Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

69 Good

1 Follower

About Altrunchen

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

1,001 profile views
  1. I know right? I completely agree with you on this. As for CVs, well honestly I was speaking more to the tumultuous history of their involvement in the game. How the playerbase just seems to be rarely content with their status overall.
  2. Oh yes, in real life random factors affect just about everything. But let's be real here, this game isn't as focused on realism as say...(A certain competitor's game) is. Heck in that game you can knock out the enemy's crew members and damage is localized unlike in WoWs. World of Warships is extremely detached from realism in so, so many ways. As a result I think WG's "emphasis" on realism is mostly there for show, since in practice very little is realistic about this game whatsoever.
  3. Introduction: World of warships was released in late 2015. Destiny 1 came out almost a year earlier, and even it got a sequel by now. World of Warships can't stay like this forever, sooner or later the need for improvements to the base game and more will outweigh the need to maintain the status quo. So there might just be a sequel that hopefully learns from a lot of the mistakes made with World of Warships 1. If that's the case, then here's what I'd suggest. Core Concept: The core concept of World of Warships seems to be an online multiplayer naval shooter with a hard lean towards the arcade style of design rather than the simulation style. Since that's what the market wants, this concept can stay the same. Changes: Allow more player interaction with different aspects of the game. Whether it's matchmaking, custom battles, private tournaments, or whatever else. Let the players have more agency in the game than they do with WoWs1. More developer transparency and community interaction. Please actually ask the playerbase (either selecting notable members or holding elections), about major updates you are considering to implement before you commit to them. Not only will this give the playerbase a chance to adapt, but it also gives you guys a better feel of what the players want. Less randomness, more skill. This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle. Optional skill-based matchmaking instead of grinding (more on that later). Controversial Changes: Remove the grind This might be a controversial change but hear me out. If the need to grind ships and upgrades is gone, and if matchmaking is based on skill level, then it will make it easier for similarly skilled players to find each other regardless of ship tier (You would still have matches with similar ship tiers though, to keep it balanced). Grinding can deter new players since it's an aging concept in online gaming as it is. What's fun about starting a free game if you have to wait to play the cool ships? If your friends want you to play then both you and they have to wait until you get far enough to do stuff with them. It's an artificial sense of reward for a digital ship. If competitive uses tier 9-10 anyways, what's the point of locking out new players from it? You guys give tier 10s out for free temporarily as it is. Just offer an optional series of tutorials and training missions to help people get better at the game instead of making them wait and grind. This isn't a second job, nor should it feel like one. Move away from the F2P "Whaling" business strategy and to a simple and transparent P2P business strategy. Back in 2015 people were more open to Free to play games, but now they are becoming insufferably pay-to-win. You guys literally sold a tier-10 yamato on your store, straight up. I'm sure if the game wasn't nearly as grindy, and not full of microtransactions, that people would be fine with paying a flat and regular subscription rate instead. And if you're not sure, ask your playerbase. Don't just guess. You already try to move people towards subscribing anyways, might as well be open and honest about it. Shelf Carriers for now You guys have been spending so much time and effort on trying to make carriers work and it's just getting worse and worse. You should just cut your losses and make carriers an exception instead of the rule to gameplay and work on improving other aspects while you develop a more grounded and effective way of somehow implementing them. Consolidate your playerbase Having players on consoles and PCs being separate makes sense for fast-paced games, but WoWs isn't as fast as say Call of Duty is. You have time to think and to aim your guns, so of all online games WoWs could probably work with crossplay, maybe not well, but still. If the devs are worried about not having a big enough playerbase then they need to shore up what they can and consolidate it so the numbers of players are more sustainable. No I'm not saying that I'm 100% right, I'm just saying that I think there's still a solid game here but that it can be much, much better. Please don't burn me at the stake.
  4. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    Well then maybe we shouldn't split them after all. Either way, I'd leave it up to WG to decide what they'd want to do. I just think this would help. Divisions are limited to just three players, the whole team has far more than that.
  5. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    What's so hard about adjusting campaign missions? It's not like they'd have to edit the base engine, make new ships, or something. Also why not then create some middle-ground settings where people can either opt into: Only no lobby matches Prefer no lobby matches No preference on lobbies Prefer lobby matches Only lobby matches That way the margins of available players can be leveraged.
  6. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    Yes, but all three are online multiplayer games with team battles nonetheless.
  7. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    So why do Call of Duty, Among Us, and so many other online games get away with having pre-game lobbies? Even Runescape has minigames with pre-game lobbies and that's a free-to-play like World of Warships. I think this proposal is easier to implement than you might think. Also I don't think having different player pools will be that hard for matchmaking. Just pair up people like you usually do, albeit with smaller lists now. I don't expect people to flock en masse to the lobby play exactly, a huge portion of the playerbase are casual players who only play on weekends after all. If you need to counter-balance no-lobby games with lobby games then just make no-lobby games have more players per match so that the rate of players to game time is adjusted.
  8. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    I don't think "3 battles later" is what people think of when they say "right after" to be honest. What's the point of having a multiplayer game if people don't actually try to work together? Sure we have clan battles, but those only happen once in a while, you have to be committed to a clan, AND they're smaller scale than random battles. Why do we have to make random battles so much more random than the other forms? Also, with my idea you wouldn't be forced into the pre-game lobby experience to begin with since, as I said, it wouldn't be mandatory. So even if my idea were implemented you would still get to have the experience you enjoy.
  9. Altrunchen

    Pre-Battle Team Lobby

    Are you saying that you enjoy the disorganized chaos of random battles that results in one team evaporating due to lack of communication or collaboration? What if you're the one on the team that did terribly even though you yourself were doing well? Other games have things like pre-match lobbies. It fills a need and helps a multiplayer game be more collaborative. Which seems to be the point of multiplayer in the first place. Right now it's less about skill and more about if you get lucky with a good team. Too much randomness and the game might as well be a slot machine.
  10. Introduction: Do you hate it when you get spawned on one side of the map with nowhere near enough ships to do anything but die? How about trying to set up a plan before the match in the chat with only a few seconds WHILE your ship is moving? This idea would address both these problems at once with a pre-battle team lobby. Main Idea: Before being matched: Players can opt-into a pre-battle lobby experience with random battles where they will be matched with other players who have chosen to do so as well. This would not be a mandatory feature. After being matched: Players have some time (maybe 1 - 2 minutes) to do the following: Choose a spawn point along their team's edge of the map. Or within a spawn zone determined by the developers. Discuss strategies, form divisions, and more in global chat. Vote to veto the current map. (Must be a majority vote alongside the other team as well.) If World of Warships is marketed as "the thinking man's vehicle battle game" or something of that ilk, then it would be nice if they actually gave us time to think, communicate, and plan.
  11. No idea, not even sure they had galleys on board to be honest.
  12. Note: This would be a purely graphical feature. It wouldn't affect gameplay at all. Idea: Different skyboxes and lighting angles that are randomly paired for each random battle so that the same maps don't always look the exact same every single time. This way the same maps can feel different and unique without having to change landmasses. Skybox Choices: Different sets of "weather" that can be different for every match so it doesn't always look the same. This wouldn't affect visibility or detection. Cloud Level: A variable setting that adjusts how cloudy the skybox is. The value ranges randomly per map between 0 and 100. 0.00 = Clear 50.00 = 1/2 cloudy 100.00 = Overcast Sun Angle: This determines the lighting angle. And because night missions aren't really a thing, it would vary between 0 and 100 alongside the cloud level. 0.00 = sunrise 50.00 = noon 100.00 = sunset Water Color: The color of the water would change based on the map's ambient lighting, just like real life. Purpose: To make the maps at least feel more differentiated and varied without compromising gameplay. Kind of like how they made lots of variations on Final Destination for Smash Ultimate. So that visually there's more variation and so that the battles feel more unique each time. With 2-3 levels of aesthetic variation that is random for each match, it'd make the battles each feel more special without stepping on the toes of gameplay.
  13. And now that sound is stuck in my head forever.