Jump to content


Why adding win condition to most requirements is detrimental to long term retention of players


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

Velic_Steel #1 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:14 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4694 battles
  • 10
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

So a common trend with Wargaming lately has been attaching a win condition to a lot of the different missions.

 

I propose that this trend has a greater chance of causing a loss of the player base.  Let me explain.

 

An average player is going to have a 48% win rate (48% wins, 48% losses, 4% draws)

Now a great player might have 64% win rate. This does not equate into another person having a 32% win rate.  It is more likely that 16 people have a 47% win rate to keep the average at 48%.

 

What this means is there are more people with lower than 48% win rate than there are people with higher than 48% win rates.

Now lets apply this to the win condition to mission requirements.  Example this weekend's X2 Crew xp mission.  Players must be on the winning team and be in the top 10 to get X2 crew xp.  We know that the top ten requirement is there to keep bots from being rewarded, but the win condition means only 1/3 of the people per game receive the X2.

 

I know a lot of you will say, "Hey, why reward bad players for losing".  Well the key thing to keep in mind is why people play games in the first place.  I would say the top 2 reasons are people play a game because they enjoy it and/or because they like a competitive game.  These two are not mutually exclusive, despite what some vocal people might say.  World of Tanks runs on a Free to Play model.  The game uses lots of micro rewards to keep players feeling a constant satisfaction.  "Hey you receive these consumables / personal rewards / crew xp / etc"  

 

Now change the rules and start introducing a win condition to these micro rewards.  The majority of your player base has below 48% win rate.  They begin to get less and less of these rewards.  Also, agitation and frustration can arise from a desire to fulfill these missions, but being unable to do so.  You now begin a cycle of less reward center in the brain with added frustration.  At some point the reasons the player plays the game will not be enough, and they move to another game that can fulfill those needs.



Snake_Keeper #2 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8588 battles
  • 701
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
Tbh, it is not just the less than 50% winners that suffer from "Win" and "Be top 10 exp earned" conditions. Cause during these events, gameplay is just brain melting. Usually when I bother to play for these events I myself have something like 40% to 45% winrate cause how easily teams just melt.

Element6_TheSprout #3 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29043 battles
  • 10,379
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
I wonder how many players in the playerbase do like me and ignore 99% of missions and notice them only when I complete something and get some free stuff. 

DracheimFlug #4 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 02 March 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

I wonder how many players in the playerbase do like me and ignore 99% of missions and notice them only when I complete something and get some free stuff. 

 

I am curious which 1% you do not ignore :)



AliceUnchained #5 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:32 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38173 battles
  • 8,820
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Remove the condition and players will ignore any attempt at winning the game, and focus purely on getting the requirements. I strongly doubt the win condition is detrimental, and you've provided no valid or well thought out arguments as to why it would be, and thus change my mind.

 

In the end, persistence pays off; play long enough, and you will succeed with these missions. I've seen plenty of lower win rate players with the T-55A and Obj. 260 so obviously the missions are doable for that range of players.

 



Vajsravana #6 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32827 battles
  • 894
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

View PostAliceUnchained, on 02 March 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Remove the condition and players will ignore any attempt at winning the game, and focus purely on getting the requirements. 

 

This. It's already happening too much... no need to encourage this kind of behaviour even more.

 

Frankly, I'd add a winning condition to every mission, bonus or special.



AliceUnchained #7 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38173 battles
  • 8,820
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostVajsravana, on 02 March 2018 - 06:37 PM, said:

This. It's already happening too much... no need to encourage this kind of behaviour even more.

 

Frankly, I'd add a winning condition to every mission, bonus or special.

 

Personally I dislike the 'destroy n number of vehicles from class X' far more, as you can 'fail' these even before the game has gotten under way simple because opposing teams lacks the numbers of class X. The spot and damage 3 SPG's was the worst, as basically every game had max. 2 on the other team. Such fun...



Balc0ra #8 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64454 battles
  • 15,471
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostVelic_Steel, on 02 March 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

So a common trend with Wargaming lately has been attaching a win condition to a lot of the different missions.

 

I propose that this trend has a greater chance of causing a loss of the player base.  Let me explain.

 

An average player is going to have a 48% win rate (48% wins, 48% losses, 4% draws)

Now a great player might have 64% win rate. This does not equate into another person having a 32% win rate.  It is more likely that 16 people have a 47% win rate to keep the average at 48%.

 

I would disagree. Here is why. If it counted on a win or a loss. It goes the other way more so then not. Then ppl will yolo harder just to get it done faster. Thus more stupidity will ensue then on a win. As we have seen before. Like a simple mission to get 3 spots in a game etc. Everyone will yolo, because you don't have to win for it to count. And you don't want to make it to easy or forgiving either. As indicated by the T-34-85M marathon that even afk bots got, and that rewarded stupid play. As none of those did count on a win or top 10 etc.

 

A 48% player still will win often enough to get them done if it's on win alone. Sure you have your bad streaks. But even a broken clock is right twice a day to get them going.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #9 Posted 02 March 2018 - 07:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27605 battles
  • 1,982
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
This sounds a lot like the "Deep down we're ALL winners really" mentality at play. Why reward mediocrity? When did it become a bad thing to encourage players to strive to be better?

Element6_TheSprout #10 Posted 02 March 2018 - 07:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29043 battles
  • 10,379
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostDracheimFlug, on 02 March 2018 - 06:30 PM, said:

 

I am curious which 1% you do not ignore :)

For the most part it's Campaign missions for the reward tanks when I get to 13-15 in each class. Did LT-14-3 the other day, so now I am actively trying for LT-15-3. When I complete that I will probably go back to ignoring them until I reach 13 in some other set. All other weekly missions etc. that come and go I don't even look at, I just upen the missions tab to get rid of the red number indicating that there are something to do.

 

1% was just a figure of speech btw, I have no idea, I probably ignore more than 99% in reality.



Pvt_Duffer #11 Posted 02 March 2018 - 07:54 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 16653 battles
  • 3,144
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Ermm, isn't this just moaning that the 48% has to play like 15 battles to the 65%'s 10 to get the same result?

(I can't math, but the principles right)

Or put another way," why do I have to do missions, why don't you just give me the free stuffz?"

 

 



unhappy_bunny #12 Posted 03 March 2018 - 01:33 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17926 battles
  • 2,471
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostVelic_Steel, on 02 March 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

So a common trend with Wargaming lately has been attaching a win condition to a lot of the different missions.

 

I propose that this trend has a greater chance of causing a loss of the player base.  Let me explain.

 

An average player is going to have a 48% win rate (48% wins, 48% losses, 4% draws)

Now a great player might have 64% win rate. This does not equate into another person having a 32% win rate.  It is more likely that 16 people have a 47% win rate to keep the average at 48%.

 

What this means is there are more people with lower than 48% win rate than there are people with higher than 48% win rates.

Now lets apply this to the win condition to mission requirements.  Example this weekend's X2 Crew xp mission.  Players must be on the winning team and be in the top 10 to get X2 crew xp.  We know that the top ten requirement is there to keep bots from being rewarded, but the win condition means only 1/3 of the people per game receive the X2.

 

I know a lot of you will say, "Hey, why reward bad players for losing".  Well the key thing to keep in mind is why people play games in the first place.  I would say the top 2 reasons are people play a game because they enjoy it and/or because they like a competitive game.  These two are not mutually exclusive, despite what some vocal people might say.  World of Tanks runs on a Free to Play model.  The game uses lots of micro rewards to keep players feeling a constant satisfaction.  "Hey you receive these consumables / personal rewards / crew xp / etc"  

 

Now change the rules and start introducing a win condition to these micro rewards.  The majority of your player base has below 48% win rate.  They begin to get less and less of these rewards.  Also, agitation and frustration can arise from a desire to fulfill these missions, but being unable to do so.  You now begin a cycle of less reward center in the brain with added frustration.  At some point the reasons the player plays the game will not be enough, and they move to another game that can fulfill those needs.

 

Surely the limiting factor is being in the Top Ten. That rewards only 1/3rd of the players in that battle, and 2/3rds of the winning team. 

This should encourage the remaining 1/3rd to play better in their next battles.

The other 50% of the players in the battle were on the losing team, therefore they get nothing, other than the incentive to win the next battle. 

Personally, as a 49% player, I cant see what the problem is. Should the game be reduced to "Political Correctness" and reward everyone? There have been some missions where the player does get a reward just for playing a battle, regardless of the battle result. There are missions that reward accumulative damage, regardless of win or lose. So why not have a mission rewarding the top ten winners?

If players are driven away by such petty things, maybe they arent the right players for this in the first place. 



Simeon85 #13 Posted 03 March 2018 - 01:37 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,321
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Seriously people are complaining about having to win now? The game is already dumbed down enough, rewarding bot like play, base campers, idiot proof heavy tanks, maps that take away all requirements of decision making, point and click baby level artillery play, you now want to remove win conditions for missions.

 

I really wonder why these players even bother to play a competitive multiplayer game, seems to me most of them would be better off playing single player games where they can just make it easier for themselves. 



Dhope #14 Posted 03 March 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18974 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    02-14-2016

View PostVelic_Steel, on 02 March 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

So a common trend with Wargaming lately has been attaching a win condition to a lot of the different missions.

 

I propose that this trend has a greater chance of causing a loss of the player base.  Let me explain.

 

An average player is going to have a 48% win rate (48% wins, 48% losses, 4% draws)

Now a great player might have 64% win rate. This does not equate into another person having a 32% win rate.  It is more likely that 16 people have a 47% win rate to keep the average at 48%.

 

What this means is there are more people with lower than 48% win rate than there are people with higher than 48% win rates.

Now lets apply this to the win condition to mission requirements.  Example this weekend's X2 Crew xp mission.  Players must be on the winning team and be in the top 10 to get X2 crew xp.  We know that the top ten requirement is there to keep bots from being rewarded, but the win condition means only 1/3 of the people per game receive the X2.

 

I know a lot of you will say, "Hey, why reward bad players for losing".  Well the key thing to keep in mind is why people play games in the first place.  I would say the top 2 reasons are people play a game because they enjoy it and/or because they like a competitive game.  These two are not mutually exclusive, despite what some vocal people might say.  World of Tanks runs on a Free to Play model.  The game uses lots of micro rewards to keep players feeling a constant satisfaction.  "Hey you receive these consumables / personal rewards / crew xp / etc"  

 

Now change the rules and start introducing a win condition to these micro rewards.  The majority of your player base has below 48% win rate.  They begin to get less and less of these rewards.  Also, agitation and frustration can arise from a desire to fulfill these missions, but being unable to do so.  You now begin a cycle of less reward center in the brain with added frustration.  At some point the reasons the player plays the game will not be enough, and they move to another game that can fulfill those needs.

 

Like this post. and something to add. since last upgrade 9.1 I think, my average win rate as green team has dropped to less than 10%.  how can this happen. I am an average player, do okay, 48% win rate, kill tanks, etc.  Now my average win rate is dependant on all my green teams skills and performance.... so how come, and I havebeen counting, has green team wins dropped to 2 out of every 10 battles faught.  This means I find it hard to win prizes, seldon qualify in top 10 qualifier, and with a win attached, I have do 40-50 battles to reach x 5, x 10, for tokens etc.  is it just me or do other team green players have same issue???? thanks first time forum post.

Enforcer1975 #15 Posted 03 March 2018 - 03:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20725 battles
  • 10,585
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostVelic_Steel, on 02 March 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

*snip*

 

Winning is the goal of the game, no matter ir you play "for fun" or not. If they can't win on their own or carry their weight to get into the top 10 they don't deserve a reward. Playing good should not be punished by giving those who played bad a reward too. I would welcome a top 5 player bonus instead of a top 10 for the winning team or at least give the top 5 something on top for the effort but i doubt WG will do that since they cater to bad players. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users