Stats and achievements

[USMC2145]

A question was brought up in a match what would happen if WG started rewarding stats and brought back rewards for achievements? That got me thinking It could be bad and it could be good depending on who you asked. Would it make players who did not care about those start to care? Would it make them mad? Would it make some leave and others say? What stats would they reward? 

I would be in favor of it, but that is me. I think part of it would be how it was implemented. I feel top players would be for it, but not so sure how low performing players would feel. I also think pretty much everyone would have no problem if they rewarded achievements like they once did with signals. 

What do you all think and lets keep this civil. 

Edited February 4 by USMC2145

[BOBTHEBALL]

35 minutes ago, USMC2145 said:

A question was brought up in a match what would happen if WG started rewarding stats and brought back rewards for achievements? That got me thinking It could be bad and it could be good depending on who you asked. Would it make players who did not care about those start to care? Would it make them mad? Would it make some leave and others say? What stats would they reward? 

I would be in favor of it, but that is me. I think part of it would be how it was implemented. I feel top players would be for it, but not so sure how low performing players would feel. I also think pretty much everyone would have no problem if they rewarded achievements like they once did with signals. 

What do you all think and lets keep this civil. 

I think it'd be good, reward players for playing well??? That's awesome. Reward good players for putting in the time and effort to be good at the game?? That's also amazing.

 

[3LUE]

12 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

I think it'd be good, reward players for playing well??? That's awesome. Reward good players for putting in the time and effort to be good at the game?? That's also amazing.

 

I would have to agree 100%

[BOBTHEBALL]

8 minutes ago, 3LUE said:

I would have to agree 100%

The only people who wouldn't like it would be the uh, lesser skilled. However it gives them incentive to try and improve that the game, which I think is amazing!

[Wolfswetpaws]

57 minutes ago, USMC2145 said:

A question was brought up in a match what would happen if WG started rewarding stats and brought back rewards for achievements? That got me thinking It could be bad and it could be good depending on who you asked. Would it make players who did not care about those start to care? Would it make them mad? Would it make some leave and others say? What stats would they reward? 

I would be in favor of it, but that is me. I think part of it would be how it was implemented. I feel top players would be for it, but not so sure how low performing players would feel. I also think pretty much everyone would have no problem if they rewarded achievements like they once did with signals. 

What do you all think and lets keep this civil. 

I imagine that WG/WOWs is going to tailor their rewards and incentives to give "player retention" the highest priority.
As long as the in-game earnings and rewards and other swag continues to retain newer players and not drive-away the veteran players, then WG/WOWs management will be happy.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, USMC2145 said:

what would happen if WG started rewarding stats and brought back rewards for achievements?

The rewards for achievements would be harvested by the top 10-15% to the detriment of beginners and less capable players, which is why WG started putting them in crates instead of leaving them tied to combat. 

Something I said on Lord Zath's stream earlier today, which I want to repeat here, is that I'd like to see what would happen if stats at Tiers 1 to 4 were excluded from a player's win rate. Some low-tier padders might find themselves looking a little the worse for wear. Another metric for exclusion might be battles in division. By all means let the divisioned win rate be recorded - clans looking to recruit may want to know who works better in a team than alone - but let there be no more overall win rate.

[3LUE]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

 but let there be no more overall win rate.

I think that change now would create a huge problem with a percent of the player base. I can see if we had a new fresh start server that being possible, but we are to far into the game on these servers we have now. 

Edited February 5 by 3LUE

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

which is why WG started putting them in crates instead of leaving them tied to combat. 

...that, and people like me were racking up way too many flags by playing ships like Mikasa against bots in tier 2 matchmaking...because WG killed their own low tier game modes.

WG never thought giving the top players advantages was a problem...until non-top players were easily 'farming' those flags.

[USMC2145]

36 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

...that, and people like me were racking up way too many flags by playing ships like Mikasa against bots in tier 2 matchmaking...because WG killed their own low tier game modes.

WG never thought giving the top players advantages was a problem...until non-top players were easily 'farming' those flags.

Notice they changed the battle pass also. People were raking in economic boosters and signals. So they went from the three tier system to the two tier system and removed many of the loot crates and boxes. 

[Itwastuesday]

It's not like bad player didn't still receive rewards for achievements. Not as much but I'd imagine it makes the rare great game all the more rewarding. 

[Verytis]

Giving rewards for achievements itself isn't a problem. it's that they're heavily biased towards dmg farming.

 

If you want to actually encourage improved gameplay, then give some rewards for winning.

Eg. Increased credit income, mission progress, for winning.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

Giving rewards for achievements itself isn't a problem. it's that they're heavily biased towards dmg farming.

 

If you want to actually encourage improved gameplay, then give some rewards for winning.

Eg. Increased credit income, mission progress, for winning.

The problem is that WG wants to use the achievements as a way to keep veteran players interested...achievements are not part of the new player strategy.

THIS is why flags were removed as rewards for achievements...new players were farming them quite easily because WG's own poor strategy decisions with regards to low tiers meant most games are empty of real players and filled with bots.

Rather than deal with the core problem (a mismanagement of the tier population loading), WG just preferred to blame the playerbase for farming and remove the rewards...thereby insulting and hurting the veteran players...the very players the strategy of achievement rewards was supposed to be retaining.

This is corporate incompetence...and is yet another bit of snow on top of the avalanche of inadequacies of WG leadership on this game.

[Verblonde]

13 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

let there be no more overall win rate.

While I wouldn't object to this (on the rare occasions I look at my own stats, I always split out solo versus platoon games, if whatever platform I'm using lets me), I doubt it's likely to happen. I believe that playing in a division tends to increase most people's WR; if that's the case, presumably the overall WR has a better chance of giving people the warm + fuzzies, which WG will be keen to retain?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

22 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

While I wouldn't object to this (on the rare occasions I look at my own stats, I always split out solo versus platoon games, if whatever platform I'm using lets me), I doubt it's likely to happen. I believe that playing in a division tends to increase most people's WR; if that's the case, presumably the overall WR has a better chance of giving people the warm + fuzzies, which WG will be keen to retain?

Indeed.

WG wants to foster a sense of 'Im better than the plebs' feeling among the players. This is, after all, one of the major reasons the Brawls game mode exists...to allow clans a chance to division up and seal club.

We must continue to remind ourselves that WG is not interested in a balanced game, or equitable outcomes for each player account. That is CLEARLY not the business strategy for the game.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

or equitable outcomes for each player account.

No, that's dependent on player skill. You want a 50%-plus win rate? You work for it.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

No, that's dependent on player skill. You want a 50%-plus win rate? You work for it.

Not what I was talking about...but yes.

WG doesn't care at all about our win rates.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

WG doesn't care at all about our win rates.

Nor should it.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Nor should it.

My point was that WG has no expectation that accounts should have equivalent access to events, rewards, or anything. In fact, it is part of the business strategy to maintain differences between accounts for these kinds of events and items.

[Verblonde]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

WG doesn't care at all about our win rates.

I suspect they do, although not in the sense of caring about helping people make them better as such. WR probably provides a useful data point vis-a-vis customer satisfaction metrics, and how best to exploit said customer.

Nothing wrong with that, of course; it's all part of the day-to-day for a commercial entity. Semi related: I used to work for a professional sports team more than a decade ago; how much merchandise we sold was quite impressively correlated to (amongst other things) how well the chaps were doing on the field - presumably, there are similar things happening with games such as WOWS?

[Wulf_Ace]

I still kinda think that WoWs needs some global one year campaing, that some player can do to achieve.

Not this current campaings, but something like doing specific mission and that it lasts one year.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

I suspect they do, although not in the sense of caring about helping people make them better as such. WR probably provides a useful data point vis-a-vis customer satisfaction metrics, and how best to exploit said customer.

Nothing wrong with that, of course; it's all part of the day-to-day for a commercial entity. Semi related: I used to work for a professional sports team more than a decade ago; how much merchandise we sold was quite impressively correlated to (amongst other things) how well the chaps were doing on the field - presumably, there are similar things happening with games such as WOWS?

Yes, it's certainly data to support other metrics...but WG isn't looking at win-rate as an end to itself, IMO.

5 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

I still kinda think that WoWs needs some global one year campaing, that some player can do to achieve.

Not this current campaings, but something like doing specific mission and that it lasts one year.

 

This would be cool.

[clammboy]

15 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

I think it'd be good, reward players for playing well??? That's awesome. Reward good players for putting in the time and effort to be good at the game?? That's also amazing.

I agree but I do like @Ensign Cthulhu suggestion only tiers 5-10 and solo players only. Other players are still getting the daily containers just for playing so I like the idea although I do wish it could somehow all be tied to wining the game.

[BOBTHEBALL]

8 hours ago, clammboy said:

I agree but I do like @Ensign Cthulhu suggestion only tiers 5-10 and solo players only. Other players are still getting the daily containers just for playing so I like the idea although I do wish it could somehow all be tied to wining the game.

If I'm honest I'd rather have tiers 6-11 be counted. And yes solo players only is a good idea. Very smart to keep out the players who are only good in 3 person divs.