Personal Challenges - What a difference!

[Frostbow]

30 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

I can do pretty much any grind faster in Coop than in operations even if both got 100% awarded. Even large Divisions in Ops don't change that, as you still have to take the time and share the results (and if you have friends that leave all the damage for you, more power to you but those friends get zilch).

It is different in my case. With Blue Bonuses in Operations, I can pretty much grind enough XP starting at Tier VI to unlock the Tier IX in a much shorter timeline compared to Co-op.

 

32 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

The only difference is that Operations are fun most of the time, while Coop is not fun most of the time.

So the only valid reason that I can see WG having for reducing gains in Operations as opposed to coop is that they don't want their players to have fun grinding.

Yesterday was particularly difficult in Co-op. 5 (or was it 6? I can't remember) games where it was full of French DDs. 

 

 

 

[Asym]

25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So far, this is the best and most well-phrased argument (I've seen) against the practice of only providing partial-credit for activities in Scenario Operations.

Even so, I have to grant that the other side of a spectrum exists, in which a full division of seasoned players can function like a well-oiled machine to wreak havok upon the 'bots in scenario operations and achieve some impressive scores.
That said, changing the game rules in order to thwart the adventures of "special teams" does seem like punishing "Abner" for the deeds of "Bruce", eh?  🙂 

Here again, for me, it's a question of right versus wrong. 

PVE and PVP must have different "qualifiers" for value because the us/them interaction is more asymmetrical in PVP.  I am pretty sure most everyone, that are PVE mains could agree with that.  If, we are being honest.

The rub is that modes of play then should be "equilivent" even at lessor values !  My 8 minutes in Random Ops should receive the "full value" assigned to that mode.  Not 1/2 or 1/3 or anything but 100% of that modes value.  Why>?  Because, the mode is an "Accepted PVE Mode" of this game and if we assume PVE is a lesser calculation at inception, there shouldn't be a nerf to the value because the Op is actually drawing PVP mains away from Random battles........just as Asymmetrical Battles were nerf'd after 4 days of drawing large numbers of players away from PVP modes.... 

PVE mains get zapped because PVP mains had a better way to earn the same amount with "less effort.."   That's a game quality issue IMO.

[SolitudeFreak]

I'll jump on the anti-operations coefficient dog pile too.

I think my highest damage scored was once on Narai in a Bismarck; I think it was around 400k, but I don't remember. But my consistent damage in that mode is between 100-200k, so we'll say 150k. It took nearly 20 minutes to earn this damage.

The coefficient is stupid because I can routinely pound out 100k damage in 5-6 minutes if I just spam Salem over and over again. In fact I can get just about any mission done by spamming the optimal ship in co op faster that I would in operations, even without that modifier. Including the PD missions (seriously, use a super cruiser and get spotted first, easy).

As far as the optimized meta VC divs go, again, the limiter is pointless because each of your friends needs to take turns accomplishing these objectives in 20 minute rounds. And these divs don't represent anywhere near the majority. As pointed out, most divs are there for fun and not meta. I know when I've div'd for ops(which doesn't happen often) there was nothing resembling meta or efficiency because we're morons playing for fun.

If we are allowed to spam these missions to death in co op, I see no reason we can't have a little more variety and options by not feeling like we are gimping ourselves by playing operations.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

PVE and PVP must have different "qualifiers" for value because the us/them interaction is more asymmetrical in PVP.  I am pretty sure most everyone, that are PVE mains could agree with that.  If, we are being honest.

I have some personal "quibbles" with how some people portray the "PVE compared with PVP" drama.

1.  Co-op players tend to sink more ships per minute than random battle players.
2.  Random battles could be played much faster, if some players weren't spending so much time running, ahem "kiting", away from each other.
3.  I feel the 'Bots never lack for courage.  Indeed, they may have it in their "programming", but I often find their behavior more admirable.  'Bots tend to play the map objectives and I'm glad for their apparent enthusiasm.
4.  The occasional navigation error that causes 'bots to beach themselves upon islands merely indicates they're training new little 'bots and everyone can make a mistake and learn from it, eh?  🙂 

Now, I'll take a moment to read the rest of your post.  🙂 

[Frostbow]

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So far, this is the best and most well-phrased argument (I've seen) against the practice of only providing partial-credit for activities in Scenario Operations.

Thank you.

 

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Even so, I have to grant that the other side of a spectrum exists, in which a full division of seasoned players can function like a well-oiled machine to wreak havok upon the 'bots in scenario operations and achieve some impressive scores.

Yes, I agree that a full division of players can achieve impressive scores, but in the context of Personal Challenges, reducing damage scores achieved in Operations by 50% is highly unreasonable.

• Playing in a full division is no guarantee, because they will still be competing among themselves for damage scores. 
• IIRC, there is a limit to ship types, which means not all of them will be able to helm the usual damage farmers, high DPM light cruisers.
• Worse, each Operation lasts at least 2x or 3x longer than a Co-op game.
• Worst, if you score more than what is required, the excess will not reduce the amount needed for the next challenge.

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 minutes ago, Asym said:

Here again, for me, it's a question of right versus wrong. 

PVE and PVP must have different "qualifiers" for value because the us/them interaction is more asymmetrical in PVP.  I am pretty sure most everyone, that are PVE mains could agree with that.  If, we are being honest.

The rub is that modes of play then should be "equilivent" even at lessor values !  My 8 minutes in Random Ops should receive the "full value" assigned to that mode.  Not 1/2 or 1/3 or anything but 100% of that modes value.  Why>?  Because, the mode is an "Accepted PVE Mode" of this game and if we assume PVE is a lesser calculation at inception, there shouldn't be a nerf to the value because the Op is actually drawing PVP mains away from Random battles........just as Asymmetrical Battles were nerf'd after 4 days of drawing large numbers of players away from PVP modes.... 

PVE mains get zapped because PVP mains had a better way to earn the same amount with "less effort.."   That's a game quality issue IMO.

In the past, I've pointed out that Co-op is 9 players per team and that random battles are 12 players per team (most of the time, ignoring anomalous match-making brain-farts for the moment).
With 12 possible sources of incoming fire, randoms offer a bit more "risk" than 9 sources of incoming fire.
With risks come rewards, eh?

Let alone the potential to sink 3 more ships in a random battle, if we were merely to compare ship HP totals per team (9 ships compared to 12 ships).
Numerically, if one has an incredible game and sank the entire opposing team, one could earn more simply from doing more damage.

Scenarios and Co-op are "more fun" for a number of players because of the reduction in "toxic chat" and because the 'bots gleefully offer themselves as sparring partners with enthusiasm comparable to the sentient cows in a Douglas Adams novel about The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/677/the-restaurant-at-the-end-of-the-universe-by-douglas-adams/

 

[HogHammer]

@Kruzensternwelcome to the forum!  Nice to have you as part of the discussion.

[Arcus_Aesopi]

16 minutes ago, Asym said:

Here again, for me, it's a question of right versus wrong. 

PVE and PVP must have different "qualifiers" for value because the us/them interaction is more asymmetrical in PVP.  I am pretty sure most everyone, that are PVE mains could agree with that.  If, we are being honest.

The rub is that modes of play then should be "equilivent" even at lessor values !  My 8 minutes in Random Ops should receive the "full value" assigned to that mode.  Not 1/2 or 1/3 or anything but 100% of that modes value.  Why>?  Because, the mode is an "Accepted PVE Mode" of this game and if we assume PVE is a lesser calculation at inception, there shouldn't be a nerf to the value because the Op is actually drawing PVP mains away from Random battles........just as Asymmetrical Battles were nerf'd after 4 days of drawing large numbers of players away from PVP modes.... 

PVE mains get zapped because PVP mains had a better way to earn the same amount with "less effort.."   That's a game quality issue IMO.

You bring up interesting comparisons!  I would suggest that the imbalances one sees in technologies and ship strengths manifest more clearly and more detrimentally in PvP. 

Games are quicker in PvE and the effort to top the charts is similar to PvP however the penalties are less because there isn't TIME to be severely punished for screw-ups... which makes it a better learning environment.

If anything is "drawing PvP mains away" it is WG's introduction of ridiculous balance changers that allow the Unicums to truly punish average and less players until they just stop.  PvE isn't the problem and is possibly why there still IS a World of Warships.

PvE is already rewarded at around half bxp etc that PvP is (somewhere it is posted what the actual rates are... in the old forum).  Ops then is at something else less than PvP.

I think if WG would focus in development on player agency and PvE, then PvP would also improve.  Their focus is, however, on the armory and not-so-Premium Shop. *sigh*

[Arcus_Aesopi]

1 hour ago, Kruzenstern said:

So the only valid reason that I can see WG having for reducing gains in Operations as opposed to coop is that they don't want their players to have fun grinding.

Ouch... unfortunately that "feels" correct.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Arcusaesopi said:

You bring up interesting comparisons!  I would suggest that the imbalances one sees in technologies and ship strengths manifest more clearly and more detrimentally in PvP.

...

I think if WG would focus in development on player agency and PvE, then PvP would also improve.  Their focus is, however, on the armory and not-so-Premium Shop. *sigh*

If only....  I deleted a whole page because I am really passionate about how gaming itself works.... 

Suffice it to say:  what come next is all about "Player agency" to the point that what the next gen games know about what you want or think is more than important; it's their mission....  And, those games can and will "adapt" to what you think is important and provide you a unique experience that immerses you in what you like to do AND, may make you think about "what else or what's next".....  The single player demo's I've experienced are "contagious" or as many have said, "addictive..."  

And, the Schooling AI platforms will replace traditional schooling in the next 20 years or so. 

 

 

[Arcus_Aesopi]

1 hour ago, Asym said:

If only....  I deleted a whole page because I am really passionate about how gaming itself works.... 

Suffice it to say:  what come next is all about "Player agency" to the point that what the next gen games know about what you want or think is more than important; it's their mission....  And, those games can and will "adapt" to what you think is important and provide you a unique experience that immerses you in what you like to do AND, may make you think about "what else or what's next".....  The single player demo's I've experienced are "contagious" or as many have said, "addictive..."  

And, the Schooling AI platforms will replace traditional schooling in the next 20 years or so. 

 

 

I liked it for gaming... It will probably work better for traditional schooling also, but unfortunately from a rather ugly social control perspective.

[Asym]

31 minutes ago, Arcusaesopi said:

I liked it for gaming... It will probably work better for traditional schooling also, but unfortunately from a rather ugly social control perspective.

Actually, there is a "prototype school" locally that is using that teaching philosophy with most of the Staff Members having Masters in Innovation Design degrees....  The last two years or so have produced some student data that suggests that if, this concept evolves into a larger model, elementary kids will be two years ahead of Public School children or more...... 

The teaching "games" are really pretty cool. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

@Kruzenstern Welcome aboard!

[Kruzenstern]

@HogHammer@Admiral_Karasu

 

Thanks for the warm welcome, I only today found out about this on the german replacement forum. This feels like coming home 🙂

[Musket22]

They also removed achievements out of PVE which also disables the ability to complete many if not all of the campaigns.

Do operations count as Random Battles?  Would love to see Dunkirk again!

Playing since 2017 now with 49,172 Co-Op and 5,533 Random battles in the first 2 1/2 years, I still managed to acquire.

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Musket22 said:

They also removed achievements out of PVE which also disables the ability to complete many if not all of the campaigns.

I don’t recall achievements ever being a part of Coop outside very specific events.

Operations have also always had their own separate set of achievements.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

I don’t recall achievements ever being a part of Coop outside very specific events.

ONE specific event, the Alexander Ovechkin collab, had co-op rewards.

Several PVE special modes, space operations, etc. have also had them throughout the years.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

7 hours ago, Asym said:

And, the Schooling AI platforms will

report dissidents and the too-intelligent to Big Brother.

[CFagan_1987]

2 hours ago, Musket22 said:

They also removed achievements out of PVE which also disables the ability to complete many if not all of the campaigns.

Do operations count as Random Battles?  Would love to see Dunkirk again!

Playing since 2017 now with 49,172 Co-Op and 5,533 Random battles in the first 2 1/2 years, I still managed to acquire.

I've been playing since CBT (April 2015) and none of the random and ranked battle achievements have ever been available in regular coop mode

Edited October 27, 2023 by CFagan_1987

[Wolfswetpaws]

23 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Several PVE special modes, space operations, etc. have also had them throughout the years.

As I recall, those were event-specific.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

report dissidents and the too-intelligent to Big Brother.

This already happens, FYI.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

report dissidents and the too-intelligent to Big Brother.

Sigh........  One of the most advanced private schools in the US and big brother couldn't afford to do what they do...... 

[WES_HoundDog]

I would say putting together a seasoned division for Operations actually hurts you at completing the damage mission.

[AdmiralThunder]

7 hours ago, Musket22 said:

They also removed achievements out of PVE which also disables the ability to complete many if not all of the campaigns.

Do operations count as Random Battles?  Would love to see Dunkirk again!

Playing since 2017 now with 49,172 Co-Op and 5,533 Random battles in the first 2 1/2 years, I still managed to acquire.

 

Co-op never had its own set of permanent achievements. Never. We got some temp ones during special events but that is it. It is something I lobbied for long and hard on NA, even doing proposals with achievement designs and requirements. Never got anywhere.

Back in 2018 I believe it was on Reddit in a Q&A Sub_Octavian (God, just saying that guy's name makes me want to 🤮) answered a question I asked about Co-op getting some of its own. He said it was in the works but about a year off. Never materialized.

Last fall in a waterline article they said Co-op would get achievements in 2023. Well, 2023 is almost over and hasn't happened yet. Will it? I hope so but believe they will just not do them yet again. 

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/waterline-development-plan-updates-fall-2022/#2023

 

EDIT - I took a look and actually had my old Co-op proposals on hand still. Noting fancy but it showed it wouldn't be hard to do if they would just invest a little time (God forbid PVE gets attention). the 1st one is from way back before they removed flags from them. The requirements were also geared towards what at the time seemed appropriate for Co-op (took feedback from people on NA who played Co-op and adjusted it a few times). The 2nd set was done last year at one point. I actually got some positive feedback from a WG employee but nothing has, and most likely won't ever, happen. But it was fun to mess around with it. Also, a conscious effort was made so they did NOT look like achievements in other modes because, you know, don't want to upset others if PVE has nice things too LOL.

Edited October 27, 2023 by AdmiralThunder

[Verytis]

19 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Even so, I have to grant that the other side of a spectrum exists, in which a full division of seasoned players can function like a well-oiled machine to wreak havok upon the 'bots in scenario operations and achieve some impressive scores.
That said, changing the game rules in order to thwart the adventures of "special teams" does seem like punishing "Abner" for the deeds of "Bruce", eh?  🙂 

Thats because the "special teams" are demonstrating the true potential of the mode. And if you ignore it, they'll just game it and farm excessive amount of rewards.

There also really isn't anything stopping others from coming in to do the same.

Now you could argue for a "reduced returns" as you scale up in efficiency. That can partially balance it for all players. Partial, because it'll feel really bad to do twice the work but only have meager bonuses to show for it.

 

19 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I'd argue that WGs use of missions that only award loot to those who top leaderboards means they logically can't complain about farming and exploit divisions.

That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The root cause of 'farming' is WGs mission design setup...so blaming the playerbase for 'farming' is WG, yet again, refusing to take responsibility for the logical outcomes of their own actions.

It is especially silly for other players to be blaming the customers for WGs own decisions.

You can argue about protecting bad players, but this reads like it is arguing against rewarding players for playing well.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Verytis
typo