For the Record: Regarding Individual Missions
Hello everyone, so, the individual missions are here. Yesterday, I played a bunch of battles (maybe 30 I think) and completed the StuG IV TD missions up to the point where platoon is required, after that I moved to medium tanks, where I am about half-way through. The missions aren’t that hard and if you optimize them (for example by not attempting to complete the “hit the moving target” TD one in a 150mm derp vehicle), you can be there in no time. After the StuG it gets harder of course, but hey, it’s something. That’s not the real problem of the IM’s anyway. I have to admit, I was very much looking forward to the individual missions (or personal missions or whatever it is called these days, there’s nothing individual or personal about them anyway since everyone has them), but I have to wonder, whether that was actually the right thing to do. You might have noticed that the gameplay of the random battles changed – and it changed forever. Some – perhaps many – of you have seen it yesterday, situations such as these: - a medium tank suicide rushed enemy artillery position because he needs to kill at least one - a medium tank killing two enemy tanks and then bugging off, since the requirement is to survive, leaving the rest of the team dies - scouts suicide rushing (“must spot first”) or doing nothing, trying to “survive” - artillery firing all over the place, trying to hit mission specific targets, while critical spots are left without support (in worst cases, your artillery is on some mission while the enemy one isn’t, so you don’t have support while the other team does) Those are just examples, two of which I saw. Maybe it’s just me, but I did notice more strange or retarded behavior in randoms yesterday, even during times (after prime time), when battles usually start making at least a bit sense. I do blame the missions for that. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not COMPLETELY unplayable, but it definitely made the situation worse. Some of the missions are bugged. I can’t tell which exactly and a lot of the bug reports are probably false, since the players might simply have not fulfilled the conditions (why is there no progress indicator that would tell you when you actually complete the mission in the battle?), but some of them are legitimate (one or two artillery ones), so there will probably be some sort of fix, possibly even server-side. And of course there are the requirements too. While I do think it’s hilarious that some of the arty haters actually have it much harder to reach the top (good luck with all the secondary ojectives), both the LT’s and arty are tanks with very specialized skillset required to operate them successfully, making players play them is a sort of… I don’t know. When the IM’s were announced, I was hoping the whole point would be to actually do missions in tanks (classes), in which I was individually good at. Oh well, guess not. I think everyone will also agree that some of the missions are not even partially based on luck, hitting a 40 km/h moving target with artillery? That’s pure RNG, even if you are the best artillery player in the world, at those speeds the shell will fly all over the place. By the way, remember the big artillery nerf in 0.8.6? One of the reasons artillery was nerfed was because it was hitting and oneshotting batchats when they were going fast. Well congratulations, now what WG was trying to avoid is a mission requirement. And of course there is the platoon requirement for some mission. Well fuck you Wargaming, now I’ll have to look for someone to do these missions in. Given the fact a bunch of people already sent me offers, I don’t think I’ll have a problem with that, but others will, even really good players. Furthermore, dynamics of playing in a platoon are completely different from those in random battles and personally, I am not that comfortable with those. I know, Wargaming is desperately trying to get more people to various organized modes (with SH, the participation in TB dropped), but force-feeding them “socialization” is really not the way to do it. I mean, not for us, individual players – I am sure WG DOES benefit from this shit. And the annoying part is, the platoon missions are (intentionally) not connected to one another, WG is openly pushing you “yea, you’ll have to complete another platoon mission in a while anyway, might as well stay in the one you just made and do it all”. I really can’t wrap my head around it – how exactly does playing in a platoon prove I am actually a good player? An opinion appeared that the missions are actually good, because (some of them) are teaching pubbies to play properly by rewarding things that should be done in the first place (like scouts passive spotting instead of suicide scouting). This argument is IMHO practically invalid, as people, who need that kind of advice will simply not play individual missions. Naturally, Wargaming sought to limit the amount of people getting the rewards and as a result, they made it so that the missions HAVE to be activated manually instead the “usual” system of achievements, present in many games. This leads to really awkward situations, where you have a really great battle, but yea, no rewards for you, since you didn’t activate the mission. I find that annoying. Make no mistake – I don’t mind that the missions are hard and I do not feel entitled to the tanks, by all means – not everyone should get them, but the elements above add nothing to the difficulty of the mission, they only add frustration. And of course the cherry on the top, the shemale crews. According to WG EU, there might be a woman voiceover coming in the future, but… you know how it is. Conclusion IM’s are there, they are workign (sort of), but… I can’t help but feel this is not what I wanted. It could have been polished better. It should have been automatic, without the annoying manual enabling (yes, it did happen to me twice that I forgot to activate the mission and “wasted” one battle). Oh well, will try them nevertheless. See you on the battlefield… I guess.