Jump to content


the dreaded "win" requirement...sigh...


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

omi5cron #1 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 12:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 21348 battles
  • 2,401
  • [2323] 2323
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013
i knew it would start at some point,but was hoping for later.before you jump on me and say"thats EASY" let me put this example before you.the other day when you had to be top 10 in experience in 3 or 5 matches, i chose the 5 match nonhistorical route 5 straight losses before a win (top 2) and 4 of those 5 were in top 5-7.if there had been a WIN requirement i would NOT have gotten that days mission. i only had time for a 7th match (win,first place). so that session a WIN requirement would have killed that days mission.yes i know i SHOULD be putting this game before other time sinks,but whatever. i am average,so i lean on other players to help with winning...and in this game,thats dangerous!

GeorgePreddy #2 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 12:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 10,467
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



motoracedave #3 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 12:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18334 battles
  • 937
  • Member since:
    05-21-2013

Just now - 

 

GW Panther. Second in damage. Win. Done. 

 

While eating my Dunkin Donuts breakfast sandwich and a fabulous ice tea. 

 

And now I'm off to a 12 hour day at two different jobs....



Christojojo #4 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:02

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 33411 battles
  • 1,499
  • [CHEAP] CHEAP
  • Member since:
    10-09-2010

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jul 14 2018 - 06:57, said:

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would say many factors effect someones ability to win. Maturity or the lack of is one. With that in mind do you think that the bots/ drunks/ trolls/ farmers will ever care about winning unless they are given something they think is worth any effort? How many kids have been given the option for extra credit to pass a class but didn't think it was worth the effort? Incentives tend ot only work on the motivated. Some people will work over time others will whine every time about even working a full work week.

Christojojo #5 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:04

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 33411 battles
  • 1,499
  • [CHEAP] CHEAP
  • Member since:
    10-09-2010

View Postmotoracedave, on Jul 14 2018 - 06:59, said:

Just now - 

 

GW Panther. Second in damage. Win. Done. 

 

While eating my Dunkin Donuts breakfast sandwich and a fabulous ice tea. 

 

And now I'm off to a 12 hour day at two different jobs....

 

I hope you work both of those jobs simultaneously at two different  locations while eating a donut and drinking coffee or you are an underachiever.



Urabouttudie #6 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21301 battles
  • 1,836
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jul 14 2018 - 03:57, said:

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

 

Are you effing high George?

 

wthgame are you even playing?

 

Don't bother...the less crap spewing from your keyboard the better...



jjjwar #7 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:38

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20218 battles
  • 193
  • Member since:
    12-13-2014
Logged in at 7:22am and one battle lasting less then 10 minutes I was done today's mission. Even if I would have got a bad team I figured maybe 4 or 5 games to get a win. Not really all that hard.

StrachwitzPzGraf #8 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:40

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 38032 battles
  • 510
  • [PSYCO] PSYCO
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
How about the inevitable win and survive?  Just do the math 50% WR * 25% survival = 12.5%chance of doing both... add to that some other one game requirement (like so much damage to specific tank class) and you can play 100s of games without accomplishing the goal.

StrachwitzPzGraf #9 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 13:44

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 38032 battles
  • 510
  • [PSYCO] PSYCO
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015

View Postjjjwar, on Jul 14 2018 - 07:38, said:

Logged in at 7:22am and one battle lasting less then 10 minutes I was done today's mission. Even if I would have got a bad team I figured maybe 4 or 5 games to get a win. Not really all that hard.

 

Yes -- you were lucky -- our poster was unlucky -- but rest assured these Kursk Missions will have us pulling out our hair in frustration long before you get a "free" tank from WG.  My your luck / skill continue!

Edited by StrachwitzPzGraf, Jul 14 2018 - 13:45.


MagillaGuerilla #10 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 14:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25135 battles
  • 3,894
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
You can skip missions. You only need 30 of the 50 to win the tank.

Krautjaeger #11 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 14:22

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1879 battles
  • 381
  • [K00KS] K00KS
  • Member since:
    05-27-2017

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jul 14 2018 - 12:57, said:

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

 

 

Not really, as majority goes. People find a way to play the system always, like finding a tier where they can just yolo out in a tank to randomly ram someone and get a shot off and be likely to be top 7 if the team wins. Mark the latter...if the team wins as they will be long gone and in to a new tank to spam this very procedure until they get the win(s). And they are not just one or two on a team either, and this is not the only approach they may try when battle-button-spamming themselves to victory.

 

In the end, only a small percentage of the player base actually play this game in randoms to actually win as most just want to drive around and shoot stuff and winning is just the cool side-effect that may occur, be it in events or otherwise. Gaming is not like it was, and won't be for a long long time if ever again.



WangOnTheLoose #12 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 14:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26520 battles
  • 2,136
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostStrachwitzPzGraf, on Jul 14 2018 - 07:40, said:

How about the inevitable win and survive?  Just do the math 50% WR * 25% survival = 12.5%chance of doing both... add to that some other one game requirement (like so much damage to specific tank class) and you can play 100s of games without accomplishing the goal.

 

You don't have to survive to get it do you?

HOTA_CHATON #13 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 15:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 12650 battles
  • 13,687
  • [GOLB] GOLB
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jul 14 2018 - 05:57, said:

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.  It forces you to take time, re-evaluate your tactics, and try much harder than you do in pubby matches.

_Katyusha___ #14 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 15:10

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14809 battles
  • 864
  • [KTSHA] KTSHA
  • Member since:
    09-17-2016

IS THAT HARD WINNING?



TLWiz #15 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 15:33

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20850 battles
  • 9,393
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014
Today's win and be in top 7 in dmg dealt took exactly one game in a bottom tier Stug III G.  The Kursk missions are not much harder than logging in - if you show up for 30 out of the 50 days and play maybe 1-3 battles with the historical vehicles you get a free OK tier 5 medium tank. Easy deal.  No complaints from me.

Edited by TLWiz, Jul 14 2018 - 15:37.


SkaerKrow #16 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 15:36

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17307 battles
  • 1,495
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jul 14 2018 - 06:57, said:

Having a win requirement is a good thing, it motivates players to concentrate on winning.

Well, this is the single stupidest thing that I’ll read today. 



Ramsalot #17 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 15:48

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26786 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostSkaerKrow, on Jul 14 2018 - 06:36, said:

Well, this is the single stupidest thing that I’ll read today. 

 

Not really.  Yesterday I had a mission where I had to complete a couple of requirements and win was not one of them.  So I basically willingly lost high tier tank early in the battle, just so I can complete the mission without spending multiple games trying to complete it.  I finished the mission, done deal, but my team did lose the game.

FrontenacDuVandoo #18 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 16:49

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10175 battles
  • 383
  • Member since:
    06-16-2017
Notice how the win mission also only requires one single game to complete the mission, rather than 3 or 5.

Sure it's harder to do when there is a win requirement, but there is less games required to complete the mission. It's almost as if game designers are trying to balance things out.



Mikosah #19 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 16:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,087
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostKrautjaeger, on Jul 14 2018 - 07:22, said:

 

Not really, as majority goes. People find a way to play the system always, like finding a tier where they can just yolo out in a tank to randomly ram someone and get a shot off and be likely to be top 7 if the team wins. Mark the latter...if the team wins as they will be long gone and in to a new tank to spam this very procedure until they get the win(s). And they are not just one or two on a team either, and this is not the only approach they may try when battle-button-spamming themselves to victory.

 

In the end, only a small percentage of the player base actually play this game in randoms to actually win as most just want to drive around and shoot stuff and winning is just the cool side-effect that may occur, be it in events or otherwise. Gaming is not like it was, and won't be for a long long time if ever again.

 

Agreed. I don't think there's anyone who genuinely doesn't care about winning, just some that are so frustrated by the combination of factors in play that they've learned that you can't rely on WR to justify a given play session. If the whole point of a session is to finish this one mission that depends on a win, then it is entirely possible that in spite of all the best intentions a win just doesn't happen. And if so, then the whole session becomes an aggravating waste of time and effort. That being the case, team-placement via base exp earned is the far better requirement for missions like these.

 

As of encouraging the players to be more active and involved, the irony is that the best way to do this may in fact be to encourage players to simply deal damage. Before the chorus of autistic screeching kicks up about how much that would make players redline snipe, just remember that in most cases sheer damage is in fact the most valuable thing any teammate could contribute towards the win. Better to have that than to yolo-suicide accomplish absolutely nothing.



Hurk #20 Posted Jul 14 2018 - 17:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 53069 battles
  • 17,373
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

win requirements are just stupid. 

ended up taking me 7 matches, because the one after this, i was derped by an OI as soon as engagement started. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users