Jump to content


WG, please adapt mission requirements


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

HassenderZerhacker #1 Posted 14 December 2019 - 09:24 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

WG, please do everyone a favor and in all missions, marathons, campaigns, WHATEVER  requiring a WIN, please add "or be within the 5 best players by experience".

You will lose less players that way, inspite of disgusting teams.



Xandania #2 Posted 14 December 2019 - 09:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44420 battles
  • 1,797
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013
Also enable support damage for arties even if the one hit removed the stun with a medkit - it makes arty mission requireing targets getting hit when stunned much more relaxing and not so horribly hard to do - currently I'd call those missions the hardest ones overall...

UrQuan #3 Posted 14 December 2019 - 09:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22203 battles
  • 7,496
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

No.

 

Okay you can get crap teams & nothing can help that, that's a shame. And we all get the crappy days where wins are few & hard fought. But to reward losing? No thanks. Ranked battles showed me that it is not the way to go & leads to way too much passive play.

 

 



NekoPuffer_PPP #4 Posted 14 December 2019 - 09:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 35376 battles
  • 4,337
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostUrQuan, on 14 December 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

No.

 

Okay you can get crap teams & nothing can help that, that's a shame. And we all get the crappy days where wins are few & hard fought. But to reward losing? No thanks. Ranked battles showed me that it is not the way to go & leads to way too much passive play.

 

No to rewarding losing while in the top 5 by xp on the losing team?

 

Why? Is it the top 5 players' fault the rest of the team did zero damage?

 



NUKLEAR_SLUG #5 Posted 14 December 2019 - 09:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35261 battles
  • 5,195
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 14 December 2019 - 09:34 PM, said:

 

No to rewarding losing while in the top 5 by xp on the losing team?

 

Why? Is it the top 5 players' fault the rest of the team did zero damage?

 

Because as Urquan correctly pointed out, any time you give a 'best loser' reward it only serves to promote the worst kind of team play. Ranked being the prime example. 



HassenderZerhacker #6 Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:05 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostUrQuan, on 14 December 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

No.

 

Okay you can get crap teams & nothing can help that, that's a shame. And we all get the crappy days where wins are few & hard fought. But to reward losing? No thanks. Ranked battles showed me that it is not the way to go & leads to way too much passive play.

 

the alternative is losing players.

I am fed up with bad teams and being unable to timely fulfill missions because of them. we have lives with something else to do than to wait sometimes for decent matchmaking for several hours. I think the same already led to many players uninstalling and will cause many more in the future to do the same.

 

the passive play you are afraid of - I see it on ASIA server. it happens relatively often that the enemy unicums will sit in bushes around the base. usually I lose such battles despite doing quite well. when this (or other MM shananigans) happens 4 or 5 times in a row as it often does, I'm very close to uninstalling and deleting my account.

 

considering the terrible matchmaking, winning should not be a mission  requirement ever.



1ucky #7 Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:08 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 89433 battles
  • 1,658
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 14 December 2019 - 09:34 PM, said:

 

No to rewarding losing while in the top 5 by xp on the losing team?

 

Why? Is it the top 5 players' fault the rest of the team did zero damage?

 

Sometimes yes.

It's a team effort.



SamuraiShakaViking #8 Posted 15 December 2019 - 06:44 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11975 battles
  • 138
  • [777PC] 777PC
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016
agreed

win or lose depends on 29 other  variables , at least...

Lopsided roflstomps over in four min, make many missions impossible.



UrQuan #9 Posted 15 December 2019 - 06:48 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22203 battles
  • 7,496
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 15 December 2019 - 05:05 AM, said:

 

the alternative is losing players.

I am fed up with bad teams and being unable to timely fulfill missions because of them. we have lives with something else to do than to wait sometimes for decent matchmaking for several hours. I think the same already led to many players uninstalling and will cause many more in the future to do the same.

 

the passive play you are afraid of - I see it on ASIA server. it happens relatively often that the enemy unicums will sit in bushes around the base. usually I lose such battles despite doing quite well. when this (or other MM shananigans) happens 4 or 5 times in a row as it often does, I'm very close to uninstalling and deleting my account.

 

considering the terrible matchmaking, winning should not be a mission  requirement ever.

 

Your proposal would also cause loss of players because you ask WG to reward terrible teams that don't do teamplay. This is because then there's no incentive to win, but creates an incentive to camp.

Yes, it is darn annoying to get a ton of games where you can't win because the team doesn't work but to reward such gameplay is a bit too far.

After all, why take risks to win if you can get rewarded for a loss? Some mission rewards can be very good after all (like the boxes currently).

 

Below are the teams OP wants to see rewarded:

 

Red team camped hardcore; lets reward that! 

 

Red team taking the worst possible position: we must reward this!

 

Red team did not return to base & lost. We should reward this!

 

The Red campening; part 3. Yes, we really should reward camping should we? Also shows not all camping happens at redline.

 

Le twist! Green team camps, yes we should reward this...

I got pretty high up in XP here, because I don't die easy but to see it rewarded? No, I lost because of the terrible team & rather not see them rewarded for that camping.

Note I was not alone, until a red showed up & the greens fled (and as I am slow I cannot get out in time, time for me to die)

 

Do note, I get the frustration of bad teams, people that toon with me sometimes get me in full rant mode after a series of terrible games due to bad teams. But to see bad teams rewarded for their bad gameplay?

No.

Yes it sucks when you had a small group of players doing their best to win despite the majority not doing much. But usually the small group doing their best is often enough to carry the rest to victory.

Besides, some missions already come without a 'win' requirement so there's that. At least it isn't consistent enough to affect the gameplay much.

But to see ranked gameplay in randoms? No thanks. I rather take my loss & give it a go next time.

And if I cannot finish my mission due to lack of wins? C'est la vie. Dat is het leven. That's life. It is a game after all & me not being able to complete a mission is not gonna affect me in the long run.

Oh and if you really want to get a reward on a loss: try to aim for any of the Awards that get you courageous resistance. At least those are hard enough most of the time + they rarely reward multiple people on the losing side.


Edited by UrQuan, 15 December 2019 - 08:18 AM.


HassenderZerhacker #10 Posted 15 December 2019 - 09:38 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostUrQuan, on 15 December 2019 - 06:48 AM, said:

 

Your proposal would also cause loss of players because you ask WG to reward terrible teams that don't do teamplay. This is because then there's no incentive to win, but creates an incentive to camp.

Yes, it is darn annoying to get a ton of games where you can't win because the team doesn't work but to reward such gameplay is a bit too far.

After all, why take risks to win if you can get rewarded for a loss? Some mission rewards can be very good after all (like the boxes currently).

 

Below are the teams OP wants to see rewarded:

 

Red team camped hardcore; lets reward that! 

 

Red team taking the worst possible position: we must reward this!

 

Red team did not return to base & lost. We should reward this!

 

The Red campening; part 3. Yes, we really should reward camping should we? Also shows not all camping happens at redline.

 

Le twist! Green team camps, yes we should reward this...

I got pretty high up in XP here, because I don't die easy but to see it rewarded? No, I lost because of the terrible team & rather not see them rewarded for that camping.

Note I was not alone, until a red showed up & the greens fled (and as I am slow I cannot get out in time, time for me to die)

 

Do note, I get the frustration of bad teams, people that toon with me sometimes get me in full rant mode after a series of terrible games due to bad teams. But to see bad teams rewarded for their bad gameplay?

No.

Yes it sucks when you had a small group of players doing their best to win despite the majority not doing much. But usually the small group doing their best is often enough to carry the rest to victory.

Besides, some missions already come without a 'win' requirement so there's that. At least it isn't consistent enough to affect the gameplay much.

But to see ranked gameplay in randoms? No thanks. I rather take my loss & give it a go next time.

And if I cannot finish my mission due to lack of wins? C'est la vie. Dat is het leven. That's life. It is a game after all & me not being able to complete a mission is not gonna affect me in the long run.

Oh and if you really want to get a reward on a loss: try to aim for any of the Awards that get you courageous resistance. At least those are hard enough most of the time + they rarely reward multiple people on the losing side.

 

sorry, this is just empty bla bla

there already is no teamplay, maybe 1 time out of 10 there is some limited amount of coordination. when I type something in chat, for example, "light tank, please stay in bush and spot while I bait shots".

I tried this several times, and so far, more often than not I get absolutely no reaction whatever and when there is a reaction, I get totally misunderstood and the light just charges into the enemy, gets rekt and then writes "happy now, i-d-iot?"

 

there is no teamplay in randoms, don't even try to argue there is.

 

but toxic matchmaking is very real. on the asia server I was unable 3 days in a row to complete the "do 500 damage and win" mission (ridiculous, isn't it?), because either I got teams that were so strong I struggled to get 1-2 shots damage in before all enemies were dead in less than 3 minutes or we met bushcamping unicums in T67, M10 RBFM, Wolverines, etc. yes, tier 5... still leveling up on the ASIA server - the point is, I play about 7 to 10 battles on the ASIA server, with 2 kills per game and 2500 WN8 average (and no I'm not camping), and I was unable to get a win with over 500 damage, while raking in the losses with 1000+ damage (tier 5).

 

losing winrate is one thing, but getting shafted on missions is another, much worse issue.

I'm really close to uninstalling and deleting all WoT accounts, and I imagine the toxic MM combined with these mission requirements are a major cause for players to leave WoT.

 

and frankly, what do you care if people are allowed to complete their missions?

 

it's not about rewarding teams, it's about removing the team as a requirement for mission completion.

we have strictly no control over teams, it's completely unfair to make mission completion dependent on luck with the matchmaking. many missions are already difficult enough!


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 15 December 2019 - 09:50 AM.


UrQuan #11 Posted 15 December 2019 - 12:54 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22203 battles
  • 7,496
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

The main issue I have with your proposal is that you want to reward the very gameplay you don't like. The players staying back in their bush & not contributing meaningfully to the win. Guess who often gets high XP in such losing games as they get to kill several low HP tanks before they die giving them good XP despite not having contributed meaningfully to the game.

Note that the factor *top 10 of XP* in many a win condition has been included because folks really don't like people who did nothing to be rewarded. The counter is ofc that in a fast game you can miss out on the reward simply because you weren't part of the top 10.

 

Adding in top 5 of the losing team gets the mission finished even if victory wasn't achieved will just increase the amounts of camping (you see this in ranked already where certain folks prefer to secure their chevrons rather then push for a win)

You can't cut out passive play as some folks just like it easy. But no point either to reward it.

 

Also on randoms having no teamplay, I do dispute it. Sure higher end teamplay isn't there as you don't know each other & everyone has their own idea of how to win matches. Communication is no guarantee either as quite some folks got chat turned off or want others to take risks. 

Not to mention due to languagebarriers it is easy to misunderstand things diminishing communicative teamplay beyond basic stuff (and even that can fail as per your example)

Hence play with the team you have, not the team you want to have. And that will regularly mean you can't use certain spots due to lack of support/people but other spots becoming more useful.

But if teamplay is non-existant, how do people win their games? Most people do it by dealing the most damage but even they cannot do it alone & rely on others. You also got people who are great at spotting & those clearly need others to win their games. In most victorious games, the best players don't score over 4 kills (it is why topguns (6 kills) aren't that common) & that does show they didn't do it alone; that they needed a team to win. Make use of what your team is doing. That yolo'er? He's going to expose some reds, take the opportunity to get some cheeky shots in. The guy staying behind a corner? He's your fallback point to surprise the enemy when you got to pull out. etc

 

If you played 3 days in an attempt to finish a mission that says 500 damage & win over the coruse of 30 games (10 games a day), I would analyze my gameplay. If it really doesn't work with a particular tank, try another as most missions are not tank specific after all (they can be class-specific making them harder)

Or even better platoon up, it is a multiplayer game & I'm sure on other servers they got platoonchannels as well, to make such missions easier when everything seems to be against you.

When I have a bad run & really want to finish a mission I usually platoon up because reliable teammates do help (clan or platoonchannels or a mix).

 

In short; if you have a bad run & really want missions done, check forums for the platoonchannels or simply ask if people want to help you finish a mission. because yes you can get shafted by the game. But to implement a mission change that rewards the very gameplay you don't like seems counterproductive to me.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #12 Posted 15 December 2019 - 01:56 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35261 battles
  • 5,195
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

It's not even just passive play, in ranked players will actively throw their own team mates under the bus because they consider them competition for the chevron.

 

Failure should never be rewarded and one of the worst mistakes WG made with ranked was allowing players on the losing team a way to avoid losing a chevron. It should have been everyone on the winning team gets one or more and everyone on the losing team loses one. 



HassenderZerhacker #13 Posted 15 December 2019 - 02:41 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostUrQuan, on 15 December 2019 - 12:54 PM, said:

The main issue I have with your proposal is that you want to reward the very gameplay you don't like. The players staying back in their bush & not contributing meaningfully to the win. Guess who often gets high XP in such losing games as they get to kill several low HP tanks before they die giving them good XP despite not having contributed meaningfully to the game.

Note that the factor *top 10 of XP* in many a win condition has been included because folks really don't like people who did nothing to be rewarded. The counter is ofc that in a fast game you can miss out on the reward simply because you weren't part of the top 10.

 

Adding in top 5 of the losing team gets the mission finished even if victory wasn't achieved will just increase the amounts of camping (you see this in ranked already where certain folks prefer to secure their chevrons rather then push for a win)

You can't cut out passive play as some folks just like it easy. But no point either to reward it.

 

Also on randoms having no teamplay, I do dispute it. Sure higher end teamplay isn't there as you don't know each other & everyone has their own idea of how to win matches. Communication is no guarantee either as quite some folks got chat turned off or want others to take risks. 

Not to mention due to languagebarriers it is easy to misunderstand things diminishing communicative teamplay beyond basic stuff (and even that can fail as per your example)

Hence play with the team you have, not the team you want to have. And that will regularly mean you can't use certain spots due to lack of support/people but other spots becoming more useful.

But if teamplay is non-existant, how do people win their games? Most people do it by dealing the most damage but even they cannot do it alone & rely on others. You also got people who are great at spotting & those clearly need others to win their games. In most victorious games, the best players don't score over 4 kills (it is why topguns (6 kills) aren't that common) & that does show they didn't do it alone; that they needed a team to win. Make use of what your team is doing. That yolo'er? He's going to expose some reds, take the opportunity to get some cheeky shots in. The guy staying behind a corner? He's your fallback point to surprise the enemy when you got to pull out. etc

 

If you played 3 days in an attempt to finish a mission that says 500 damage & win over the coruse of 30 games (10 games a day), I would analyze my gameplay. If it really doesn't work with a particular tank, try another as most missions are not tank specific after all (they can be class-specific making them harder)

Or even better platoon up, it is a multiplayer game & I'm sure on other servers they got platoonchannels as well, to make such missions easier when everything seems to be against you.

When I have a bad run & really want to finish a mission I usually platoon up because reliable teammates do help (clan or platoonchannels or a mix).

 

In short; if you have a bad run & really want missions done, check forums for the platoonchannels or simply ask if people want to help you finish a mission. because yes you can get shafted by the game. But to implement a mission change that rewards the very gameplay you don't like seems counterproductive to me.

 

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 15 December 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

It's not even just passive play, in ranked players will actively throw their own team mates under the bus because they consider them competition for the chevron.

 

Failure should never be rewarded and one of the worst mistakes WG made with ranked was allowing players on the losing team a way to avoid losing a chevron. It should have been everyone on the winning team gets one or more and everyone on the losing team loses one. 

 

 

wrong and wrong

 

players are not playing to waste all their time.

 

"rewarding the team" is just bla bla - THERE IS NO TEAM.  the team doesn't help at all. many will even drive between you and an enemy to prevent you from shooting it.

 

and "rewarding failure" is better than forcing players to fail.

you get on the loser team and can't complete your mission because of that but did well in the battle, you didn't fail.

 

so please be humane and stop wasting players' time, change all "win a battle" requirements into "win a battle or be in the first 5 by experience"

 

 


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 15 December 2019 - 03:06 PM.


ThorgrimBrenadim #14 Posted 15 December 2019 - 03:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35556 battles
  • 724
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostUrQuan, on 14 December 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

No.

 

Okay you can get crap teams & nothing can help that, that's a shame. And we all get the crappy days where wins are few & hard fought. But to reward losing? No thanks. Ranked battles showed me that it is not the way to go & leads to way too much passive play.

 

 

 

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 14 December 2019 - 09:45 PM, said:

 

Because as Urquan correctly pointed out, any time you give a 'best loser' reward it only serves to promote the worst kind of team play. Ranked being the prime example. 


Both wrong ! Yes this may be a team game but if you can reward the top 5 or top 10 on a winning team in a given marathon then you can reward the best 3 or best 5 on a loosing team. It is called rewarding effort. wargaming have it that it is not all players they say to stop BOTs. Why ! are they admitting their detection system is garbage that they can not detect BOT's so that is why they need to limit rewards?

With the absolute garbage MM the even bigger *****fest that is RNG tec etc ALL ! of which are wargammings fault it is way past time this company stepped up and rewarded effort, nobody is asking for the exact same reward lvl ie top 5 or top 10 but surely if you do 2.5k 3k or more damage in a middle or bottom tier tank ie say a tier 8 medium in a tier 10 game but your heavys are utter and total garbage and die quick for next to nothing why should someone on the other team get a reward and have done almost nothing in comparison? ie they just scraped top 10.

The aim should be to reward ACTIVE players who TRY to do their very best. This is not like a football match where two teams meet and one wins one looses or there is a draw in those games you know your team memebrs you work day in day out with them and know who is performing and who is not and you thus win or loose as a team. But this is on general 15 random players meeting 15 other random players and if 5 or more of those players do not even know the basics of this game because they can buy their way to higher tiers then those who do try their best and put in a real effort should get SOME reward.



HassenderZerhacker #15 Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:22 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostUrQuan, on 15 December 2019 - 06:48 AM, said:

 

And if I cannot finish my mission due to lack of wins? C'est la vie. Dat is het leven. That's life. It is a game after all & me not being able to complete a mission is not gonna affect me in the long run.

 

there is no internal logic here.

"it's a game after all" and c'est la vie are two completely different things. Life is serious, a game is meant to have fun, not to cause people be consumed by endless frustration.

"not going to affect you in the long run"  WHO CARES? it's a GAME which should be FUN NOW.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 15 December 2019 - 06:17 PM.


Rustybum #16 Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10091 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    04-08-2016

View PostXandania, on 14 December 2019 - 09:28 PM, said:

Also enable support damage for arties even if the one hit removed the stun with a medkit - it makes arty mission requireing targets getting hit when stunned much more relaxing and not so horribly hard to do - currently I'd call those missions the hardest ones overall...

 

Have to agree here, srty was nerfed again but the missions remained the same, SPG15 for Obj260 is virtually impossible now even in GB.



HassenderZerhacker #17 Posted 17 December 2019 - 05:25 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 14 December 2019 - 09:24 PM, said:

WG, please do everyone a favor and in all missions, marathons, campaigns, WHATEVER  requiring a WIN, please add "or be within the 5 best players by experience".

You will lose less players that way, inspite of disgusting teams.

 

another thing>

 

for premium missions, please remove sequentiality of the missions.

sometimes it's not possible to complete the missions in a useful timeframe because of the win requirement, yesterday I had 9 losses in a row.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 17 December 2019 - 05:26 AM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #18 Posted 17 December 2019 - 07:10 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35261 battles
  • 5,195
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 17 December 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

 

another thing>

 

for premium missions, please remove sequentiality of the missions.

sometimes it's not possible to complete the missions in a useful timeframe because of the win requirement, yesterday I had 9 losses in a row.

 

What if you're busy that day and don't have time to play at all? Can we look forward to your next request being WG automatically credit your account with the credits/bonds every if you don't login because it's "not fun" to miss out?

 

Just wondering where you plan to draw the line here. 



HassenderZerhacker #19 Posted 17 December 2019 - 07:25 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32087 battles
  • 3,479
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 17 December 2019 - 07:10 AM, said:

 

What if you're busy that day and don't have time to play at all? Can we look forward to your next request being WG automatically credit your account with the credits/bonds every if you don't login because it's "not fun" to miss out?

 

Just wondering where you plan to draw the line here. 

 

The line is at taking matchmaking out of the equation.

Being in bad teams - something the player can't do anything about - should not interfere with mission progress.

 

the problem is universal, I have played the Asia server today, 9 battles, 2900 WN8, only 3 wins. no I didn't camp...

toxic teams are the reason.

 

every time there is an event, I often get shitty teams.

many people here say it's normal. WHY?

if teams are randomly constituted, why do I get 30% winrate consistently and across servers?

I don't even care anymore about people not seeing the obvious, all I want is being allowed to complete the missions.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 17 December 2019 - 07:29 AM.


Echotun #20 Posted 17 December 2019 - 07:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23245 battles
  • 683
  • [FA-1] FA-1
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 17 December 2019 - 07:25 AM, said:

 

The line is at taking matchmaking out of the equation.

Being in bad teams - something the player can't do anything about - should not interfere with mission progress.

 

the problem is universal, I have played the Asia server today, 9 battles, 2900 WN8, only 3 wins. no I didn't camp...

toxic teams are the reason.

 

every time there is an event, I often get shitty teams.

many people here say it's normal. WHY?

if teams are randomly constituted, why do I get 30% winrate consistently and across servers?

I don't even care anymore about people not seeing the obvious, all I want is being allowed to complete the missions.


Why, indeed? That is the question. Because good and bad players will be evenly distributed on both your team and the opposing team over time. 
The only other factor is YOU. 
Now if you look in the mirror and accept that, then you might be able to actually do something about it (git good). 
In a small sample of battles you can have some ridiculous numbers, both ways, but if this keeps happening to you all the time, then YOU are the problem. 
 

Also, stop quoting the wn8 you had in your losses. Its not hard to boost wn8 without contributing much towards winning. The trick is to do both. 
 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users