Jump to content


death is not consequent enough


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

HassenderZerhacker #1 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:02 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

all multiplayer shooter games have the same problem.

IRL, priority number one for soldiers is to remain alive.

Yet in games death has little consequence, so as to make the game fun for the dimwitted, so they can "shoot a lot".

Yoloing and taking unrealistic risks (I mean risks that nobody would take in real life) spoils a lot of the game's tactical depth.

 

While sacrifices are often necessary, retarded shoot fests get rewarded the same, as well as players who take big risks that pay off and they make big damage but die in the process.

 

I would like to see more rewards for top-performers that stay alive a long time and reduced amounts of XP for players who die quickly. Maybe ranging from -50% to +50% pro rata temporis.



Homer_J #2 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

If anything it has more consequence in WoT than most games because once you die your influence on that battle is at best reduced to advising other players.

 

If they had limited respawns then dying early on wouldn't matter so much.  It's one of the good changes they made to WoWP.



Balc0ra #3 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:17 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67397 battles
  • 17,118
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
So... rewarding red line campers that let their team die, and punishing the poor sods that did try to get intel for the campers? Yeah I can see that working.

OneSock #4 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35858 battles
  • 1,714
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

hmmm I don't know... a tactical yolo can turn a battle. it's situational of course but sometimes you need to break a stalemate.

 

I often see games lost because players are too precious over their XP.


Sometimes you have to burn XP to gain a tactical advantage, reset a base cap, etc. 



HM_Kaiser #5 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26951 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    08-11-2014
Some players just don't care. They start game, just drive the tank and try to shoot, losing or dying is not important for them. That will never change unless they introduce a ladder or some sort of competitive mode.

HassenderZerhacker #6 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:25 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostBalc0ra, on 12 December 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So... rewarding red line campers that let their team die, and punishing the poor sods that did try to get intel for the campers? Yeah I can see that working.

 

wrong.

it would work as a multiplier, not earn XP by itself.

 

View PostOneSock, on 12 December 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

hmmm I don't know... a tactical yolo can turn a battle. it's situational of course but sometimes you need to break a stalemate.

 

I often see games lost because players are too precious over their XP.


Sometimes you have to burn XP to gain a tactical advantage, reset a base cap, etc. 

 

agree... but turn a battle with tactical yolo would mean that the yolo is done toward middle or end of the battle, not at the start, right ?
 

magkiln #7 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24856 battles
  • 753
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

And what about the poor sod that drives his tank into the cap, knowing he cannot survive, to buy his team a few more seconds to get there and stop the enemy from capping? Or a scout who is simply doing his job and just got unlucky and runs into a hidden TD. While rewarding cautious play is not a bad idea, there is simply no way to distinguish between a player that threw his tank away or one who made a necessary sacrifice. Just as there is no way to distinguish automatically between a camper and a cautious sniper.

 

As for the whole 'risks that noone would take in real life', a realistic 1940-1950 tank battle would involve hours of sitting still in a bush, waiting for the enemy to make a mistake. The first penetrating hit usually ended the battle. That might be an interesting game for hard-core fans of historically accurate simulations, but it would not work for a general audience.

JocMeister #8 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:30 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23935 battles
  • 2,185
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

all multiplayer shooter games have the same problem.

IRL, priority number one for soldiers is to remain alive.

Yet in games death has little consequence, so as to make the game fun for the dimwitted, so they can "shoot a lot".

Yoloing and taking unrealistic risks (I mean risks that nobody would take in real life) spoils a lot of the game's tactical depth.

 

While sacrifices are often necessary, retarded shoot fests get rewarded the same, as well as players who take big risks that pay off and they make big damage but die in the process.

 

I would like to see more rewards for top-performers that stay alive a long time and reduced amounts of XP for players who die quickly. Maybe ranging from -50% to +50% pro rata temporis.

 

So you want to tailor the system to your "redline snipe in my HT" way of the playing the game? So we get even more idiotic stuff like that?

 

Sounds like a good idea...:bajan:



NUKLEAR_SLUG #9 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 30542 battles
  • 2,563
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
If there is a bonus for survival no-one will move.

HassenderZerhacker #10 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostJocMeister, on 12 December 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

 

So you want to tailor the system to your "redline snipe in my HT" way of the playing the game? So we get even more idiotic stuff like that?

 

Sounds like a good idea...:bajan:

 

refer to post #6:

http://forum.worldof...2#entry15126752

 

read the thread before posting your usual nonsense. thanks.



anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #11 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:50 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

 

agree... but turn a battle with tactical yolo would mean that the yolo is done toward middle or end of the battle, not at the start, right ?

 

"Intell on enemy distribution (across the map) is not valuable info at all..."

 

My guess is that it is not always a "yolo move", but a high risk move instead.

 

And yes, sometimes you need to break stuff to get a victory.

Let's name some situations:

 

Enemy has a spotter in location XYZ on Map 123, which can't be taken under fire. (Malinovka, D6 or K3 locations.... you know the locations where you can't get at the enemy, but the enemy is spotting half your team into a corner).

 

An enemy group in a tough location is forcing a big group of your team to stay hidden. LT rushes into their mids and attracts their fire. Friendlies get "free shots" while the enemies are focussed on the LT.

But tactical numpties don't understand how this works (free shots when the enemy is busy shooting an LT in close proximity)



AliceUnchained #12 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:52 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

I would like to see more rewards for top-performers that stay alive a long time and reduced amounts of XP for players who die quickly. Maybe ranging from -50% to +50% pro rata temporis.

 

So what would happen with those players staying alive most of the game, as they're hugging the red line, and then get destroyed near the end having done very little? You know, players with... let's say ~26,90% survival rate whom suffer more damage than they inflict on average?



JocMeister #13 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:54 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23935 battles
  • 2,185
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

 

refer to post #6:

http://forum.worldof...2#entry15126752

 

read the thread before posting your usual nonsense. thanks.

 

How about you edit your first post once your brain catch up with your fingers? And I find it pretty hilarious you call my posting "nonsense" after all the crap you have been spewing on this forum over the last year. Not to mention this thread...

 

PS. If you had bothered to do some research there is already a function like that built into the XP system. 


Edited by JocMeister, 12 December 2017 - 10:58 AM.


hson_hson #14 Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:58 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6487 battles
  • 154
  • Member since:
    08-19-2014

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

 

refer to post #6:

http://forum.worldof...2#entry15126752

 

read the thread before posting your usual nonsense. thanks.

 

Doesn't matter if it's a multiplier or not, a redline sniping (i.e not spotting your own targets) camper who get low base xp and then with a multiplier for surviving get more than someone who was actively at the frontline but died will just encourage people to camp even more...



Eaglax #15 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:10 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19133 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

all multiplayer shooter games have the same problem.

IRL, priority number one for soldiers is to remain alive.

Yet in games death has little consequence, so as to make the game fun for the dimwitted, so they can "shoot a lot".

Yoloing and taking unrealistic risks (I mean risks that nobody would take in real life) spoils a lot of the game's tactical depth.

 

While sacrifices are often necessary, retarded shoot fests get rewarded the same, as well as players who take big risks that pay off and they make big damage but die in the process.

 

I would like to see more rewards for top-performers that stay alive a long time and reduced amounts of XP for players who die quickly. Maybe ranging from -50% to +50% pro rata temporis.

 

what a BS...

Unlike most other "shooter games", you only have 1 (ONE) life in WOT, if you die you are done, and the battle is over for you. Don't know how someone considers that not a punishment and not consequent enough.

And WOT is an acarde game, don't start the "mimi but in real life mimi"..

If you want to punish people who die early on with -50% XP (:facepalm:) the game will turn in a pure camp fest, don't know how that is any fun


Edited by Eaglax, 12 December 2017 - 11:13 AM.


Jigabachi #16 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 19,594
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
And I would like if you would finally stop spamming nonsensical threads every single day.
Instead, do us all a favor and actually THINK about your random brainfarts before posting. Take a piece of paper, elaborate your idea and note pros, cons and possible problems. Then, ideally a week later, start the thread - or don't.

OneSock #17 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:17 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35858 battles
  • 1,714
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 December 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

 

agree... but turn a battle with tactical yolo would mean that the yolo is done toward middle or end of the battle, not at the start, right ?

 

yeah totally depends on the circumstance.

 

breaking a stalemate was just an example.


There's also high risk spotting points etc for LTs and high risk/high reward positions for MTs.

 

And as others pointed out. what about the red line campers who litereally do nothing of use and go down in a blaze of glory. we can't reward them just for being the last alive.



HassenderZerhacker #18 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:21 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostEaglax, on 12 December 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

 

what a BS...

Unlike most other "shooter games", you only have 1 (ONE) life in WOT, if you die you are done, and the battle is over for you. Don't know how someone considers that not a punishment and not consequent enough.

And WOT is an acarde game, don't start the "mimi but in real life mimi"..

If you want to punish people who die early on with -50% XP (:facepalm:) the game will turn in a pure camp fest, don't know how that is any fun

 

err... you have one ONE life per battle... and battles are pretty inconsequential.

then people respawn in another battle.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 12 December 2017 - 11:51 AM.


HassenderZerhacker #19 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:23 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostJigabachi, on 12 December 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

And I would like if you would finally stop spamming nonsensical threads every single day.
Instead, do us all a favor and actually THINK about your random brainfarts before posting. Take a piece of paper, elaborate your idea and note pros, cons and possible problems. Then, ideally a week later, start the thread - or don't.

 

you can wish for many things I don't give a flying fart - go back under your stone. This is a FORUM not the strategic steering committee for division heads... and if you imagine I would want to take the time to carefully prepare posts that will then be answered by the usual forum dimwits and keyboard warriors, you are mistaken.

Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 12 December 2017 - 11:24 AM.


HassenderZerhacker #20 Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:25 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27836 battles
  • 2,476
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015
come on guys, the idea is simply that some players just don't care about what they are doing, and they get rewarded for it while potentially ruining your battle.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users