How can this be helped / remedied - let's openly discuss the biggest problem in WoWs - the absolute player base rock bottom degradation / decay

[Andrewbassg]

47 minutes ago, clammboy said:

I don't know if incentives would help a player want to be better in this day and age. Seems like a lot of incentives are based on how much you play not how well you play. But to be honest you have to want to get better you really can't be bribed with incentives. People just open up things never look at the instructions or guides on how to play and just jump right in. 

People don't mind just learning on the fly to the chagrin of the people who have learned the game it's frustrating but not all WG fault. People want to have the best ships and play tier 10 right away and there is no easy cure for that.  

While ofc people who "don't want" to learn, won't learn, it is not that simple. Wedgie did EVERYTHING to incentivize casual playing, in detriment of playing well. AND to incentivize rapid progression, in detriment of learning.

So yeah ultimately it IS (and also unquestionably) Wedgie's fault, because it is the ONLY entity who is responsible for the wellbeing of the game and is the ONLY one who can change things.

And it is their INTEREST what dictates their actions. However a good dev team with a healthy connection to the playerbase, will know how and is capable of making decisions, which both attract players AND maintain  a good game. Coz that is just a careful balancing act.

But, ofc, Wedgie is completely incapable of that, because it has no connection whatsoever to the playerbase.

 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

The tools that were in place when I learned are still in place, so I don't see any removal here that would stop a person from learning to be a good player.

U sure?  How about "Battle On" button, how about operations? 

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

They either will learn or won't, entirely depending on their desire to learn.

 I learned more from playing operations, than everything else. Used to teach people how to sail, how to play an objective, how to follow minimap, how to use ships as a tool, how to communicate, ya know the very basics of the game, while playing 

Also, one could had learned how to use his ship(s!!) in various ways to deal with different targets , ya know.....intermediate to "advanced" level AND in a level field coz started at T6

Coop cannot teach what ops could .

Perhaps there is nothing more nefarious among Wedgie's needs vis a vis player "education" than ops rework.

You know what a poor newbie sod player sees now in ops? That his puny T6 ship is worth nothing and he must get a T8, while he did not learned anything.

And even older folks could take out  their various ships for a fun ride and to evaluate them. Ya know how many ships i take into ops now?Exactly one: Irian. Well... maybe if there is a mission I jump into Cossack or Tirpitz. And that's it.

GG WEEGEE.

 

Edited April 26 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

Making Scenario Operations available to a wider range of ships was something that seemed like it was done to satisfy "popular demand", though.

The Tier-6 & Tier-7 ships may get a bit less playtime, nowadays, but they can still participate in Scenario Operations.
And, now, they can sail in every Scenario Operation, instead of being restricted to just a few.
The game adjusts the 'bot opposition according to the ships the players bring.  So, if one is up-tiered severely, just say "challenge accepted" and buckle-up for the wild ride.  😉 

The "Battle On" button, while controversial, has been a quality of life improvement, in my opinion.
Even if I was initially a bit skeptical, @Andrewbassg.

"More options" being better than fewer options for a player to utilize, eh?

[Andrewbassg]

36 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Making Scenario Operations available to a wider range of ships was something that seemed like it was done to satisfy "popular demand", though.

The Tier-6 & Tier-7 ships may get a bit less playtime, nowadays, but they can still participate in Scenario Operations.
And, now, they can sail in every Scenario Operation, instead of being restricted to just a few.
The game adjusts the 'bot opposition according to the ships the players bring.  So, if one is up-tiered severely, just say "challenge accepted" and buckle-up for the wild ride.  😉 

The point wasn't about "us", but newbies in the context of removal of learning tools. Tell me how a newbie is expected to gitgud when he doesn't know how in the first place? So yeah....

And addressing long standing player requests has nothing to do with. harming the game. Creating problems instead of solving them is the dumbest possible approach. But alas, Wedgie is well known for its incompetence, matched only by its laziness. So yeah....

As for "Battle On"....removed an essential incentive to git gud vs  just spamming the battle button. So again....yeah....

Excuses always can be made, however the removal of an essential learning tool and incentive was and is inexcusable. And that's actually the best case scenario coz  given a vested interest, intent can't be excluded

Edited April 26 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Excuses always can be made, however the removal of an essential learning tool and incentive was and is inexcusable.

Gonna agree to disagree on that.  I'm merely not feeling as strongly as you are about it.

[Justin_Simpleton]

8 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

As for "Battle On"....removed an essential incentive to git gud vs  just spamming the battle button. So again....yeah....

I find the "Battle On" useful when testing out features of a ship that is new to me.  If I'm mentally prepared to use concealment and torps and then I'm targeted and killed in a double CV game, I like to try again soon before I forget what I was trying to learn.

Edited April 26 by Justin_Simpleton

[Asym]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Gonna agree to disagree on that.  I'm merely not feeling as strongly as you are about it.

Ever get the "feeling" that they really don't want new players - other than for their initial investments??  The join, they spend for a few a ships and then, they realize losing all of the time is BORING.............time for a new game to try.

I wonder????  Me thinks we are thinking Apples and our host is talking tomatoes......  If so, we are just "white noise" to them because new player turnover is where the real money is................and, whales...

I'm on the fence./

[Andrewbassg]

16 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I find the "Battle On" useful when testing out features of a ship that is new to me.  If I'm mentally prepared to use concealment and torps and then I'm targeted and killed in a double CV game, I like to try again soon before I forget what I was trying to learn.

Yeah but that's a false "solution" to an artificially created problem. Classic create problem - sell "solution" ( where the solution isn't a solution just a mere excuse and will only  create moar problems down the road).

The real problem being Cv's. 

Edited April 26 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

Ever get the "feeling" that they really don't want new players - other than for their initial investments??  The join, they spend for a few a ships and then, they realize losing all of the time is BORING.............time for a new game to try.

I wonder????  Me thinks we are thinking Apples and our host is talking tomatoes......  If so, we are just "white noise" to them because new player turnover is where the real money is................and, whales...

I'm on the fence./

Every game wants paying customers.
How they go about getting them may have some principles in common and some variations on the procedures utilized by the game company.
Judging by the bank balances of various companies, some are more financially successful at it than others.

Yet, there has to be some passion for the game concept, at some point in time in the development of the game, or the game wouldn't even get to be created and published.
And if there were zero paying customers it wouldn't last long.

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not WOWs is in a plateau or a decline in terms of playerbase and finances, it's still filling a niche within the overall demand of the gaming market and making money.

I figure that new customers will either have or will discover a passion & connection to the topic of warships.
Because if they don't, then they'll move along to other games that seem more interesting and attractive to them.
Win some, lose some.  
Personally, I got interested into WOWs via facebook ads for World of Tanks and I did some web-browsing and discovered WOWs and decided that I'd like that more.
And, here I am.

[Andrewbassg]

11 minutes ago, Asym said:

Ever get the "feeling" that they really don't want new players - other than for their initial investments??  The join, they spend for a few a ships and then, they realize losing all of the time is BORING.............time for a new game to try.

I wonder????  Me thinks we are thinking Apples and our host is talking tomatoes......  If so, we are just "white noise" to them because new player turnover is where the real money is................and, whales...

I'm on the fence./

Oh Wedgie wants moar players but they are incredibly bad and uncreative at managing the game. They are quite literally clueless what are the strengths of their own game. They just babble around, hoping for luck. 

Edited April 26 by Andrewbassg

[Justin_Simpleton]

3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yeah but that's a false "solution" to an artificially created problem. Classic create problem - sell "solution" ( where the solution isn't a solution just a mere excuse and will only  create moar problems down the road). 

I think the Battle Button "problems" are simply unintended consequences that are tricky to solve.  In the beginning the program needed a button to start the battle. From there, it got complicated real quick and hindsight wasn't available.

[Andrewbassg]

Just now, Justin_Simpleton said:

I think the Battle Button "problems" are simply unintended consequences that are tricky to solve.  In the beginning the program needed a button to start the battle. From there, it got complicated real quick and hindsight wasn't available.

Read the edit  

[clammboy]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "Battle On" button, while controversial, has been a quality of life improvement, in my opinion.
Even if I was initially a bit skeptical,

Don’t know why it’s controversial but I agree with you. It’s good when doing coop missions. 

[Andrewbassg]

15 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Don’t know why it’s controversial but I agree with you. It’s good when doing coop missions. 

The issue isn't if one likes it or not. The issue is its effect on the game. Overall.

Edited April 26 by Andrewbassg

[clammboy]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Oh Wedgie wants moar players but they are incredibly bad and uncreative at managing the game. They are quite literally clueless what are the strengths of their own game. They just babble around, hoping for luck. 

Lol you really dislike wedgie! 

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, clammboy said:

Lol you really dislike wedgie! 

Oh nope. I'm just objective in my assessments.

[Kruzenstern]

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Accomplish a lot and get a lot of rewards.
Accomplish little and one can expect to receive little in the way of rewards.

Well, that is exactly the point, because this is NOT so. The rewards for doing badly are way out of proportion. I often see people in ops doing a quick yolo, harvesting some damage early and then being killed, not seeing the 5 minute mark. And they get 500-700 XP for that if the other players manage a win, whereas those other players who did all the lifting and spent 15-20 minutes to do it get only 1000-1200XP. So unless you use rare boosters, yoloing is actually more time-efficient for grinding than playing for real. I have not played randoms in a long time, but back when I still did, the yolo DD who managed to do some damage also got a fair share of XP for pretty much no contribution. And I think this is not good for the gameplay. But good for WGs wallet.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

Well, that is exactly the point, because this is NOT so. The rewards for doing badly are way out of proportion. I often see people in ops doing a quick yolo, harvesting some damage early and then being killed, not seeing the 5 minute mark. And they get 500-700 XP for that if the other players manage a win, whereas those other players who did all the lifting and spent 15-20 minutes to do it get only 1000-1200XP. So unless you use rare boosters, yoloing is actually more time-efficient for grinding than playing for real. I have not played randoms in a long time, but back when I still did, the yolo DD who managed to do some damage also got a fair share of XP for pretty much no contribution. And I think this is not good for the gameplay. But good for WGs wallet.

If a player "yolo charges" and sinks some ships and/or scores a lot hits and damage and is the ship that is spotting for their team simultaneously, then why would anyone be surprised if they earn XP?

The XP for damage is based upon percentage of ship. 
Put another way, if one does 75% of the damage to a ship, then they get 75% of the XP that could be awarded for that ship.

Torpedo DD sails in at full speed and uses torpedo reload boost to pole-axe two battleships back to back?
Well "duh".  They scored a lot of damage and 100% of the XP for each ship sunk.

The notion that the yolos aren't contributing doesn't hold much water with me, especially if the complaints are from the ships at the back of the map who refuse to advance with their team-mates while simultaneously asking them for intelligence data.

Things like a coordinated push by three or more ships who focus their fire upon one opposing ship at a time and whitle its hull down to metal shavings within a minute, and then rinse & repeat, are much more impressive, in my opinion.

What's the old saying?  "Hit hard, hit fast and hit often", eh?  🙂

Another thing that "yolos" do is disrupt the opposing team's plans, *sometimes*.
They get close to the other team's units and perhaps prevent them from remaining entrenched in their favorite island camping spot or little slice of the capture-circle while hiding inside a smokescreen.
Sailing right up next to the opponent that doesn't expect it can be a game-changer (especially if the crazy stunt actually works).
At the very least, yolos perform reconnaisance by getting shot-at and thus reveal red-ship positions.  😉 

Is there a risk of a yolo getting sunk?
Of course.  🙂 
But, I assert that the risk is significantly less if their team fully supports their charge instead of hiding behind islands like angels trying to dance on the head of a pin.  🙂 

But, hey.  Maybe that's just me?  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

While ofc people who "don't want" to learn, won't learn, it is not that simple. Wedgie did EVERYTHING to incentivize casual playing, in detriment of playing well. AND to incentivize rapid progression, in detriment of learning.

So yeah ultimately it IS (and also unquestionably) Wedgie's fault, because it is the ONLY entity who is responsible for the wellbeing of the game and is the ONLY one who can change things.

And it is their INTEREST what dictates their actions. However a good dev team with a healthy connection to the playerbase, will know how and is capable of making decisions, which both attract players AND maintain  a good game. Coz that is just a careful balancing act.

But, ofc, Wedgie is completely incapable of that, because it has no connection whatsoever to the playerbase.

 

Everything in game boils down to WGs fault...because they can, in every case, do something about it.

I absolutely hate the idea that WG staff try to sell on Discord that the problems with the game are the players fault. It's blatant dishonesty and propaganda...and the worst part is it's effect on WG staff.

WG staff have gone around lying about parts of the playerbase for so long that they are incapable of understanding reality anymore. Plus, WG believes, as part of this lie, that the playerbase is their enemy and is incapable of giving good advice.

WG has built a trap for themselves and now they live in it...wondering why the game isn't growing and people laugh when they try to claim it's an e-sport.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nnope. That's a misconstruction. Not providing enough incentives  and in fact removing incentives AND learning tools is the problem. And it is entirely Wedgie's making and, in fact, a quite obvious and no so secret goal of them.

WHEN will victimblaming be enough ?

So many have fallen for the lie that the problems in game are caused by the players...

[SeaQuest]

WG let the cat out of the bag a long time ago when they normalized repair costs for high-tier ships. If you played badly, you could not afford to play high-tier matches. You would not have the money to repair your ship. It has only become worse with other changes. That cat has run away, never to be seen again. 

[Volron]

19 minutes ago, SeaQuest said:

WG let the cat out of the bag a long time ago when they normalized repair costs for high-tier ships. If you played badly, you could not afford to play high-tier matches. You would not have the money to repair your ship. It has only become worse with other changes. That cat has run away, never to be seen again. 

What is the repair cost for a Yamato in Randoms?  It used to be at least 300k.  Reason I know is way back when Co-Op had the exact same repair cost for ships as was in Randoms, and it was 300k when I lost one.

 

The thing that definitely did not help is selling T9's and 10s.  Even 8's would be considered too high by a lot, myself included.

They should have kept those ships out of at folks hands until they had at least X battles at X tier. Example:

A person can only buy a T8 after they have at least, say, 500 battles (1000 Co-Op battles).  On top of that, they would need to have at least 3 T8 tech tree 8's as well.

Note: The numbers are purely for example.

[Kruzenstern]

8 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Torpedo DD sails in at full speed and uses torpedo reload boost to pole-axe two battleships back to back?
Well "duh".  They scored a lot of damage and 100% of the XP for each ship sunk.

Ok, maybe my definition of yolo is wrong, because what you describe as yolo is not that for me. What I mean when saying yolo is that for example a DD presses w from the start, goes straight for a cap without ever turning or slowing, starts shooting his guns at the first enemy in sight, drops his first torp load in the general direction of the enemy of which maybe one hits a random target, and then he dies horribly. And that still yields a not insignificant portion of rewards.

Also what you describe might be a decent contribution in PvP. It is not in Ops. Take a DD on Narai for example (I have seen that a few times lately). He goes straight for the first spawn, gets all his torps in, sinks two ships but is sunk himself in return. Sometimes survives long enough to also get a chunk out of Leander and Queen and then dies. So he killed ships that his team would have easily dispatched anyway, and is now missing later when he might be desperately needed, like against the Missouri. And for that he often gets at least half as much XP as the guys that have to fight through the rest of the battle at a disadvantage now and spend triple the time or more than the early exitus.

To garnish it with some numbers (educated guesses from experience), what I don't like is that a guy who spends 4 minutes in battle and does 50K of insignificant damage gets say 600 XP, while the other guy who fought through the whole battle for say 16 Minutes and does 300K damage gets 1200. (And yes of course I know you get more XP for damage on DDs than on BBs, but this is not a factor here)

I actually inadvertently abused the system last year when there were those harsh missions to get potential damage. With no asymmetrics around and the penalty on op results, the most efficient way to get that was to take BBs in PvP and just yolo through the middle. And this was also reasonably profitable XP-wise because you get a lot for little contribution.

And the icing on the cake is WGs silly way of determining non-contributions, where you can get zero even when you actually did some significant things when there was just too much time between your last shot and the end of the battle.

Edited April 27 by Kruzenstern

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Kruzenstern said:

Ok, maybe my definition of yolo is wrong, because what you describe as yolo is not that for me. What I mean when saying yolo is that for example a DD presses w from the start, goes straight for a cap without ever turning or slowing, starts shooting his guns at the first enemy in sight, drops his first torp load in the general direction of the enemy of which maybe one hits a random target, and then he dies horribly. And that still yields a not insignificant portion of rewards.

Also what you describe might be a decent contribution in PvP. It is not in Ops. Take a DD on Narai for example (I have seen that a few times lately). He goes straight for the first spawn, gets all his torps in, sinks two ships but is sunk himself in return. Sometimes survives long enough to also get a chunk out of Leander and Queen and then dies. So he killed ships that his team would have easily dispatched anyway, and is now missing later when he might be desperately needed, like against the Missouri. And for that he often gets at least half as much XP as the guys that have to fight through the rest of the battle at a disadvantage now and spend triple the time or more than the early exitus.

To garnish it with some numbers (educated guesses from experience), what I don't like is that a guy who spends 4 minutes in battle and does 50K of insignificant damage gets say 600 XP, while the other guy who fought through the whole battle for say 16 Minutes and does 300K damage gets 1200. (And yes of course I know you get more XP for damage on DDs than on BBs, but this is not a factor here)

I actually inadvertently abused the system last year when there were those harsh missions to get potential damage. With no asymmetrics around and the penalty on op results, the most efficient way to get that was to take BBs in PvP and just yolo through the middle. And this was also reasonably profitable XP-wise because you get a lot for little contribution.

And the icing on the cake is WGs silly way of determining non-contributions, where you can get zero even when you actually did some significant things when there was just too much time between your last shot and the end of the battle.

Heh.  😉 

The phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do", comes to my mind.  😉 

So, you're not above yolo-ing, yourself.  But you want others to yolo more competently or to be luckier?

Okay.  It occurs to me that there's a figurative elephant in the room we're having this conversation in.  🙂 
Essentially...
As a player, I am in control of my ship(s).  Only I am in control of my ship(s). 
No one else is entitled to command me and/or my ship(s).
Also, no one else has signed paperwork to be a sailor in my fleet and subordinate themselves and their ships to my command. 

To borrow a line from the movie The Labyrinth, "My kingdom is as great.  You have no power over me."
And that principle works both ways.

Okay. 
I understand that the performance of other people, whom you believe could be doing better, can feel frustrating sometimes.
But, we cannot control them. 
What we can control is our own actions and our reactions to other people's behavior.

So, perhaps the improvement we need is not necessarily the improvement we seek.
What I mean is that perhaps it is best if we do not allow our happiness to depend upon the actions of others.
As Princess Elsa said in the movie Frozen, "Let it go."
Let it go, because it's not worth losing sleep over, in my opinion, and because it cannot be helped/controlled.

That being said, I have had occasional success with asking (asking, not ordering) others to help while in a battle.
I do feel that polite communication is worth the effort.
Sometimes it works well, other times the other player has their chat turned-off or the situation has simply degraded too fast to be pulling victory from the jaws of defeat.
Whatever the case, I do feel that being diplomatic is my best option (especially if I am able to communicate sufficiently ahead of the time when our combined actions will need to be implemented).

What are your thoughts?  🙂 
 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 hours ago, Kruzenstern said:

Ok, maybe my definition of yolo is wrong, because what you describe as yolo is not that for me. What I mean when saying yolo is that for example a DD presses w from the start, goes straight for a cap without ever turning or slowing, starts shooting his guns at the first enemy in sight, drops his first torp load in the general direction of the enemy of which maybe one hits a random target, and then he dies horribly. And that still yields a not insignificant portion of rewards.

Also what you describe might be a decent contribution in PvP. It is not in Ops. Take a DD on Narai for example (I have seen that a few times lately). He goes straight for the first spawn, gets all his torps in, sinks two ships but is sunk himself in return. Sometimes survives long enough to also get a chunk out of Leander and Queen and then dies. So he killed ships that his team would have easily dispatched anyway, and is now missing later when he might be desperately needed, like against the Missouri. And for that he often gets at least half as much XP as the guys that have to fight through the rest of the battle at a disadvantage now and spend triple the time or more than the early exitus.

To garnish it with some numbers (educated guesses from experience), what I don't like is that a guy who spends 4 minutes in battle and does 50K of insignificant damage gets say 600 XP, while the other guy who fought through the whole battle for say 16 Minutes and does 300K damage gets 1200. (And yes of course I know you get more XP for damage on DDs than on BBs, but this is not a factor here)

I actually inadvertently abused the system last year when there were those harsh missions to get potential damage. With no asymmetrics around and the penalty on op results, the most efficient way to get that was to take BBs in PvP and just yolo through the middle. And this was also reasonably profitable XP-wise because you get a lot for little contribution.

And the icing on the cake is WGs silly way of determining non-contributions, where you can get zero even when you actually did some significant things when there was just too much time between your last shot and the end of the battle.

The above really highlights how LAZY WG development of the game economy and balance actually is.

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Heh.  😉 

The phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do", comes to my mind.  😉 

So, you're not above yolo-ing, yourself.  But you want others to yolo more competently or to be luckier?

Okay.  It occurs to me that there's a figurative elephant in the room we're having this conversation in.  🙂 
Essentially...
As a player, I am in control of my ship(s).  Only I am in control of my ship(s). 
No one else is entitled to command me and/or my ship(s).
Also, no one else has signed paperwork to be a sailor in my fleet and subordinate themselves and their ships to my command. 

To borrow a line from the movie The Labyrinth, "My kingdom is as great.  You have no power over me."
And that principle works both ways.

Okay. 
I understand that the performance of other people, whom you believe could be doing better, can feel frustrating sometimes.
But, we cannot control them. 
What we can control is our own actions and our reactions to other people's behavior.

So, perhaps the improvement we need is not necessarily the improvement we seek.
What I mean is that perhaps it is best if we do not allow our happiness to depend upon the actions of others.
As Princess Elsa said in the movie Frozen, "Let it go."
Let it go, because it's not worth losing sleep over, in my opinion, and because it cannot be helped/controlled.

That being said, I have had occasional success with asking (asking, not ordering) others to help while in a battle.
I do feel that polite communication is worth the effort.
Sometimes it works well, other times the other player has their chat turned-off or the situation has simply degraded too fast to be pulling victory from the jaws of defeat.
Whatever the case, I do feel that being diplomatic is my best option (especially if I am able to communicate sufficiently ahead of the time when our combined actions will need to be implemented).

What are your thoughts?  🙂 
 

This all ignores the fact that everyone's game attitude to how they play is a reflection of the context WG sets out.

WG has prioritized certain rewards structures because they want brain dead play. The folks who play in more team oriented and skilled ways are only doing so because THEY want to...not because WG wants it done.

I'm fairly certain that WG considers non-damage farming players to be an enemy to be removed from the game.