Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Maine_ARC_1

State of the Game: It's Wargaming Fault

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

980
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,878 posts
7,061 battles

"Oh boy, another one of these threads, right?" No, actually, it's not. 

Wargaming is to blame for the current state of the game for two reasons, Communication, and Balancing ideology. 

1. Communication is Key

Wargaming has always been less than helpful with communication. We have, to start, information scattered all over the internet. Twitter posts, twitch streams, reddit updates, facebook dev blogs, the main page, ingame notifications, youtube videos! The community itself has to go to the ends of the earth to get what should be a concise and clear communication stream. Information, perception, facts, and updates get shuffled through the community by either direct source, word of mouth weeks later, or by when it shows up right on your doorstep in the next content update. Every patch day we see a list of people who "should have read the patch notes", yet they don't. Maybe yes, laziness has something to do with it for the player base, but judging by how WG has 7 different platforms to publish information, I feel as if it's more than just an "us" (we the community) problem. 

The current CV rework is the greatest example. While obviously we are in testing and CV's have about a million ideas being bandied about, would it kill WG to make a Q and A post on the main page saying "hey, here are 10 ideas from the feedback we get that are most popular, we are going to address them and what we think." Instead, Community managers run around threads, make comments, and rarely respond or engage in meaningful conversation. When is the last time WG posted a real Q and A on the front page? When is the last time WG actually formally stood up and said "hey, we hear you, here is what we think", and came at the topic in undeniable earnest? Communication is a 2-way street. Reciprocation in communication only works when you acknowledge that you received and understand the information, and then when you reply directly to the said acknowledged topic. That's why conversations with a 4-year-old are more like you talking TO them and not WITH them. The relationship between the Community Managers, who represent the company and development team, and the player base should be talking WITH, not TO.

2. Balancing is Everything

Wargaming's balancing antics have quite honestly been absolutely exhausting. Once more to cite the CV rework, we have seen plane balance and mechanics, along with AA balance, flat out shift from one end to the other. Radical changes, quick decisions, always to the other end of the spectrum. To quote a guy who made a comment on the facebook dev blog, "Wargaming needs to stop balancing with a Sledge Hammer and start balancing with a Scalpel", and he honestly wasn't wrong.

An example I can remember was Duca D'Aosta. The CC's said the ship was not great, so WG then flat out boosted her torpedo range to 12 km. They did some other things to her as well, but this is one of the more usage examples. Her original torpedo ranges were either 4 or 6 km (can't remember which, it's been a while), but goes to show how crazy the balancing decisions are. How many ships have been flat out hit with over-reactionary nerfs or buffs? Hood recently had her AP completely redone, to where now her guns perform entirely different than prior. Instead of improving her overall performance, she now got made into having half the normal shell attributes of a battleship. Why is that? A flat out 180 on the balancing now has left Hood in an awkward position. Giulio Cesare was tweaked twice in Supertest, and then buffed on the live server, only to now be the subject of a massive balancing situation that has caused an uproar in the community. Graf Zepplins testing under the RTS format was also crazy. So many different options came out, and each time it was something on either one end of the spectrum or another. I don't own a GZ, but from following the info about her, she flipped and flopped constantly, despite feedback. I understand GZ was a special issue, and the situation had a lot of different angles, but I think you get the idea.

 

These issues overall have been hindering this game for a while. Any issue in this game, any problem with balance, any community issue, can be traced back to Wargaming either having a brash and quick trigger on the nerf bat or "the magical wand of buffing", or a total lack of true and meaningful communication. This issue with communication isn't a "simple fix", but it's a simple fix. The main page needs to have feeds and links for anything that WG does on another site. Updates and information should not be scattered around. They also need to just take the time and effort to make the players feel like we are being meaningfully communicated with. There is no reason why WG can't take an extra 2-3 hours in the course of a MONTH and ask non-cherry picked questions, and actually respond to the hard/tough issues. 

Solving the issue of this "erratic balancing decisions" is going to fall down on the mindset of the developers. There is no reason ships can't be gradually changed or incrementally changed in order to find what works and what doesn't work. They may have all the feedback and data, but it doesn't mean that because they know all, that making any decision is justifiable. Wargaming needs to slow down and balance ships on what works. Rushing content out on a monthly basis is no easy challenge, I understand that. But if something needs to get delayed so it can be done right, then delay it! I would rather see content that gets released with a lot more thought and tactfulness in it rather than seeing content rushed or knee-jerked changed for the sake of some precious production schedule. Do it, do it right, and make it solid. If things go pear-shaped, COMMUNICATE TO US. I would rather hear "Listen, we were going to do X and include 1, 2, an 3, but it doesn't look like it can happen for reason A, B, and C. We want to make it right so we are going to take some time to make X work properly and correctly so the player experience can be as solid as can be", rather than "oh, hi, this is another update with some stuff that's a little janky, but here it is, enjoy".

 

Communication and thoughtfulness are what this game needs right now, and more than ever. Every issue in this community will remain an issue in this community until this changes, and I doubt we will ever see the contrary.

  • Cool 40
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
980
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,878 posts
7,061 battles
1 minute ago, CarbonButtprint said:

Hey @Phil_Swift_With_Flextape, you should try applying the Flex Seal™ family of products to World of Warships. I'm certain this would be a more effective solution than Wargaming's methods. 

I appreciate the humorous response, but just formally for the record, this isn't what I had in mind.

In general, WG's methods just overall feel non-engaging with the community, almost as if there is this awkward bubble between us, the players, and them. At times it leads to frustration. Instead of making an angry forum rant about my frustration, I tried to write up my frustration into something WAY more thoughtful and respectful. There is no need for me to make what I think is a problem, worse.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
-Members-
1,259 posts
508 battles

Hi Phil, thanks so much for taking the time to share your concern!

One of the main things we've begun doing is ensuring the Dev Blog is being published in more visible locations.  That will give you direct insight into what the team is working on and the general direction things are going. 

For the CV Rework I do believe there are a number of communication challenges we faced, and we've reviewed this.  There is a lot more for us to do in the future and we are taking steps to ensure you guys stay informed and we have full visibility on your feedback.

While game balance can be tricky, the team is dedicated to making ships as absolutely balanced as possible.  The Alaska is a good example of how we paired data with player feedback to design something pretty balanced.

We do appreciate you hanging in there while we work on our internal processes!

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[TWFT]
Members
1,185 posts
34,263 battles

For me it has been WG going in the exact opposite direction when the player base has asked for help.

We asked that they make Ranked less grindy by going back to just earning 3 stars to get to the next rank, instead they add 2 more.

We asked that they have more irrevocable ranks, instead they take them away.

We asked that they balance CV MM so that a unicom CV main would only go up against another unicom CV main, instead we get the CV RW witch is the worst attempt at a fix I have ever seen.

And the list can go on and on......

As for me, I have closed my wallet in the hopes that WG would see that others are doing the same, maybe that way WG will at least try to help out there customers.

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
1 minute ago, Radar_X said:

For the CV Rework I do believe there are a number of communication challenges we faced, and we've reviewed this.  There is a lot more for us to do in the future and we are taking steps to ensure you guys stay informed and we have full visibility on your feedback.

1

I just did a WG ingame survey on the rework. It would be way more effective to just make a thread and ask for feedback, or reach out to certain players. The vast majority of us want a balanced, fun game because that's what we want to play. I don't want CVs to be a bore or a chore to play, yet that's the direction things are trending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
727
[IXM]
Members
790 posts
3,934 battles

My wallet was closed from the beginning because I already knew it was only a matter of time before something like the CV rework or premium ship nerfs came about. It's sad to see a whole new generation of gamers have to learn the hard way about how WG operates.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Members
182 posts
685 battles

I dunno man, not sure I agree with you on the communication part. A lot of the WG Staff do engage with the community, and they post stuff everywhere to capture the largest audience. Of course, you have to find information, but that's just the minimum effort required to stay informed. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,250
[NMKJT]
Members
4,061 posts
1 minute ago, Radar_X said:

Hi Phil, thanks so much for taking the time to share your concern!

One of the main things we've begun doing is ensuring the Dev Blog is being published in more visible locations.  That will give you direct insight into what the team is working on and the general direction things are going. 

For the CV Rework I do believe there are a number of communication challenges we faced, and we've reviewed this.  There is a lot more for us to do in the future and we are taking steps to ensure you guys stay informed and we have full visibility on your feedback.

While game balance can be tricky, the team is dedicated to making ships as absolutely balanced as possible.  The Alaska is a good example of how we paired data with player feedback to design something pretty balanced.

We do appreciate you hanging in there while we work on our internal processes!

I think where the rework failed for me, and why I in the end decided untinsalling was the answer, is the Dev Blog us super focused on top tiers, and Alaska is endemic of that. They balanced the very top, and all the nerfs rolled downhill where they weren't needed.

I think the Devs and others are locked into tier 10, and a working Joe  like myself with a Tier 6 carrier is in a very different game, and I don't see much relevance in the Dev Blog to the game I am playing

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
2 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

We asked that they have more irrevocable ranks, instead they take them away.

1

Fewer irrevocable ranks make it easier for strong players to finish in fewer games. I enjoyed this past season a good bit more than previous ones as a result (along with arms race, which was fun and kept the game flowing). If you are playing 900 games and not ranking out, the system works.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Members
182 posts
685 battles
2 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

I just did a WG ingame survey on the rework. It would be way more effective to just make a thread and ask for feedback, or reach out to certain players. The vast majority of us want a balanced, fun game because that's what we want to play. I don't want CVs to be a bore or a chore to play, yet that's the direction things are trending.

In-game survey would be a better option, though. Only a small subset of players read the forums, even out of the more active playerbase. 

Having it in-game would reach a much wider audience. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,691
[WOLFG]
Members
26,590 posts
6,691 battles
6 minutes ago, Ayanami_Kai_Ni said:

Of course, you have to find information, but that's just the minimum effort required to stay informed. 

The minimum effort to find information should be coming here, if you can't get all the necessary basic info right here, what's the point?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[TWFT]
Members
1,185 posts
34,263 battles
3 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

Fewer irrevocable ranks make it easier for strong players to finish in fewer games. I enjoyed this past season a good bit more than previous ones as a result (along with arms race, which was fun and kept the game flowing). If you are playing 900 games and not ranking out, the system works.

When you look at the stats for previous ranked battles roughly the same percentage of players ranked out in each season, so the amount of matches that players played really didn't matter.  Good plyers will always be able to rank out faster then us poor taters, it would be nice if us taters didn't have to burn our souls to rank out or at least come close.  Ranked can some times be a crape shot and has less to do with one players skill and more to do with the team you have been dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[SIM]
Members
1,631 posts

Until I see major improvements in this ship wreck of a game am also not spending and that is also being passed along to many I have run with as well including friend's on the EU and Asia servers. WG you really need to get your act in gear.  Forget any nerfs to premium ships. Rethink how you do your match making as well. Pass on adding subs. Hold off on future blueprint fake ships.

If you can't fix the current mess   Don't add to it.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Members
182 posts
685 battles
3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The minimum effort to find information should be coming here, if you can't get all the necessary basic info right here, what's the point?

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/forum/303-developers-corner/

You can find dev info here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles

One significant problem with Wargaming is that they often double down on over-corrections, rather than rolling mistakes back. I don't know if it's about pride and never wanting to admit that they were wrong (but I have a pretty strong sense that it's exactly this), or that they feel that they can think themselves out of any bad initial decisions. But, time and again, we see the same thing repeated: "whoops, this isn't working comrades. So let's just add THIS! And THIS!"

Sometimes, in order to solve a problem, it's necessary to backtrack. It is not a lesson that the boys in charge here appear to have taken to heart.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
Just now, Turbotush said:

When you look at the stats for previous ranked battles roughly the same percentage of players ranked out in each season, so the amount of matches that players played really didn't matter.  Good plyers will always be able to rank out faster then us poor taters, it would be nice if us taters didn't have to burn our souls to rank out or at least come close.  Ranked can some times be a crape shot and has less to do with one players skill and more to do with the team you have been dealt.

There would ideally be no irrevocable ranks. Ranked is supposed to be a test of skill, not endurance.

You are the common denominator on every team you play with. If you put a little bit more thought into your play, you won't have to work as hard. Winning in ranked is not magic, it usually just requires not grinding mindlessly. It's a chore to have people on your team that do not care about the round result and view rank 1 as an inevitability instead of something that is earned with good teamplay. I am all for making the mountain steeper for those folks. There should be other ways to earn steel for 'free' so that players that don't do well in ranked aren't forced to play it for the rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[WOLF7]
Members
226 posts
5,512 battles
5 minutes ago, LadyJess said:

Until I see major improvements in this ship wreck of a game am also not spending and that is also being passed along to many I have run with as well including friend's on the EU and Asia servers. WG you really need to get your act in gear.  Forget any nerfs to premium ships. Rethink how you do your match making as well. Pass on adding subs. Hold off on future blueprint fake ships.

If you can't fix the current mess   Don't add to it.

 

Many people are saying the same, we wont spend any single coin buying Premium ships Just to having them being nerfed later on.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,630
[INTEL]
Members
11,696 posts
32,727 battles
27 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

And the list can go on and on......

As for me, I have closed my wallet in the hopes that WG would see that others are doing the same, maybe that way WG will at least try to help out there customers.

My wallet is also closed. The ganked ReBork has made the upper tiers unplayable with two CV madness, and in general, the ReBork has done great harm to game playability and enjoyability, and to the Company's relationship with its playerbase. Many other whales I know are in a similar funk. I might start spending again, if CVs disappear like they did before. The sad part is they will never admit how badly they have screwed up, just as they will never admit how much damage they did to the game with the restricted T4 MM. Sucks.

I am not as sure about balancing issues as the OP. We can list individual cases like the detestable Graf Z and the obviously OP GC and Nik, but WG generally does an excellent job of getting the balance right -- outright OP tech tree ships are rare, as are clunkers. This is actually strange and a tribute to their stats analysis, because so many other decisions, such as the HE flinging British BBs and the crap maps, show that the devs don't play the game and don't know/care whether new ships make it more enjoyable.  

The ReBork has stimulated me to send money elsewhere for new computer games, so WOWs time is falling. After watching them bollix up WOWs I will never play another WG product.

It's sad, but there it is. 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
124 posts
5,449 battles

Ok, time to admit somthings. Yes, I agree that the way communication has been done is very bad here. Dev blogs being posted on several different sites and sometimes at different times does create confusion. Thank you Radar_X for the input on this.

Second, I'd like to see something like the old Q and A sessions brought back. Those where interesting and engaging. Now, I submitted questions to those old Q and A posts when they happened. 6 out of the 7 I submitted too, my question was one of the ones answered. During the last Q and A I submitted a question about how everyone's holidays where going.

... ... The community hated this. I'm not sorry.

I asked this because it was the middle of the holiday season and we had just gotten a bunch of stuff released and the Christmas event stuff if the year was about to start. I though it would be nice to just let the people who make/help this game work that we see them as humans. They have a life outside of this forum and this game and the company they work for. We as a community need to treat them as such.

If my question in that old Q and A upset this community, to bad. I am happy with the answer i got back then and once again, I'm not sorry for asking it. Communication can be better. Yes WG can be looked at as at fault with this. People make mistakes, and this is a game. Just let people be people and okay the game or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,630
[INTEL]
Members
11,696 posts
32,727 battles
8 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

There would ideally be no irrevocable ranks. Ranked is supposed to be a test of skill, not endurance.

Ideally, the company should listen to its customers. How would that hurt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,057
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles
32 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

Hi Phil, thanks so much for taking the time to share your concern!

One of the main things we've begun doing is ensuring the Dev Blog is being published in more visible locations.  That will give you direct insight into what the team is working on and the general direction things are going. 

For the CV Rework I do believe there are a number of communication challenges we faced, and we've reviewed this.  There is a lot more for us to do in the future and we are taking steps to ensure you guys stay informed and we have full visibility on your feedback.

While game balance can be tricky, the team is dedicated to making ships as absolutely balanced as possible.  The Alaska is a good example of how we paired data with player feedback to design something pretty balanced.

We do appreciate you hanging in there while we work on our internal processes!

  1. evidence of player feedback concerning cvs, being taken, and acted on, has been 100% absent from the live server balancing of individual cvs during the rework.
  2. devblog announcements have been contradicted by official forum announcements, and the contradiction between the two, denied, officially!
  3. changes to premium cvs have been announced in a cavalier, last minute manner, just hours before hotfixes applied. This is not communication, it is a giant fu. (martial arts reference of course)
  4. advertisements to buy in game premiums using the word "try" rather than "purchase", in a misleading manner, which suggests a fundamental lack of deontology, somewhere.

just a few examples./

great post @Phil_Swift_With_Flextape, will quickly become a classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,139
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
3,565 posts
12,592 battles
35 minutes ago, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

I appreciate the humorous response, but just formally for the record, this isn't what I had in mind.

In general, WG's methods just overall feel non-engaging with the community, almost as if there is this awkward bubble between us, the players, and them. At times it leads to frustration. Instead of making an angry forum rant about my frustration, I tried to write up my frustration into something WAY more thoughtful and respectful. There is no need for me to make what I think is a problem, worse.

Good job Phil. Very well put together your original post. Business Communication 101.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,869
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,750 posts
11,049 battles

Mate, have a +1 cause well said and I agree. Though I will add 2 things -

38 minutes ago, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

When is the last time WG actually formally stood up and said "hey, we hear you, here is what we think", and came at the topic in undeniable earnest?

I will say that while it long term amounted to very little, in that they still did the rework, they were a bit more engaged in Waterline 4's thread I think it was, and while the initial thread I had posted a month or more prior on fixing RTS had no response, did manage to pull out it had been forwarded to their team to look at, and was later addressed as to plausibility and quality. That said, as why I agree - there was no indication of such like a "hey this is good were passing it up the chain" when it was first seen and posted, it took the chaos and damage control of the impending rework to reveal it. They have moments, but yeah, they really do still need to work on it a bit. Why I even suggested even something they can use to mark a thread that takes 2 clicks to signal "hey were passing the idea along" or "we are looking at this" or something - similar to the thumbs up/down/etc we normal users use. Nice to know were not screaming into the void.

45 minutes ago, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

"Wargaming needs to stop balancing with a Sledge Hammer and start balancing with a Scalpel"

Here's the thing - a scalpel is always preferable, but there are in fact times you need the sledgehammer. That said, I find the issue currently with CV's is that it feels more like Wargaming is swinging the sledgehammer blindly, as opposed to lets call it "Tactical Sledgehammering", or the use it, and it's in the wrong place. Cases in point Hakuryu. I own one, and will be first to admit because they made our torps slightly more powerful than in RTS - yeah, it was an OP issue. But it was because of the alpha damage of the torps. And so instead of that they nerf the accuracy and try and make it harder to hit. Changes nothing but the skill gap because once I adapted, I don't make stupid mistakes I still nail 60% of my torps at 9333 damage. The nerfs to rocket planes - again, I'll be first to say there was an issue, but again it was damage on the CV's end, and to be quite honest module survivability on DD's. DD modules need to be a bit tougher so I can't keep knocking the engine out, even when not a CV, and rocket damage is too high so lower it. But again, they go for accuracy and performance that nerfs it against everything BUT DD's, save the couple with actual threatening AA. Ask the DD I faced earlier who did nothing wrong - just had bad AA, and I've adjusted to the nerfs, how fair it was that my 3 runs on him with my 1 squadron from Lex resulted in 8/24, 3/24, and 8/24 rockets hitting - the 3/24 being one I botched slightly on entry and had the enlarged circle. 19 hits, knocking his engine out twice as well as weapons, for 10049 damage - meaning I had damage saturation or 0 damage hits applied (as normally that'd be around 12,500 damage). And then we have the wild swing example of the nerf to aerial spotting - it needed only to be applied to DD's. Instead, everything got it, and it's still a massive issue. 

Hak's damage and AA (8.0 and 8.0.1) needed sledgehammers. But they needed a deftly wielded sledgehammer to the right spots - Damage cut by close to 1/3, maybe 1/2 on Hak's torp damage, and AA lowered a bit overall but damage shifted out of flak to AA. 8.0.2 at least got one of those right enough to start on more scalpel work than sledgehammer - maybe at worst a mallet or regular hammer. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,695
[JMMAF]
Members
1,896 posts
6,331 battles
1 hour ago, Phil_Swift_With_Flextape said:

"Oh boy, another one of these threads, right?" No, actually, it's not. 

Wargaming is to blame for the current state of the game for two reasons, Communication, and Balancing ideology. 

1. Communication is Key

Wargaming has always been less than helpful with communication. We have, to start, information scattered all over the internet. Twitter posts, twitch streams, reddit updates, facebook dev blogs, the main page, ingame notifications, youtube videos! The community itself has to go to the ends of the earth to get what should be a concise and clear communication stream. Information, perception, facts, and updates get shuffled through the community by either direct source, word of mouth weeks later, or by when it shows up right on your doorstep in the next content update. Every patch day we see a list of people who "should have read the patch notes", yet they don't. Maybe yes, laziness has something to do with it for the player base, but judging by how WG has 7 different platforms to publish information, I feel as if it's more than just an "us" (we the community) problem. 

The current CV rework is the greatest example. While obviously we are in testing and CV's have about a million ideas being bandied about, would it kill WG to make a Q and A post on the main page saying "hey, here are 10 ideas from the feedback we get that are most popular, we are going to address them and what we think." Instead, Community managers run around threads, make comments, and rarely respond or engage in meaningful conversation. When is the last time WG posted a real Q and A on the front page? When is the last time WG actually formally stood up and said "hey, we hear you, here is what we think", and came at the topic in undeniable earnest? Communication is a 2-way street. Reciprocation in communication only works when you acknowledge that you received and understand the information, and then when you reply directly to the said acknowledged topic. That's why conversations with a 4-year-old are more like you talking TO them and not WITH them. The relationship between the Community Managers, who represent the company and development team, and the player base should be talking WITH, not TO.

2. Balancing is Everything

Wargaming's balancing antics have quite honestly been absolutely exhausting. Once more to cite the CV rework, we have seen plane balance and mechanics, along with AA balance, flat out shift from one end to the other. Radical changes, quick decisions, always to the other end of the spectrum. To quote a guy who made a comment on the facebook dev blog, "Wargaming needs to stop balancing with a Sledge Hammer and start balancing with a Scalpel", and he honestly wasn't wrong.

An example I can remember was Duca D'Aosta. The CC's said the ship was not great, so WG then flat out boosted her torpedo range to 12 km. They did some other things to her as well, but this is one of the more usage examples. Her original torpedo ranges were either 4 or 6 km (can't remember which, it's been a while), but goes to show how crazy the balancing decisions are. How many ships have been flat out hit with over-reactionary nerfs or buffs? Hood recently had her AP completely redone, to where now her guns perform entirely different than prior. Instead of improving her overall performance, she now got made into having half the normal shell attributes of a battleship. Why is that? A flat out 180 on the balancing now has left Hood in an awkward position. Giulio Cesare was tweaked twice in Supertest, and then buffed on the live server, only to now be the subject of a massive balancing situation that has caused an uproar in the community. Graf Zepplins testing under the RTS format was also crazy. So many different options came out, and each time it was something on either one end of the spectrum or another. I don't own a GZ, but from following the info about her, she flipped and flopped constantly, despite feedback. I understand GZ was a special issue, and the situation had a lot of different angles, but I think you get the idea.

 

These issues overall have been hindering this game for a while. Any issue in this game, any problem with balance, any community issue, can be traced back to Wargaming either having a brash and quick trigger on the nerf bat or "the magical wand of buffing", or a total lack of true and meaningful communication. This issue with communication isn't a "simple fix", but it's a simple fix. The main page needs to have feeds and links for anything that WG does on another site. Updates and information should not be scattered around. They also need to just take the time and effort to make the players feel like we are being meaningfully communicated with. There is no reason why WG can't take an extra 2-3 hours in the course of a MONTH and ask non-cherry picked questions, and actually respond to the hard/tough issues. 

Solving the issue of this "erratic balancing decisions" is going to fall down on the mindset of the developers. There is no reason ships can't be gradually changed or incrementally changed in order to find what works and what doesn't work. They may have all the feedback and data, but it doesn't mean that because they know all, that making any decision is justifiable. Wargaming needs to slow down and balance ships on what works. Rushing content out on a monthly basis is no easy challenge, I understand that. But if something needs to get delayed so it can be done right, then delay it! I would rather see content that gets released with a lot more thought and tactfulness in it rather than seeing content rushed or knee-jerked changed for the sake of some precious production schedule. Do it, do it right, and make it solid. If things go pear-shaped, COMMUNICATE TO US. I would rather hear "Listen, we were going to do X and include 1, 2, an 3, but it doesn't look like it can happen for reason A, B, and C. We want to make it right so we are going to take some time to make X work properly and correctly so the player experience can be as solid as can be", rather than "oh, hi, this is another update with some stuff that's a little janky, but here it is, enjoy".

 

Communication and thoughtfulness are what this game needs right now, and more than ever. Every issue in this community will remain an issue in this community until this changes, and I doubt we will ever see the contrary.

much appreciated. the combination of critical and creative thinking, along with observation and communication, practically always works to accomplish something.

personally (which is a stupid way to start a thought, sentence, or anything else, of course it's personal, it's me writing it) I would like to see WG communicate why they make the decisions the way they do, based on what. the 'what' being the data, whether it's player opinion, stats, $$$, # of player base active, gains, losses, whatever. right now I can't for the life of me figure out what they are responding/reacting to.

thinking their 'what' is a lot different than mine, and from what I see here in the forum, a lot different than a lot of people's whats. occasionally I mentally meander about what it would feel like to read a post about rage quitting, or rage closing wallet, or rage threatening, and generally end up feeling 'eh, so what.' figure they probably got it out of their system. if that's the case, then this forum is set up mostly as a system to vent rather than quit or stop spending on the game.

without knowing what their reasoning is based on, even great communication isn't really going to accomplish much. there are hundreds of threads going on at pretty much the same time wondering about this... some of the guesses are pretty over-simplistic, others are foil hat (I have one), others just nuts.... but maybe they work to explain some of the decisions, tweaks, boosts and nerfs?

(ed. note: I calmly wonder if they have an organized reasoning philosophy set up for the way they work on this game)

Edited by Spud_butt
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×