Zath Chat - State of the Game - What's WG doing right? 791 10.3

[Lord_Zath]

In this Zath Chat, we discuss what we feel Wargaming is doing right. In the process, we went back in time to revisit where the game was many years ago, and where it is now. Make sure you equip your premium nostalgia party!
 

What do YOU think WG is doing right?

 

[_WaveRider_]

Sorry, I think they have made steps in the 'right' direction, but for every step in the right direction - they seem to take steps back.

Then there are the erratic side steps and maybe better described 'blindfolded stumbling' they do. 

This tends to cloud the good. 

[Lord_Zath]

1 hour ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Sorry, I think they have made steps in the 'right' direction, but for every step in the right direction - they seem to take steps back.

Then there are the erratic side steps and maybe better described 'blindfolded stumbling' they do. 

 This tends to cloud the good. 

Yep I agree with both of that. Still, I had some viewers ask me to specifically identify what they've done right. Tomorrow's release will give some suggestions/ideas to "get back on track". I could do a "what has WG done wrong" but I'm worried about being too negative/stirring up too much salt. 

What do y'all think?

[SeaCat_]

Have at it ...gotta take the bad with the .......kinda alright

 

 

[CFO3]

I am a CFO for a large company (Chief Financial Officer) and this game is my hobby.

I enjoy it for what it is and I understand that ALL of the moves made are to optimize the profitability of the company.

We...all of the player base...probably gets this and if you are remotely unsure....please remove that doubt.

WG knows that the "whales" are on the hook (likely for thousands of dollars) and are not going anywhere and the FTP group carry minimal value to the game...mainly just to fill the ques for the paying players.

WG works to draw new players and hopefully to create new whales.

My opinion is that the "right" moves are to focus on the fact that a large number of players are "somewhat" older males...with greater disposable income to become whales and that is what WG should try to continue to capitalize on.

But my opinion is that WG is trying to change that demographic and they are starting to upset the old farts...which I am a card caring member of.

Side note...I enjoy your WG contend LZ.

 

 

[Singularity_invader]

Removing DeadEye is a right move for sure.

[Capt_Ahab1776]

From a business standpoint. It is more cost effective to retain customers than attracting new ones. Business 101.

That being said, I don’t see their bottom line. TBH I just operate with the, if their still operating then they are good to go. I wish them luck as this is the only MMO I play. I put only discretionary funds in as should anyone, if they choose to play.

One suggestion I would like to offer is maybe some new maps. I really think that would help as everyone would be learning where all the sweet spots are.

[_WaveRider_]

1 hour ago, Lord_Zath said:

Yep I agree with both of that. Still, I had some viewers ask me to specifically identify what they've done right. Tomorrow's release will give some suggestions/ideas to "get back on track". I could do a "what has WG done wrong" but I'm worried about being too negative/stirring up too much salt. 

What do y'all think?

But what have they actually done that is 'just' a good move for the community?

1. I like the way CVs play now, but don't thing the way they implemented them in game is great.

2. I like the recall Captain element of the Capt change, but in general didn't think the Capt change was very well thought out before implementation.

3. I like that they gave DDs a little better survival recently (when they have the worst survival on average), but having done that I then can't understand the nerf to BB secondaries?

 

The removal of DeadEye: I didn't have an issue that those BBs that are actually built for longer distance engagement having a Capt skill like DeadEye - I blame the community for rushing to use it on ships that are not optimal for the skill - BUT yes, they removed DeadEye and it was causing an issue with gameplay so well done WG you removed DeadEye! 

I also used to like it when WG released new maps, created scenarios like Dunkirk, and supported Operations.  It's a shame most of those positive things happened so long ago. 

 

Edit: I even got a 'Your views are important to us' survey - 'We want to make the game better!' First question ' Would you recommend this game to a friend?' Answer: 2 out of 10 (no).

End of survey. How is that looking to make the game better?

[Ozium]

4 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

What do YOU think WG is doing right?

is that a trick question?    think would be pressed to call any it latest decisions a step in the right direction ...

[Lord_Zath]

1 hour ago, CFO3 said:

I am a CFO for a large company (Chief Financial Officer) and this game is my hobby.

I enjoy it for what it is and I understand that ALL of the moves made are to optimize the profitability of the company.

We...all of the player base...probably gets this and if you are remotely unsure....please remove that doubt.

WG knows that the "whales" are on the hook (likely for thousands of dollars) and are not going anywhere and the FTP group carry minimal value to the game...mainly just to fill the ques for the paying players.

WG works to draw new players and hopefully to create new whales.

My opinion is that the "right" moves are to focus on the fact that a large number of players are "somewhat" older males...with greater disposable income to become whales and that is what WG should try to continue to capitalize on.

But my opinion is that WG is trying to change that demographic and they are starting to upset the old farts...which I am a card caring member of.

Side note...I enjoy your WG contend LZ.

 

 

Thanks for the compliment! You make a good point, in that perhaps WG should (or are they already?) focus on converting FTP players to paying customers. Could that be the reasoning behind more of these random bundles that cost 1k or so doubloons? Run out and players have to spend money to replenish/buy more? 

1 hour ago, Singularity_invader said:

Removing DeadEye is a right move for sure.

I didn't mention this because it was covered in prior Zath Chat's, but at the very least it does show that they are listening to the community.

50 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

From a business standpoint. It is more cost effective to retain customers than attracting new ones. Business 101.

That being said, I don’t see their bottom line. TBH I just operate with the, if their still operating then they are good to go. I wish them luck as this is the only MMO I play. I put only discretionary funds in as should anyone, if they choose to play.

One suggestion I would like to offer is maybe some new maps. I really think that would help as everyone would be learning where all the sweet spots are.

More maps would be really nice. 

32 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

But what have they actually done that is 'just' a good move for the community?

1. I like the way CVs play now, but don't thing the way they implemented them in game is great.

2. I like the recall Captain element of the Capt change, but in general didn't think the Capt change was very well thought out before implementation.

3. I like that they gave DDs a little better survival recently (when they have the worst survival on average), but having done that I then can't understand the nerf to BB secondaries?

 

The removal of DeadEye: I didn't have an issue that those BBs that are actually built for longer distance engagement having a Capt skill like DeadEye - I blame the community for rushing to use it on ships that are not optimal for the skill - BUT yes, they removed DeadEye and it was causing an issue with gameplay so well done WG you removed DeadEye! 

I also used to like it when WG released new maps, created scenarios like Dunkirk, and supported Operations.  It's a shame most of those positive things happened so long ago. 

 

Edit: I even got a 'Your views are important to us' survey - 'We want to make the game better!' First question ' Would you recommend this game to a friend?' Answer: 2 out of 10 (no).

End of survey. How is that looking to make the game better?

OK that last part about the survey is just NOT cool. So you're saying once you answered 2/10, the survey ended? I might have to do that next time just to see what it does. You're 100% right WG is missing out on a LOT of opportunities for data. Could they be trying to insulate their results, as someone answering 2/10 would probably answer that they hate everything? Still, that doesn't feel right.

[Cit_the_bed]

World of warships was like a delicious stew, and with every patch the chef (wg) smiles at you and stirs a tiny spoon of crap into the stew. It's still mostly good, but in time after many patches and many spoonfuls it will be completely crap and you know it.

[_WaveRider_]

7 minutes ago, Lord_Zath said:

OK that last part about the survey is just NOT cool. So you're saying once you answered 2/10, the survey ended? I might have to do that next time just to see what it does. You're 100% right WG is missing out on a LOT of opportunities for data. Could they be trying to insulate their results, as someone answering 2/10 would probably answer that they hate everything? Still, that doesn't feel right.

Yes, when I put 2/10 the survey ended. They did say thank you though lol. 

[warheart1992]

2 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

Yep I agree with both of that. Still, I had some viewers ask me to specifically identify what they've done right. Tomorrow's release will give some suggestions/ideas to "get back on track". I could do a "what has WG done wrong" but I'm worried about being too negative/stirring up too much salt. 

What do y'all think?

I think right now we are split into two factions, the full on optimists and the full on pessimists. This applies to many CCs as well, especially some of the more vocal ones. Maybe a more moderate outlook bring up some discussion that's desperately needed.

As for the positives, there have been major steps improvements in the graphics department without affecting performance too much and for that I am thankful. Until two months ago I used to play the game on an 8 year old laptop without huge issues aside from reduced FPS at times. Now that I got a new high end system I can appreciate how accessible the game is both for potato PCs and dedicated gaming ones.

[eviltane]

3 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

Yep I agree with both of that. Still, I had some viewers ask me to specifically identify what they've done right. Tomorrow's release will give some suggestions/ideas to "get back on track". I could do a "what has WG done wrong" but I'm worried about being too negative/stirring up too much salt. 

What do y'all think?

You are right it will properbly be too negative.   Right now I am thinking one major thing they did wrong is hiring an economist to reduce the amount of resources players have.  That is especially in light of the commander rework and the change to how combat flags will be awarded in 10.4  . This goes all the way back past the CC summit  after the CV rework.  
 

There they announced that they are worried long time players have too many resources.  Since then they increased the costs of stuff and implemented resource drains everywhere.  Like seriously maybe 10 guys had too much resources and were complaining there was nothing they could spend it on.     I like that we got the armory where we can buy stuffs but that doesn't mean they now have to turn off all the places where we earned resources.  Just because a few select players didn't like being rich. 

[Lord_Zath]

45 minutes ago, eviltane said:

You are right it will properbly be too negative.   Right now I am thinking one major thing they did wrong is hiring an economist to reduce the amount of resources players have.  That is especially in light of the commander rework and the change to how combat flags will be awarded in 10.4  . This goes all the way back past the CC summit  after the CV rework.  
 

There they announced that they are worried long time players have too many resources.  Since then they increased the costs of stuff and implemented resource drains everywhere.  Like seriously maybe 10 guys had too much resources and were complaining there was nothing they could spend it on.     I like that we got the armory where we can buy stuffs but that doesn't mean they now have to turn off all the places where we earned resources.  Just because a few select players didn't like being rich. 

Yeah I remember that presentation. Lots of people looked at me like "it's YOUR fault!" I never complained about having too much stuff with nothing to spend it on. I complained about not being able to give/donate it to others in need. 

[eviltane]

35 minutes ago, Lord_Zath said:

Yeah I remember that presentation. Lots of people looked at me like "it's YOUR fault!" I never complained about having too much stuff with nothing to spend it on. I complained about not being able to give/donate it to others in need. 

Hah just point of note I was not aware you were being blamed for anything.  So I was not bringing it up with the intention of making accusations. 

[SKurj]

done right....

• pretty gfx...  
• added ecxp for the average joes...
• added class specific skillsets for commanders
• allow a single commander to use all classes of premium ships
• pushed the 'right' buttons to piss off the forum at least with the skill rebork and "recommended" skill sets

At the moment the scales are too far negative...  when i think of the things they have done/added to the game since christmas... these positives are easily outweighed by the negs

I wouldn't recommend the game to anyone atm, it kills some time for me, and really i am in it for the ships more than the game play..

[SKurj]

3 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

Thanks for the compliment! You make a good point, in that perhaps WG should (or are they already?) focus on converting FTP players to paying customers. Could that be the reasoning behind more of these random bundles that cost 1k or so doubloons? Run out and players have to spend money to replenish/buy more? 

I didn't mention this because it was covered in prior Zath Chat's, but at the very least it does show that they are listening to the community.

More maps would be really nice. 

OK that last part about the survey is just NOT cool. So you're saying once you answered 2/10, the survey ended? I might have to do that next time just to see what it does. You're 100% right WG is missing out on a LOT of opportunities for data. Could they be trying to insulate their results, as someone answering 2/10 would probably answer that they hate everything? Still, that doesn't feel right.

i got one of those surveys, i think i answered a 5 or a 6... for the first question and that was it.. it ended...   

[Lord_Zath]

6 hours ago, eviltane said:

Hah just point of note I was not aware you were being blamed for anything.  So I was not bringing it up with the intention of making accusations. 

Yea it was a joke no worries :D

6 hours ago, SKurj said:

i got one of those surveys, i think i answered a 5 or a 6... for the first question and that was it.. it ended...   

Very interesting. I think next time I get one of those surveys I'll try entering in a 5 or 6 and see what happens. 

[CaliburxZero]

I've got my (serious) list right here:

- The art design/visual effects are good, minus the water splashes that seemingly obscure ships to make your shots harder.

 

[Avenge_December_7]

So far I'd just call the deadeye removal the only right thing I've seen them do recently.

Everything else reminds me of why I don't intend to stay in WoWs for much longer.

[Rouxi]

2 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

Very interesting. I think next time I get one of those surveys I'll try entering in a 5 or 6 and see what happens. 

Somebody on reddit said that it probably rejects you cause if your ratting is that low WG thinks you're just a hater and won't have any good feedback but I think they're actually misinterpreting their own question. On the surface it seems like it's asking how would you rate the game but really it's asking how would you rate the new user experience. A game can be perfectly fine for a veteran that knows how to play and has an established account but not be very good for a new user just starting from scratch. This game has lots of complex mechanics you need to know but zero tutorials or guides, it just throws you in with the wolves. The game is heavily focused on high tiers so a new player has to grind for weeks or months to get to "end game". They have to do that without signals, camo, premium ships, or any other resources. The new user experience is designed to make people suffer so they will spend money to make the game fun. We have so many new players in high tiers these days that have no idea what they're doing cause they paid to advance.

When ever I get that survey I think about what would happen if I invited one of my friends and I realized I'd be constantly saying "it gets better later because of X" or "you can spend money to make it easier". I don't really want to put my friends through that so I rate the game low and get rejected.

[_WaveRider_]

3 hours ago, Lord_Zath said:

Yea it was a joke no worries :D

Very interesting. I think next time I get one of those surveys I'll try entering in a 5 or 6 and see what happens. 

If you are really interested: I think that it is part of the WG strategy (money wise).

They literally do not care about those that think improvements can be made - however they do care about those that enjoy the game and therefore are more likely to spend. So answer 'no' you wouldn't recommend to a friend and they say 'goodbye' - your opinion does not matter. Say you like the game and would recommend it....well that means you are likely someone who spends regularly on the game and/or promotes it.

Now you are someone they do want to know about! What is it you like about the game? What is it that makes you spend and promote the game to others ? What is likely to raise more profits?

 

Unfortunately this is where WG is - I still enjoy playing; I think radar, hydro, CVs and even subs are good editions to the game (but the implementation is what is crucial) - yet because of the decisions WG keep making (all revolving around the 'money grab'), I cannot in good conscience recommend the game to a friend - I view this game on par with a mobile game that tries to suck the coin from your pocket constantly - why would I recommend this to a friend?

I used to recommend the game - boy did I promote this game. Just not now. 

[BlackburnBlackburn]

Done right: Adding Alexander Clarke and Drachinifel to Armchair Admirals.

Done wrong: Everything else.

[cmdr_bigdog]

WG has a few problems,  

Being a little sneaky to try and pry money out of players (dockyards, santa crates, upcoming change of commanders specs). 

WoWs really sucks at educating users. For two years I did not know of their wiki site and the game has no link to it. 

I can only assume the philosophy is "it is obvious to the educated user."

WoWs ability to predict cause and effect is really really bad.  I am sure they have an upper level manager similar to one that I worked with where the practice was to apply the dopelar effect of throwing out bad ideas very fast until they started to sound good. If we said no, its a bad idea he would then begin to issue decrees.