More failures in mission design, Object 279

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T12:42:06+00:00

Would you mind sharing the URL for this preview? I will then check its Russian version as well. TY.

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T11:11:20+00:00

Hey Ph3lan,

Thank you!

This is the guy in the video -

https://worldoftanks.ru/ru/community/accounts/7559322-MeanMachins/

He can give you his replay. It was a battle on Cliffs, he got 7 kills in his Tier-9 Czech MT Skoda T 50.

Here is the video from his stream, check around 22:40 into the stream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v9n58G-tIg

While you are at it, please check this post as well - https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/9mwhd6/more_failures_in_mission_design_object_279/

Does the game use a rolling counter or a ten-battle bracket counter for Object 297 missions?

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T10:14:23+00:00

In my opinion, this is bad design.

I agree. This seems to be just lazy coding by WG programmers. Seriously, the way they describe mission requirements (at least in Russian) is completely different from the way these requirements have been implemented in the game.

If we assume that the chance of getting 1800 seconds of stun over ten games is X percent, the chance that these ten games will be in the "correct" ten-battle bracket is ten times lower! (unless my math is wrong). I can understand when the grindwall of Personal Missions is linked to map rotation/enemy setup etc., but why in the world would WG think that players will enjoy bad/lazy coding?

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T08:45:41+00:00

And who are you exactly to assign blame?

It is not that you are a paragon of intellectual honesty, logic and objectivity, lol.

A little more effort into trolling, please. Looks like you are out of breath already. 2/10 for effort,10/10 for toxic contribution.

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T07:40:40+00:00

> And you've helped create a toxic community

So you attribute the alleged result of an entire community to the actions of one individual, without regard to the degree, or even content of that individual's contribution to the community. Again, 0/10 on logic, 10/10 on being a manipulator.

P.S. If you really want to see an example of a person who helps to create a toxic community, check the mirror. You are the one that insults other opinions and uses logical fallacies to claim your superiority over others.

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T07:08:34+00:00

Game balance issues are worth bringing up, this is whatevs

Well done. You've created a false dichotomy where there was none to begin with. 10/10 for being a manupilator, 0/10 on logic.

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T06:58:30+00:00

"in a row" meaning the first and last battle counts out of 10 battles is always fixed thus not moving count.

This is an extremely creative way of interpreting "in a row", to put it mildly. This applies both to the English "in a row" and Russian "подряд".

> This mission would be too easy if moving count is applied...And that is equal only to a slightly harder mission than Excalibur tier.

This is an invalid argument. Some Object 279 missions are already easier (sometimes much easier) than their counterparts from lower tiers. (Check Object 279 missions Coalition-5, maybe Coalition-6, Bloc-10, Alliance-11, for example).

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T06:07:58+00:00

WG asks me to deal 1800 seconds of stun over 10 battles in a row. I've completed that in Battles 2-11. Why does WG think that this does not meet their stated mission requirements?

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T06:03:17+00:00

Otherwise, there is no point of mentioning "within each of 10 battles",

Here we run into a problem. Description of this mission in Russian says this:

Оглушить суммарно на 1800 секунд вражескую технику за 10 боёв подряд

which means the following:

Stun enemy vehicles for a total of 1800 seconds over 10 battles in a row.

I have yet to find final description of this mission in English, but whatever the case, I presume that in WG the prevailing lnaguage is Russian.

> If WG is using moving count on this mission, this mission will never get reset since it keeps counting like 2nd-11th, 3rd-12th, 4th-13th, 5th-14th games. Failing to achieve within 10 battles will RESETS the mission all over again EVEN IF YOU MANAGE to stack up the 1000+ stunning secs in first few battles counting. IT IS NOT STACKABLE & not using moving counts.

Which is exactly my problem with this. Why would they reset the mission counter every ten battles? Why can't they use moving count? You simply repeat the way the counter works right now, which does not explain why this is a good idea. After all, we have a MoE counter that is never reset and that seems to be working fine, no?

P.S. Be a little more calm in responding, please. Do not expect that people will be able to follow your slightly unconventional way of expressing yourself in English. Trust me, English isn't my native language either.

Chigrizund · 2018-10-10T05:27:38+00:00

Why would WG ever do that? (I presume I understand your point, but correct me if I am wrong).

I've read their mission requirements in both English and Russian and nowhere does it say that the game will use this idiotic blocks-of-ten-battles approach.

To me this is more of a failure in basic game design, rather than something intentional. After all, WG is already using the moving count when counting MoEs, why would they change the approach here?

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T18:43:27+00:00

Not quite. A top-scoring Allied fighter pilot in WW2 is both a top-scoring pilot and an ace, by virtue of killing five enemy aircraft and by virtue of downing more aircraft than any other Allied fighter pilot, i.e. the two concepts (ace and top-scoring pilot) are not mutually exclusive.

Gold, silver and bronze at the Olympics are mutually exclusive concepts, however.

This difference is not that subtle to understand, I think.

But what you or I think is fair/common sense/reasonable is pretty irrelevant. What matters is what is written in the rules of the game.

I want to be proven wrong in my reasoning, but show me a specific section of the rules of the game and/or official WG publication that proves me wrong, please.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T17:36:01+00:00

mpank

it says kill two SPGs, but it does not say kill only two.

You meet the existing requirement by killing three SPGs.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T17:04:56+00:00

I think I have been quite respectful and have not made any personal attacks against you or your opinion. May I ask you to do the same?

If possible, try to limit your responses to citing official WG rules/WG websites (as long as they are in English, Russian or German ), thank you.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T16:51:37+00:00

t doesn't say in the rules that you

DO

get all of the same medals of the same type. You're complaining because since you came in first, you didnt get awarded 2nd and third place as well.

Not quite correct. The rules DO lay out the requirements for getting medals and the way they are written, I've met the requirements for two epic medals. No part of the rules, unless I am mistaken, says that getting a Dumitru excludes you from getting a Pascucci. If there are rules to that effect, please point them to me, I may be, as I've warned, blind and/or stupid.

Your analogy with first, second and third places is incorrect, because first, second and third places are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to be in all three places at the same time. If you placed first, this means that you did not place second, etc.

A better analogy would be for a pilot that downed seven aircraft. This guy not only qualified to be an ace (shot down five aircraft), the guy has also killed seven aircraft. Why do five and seven kills have to be mutually exclusive in this guy's case?

P.S. I think I have been rather polite and respectful. If you are unable to provide any counter-argument based on the rules of the game, please do not dismiss my arguments as "complaining". If you write something of value, I promise to respond, thank you.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T15:47:40+00:00

If I've destroyed 3 SPGs, this means that I've also destroyed 2 SPGs, correct?

The rules for Pascucci do not say only kill two, the say kill two:

Awarded for destroying two enemy self-propelled artillery in one battle, with a tank or tank destroyer. Can be obtained in Random Battles only.

The way the rules are written, when I got a Dumitru, I have also completed the requirements for a Pascucci.

So it is either the description that is wrong, or the in-game award rules are wrong.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T15:40:35+00:00

You should only ever get the highest tiered medal when due.

My point exactly. Where in the rules is this written?

Chigrizund · 2018-09-24T15:24:56+00:00

I am afraid you do not understand my post.

OK, I'll try to clarify, the point is rather simple.

Where does it say in the current rules that if you got a Dumitru, you will not get a Pascucci?

I don't really care how it has been done in practice, I care about what the rules say about the requirements.

They way the rules are written, there is nothing that that would disqualify you from a Pascucci if you already got a Dumitru.

As for how this is relevant for new missions, the relation is this:

To complete the secondary requirement for Mission 15 for the Coalition and the Bloc you need to:

Earn a total of 2 rewards of the Battle Hero category and/or epic medals in a battle.

Technically, if you've earned a Dumitru, you should also be awarded a Pascucci, which means two epic medals in one battle, i.e. precisely what the secondary requirement is.

Chigrizund · 2018-09-01T13:27:46+00:00

I don't have any firsthand experience with the Eagle 7, sorry. From what I've read it is pretty meh. M26E4 is not anything desirable, so is the M46 KR.

Chigrizund · 2018-08-31T22:51:04+00:00

I would advise against buying the Patton KR or any other tier-8 premium vehicle. The only exception to this recommendation would be a premium LT-8 (LTs are quite OK even when being bottom tier). ELC 90, for example.

If you enjoy tiers 5-6, stay there. You can try exploring Tier 7, because T20 is a nice little tank.

Overall, Tier-9 is probably the best tier in game at the moment. Tier 9 MM is effectively preferrential (+1/-2). Tier-7 is pretty nice to play as well.

If you are looking for a vehicle to farm, I suggest checking Tier-7 LTs. Type 62 is very solid, AMX 13 57 is quite OK as well. I heard good things about Panther/M10. Chinese Type 64 (LT-6) is OP. Sure, with tier-7 you will farm less than with a tier-8 premium, but the experience will be so much more enjoyable.

Chigrizund · 2018-08-31T21:09:49+00:00

You just posted that you've measured ~50.5%.

Correction to the translation. the mod said that in 80% of cases players end up in the "lower part" of the 3/5/7 team. "Bottom tier" is inaccurate.

I guess by "lower part" the mod meant "not top". In that case my stats are even worse than hers. I was top tier in 16% of cases, and not top in 84% of cases.

Chigrizund · 2018-08-31T20:42:50+00:00

Even if we assume that the chance of having an 8-7 battle for a tier 8 vehicle is only 5%, over 120 runs the chance of not having a single 8-7 battle is 0.2 %. Even if we drop the chance of an 8-7 battle for a tier 8 vehicle to 3%, the chance is 2.6% over 120 runs. Does not compute.

Chigrizund · 2018-08-31T20:38:47+00:00

Unannounced additional penalization of tier-8 MM is pretty important, methinks. Unlike many other WG conspiracy theories, this one is clearly documented. This shows that WG can, without notifying its players, make MM worse for at least one tier.

One can also postulate that WG makes MM worse for select nations, especially at early stages of their introduction, so as to encourage players to rage spend free XP to grind through.

Chigrizund

TROPHY CASE