61 replies to this topic

[kubawt112]

Cuck0osNest, on 12 December 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

Why you evade my ignore list and still stalk my topics with your nonsense?

​

 

Dear Cuck,

 

One might say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle - or a case of a rambling madman with a lack of reading comprehension.

 

To us casual, non-biased, observers it looks like your idea has merit, but is hard to implement properly. I doubt you have any good solution to how this would actually work in the game, and doubt you'd be willing to listen to reason - which is not exactly a new thing. That is except the sole community-sourced improvement made to RushRating™/Raubtier Rating™/Righteousness Rating™ (or whatever you call it right now) - removal of the 'Kamikaze' medal from the calculations. That was a rare display of maturity.

 

(No, it's not off-topic to tell OP that he needs to propose a sensible solution/implementation, or even type up his posts to make them at least somewhat comprehensible.)

[WindSpIitter1]

Cuck0osNest, on 12 December 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

Why you evade my ignore list and still stalk my topics with your nonsense?

​

 

Why are you even using the ignore list? Seems like you're afraid of opinions other than your own. Doubt you're lazy, seeing how much work you've put into your RushRating (the system, that is, not the padding).

 

Anyway, I honestly think your observations are correct, but that it's hard to give any particular assistance bonus. It makes more sense to incentivize teamplay and winning. If you have everything to gain by winning, and nothing to lose by taking damage, you're effectively rewarding people that take damage. Of course, that's besides the very fact that the game already rewards you for being in the combat zones. Just remember how ranked battle results tend to look - the top players are "always" the heavies mass-brawling on a corner.

[Simeon85]

WOWs has a service cost, not a repair cost, you pay it regardless of whether you died in game or survived on full HP, but I doubt it has done little to make players camp and play less passively. Players are just passive by nature and many just often fighting, you see so many 'I am a TD, I must camp' players who are full HP end game, still shouting at their low HP team mates to spot for them. 

 

So doubt you'll change anything.

 

Personally I would just make sure active play is rewarded and camping is not, map control contesting is rewarded and staying at the back is not, which means removing lots of far too strong base camping spots, they should basically clear all the bushes, rocks, little holes at the back of the map so it's more bare and anyone camping there gets easily spotted and dies. 

[Cuck0osNest]

kubawt112, on 12 December 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

 

Dear Cuck,

 

One might say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle - or a case of a rambling madman with a lack of reading comprehension.

 

To us casual, non-biased, observers it looks like your idea has merit, but is hard to implement properly. I doubt you have any good solution to how this would actually work in the game, and doubt you'd be willing to listen to reason - which is not exactly a new thing. That is except the sole community-sourced improvement made to RushRating™/Raubtier Rating™/Righteousness Rating™ (or whatever you call it right now) - removal of the 'Kamikaze' medal from the calculations. That was a rare display of maturity.

 

(No, it's not off-topic to tell OP that he needs to propose a sensible solution/implementation, or even type up his posts to make them at least somewhat comprehensible.)

Why you hate dynamic skills in WOT, enemy targets wont drive under your gun that way? There is a special topic for RR where you can dare to criticize it.

​

Edited by Cuck0osNest, 12 December 2018 - 12:31 PM.

[ObusMagic]

There already is an exp bonus for close quaters fighting. Everybody was outraged tanks like is7 got too much exp in ranked

[Shacou]

 

Simeon85, on 12 December 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

WOWs has a service cost, not a repair cost, you pay it regardless of whether you died in game or survived on full HP, but I doubt it has done little to make players camp and play less passively. Players are just passive by nature and many just often fighting, you see so many 'I am a TD, I must camp' players who are full HP end game, still shouting at their low HP team mates to spot for them. 

 

So doubt you'll change anything.

 

Personally I would just make sure active play is rewarded and camping is not, map control contesting is rewarded and staying at the back is not, which means removing lots of far too strong base camping spots, they should basically clear all the bushes, rocks, little holes at the back of the map so it's more bare and anyone camping there gets easily spotted and dies. 

Some campers ask for spotting and then fail to land shots properly, but then there's also RNG at work, I cannot be mad at them, I just wish people were more patient when it comes to cammo/viewrange gameplay mechanics.

Regarding the repair costs, they're made with a purpose that F2P players need to continue on playing lower tiers in order to support their high tier vehicles. As a new player you'll be fine financially until you hit a ceiling with mission difficulties, etc.

Edited by Shacou, 12 December 2018 - 12:38 PM.

[mpf1959]

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

WindSpIitter1, on 12 December 2018 - 02:25 AM, said:

For once I think Cuck here has made a good point.

 

Am I correct to assume that you propose an 'enter battle fee' rather than paying for the actual repair? That could actually work. Add on some 'dynamic pricing' to simulate supply and demand and to make the overpowered tanks properly 'pay2win'.

Like in World of Warships?

Because there they realised that people playing certain classes just ended up sitting at the redline to snipe all battle in order to have lower repair costs?

And that it failed to solve that problem either.

 

But needlessly throwing away your own hitpoints to protect a most likely poor player?

Sorry, but that is just silly and will in no way be repayed.

Neither by your own contribution to the battle, nor by their's.

If a tomato takes a hit for me so I can hammer the aggressor, then I will gladly let them take that hit even if it kills them.

Why? Because I don't gain anything from taking that hit, and by not taking it I can at the very least gain some hard cover.

Shacou

 Some campers ask for spotting and then fail to land shots properly, but then there's also RNG at work, I cannot be mad at them, I just wish people were more patient when it comes to cammo/viewrange gameplay mechanics.

 And then people get angry at me if I ask a leFH to go scout in the end-game because they're full health and got 390m base viewrange at tier 5.

Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 12 December 2018 - 01:25 PM.

[Cuck0osNest]

No, i am talking about bonus after useful damage taken. No one cares about your ships, poor players and fees here. 

[Baldrickk]

Cuck0osNest, on 12 December 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

No, i am talking about bonus after useful damage taken. No one cares about your ships, poor players and fees here. 

So you rush in, take a hit and kill the low hp enemy.

 

Good job.

 

 

But why should you be rewarded more than the guy who takes a little longer and does it sustaining no damage?

[unhappy_bunny]

I thought it was  a case of putting your tank (presumably with high HP left) in the line of fire to save an ally who is on low HP, meaning you have 2 guns available against the single enemy. 

This is something that many clans do (or used to do) in SH battles. A bit like with capping, the last one into the circle (having less cap points) would act as cover for his mates and be the one to take the first hit, resulting in those with more points keeping them and increasing the chance of a successful cap.

If this is what Cuck0o is suggesting, then I can understand it, and support it. What is difficult, is to see just how WG can assign XP or Credits, or even waive the repairs, or maybe introduce a new medal. I know they can attribute assist dmg for tracking an enemy and such like, but for taking hit, the system would need to know the shot was aimed at Player A, how much dmg it would have done if it hit, and know that Player B deliberately took the hit. Also, would such a system be open to abuse by players, especially in platoons?

How it could distinguish between a deliberate act of sacrifice and an accidental hit I am not sure. It might be possible, but I would imagine the design and programming of such a system would be extremely difficult. 

[Cuck0osNest]

*edited*  

Simple credit bonus after playing a role of taking hit for any type of tank even for arty which cant be applied by spot mechanics rules but by simple logic of useful damage taking role.

 

Edited by Jahpero, 13 December 2018 - 10:28 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.

[Baldrickk]

Cuck0osNest, on 12 December 2018 - 08:40 PM, said:

*edited*
Simple credit bonus after playing a role of taking hit for any type of tank even for arty which cant be applied by spot mechanics rules but by simple logic of useful damage taking role.

Its a public forum, anyone can see the thread, come in here and post.

 

As for your "simple bonus" - how about you answer my simple question on why someone playing worse should get more xp, in a situation exactly as you describe above:

Cuck0osNest, on 12 December 2018 - 08:40 PM, said:

Simple credit bonus after playing a role of taking hit

Baldrickk, on 12 December 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

So you rush in, take a hit and kill the low hp enemy.

Good job.

But why should you be rewarded more than the guy who takes a little longer and does it sustaining no damage?

 

[Jahpero]

Hello everyone,

Thank you in advance to avoid conflicts.

 

Have a good day ! 
Jahpero

[Cuck0osNest]

Baldrickk, on 12 December 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

 

 

As for your "simple bonus" - how about you answer my simple question on why someone playing worse should get more xp, in a situation exactly as you describe above:

 

"someone who plays worser", "getting more exp then some another player" - i am just facepalming

I better conversate with a white wall, that will be more productive  . Sorry, i really tried to be respectful.

"Who is better - he is  worser ",  i  can  brake  my brain while conversating with these too. Please, someone save me!

​

Edited by Cuck0osNest, 13 December 2018 - 05:50 PM.

[unhappy_bunny]

agreed

 

Edited by unhappy_bunny, 13 December 2018 - 04:01 PM.

[Baldrickk]

Cuck0osNest, on 13 December 2018 - 02:51 PM, said:

"someone who plays worser", "getting more exp then some another player" - i am just facepalming

I better conversate with a white wall, that will be more productive  . Sorry, i really tried to be respectful.

​

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your desired feature is that:

• You want an XP bonus 
• This is awarded when damage is taken "while being useful"
  • From the content of the thread so far, this seems to boil down to :
  • Taking a shot that could have been fired at another ally (couldn't they all?)
  • Taking a shot while damaging / killing opponents 

 

My question centred around the last point above - 

If I have the option of

1. Rushing in, taking damage and killing a tank
2. Flanking, using cover etc to move in and kill a tank

Then given that option 2 requires more skill/effort etc, for what reason should the game award a higher XP reward to a player using option 1 over option 2?

[Cuck0osNest]

Examples of getting any bonus for taking damage:

1) when your arty aggressor getting destroyed by your allies after that

2) when maneuverable tank steals all damage from your target after that

3) ...

Just fair compensating for useful actions, roles and proper economy logic for better game language understanding by new players which is lacking in game atm. 

Edited by Cuck0osNest, 14 December 2018 - 04:24 PM.

[unhappy_bunny]

Cuck0osNest, on 14 December 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Examples of getting any bonus for taking damage:

1) when your arty aggressor getting destroyed by your allies after that

2) when maneuverable tank steals all damage from your target after that

3) ...

Just fair compensating for useful actions, roles and proper economy logic for better game language understanding by new players which is lacking in game atm. 

 

So in example 1, do you mean that if you have taken a hit from arty, and an ally then kills that arty, you should get some bonus, xp or credits?

And in example 2, if you get hit by an enemy tank, and one of you allies nips around and kills it, then you should get some bonus, again either xp and/or credits?

 

I have to ask because they way you word things, it is hard to understand your meaning. That is not a personal criticism but merely an observation as I appreciate that English is not you native language.

Edited by unhappy_bunny, 14 December 2018 - 05:07 PM.

[SandDanAdua]

I get what you're saying but there's a reason why HT's have almost double the HP of LT's.

That's their resource. You can use it in favorable trades to win the game and get more credits this way.

The only thing i can see partially working is awarding more xp for damage blocked, but this will never gonna happen due to ability to exploit it very easily.

Also it would be unfair to all the other classes.