Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Rabbitt81

Recent direction of the game: It's time to put down the spreadsheets

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,481 battles

Having played this game for a decent amount of time, I have noticed an alarming trend when looking at the overall health of the game. This post isn't really directed at WG as such. We all know WG is gonna be WG, nothing I say will change that. See the

 

ongoing CV rework as an example. When the super testers told WG that it would be a 1211579242_dumpsterfire.jpg.affe7f5ac89f74849f8b43d430758e67.jpg WG disregarded all feedback and went straight to live with it, and when it turned out to be a 1211579242_dumpsterfire.jpg.affe7f5ac89f74849f8b43d430758e67.jpg WG

went all surprised.jpg.1138062f66c9d0075b70999a6971c177.jpg and blamed the players for not testing the CV rework enough. Blaming the players for bad game direction is a recurring problem with this company.

 

Now that the opener is out of the way, let's get down to my point. WG is trying to push all players into PVP. This is being accomplished by either outright removal of operations such as Narai, or nerfing the earnings of Operations so that, while you can still

play them, it's not really worth a player's time to do so. The reasoning given by WG for wanting to eliminate operations earnings is that a few players are farming them for experience. Notice again with the blaming the players and not the fact that WG gives

out economy flags and camouflages left and right. The number of players farming operations must be very small. WG said it themselves that not many players participate in operations and yet, WG says let's ruin the fun for everybody. I find it hard to

believe that a few players farming an operation or two is the reason for gutting an entire game mode.

 

The same goes for co-op. WG has stated recently that PVE is not going to be improved upon and that PVP will be the focus for future development. Now, if randoms were fun and engaging to play, and it used to be fun and engaging, then I would be OK with

that. However, nearly every match in randoms is a one sided steamroll. Steamrolls, snowballs, whatever you want to call them, are NOT FUN to play whether you are the winner or the loser. These type of matches are extremely boring. And another point to

bring up, these steamroll matches are over so quickly - 7 to 10 minutes- that a player cannot achieve much experience in that amount of time. If I am going to participate in a game mode, that game mode should be fun to play, which is why I say put down

the spreadsheets and play the game. Randoms just aren't fun to play anymore. I play mainly co-op now because 7 out of 10 matches are one sided snooze fests. I used to only play co-op to test out a new ship, now it's my preferred game mode.

 

The recent new ship lines and events have been horrible. It's as if WG never recovered from the Payto Rico dockyard disaster. The Italian and British cruisers would have been OK in 2017 but with the HE spam meta that the game is now, if I want to play a

slow-firing ship, I'm going to play a BB. The trend with new DDs having low-damage and fast reloading torps would have been a great idea before the CV rework and radar, but these ships still have the same problems as all DDs have to deal with. The faster

reloading torps aren't much of an advantage when you can't get into position to use them without being detected by one gimmick or another.

 

Anyhoo, that's my two cents about the future direction that this game is headed. I don't expect any of this to be news to anyone if you have been playing this game for more than a few months.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rabbitt81
  • Cool 20
  • Boring 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,520
[TARK]
Members
6,593 posts
2,520 battles
11 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Blaming the players for bad game direction is a recurring problem with this company.

Yup.

Be prepared to be told this feedback is 'nonconstructive'...i.e., WGs code for branding you a troublemaker and ignoring all feedback you ever give ever again.

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yup.

Be prepared to be told this feedback is 'nonconstructive'...i.e., WGs code for branding you a troublemaker and ignoring all feedback you ever give ever again.

Ah, yes... "nonconstructive".   

That's how you know you hit a nerve. 

  

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,073 posts
15,906 battles

Sorry to break the news but for game developers you are all nothing more than data. Every few weeks or months they analyze the data and make decisions as to how to make the business more profitable. The forum doesn't influence most of those decisions. Like I've stated before, MMO free to play games are no different than online casinos. First the hook you and reel you in and then they slowly use the carrot and stick method to lure you to spend more money.
It's no coincidence that just everything about the game now days is about pushing players to play high tiers. 

Edited by STINKWEED_
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

Spreadsheets aren't the problem. That was clear for years but WG publicly admitted the following when they did that CV rework live stream presentation with a PowerPoint.:

1.) WG doesn't know how to properly compile the important data.
2.) WG combines inaccurate and worthless metrics into their own artificial metric (which means is also worthless) and uses it for balance observations.
3.) WG fallaciously compares a subject ship to others of the SAME TYPE ONLY when making balance conclusions. Again, ignorant at best since ALL ships interact with ALL ships in the primary game mode. 
4.) WG never keeps to a single standard. On one hand, they will make balance changes based on (99% of the time) inaccurate justifications to a ship because of it's performance in the primary game mode. Then they will make balance changes based on, again inaccurate justifications, to a ship because of its performance in Clan Battles which is NOT a primary game mode despite the fact the same ship is NOT overperforming in the primary game mode itself. Then WG will go on to make balance changes by claiming a ship is too popular, or leaving a ship OP because it isn't as popular as they want it.


Until WG corrects all (4) of these issues, the game will never have even a semblance of balance. 

Games are supposed to be balanced based on the data, proper analysis of that data, and substantiated with contextual evidence.. like win conditions.. ruleset and attributes. Games are NOT supposed to be balanced of the subjective opinion nor whims of the mob.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,020
[ARGSY]
Members
20,110 posts
14,317 battles

There are times I'm seriously given to wonder whether you're being paid to type all this rubbish, and by whom.

  • Funny 2
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
[IXM]
Members
1,060 posts
7 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

There are times I'm seriously given to wonder whether you're being paid to type all this rubbish, and by whom.

I'd have to wonder the same about all you WG white knights.

Edited by Vector03
  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,376
[WOLFG]
Members
9,599 posts
8,569 battles
13 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Sorry to break the news but for game developers you are all nothing more than data. Every few weeks or months they analyze the data and make decisions as to how to make the business more profitable. The forum's doesn't influence most of those decisions. Like I've stated before, MMO free t play games are no different than online casinos. First the hook you and reel you in and then they slowly use the carrot and stick method to lure you to spend more money.
It's no coincidence that just about everything about the game now is about pushing players to play high tiers. 

Whole lotta truth in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,443
[MERCB]
[MERCB]
Members
4,364 posts
20,047 battles
8 minutes ago, Vector03 said:

I'd have to wonder the same about all you WG white knights.

 That's funny that's what I was thinking too

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,124 posts
7,989 battles
17 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:


1.) WG doesn't know how to properly compile the important data.
2.) WG combines inaccurate and worthless metrics into their own artificial metric (which means is also worthless) and uses it for balance observations.
3.) WG fallaciously compares a subject ship to others of the SAME TYPE ONLY when making balance conclusions. Again, ignorant at best since ALL ships interact with ALL ships in the primary game mode. 
4.) WG never keeps to a single standard. On one hand, they will make balance changes based on (99% of the time) inaccurate justifications to a ship because of it's performance in the primary game mode. Then they will make balance changes based on, again inaccurate justifications, to a ship because of its performance in Clan Battles which is NOT a primary game mode despite the fact the same ship is NOT overperforming in the primary game mode itself. Then WG will go on to make balance changes by claiming a ship is too popular, or leaving a ship OP because it isn't as popular as they want it.

 

Those are a lot of bold unsubstantiated claims you're making.....especially as we know WG has far more accurate data than anything the community has access to.  I don't like spreadsheet balancing at all..which is something I've consistently argued against for as long as I've been on the forums......but I trust WG's data far more than anything the community can come up with.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
4 minutes ago, yashma said:

Those are a lot of bold unsubstantiated claims you're making.....especially as we know WG has far more accurate data than anything the community has access to.  I don't like spreadsheet balancing at all..which is something I've consistently argued against for as long as I've been on the forums......but I trust WG's data far more than anything the community can come up with.

They are not unsubstantiated. WG has made related claims when making balance changes many times thus far, and as I clearly stated even had a live stream power point presentation for the CV rework which serves as even more evidence. We have access to all of the necessary data one would need to make accurate balance conclusions. You simply need to have a basic understanding of data science, statistics, and be cognitive enough to compare it to the contextual evidence. Does WG have access to *more* data than us? Sure, but it isn't relative when it comes to balance observations and conclusions. If the questions was, "How does the Fletcher perform on the two brothers map specifically", sure WG has access to that specific subset of data, and we do not. Does it have ANY bearing on game balance? Nope, as balance is observed and dictated by the trend in the primary game mode, and wouldn't be confined to a simple map/match.

Nice appeal to authority though. 

Games that are even remotely balanced are done so based on the data, and proper analysis that of that data.  WG has essentially publicly stated, along with the balance change for X ship, that their justification was X ship overperforming. Whereas I can prove factually that is incorrect. Thus the only possibilities are 1.) They are completely dishonest, as in purposefully   or 2.) They don't understand data science and how it pertains to game balance.

Citation: https://deltadna.com/blog/balancing-game-data-player-data/
Citation: https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanFelder/20151012/251443/Design_101_Balancing_Games.php
Citation: https://medium.com/@a.mstv/game-balancing-data-driven-approach-c3d8a81b487

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,446
[WOLFG]
Members
29,025 posts
8,293 battles
3 minutes ago, yashma said:

Those are a lot of bold unsubstantiated claims you're making.....especially as we know WG has far more accurate data than anything the community has access to.  I don't like spreadsheet balancing at all..which is something I've consistently argued against for as long as I've been on the forums......but I trust WG's data far more than anything the community can come up with.

Agreed.

Just because WG isn't doing what some of us want, doesn't mean things aren't working out well for them.

They have their vision, and it's going to clash with that of many of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
[IXM]
Members
1,060 posts
4 minutes ago, yashma said:

Those are a lot of bold unsubstantiated claims you're making.....especially as we know WG has far more accurate data than anything the community has access to.  I don't like spreadsheet balancing at all..which is something I've consistently argued against for as long as I've been on the forums......but I trust WG's data far more than anything the community can come up with.

Because WG has our best interests in mind, right? It's totally certain that they want a balanced game, and that RU ships are bad, and CVs are in a great spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,446
[WOLFG]
Members
29,025 posts
8,293 battles
1 minute ago, Varknyn12 said:

Thus the only possibilities are 1.) They are completely dishonest, as in purposefully   or 2.) They don't understand data science and how it pertains to game balance.

Regardless, their dishonesty/non-understanding of game balance has gotten them further than your honesty/understanding of game balance has gotten you....

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,124 posts
7,989 battles
8 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Agreed.

Just because WG isn't doing what some of us want, doesn't mean things aren't working out well for them.

They have their vision, and it's going to clash with that of many of us.

Don't get me wrong...I really don't like the concept of spreadsheet balancing.  It leads to things like the Slava and Smolensk...ships that are statically balanced, but bad for the game....but I also always found it ironic that the community put so much emphasis on the raw damage and win rate totals from incomplete publicly sourced stats sites and acted as if it contradicted WG's own data.

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[WOLFC]
[WOLFC]
Members
846 posts
7,137 battles
27 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

WG publicly admitted the following when they did that CV rework live stream presentation with a PowerPoint.:

Do you have a Twitch or Youtube link? I'd be interested in watching that livestream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,006
[RLGN]
Members
14,302 posts
25,209 battles
17 minutes ago, Vector03 said:

I'd have to wonder the same about all you WG white knights.

lol

Not here.

Warships is becoming Tanks 2.0 with its current direction.

They’ll look back and perhaps wonder what went wrong, and not be able to understand that even if looking in a mirror.

5 minutes ago, yashma said:

I trust WG's data far more than anything the community can come up with.

I don’t trust WG to do anything but screw up whatever they’re doing.

I might have defended things they did before; but after 0.8.0, and PtR a year later, they don’t deserve to be defended any more.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

spreadsheet says player population is up, spreadsheet says more people spending rubles, spreadsheet says we win...

i think they use the same formula for support as well as public relations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,124 posts
7,989 battles
2 minutes ago, Vector03 said:

Because WG has our best interests in mind, right? It's totally certain that they want a balanced game, and that RU ships are bad, and CVs are in a great spot.

I think it's far more likely that spreadsheet balancing is just a flawed method that produces some odd results than some conspiracy theory about WG deliberately nerfing fantasy ships they made up themselves just because it belongs to a specific nation they arbitrarily decided needed a high tier premium.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[WOLFC]
[WOLFC]
Members
846 posts
7,137 battles
12 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I might have defended things they did before; but after 0.8.0, and PtR a year later, they don’t deserve to be defended any more.

Both of these things happened in 2019; January and December. That was a really cursed year for WG. Maybe the number 9 is a bad omen... I hope they're not as superstitious as old sailors because we're on game version 0.9.x now

 

EDIT: The middle of that year also had the NTC  / Reseach Bureau

 

...but we also had Rogue Wave and a nice Halloween event (and permacamo rewards that can go on any ship)... RW was great imo, but then again it also brought us the first ultra-grind, and 2019 was also the start of the premium tier 9/10 ship explosion

Edited by Silisquish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,124 posts
7,989 battles
6 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I don’t trust WG to do anything but screw up whatever they’re doing.

I might have defended things they did before; but after 0.8.0, and PtR a year later, they don’t deserve to be defended any more.

There is a difference between criticizing WG for making a balancing choice (nerfing the Agir), and criticizing WG for making a balancing choice for nefarious reasons (they hate the Germans).

I think the Agir nerf was unneeded, so I will criticize WG there as it's deserved, I also think it's far fetched and conspiratorial to argue they nerfed the Agir because of some "anti-German bias", so I will defend them in that regard.  It's not all black and white.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
13 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

They have their vision, and it's going to clash with that of many of us.

Going back to WOT, from the beginning, WG has always had this problem where their vision of the game trumps how the customers actually engage with the game -- rather than adapting to their customers, the get madder and madder and more determined to force the game as played to match their precious vision.  

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
[IXM]
Members
1,060 posts
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Going back to WOT, from the beginning, WG has always had this problem where their vision of the game trumps how the customers actually engage with the game -- rather than adapting to their customers, the get madder and madder and more determined to force the game as played to match their precious vision.  

 

 

I can tell you this is true as well. WG is so stubborn they don't care about losing loyal, paying customers as much as forcing their version of a game down people's throats.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
14 minutes ago, SKurj said:

spreadsheet says player population is up, spreadsheet says more people spending rubles, spreadsheet says we win...

i think they use the same formula for support as well as public relations

Well that is certainly a possibility, but isn't really what is the premise I was presenting.

If WG purely makes changes to ships based on what is most likely to acquire more monetary gain. Those are not balance changes. WG claiming that changes made are "balance" changes or based on "performance" or related data is completely dishonest if the former is true, and WG does make those inaccurate claims time and time again.


If WG simply came out with every change and said. "We are nerfing X ship reload by 0.5s because our data shows it can eventually hurt revenue because of its effect on our ship type with most spenders", that would be perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with that. Honest, and to the point. Not going to argue with that. People will simply need to take that truth and determine if the game is something they still want to invest in, knowing full well there will NEVER be any sense of balance.

That is not what WG does though. What they do is make changes, claim they are for balance, and yet their justification proves the either have no understanding as to what game balance is, have the comprehension of data science to that of a five-year-old, or perhaps both.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×