Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

Pipinghot #61 Posted May 18 2018 - 04:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,753
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostAnublister, on May 17 2018 - 11:35, said:

View PostNeatoMan, on May 17 2018 - 15:22, said:

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).

I am encouraging a balanced start. Every battle has a skill match up. Not hard to do and makes it more challenging/rewarding for players of all skill types.

The bolded part is not true. SBMM, or skill balancing, or whatever flavor you want to use, will result in giving free wins to bad players who didn't earn them and will take away wins from better players who deserve to have a better win rate. Skill balancing makes it less challenging for bad players and less rewarding for good players.



Nonamanadus #62 Posted May 18 2018 - 04:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 31185 battles
  • 3,979
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

So penalize the dedicated players for their long term commitment? That is the best way to run the game into the mountainside, people would be rage quitting in droves and I would suspect a healthy portion of those players spend money on the game.

 

Wargaming wouldn't cut their own throats.



NeatoMan #63 Posted May 18 2018 - 05:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,669
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostAnublister, on May 17 2018 - 11:35, said:

I am encouraging a balanced start. Every battle has a skill match up. Not hard to do and makes it more challenging/rewarding for players of all skill types. I am not saying this needs to be done in clan wars, strongholds, or limiting platoons, tournaments, or any battle mode outside of random (maybe will need this in Frontline, but I don't have a strong opinion on that yet). What I advocate will make the percentage chance of winning a random battle approximate 50%. It will greatly reduce the chance of rofl stomps and in no way dumb down the game. If you are a skilled chess player you don't need to be playing nor should you get any enjoyment out of being matched against a neophyte. In actuality skilled players should find my solution more enjoyable and desirable knowing they won't be able to rest on their laurels as soon as the battle loads up.

skilled players are good at organizing with other skilled players.  In order to be successful with other players those other players need to be able to reciprocate.   The average WoT player doesn't do that very often, and tomatoes rarely do.  WIth skill balance you are separating the very players that can coordinate, and replacing them with players that can't.   You are effectively reducing the maximum level of coordination that goes on in battle and bringing it down to the average server level (which isn't that great)     How is that not dumbing down the game play?



Captain_Rownd #64 Posted May 18 2018 - 07:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3050 battles
  • 1,374
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostNonamanadus, on May 18 2018 - 04:24, said:

So penalize the dedicated players for their long term commitment? That is the best way to run the game into the mountainside, people would be rage quitting in droves and I would suspect a healthy portion of those players spend money on the game.

 

Wargaming wouldn't cut their own throats.

 

But driving away new players by having veterans with entrenched advantages is also cutting their throats.  New players quitting because they always face buffed veterans means the game will die.

 



Captain_Rownd #65 Posted May 18 2018 - 07:58

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3050 battles
  • 1,374
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostFrozenKemp, on May 18 2018 - 01:37, said:

 

What makes it so hard for you to understand other people's perspectives and to make blanket incorrect aspersions? 

 

Why not address what I actually said instead of reading your own agendas into it?   

 



TornadoADV #66 Posted May 18 2018 - 08:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25151 battles
  • 771
  • [ESC] ESC
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012
The only way this would ever fly is if it was added as an OPTIONAL choice for a player to make in return for a reward such as Gold, Warbonds, FXP, Premium Tanks, Camos/Inscriptions and unique versions there of. More advanced crew retirements net EXPONENTIALLY higher rewards. For example, if retiring a 1 skill crew earned you 1 warbond for each member, retiring a 5 skill crew should earn you 10,000 warbonds for each crew member.

NeatoMan #67 Posted May 18 2018 - 11:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,669
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Not that I think it's needed, but perhaps if they ever rework skills/perks they could make certain skills and perks that are only active outside random battles, but can still be ground out in random battles.  Keep only the basic skills active in randoms.

 

However I agree with many other posters in that only the first couple of skills are the important ones.  Players aren't winning that many more games because of their 5 or 7 skill crews.  You don't get that much of a performance boost from those extra skills and perks.



BillT #68 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27607 battles
  • 5,104
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postmrmojo, on May 17 2018 - 19:03, said:

Well the developers have spoken about considering a change to crew skills primarily because the current iteration is "difficult" for new players to understand.

They are indeed contemplating a change to the Warships style of captain only probably to be called commander in WoT.

One of the biggest impediments they see is (suprise, suprise) the resistance to the concept by long term players and how to re-imburse all the xp spent training our current crews.

 

Good summary.  It's like SPGs; even if the designers wanted to remove them, they don't know how to do it without angering their player and losing money.

 

In the case of crew, if they make it easier to gain crew skills, then all us old players are still going to demand compensation for the work we did "the hard way". If WG hands us a huge stack of "skill chits" to preserve our current value, then the new players are still at a disadvantage because they have to go earn chits while we have them in surplus.

 

In the end, it's hard to believe that this crew skill system has been in place for  seven years, and only now do they realize it's so flawed it's got to go.



ThePigSheFlies #69 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 70533 battles
  • 17,270
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View Postmrmojo, on May 17 2018 - 19:03, said:

Well the developers have spoken about considering a change to crew skills primarily because the current iteration is "difficult" for new players to understand.

They are indeed contemplating a change to the Warships style of captain only probably to be called commander in WoT.

One of the biggest impediments they see is (suprise, suprise) the resistance to the concept by long term players and how to re-imburse all the xp spent training our current crews.

 

one of the biggest reasons to acquire a premium tank is to train crews.  it's also one of the biggest reason to keep a tank after one has researched through it, that might be fun to play, to keep grinding that crew.

 

I don't know how that gels with whatever happens over in warships because frankly I couldn't stand that game.

 

But, if they really think that they need to gut whatever tiny incremental advantage I have with a 5 perk crew vs someone with a 3 perk crew as a reward for my loyalty to the game then I guess it'll finally be time to move on.

 

before they do so however, I would caution that there are 'grinder achievement' reasons that this game is popular, and it's not tank tier based.  it's akin to how players love to "level up" in other games like diablo, world of warcraft etc. - and by gutting that aspect of their game they dramatically diminish the appeal of their game to folks like me

View PostBillT, on May 18 2018 - 08:08, said:

 

Good summary.  It's like SPGs; even if the designers wanted to remove them, they don't know how to do it without angering their player and losing money.

 

In the case of crew, if they make it easier to gain crew skills, then all us old players are still going to demand compensation for the work we did "the hard way". If WG hands us a huge stack of "skill chits" to preserve our current value, then the new players are still at a disadvantage because they have to go earn chits while we have them in surplus.

 

In the end, it's hard to believe that this crew skill system has been in place for  seven years, and only now do they realize it's so flawed it's got to go.

 

​actually I wouldn't care if they made it "easier to grind skills" - or even if every newly trained 100% tank crew was a zero xp BIA crew for example.

 

if they make it easier to grind skills for new players, then that mechanic should also apply to those of us with experienced crews, and perhaps we can 'finish' some of our crews in this life time.

 

e.g.  a lot of the tier 10 LT really starts to feel less gimped when it hits about 6 perks (3 man crews) when I play them on common test.  and I enjoy my tier 9s enough to keep them, and don't exactly have a surplus of 4-5 perk crews to put them into tier 10 LTs...  both the T54LTWT and 13 105 are sitting empty in my garage for this very reason.



BillT #70 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27607 battles
  • 5,104
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on May 17 2018 - 19:06, said:

 

Why do "more experienced" players need additional magic crutches that give them perpetual advantages? 

 

 

"Need" is the wrong word.  WG doesn't give people crew skills or tier 10 tanks because they "need" them. You get those things because you earn them.  They are a reward for spending time (and maybe money) in the game.

 

You might as well ask, "Why do employees with more years of service need higher salaries than new hires?"  They don't need them.  They get them because the  company offered them as incentive to keep working there year after year, and now it needs to pay them more so they won't quit and take all that experience with them. 

 

The crew XP system also adds another strategy element to the game, making players choose which skills to get first to make the most effective crew.  Developing a crew, like researching a tank line, is supposed to be part of the fun.

 

That's why you're wrong.  Here's where you're right: the Sixth Sense crew skill is so powerful and so vital that playing without it is a serious handicap.  (Or you could go the other way and say S.S. is basically a cheat that gives you information other players don't get.)   I think it stinks that new players (and new crews for experienced players) have to suffer through many games without this crucial skill.  It's the only crew skill advantage I actually feel guilty about.   Now that WG is selling crews with zero-skill BIA, (and giving away crews with zero-skill BIA PLUS another free skill, or Commander Buffon with his zero-skill S.S., as mission rewards)  I think they should make Sixth Sense an innate skill for all commanders, so everyone gets it from the start.  



FrozenKemp #71 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 51268 battles
  • 9,187
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on May 18 2018 - 01:58, said:

 

Why not address what I actually said instead of reading your own agendas into it?   

 

 

Wow... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Like, I get that what you were replying to probably annoyed you.  But as most of the players here have pointed out, the benefits of highly experienced crews are minor once you get past the first couple of skills. 

 

The crew skill system is a "player retention" system: by getting players to play a lot more games seeing their experience values go up, WG get players to keep playing, even though the amount of XP required to level skills goes up and up, and the benefits from higher # of skills is minor. 

 

Players then get emotionally attached to their crews (because of the satisfaction of seeing those numbers go up).  Then, someone comes along and says "we should cut this system entirely" that becomes interpreted as "we should throw away your investment of time in the game" which naturally gets peoples' backs up. 

 

When you see experienced players post expressing their resistance to throwing away their high skill crews, I think this context is important.  It's not about being able to curb-stomp less experienced players with their high skill crews.  It's about cutting an attachment to crews that they have established in their heads. 


Edited by FrozenKemp, May 18 2018 - 14:27.


Nonamanadus #72 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 31185 battles
  • 3,979
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on May 18 2018 - 06:54, said:

 

But driving away new players by having veterans with entrenched advantages is also cutting their throats.  New players quitting because they always face buffed veterans means the game will die.

 

 

Seal clubbers drive away players at the low tiers but most people quit because they have a falling out with Wargaming's antics. Lots quite because of MM, arty, gold rounds, bad marketing or broken tanks. The number who quit because of crew skills is negligible.



GeorgePreddy #73 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 12,449
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

I have some 8 skill crews... several, in fact. I prefer to keep them, thank you very much.

 

If you put in the time and effort, you can have good crews, too.

 

This game is not about immediate gratification, but rather incremental improvement.

 

 

 

 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #74 Posted May 18 2018 - 15:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 36047 battles
  • 5,507
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postmjmdiver, on May 16 2018 - 13:40, 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?

 

TERRIBLE idea.  Many would quit, you are rewarded by working on crew skills.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #75 Posted May 18 2018 - 16:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 36047 battles
  • 5,507
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostAnublister, on May 17 2018 - 08:35, said:

View PostNeatoMan, on May 17 2018 - 15:22, said:

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).

 

I am encouraging a balanced start. Every battle has a skill match up. Not hard to do and makes it more challenging/rewarding for players of all skill types. I am not saying this needs to be done in clan wars, strongholds, or limiting platoons, tournaments, or any battle mode outside of random (maybe will need this in Frontline, but I don't have a strong opinion on that yet). What I advocate will make the percentage chance of winning a random battle approximate 50%. It will greatly reduce the chance of rofl stomps and in no way dumb down the game. If you are a skilled chess player you don't need to be playing nor should you get any enjoyment out of being matched against a neophyte. In actuality skilled players should find my solution more enjoyable and desirable knowing they won't be able to rest on their laurels as soon as the battle loads up.
 

The specific players who will hate my idea are those who judge their success or ability based on their win rate or wr. These unfortunate souls would have to find another meta to boast about that doesn't entail seal clubbing or playing op tanks that naturally give an advantage.

 

Some players DREADFULLY FEAR a FAIR fight.  They're afraid their true skill level might be shown.



ledhed14 #76 Posted May 18 2018 - 16:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 14408 battles
  • 6,517
  • [_SOA_] _SOA_
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

I see this .

" I can't compete because you guys are too good and have crews I " CANT BUY " and have to " WORK FOR ". How am I supposed to get better if I can't compete yet 'cause I am newb and all my premiums only have 100 % crews , NOT FAIR I WANNA SHINEY NOW !!

This is why the US will be at best maybe second rate and very soon . Compare the attitude to Chinese who see " grinding " as a hill they must climb and do it . These see a hill , they complain it is in the way and it should be made lower ....Cause mommy says so .

 

Kiddo in LIFE you will find NOTHING is free and all good things require WORK . If you think I am crazy then you are doomed to fail .



ThePigSheFlies #77 Posted May 18 2018 - 16:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 70533 battles
  • 17,270
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 10:23, said:

 

Some players DREADFULLY FEAR a FAIR fight.  They're afraid their true skill level might be shown.

 

there's no shortage of good players that re-roll on this, or other servers and "start over" and still hit deep purple wn8, respectable dpg's, etc., etc.

 

bad players dreadfully fear that they're just bad if one strips away all of the excuses...



NeatoMan #78 Posted May 18 2018 - 17:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,669
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 10:23, said:

Some players DREADFULLY FEAR a FAIR fight.  They're afraid their true skill level might be shown.

and some players need the game to be really dumbed down in order to succeed



Captain_Rownd #79 Posted May 18 2018 - 23:13

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3050 battles
  • 1,374
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostFrozenKemp, on May 18 2018 - 14:24, said:

 

  But as most of the players here have pointed out, the benefits of highly experienced crews are minor once you get past the first couple of skills.

 

How is having the whole stack of crew skills "minor"?  BIA, 100% camo, 100% repairs, sixth sense, recon, snap shot, off-road driving, situational awareness, etc etc.  How is stacking the whole lot of them "minor" when going up against normal 1 or 2 skill crews?  I believe that you are trying to make light of something that is actually very potent. 

 

 



Kenshin2kx #80 Posted May 22 2018 - 01:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on May 17 2018 - 20:54, said:

 

But driving away new players by having veterans with entrenched advantages is also cutting their throats.  New players quitting because they always face buffed veterans means the game will die.

 

 

... now I am a proponent of creating additional aids to the new player.  I have been there, and for the most part we all got blasted at the beginning ... but the wonderful thing here is that, unlike a real war ... you don't really die from that bullet that struck you between the eyes because you peeked out of the foxhole when the vets told you not to ....

 

So I think its actually a two way street here ... WG should provide more training prep IMHO, but along with this ... the new player should take to heart that old saying ... "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and add ... and what kills you should make you even stronger still.  As I see it, Win/Win ... take each game as entertainment AND valuable experience that you gain  from playing  (the most effective method I know) ...

 

 ... be like the character Steve Rogers and don't give up or give in ... just play on and say to your self ... what can I learn from this Win/Loss?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users