Jump to content

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
832 posts
25,106 battles

Purpose:  To elicit community input to help retain the gaming player-base based on two planned game changes, which will have longlasting effects at levels never before realized in World of Warships.  To illuminate player-base concerns from a "forest" perspective regarding the CV rework and proposed Submarine implementation.  To find an escape from the Rock and a Hard Place.

The CV Rework:  So, this coming month of January 2019, the long anticipated CV rework will be implemented into the current game and forever alter the meta and way this game is played.  So much so that the very way mechanics are worked with ships will be greatly affected.  In fact, I would argue that this change is going to be the biggest change ever to World of Warships as almost every single ship in the game (save those without AA...who are now even more screwed) will be impacted by this change.  This is not a change to aesthetics or a single nerf or buff to a ship, ship class or even tech tree line, but a complete overhaul of both ships and mechanics. 

Wargaming marketing is still likely reeling from the fallout of the poorly designed and then hastily delivered Graf Zeppelin (Year of the Carrier), which caused the player base to uproar in one voice as the ship was released...far too soon, in hopes of making waves at some gaming convention.  For those wanting more information on this topic, feel free to google and research, I just wanted to highlight the topic to bring relevance to what is a catalyst for our current project in the pipeline and the ramifications of a hasty release.

My concern here is that we are headed for another Graf Zeppelin, please learn from the historical record...DO NOT REPEAT IT.

The Introduction of Submarines:  In October 2018, we were given the Halloween event, which as promised brought a version, a live petri dish test-bed so to speak, to World of Warships.  Wargaming had clearly invested money, time, and effort into this project and to me, this was the tell tale sign that World of Warships was looking to expand their business to not only vessels on the water and planes above it, but also to the ships that sailed under it. 

Previously, in April, there was a April Fool's joke with the image of a Submarine, clearly, the first inclination that wargaming had crossed the Rubicon, rolled the dice, and were in the process of developing submarines for World of Warships, despite previous marketing statements to the contrary or at least marketing conversations that stayed a very true neutral on the topic, which provided the wargaming team a chance to exploit this in-game opportunity if enough interest was sparked.  Indeed, the forums are a go-to spot for collecting relevant data on classes of ships, premium ships, and well just about anything you want from the community.  It is also a sounding board for the squeakiest wheel to get oil.  In this case, there was and is an archive/trove of threads dedicated to submarines and their proposed introduction into the game.  A caution would be that just because something squeaks, doesn't mean that it is a broken mechanic or even needs the most attention right now, even if the ground work is being laid for a fertile and quite possible lucrative investment.  Patience...please go Read Sun Tzu's, The Art of War...it has business application as well.

Historical Argument (Not a valid one):  If we look at history "real life" and other arguments, it is easy to dismiss this as a terrible idea, because most submarines were designed for scouting, hunting merchant ships or ...even better are referred to as boats not ships.  Not to mention, CVs would have dominated all 12 ships on one side from 250 miles away and well off the map.  Well, outside of design and actual clauses of calling this game, "World of Warships, Aerial Attack Planes, and Warboats"...there are a lot of aspects about this game that don't fit the credible history and so...the argument doesn't hold water. 

Facts:  What does hold water is if I dig back into all of those wonderful forum threads, with their polls, their comments, and input from numerous players of all skills levels, it can be certain that there is a resounding disagreement within the community of whether the addition of submarines/CV rework is a good idea or not. Looking at the CV rework, it too has polarized the player-base in such a way as to show the crack in the armor of the game, the growing rift between the community and the gaming company and even worse, no one point or way to fix it all.  I have seen the downvotes, the absolutely NO!, the memes, and the numerous comments for and against the changes that are about to occur.  The reality is that even within the top competitive clans there is talk of how this will impact the game and whether come February 2019, who will still be playing amongst us.  (I know that the competitive players aren't the only ones concerned, but that is my social circle and am obliged to share from that which I learn in personal experience).  Throw in the submarines shortly there after and its going to be a public affairs fiasco for the ages.  And we know the track record on those as well...so my hope is to help avoid that from happening...again.

The real Argument (Progressive Player versus Conservative Player):  No this is not politics, but it is a way in which players metabolize and cope with changes in a game.  If I give you a spoonful of arsenic every day, it will take months to kill you, but you will eventually die.  If I gave you the whole bottle with a label on it called "Rat Poison" dangerous to humans, you will likely throw it out or after one sip, spit it out because of how vulgar it is to one's taste buds.  Some players here are more conservative and wish to see changes made to the game, but in increments that they can stomach.  Others want to see revolutionary and game sweeping concepts added at Blitzkrieg speed!  Is either of these schools of thought wrong?  No.  Each player type wants to see the game progress at a speed they feel comfortable with.  Unfortunately though, they are headed for a collision course as the player-base will see this January 2019.  The problem is that some will see either of these two additions as good or bad for the game.  Those that see it as good, will likely be more invested than ever before...until burnout, while those who see it as bad, may be driven from the game, and once one group of players or even a clan routs from the game, it could turn into a complete and utter fallout of brain-trust to include competitive players and evaluators who feel their voices are never heard by wargaming, despite consistently warning against massive and over used action to achieve an objective.  (See Yue Yang comments below).  I hope there is a happy middle ground to be found in all of this, who out there has a silver bullet to address this issue?

Realities:  The BB change to AP has had mixed reviews...I would sit on this for three months, gather the player-base metrics...and then chose a course of action for implementing whatever major decision needs be done with CVs and or Submarines.  Much like the stealth firing nerf, there will be pros and cons...but I have this inner worry that many players will jump on the cons.

My Hope:  Unfortunately, I am writing an article here and for the first time, I do not have a positive solution, and more importantly, I think the marketing and strategy team at Wargaming do not either.  The storm is right over the horizon, and the impact of this could make or absolutely break this game to a point where all my tags come true.  I can only caution the marketing team at wargaming that they may be trying to go a bridge too far, bite off more than they can chew, or hurry a project into a community that is not yet fully aware of the implications and changes across the board they have asked for.  Therefore, this thread is not a thread about whether a change needs to happen or not.  It is a thread about how to provide community feedback to the developers and marketing team on how to properly gauge the climate and introduce game sweeping mechanics in such a way as to make them palatable to as many as possible without breaking the game nor one's individual will to play it. 

My Bias:  I will be frank in saying I am very skeptical of the CV rework and the introduction of submarines into the game.  I did not enjoy the new submarine play (at all), but again, its just a teaser and I am fearful of what I am seeing with the inefficiency of AA versus the new CV meta.  (For those wondering what that might look like, see CC videos on YouTube that are starting to cover the process).  I am also not a fan of infinite planes, but I guess some players are not a fan of infinite torpedoes and shells on ships either. :cap_rambo: I am a conservative player, but I do enjoy change...just not rapid change.  A great example...Yue Yang is performing better than peers, ok lets nerf it.  Nerf the guns or the torps...not both at once...that just seems way to much way to fast...and sure enough its a crap boat now because too much too fast completely reduced efficiency...shock face.  An adjustment incremented over time is more palatable than a soup sandwich without the bread burning hot shoved down my throat.

My Goal:  For players, community contributors, clan testers, super testers, and wargaming marketing and development staff to address in a constructive way, plans to not cause system shock to the community with these game altering changes planned in the future.  You never know, the words you write could have the desired impact and meaning I am hoping to see.  I would like to avoid another public affairs fiasco, head it off before it becomes a non-negotiable way too late into the process.

Final Thoughts:  I am aware I rambled in this one a bit, and probably strayed from the main points, please forgive.  I have sounded my alarm, Kongo Out!

Edited by Kongo_Pride
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
3,255 battles

Sometimes you gotta swing for the fence. I don't think they have a choice with carriers or subs.

But I doubt subs will be in for 2020. It took two years for tanks to get wheeled vehicles into the game after Halloween testing  and I expect the same time to market here. Plenty of time to get settled in the new meta

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,259
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,191 posts
14,756 battles
1 minute ago, Wombatmetal said:

Sometimes you gotta swing for the fence. I don't think they have a choice with carriers or subs.

But I doubt subs will be in for 2020. It took two years for tanks to get wheeled vehicles into the game after Halloween testing  and I expect the same time to market here. Plenty of time to get settled in the new meta

Wheeled AFV's are no where near as large a leap as submarines are. Carriers shouldn't have been in the game in the first place because they do not fit the style of combat the game produces and subs fit even less than CV's.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
3,255 battles
7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Wheeled AFV's are no where near as large a leap as submarines are. Carriers shouldn't have been in the game in the first place because they do not fit the style of combat the game produces and subs fit even less than CV's.

From a design point I agree that both have no place. My experience is that players will not accept taking damage without being able to hit back.

In any game.

So I think WG is setting themselves up for failure. However  if both are going to be in the game, they need to make big patches for them, incremental won't work for these. That was my thought, sorry I was ambiguous

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,259
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,191 posts
14,756 battles
6 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

From a design point I agree that both have no place. My experience is that players will not accept taking damage without being able to hit back.

In any game.

So I think WG is setting themselves up for failure. However  if both are going to be in the game, they need to make big patches for them, incremental won't work for these. That was my thought, sorry I was ambiguous

To fit the square subs into the round hole that the game is they are going to have to go with an outrageous amount of buffing to the subs. Buffing that will turn them into nothing but DD's with an invulnerability shield. They are wading into a swamp that is filled with quicksand.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[KWF]
Members
4,953 posts
6,612 battles

A great post to end the year, very nice review of some of the game's burning issues. 

As far as WG and various changes are concerned, the one language they speak is profit. A dip or increase in player numbers during 0.8.0. should be a pretty good indicator for the direction the game may take and could affect executive decisions. 

I don't think it possible to satisfy everyone, but I like to hope we can continue to enjoy playing the game, and that WG won't stay standing if the situation starts deteriorating.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
832 posts
25,106 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

A great post to end the year, very nice review of some of the game's burning issues. 

As far as WG and various changes are concerned, the one language they speak is profit. A dip or increase in player numbers during 0.8.0. should be a pretty good indicator for the direction the game may take and could affect executive decisions. 

I don't think it possible to satisfy everyone, but I like to hope we can continue to enjoy playing the game, and that WG won't stay standing if the situation starts deteriorating.

I share your sentiments.  Thanks for posting.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,721
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,536 posts
12,810 battles
1 hour ago, Wombatmetal said:

From a design point I agree that both have no place. My experience is that players will not accept taking damage without being able to hit back.

In any game.

So I think WG is setting themselves up for failure. However  if both are going to be in the game, they need to make big patches for them, incremental won't work for these. That was my thought, sorry I was ambiguous

I agree with you, and I don't think that shooting down planes that will all respawn anyway counts as "hitting back".

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
3,255 battles
35 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

I agree with you, and I don't think that shooting down planes that will all respawn anyway counts as "hitting back".

Even worse, they can respawn, and I can't?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×