41 replies to this topic

[Prenzlau]

    The other night some of my clan members were thinking back upon the Albion event with reverence and awe. Depending what side you were predominately on, you could have memories of glory and victory versus ones of futility and loss. Albion was a polarizing event, but at the beginning before anyone really became aware of the preordained lop sided reality there was a lot of Axis players who fought like dogs, only to lose again and again. I know because I was one of them. I remember thinking how it could be that I and many others who were (are) good pilots could keep losing at what was an insane pace. I started seeing pilots who I had flown with in many battle start to show up on the Allies team. It is easy to play around with the concepts of "winning" and "having fun" as if they are mutually exclusive somehow, as if you can have either and that is all that matters. Yet the reality on the other hand is that losing and not having fun always go together. So back when the Albion event was going on, it was just a matter of an individual's personal tolerance for losing that kept them playing the Axis. At the time I rationalized it as "I'm going to go out there regardless of the odds or outcome and give them Hell". That worked for a few days until I started to think about getting double crates and then started to moonlight playing the Allies. It amazes me that no lesson was learned from Albion. Not just with War Gaming but also with the players. As an event, Albion was go to down in history as a lop sided slaughter, with some players still celebrating those fond memories of winning and double crates, and others, well not such good memories, a lot of loses in vain. 

 

 

    Fast forward to the latest and greatest "Bomber Escort Event". This event is so lop sided it almost makes Albion look fair. Like Albion (at the time) there are people who are raving and praising how utterly great this event is. Like going into a casino and winning 95% of your pulls on a slot machine. Who would not like that? Winning is fun and easy!!! Conversely losing is demoralizing and psychologically hard. The human mentality adjusts, once the reality was determined that bombers and attack planes could win at 95%-100% rates, players flocked to these planes to get in on it. Players who still liked flying fighters and heavies teamed up with bombers and attack planes and got in on the attacking side. This weekend the game we call Warplanes gave and gave and gave, to the attackers. People on the defending side had 95%-100% loss rates and playing the defenders seemed futile. I realize that a few egotistical door knobs might pipe in and state how they won playing as the defenders, and maybe they won their share, but only because they had the skill and advantages to overcome the rigged battle. The vast majority of pilots are not in that category of skill. 

 

    What also amazes me is the attitudes of all the people who are basically padding their win rates at paces not seen since Albion. "Bomber Escort is the greatest thing ever!" and "It is so much fun". The fun part is knowing that your practically not going to lose. Very little if any empathy for the poor slobs on the defending side who got loss after loss. "That is their fault for not playing bomber or attack plane and not teaming up". Seems like "seal clubbing" by any other name, it's smell is not so sweet. Legal seal clubbing, institutionalized by War Gaming as an official event. If you know your odds of winning is 9 out of 10, how can you in good conscience feel good about defeating the other team? It is because the human psyche doesn't care about a fair fight. I've read most of the recent posts, some very well written, but very few with any conscious. I guess that reminder is up to me. 

   

    I watched this event progress through out this past weekend. I started seeing players on the defense teams doing things that were counter productive to getting their victory, like going after human player bombers and attack planes, spending all their time shooting down other fighters and not attacking the bomber groups. For a while I could not understand the mind set, was this sheer incompetence? I assumed that anyone playing on the defenders team was in it to win. Then I slowly realized that players had given up on the very idea of winning and were just playing for their own stats or other goals. This attitude of playing but not for the win only perpetuated the lop sided winning versus losing. Players were making the best of it, disregarding their possibilities to win, and just pursuing their own goals and motives. 

 

    My esteemed forum colleague Greg Pattinson wrote a nice piece called "Bomber Escort - Stop trying to win and have fun". I appreciate what Greg has put forth and the spirit to what he is getting at. I was forced to think about winning and losing versus having fun. How schizophrenic it is to have an event that is meant for two sides to compete yet if you follow what Greg is advocating, just don't worry about the winning, just have fun doing whatever. I get it, I really do. We often tell out children, just go out there and do the best you can, that is all that matters. That makes us feel good as parents, we don't then have to address the prime question about winners and losers. There eventually does come a point in which the reality of competition and winning and losing matters, usually in high school. Of course we all know what the real adult world is like, and the competition that is forced upon us all at times. My counter point to Greg, if this game is not about winning, then what is it about? My counter point also goes to War Gaming, what is this game really about? You can win and have fun. True. You can also have fun as Greg describes and throw winning to the breeze. Can you lose and have fun? I suppose if you rationalize it that way and you buffer your emotions about losing. When ever you have two teams and only one team wins, I would put forth that winning is the prime directive. Fun is whatever you personally make it, but if you are on a team and the goal is to win, then that is your duty, to help your team win. Greg is glorifying the obvious, and it is a popular view among players who have profited in the win column. Keep in mind for every win you achieved, someone else received a loss and I would argue a loss that they could do little about. 

 

    In conclusion. If players have had fun, I can appreciate that for what it is at face value. On that level then maybe War Gaming had some success. On the other hand, if creating events that are mass losses for one side and an ever flow of victories for the other, that somehow that translates into equal opportunity and fair play I am dumbfounded. There is something about not knowing certain outcomes that makes things worth while. Like not knowing the end to a book or movie. It can be fun to overwhelmingly win, but time after time after time, how long does it take for your conscious to question what you are doing? Or is it the consensus of the majority that we take all we can and worry little about who we take it from? There is the rub and why these types of games can be so schizophrenic. We all understanding winning and losing on a fair (as fair as it can get) playing field, and we have argued to have that fair playing field, haven't we, but then when the playing field is not fair how much conscious do we put forth? Can we say "We honestly beat you fair and square?". 

 

    I gained somewhere around 100 wins this past weekend. Remarkable. I know others have gained many more than that. The easiest 100 wins I have ever had in this game. I was playing at a rigged table, one I could not lose at. People have accused me of being pompous, arrogant, and full of bluster, just to name a few. Yet I have the capacity to know the difference between things that are honestly earned and things that are contrived and convoluted. I think at the very least we all deserve an explanation as to the reasoning and logic behind this past weekend's event. Is the true enjoyment of creating events for us not knowing yourselves (WG) what is going to happen? Or did you just conclude that if you create rigged and lop sided events that enough players will be happy and declare it a great success, and that is all that matters. Just enough "coal to stoke the fire" to keep things going. I wonder if I am the only one having trouble philosophically with this past event???

 

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

 

Prenzlau

Edited by Prenzlau, 08 October 2018 - 09:39 PM.

[Martymart1976]

Well said, playing Defense this weekend was like your the Washington Generals playing the Harlem Globetrotters every mission- you know you are going to lose.  On the flip side, I did use the event to train some bomber crews and Specialized 2 bombers.  Balance is not found in this mode at the moment.  Maybe if they decrease the amount of bombers or introduce air defense fighters to the defense (I don't recall them being there).  It was nice however to see lots of players, sometimes 2 flights per side!  Take care friend.  

 

-Marty

[nwlxn12]

I don't have any guilt for playing my bombers and attack aircraft this weekend.  I did not do it for the stat padding though.  I play this game for free and grinding up the lines takes longer on a standard account so this weekend was a perfect one for me to grind XP on my bomber and attack planes.  I have plenty of lines to grind up to tier 10, but choosing those other planes to fly this weekend was not as beneficial.  You get more XP on a win and this weekend proved to be a good one for anyone grinding an attack or bomber line.  I suppose if I had multiple tier 10's and didn't need to advance any lines, I may have a different attitude, and had this mode been more evenly balanced, I am sure I would have played more on other lines.  As it is now, I am probably one of the worse Bomber players in game so I did not pass up this opportunity to get some XP on a plane line that I struggle with.

[Prenzlau]

    People want to talk about the "positives" and I understand that. I am not saying that there has not been some personal good that has come out of this event, just the opposite in fact. People are so concerned with the positive things that did happen, they are (either purposely or not) not addressing the slanted game to begin with. The game was justified because I _______________, fill in the blank. I'm trying to claw into the heart of the issue as unpopular as it may be. I'm personally glad some people got paid, either by wins, XP, free planes, etc. 

 

    All that does not change the fact that the casino was crooked to start with. Maybe I should have named this topic, "What is the price for your integrity"? I received three new planes, a bunch of free XP, some gold, and 100 or so wins. BUT I have not been bought off, thus this topic. 

 

Prenzlau

Edited by Prenzlau, 08 October 2018 - 06:38 PM.

[Krautjaeger]

For some reason I clicked the WoWp-tab in my browser and landed here. You guys still rattling around in these old grounds I see.

 

Been with competitive gaming since Doom over IPX and times have totally changed, just as society and people have changed with these 'modern times'. Path of least resistance is the main chant in gaming today, competitive gaming is no different because more and more people are not playing for the competitive aspect any more but simply just to chill and pass time. Companies have always been slow to react to generational shifts, be it gaming or otherwise, but I think WG is slowly getting off their arses and noticing that a thing or three in their games needs to change. People who follow all their titles have already noticed that (ref. "insurance" in WoT and more).

 

My guess is at some point, that is always called 'Soon[tm]', how matches are fought and then rewarded will change by finding a way to take the 'classic win' out of the equation and substituting it with something the majority gamers are most likely to enjoy in this time and age. It could be a system where personal performance/excellence are equally rewarded no matter what team you are on, which also means if you are not really good you will not get as good rewards as those that are. This could give an incentive for players to improve to get better rewards which sounds good, but it also needs a new system ironed out so players can not 'play the system' (i.e. just farm damage).

 

When/if something like that comes around it doesn't really matter what side you choose or which side 'wins' as if you do well yourself you will be rewarded well. The future of online gaming is changing as we speak, and I'm quite excited for the future.

 

Side-note, Wargaming has learned a lot and gotten great insight in to local-login-global-server gameplay through Total War Arena. It was supposed to just be an ad-hoc thing until regional servers came up but it worked so well they are staying with it. This means that people from all over the world are playing together on the same server, sorted by ping-rate. You are paired in teams with people that have same or close ping-rate as you and if there are too few people around the ping-rate requirement is slightly increased until queues can be populated for you again. First step is WG is doing global Clan Battles for WoWs with this system but you can be sure this will eventually come for WoT, WoWp and WoWs once they got it all ironed out and perfected. As always, Soon[tm].

Edited by Krautjaeger, 08 October 2018 - 06:49 PM.

[Reitousair]

I won a fair few defense games myself but those mostly came from a largely incapable attacking team rather than defending being in any way balanced (48k PP using my P-51K while only killing 8 bombers lol.) I played about 50% solo and 50% flighted, with very little GA/Bombers played, even when with a flightmate. Winning on attacking was boring, and on defending it felt hollow because pretty much every win I had on defense was from an incapable attacking team, not from my team clutching out an epic win in a hard fought battle.

 

Oh fun fact: Escort was going to be a PvE mode, even some people with ties to WG that I spoke with said everything pointed towards it being PvE. This could help explain the queue changes with all-bot games being a thing now but it's perhaps something to think about as to why the gamemode is so horrendously unbalanced, it was never designed for players on both sides.

 

But, anyways, to summarize Escort matches::
One side only needs to stall
The other needs to kill all

[Greg_Pattinson]

Well since you specifically called me out by name I will take the time to respond.  The contradiction at the very hart of your philosophical dilemma is right in the description of war game.   War is not a game.  War is never fair or balanced.  To para phrase sun Tzu, winners win first than seek battle.  losers enter battle and seek to win.  Nobody would start a war if they thought they would loose.  Trying to create a game that is balanced and fair based on the unfair concept of war is an inherent contradiction.  When you think of a game the balanced and fair idea of a game tends to be at the forefront of thinking.  Games like football and chess are balanced and fair.  However that is not the only type of game.  Video games have historically tended to be unbalanced and unfair.  How much fun would super Mario be if it was him against a mushroom 1 v 1?  It is the nature of the unbalanced and unfair to create what appears to be insurmountable odds.  This is what creates the challenge and the fun.  How many times did you die when you played super Mario before you actually won?  The seemingly insurmountable odds and all those losses is what makes winning so rewarding.  In my post I said I like being on the loosing team.  That's not because I want to loose.  Its because I want the challenge of being on the defending side.  I said that I did win playing my starfire on the defending side.  I also won playing the P38j on the defending side.  Yes I lost on the defending side so many times more than I won.  It was those losses that made those wins more fun than all the bomber and GAA wins combined  That's why I referred to the bomber and GAA missions as a grind even though they were almost all wins. They weren't rewarding at all because there was no challenge.  When winning is the only objective as it is in war I adopted the war mentality.  I flighted up to get the 5 wins of the first mission out of the way because I knew that I could win that way.  I figured out how to win and than I entered battle.  Once the objective was accomplished I moved on to the game and having fun.  In the second mission to get the crates there was no win requirement.  So a challenge and having fun didn't interfere or hinder accomplishing that objective.  Doing it the hard way on the defending side was actually more effective at accomplishing the objective because there were more targets to shoot at.  You asked what this game is about if its not about winning.  The answer is that like war this game is about accomplishing objectives.  You can loose the battle but still win the war when winning the battle does not contribute to achieving the objectives of the war.

[Wombatmetal]

Greg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 12:08 PM, said:

Well since you specifically called me out by name I will take the time to respond.  The contradiction at the very hart of your philosophical dilemma is right in the description of war game.   War is not a game.  War is never fair or balanced.  To para phrase sun Tzu, winners win first than seek battle.  losers enter battle and seek to win.  Nobody would start a war if they thought they would loose.  Trying to create a game that is balanced and fair based on the unfair concept of war is an inherent contradiction.  When you think of a game the balanced and fair idea of a game tends to be at the forefront of thinking.  Games like football and chess are balanced and fair.  However that is not the only type of game.  Video games have historically tended to be unbalanced and unfair.  How much fun would super Mario be if it was him against a mushroom 1 v 1?  It is the nature of the unbalanced and unfair to create what appears to be insurmountable odds.  This is what creates the challenge and the fun.  How many times did you die when you played super Mario before you actually won?  The seemingly insurmountable odds and all those losses is what makes winning so rewarding.  In my post I said I like being on the loosing team.  That's not because I want to loose.  Its because I want the challenge of being on the defending side.  I said that I did win playing my starfire on the defending side.  I also won playing the P38j on the defending side.  Yes I lost on the defending side so many times more than I won.  It was those losses that made those wins more fun than all the bomber and GAA wins combined  That's why I referred to the bomber and GAA missions as a grind even though they were almost all wins. They weren't rewarding at all because there was no challenge.  When winning is the only objective as it is in war I adopted the war mentality.  I flighted up to get the 5 wins of the first mission out of the way because I knew that I could win that way.  I figured out how to win and than I entered battle.  Once the objective was accomplished I moved on to the game and having fun.  In the second mission to get the crates there was no win requirement.  So a challenge and having fun didn't interfere or hinder accomplishing that objective.  Doing it the hard way on the defending side was actually more effective at accomplishing the objective because there were more targets to shoot at.  You asked what this game is about if its not about winning.  The answer is that like war this game is about accomplishing objectives.  You can loose the battle but still win the war when winning the battle does not contribute to achieving the objectives of the war.

 

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution", Vyacheslav von Plehve; just before Russia started the Russo Japanese war, which they lost badly

 

I had fun over the weekend. It didn't take long to forget about wins and losses and just play for the heck of it

 

I tried to play defense, but every time I hopped into a fighter I ended up on offense. So I played GA and bombers, which are my preference anyway, along with Multi Roll, which were not well suited to this event

[Greg_Pattinson]

To further illustrate my point I will give you 3 examples.  

1.  During Vietnam America won every major engagement yet lost the war.  Even the famed tet offensive resulted in the near annihilation of communist forces.  The North Vietnamese could afford to loose thousands of men for every one American casualty because winning individual engagements was not necessary for the overall strategy of wearing down the American peoples will to fight.

2.  There was a famous confederate general (name slips my mind at the moment) who never lost a battle yet lost the war.

3.  The famed Fabian strategy allowed Hannibal to raze the Italian country side yet Fabian did not give battle.  In doing so he saved Rome and won the war. 

 

This weekend the objective was to get crates.  Winning individual battles had no effect on achieving that objective.  Even before this game mode I was against win ratio being the main stat because daily missions or other objectives are far more important to me than winning an individual battle.  The only time winning a battle does matter is when there is a win requirement for an objective or mission.

[Greg_Pattinson]

Wombatmetal, on 08 October 2018 - 08:18 PM, said:

 

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution", Vyacheslav von Plehve; just before Russia started the Russo Japanese war, which they lost badly

 

I had fun over the weekend. It didn't take long to forget about wins and losses and just play for the heck of it

 

I tried to play defense, but every time I hopped into a fighter I ended up on offense. So I played GA and bombers, which are my preference anyway, along with Multi Roll, which were not well suited to this event

 

I disagree about multiroles.  The F94d was amazing on defence for shooting bombers.  The F84 was great on offence.  You could take out all the AA at a garrison with your rockets and it could do a good job of escorting bombers.  I even got my wins in the first phase in the f4f before I flighted up in the second phase.  The rockets and guns were good for killing bombers and it is maneuverable enough to deal with escorts.

[Wombatmetal]

Greg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

To further illustrate my point I will give you 3 examples.  

1.  During Vietnam America won every major engagement yet lost the war.  Even the famed tet offensive resulted in the near annihilation of communist forces.  The North Vietnamese could afford to loose thousands of men for every one American casualty because winning individual engagements was not necessary for the overall strategy of wearing down the American peoples will to fight.

2.  There was a famous confederate general (name slips my mind at the moment) who never lost a battle yet lost the war.

3.  The famed Fabian strategy allowed Hannibal to raze the Italian country side yet Fabian did not give battle.  In doing so he saved Rome and won the war. 

 

This weekend the objective was to get crates.  Winning individual battles had no effect on achieving that objective.  Even before this game mode I was against win ratio being the main stat because daily missions or other objectives are far more important to me than winning an individual battle.  The only time winning a battle does matter is when there is a win requirement for an objective or mission.

 

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson never retreated; but he was killed in a friendly fire incident at Chancellorsville. Not sure if he is the one you meant. 

 

There are a lot of parallels between Viet Nam and our own Revolution, where Washington figured out as long as the army was intact, it didn't matter how many battles he lost, he would win the war. 

[Wombatmetal]

Greg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

 

I disagree about multiroles.  The F94d was amazing on defence for shooting bombers.  The F84 was great on offence.  You could take out all the AA at a garrison with your rockets and it could do a good job of escorting bombers.  I even got my wins in the first phase in the f4f before I flighted up in the second phase.  The rockets and guns were good for killing bombers and it is maneuverable enough to deal with escorts.

 

I'm not at the F94d yet, on the P47, and thought if I dismounted the bombs would surely be on offense, and if I mounted them would surely be on defense. So I played other stuff rather than get frustrated. 

 

9 of my 10 most played planes are bombers and GA so it's in my wheelhouse anyway

Edited by Wombatmetal, 08 October 2018 - 08:59 PM.

[Prenzlau]

Greg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

Well since you specifically called me out by name I will take the time to respond.  The contradiction at the very hart of your philosophical dilemma is right in the description of war game.   War is not a game.  War is never fair or balanced.  To para phrase sun Tzu, winners win first than seek battle.  losers enter battle and seek to win.  Nobody would start a war if they thought they would loose.  Trying to create a game that is balanced and fair based on the unfair concept of war is an inherent contradiction.  When you think of a game the balanced and fair idea of a game tends to be at the forefront of thinking.  Games like football and chess are balanced and fair.  However that is not the only type of game.  Video games have historically tended to be unbalanced and unfair.  How much fun would super Mario be if it was him against a mushroom 1 v 1?  It is the nature of the unbalanced and unfair to create what appears to be insurmountable odds.  This is what creates the challenge and the fun.  How many times did you die when you played super Mario before you actually won?  The seemingly insurmountable odds and all those losses is what makes winning so rewarding.  In my post I said I like being on the loosing team.  That's not because I want to loose.  Its because I want the challenge of being on the defending side.  I said that I did win playing my starfire on the defending side.  I also won playing the P38j on the defending side.  Yes I lost on the defending side so many times more than I won.  It was those losses that made those wins more fun than all the bomber and GAA wins combined  That's why I referred to the bomber and GAA missions as a grind even though they were almost all wins. They weren't rewarding at all because there was no challenge.  When winning is the only objective as it is in war I adopted the war mentality.  I flighted up to get the 5 wins of the first mission out of the way because I knew that I could win that way.  I figured out how to win and than I entered battle.  Once the objective was accomplished I moved on to the game and having fun.  In the second mission to get the crates there was no win requirement.  So a challenge and having fun didn't interfere or hinder accomplishing that objective.  Doing it the hard way on the defending side was actually more effective at accomplishing the objective because there were more targets to shoot at.  You asked what this game is about if its not about winning.  The answer is that like war this game is about accomplishing objectives.  You can loose the battle but still win the war when winning the battle does not contribute to achieving the objectives of the war.

 

    This guy sort of sounds like me back when I would just put forth an argument just to irritate people. As my great friend Zigfreid has often said to me, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have a pig". Greg your splitting hairs and then trying to make justifications while missing the main point. I have never argued that this particular game should be designed to be utterly fair, if that would have been the case I would have been criticizing the maps a long time ago. This game is not fair for a bunch of different reasons. You don't start a Monopoly game with your opponent owning all the properties, for example. There has to be some inherent standard of playability in which each side has a chance for victory. If one side has less than a 10% chance and the other a 90% chance, how is that challenging for either side? 

 

    If people do not value winning, then I can see just how easy it would be to be in Greg's camp where you simply take the opportunity to get that ACE badge, or accomplish some goals and still lose. There is no overall "war" here and no long term objectives. Each battle is a microcosm in itself and the result means little afterward except to the human players who either lost or won. As the defenders, you got to bend over and take the loss while getting lovely consolation prizes and benefits, as you have described like not needing a win to get your crate. 

 

You asked what this game is about if its not about winning.  The answer is that like war this game is about accomplishing objectives. 

 

    This game has always been about personal objectives, working on your planes, getting new planes, working on that win rate, etc. This game is not war. It is temporary battles that mean little beyond the results except for who gets the spare parts and maybe bragging rights. Every time I play it is about doing my best to help my team win. I want my team to win. It is nothing more than psychologically frustrating to participate in an event that is rigged so that one side wins 90% or greater of the time. Should each battle then end in a draw and we can socialize it down to just rewarding the pilots who did the best and hand out participation ribbons at the end to those who were not good enough to compete? 

 

You can loose the battle but still win the war

 

    Really? Maybe that is why so many ex-players have kept hanging around, maybe that is what they are thinking. One of these days, War Gaming is going to change and do what we have always wanted them to do? Despite the fact that they keep disappointing. When I lose a battle, it goes into the loss column. That's all. What war do you think will still be won? The war to socialize this game into something where you don't have winners and losers, just participants. Greg you are glossing over what this really is about. The creation of such imbalance that this event is flawed. That does not mean players have not profited, that is not what I am saying. The event is rigged, imbalanced and unfair in terms of offering one side a real fighting chance, which has to be more than 10% or less. All things being equal. 

 

The seemingly insurmountable odds and all those losses is what makes winning so rewarding.

 

    My favorite quote from your reply. Really. Maybe HamhockJones would like to pipe in here and give his perspective on that statement??? So if I lost 50 battles and won 3, I should cherish those 3 battles for they were worth fighting? Yup that would be rewarding, to win just a small amount of battles and just rationalize the massive losing away. The Charge of the Light Brigade! Maybe War Gaming should make a kamikaze event where one side does not get to fire weapons but only can win by ramming. That would be fun and glorious but probably not result in many victories. 

 

    I really want to understand your point of view, but I cannot. I see a flawed and imbalanced event as far as Bomber Escort goes and although I agree completely that individuals have profited and gained many things, overall the spirit of fair play and a challenging event for both sides has been botched. 

 

Prenzlau

[ComradeZ]

I found my experience depended on who I was playing with and if I was alone or not.  Alone, the game mode was fun as a GAA on Offense.  Good fun with Heavies against GAAs on Defense.  My experience in the air war though was hit or miss. With another good pilot, we won most of our games defense and offense.  I guess it was one of the few game modes where I could decide if I was to have a good chance of winning or not or how hard the mission would be (offense or defense).  Overall, I rank it a 7.5 out of 10.

[Prenzlau]

Greg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

To further illustrate my point I will give you 3 examples.  

1.  During Vietnam America won every major engagement yet lost the war.  Even the famed tet offensive resulted in the near annihilation of communist forces.  The North Vietnamese could afford to loose thousands of men for every one American casualty because winning individual engagements was not necessary for the overall strategy of wearing down the American peoples will to fight.

2.  There was a famous confederate general (name slips my mind at the moment) who never lost a battle yet lost the war.

3.  The famed Fabian strategy allowed Hannibal to raze the Italian country side yet Fabian did not give battle.  In doing so he saved Rome and won the war. 

 

This weekend the objective was to get crates.  Winning individual battles had no effect on achieving that objective.  Even before this game mode I was against win ratio being the main stat because daily missions or other objectives are far more important to me than winning an individual battle.  The only time winning a battle does matter is when there is a win requirement for an objective or mission.

 

    Using real life examples to explain a fictional video game. This game is not historical reality, and has nothing to do with it. This game is 100% controlled (or it should be) by the developers. Any imbalance is created whether on purpose or not. We are not simulating the reality of real life where there are so many unknown variables. 

 

We have two differences of opinions here. 

 

You believe that winning is secondary to getting crates and other personal goals.

 

I believe you play to win and then reap the rewards of your actions after you crush your enemies like the bugs they are.

 

Those who agree with Greg should never then criticize War Gaming about anything that has to do with wins, or winning because you would have to believe then that War Gaming took winning out as a factor, which is ridiculous since so many people raked in the wins like it was fall harvest.

 

Prenzlau

Edited by Prenzlau, 08 October 2018 - 10:15 PM.

[Perco_lator]

I think the word you were looking for is conscience.

[Prenzlau]

Perco_lator, on 08 October 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

I think the word you were looking for is conscience.

 

    The only time I can recall that I wanted you to say something more. Instead another grammar hawk.

 

Prenzlau

[Perco_lator]

Prenzlau, on 08 October 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

 

    The only time I can recall that I wanted you to say something more. Instead another grammar hawk.

 

Prenzlau

 

Ok here is something more.

 

Did it take you the whole 100 games to realize that this mode was unfair, too EZ & downright absurd?

Or did you realize it much sooner & just keep playing it for the EZ wins just like everybody else that was abusing another broken game mode?

Where was your conscience at while you were busy gathering your in game loot?

 

I am glad you finally came to your senses though & made a big Dudley Do-Wright post up about how guilty everybody should feel.

[Prenzlau]

Perco_lator, on 08 October 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

 

Ok here is something more.

 

Did it take you the whole 100 games to realize that this mode was unfair, too EZ & downright absurd?

Or did you realize it much sooner & just keep playing it for the EZ wins just like everybody else that was abusing another broken game mode?

Where was your conscience at while you were busy gathering your in game loot?

 

I am glad you finally came to your senses though & made a big Dudley Do-Wright post up about how guilty everybody should feel.

 

    I play to win. I sucked those wins up like a vacuum cleaner and at the time joked about it with my clan mates. Sometimes though, it takes time for thoughts and feelings to "percolate" to a realization. Those wins are in the bank baby! That said, it does not mean that my points are not true. I'm still an elitist, don't think for a second that I have changed. I still however, see reality for what it is. My conscious is right where is always has been. I see bacon, I eat bacon. But beyond that I do indulge others as I have always done. Some charity work for my underlings. I never said anyone should give back their booty, I mean don't ever give back yer booty! I'm out here proclaiming a broken game mode, where is the usual crew? Do I have to do their jobs these days as well?

 

    I have changed my mind. You are not and really have never been very helpful to me. Go away.

 

Prenzlau

Edited by Prenzlau, 08 October 2018 - 10:20 PM.

[Zigfreid]

Perco_lator, on 08 October 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

I think the word you were looking for is conscience.

 

Gouldy we all know you just got off of the short bus.

And WG calls you a Woodpecker they may be right.

So you having 11 battles gives you the right to troll 

hear and me as an old friend to call you a Pecker.