What would you Remove from the game, add to the game and ban from being ever added

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Crokodone said:

4) AP/SAP shells can cause flooding on all ships.

5) flooding causes Submarines to gradually sink, if they sink below maximum depth their destroyed regardless of remaining health.

Piggy-backing on your idea, I suggest that A.P. bombs which over-penetrate and go through the hull (below the waterline) shall cause flooding.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

14 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

A small reminder, if I may. FF was removed prior to the mangled implementation of the subs.

You're entirely correct.

However the only significant change which took place near to the removal of friendly fire was the implementation of subs.

While my recollection may be faulty, I recall nothing else which could rationally be a reason for removing friendly fire from the game at that time. It was a well developed mechanism and had been adjusted so that the ship(s) which did friendly fire were penalised for it, but not so much that an accidental FF incident would cripple you.

In short you had to be deliberately doing damage to a friendly before it was a problem OR you had to be reckless with your torp spam.¹ That being the case what could cause WG to remove FF completely with no long term build up or justification?

 

 

 

1. Which is now the rule rather than the exception.

My impression is that the removal of "friendly fire" from the game was intended to reduce or eliminate the labor hours utilized by WG/WOWs employees to adjudicate the tickets created and submitted to customer service for incidents of friendly fire.

No friendly fire = employees can be assigned to other (more profitable) tasks for the company.

Just my impression, of course.

[Aethervox]

Remove from the game? Reworked CVs & Subs

Add to the game? Return RTS CVs. Place Subs in a Convoy Battle Mode.

Ban from ever being added? Jet Aircraft & Missiles

[SunkCostFallacy]

5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My impression is that the removal of "friendly fire" from the game was intended to reduce or eliminate the labor hours utilized by WG/WOWs employees to adjudicate the tickets created and submitted to customer service for incidents of friendly fire.

No friendly fire = employees can be assigned to other (more profitable) tasks for the company.

Just my impression, of course.

I wasn't ever aware that WG's customer service was involved in dealing with significant numbers of FF incidents.

It was pretty much self correcting by the time I got into the game ... you shoot/torp someone on your team and the damage is done to your ship rather than theirs. No need for tickets to be created in the first place.

Memory tells me that that mechanism was in place for quite a significant period of time prior to the removal of friendly fire.

There were complaints of people deliberately intercepting torpedoes as a means of griefing, but I doubt that there were that many <expletive deleted> playing who did that to justify such a massive change in the game.

Am I wrong ... that was the way FF was handled up until they removed it, wasn't it?

 

 

[torino2dc]

6 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

9 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

20 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

A small reminder, if I may. FF was removed prior to the mangled implementation of the subs.

You're entirely correct.

However the only significant change which took place near to the removal of friendly fire was the implementation of subs.

While my recollection may be faulty, I recall nothing else which could rationally be a reason for removing friendly fire from the game at that time. It was a well developed mechanism and had been adjusted so that the ship(s) which did friendly fire were penalised for it, but not so much that an accidental FF incident would cripple you.

In short you had to be deliberately doing damage to a friendly before it was a problem OR you had to be reckless with your torp spam.¹ That being the case what could cause WG to remove FF completely with no long term build up or justification?

 

 

 

1. Which is now the rule rather than the exception.

My impression is that the removal of "friendly fire" from the game was intended to reduce or eliminate the labor hours utilized by WG/WOWs employees to adjudicate the tickets created and submitted to customer service for incidents of friendly fire.

No friendly fire = employees can be assigned to other (more profitable) tasks for the company.

Just my impression, of course.

The most obvious motivation behind removing friendly fire was that it was blocking their ability to implement second-line torpedo spammers. The Pan-Asian CLAA line and later the Japanese CL line would have been unfeasible without the rule change. 

The FF rules changed in 0.10.5, the Pan-Asian CLs entered testing in 0.10.10.   

[Admiral_Karasu]

15 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

The most obvious motivation behind removing friendly fire was that it was blocking their ability to implement second-line torpedo spammers. The Pan-Asian CLAA line and later the Japanese CL line would have been unfeasible without the rule change. 

The FF rules changed in 0.10.5, the Pan-Asian CLs entered testing in 0.10.10.   

So it's a pure and simple dumbing down mechanic.

[torino2dc]

31 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

So it's a pure and simple dumbing down mechanic.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that second-line torp spamming cruisers would have been nearly unplayable if you had to constantly worry about accidentally nuking a ship in front of you. 

And as a DD it would have been highly distracting to have a clueless torp spamming cruiser behind you that could wipe your ship at any moment.

Honestly I think everyone is better off for not having to worry about it.

[Asym]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My impression is that the removal of "friendly fire" from the game was intended to reduce or eliminate the labor hours utilized by WG/WOWs employees to adjudicate the tickets created and submitted to customer service for incidents of friendly fire.

No friendly fire = employees can be assigned to other (more profitable) tasks for the company.

Just my impression, of course.

Of course, we'd have to get Lawyers involved and "discover" what really happened to add specificity to this thread... 

The game without Friendly Fire is a joke of a joke.  And, for many Veterans, a terrible experience on both the receiving or delivering end of it.  Some of us, have lost many close friends or have been involved with what "danger close" really means.  Like, when you can hear the "petals" of a discarding sabot hitting your tank !

But, some simply brush it off and say "it's just a game...." - who cares.... 

The morale of the story is that Friendly Fire (Fratricide) is one of the worst things that can happen in war or training for war and History repeats itself if we "don't care to learn" in the first place.  Today, ignoring Team Damage is "not learning" what is a moral constant;  and in that, it teaches the "next generation" that "it's not that important;" and that, will repeat itself somewhere down the line in Real Life.......games train behaviors into evolving minds....  Toys reinforce those behaviors.  And, bad things in the militaries and the civilian world around the world happen because.......we didn't have the moral constant to reinforce "right from wrong".....

There I said it:  and,  on the "wall"....  W7, L65, RIP my friend....  Now, tell me, Friendly Fire is just a game.........

[Snargfargle]

37 minutes ago, Asym said:

 Toys reinforce those behaviors.

I agree. Back in my day, most male kids at least received firearms safety training. This occurred through veteran Dads teaching them the ropes before giving them their first BB gun, hunters safety courses, school archery and shooting classes, Boy Scouts shooting merit badges, JROTC programs, and even carnival shooting booths. Now, only a small fraction of kids have had any formal firearms safety training. It doesn't hurt to include a bit of it in "shooter" video games.

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, torino2dc said:

Honestly I think everyone is better off for not having to worry about it.

I agree. I can't fathom why so many people miss FF... it was quite annoying imo, I can't think of a single instance in which having FF would be positive for the experience.

16 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Back in my day, most male kids at least received firearms safety training.

Lol, you guys really are "gun nuts".  Over here guns are considered almost tabu, evil things to be shunned. I remember my father preventing me from playing with toy guns (I had to make them with LEGO as they won't buy me a toy gun). My wife always freaks out about a little .22 pop pistol we inherited from her father, even when there's no ammo for it in the house!... she wants me to cast the gun in concrete on the next house project we make. As a kid I would had loved so much having some firearms training.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I wasn't ever aware that WG's customer service was involved in dealing with significant numbers of FF incidents.

It was pretty much self correcting by the time I got into the game ... you shoot/torp someone on your team and the damage is done to your ship rather than theirs. No need for tickets to be created in the first place.

Memory tells me that that mechanism was in place for quite a significant period of time prior to the removal of friendly fire.

There were complaints of people deliberately intercepting torpedoes as a means of griefing, but I doubt that there were that many <expletive deleted> playing who did that to justify such a massive change in the game.

Am I wrong ... that was the way FF was handled up until they removed it, wasn't it?

In my (limited? imperfect?) understanding, the in-game programming handled a lot of the friendly fire incidents automatically.  But, there were times when players would "create a ticket" with a replay and such a ticket would be handled by customer service.

Even if the ratio of tickets to incidents was very low, eliminating "friendly fire" pretty-much eliminated the tickets created as a result of a friendly fire incident. 
Thus, freeing-up employees to work on other tickets (such as a surface ship player repeatedly ramming a submarine player [been there, reported that, with a replay]).

I sometimes wonder about the number of employees in the customer service department, based upon the number of days required for a ticket to be submitted and eventually resolved.
Was there natural attrition in the department and the friendly fire programming changed for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have included reduced staffing needing relief from overwhelming numbers of c.s. tickets?
I simply don't have access to the internal company information and decision-making process.
So, I can only speculate.

[Wolfswetpaws]

 @SunkCostFallacy another thing that the elimination of friendly fire did, was to enable a player to continue playing in a battle, even if an "allied" ship was shooting at them or ramming their hull.

Sure, the "griefing" could be annoying.  But, the "ally" couldn't sink "my" ship (and vice versa) and getting hit with friendly fire could no longer send me back to port prematurely.

[Snargfargle]

7 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Lol, you guys really are "gun nuts".  Over here guns are considered almost tabu, evil things to be shunned.

"Guns have no place in a moderns society," until they do. Even in the UK, low-power BB guns are still legal and can be used to train people in firearms safety and operation. Any student of history will tell you that it's not a matter of if but of when the populace of a country will need to arm itself to repel an invader. There is a war going on right now in which a government had to scramble to re-arm and train its formerly mostly disarmed citizens to repel an invader.

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Lol, you guys really are "gun nuts".  Over here guns are considered almost tabu, evil things to be shunned. I remember my father preventing me from playing with toy guns (I had to make them with LEGO as they won't buy me a toy gun). My wife always freaks out about a little .22 pop pistol we inherited from her father, even when there's no ammo for it in the house!... she wants me to cast the gun in concrete on the next house project we make. As a kid I would had loved so much having some firearms training.

As an Uber driver, last night I had the good fortune to have a rider in my car who had grown-up in the Andes mountains of Ecuador.  They now live in New Hampshire with their husband.
Anyway, we were discussing & comparing living with snow and volcanic activity.
Long story short, each of us grew-up learning the methods of dealing with our formative environment.
I learned how to wear winter clothing and she learned how to have an emergency back-pack ready at all times.

Now, as for guns?  I have the impression that the "cultural environment", which people grow-up within, will attempt to exert psychological conditioning on people.
The "normal" of where we grow-up may vary from person to person according to each person's circumstances.
For the "gun nuts", growing up with firearms integrated into their daily lives is "normal".  Heck, in some cultural environments one is looked-upon unfavorably if they don't have at least a rudimentary understanding and competency with at least one firearm.
And in other cultural environments the opposite school-of-thought is taught.  People are taught a bigotry towards firearms (unless one is employed as a personal guard of the local "El Presidente"?) as the "normal" in that environment.

I recognize that people are people and environments are environments, and each is part of a spectrum.

Best wishes.  🙂

[Asym]

29 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I agree. Back in my day, most male kids at least received firearms safety training. This occurred through veteran Dads teaching them the ropes before giving them their first BB gun, hunters safety courses, school archery and shooting classes, Boy Scouts shooting merit badges, JROTC programs, and even carnival shooting booths. Now, only a small fraction of kids have had any formal firearms safety training. It doesn't hurt to include a bit of it in "shooter" video games.

What would I add:  Team Damage x2.

Yes, yes and more yes ^^^^^.  We lived in the "best of times" as we reflect on what we had versus what is today.  It's sad really....

And, videogame carry a cost in the real world. 

The World Health Organization formalized Videogame medical conditions identification and treatment codes several years ago with the ICD codes to charge treatments to and to track VG conditions.  And, the treatment costs are not going down....

The police departments now have had to deal with SWAT'ings the past few years.  We had one locally and the entire community here was/is devastated.  The police involved simply are crushed.  The gaming community was destroyed.

Kids today play with "Jell guns" and "air soft" weapons so realistic, authorities had to "force" blaze orange muzzles to keep the police and average people from targeting kids in combat vests and realistic weapons as they run around shooting at each other !   It makes the police a bit touchy.

And, here we are:  an entire generation of Videogame killers whom have zero perspective of the morals or responsibility of that warfare or conflict means.....none.   

Games reinforce cultural behaviors (good or bad).....

Good reply Snargfargle.....

 

[Type_93]

56 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Lol, you guys really are "gun nuts".

Here in Texas, if you don’t have one when you cross the state line, we give you one. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

Of course, we'd have to get Lawyers involved and "discover" what really happened to add specificity to this thread... 

The game without Friendly Fire is a joke of a joke.  And, for many Veterans, a terrible experience on both the receiving or delivering end of it.  Some of us, have lost many close friends or have been involved with what "danger close" really means.  Like, when you can hear the "petals" of a discarding sabot hitting your tank !

But, some simply brush it off and say "it's just a game...." - who cares.... 

The morale of the story is that Friendly Fire (Fratricide) is one of the worst things that can happen in war or training for war and History repeats itself if we "don't care to learn" in the first place.  Today, ignoring Team Damage is "not learning" what is a moral constant;  and in that, it teaches the "next generation" that "it's not that important;" and that, will repeat itself somewhere down the line in Real Life.......games train behaviors into evolving minds....  Toys reinforce those behaviors.  And, bad things in the militaries and the civilian world around the world happen because.......we didn't have the moral constant to reinforce "right from wrong".....

There I said it:  and,  on the "wall"....  W7, L65, RIP my friend....  Now, tell me, Friendly Fire is just a game.........

As the game is now, a *griefer* can't send a same-team ship back to port by "friendly-fire".
I'm okay with that.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I wasn't ever aware that WG's customer service was involved in dealing with significant numbers of FF incidents.

It was pretty much self correcting by the time I got into the game ... you shoot/torp someone on your team and the damage is done to your ship rather than theirs. No need for tickets to be created in the first place.

Memory tells me that that mechanism was in place for quite a significant period of time prior to the removal of friendly fire.

There were complaints of people deliberately intercepting torpedoes as a means of griefing, but I doubt that there were that many <expletive deleted> playing who did that to justify such a massive change in the game.

Am I wrong ... that was the way FF was handled up until they removed it, wasn't it?

 

 

Mentioned for "frame of reference" purposes.

Combat Discipline: Disabling Friendly Fire
11/06/2021
https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/combat-discipline/

16.05.2021 13:30
DEVELOPMENT NEWS
ST 0.10.5, "GRAND BATTLE", DISABLING OF FRIENDLY FIRE AND OTHER NEWS.
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/153
 

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As the game is now, a *griefer* can't send a same-team ship back to port by "friendly-fire".
I'm okay with that.

Ok, we are on opposite side on this.... 

Sorry, but we are.  I am never OK allowing fratricide to exist.....even, in a game.  Especially, if the game has historic overtones and historic weapons....  If this game was like  DOOM or some such type of make-believe game, OK....  But, this game isn't that way. 

We want "history;" but,  reject the ethics that history generated......  Wow - that is so sad.

 

 

[Snargfargle]

Another thing that WOWS steers away from that would be historic in this game...

HMS Sussex, 1945

[Wolfswetpaws]

39 minutes ago, Asym said:

Ok, we are on opposite side on this.... 

Sorry, but we are.  I am never OK allowing fratricide to exist.....even, in a game.  Especially, if the game has historic overtones and historic weapons....  If this game was like  DOOM or some such type of make-believe game, OK....  But, this game isn't that way. 

We want "history;" but,  reject the ethics that history generated......  Wow - that is so sad.

I figure the game is intended for players as young as 7 years of age.
So, some things, such as team-kill, or fratricide, or real-life depiction of the horrors of "friendly fire" aren't strictly needed in an "arcade" game.

Having a team-mate capable of sinking my ship is inconvenient for me and could shorten my fun-time during a match (if they could).
So, team-kill being turned-off is fine by me. 
I already know plenty of ways to get my ship sunk by red-team players.  🙂 

[ArIskandir]

22 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Another thing that WOWS steers away from that would be historic in this game...

HMS Sussex, 1945

I can't make out what I'm seeing in that picture Snarg... is that a ricochet or what?

[Snargfargle]

14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I can't make out what I'm seeing in that picture Snarg... is that a ricochet or what?

I believe it's the imprint of one of these, a Mitsubishi Ki-51.

[Crokodone]

On 12/14/2023 at 11:03 AM, Snargfargle said:

Another thing that WOWS steers away from that would be historic in this game...

HMS Sussex, 1945

Downed aircraft do physically hit the ships... But many of the older organized player base, which is already psychotic about Submarines would be undescribable regarding manned missiles; which Kamikazes were. 

[Asym]

On 12/14/2023 at 10:23 AM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I figure the game is intended for players as young as 7 years of age.
So, some things, such as team-kill, or fratricide, or real-life depiction of the horrors of "friendly fire" aren't strictly needed in an "arcade" game.

Having a team-mate capable of sinking my ship is inconvenient for me and could shorten my fun-time during a match (if they could).
So, team-kill being turned-off is fine by me. 
I already know plenty of ways to get my ship sunk by red-team players.  🙂 

I think you are missing the point I am raising....  There are/were strict rules to deal with team damage and those seven year olds you mention will/would be Orange and banned very quickly.

Break the rules and you pay the price.  It's that simple and doesn't require a single real person to administrate....

Now, in today's world, cause and effect have been removed and we see the same bad people doing the same bad things over and over and over again - reinforcing that being bad isn't bad....  That escalates with time and bad compounds itself culturally to the point that being "bad" is a badge of honor.  And, those "systems fail 100% of the time" historically and culturally....  There isn't a silver lining throughout history.

I prefer a quality game and have reduced my spending and play time.  At some point, if this ^^^^ doesn't self correct, there will be very few dedicated players left......it's inevitable in games that fail to:   "study history..."