Jump to content


Seal clubbing at tier 1 - how honourable!

Sealclubbing tier 1

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

Horcan #81 Posted 23 May 2018 - 05:06 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2655 battles
  • 512
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Because there are no clans in it. These gatherings of 15-20 people that share a tag cant be called clans. I've been in a few so far, pre and since 2.0 (Right now i even gave up finding a clan because i could have one to even have 5 or 10 people online in the evenings) . Im sure there are a few around that have or had that, but how many are there like that? Look at WoT global map campaign. Hundred maybe thousands clans playing, with people jumping between clans because they dont get to play in the first 4x15 players teams. How many clans you think there are here that can have 30 people online at the same time? You think you can find 10? Why would they bother( have bothered ) fixing this sort of campaigns if they cant get people to play the game in the first place?

n0_f4k3 #82 Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:01 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 96 battles
  • 545
  • [JFA] JFA
  • Member since:
    06-20-2012

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 23 May 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

Yes.....it lost mostly those old players who threw their toys out of the pram when the failed game wasn't killed off entirely like it should have been.

Perhaps that other thread should have been called 'Reverse back to failed game'.....because that is what is being asked for.

 

If its true that these 2.0 thing has less players now then the 1.9 stuff (after 7 months online) is that the fail. and to tell that is the fault of the old players who stop playing it is pretty low. WG and Persha did it,no one else!

It's not about
Win or lose
Because we all lose
When they feed on the souls of the innocent
Blood-drenched pavement
Keep on moving though the waters stay raging


 


BravelyRanAway #83 Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:13 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2384 battles
  • 857
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postn0_f4k3, on 23 May 2018 - 08:01 PM, said:

 

If its true that these 2.0 thing has less players now then the 1.9 stuff (after 7 months online) is that the fail. and to tell that is the fault of the old players who stop playing it is pretty low. WG and Persha did it,no one else!

You really don't understand what I meant at all.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


jakub_czyli_ja #84 Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:21 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1978 battles
  • 9,270
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 23 May 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

Yes.....it lost mostly those old players who threw their toys out of the pram when the failed game wasn't killed off entirely like it should have been.

Perhaps that other thread should have been called 'Reverse back to failed game'.....because that is what is being asked for.

Claim that mostly old player left is very short legged.

Let's say that during the last weeks of 1.9 there were 6 to 7k players. 2.0 gathered over 11k - 4 to 5k increase.

Now there are about 5k players - give or take 6k left.

So numbers of leaving players are for 1.9 players - left from 1 to 6k (1/6th to almost all, 1k left - quite not likely), and respectively new players - from none to 4k (almost none to 80% newcomers).

 

I think even with proportions 2 disappointed 1.9 players leaving to 1 disappointed new player, numbers aren't in favor of 2.0. Because they mean that 40% of new players left within 8 months, and 2/3rd of old players also left.

 

I think that WG has own, exact numbers how these groups behave, and responsible persons have to produce a lot of explanations, what went wrong while it was to be so great.

Of course carefully avoiding things like feedbacks after tests of 2.0.



jakub_czyli_ja #85 Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:28 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1978 battles
  • 9,270
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostHorcan, on 23 May 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

Because there are no clans in it. These gatherings of 15-20 people that share a tag cant be called clans. I've been in a few so far, pre and since 2.0 (Right now i even gave up finding a clan because i could have one to even have 5 or 10 people online in the evenings) . Im sure there are a few around that have or had that, but how many are there like that? Look at WoT global map campaign. Hundred maybe thousands clans playing, with people jumping between clans because they dont get to play in the first 4x15 players teams. How many clans you think there are here that can have 30 people online at the same time? You think you can find 10? Why would they bother( have bothered ) fixing this sort of campaigns if they cant get people to play the game in the first place?

It's a cycle.

People don't play in clans, because being in clans give them nothing. And now you try to explain that it gives them nothing because there aren't enough clans.

Option 1 to break that cycle already had been tried - there were clans, and no content for them appeared. And clans eroded, like playerbase.

So instead of trying that failed path, the other should be tried - give clans a reason to be, except wearing a tag and scaring noobs. Then people will gather.

 

This is something that players have been asking since years, and WG/Persha didn't give a f.

 

And there may be other reasons of your issues with finding a clan - I've seen you few times in randoms.

For the record - difference is that I don't look for a clan, so fact that majority of them would reject me doesn't bother me.



Horcan #86 Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:26 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2655 battles
  • 512
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Yes you are right, both sides can blame the other leading to a cycle. They dont give clan stuff because there are not enough people , who dont gather because there is no reason to. I know sometimes im toxic in chat during games, but like you said i dont really care either if i find a clan or not, nothing to gain atm. If there will ever be a reason, i may change my approach and maybe even change my reason to play this game ( which due to their continuous failure to provide something entertaining and not frustrating as hell is limited to farm tokens only ).

As for numbers, we cant say how many of 1.9 players believe it was better than 2.0, as we cant say how many of 2.0 players are 1.9 fans who still play even if they are dissapointed. Its just personal oppinions. Nobody can say how many liked 1.9 more than 2.0 unless they make some sort of survey ingame that doesnt let you play until you give an answer which one you prefer. And this continuous arguing wont help the game either, as i strongly believe they wont go back to 1.9, and if they ever give a game mode offering that , population will only split in two creating two deserted game modes.



jakub_czyli_ja #87 Posted 24 May 2018 - 04:54 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1978 battles
  • 9,270
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I (probably naive) believe in pointing WoWP flaws all over again.

Because in such situation maybe somebody who can make decisions in WG/Persha will take his head out from his [edited]and at least will verify, whether pointed out flaws are indeed flaws and how they influence playerbase.

Up till now all changes were "we know better and we will screw gameplay like this".

 

Why no team mode? Why ram is being awarded with frag? What would happen, if not? Why no skill based MM?

 

Most of such questions so far got same answer "because f off".

 



zen_monk_ #88 Posted 24 May 2018 - 05:10 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 3631 battles
  • 790
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 24 May 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

I (probably naive) believe in pointing WoWP flaws all over again.

 

Because in such situation maybe somebody ...  will take his head out from his [edited]

 

It's not naivety but the lack of something else, much more important.

 

The hint is in line two.



deaxter_hero #89 Posted 29 May 2018 - 07:47 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2816 battles
  • 127
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013
I noticed _EAF_ that you went from place 1 to place 2 in the Hall of Fame. If you did that on purpose, than you regained my respect, Sir. If other players currently milking the I-5 started playing some other planes in higher tiers they would get my respect too. 

 No majority of OP Heavies flights in 1.9: ---- Alone: 86%    Squad: 14%  ---- Fighter (37%) Heavy Fighter (31%) Multi-role Fighter (20%) Attack Aircraft (13%)


BravelyRanAway #90 Posted 29 May 2018 - 10:17 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2384 battles
  • 857
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdeaxter_hero, on 29 May 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

I noticed _EAF_ that you went from place 1 to place 2 in the Hall of Fame. If you did that on purpose, than you regained my respect, Sir. If other players currently milking the I-5 started playing some other planes in higher tiers they would get my respect too. 

This happens regularly between the two......the guy presently in 1st spot is a very good player.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


Horcan #91 Posted 02 June 2018 - 11:00 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2655 battles
  • 512
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
And playing in a flight, 2 good players with OP planes, most games vs 2 random mediocres, is more honorable than seal clubbing at tier 1?





Also tagged with Sealclubbing, tier 1

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users