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

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

From whiny bitches who don't know how to play as a team?  😉 

Amen.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

World of Warships Official Forums @ Wayback Machine
https://www.devstrike.net/topic/3680-world-of-warships-official-forums-wayback-machine/

 

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/238977-psa-wg-apparently-ed-up-the-bxp-for-newport-news/

There you go, thats how it started 🙂 

Sadly  Pm's to WG staff can't be displayed. 

Edit:  And the actual explanation

Hapa a question, if the rewards got removed from achievements, the BXP ...'boost didn't get also removed from them? Because that would fully explain the situation,  given the fact that stars also act as BXP boosters for the whole team.

 

No. At this point I'm fairly certain that it has to do with the removal of rewards for achievements.  Those also act as BXP bumpers. And stars do that too. So...

But its across the board, NOT just scenarios

 This was also posted on EU and in both General Discussions threads coz it become obvious that it was affecting PvP too.

 

Edited April 28 by Andrewbassg

[Justin_Simpleton]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Obviously, that is something WoWS does not have, nor do I think it's something the devs would ever consider such a thing so my idea is somewhat dead in the water to begin with. It would go towards solving the problem, that is to say, awarding credits in proportion to recommended and expected actions in combat, but it would add a layer of complexity to the game I think may not be welcomed by some.

One complexity is deciding which actions are expected and how unexpected actions are effective for the win.

[Wolfswetpaws]

25 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/238977-psa-wg-apparently-ed-up-the-bxp-for-newport-news/

There you go, thats how it started 🙂 

Sadly  Pm's to WG staff can't be displayed. 

Edit:  And the actual explanation

Hapa a question, if the rewards got removed from achievements, the BXP ...'boost didn't get also removed from them? Because that would fully explain the situation,  given the fact that stars also act as BXP boosters for the whole team.

Providing a direct link to the topic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230728214902/https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/238977-psa-wg-apparently-ed-up-the-bxp-for-newport-news/

[Admiral_Karasu]

21 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

One complexity is deciding which actions are expected and how unexpected actions are effective for the win.

When you put it like that, I have zero faith in WG being able to code that correctly in the game. It would literally fry their spaghetti code to cinders if they as much as tried.

[iDuckman]

7 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Achievements boost BXP earnings both in PvP as in PVE

( ops cats know 🙂 )

When they removed flags from achievements, BXP earnings suddenly dropped like no tomorrow. And it was me  🙂 who made noises and pointed out to them , why what and how. 

[ insert D*rk Br*nd*n meme]

Forums gone so can't cite.

Btw @iDuckman 🙂 

The mechanism of BXP earnings are unpublished.  From our point of view, there's nothing to document.  You say they've changed, find us some documentation.  And no, Hapa's equivocating response isn't enough.

Besides, other than the Change Log, which also requires documentation, we don't track history.  We write about what the rule is *now*, as far as we know it.

 

Edited April 28 by iDuckman

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

The mechanism of BXP earnings are unpublished.  From our point of view, there's nothing to document.  You say they've changed, find us some documentation.  And no, Hapa's equivocating response isn't enough.

 

Ermm........there are  several misunderstandings.....

1. That's not Hapa's response, that's still me. Hapa's response is in the thread. which was the standard "we will investigate". Besides Hapa wasn't the only one whom I contacted  nor I was limited to NA.

2. When they removed the flag rewards from achievements, they've  also ACCIDENTALLY removed the baked in BXP boosters in them. Coz of "competence"  reasons. When confronted with mounting and overwhelming evidence ( while I  was the first and who figured out what happened, I wasn't alone, all streamers and all players experienced the same, sudden and inexplicable loss of BXP) in form of countless screens and videos, they've put it back . I repeat, it wasn't intentional.

3. Achievements have "baked in" BXP boosters. That's a fact. How much each of them  provide .... that's what we don't know.

 

Edited April 28 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I highly doubt BXP has been constant for long...my bet is it is tweaked with every patch cycle.

[BOBTHEBALL]

Could someone give me a little TLDR of this topic?

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Could someone give me a little TLDR of this topic?

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

Aand some other stuff...

[BOBTHEBALL]

Just now, Andrewbassg said:

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

Aand some other stuff...

Well I think the idea of what we can do to fix this problem is fairly simple. However I don't think it's achievable at all.

My idea is just having a great in-game tutorial, we know WG won't do that. They do have some good videos on their youtube channel about how to play but that's not the same as forcing the players through a tutorial. 

The other thing is well players helping players. We all play this game, we all play it in different ways but that doesn't mean we can't help each other. Actually I think we should all try help each-other on how to play this game. That would be a great way to help newer players and the not as good players to become better.

Yeah that's all I have to say,

- Boob

[Andrewbassg]

49 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

My idea is just having a great in-game tutorial, we know WG won't do that. They do have some good videos on their youtube channel about how to play but that's not the same as forcing the players through a tutorial. 

 

Arguably that's what ops used to be.

Otherwise one cant have tutorials for every ship AND every build for it. People  simply don't know how to play different ships, their best usage, their strengths, their weaknesses, their best tactics, also how to deal with different targets. Frequently I'm called out when playing Nevsky for not brawling with bb's 

 

But make no mistake, that is by design. Wedgie planned this, rooted for and implemented it.

  

Edited April 29 by Andrewbassg

[SunkCostFallacy]

I find myself thinking that, more often than not, the biggest issue is 'bad' gameplay comes down to a single thing. Awareness.

From time to time I've had other players questioning why I'm doing what I'm doing ... clearly to their eyes the action(s) that I'm taking seem to be counter-productive in some way. I flatter myself that the majority of the time I'm doing something that IS constructive. It may not be the absolutely most optimal thing, but it's definitely not a stupid thing.¹

When time permits, I'll explain. That's difficult in a COOP feeding frenzy, however. Generally the explanation is that I am aware of something that the other player is not.

Some examples are:

• I'm being targeted by more than the 'local' ships ... so I think that BB way over there is about to pound some nastiness into my broadside. A quick check shows his guns are pointing my way so I'm trying to avoid being hammered.
• We're low on points (this is more an Asymmetric mode issue) so I'm gonna cap this while I'm in cover. I'm sorry that you steamed out of the cap circle and are being pounded, but I want to win this game and you're about to sink and therefore I'm going to need to secure this flank or the match is a loss.
• Another Asymmetric thing (because COOP matches rarely last long enough to need multiple heals) ... I'm waiting for my heal to come off cooldown.
• I've been watching the minimap and:
  • The bot sub has been heading in this direction at speed, and hasn't been spotted in a while so I think it's about to appear and be a pain in the aft.
  • That DD has stopped firing from smoke, so I think he's coming around the other side of that island and that'll means he'll be able to spam torps into my broadside.

There are countless others. The point is that the better you get, the more you are able to be aware of the stuff that's happening around you. And conversely, the more you are aware of the stuff around you, the better you get.

I still have matches where I get overly involved and lose awareness ... "I'm gonna burn that damn DD down if it's the last thing I do" ... and it may well be the last thing I do because my tunnel vision lead me to doing something stupid and a ship I wasn't paying attention to just taught me a lesson.

The problem is that I don't think you CAN teach that. It's something that can only come with experience. I had to die countless times to lack of awareness and not properly extrapolating from the minimap before I started to overcome those obstacles. I had to play numerous matches on the various maps to get a feel for how the enemy team (be they players or bots) are most likely to act even before we get spotting on them.

I probably learned slower than some, and faster than others ... but I had to be motivated to learn that stuff. If it weren't for the fact that I'm mostly retired now and frequently housebound,  I probably wouldn't have been in a position to enjoy WoWS as much as I do and therefor I've have been less motivated to git gud. (Not that I think I'm gud yet, but I'm gitting there )

When I was in the Army, both being trained and then as a trainer it was very apparent to me that some stuff can only be learned through experience. That's in the Army when messing up meant anything from a chewing out by a superior to actual punishment. So you can believe that I was motivated to learn fast ... but still, some things only come with practice.

And so I now get to put the boot into WG: There comes a time when you've 'been there done that' as a player. You've completed multiple lines of ships ... even some that you don't much like. You've completed a bunch of collections (and you are NOT going to give WG money to buy containers to complete the rest). You've completed all the Campaigns (been a LONG time since we saw a new one of those). There are a few ships you want, but they are either unavailable or too damn expensive. The 'special' game modes are OK, but nothing to write home about. So you might well drift away to another game. And as a result you take all the stuff you have learned with you.

WG wants to keep player numbers up ... so they focus on luring in new players. And some of those new players may well be enticed to spend actual money, so they are VERY attractive to WG.

The inevitable consequence is a loss at the 'top' skill levels, and an influx at the 'lower' skill levels. Meaning (if my assertions in this post are true) that there is always going to be a lag as those new players git gud, and some of them never will.

To my eyes, however, WG puts little effort into retention and more in recruitment and that means we will keep seeing what we're seeing, and what this entire thread is about. Frankly I believe that at some time in the past the game reached a threshold where retention was insufficient to offset the incoming 'noobs' and as a result the overall player skill levels are decreasing. I imagine that's not uncommon in what @Asym refers to as a 'mature game'.

The upside is that, as I get better at paying attention, I get better at recognising those players around me that I can't rely on to do it 'right' so I am less likely to depend on them, and more likely to be ready when they mess up.

 

 

1. Sometimes it IS a stupid thing ... but after all these matches I believe that I do the stupid thing much less often than I did when I started.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Indeed, I'm fairly good at not doing the stupid thing...

...unless I'm in a cruiser.

I just don't have the experience yet to really know what I'm doing with that class.

Just not enough time in them.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

...

To my eyes, however, WG puts little effort into retention and more in recruitment and that means we will keep seeing what we're seeing, and what this entire thread is about. Frankly I believe that at some time in the past the game reached a threshold where retention was insufficient to offset the incoming 'noobs' and as a result the overall player skill levels are decreasing. I imagine that's not uncommon in what @Asym refers to as a 'mature game'.

The upside is that, as I get better at paying attention, I get better at recognising those players around me that I can't rely on to do it 'right' so I am less likely to depend on them, and more likely to be ready when they mess up.

There are very few games that realize their "Vision Statement"....  Usually, reality bites them in the @ss  because they promised too much and the enthusiasm dies about year four.  In our case, at the Cruise Line Split and the following Update 8.0 signaled the era of new creations is over......  Just clones of clone of clones and gimmicks...

Years from now, if you come back and visit from when you punched out, the same game names today will be saying the same things tomorrow.  Those folk simply won't let go of what they purchased......worked for......status quo....  And, for some, that is enough.......

[SunkCostFallacy]

38 minutes ago, Asym said:

There are very few games that realize their "Vision Statement"....  Usually, reality bites them in the @ss  because they promised too much and the enthusiasm dies about year four.  In our case, at the Cruise Line Split and the following Update 8.0 signaled the era of new creations is over......  Just clones of clone of clones and gimmicks...

Years from now, if you come back and visit from when you punched out, the same game names today will be saying the same things tomorrow.  Those folk simply won't let go of what they purchased......worked for......status quo....  And, for some, that is enough.......

You're no doubt right about some players who just won't give up. Perhaps for them, it's still fun.

We all get different things from the same game.

[iDuckman]

On 4/28/2024 at 6:17 PM, BOBTHEBALL said:

My idea is just having a great in-game tutorial, we know WG won't do that.

Don't say they won't.  Certain CMs and I have been wracking our brains to come up with a tutorial format that is not only effective but that players will watch. 

The old Naval Academy series, Bad Advice, How it Works, the in-client video tutorials, even the wiki itself.  The knowledge is there for you.  While you can lead a horse to water...

Now, if you have some ideas, please tell.

 

Edited April 30 by iDuckman

[Asym]

5 hours ago, iDuckman said:

Don't say they won't.  Certain CMs and I have been wracking our brains to come with a tutorial format that is not only effective but that players will watch. 

The old Naval Academy series, Bad Advice, How it Works, the in-client video tutorials, even the wiki itself.  The knowledge is there for you.  While you can lead a horse to water...

Now, if you have some ideas, please tell.

PARADOX Warning !  DANGER !  PARADOX Warning....!

Oh gosh, you must do a few things for it to be viable: 

1)  It has to be required to play this game; in that, the return for your time gives a new player a significant reward:  say 180 days of PT.  I talked to my Grandson about this concept last year.  He really liked the sitting down and playing with me as my XO in COOP....  He learned by seeing it real time....  Food for thought, yes !

2)  You and your "crew" are mixing metaphors.  This game isn't designed as a meritocracy...  There are no skill requirements at all and that means, your training has no "real value" and doesn't provide a return-on-investment because, the game doesn't require it.  ...  Again, to make it work, there has to be a meaningful, Real World Reward that would entice "kids" or "Gramps" to participate. 

3)  IMO, a mentorship program needs to be established.  Mentors division with participating new players and on Discord, you can talk the new players through some of the advanced techniques....  one-on-one teaching is a very good way to start a game.  Some Clans in this game and others games actually do this....

My opinion is that the game isn't designed for this ^^^^.  It's an arcade shooter that uses ships versus Zombies, CHUD's or vampires.  See Ship - shoot at ship - ship blows up - good ship.....  No more and no less....

Something about a "Pig's ears" comes to mind !   A paradox of wanting skills to play a game where skill isn't even defined, rquired or used to do anything.  Ouch....

 

[SunkCostFallacy]

21 minutes ago, Asym said:

1)  It has to be required to play this game; in that, the return for your time gives a new player a significant reward:  say 180 days of PT.  I talked to my Grandson about this concept last year.  He really liked the sitting down and playing with me as my XO in COOP....  He learned by seeing it real time....  Food for thought, yes !
 

I don't think it's viable to make it required. Case in point ... someone who is returning to the game, or rolling an account on a new server, would not want to be forced to go through training.

That having been said ... it really DOES require a major incentive to make players want to complete it. That way a returning player would be willing to go through it, because it would be easy for them, and the rewards would be worth his/her time.

Now I'm going to be boring to anyone who's not serious about training. You have been warned!

I learned, in the Army, a simple mantra for training. Years later I went through formal training in how to train and, because it was civilian, it was loaded down with a load of cruft, but it boiled down to the same thing:

1. During the lesson you will be taught ...

2. The reason you are taught this is ...

3. At the end of the lesson you will be able to ...

4. Demonstrate ...

5. Have the students replicate

6. Feedback

7. Replicate

8. During this lesson you have achieved a standard of X¹. This will improve with further practice.

That's it.

Any training requires all of those things. Clear statement of the purpose and goals of the training. Clear demonstration of the skill at a suitable standard. Replication of the skill by the students. FEEDBACK. Replications. Assessment.

(As a humorous aside ... I used to get paid $100 an hour to teach people what I detailed above. Some companies like to throw money away!)

The big problem is that with the kind of training necessary for WoWS there's no way to provide feedback. Therefore the only way to ensure that the 'student' reaches the necessary level is to not let them progress until they do. But you can't do that for a game. So what you have to do is gate the rewards.

So, and what follows is off the top of my head and is probably full of holes (but hopefully you'll get the idea) ... instead of "complete the training and get 180 days of PT" you have to go with "complete each lesson to the necessary standard and you get X days of PT" where X is 180 divided by the number of lessons.

AND you need to set up each lesson cleverly. So training on gunnery would require approaching to within range of the target ship, and doing X damage with HE, and Y damage with AP. Kill it with HE and don't use any AP ... and you did NOT complete the training mission.

Or for angling against incoming fire ... last Z seconds against incoming AP fire from a bot. Die too soon, no reward.

That's how to actually teach this stuff, at least the stuff that can be taught to a given standard. The rest requires experience and practice.

 

 

1. In the Australia Army, at that time and place, the standard we'd achieved was always profane. The best trainers came up with humorous ways to insult us. "During this lesson you have achieved the standard of Epileptic Grandmothers. With further practice you might achieve the standard of Epileptic Grandfathers."

[Justin_Simpleton]

14 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I don't think it's viable to make it required. Case in point ... someone who is returning to the game, or rolling an account on a new server, would not want to be forced to go through training.

I chose to start a new account on the EU and follow the training steps videos that were provided.  The training seemed to be much better than 4 years ago which tells me WG is trying.  The training seems to lack preparation for Random battles in that it doesn't go into how to interact with team mates other than to say you can.

[SunkCostFallacy]

13 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I chose to start a new account on the EU and follow the training steps videos that were provided.  The training seemed to be much better than 4 years ago which tells me WG is trying.  The training seems to lack preparation for Random battles in that it doesn't go into how to interact with team mates other than to say you can.

For sure.

But you wouldn't be happy if you were forced to go through that training before you could play at all.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 hours ago, iDuckman said:

Don't say they won't.  Certain CMs and I have been wracking our brains to come with a tutorial format that is not only effective but that players will watch. 

The old Naval Academy series, Bad Advice, How it Works, the in-client video tutorials, even the wiki itself.  The knowledge is there for you.  While you can lead a horse to water...

Now, if you have some ideas, please tell.

 

If it's just the CMs working with you, then you are achieving nothing. See Yukon-gate.

Actual change is driven by the people the CMs report to.

I get that you are doing your best with an imperfect system. Just don't get expectations too high.

You probably know all this anyway...

[Asym]

1 hour ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I don't think it's viable to make it required.

et al..

I learned, in the Army, a simple mantra for training.

In the Army I retired from, and taught Asymmetrical combat operations, the Army format was and maybe still is:

• Task(s)
• Condition(s)
• Standards

Lesson planning were developed from the ARTEP approved TCS's and then sourced from with in the training budgets.

Even ROTC used this format in that Cadet Command had to approve the POI and the host University had to mitigate credit hours awarded, usually by the Specialty "Colleges" (Engineering, Liberal Arts, Business...etc....) reviewing where the Leadership credit hours could or would not be allowed.... 

In my era, TCS was the mnemonic...

 

[Frostbow]

25 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If it's just the CMs working with you, then you are achieving nothing. See Yukon-gate.

Actual change is driven by the people the CMs report to.

8 hours ago, iDuckman said:

Certain CMs and I have been wracking our brains to come with a tutorial format that is not only effective but that players will watch. 

An exercise in futility. Save your brains from further damage.

CMs are on the lowest rung of the totem pole. If you want change to happen, collaborate with people who hold actual game design roles in WG like Mimimissile (when she was still connected with WG).

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 minutes ago, Asym said:

In the Army I retired from, and taught Asymmetrical combat operations, the Army format was and maybe still is:

• Task(s)
• Condition(s)
• Standards

Lesson planning were developed from the ARTEP approved TCS's and then sourced from with in the training budgets.

Even ROTC used this format in that Cadet Command had to approve the POI and the host University had to mitigate credit hours awarded, usually by the Specialty "Colleges" (Engineering, Liberal Arts, Business...etc....) reviewing where the Leadership credit hours could or would not be allowed.... 

In my era, TCS was the mnemonic...

 

There is a *huge* difference between being an officer or enlisted person in the military, someone who "signed a contract", versus being a "civilian" who is not required to adhere to military orders.

This is why the incentives must be crafted for a person to feel rewarded enough to continue.
Because a game player can quit at any time for any reason.  They're under no contractual obligation to stay.