didn't read my post.

 

I'm asking Wargaming to make each reserve LAST for whatever the # of battles the average player plays in 1 hour.

In other words, if the average is 7 battles per hour, then a reserve would last for 7 battles, 2 hour one would be 14 battles, etc..

 

So, the reserve would last essentially the SAME Amount of "time" as they currently do, they just wouldn't screw those of us who can't play for 1 hour, 2 hours, or 3 hours at a time.



GaussDeath #13 Posted Nov 10 2017 - 22:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51269 battles
  • 810
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 10 2017 - 13:19, said:

 

Uh....  You didn't read my post.

 

I'm asking Wargaming to make each reserve LAST for whatever the # of battles the average player plays in 1 hour.

In other words, if the average is 7 battles per hour, then a reserve would last for 7 battles, 2 hour one would be 14 battles, etc..

 

So, the reserve would last essentially the SAME Amount of "time" as they currently do, they just wouldn't screw those of us who can't play for 1 hour, 2 hours, or 3 hours at a time.

 

I read it, but if that was your intent then you weren't clear. 
From the way you were phrasing it it appeared you were setting up an equivalency, which I then responded to. 

Viper_Dragon #14 Posted Nov 11 2017 - 07:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30105 battles
  • 530
  • [HWDA] HWDA
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
Great Idea !!! like 5 next battles !!!


the_Deadly_Bulb #15 Posted Nov 11 2017 - 21:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 18392 battles
  • 2,154
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 09 2017 - 20:54, said:

You are screwing those of us I can't use my Reserves because of this, I feel like they are being wasted if I do use them.

 

Set a Reserve like the 1 Hour one to work for "6-8 Battles" or something, whatever the average # of games people play games in an hour.

The 2 and 3-hour ones etc. would work the same, 16 battles, etc.

 

I know you maybe want to encourage longer play to have more people playing, but the reality is people will play according to what they can, and so the above is more reasonable and would work for everyone rather than exclude those of us who can't spend an hour+ to play.

 

Thanks

 

Your 'feels' don't mean squat.

Maybe shut up about how unfair it is that RL intrudes on your ability to take advantage of PRs. Not really anyone's issue outside of yours.

NOT something WG should be concerned with as they give these away steadily.

I can't remember how many times I've been called away and had to let the clock run out on 2-3 PRs. So what. Life goes on unabated and enjoyable in spite of the 'horror' that is PR wasting disease.


 

 



Michael_Cochrane_2017 #16 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 09:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4969 battles
  • 178
  • Member since:
    06-04-2017
I agree 100% with this per battle scheme instead of per hour/time...but wot is all about screwing the players any way they can and this is just one more piece of evidence to support this theory  truth. 

Why would they make something beneficial to a player? How would they "win" that way? The RBM is give a little, take a lot....."here, look at this picture of jennifer aniston naked, then hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. 

Wargaming has as much honor and integrity as a $2.00 crack addict......

GaussDeath #17 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 19:13

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 51269 battles
  • 810
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostMichael_Cochrane_2017, on Nov 13 2017 - 01:27, said:

I agree 100% with this per battle scheme instead of per hour/time...but wot is all about screwing the players any way they can and this is just one more piece of evidence to support this theory  truth. 

Why would they make something beneficial to a player? How would they "win" that way? The RBM is give a little, take a lot....."here, look at this picture of jennifer aniston naked, then hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. 

Wargaming has as much honor and integrity as a $2.00 crack addict......

 

 This has nothing to do with 'honor and integrity'. The per battle reserves would benefit you, and screw other players.

VooDooKobra #18 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 23:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 6572 battles
  • 2,502
  • [1-185] 1-185
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

The per battle PR has been discussed here before and i believe it was shot down overwhelmingly 

 

lets say the average battle of everyone comes out to 8 minutes (i didn't do math this is just for example so chill).  so lets round up and go with 8 battles an hour, what will happen is, those who are are below the average when it comes to time in game would be using more PR and therefore not fair to them.  you are therefore punishing the players worse than you because you might waste 10 minutes on a PR you probably didn't pay for to start with.

 


Edited by VooDooKobra, Nov 13 2017 - 23:11.


Beornotns #19 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 23:18

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20887 battles
  • 1,784
  • [-SCA-] -SCA-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

View Postleeuniverse, on Nov 10 2017 - 12:19, said:

 

Uh....  You didn't read my post.

 

I'm asking Wargaming to make each reserve LAST for whatever the # of battles the average player plays in 1 hour.

In other words, if the average is 7 battles per hour, then a reserve would last for 7 battles, 2 hour one would be 14 battles, etc..

 

So, the reserve would last essentially the SAME Amount of "time" as they currently do, they just wouldn't screw those of us who can't play for 1 hour, 2 hours, or 3 hours at a time.

 

This would be be less fair for the poorer players who get smoked early on.  For people who are the last person alive on their team, or on a winning team that face rolls the other side, timed reserves means they get their "credits/experiences" worth.

 

I understand how you would prefer it more akin to Warships.  Alas, it seems doubtful they will rearrange the entire system now.

 

~B






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users