Jump to content


Crews should be forced to retire after a tour of duty...


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

mjmdiver #21 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:22

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6084 battles
  • 161
  • Member since:
    04-04-2016

View PostAnublister, on May 16 2018 - 14:01, said:

No. Not going to happen also.

First of all I've never seen anyone with 100,000 battles and if there are they deserve whatever skills they've gotten.

Secondly, skills accumulate exponentially (I think, or pretty close), and the best skills are probably the first 3 you assign, with negligible benefits down the line.

Lastly, this is a video game. To suggest these crews need to muster out defeats the whole purpose of the crew grind and removes a key aspect keeping players playing. You get rewarded higher tier tanks and better skilled crewmen.

The next thing you might suggest is to have experience deteriorate over time. That would make it really hard to get to tier 10.

 

The solution is not to "dumb" down the higher skilled players. It's just to balance them per team in pub matches. If you're set up against a bunch of players who have better skills, longer view range, better gun handling and better organisational skills then you will most likely lose. If those better players were mixed then all you'd have to do is measure up against your equal on the other side and best him. This would allow you to compete against your equal at least in a group setting as opposed to just being raw meat for the hoard which is common now.

 

You have been playing for about 5 years, and are at 62,000 matches. You'll be at 100,000 in another three, and there will be a lot of other people like you as well.  What do you think the viability of the game will be when there is a cadre of hugely experienced people and a steady stream of beginners and nothing between because the beginners get stomped all the time?

 

I think that is a game model that is doomed to failure.

 

I'm actually not suggesting this because I feel that "this game isn't fair!" or anything like that. I enjoy myself and am improving and will probably continue to play as long as I have fun. I never feel that I was beaten by anything but my lack  of skills, but my perception is that a lot of beginners understand the game mechanic so little that there is a perception about "unfair this, unfair that".  The game is complex, and the player skills are already a large learning curve for a beginner.  It just seems that it would be advantageous to the game to not stack the deck with 7+ skill crews that we all know a bunch the high match players have and will be adding onto in the future.



Vardeman #22 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 42575 battles
  • 463
  • [56TH] 56TH
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View PostNightmareMk9, on May 16 2018 - 17:01, said:

[sarcasm]

OP has a very valid point.

In FACT

I also believe that the tanks should "Wear Out" after 1000 games so you need to buy them again.

Including and ESPECIALLY Premium Tanks

[/sarcasm]

 

There, fixed that for ya...

 



RickPatton #23 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:30

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 33137 battles
  • 1,200
  • [ANV] ANV
  • Member since:
    03-13-2014
War Daddy would be very upset if that happened.  

NightmareMk9 #24 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 30426 battles
  • 2,236
  • [ZOUTH] ZOUTH
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

View PostVardeman, on May 16 2018 - 23:23, said:

 

There, fixed that for ya...

 

 

It wasn't obvious? :P



Ape_Drape #25 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39711 battles
  • 1,810
  • [SOT] SOT
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011
How does "NO" sound?

tonkmato #26 Posted May 16 2018 - 23:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14124 battles
  • 1,045
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
I don't have any 5 skill crew yet, but no. Hell no. Terrible idea to punish dedicated players

Waylandie #27 Posted May 17 2018 - 00:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11230 battles
  • 47
  • [XXII] XXII
  • Member since:
    10-23-2016

View PostAltwar, on May 16 2018 - 23:22, said:

 

Nice!  I've been playing a lot longer but my play has been spread out amongst all the lines.  I think currently I don't have a single crew into their 5th skill but I've about 5 of them working on it.  Guess it just depends on focused play versus varied.

 

Yea, I wanted to play mediums so that is what I dove into.  Some of the heavies are fun, but I hate the lack of mobility, but that could be a hold over from my first bought tank being the SP.  Man, I didn't know anything about the game or tank at the time.  I use to get so mad watching all the other guys fly around me lol.

Pipinghot #28 Posted May 17 2018 - 00:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,559
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postmjmdiver, on May 16 2018 - 16:40, said:

...and I'm not sure if it makes any sense

It doesn't, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

No MMO forces players to retire their characters, because in the long run that's what MMO's are really all about, and not just RPG's, all MMO's including WoT.  There are a few, a very few, survival-type games that include a game mode that involves permanent character death (ARK has a mode like that, for example) but they also include multiple modes that do not force character death, because the vast majority of players of any game you can think of don't like having their characters permanently killed/retired. If your goal is to kill WoT then your idea is great, but if you're concerned with the longevity of the game you're severely misguided.

 

Now, the point about making it possible for newer players to join a game is valid, but your "solution" would be going in exactly the wrong direction. What successful games do is nearly the opposite of what you're suggesting, instead they provide "catch up" mechanisms in their game that allow newer players to advance more quickly so they can get on par with older players more quickly and easily. Different games do this in different ways  In Warcraft, for example, with each new expansion they advance the gear levels so that gear from previous expansions becomes obsolete and they let people jump up characters to whatever the starting point is for the current expansion. Now obviously the "catch up" method has to be something that makes sense given the structure of the game, what works for Warcraft wouldn't work for WoT, since this game doesn't have expansions and progress through the game is measured entirely differently.

 

What you apparently don't realize is that WoT already does this, but in a way that's more suitable for WoT. Over the years there have been more and more special weekends, so that newer players can pick up their first & second skill/perk more quickly than the older players used to, and they have plenty of missions and specials that allow players to advance tanks and crews more quickly than they used to. WoT will never be able to do it like WoW, they won't be able to say, "everyone who starts playing now automatically gets a crew with 5 skills/perks" but they can (and have been) making it easier and easier for people to advance their crews to higher skill levels.

 

It's important to understand that after the first skill/perk the benefit a player gets from each new skill/perk slightly less valuable than the previous skill/perk. Having a 5-skill/perk crew is only a tiny bit better than having a 2-skill/perk crew. The difference in skill between the two players is much (Much, MUCH) more important than the differences between their crews. Having 5 or 6-skills/perk is nice, but its the first 1 or 2 that really matter, and those are pretty easy to get these days.



Pipinghot #29 Posted May 17 2018 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,559
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postmjmdiver, on May 16 2018 - 17:22, said:

You have been playing for about 5 years, and are at 62,000 matches. You'll be at 100,000 in another three, and there will be a lot of other people like you as well.  What do you think the viability of the game will be when there is a cadre of hugely experienced people and a steady stream of beginners and nothing between because the beginners get stomped all the time?

 

I think that is a game model that is doomed to failure.

You're significantly overestimating the importance of crew skills, the player skill means a great deal more. There are plenty (and I mean plenty) of people with multi-skill crews that have below average win rates, because crew skills don't mean anything if the player isn't skilled.

KillerKoala_1995 #30 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:02

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 21134 battles
  • 54
  • [PSYCO] PSYCO
  • Member since:
    10-26-2015
NO!!!!!!!!!!!

1_Eyed_Mule #31 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12462 battles
  • 81
  • [BHA] BHA
  • Member since:
    02-11-2013
No

Cpl_DevilDog #32 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4140 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    01-22-2014
So, I get gigged cause I have been on longer?  What happened to I can do it so can you?  Sounds like you want to remove some of the things that one should have to work towards.  And I do think that it would not help the game but hurt it.  I was dumb when I started cause I did not keep some crews and transfer them to tanks up the line.  I would encourage new players who "WANT" to continue to talk and get advice from older players who put their time in "grade" so to speak.  Think of it as a promotion for working hard and improving, like a real job should. (lol)  

SkaerKrow #33 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:12

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17256 battles
  • 1,383
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
Well, this is it. The stupidest thing that I’ll read today.

Rude_Elf #34 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:14

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2048 battles
  • 170
  • Member since:
    04-26-2013
I would like to add my vote of NO to this post.  Thank you for the chance to go to bed with a laugh.

DrWho_ #35 Posted May 17 2018 - 01:15

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12001 battles
  • 748
  • Member since:
    07-29-2017

View Postmjmdiver, on May 16 2018 - 22:40, said:

 

 

I'm interested in hearing what people think of this concept.

 

No, absolutely not. I don't have all that many multi skilled crews but NO

Skilled crews is as already mentioned one of the few rewards you get for your loyalty to the game, don't punish those who have been playing for a long time.

 



o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #36 Posted May 17 2018 - 06:50

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 782
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View Postmjmdiver, on May 16 2018 - 22:40, said:

OK, hear me out on this... I haven't seen this idea come up before, and I'm not sure if it makes any sense, but I think it could be beneficial.

 

People have been discussing that there is a problem with this game as it ages that there are many very experienced people out there that might be up to 100,000 matches or so, and it's pretty clear that the crews in their most used tanks will be 5-6 skill crews or more by that time.  If they play exclusively a small set of tanks, they will have maxed out the skills a long time ago.  Beginners already have the disadvantages of being new to the game, but also having incomplete training and/or extremely low skills on the crews. This makes it harder to compete on the merits of the actual skills of the players and discourages new players to continue.

 

However, the reality of crews in the military is that most go through a tour and then are released, and at the very least, they get rotated into the front and then pulled back for periods, so there is a need to rotate crews in a larger scale. Plus, they actually die, which in WoT only happens in the actual match you are playing. After which, they are reincarnated!

 

If WG essentially created a "tour" for each crew member and capped them to number of matches or something similar, it would force turnover that could do a bunch of different things:

1 - Give people goals for more personal missions after completing the four currently available or similar

2 - Level the playing field somewhat through turnover of crew

3 - Encourage larger barracks and more diversity in tank use

4 - Create a new dynamic that people will need to plan into their gaming strategy some

5 - Would also make seal clubbing less rewarding because it would reduce the average skill level of the crews for an experienced player (I'm thinking of those guys the run E25's and similar all the time).

 

Actually, maybe the better proposition is that they "retire" when they have reached a certain skill level, not based on number of matches. So, if you are really good, you will cycle through crew faster. The cap could be placed low enough that for some tanks, you would need to decide which skills really are the ones you want to have, because you can't just keep adding additional ones beyond, say, 3 skills, because it will be time to retire.

 

Either way, I think the goal of this could be accomplished; forcing crew turnover and providing an additional variable for the game that will add complexity.

 

For example, I have about 4500 matches on my account, so I'm fairly new and not terribly skilled as of yet.  I do best at about T5/T6 where I have a few tanks that I am running about 53-55%, mostly American mediums and lights. As I move up, my WR drops considerably, so I have been working to gain skills before moving higher (other than some premium tanks, which have been useful for some of the personal missions).

 

My M4 crew has 3 full skills and am getting close with skill #4. I have the RAM II, the Thunderbolt, the M46KR, and the Super Pershing that I rotate the same crew through to train them up. At the moment, there is no penalty to doing that, and I will probably place that crew into the next higher medium when I get it, or maybe retrain them for a different class of tank and then start another set in the M4. If, however, there was a life limit, this work to train up would be of somewhat limited value, because when you place them in a higher tier tank, and they might only have a hundred battles left in them. That would change the dynamic on how things are developed as time goes on.

 

My thought is that the skills level requirements be dropped a little bit so you can progress a little faster (maybe a 1.5x multiplier for each skill level rather than 2x), but then cap the crew member at a certain number of matches before they retire. When they retire, you could recruit a new member and the retiring member can "mentor" them so they aren't complete greenhorns, but frankly, if there are that many matches under a crew's belt, the player will probably have the skills to train up new members very fast anyway.

 

I know some people may think this is a solution searching for a problem, but I don't think it is.  The problem isn't that the skilled players aren't enjoying themselves, the problem is that new players are really disadvantaged against a player with 50,000 matches or whatever and 5-skill crews. All the additional things that stack against them is tough to overcome.  That discourages people who try it out, and eventually, it will mean the game will become non-viable.

 

I'm interested in hearing what people think of this concept. Has something like this been discussed before?

 

no.

RC_1140 #37 Posted May 17 2018 - 08:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 58149 battles
  • 1,857
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013
Would be better if it was like WOWS and there was a cap on the number of skills. But maybe add some more useful skills, I feel like WOWS crew skills have less useless ones. While I agree its hard for new players to catch up on crew skills I do like my 7 skill crews. Also crew xp boosters help a ton. You can get a 1st skill done in 30ish battles with a prem tank and boosters. 

niwa565 #38 Posted May 17 2018 - 11:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9890 battles
  • 671
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
No way

Crews are my hard work and dedicated time putting into training them, definitely would not be happy if they have an “expiration date” mark on their head.

Everyone was green/new at one point in their wot career, and have to train new crews from scratch. If a new player is salty that his/her crews is not up to par with an experience players with a good crews then it should be a motivation for that new player to start invest in training his/her crews to be better.

_Brew_ #39 Posted May 17 2018 - 16:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 20643 battles
  • 2,537
  • [HARMZ] HARMZ
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012
Nope.  I want to keep my crews.  I spent a lot of real time working on them.

NeatoMan #40 Posted May 17 2018 - 16:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 25597 battles
  • 17,346
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostAnublister, on May 16 2018 - 17:01, said:

The solution is not to "dumb" down the higher skilled players. It's just to balance them per team in pub matches. If you're set up against a bunch of players who have better skills, longer view range, better gun handling and better organisational skills then you will most likely lose. If those better players were mixed then all you'd have to do is measure up against your equal on the other side and best him. This would allow you to compete against your equal at least in a group setting as opposed to just being raw meat for the hoard which is common now.

Couldn't mixing up the skilled players also be considered "dumbing" down the game?   It would be telling the skilled players that they will not be able to take advantage of their organizational skills because any players that can organize with them are most likely going to be shipped off to the other team.   You are forcing them to play a less organized game (i.e. a "dumbed" down game).






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users