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

Why is WG afraid of more Modes?

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

736
Members
1,123 posts
2,117 battles

The CV rework, and the pending release of subs, has shown that the game truly needs more modes in order to accommodate ships that don't really work well in random.  I think random should stay what it is, every ship type in the game even when it's not really a ship.  I also think we need more modes to cater to the core concept of ships fighting ships and for unique ships to fight unique ships.

Is the idea of having people wait for a little bit to get a match they want truly such a scary concept that WG is afraid to put in more modes?  PUBG handles providing variety by showing the average time to wait in order for a map to launch.  So I can wait for the map I want or I can choose something faster if I just have to jump into action right this moment.

Why can't WoWS use a similar system where they have wait times on the different modes and the players choose whether or not waiting is worth the mode they prefer?

 

It seems to me putting in modes devoted to carrier combat, to ship against ship combat, and submarine conflict would only increase the number of players interested in the game.  Having more players increases revenue and reduces wait time.  By limiting the game to just one mode if you want PVP players either play that mode, play PVE which increases the wait time for PVP, or just leave the game completely.  

Does anyone know why WG seems so opposed to giving players options?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,260 posts
11,724 battles

The more you split the playerbase into different game modes. The longer the queue times. 

If I believe population #'s are somewhat stable and fine, I dont know if it's a major issue as long as you dont add too many modes.

BUT based off the forums perception of the population of this game. It actually aligns with the idea. 

edit: as far as adding a massive # of more players. That's a pipe dream. The reality of this game, is it's a niche game that is already 5-6 years old. Very few games add any real significant # to their concurrent playerbase past maybe 2-3 years..

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[LEGIT]
Members
2,196 posts
29,946 battles

     Looks like Naval Battles is about to experience it's third incarnation, so I think they have enough on their plate as things are. 

     Why can't naval battles just be based on whatever damage or experience or whatever participating clan members rack up in 10 battles, regardless of tier on a cumulative basis?  Seems easy for all to understand and contribute to regardless of skill level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[RLGN]
Members
13,301 posts
23,199 battles
55 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

     Looks like Naval Battles is about to experience it's third incarnation, so I think they have enough on their plate as things are. 

     Why can't naval battles just be based on whatever damage or experience or whatever participating clan members rack up in 10 battles, regardless of tier on a cumulative basis?  Seems easy for all to understand and contribute to regardless of skill level. 

The heck are they going to do now?

Force us to use Tier 10 ships to participate in NB, or something else equally stupid?

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,728
[WOLFG]
Members
8,296 posts
6,534 battles
48 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

The heck are they going to do now?

Force ts to use Tier 10 ships to participate in NB, or something else equally stupid?

It wasn't that (but I am having a hard time remembering what it was).  It was a new news item in port.

Maybe task based? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,060 posts
4,347 battles

Would be interesting if there were solo scenarios where I guess you fill the role of Bismarck, Graf Spee, Indianapolis, ect. Not sure how many people are interested in missions where you die in the end though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[WOLF3]
Members
1,955 posts
7,085 battles
4 minutes ago, Yoshiblue said:

Would be interesting if there were solo scenarios where I guess you fill the role of Bismarck, Graf Spee, Indianapolis, ect. Not sure how many people are interested in missions where you die in the end though. 

We could have a chance to not die.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[DPG]
Members
1,766 posts
7,949 battles
1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

It wasn't that (but I am having a hard time remembering what it was).  It was a new news item in port.

Maybe task based? 

Ribbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,728
[WOLFG]
Members
8,296 posts
6,534 battles
7 hours ago, Amenhir said:

Ribbons.

 

7 hours ago, Amenhir said:

Ribbons.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
10 hours ago, ruar said:

The CV rework, and the pending release of subs, has shown that the game truly needs more modes in order to accommodate ships that don't really work well in random.  I think random should stay what it is, every ship type in the game even when it's not really a ship.  I also think we need more modes to cater to the core concept of ships fighting ships and for unique ships to fight unique ships.

Is the idea of having people wait for a little bit to get a match they want truly such a scary concept that WG is afraid to put in more modes?  PUBG handles providing variety by showing the average time to wait in order for a map to launch.  So I can wait for the map I want or I can choose something faster if I just have to jump into action right this moment.

Why can't WoWS use a similar system where they have wait times on the different modes and the players choose whether or not waiting is worth the mode they prefer?

 

It seems to me putting in modes devoted to carrier combat, to ship against ship combat, and submarine conflict would only increase the number of players interested in the game.  Having more players increases revenue and reduces wait time.  By limiting the game to just one mode if you want PVP players either play that mode, play PVE which increases the wait time for PVP, or just leave the game completely.  

Does anyone know why WG seems so opposed to giving players options?

Their business and design philosophy is built upon a mild frustration model which does not tolerate a high degree of player choice. That is to say, they need you hemmed in to a specific experience so that they can ensure it is JUST frustrating enough to erode resistance to spending but NOT frustrating enough to cause churn. While adding in new modes would be very well received, it would reduce that model's effectiveness. That's why no SP mode or even a robust CoOp Mode exists; despite the potential increase in popularity it would likely have reduced amount of spending (lower frustration). Wargaming is not set up, at least none of their work thus far suggests they are, to monetize a game not around PTW/Pay to Advance mechanics and these other modes suggested would very much be antithetical to that goal.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
Members
1,123 posts
2,117 battles
5 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Their business and design philosophy is built upon a mild frustration model which does not tolerate a high degree of player choice. That is to say, they need you hemmed in to a specific experience so that they can ensure it is JUST frustrating enough to erode resistance to spending but NOT frustrating enough to cause churn. While adding in new modes would be very well received, it would reduce that model's effectiveness. That's why no SP mode or even a robust CoOp Mode exists; despite the potential increase in popularity it would likely have reduced amount of spending (lower frustration). Wargaming is not set up, at least none of their work thus far suggests they are, to monetize a game not around PTW/Pay to Advance mechanics and these other modes suggested would very much be antithetical to that goal.

Interesting concept and one I hadn't really considered. I know I tend to avoid spending money when I'm annoyed but spend more than I should when happy or at least hopeful. I just assumed most people are the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
13 minutes ago, ruar said:

Interesting concept and one I hadn't really considered. I know I tend to avoid spending money when I'm annoyed but spend more than I should when happy or at least hopeful. I just assumed most people are the same way.

They have several patents, held under Victor's name, Wargaming LLC, and a few others, that all describe 'frustration models' that encourage player spending by matching them in certain ways to encourage a finely tuned degree of frustration. Specifically as it relates to premium vehicles. This is likely why the MM feels off; it is; the patents describe that there are basically *two* Tiers for each vehicle: it's stated Tier (so Hipper is a T8), and it's 'Battle Tier,' or the internal MM tier (done server side and invisible to players). That tier can be changed w/o a patch (on our side) and can have wild implications. It may be the reason some ships feels as though they are top or bottom tiered more often.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
[WOLFC]
Members
2,597 posts
14,109 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

They have several patents, held under Victor's name, Wargaming LLC, and a few others, that all describe 'frustration models' that encourage player spending by matching them in certain ways to encourage a finely tuned degree of frustration. ...

Must have been inspired by all those years of standing in long lines just to buy bread and sub-standard commodities ... 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
4 minutes ago, DocWalker said:

Must have been inspired by all those years of standing in long lines just to buy bread and sub-standard commodities ... 

You know Victor is only 43 right? He would have been 13 in 1989 (15 in 91').

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
Members
1,123 posts
2,117 battles
2 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

You know Victor is only 43 right? He would have been 13 in 1989 (15 in 91').

Early years sometimes have the most impact. Just look at Magneto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
33 minutes ago, ruar said:

Early years sometimes have the most impact. Just look at Magneto.

Yeah [edited]. And bread lines are almost apocryphal, and were in fact apocryphal in the fairly well off Belarus. I'm no fan of communism, but this is a STUPID reason to hate on it; lack of innovation and a stagnation of culture is a FAR more provable fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×