Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
NotSynpax

The real reason for the WoWs decline

158 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,683
[O_O]
Members
4,842 posts
10,645 battles

While reading this thread, I am laughing out loud and yet at the same time, yawning.  Weird.  That can't be healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,756
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,987 posts
3,895 battles
1 minute ago, Gasboy said:

And yeah, the numbers are lower.  Obviously the game is dead, right?  Right?

 

And I keep saying I'm not in the "doom and gloom, game is dead" camp.

 

I'm simply pointing out one of the game's bigger problems and apparently have to justify why I feel it is a problem to people who don't think massive player churn is detrimental to online games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[55TH]
Beta Testers
935 posts
3,385 battles
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

 

And I keep saying I'm not in the "doom and gloom, game is dead" camp.

 

I'm simply pointing out one of the game's bigger problems and apparently have to justify why I feel it is a problem to people who don't think massive player churn is detrimental to online games.

 

What is this massive player churn you are talking about though??  You just admitted that the numbers are close.  How is that massive player churn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,756
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,987 posts
3,895 battles
5 minutes ago, Gasboy said:

 

What is this massive player churn you are talking about though??  You just admitted that the numbers are close.  How is that massive player churn?

 

Any population change that comes up overwhelmingly negative and has remained a net negative gain for over a year is big enough to be a massive problem, to me.

 

If this was animals you'd be freaking out about who must be wiping out an endangered species right now.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[55TH]
Beta Testers
935 posts
3,385 battles
7 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

 

Any population change that comes up overwhelmingly negative and has remained a net negative gain for over a year is big enough to be a massive problem, to me.

 

If this was animals you'd be freaking out about who must be wiping out an endangered species right now.

 

Using the data on that page: https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/na/total

 

The past 12 months, the average has been 7919

The previous 12 months: 6920

 

Yeah, net negative gain dude.  *slowclap*

 

EDIT: Oh, and that's with a number of days in June of this year with no data, which drives the average down.  Meaning this year has been higher than the number reported.  At least according to that website.

 

EDIT2: Numbers may be slightly off, by a very small amount, I'm on a chromebook so no mouse to get more precise slider placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[55TH]
Beta Testers
935 posts
3,385 battles
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

We'll see what happens.

 

I'll tell you what, I already know what happens.  At some point in the future, WoWs will shut down because it will be no longer worth keeping her up.  Something else will come and replace her.  All games, good and bad, die.  Will it be in 1 year?  Maybe, if Wargaming really screws up, I mean worse than GZ and Fochgate.  Could be a decade down the road too.

 

I'll play as long as it's up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[CWGC]
Members
819 posts
2,607 battles

no idea if the game is dying or not but i rarely if ever play anymore due to utter trash teams over and over again is not fun. being 3 minutes into a game and having 5 people dead is ridiculous. sad part is there is no remedy for it whether your the team that does the rolling or the team getting rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[ML-S]
Members
312 posts
4,764 battles
14 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Do you just assume the game's in decline because you're having less fun, OP?

I think that's as natural as feeling the economy is down if you are in poverty.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles
Just now, Horama said:

I think that's as natural as feeling the economy is down if you are in poverty.

It is natural. I agree. It's an honest question.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,267
[WOLF7]
Members
10,784 posts
2 hours ago, Nuk_ said:

Team Battles was a colossal failure, and is in no way a reason for the game's supposed "decline" (which doesn't exist.)

 

Have you bothered to look at the actual stats? :Smile_amazed:

 

https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/na/total

 

And after you look at our stats, look at Asia (Down 60% from peak)

And EU/RU (Down 50% from peak)

 

HvYL1aB.png

 

I doubt the game is going anywhere for awhile, but it's already seen it's best days, two years out of beta....

I can't say the lack of team play is the primary driver, but you'd really have to be out of touch with reality if you think the game is doing well.....

Edited by awiggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,369
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
17,376 posts
15,868 battles

WoWS had some problems in its first year, specifically retention of that initial rush of people.  The CEO of Wargaming had an interview about WoT but WoWS got some mention in there.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/3/7/14834044/wargaming-ceo-interview-world-of-tanks

 

WoWS is brought up 1/3 of the way through the interview.  As far as "Dying" today, no, I don't see that, especially with the constant pushing of new premium ships, new ship lines, new game modes (Operations), collections, campaigns, constant events, etc.  That doesn't sound like a dying game where support is being reigned back by the developers to put into something else.  For sure, there's been dumb drama here and there, but all games get dumb drama on occasion.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles

Honestly, some spend so much money on WoWs that WG only needs a small fraction of what other games need to "succeed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,969
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
6,550 posts
19,388 battles
3 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Yes, but you also failed to mention all of the people that joined as you were leaving.  Year upon year, World of Warships has remained stable with the highest population peak so far over the Winter of 2016.

I think player retention is a problem. The numbers (on the chart provided above) show growth but it really isn't substantial. I would be more curious to know what the numbers are for new players vs players with more than a year in (for example). I think they should make a page (on their website) for exiting players to express their reasons for leaving, even if it gets nasty. Lots of times you can discern the underlying reason from comments like "Because I get sucky teams" or whatnot. I have seen quite a few forum posters with just a few thousand games played and that is good, but noticed a few "old timers" who I haven't seen post in a great while and it makes me wonder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
5,949 battles
14 hours ago, NotSynpax said:

When I started playing a year and a half ago, a family member introduced me not just to the game but to a clan. Every night they'd have run team battles with a deep bench, rotating people in and out, and we'd often have enough to field two teams (14 players or more). It was a lot of fun and very intense, especially when we faced off against each other. 

 

My best moments in video gaming (and I'm nearing forty) all happened in WoWs team battles when I, three times, led my team to victory against a team of fellow clanmates. 

 

However, since team battles have been removed, everyone moved onto something else. We still hang out in channel together but they're playing stuff like Arc. Hearts of Iron, Empyerion, etc. Sometimes a few of them jump into ships, but I'm the only one who plays it regularly like we use to. And when the others jump in, they often quit soon after in frustration at the poor gameplay in randoms. 

So think about that: at least fourteen people here with team battles. Now just one without. 

 

That's really what's killing this game. You can say there isn't a player population for team battles - but it's the other way around. Team battles are what get you strapped in day after day. And, yes, there are some outside organized leagues, but none of them have the ease of play of the built in team battles --- it isn't even close. It was such fun to grab five of your best buds and a couple mercs and go to battle while trash talking on Team Speak. 

 

 

 

 You have 20 battles under your belt....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,676
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,951 battles
14 hours ago, Crucis said:

The problem with Team Battles wasn't so much the idea of teams battling, so much as it was that it was constructed like some sort of little tournament with rankings, etc.  "Team Battles" would be so much better if it was more like the old Tank Companies in World of Tanks, where there it was possible to form teams at tiers 4, 6, 8, or 10.  And teams were built sort of on the fly, not semi-permanent things.  And you fought any team that was in the queue at the same time for the same tier of tank company.  From my own experience in TC's, companies at tier 6 tended to be the most popular.

And due to their more open nature, tank companies were a nice way to check out potential new recruits to a clan, to see how they got along with other people and how good they were at taking and following orders in a team setting.

 

Many times this. And unlike clan wars that was not viable for people with social lives, strongholds in tanks can be done at any time. Some of us actually enjoy real face-to-face human interaction which traditionally happens at night on the weekends.

 

Strongholds also worked because it simultaneously allowed us to finally enjoy teamwork without griefers and solo yolo potatoes on our team while also having a game mode that still allowed them to participate if they wanted to (just on other teams) . Also unlike clan wars, solo players can put themselves in a queue to fill in so new teams can be formed which made wait times shorter than team battles had in WoWs. 

 

The potatoes would naturally lose more battles so it's important to provide a bit more incentive to play that mode than random. 

 

The other thing that's causing such a high attrition rate is the lack of development in the way of building lasting bonuses or benefits that stay with you long after a battle ends. Like being able to use, say, achievements as a currency to upgrade or build buildings on your port that enhance your ships in some way. It has to be significant enough of a bonus to be worth setting goals for yet challenging enough that not everyone will be able to fully upgrade their port because if everyone had the same bonuses, there's no point. 

 

Games die a slow death when they become nothing more than rinse and repeat. Especially when the quality both in level of intelligence and of character of the player base steadily declines over time as higher quality players get bored of that much faster and move on to other games that provide a greater challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,676
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,951 battles
11 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

I think player retention is a problem. The numbers (on the chart provided above) show growth but it really isn't substantial. I would be more curious to know what the numbers are for new players vs players with more than a year in (for example). I think they should make a page (on their website) for exiting players to express their reasons for leaving, even if it gets nasty. Lots of times you can discern the underlying reason from comments like "Because I get sucky teams" or whatnot. I have seen quite a few forum posters with just a few thousand games played and that is good, but noticed a few "old timers" who I haven't seen post in a great while and it makes me wonder. 

As long as WG continues to force players of vastly different physical and mental abilities and equally different play styles into one game mode (random), the conflicts will be far too frequent and fierce to prevent the attrition rate which is pretty close to the subscription rate. Which any business should know is not sustainable. 

 

The fact that WG has allowed this to go on for two years is as epic a failure as their inability to take five minutes to widen the name column in the post battle screen so we can see player names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,298
Members
20,834 posts
5,614 battles
15 hours ago, AraAragami said:

True as that may be, Warships has a massive churn rate and any game that's declining slowly in population while gaining so many new players has a serious problem.

 

If you're not growing, you're dying.

 

I won't agree or disagree with you, as it's a moot point IMO.

 

The issue is that many believe that, with a few changes, or a couple new game modes, WoWS would become a blockbuster.

 

The reality is, people don't avoid it because CVs are not fun to play, or nerfed DDs, or overdone fire damage, or perceived pandering to BBs, people avoid it because it's a rather slow-paced first/third person vehicle shooter, in a semi-realistic setting, where all the weapons are basically shotguns.

 

To get the numbers up appreciably, you'd have to change the game so much, it would be barely recognisable, and would probably alienate a lot of the people who DO play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,298
Members
20,834 posts
5,614 battles
42 minutes ago, VGLance said:

As long as WG continues to force players of vastly different physical and mental abilities and equally different play styles into one game mode (random), the conflicts will be far too frequent and fierce to prevent the attrition rate which is pretty close to the subscription rate. Which any business should know is not sustainable.

 

I disagree. Battlefield and CoD are very similar concepts, (early versions not even having persistent "character" improvement) and have been wildly successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,507 posts
1,138 battles
15 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

I disagree. Battlefield and CoD are very similar concepts, (early versions not even having persistent "character" improvement) and have been wildly successful.

If anything, the disparity between players of unequal skill in a series like CoD is even worse than it ever could be in this game, given the extremely fast pace and unbalanced high-end killstreak rewards in those games

Not to mention the ability to head into pub matches with parties the size of an entire team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
588 posts
4,272 battles

Some of you people are really [edited]stupid. Yes, of course the population slowly declines over time. That's completely normal. People get burnt out or bored and move on to different things. Two years is a really long time to play a single game nightly without taking a break to play something else. Comparatively, since January '17, DOTA 2 has lost around 170k players, or 20% of their playerbase.

 

WoWS is completely fine. It would be losing players even if team battles remained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,676
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,951 battles
5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

I disagree. Battlefield and CoD are very similar concepts, (early versions not even having persistent "character" improvement) and have been wildly successful.

You're talking about first person shooters.  That's a different genre of game.  This is a much slower and more strategic tactical simulator largely dependent on focus fire and force count which creates a much greater teamwork-oriented environment which is further supported by the game modes.  While it still attracts a large number of FPS-minded players, it also attracts a huge segment of longer term strategy players who, like chess, are processing and forecasting at a much greater depth.  And those players are far more interested in building something that is more persistent and dynamic that lasts long after you've logged off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
687 posts
3,667 battles

I don't think server numbers project the full picture, and even if one were to place emphasis on those numbers alone, then an additional year might be needed to look for a predictive trend.  There are other numbers that we do not have access to.  Such as money spent in the premium shop, is it increasing?  Is it sufficient to support development?  Are server population drops due to existing players playing less frequently, while new player accounts are steady or increasing?  What is the rate of uninstalls to new installs?  Another factor is the average age of the current player base.  From my understanding it is a somewhat more mature crowd than usual for a MMO (or whatever term).  That is a market that is usually less fickle and has deeper pockets, so that might be a factor worth considering when comparing the "health" of WoWS with other games.  Also I think there are other warning signs to look for rather than server population numbers.  There seems to be no slowing down of the development and release rate of new material, or developer names disappearing from WoWS news, so I think it's premature to be predicting WoWS demise anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×