What you think are the problems of the game.

[SunkCostFallacy]

13 hours ago, Asym said:

So true and well said.  We talked about this topic the other night and agreed that the more there is to do, the less we actually do and spend???   Kind of like "just stop already...."  So, we simply aren't spending on BP or any of the long list of "progressive buy mechanic driven Armory events"... 

We've simply stopped being compelled it seems.  So, why push so hard is the question.........greed?

Or is it ... foolishness?  I could say 'stupidity' but that might be a bit strong.

Many players have questioned the extent to which the management in WG (or whatever they call themselves at the moment) actually hear and understand the feedback of the players.

The reality is that reaching the C Suite doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to do a good job there.

I, personally, watched the C Suite of a multinational absolutely waste fifty million dollars pursuing an IT strategy that every expert in the company (including myself) had demonstrated conclusively was NOT going to work.  And when that 50 mil was wasted ... it wasn't the C Suite that paid for it ... it was the lower levels of management whose heads were rolled.

Is it so unlikely that some management/marketing type in the company has sold the upper management on "increased revenue through events"?

Truthfully ... I don't think we'll EVER know what WG are thinking.

[Wye_So_Serious]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:21 PM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I've played simulations, mostly flight-sim simulations, but a few naval ones.  Also I've played computer games based-upon Amarillo Design Bureau's Starfleet Battles.

Simulations, in my experience can last a long time. 
If they're in "single-player mode", usually there's an option to speed-up the game or cut-to-the-chase or the area of action.

WOWs is maxed at 20 minutes per battle.
WOWs uses "consumables" and other stuff that defies physics. 
Repair parties 3-D printing hulls, radar and sonar operating through islands, unlimited ammo and etc. & etc.
That's more like "Mario Mushrooms" or other power-ups provided in other computer games or console games or arcade games.

WOWs, in my opinion, is a lot like "paintball".  
The maps are small.  Guns don't reach-out to their actual historic ranges.  We're prevented from leaving through the map-borders.

 @Sailor_Moon and I did an investigative session to determine if Deep Water Torpedoes could hit a Submarine.
In theory, if the physics were modeled properly, then a Submarine that happened to be at the right place, at the right depth at the right (wrong?) moment would be hit by deep-running torpedoes.
Well, "nope".
Turns out, the DWT's are computer programming coded to only affect certain ships and Submarines are off the list.
We published our findings in a topic on the old forums.
But, if WOWs were a simulation, I figure we'd have had more success at actually hitting a submarine with DWT's.
One might argue from the standpoint of WOWs using "lazy coding", but the game behavior remains (at least for now).

I've read about a historic aerial attack method used by Norway and a few others.
Essentially, the squadron finds a ship and then splits-up to attack the ship from 3 or more directions (if they have enough planes).
The idea is to split the ship's AA attention and hopefully one or more planes can "get through" to perform their attack.
Can that be attempted in WOWs?  Nope.
The closest thing was when RTS CV's could use 3 or more squadrons to attack a single ship.  But, that's no longer feasible.  The closest approximation we could try now would be two CV's working with one or two Hybrid BB's to make a coordinated attack from 3 or 4 directions simultaneously.  Possible, but rare.

Simulation compared with arcade game.  🙂

Is WOWs fun to play?  Yes, I think so.
Is it a simulation?  No.  I don't think it is.
But some people persist in their personal expectations of what WOWs should be.  They persist to the point of it being unhealthy for them, in some cases, I reckon.
And that unhealthy outlook is one of the phenomena that I consider to be a problem.
It's a game, played for fun.  Some of the time people's expectations become burdens for themselves and others (who have to deal with the "toxic" aspects and expressions stemming from the unhealthy expectations).
In some cases I figure a given person simply doesn't know better, yet.  Other people might be persuaded to an understanding and acceptance of "what is" compared with "what they want".  It varies for each person, I suppose.  🙂
 

  

👍

I like the paintball analogy. With regard to the simulation, there is a video WG did for, I believe, the first anniversary documenting the game development. It initially started out as a simulator but, as you noted, it took a very long time to play and, if I recall correctly, even shell hits would cause flooding. They scrapped that and went full arcade (that’s not a negative comment).

Every now and then I look for that video but can’t seem to locate it. It also started out as World of Battleships, so there’s that too.

I would like the game to have taken a different path. Other than the asinine expand or die corporate mentality that pervades so many, WG could have done so much more with the core game but decided to complicate the game instead of furthering its complexity.

Maybe I’ll get lucky and find that video and post it.

[Dareios]

56 minutes ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

game but decided to complicate the game instead of furthering its complexity.

Im not sure that came out the way you were thinking it would?

can you rewrite and clarify please.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

56 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

That's adapting to changing tactical situations you are talking here, not adapting to changes in gameplay mechanics and meta.

Welcome to warfare.

Adapting to changes in mechanics and meta are part of this eras history.

No one entered WW2 with ships and equipment that were perfectly adapted to the war's meta.

Officer's took what they had and made it work...even if it worked poorly.

[Admiral_Karasu]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Welcome to warfare.

Adapting to changes in mechanics and meta are part of this eras history.

No one entered WW2 with ships and equipment that were perfectly adapted to the war's meta.

Officer's took what they had and made it work...even if it worked poorly.

Well they didn't have to worry about magical submarines dropping out of some wizards hat, though....

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

29 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well they didn't have to worry about magical submarines dropping out of some wizards hat, though....

Pretty sure that's exactly how the Royal Navy felt after their reliance on ASDIC instead of convoy in 1939 / 1940 was shown to be flawed...

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

You can't always play to your intended strengths and role. The idea that you HAVE to play a specific role in every game is a bit absurd.

You say this having in mind and in the context of fluid tactical situations.  And that's true.  But I'm talking about capabilities and how to maximise those capabilities in terms of efficiency.

There is no doubt that all sorts of situations could develop, but that doesn't negate my point.

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Take the often repeated mantra that a DDs role is spotting.

That's false. The game primarily rewards inflicting damage so....yeah. Indeed Dd's are best suited for providing vision but ...like I said. 🙂 Btw dd's have many "roles" that could or "should" be  fulfilled . Some say too many.

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

In a game with aircraft carriers, this is NOT true. It is the plane's job to spot for the team.

Not necessarily. If you got yourself a tunnel visioned Cv player or worse .....then what? 🙂  Playing well Cv's requires quick thinking and the capacity to recognize and anticipate developing tactical situations. The most crucial  indicator of a well played  Cv's is appropriate target selection and prioritization.

Your only hope for an even match is that the other player is even less willing or capable.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

There will be times where your ship isn't the right ship for the battle you are playing.

 Absolutely. Like taking Agir into ranked and ending up into randoms 🙂  But that has nothing to do with my point.

btw one of the fun and engaging aspects of playing operations was that one could pick the right ship for the operation on rotation and/or could work out tactics for others. Molotov was particularly well suited for AEGIS, not so much for others.

But Weegee being Weegee and doing Weegee things.... nuked that aspect of them.

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Part of the game is adapting and overcoming the adversity...or at least fighting better than you expected to.

Absolutely. But that's player agency, not related to my point.

Let me give you 2 examples 1) Dd's and radar. Radar is an effective counter to cap contesting. There is absolutely nothing, not  even remotely close as this  regarding subs.

                                                2) Subs and  cap contesting/defending  and pushing. A well positioned sub is an unmovable object, an uncrossable barrier Evidently not alone, but with some support.

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

That's adapting to changing tactical situations you are talking here, not adapting to changes in gameplay mechanics and meta.

This. But I wanted to use my words 🙂

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Andrewbassg
Typo

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

At least we agree on one thing. 

 Well, if we all would agree all the time on everything...it wold be very boring isn't it? Comfy, but boring  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

This. But I wanted to use my words 🙂

Just noting, your expectation for the game does not seem aligned to the game WG wants to sell.

I get that you want better balance and a more equitable experience.

It is quite clear by now that WG is uninterested in providing that to you. It is, in my opinion, a waste of your time and sanity jousting this particular windmill.

WG has clearly demonstrated that putting in the work to make a properly balanced game is beyond what they are willing to do.

As far as I'm considered, this is a silly arcade game which heavily relies on memes and 'griefing' to drive engagement.

[Andrewbassg]

14 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Pretty sure that's exactly how the Royal Navy felt after their reliance on ASDIC instead of convoy in 1939 / 1940 was shown to be flawed...

Yeeah but there was no reason for Weegee to bring this aspect to the game ( well other than glorious Soviet Navy reasons.)

As for IRL arguments..... maps, ranges speeds and also all sorts of other stuff in Wows say hi.

And

58 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Welcome to warfare.

Adapting to changes in mechanics and meta are part of this eras history.

No one entered WW2 with ships and equipment that were perfectly adapted to the war's meta.

Officer's took what they had and made it work...even if it worked poorly.

What you were saying the other day about ......simulations?  :P   

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yeeah but there was no reason for Weegee to bring this aspect to the game ( well other than glorious Soviet Navy reasons.)

As for IRL arguments..... maps, ranges speeds and also all sorts of other stuff in Wows say hi.

And

What you were saying the other day about ......simulations?  :P   

 

What can I say...I like simulations.

I've jousted this windmill before and been rebuffed consistently. Just trying to save you time.

World of Warships is never going to be a properly balanced e-sports ready game.

WG does not want to do the work to give everyone an equitable experience. Heck, the business strategy monetizes non-equitable experiences.

WG is making a silly game that drives engagement with memes and 'griefing'.

You can complain about this forever, and nothing will change.

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Just noting, your expectation for the game does not seem aligned to the game WG wants to sell.

Oh in Weegeeland anything and everything is for sale....

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It is, in my opinion, a waste of your time and sanity jousting this particular windmill.

Oh Im no.... don... 🙂 I'm having fun :)

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Andrewbassg said:

Oh in Weegeeland anything and everything is for sale....

Oh man, this isn't true. 😄

I remember having some revealing conversations around potential ways to monetize PVE that would have made WG boatloads of money...and it was clearly rejected with prejudice.

Everything is most definitely not for sale.

The vision for this game seems to actually be pretty narrow in scope, and there is absolutely no interest in expanding that scope...even if it would be wildly profitable.

I suspect this is based on the comfort level of WG leadership running certain types of games.

Anything getting away from the randoms slot machine RNG game modes is not the direction WG leadership appears to be comfortable running.

 

[Andrewbassg]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

What can I say...I like simulations.

I've jousted this windmill before and been rebuffed consistently. Just trying to save you time.

World of Warships is never going to be a properly balanced e-sports ready game.

WG does not want to do the work to give everyone an equitable experience. Heck, the business strategy monetizes non-equitable experiences.

WG is making a silly game that drives engagement with memes and 'griefing'.

You can complain about this forever, and nothing will change.

That wasn't (for a time) the case. And the sad part is that those two models are NOT mutually exclusive.

3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I remember having some revealing conversations around potential ways to monetize PVE that would have made WG boatloads of money...and it was clearly rejected with prejudice.

 

Yeeah ...How much we had to push and fight for ops to return .....and they still managed to gimp em....

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

Moved a few posts over to here as they suit this topic better.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

19 minutes ago, EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico said:

Moved a few posts over to here as they suit this topic better.

Thanks.

😄

[iDuckman]

What you think are the problems of the game.

Clearly, it's the player base.

 

Now, don't ask me for a solution.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by iDuckman

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

What you think are the problems of the game.

Clearly, it's the player base.

 

Now, don't ask me for a solution.

 

Just a symptom.

This is the playerbase WG wants...the question is, why?

[iDuckman]

12 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is the playerbase WG wants...

I have to heartily disagree with you there.  We're way too noisy and tight-fisted.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I have to heartily disagree with you there.  We're way too noisy and tight-fisted.

 

...and yet, this is the playerbase that WGs advertising strategy attracted.

Saying that the problem is the players is just a way to avoid discussing the problems with the advertising strategy.

[iDuckman]

DAC, I wasn't being serious.  Polish up your funny bone.

Doesn't mean I don't heartily disagree with your point.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, iDuckman said:

DAC, I wasn't being serious.  Polish up your funny bone.

Doesn't mean I don't heartily disagree with your point.

 

Text only jokes and sarcasm are sometimes hard to interpret. 😄

I'm just tired of seeing the players blamed for things in a useless way.