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

Forum Observations

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

207
[INTEL]
Members
770 posts
8,341 battles
I've caught myself visiting this forum for entertainment more than just learning something about gameplay or news.  When I first jumped on the forums it was to get some questions answered and guidance on how to play certain ships.  I've certainly learned quite a bit about the game here but more recently I've been visiting to see what wacky ideas people are posting that day.  The entertainment generally takes these forms:
 
  1. Wargaming doesn't know what they're doing
    1. Balancing
    2. Matchmaking
    3. Mechanics
    4. Pricing
    5. Marketing
    6. Events
    7. Promises
  2. It's not fair
    1. People have ships I can't have
    2. My ship is getting Nerfs
    3. Someone else's ship is getting Buffs
    4. Wallet Warriors
    5. Welfare Warriors
    6. RNG
    7. Russian bias
    8. Ship type bias
    9. Chat bans
    10. People/Players suck
    11. Matchmaking
 
I'm sure I've missed some.  The conversation rarely evokes a response from Wargaming and their response on penetration backlash is one example of them listening.  But that's really rare. 
 
What I do enjoy though is the diversity of thought, both rational and irrational.  There are times (many) where I shake my head in wonderment.  And there are times when I think, I hadn't thought of it that way, or, that's a great point.
 
My 2 cents on the 2 topics above:
  1. Wargaming knows what they're doing more than the vast majority of us on the forums.  They run a large business.  They develop software, market it, sell it and support it.  They are in it to make money and from most accounts I read, they do alright.  I'd venture to say that some of us on the forums have experience in one or two of these areas and there's probably a very, very small minority of us that develop and sell games.  Is it fair for us to comment on their business practices?  Sure it is.  Does Wargaming make mistakes?  Sure.  But to imagine that our one idea on one topic is the end-all answer is a bit ignorant or myopic.  We have so little information as to why they make certain decisions so the only thing left for us to do is speculate, complain and speculate more.  Fair enough.  But we should recognize that Wargaming probably doesn't wake up most mornings asking themselves how they can screw their customers today.  It isn't in their best interest.
  2. Things are never fair.  My dad told me this.  Repeatedly.  But more importantly what he taught me was that I should never allow what other people have make me think I deserve the same thing.  The fact that they have something I don't is irrelevant and to feel as if I deserve it just because someone else has it means I am not in control of my own outcomes.  There's little more frustrating than to let others control how you feel.  It's even sadder when you realize they don't even know it.  Only when something is taken from you do you have a right to complain about it.  (so, maybe 2.2 above is a valid complaint?)  What I've ultimately learned from this is that I appreciate the things I have.  I have them because I wanted them and did what was necessary to acquire them.  I don't tend to enjoy things I've received that I didn't deserve in some way.  Gifts are another thing entirely.  Even gifts are earned if they are given out of appreciation for a relationship.
 
We all have our opinions and Wargaming even provides us a place to voice them.  I'll repeat myself and say that I look forward to reading the forums.  Both for the entertainment value but also for the useful information I find here.
 
Carry on.
  • Cool 23
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,874 battles
21 minutes ago, ClassicLib said:

I'm sure I've missed some. 

You missed the uncanny ability of bots to know when torpedoes are coming from just before launch if you use the aim indicator, to be able to pull magical evasive manoeuvres even when they spot them on proximity alone, and to be able to fire them a few seconds after they are dead on the exact heading needed to kill you. :Smile_hiding:

Otherwise a good post, but I sense a few sour grapes from one of your respondents! :fish_cute_2:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[INTEL]
Members
770 posts
8,341 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

You missed the uncanny ability of bots to know when torpedoes are coming from just before launch if you use the aim indicator, to be able to pull magical evasive manoeuvres even when they spot them on proximity alone, and to be able to fire them a few seconds after they are dead on the exact heading needed to kill you. :Smile_hiding:

Otherwise a good post, but I sense a few sour grapes from one of your respondents! :fish_cute_2:

You can fake them out on torpedo targeting but I have noticed that they are still much better than humans at detectin* the torpedoes and taking immediate evasive actions to avoid them. The one bot behavior I love (hate) is that they know when you’ve switched from HE to AP.  There isn’t a way to fake them out on that  

There are quite a few things I’ve missed and I’m sure we’ll capture them along the way. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
168 battles
35 minutes ago, ClassicLib said:
I've caught myself visiting this forum for entertainment more than just learning something about gameplay or news.  When I first jumped on the forums it was to get some questions answered and guidance on how to play certain ships.  I've certainly learned quite a bit about the game here but more recently I've been visiting to see what wacky ideas people are posting that day.  The entertainment generally takes these forms:
 
  1. Wargaming doesn't know what they're doing
    1. Balancing
    2. Matchmaking
    3. Mechanics
    4. Pricing
    5. Marketing
    6. Events
    7. Promises
  2. It's not fair
    1. People have ships I can't have
    2. My ship is getting Nerfs
    3. Someone else's ship is getting Buffs
    4. Wallet Warriors
    5. Welfare Warriors
    6. RNG
    7. Russian bias
    8. Ship type bias
    9. Chat bans
    10. People/Players suck
    11. Matchmaking
 
I'm sure I've missed some.  The conversation rarely evokes a response from Wargaming and their response on penetration backlash is one example of them listening.  But that's really rare. 
 
What I do enjoy though is the diversity of thought, both rational and irrational.  There are times (many) where I shake my head in wonderment.  And there are times when I think, I hadn't thought of it that way, or, that's a great point.
 
My 2 cents on the 2 topics above:
  1. Wargaming knows what they're doing more than the vast majority of us on the forums.  They run a large business.  They develop software, market it, sell it and support it.  They are in it to make money and from most accounts I read, they do alright.  I'd venture to say that some of us on the forums have experience in one or two of these areas and there's probably a very, very small minority of us that develop and sell games.  Is it fair for us to comment on their business practices?  Sure it is.  Does Wargaming make mistakes?  Sure.  But to imagine that our one idea on one topic is the end-all answer is a bit ignorant or myopic.  We have so little information as to why they make certain decisions so the only thing left for us to do is speculate, complain and speculate more.  Fair enough.  But we should recognize that Wargaming probably doesn't wake up most mornings asking themselves how they can screw their customers today.  It isn't in their best interest.
  2. Things are never fair.  My dad told me this.  Repeatedly.  But more importantly what he taught me was that I should never allow what other people have make me think I deserve the same thing.  The fact that they have something I don't is irrelevant and to feel as if I deserve it just because someone else has it means I am not in control of my own outcomes.  There's little more frustrating than to let others control how you feel.  It's even sadder when you realize they don't even know it.  Only when something is taken from you do you have a right to complain about it.  (so, maybe 2.2 above is a valid complaint?)  What I've ultimately learned from this is that I appreciate the things I have.  I have them because I wanted them and did what was necessary to acquire them.  I don't tend to enjoy things I've received that I didn't deserve in some way.  Gifts are another thing entirely.  Even gifts are earned if they are given out of appreciation for a relationship.
 
We all have our opinions and Wargaming even provides us a place to voice them.  I'll repeat myself and say that I look forward to reading the forums.  Both for the entertainment value but also for the useful information I find here.
 
Carry on.

There is a large difference.

Subjectivity vs Objectivity.


For example.
Lets say Wargaming claims "In our opinion, Cruisers do too much HE damage".   That is a subjective claim.
Lets also say that the data shows that, factually, Cruisers are not overperforming in damage, nor in any metric. That is an objective fact.
Now let's say Wargaming nerfs Cruiser  HE damage but does not buff them in another area. This is a net nerf to the overall performance to something that was not overperforming.
This makes it an illogical and a decision opposite to fact.... or rather anti-truth.

Wargaming does this a lot.  Whether or not something is balanced IS NOT decided by Wargaming, it is concluded from performance and values therein perpetrated from design elements as well as changes made by Wargaming... yes, but they do not dictate which conclusions can be drawn from effect, merely alter cause. You can put purple food coloring in your water, but when the water turns to purple in color.. you cannot then claim the water is "blue"



Secondly, proper business practices are easily observed. Wargaming is not the only business in the world, nor are they the only game company.
There are many, far more successful game companies. There are many, far more successful games produced from other companies.
If, in the history of business related to gaming shows every single other game dying out from a set of bad decisions, and Wargaming starts making them (like Steel, Stalingrad, and Burg).... things that NONE of the more successful games do... it is by fact.. a bad business decision. So they are not only called out on it, but evidence can be cited to prove such.

No need for appealing to authority.
 

Edited by Sbane12
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[INTEL]
Members
770 posts
8,341 battles
3 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:

There is a large difference.

Subjectivity vs Objectivity.


For example.
Lets say Wargaming claims "In our opinion, Cruisers do too much HE damage".   That is a subjective claim.
Lets also say that the data shows that, factually, Cruisers are not overperforming in damage, nor in any metric. That is an objective fact.
Now let's say Wargaming nerfs Cruiser  HE damage but does not buff them in another area. This is a net nerf to the overall performance to something that was not overperforming.
This makes it an illogical and a decision opposite to fact.... or rather anti-truth.

Wargaming does this a lot.  Whether or not something is balanced is not decided by Wargaming, it is concluded from performance and values therein perpetrated from design elements as well as changes made by Wargaming... yes, but they do not dictate which conclusions can be drawn from effect, merely alter cause.
 

Fair point.

I will say that data and data analysis is both objective and subjective. Most observations or conclusions on what data is showing is subjective. You can perform mathmatical analysis on data but your opinions are mostly subjective. Given the same data, you and Wargaming can come to different conclusions. Which is right?  

Also, Wargaming is probably working on a richer data set than what us players are given access to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
168 battles
4 minutes ago, ClassicLib said:

Fair point.

I will say that data and data analysis is both objective and subjective. Most observations or conclusions on what data is showing is subjective. You can perform mathmatical analysis on data but your opinions are mostly subjective. Given the same data, you and Wargaming can come to different conclusions. Which is right?  

Also, Wargaming is probably working on a richer data set than what us players are given access to. 

The conclusions that "are" drawn can differ. But both are not subjective.

Another analogy would be the generic shape of the earth. Given the data and evidence. One conclusion is that the earth is spherical, or rounded in some way. Another conclusions is that it is flat.
Obviously, the "is flat" conclusions is factually incorrect. It is subjective, incorrect, and versus an objective fact.

if BB damage average on all servers is at 80k, Cruisers are at 65k, and DDs are at 40k.  If You claim DDs are the "Highest damage" and I claim DDs are the "lowest damage". Both claims are not subjective. Only one. As one is opinion, the other is fact.


There has yet to be any evidence Wargaming has access to any pertinent data we do not, much less anything that would be enough to alter any logical conclusions.

 

Edited by Sbane12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[INTEL]
Members
770 posts
8,341 battles
16 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:

The conclusions that "are" drawn can differ. But both are not subjective.

Another analogy would be the generic shape of the earth. Given the data and evidence. One conclusion is that the earth is spherical, or rounded in some way. Another conclusions is that it is flat.
Obviously, the "is flat" conclusions is factually incorrect. It is subjective, incorrect, and versus an objective fact.

if BB damage average on all servers is at 80k, Cruisers are at 65k, and DDs are at 40k.  If You claim DDs are the "Highest damage" and I claim DDs are the "lowest damage". Both claims are not subjective. Only one. As one is opinion, the other is fact.


There has yet to be any evidence Wargaming has access to any pertinent data we do not, much less anything that would be enough to alter any logical conclusions.

 

I’m sure we could go back and forth on this but I doubt we would fully agree that Wargaming is right or wrong. It really doesn’t matter to me all that much but it was one of the areas I covered above in 2.2.  My observation allowed that this one particular complaint type has some merit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,489
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,658 posts
3,895 battles

The thing is that WG doesn't buff or nerf based on performance.

 

They buff or nerf based on population.

 

Even when Shimakaze was popular, she was not overperforming. She was nerfed because she was popular. Mogami wasn't overperforming by the statistics available, Mogami was too popular. Bismarck wasn't too powerful in Ranked. She was too popular in ranked, so they nerfed it. It wasn't having any more influence on ranked matches than Amagi or North Carolina, it just committed the crime of being picked more often.

 

On the other side of the coin Khabarovsk has received multiple buffs because it wasn't popular enough. And then it got nerfs that didn't actually nerf it after it plateaued where the devs wanted it.

 

There are many more cases of this, and I'm sure Tanks is filled with it too. These are just the examples that come to mind for me to highlight my point.

 

Where this becomes contentious is WG representatives then saying battleships are also too popular, but not giving them the same treatment that was given to various cruisers and destroyers in the past who had committed the same crime of "being too popular".

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[M_INC]
Members
105 posts
6,682 battles
32 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:
I've caught myself visiting this forum for entertainment more than just learning something about gameplay or news.  When I first jumped on the forums it was to get some questions answered and guidance on how to play certain ships.  I've certainly learned quite a bit about the game here but more recently I've been visiting to see what wacky ideas people are posting that day.  The entertainment generally takes these forms:
 
  1. Wargaming doesn't know what they're doing
    1. Balancing
    2. Matchmaking
    3. Mechanics
    4. Pricing
    5. Marketing
    6. Events
    7. Promises
  2. It's not fair
    1. People have ships I can't have
    2. My ship is getting Nerfs
    3. Someone else's ship is getting Buffs
    4. Wallet Warriors
    5. Welfare Warriors
    6. RNG
    7. Russian bias
    8. Ship type bias
    9. Chat bans
    10. People/Players suck
    11. Matchmaking
 

what a incredible & astute assessment of the forums 

...forums about little, computer generated ships

feel, live the irony

Number 10. contributor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,933
Members
19,039 posts
5,351 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

The thing is that WG doesn't buff or nerf based on performance.

 

They buff or nerf based on population.

 

Even when Shimakaze was popular, she was not overperforming. She was nerfed because she was popular. Mogami wasn't overperforming by the statistics available, Mogami was too popular. Bismarck wasn't too powerful in Ranked. She was too popular in ranked, so they nerfed it. It wasn't having any more influence on ranked matches than Amagi or North Carolina, it just committed the crime of being picked more often.

So IOW, WG's choices aren't illogical, we just don't agree on what constitutes balance.

It's like "balancing" two groups of people. If we want to balance by gender, then having the people stand on a scale would be illogical.

If we want to balance by weight, then it's suddenly logical to weight the people.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,489
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,658 posts
3,895 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

So IOW, WG's choices aren't illogical, we just don't agree on what constitutes balance.

It's like "balancing" two groups of people. If we want to balance by gender, then having the people stand on a scale would be illogical.

If we want to balance by weight, then it's suddenly logical to weight the people.

They are logical, they just aren't motivated by balance.

They're motivated by greed. The changes made are strictly done to push players into grinding other lines with the hope that they'll spend money on premium time, premium ships, or doubloons/fxp.

 

In short, it's a manipulation-oriented sales tactic and IMO pretty sleazy. They don't trust the merits of their own game to maintain player interest.

 

If the game was actually balanced, engaging, and entertaining without undue punishment mechanics baked in, then this kind of manipulating probably wouldn't be necessary. At least not to the degree that it's so painfully obvious they're doing it.

  • Cool 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[IXM]
Members
68 posts
1,311 battles
5 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

They are logical, they just aren't motivated by balance.

They're motivated by greed. The changes made are strictly done to push players into grinding other lines with the hope that they'll spend money on premium time, premium ships, or doubloons/fxp.

 

In short, it's a manipulation-oriented sales tactic and IMO pretty sleazy. They don't trust the merits of their own game to maintain player interest.

 

If the game was actually balanced, engaging, and entertaining without undue punishment mechanics baked in, then this kind of manipulating probably wouldn't be necessary. At least not to the degree that it's so painfully obvious they're doing it.

This has been true for quite some time. I'm glad others are noticing it finally. This is one primary reason I don't spend anything on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,489
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,658 posts
3,895 battles
45 minutes ago, Vector03 said:

This has been true for quite some time. I'm glad others are noticing it finally. This is one primary reason I don't spend anything on this.

I stopped spending when I figured it out, too.

 

Meanwhile there are games I play where I know I am being manipulated but I still spend, because at least those games also provide a balanced, fun, and engaging product.

 

Mostly because the manipulation is "Look this character is cute/funny/interesting", not "Look this character is objectively stronger than the one you got last event".

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
8,442 battles
1 hour ago, Sbane12 said:

There has yet to be any evidence Wargaming has access to any pertinent data we do not, much less anything that would be enough to alter any logical conclusions.

Right.  The odds that the people who put the code together, who decide on specific traits and mechanics, who know all teh hidden fudge factors, who own the game and servers.... you're right - no WAY they could have more complete data than a bunch of bored/obsessive gamers.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
8,442 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

In short, it's a manipulation-oriented sales tactic and IMO pretty sleazy. They don't trust the merits of their own game to maintain player interest.

except that kind of selling is entirely what most successful game companys, video and other, do.

CCG's do it, 40k has made huge money doing it, the companies I worked for did it...

You leave out the huge factors of player boredom, fickleness, and obsessive competition.   Designer and developers switch things up to make money, but that works because people get bored.  MUH NEW SHIPS!  I don't like this meta, this is stale,  it's not the same, this ship does a tiny bit more of this damage than my favourite!

They do it, because it works, because people are that easily....ohh! shiny squirrel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,489
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,658 posts
3,895 battles
14 minutes ago, Nukelavee45 said:

except that kind of selling is entirely what most successful game companys, video and other, do.

CCG's do it, 40k has made huge money doing it, the companies I worked for did it...

You leave out the huge factors of player boredom, fickleness, and obsessive competition.   Designer and developers switch things up to make money, but that works because people get bored.  MUH NEW SHIPS!  I don't like this meta, this is stale,  it's not the same, this ship does a tiny bit more of this damage than my favourite!

They do it, because it works, because people are that easily....ohh! shiny squirrel!

The difference with your examples and WG is that these examples don't say they nerf or buff based on balance. WG says this, but clearly does not practice it.

 

In fact, CCGs don't nerf or buff at all. They just phase out older blocks as new ones come out. Your older cards are still playable in casual environs and still function exactly the same as when they were new. So that's also kind of a bad example?

 

You can play 40k using older codexes if you want, nothing in those codexes has actually changed. You just need the newer codex for more official play that uses updates rules. And of course the other players would have to agree to let you use an older ruleset. But you still can.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,874 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

They don't trust the merits of their own game to maintain player interest.

Not your interest perhaps, but they're holding mine pretty well. 

 

17 minutes ago, Nukelavee45 said:

Designer and developers switch things up to make money, but that works because people get bored.  MUH NEW SHIPS! 

But such things are necessary. I keep at this game because of the variety and the new lines that have been added even since I joined a little over a year ago. I certainly don't think I'd have been as eager to devote as much time as I have if all they'd continued to serve up was USN vs. IJN like they had at the start. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,193 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

They are logical, they just aren't motivated by balance.

They're motivated by greed. The changes made are strictly done to push players into grinding other lines with the hope that they'll spend money on premium time, premium ships, or doubloons/fxp.

 

In short, it's a manipulation-oriented sales tactic and IMO pretty sleazy. They don't trust the merits of their own game to maintain player interest.

 

If the game was actually balanced, engaging, and entertaining without undue punishment mechanics baked in, then this kind of manipulating probably wouldn't be necessary. At least not to the degree that it's so painfully obvious they're doing it.

Don't forget purposely putting ships into said lines that are so bad that most players will spend money to Free XP past them. Colorado, Izumo, Furitaka, Monarch, etc. Pretty sleazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,364
[WOLF3]
Members
6,928 posts
2,724 battles
3 hours ago, ClassicLib said:

I'm sure I've missed some

12. Radar

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
572 posts
1,195 battles

Honestly, the Russian bias here isn't nearly as strongk as it is in WoT...no complaints from me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
8,442 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

The difference with your examples and WG is that these examples don't say they nerf or buff based on balance. WG says this, but clearly does not practice it.

 

In fact, CCGs don't nerf or buff at all. They just phase out older blocks as new ones come out. Your older cards are still playable in casual environs and still function exactly the same as when they were new. So that's also kind of a bad example?

 

You can play 40k using older codexes if you want, nothing in those codexes has actually changed. You just need the newer codex for more official play that uses updates rules. And of course the other players would have to agree to let you use an older ruleset. But you still can.

1.  Wrong.  "Balance" is the most often reason given for changes.  Codex's change the army lists for "balance", but, really, it's for sales.

For your second and third points  - wrong again.  You've missed the point - if you want to play 40k in store contests or tournament play, you play official army lists, with official figures.  CCG games?  You play the decks they determine (more specifically, the cards), with their rules.

Sure, you can play house rules with any game you want, but, then, it isn't really the same game.  The fact that some games are easy to adapt to house rules has more to do with the type of game.  You can add all you want to checkers, but really, you're just repurposing teh components for a new game.

WoW buffs and nerfs constantly based on balance.  And, the add new races and classes and abilities... while offering paid services to "enhance" play.

2 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Meanwhile there are games I play where I know I am being manipulated but I still spend, because at least those games also provide a balanced, fun, and engaging product.

 

Mostly because the manipulation is "Look this character is cute/funny/interesting", not "Look this character is objectively stronger than the one you got last event".

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of games that cater to funny or cute manipulations, they aren't fun or engaging.

And that's where you seem to be blind - "fun and engaging" are subjective, and relative.  I honestly find WoWS play both fun and engaging, and fairly well balanced - that's why I play.  When a game stops being fun or engaging,  I quit playing, regardless of my investment (looking at you, WoW).  You, though?  You are like somebody who really has lactose intolerance insisting on drinking chocolate milk, and then boring everybody with how you have the squirts.
 

1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

But such things are necessary. I keep at this game because of the variety and the new lines that have been added even since I joined a little over a year ago. I certainly don't think I'd have been as eager to devote as much time as I have if all they'd continued to serve up was USN vs. IJN like they had at the start. 

I wasn't making a judgement, simply pointing out how games evolve.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[INTEL]
Members
770 posts
8,341 battles
1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

12. Radar

 

Yes, I forgot to give Radar some love

Edited by ClassicLib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×