AdmiralThunder Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Week 6 dockyard. Just realized WG is not allowing Co-op for the 80K fire and flood damage task. Random, Ranked, and Scenarios only. What complete horse scat that is. That forces doing one of the insane spotting tasks. The hardest mode to do fire and flood damage in is Co-op so removing it is just stupid. Probably on purpose as well. Just when I think WG can't aggravate me more they say hold my beer. 5 3 2
Taylor3006 Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Never underestimate the contempt that some people have for players who play co-op. I am just going to farm that easy "captured" token and call the Dockyard finished for me. I have to say that it is Wargaming alone that cured me of my obsession with "completionist gaming". I used to have to find every thing, explore every secret, get every good weapon, hoard every magic item, etc in every game I have played up until Ships. I have two incomplete collections right now. In the old days that would have driven me insane. Now I only look at the end prize. If it is worth it, I go for it. If not, it means nothing to me. Thanks to Wargaming, I found my apathy and have embraced it. 8 1
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Capping isn't necessarily easy in coop. Another complaint is how they often halve the results for operation players. Right now, I noticed there are at least some missions that Asym Battles are ruled out for. It's a PvE vs PvP issue. That's like... having a {PvE}v{PvP} metamode in the game.
Frostbow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said: Just realized WG is not allowing Co-op for the 80K fire and flood damage task. Random, Ranked, and Scenarios only. What complete horse scat that is. That forces doing one of the insane spotting tasks. The hardest mode to do fire and flood damage in is Co-op so removing it is just stupid. January 01, and the first post I see in DevStrike is this rant that is so puerile. That task is so easy in Operations, if one is petrified of doing it in Random Battles or Ranked Battles. And it is not even 80K fire and flood damage task. It is 80K fire OR flood damage. 3 3
tm63au Posted January 1 Posted January 1 3 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said: Week 6 dockyard. Just realized WG is not allowing Co-op for the 80K fire and flood damage task. Random, Ranked, and Scenarios only. What complete horse scat that is. That forces doing one of the insane spotting tasks. The hardest mode to do fire and flood damage in is Co-op so removing it is just stupid. Probably on purpose as well. Just when I think WG can't aggravate me more they say hold my beer. Well this is really weird because I did see earlier that the fire / flood mission could only be done in those 3 modes but now I looked and its changed spooky !!!!!!
Ensign Cthulhu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Screenclip taken just now. Must be a temporary bug, because every time I looked, it was co-op compatible. 1
Ensign Cthulhu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Another complaint is how they often halve the results for operation players. In case you weren't there when it happened, these are missions for which Operations were previously ineligible. They enabled them for directives, but they put them in at 50% because ops are so scripted, the pickings are so rich, and operations mains know how to farm ridiculous amounts of combat tasks in a single battle.
AdmiralThunder Posted January 1 Author Posted January 1 (edited) 25 minutes ago, tm63au said: Well this is really weird because I did see earlier that the fire / flood mission could only be done in those 3 modes but now I looked and its changed spooky !!!!!! 20 minutes ago, Efros said: I think WG realized they effed up. Great. AFTER I controlled my gag reflex and did it in Randoms. Typical WG. I don't remember that not being Co-op doable even a few days ago when I looked but this AM Co-op was a no go. Leave it to WG to screw it up and then fix it after I did it already. 🤬 Edited January 1 by AdmiralThunder 2
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 5 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: In case you weren't there when it happened, these are missions for which Operations were previously ineligible. They enabled them for directives, but they put them in at 50% because ops are so scripted, the pickings are so rich, and operations mains know how to farm ridiculous amounts of combat tasks in a single battle. Operations usually, also, require a longer term commitment, and are actually more frustrating than randoms when things start to go south and you end up with a round zero stars after something like 15 minutes of play. Have you, by any chance, performed any calculations how operations vs the other game modes average against each other per one minute of play time?
Frostbow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Just now, AdmiralThunder said: Great. AFTER I controlled my gag reflex and did it in Randoms. Typical WG. I don't remember that not being Co-op doable even a few days ago when I looked but this AM Co-op was a no go. Leave it to WG to fix it after I did it already. 🤬 Please excuse, but after further reflection, why was it even an issue to begin with when you do play Random Battles? You do play Random Battles with your Tier V Giulio Cesare. You've mentioned that quite a few times that you play Randoms. Often in late hours when the Match Maker fill team rosters with bots. Even if Wargaming did not include Co-op as a mode, you do play Random Battles, so there should be no issue at all. I hope you were not attempting to agitate players. 1 1
Frostbow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 (edited) On 1/1/2025 at 7:26 AM, Ensign Cthulhu said: because ops are so scripted And so is Co-op, where the bots do nothing but follow the script to rush head-on. In fact, Operations such as Raptor is so dynamic you can never guess with 100% certainty where and when the 3rd and succeeding waves will spawn. Edited January 5 by HogHammer Belittling comment edit 2
Efros Posted January 1 Posted January 1 I played a few games earlier and got several fires with Salem and Worcester at least one of which produced fire damage and the gauge on that mission was at zero when I just had a Smolensk game where I got 13k damage, the gauge now shows that damage. This is a listing of my battles from today Yamato 6574 fire damage Des Moines 4977 Fire Damage Salem 12276 Fire Damage Worcester 5387 Fire Damage Smolensk 13261 Fire Damage The Smol numbers have been included in the mission the others have not, so something happened between 05:47 and 8:17 this morning. 1
AdmiralThunder Posted January 1 Author Posted January 1 1 minute ago, Efros said: I played a few games earlier and got several fires with Salem and Worcester at least one of which produced fire damage and the gauge on that mission was at zero when I just had a Smolensk game where I got 13k damage, the gauge now shows that damage. This is a listing of my battles from today Yamato 6574 fire damage Des Moines 4977 Fire Damage Salem 12276 Fire Damage Worcester 5387 Fire Damage Smolensk 13261 Fire Damage The Smol numbers have been included in the mission the others have not, so something happened between 05:47 and 8:17 this morning. I'm done week 6 so it's moot now for me (good news for those who aren't) but I would have greatly preferred NOT to have to go to Randoms (🤮). 2
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Just now, AdmiralThunder said: I'm done week 6 so it's moot now for me (good news for those who aren't) but I would have greatly preferred NOT to have to go to Randoms (🤮). As a side note, which tiers you usually play when you venture into the fray of the randoms?
Kruzenstern Posted January 1 Posted January 1 23 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: In case you weren't there when it happened, these are missions for which Operations were previously ineligible. They enabled them for directives, but they put them in at 50% because ops are so scripted, the pickings are so rich, and operations mains know how to farm ridiculous amounts of combat tasks in a single battle. The thing is, those missions could be done in co-op even faster and often easier even without the 50% nerf to ops. The one difference between ops and coop for me is that ops are fun and coop is a grind. So what WG basically does is penalize having fun in their game. 2
Frostbow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 8 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Operations usually, also, require a longer term commitment, and are actually more frustrating than randoms when things start to go south and you end up with a round zero stars after something like 15 minutes of play. Have you, by any chance, performed any calculations how operations vs the other game modes average against each other per one minute of play time? It is a mix of factors. Some of them are intrinsic to the motivations and competence of the player; others are due to heavy mission requirements such as earning 99,000 Base XP. In my case, I complete missions in Operations most of the time, and I have found the most effective roster of tech tree and premium ships for whatever combat mission Wargaming requires. So a Co-op game for me (in high DPM ships such as Minotaur, Des Moines) usually averages 400-600 Base XP for 6-7 minutes, excluding loading/queue times. If it is a 2 humans/7 bots or 1 human/8 bots Co-op battle, I can get 800-1,100 Base XP for 10-12 minutes, excluding loading/queue times. In contrast, with Operations, I can earn way more Base XP per battle given the same or slightly longer amount of time than in Co-op. I initially resented the 50% reduction of certain metrics like hits and damage, given how dynamic Operations are (e.g., bots are more powerful, and have way more HP, etc.) compared to Co-op, but I have already learned to live with it. It has not dampened the enjoyment I derive from playing Operations. 1
Gillhunter Posted January 1 Posted January 1 2 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said: The thing is, those missions could be done in co-op even faster and often easier even without the 50% nerf to ops. The one difference between ops and coop for me is that ops are fun and coop is a grind. So what WG basically does is penalize having fun in their game. That seems to be WG's goal recently. 1
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 I just had a look, our recent posts list is full of Absolute Rubbish! This is all our fault.... 2 1
Frostbow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 1 minute ago, Gillhunter said: So what WG basically does is penalize having fun in their game. 1 minute ago, Gillhunter said: That seems to be WG's goal recently. A lot of people were having a lot of fun with Asymmetric Battles, and then the fools yanked it out. They brought it back, but then they will again remove it. Wargaming really knows how to penalize or even stop the fun in their game.
AdmiralThunder Posted January 1 Author Posted January 1 7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: As a side note, which tiers you usually play when you venture into the fray of the randoms? 5-8 as a rule but I have played some T9 and T10 too.
Dareios Posted January 1 Posted January 1 blah. I did three asymm just after reset thinking it was counting for that mission, and then saw it wasnt. Glad it changed. Things die too quickly in operations to alpha damage, and I have nothing I needed to run in randoms this week. 1
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 1 Posted January 1 3 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said: 5-8 as a rule but I have played some T9 and T10 too. Well, I don't know the situation on NA, but on ASIA and EU, depending on what your mission parameters are, if you want to go easy on the PITA aspect of the randoms, I'd say the mid tiers are the optimal choice. For one thing, the battles more fun, the action starts quicker (there is less wasted time), and many of the required tasks can more easily be completed by picking a ship you know is well suited for something. Like, for instance, for torp related missions, I'd almost always pick my Minekaze.
Gillhunter Posted January 1 Posted January 1 5 minutes ago, Frostbow said: And despite the OP's premature protests about why the mission was not doable in Co-op, he does play Random Battles (often at Tier V), making the issue he raised hilariously moot and academic right from the very start. How often do you play randoms?
Efros Posted January 1 Posted January 1 3 minutes ago, Gillhunter said: How often do you play randoms? Who knows...
Recommended Posts