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

If There's Ever a World of Warships 2, Here's What I'd Do

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
150 posts
1,818 battles

Introduction:

World of warships was released in late 2015. Destiny 1 came out almost a year earlier, and even it got a sequel by now. World of Warships can't stay like this forever, sooner or later the need for improvements to the base game and more will outweigh the need to maintain the status quo. So there might just be a sequel that hopefully learns from a lot of the mistakes made with World of Warships 1. If that's the case, then here's what I'd suggest.

 

Core Concept:

The core concept of World of Warships seems to be an online multiplayer naval shooter with a hard lean towards the arcade style of design rather than the simulation style. Since that's what the market wants, this concept can stay the same.

 

Changes:

  • Allow more player interaction with different aspects of the game.
    • Whether it's matchmaking, custom battles, private tournaments, or whatever else. Let the players have more agency in the game than they do with WoWs1.
  • More developer transparency and community interaction.
    • Please actually ask the playerbase (either selecting notable members or holding elections), about major updates you are considering to implement before you commit to them. Not only will this give the playerbase a chance to adapt, but it also gives you guys a better feel of what the players want.
  • Less randomness, more skill.
    • This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle.
      • Optional skill-based matchmaking instead of grinding (more on that later).

Controversial Changes:

  • Remove the grind
    • This might be a controversial change but hear me out.
      • If the need to grind ships and upgrades is gone, and if matchmaking is based on skill level, then it will make it easier for similarly skilled players to find each other regardless of ship tier (You would still have matches with similar ship tiers though, to keep it balanced).
      • Grinding can deter new players since it's an aging concept in online gaming as it is. What's fun about starting a free game if you have to wait to play the cool ships? If your friends want you to play then both you and they have to wait until you get far enough to do stuff with them. It's an artificial sense of reward for a digital ship.
      • If competitive uses tier 9-10 anyways, what's the point of locking out new players from it? You guys give tier 10s out for free temporarily as it is.
      • Just offer an optional series of tutorials and training missions to help people get better at the game instead of making them wait and grind. This isn't a second job, nor should it feel like one.
  • Move away from the F2P "Whaling" business strategy and to a simple and transparent P2P business strategy.
    • Back in 2015 people were more open to Free to play games, but now they are becoming insufferably pay-to-win. You guys literally sold a tier-10 yamato on your store, straight up.
    • I'm sure if the game wasn't nearly as grindy, and not full of microtransactions, that people would be fine with paying a flat and regular subscription rate instead. And if you're not sure, ask your playerbase. Don't just guess. You already try to move people towards subscribing anyways, might as well be open and honest about it.
  • Shelf Carriers for now
    • You guys have been spending so much time and effort on trying to make carriers work and it's just getting worse and worse. You should just cut your losses and make carriers an exception instead of the rule to gameplay and work on improving other aspects while you develop a more grounded and effective way of somehow implementing them.
  • Consolidate your playerbase
    • Having players on consoles and PCs being separate makes sense for fast-paced games, but WoWs isn't as fast as say Call of Duty is. You have time to think and to aim your guns, so of all online games WoWs could probably work with crossplay, maybe not well, but still. If the devs are worried about not having a big enough playerbase then they need to shore up what they can and consolidate it so the numbers of players are more sustainable.

 

No I'm not saying that I'm 100% right, I'm just saying that I think there's still a solid game here but that it can be much, much better. Please don't burn me at the stake.

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
29 posts
3,066 battles

 

15 minutes ago, Altrunchen said:

Introduction:

World of warships was released in late 2015. Destiny 1 came out almost a year earlier, and even it got a sequel by now. World of Warships can't stay like this forever, sooner or later the need for improvements to the base game and more will outweigh the need to maintain the status quo. So there might just be a sequel that hopefully learns from a lot of the mistakes made with World of Warships 1. If that's the case, then here's what I'd suggest.

 

Core Concept:

The core concept of World of Warships seems to be an online multiplayer naval shooter with a hard lean towards the arcade style of design rather than the simulation style. Since that's what the market wants, this concept can stay the same.

 

Changes:

  • Allow more player interaction with different aspects of the game.
    • Whether it's matchmaking, custom battles, private tournaments, or whatever else. Let the players have more agency in the game than they do with WoWs1.
  • More developer transparency and community interaction.
    • Please actually ask the playerbase (either selecting notable members or holding elections), about major updates you are considering to implement before you commit to them. Not only will this give the playerbase a chance to adapt, but it also gives you guys a better feel of what the players want.
  • Less randomness, more skill.
    • This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle.
      •  Optional skill-based matchmaking instead of grinding (more on that later).

Controversial Changes:

  • Remove the grind
    • This might be a controversial change but hear me out.
      • If the need to grind ships and upgrades is gone, and if matchmaking is based on skill level, then it will make it easier for similarly skilled players to find each other regardless of ship tier (You would still have matches with similar ship tiers though, to keep it balanced).
      • Grinding can deter new players since it's an aging concept in online gaming as it is. What's fun about starting a free game if you have to wait to play the cool ships? If your friends want you to play then both you and they have to wait until you get far enough to do stuff with them. It's an artificial sense of reward for a digital ship.
      • If competitive uses tier 9-10 anyways, what's the point of locking out new players from it? You guys give tier 10s out for free temporarily as it is.
      • Just offer an optional series of tutorials and training missions to help people get better at the game instead of making them wait and grind. This isn't a second job, nor should it feel like one.
  • Move away from the F2P "Whaling" business strategy and to a simple and transparent P2P business strategy.
    • Back in 2015 people were more open to Free to play games, but now they are becoming insufferably pay-to-win. You guys literally sold a tier-10 yamato on your store, straight up.
    • I'm sure if the game wasn't nearly as grindy, and not full of microtransactions, that people would be fine with paying a flat and regular subscription rate instead. And if you're not sure, ask your playerbase. Don't just guess. You already try to move people towards subscribing anyways, might as well be open and honest about it.
  • Shelf Carriers for now
    • You guys have been spending so much time and effort on trying to make carriers work and it's just getting worse and worse. You should just cut your losses and make carriers an exception instead of the rule to gameplay and work on improving other aspects while you develop a more grounded and effective way of somehow implementing them.
  • Consolidate your playerbase
    • Having players on consoles and PCs being separate makes sense for fast-paced games, but WoWs isn't as fast as say Call of Duty is. You have time to think and to aim your guns, so of all online games WoWs could probably work with crossplay, maybe not well, but still. If the devs are worried about not having a big enough playerbase then they need to shore up what they can and consolidate it so the numbers of players are more sustainable.

 

No I'm not saying that I'm 100% right, I'm just saying that I think there's still a solid game here but that it can be much, much better. Please don't burn me at the stake.

I think that these are great points but I'm not sure that Wargaming would want to make a second World of Warships. But lots of great ideas if they choose to make one!:cap_yes:

 

Edited by TheEpicGamer285
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[DOW]
Beta Testers
52 posts
22,526 battles

Less randomness, more skill.

  • This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle.

 

Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your intent, but if you're suggesting a highly skilled player, with out RNG, should achieve very high hits percentages consider the following:

International Naval Research Organization Articles - Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy - NavWeaps

 

the randomness in the game is realistic, I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
3 minutes ago, DeathwishDrang said:

Less randomness, more skill.

  • This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle.

 

Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your intent, but if you're suggesting a highly skilled player, with out RNG, should achieve very high hits percentages consider the following:

International Naval Research Organization Articles - Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy - NavWeaps

 

the randomness in the game is realistic, I believe

Oh yes, in real life random factors affect just about everything.

But let's be real here, this game isn't as focused on realism as say...(A certain competitor's game) is. Heck in that game you can knock out the enemy's crew members and damage is localized unlike in WoWs. World of Warships is extremely detached from realism in so, so many ways. As a result I think WG's "emphasis" on realism is mostly there for show, since in practice very little is realistic about this game whatsoever.

Edited by Altrunchen
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[--DA-]
Members
201 posts
2,700 battles
43 minutes ago, Altrunchen said:

You guys have been spending so much time and effort on trying to make carriers work and it's just getting worse and worse.

On what basis is it getting "worse and worse"?  Most CVs have had their winrates brought down to reasonable levels, and the mechanics themselves have only changed one time with the rework.  So... not much has really changed other than their actual power level drop (which consequently is why you don't see many CVs anymore).

I guess if you've never liked CVs you can argue that mechanically they've never really improved (as they've not changed much in general), but this whole "keeps getting worse" thing is some sky is falling hyperbole methinks.

________

I 100% agree about matchmaking though, and reducing the grind to be more F2P friendly.  The number of people I have tried to convince to play this game that have abandoned it out of boredom due to all the cool ships being days or weeks of grinding from them is just... staggering.  Learn from games like League of Legends.  Don't punish people for how they play, let them play how they want, and if they are happy they will give you dat cosmetic money.  It's really awkward trying to tell friends, "don't worry, it gets more fun later."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
Just now, NefariousRaven said:

I 100% agree about matchmaking though, and reducing the grind to be more F2P friendly.  The number of people I have tried to convince to play this game that have abandoned it out of boredom due to all the cool ships being days or weeks of grinding from them is just... staggering.  Learn from games like League of Legends.  Don't punish people for how they play, let them play how they want, and if they are happy they will give you dat cosmetic money.  It's really awkward trying to tell friends, "don't worry, it gets more fun later."

I know right? I completely agree with you on this.

As for CVs, well honestly I was speaking more to the tumultuous history of their involvement in the game. How the playerbase just seems to be rarely content with their status overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,513
[HINON]
Members
14,340 posts

A new game focused on the predreadnought era up to WW1 would be interesting. There are so many fascinating and unique designs that WG would have plenty of content for such a game and a new game would allow a new system to be built from the ground up while taking the best ideas from WOWS with new ones.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,064
[WOLFG]
Members
13,407 posts
12,847 battles

I think that expecting the company that cut their teeth on FTP converting to PTP might be a mountain too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,195 posts
6,572 battles

World of Tanks are approaching 10yrs, and going strong without a change. Warships is only 5 and has a long way to go before they think about change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,679
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,762 posts
6,905 battles
6 hours ago, DeathwishDrang said:

Less randomness, more skill.

  • This game can be highly competitive but the fact that so many factors of a battle are random make it more like a mosh pit than a tactical naval battle.

 

Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your intent, but if you're suggesting a highly skilled player, with out RNG, should achieve very high hits percentages consider the following:

International Naval Research Organization Articles - Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy - NavWeaps

 

the randomness in the game is realistic, I believe

How do you remove the randomness from battleship salvos without making them overpowered and also without destroying the "I'm commanding a battleship!" fantasy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×