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

What do we really need WeeGee to work on?

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

484
[FRNGE]
Members
679 posts
10,269 battles

I’ve spent the past few days trying to get the hang of the new rockets on CV’s. The net result is that I’ve sold my T8’s (had already sold the only T10 I had - CVs are not my main). T6 can still be fun. But I noticed one thing again and again while playing through the learning curve on the rockets.

This game did not need CVs fixed in the last patch. This game does not need Soviet CVs, and it does not needs submarines. It doesn’t need super battleships. It doesn’t need more gimmicks. 

 

What the developers need to spend some serious time on are the massively one-sided battles that seem to be 80% of the games these days. 

 

35-40% of the games I’ve played since 10.5 came out have been stomping by my team. They end in 8-11 minutes. There’s not enough time to wrack up much damage. 35-40% of my games have been my team getting stomped. That only leaves 20-30% of the games that are moderately close. And this is just measured this past weekend, but I suspect that the same basic layout exists for everyone else.

 

So in every 10 games, 7 or 8 of them are pretty dull. That seems to me the biggest cause of WoWS decline. The simple bottom line is that it’s just getting dull. I play for games that are close and tense; I lost one game over the weekend by one point as the clock ran out, and another as time ran out because one of my teammates couldn’t figure out how to run away when we had a lead and he had 150 HP left. But that was only two games all weekend. 

 

This is why the game is in decline. It’s just getting dull. They need to fix the fact that so many games are one side stomping the other, and stop spending their time, effort, and money on creating new gimmicks. 

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[BINGO]
[BINGO]
Members
111 posts
6,994 battles

The only way to fix your main concern would be by improving the average player skill level and WG won't do that.

They could add in a mandatory tutorial I suppose, but honestly to be "good" at this game takes far to much for a 5min tutorial to cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,099
[KWF]
Members
6,567 posts
7,175 battles

Saying it's blowouts is pretty general when there are specific triggers and reasons for it.

First of all, the player reaches high tiers very early in the learning curve. Tier advancement and mechanics knowledge don't coincide like they used to in the past.

Secondly, emphasis on higher tiers. Both in premium ships and tech tree. For the past few years WG with few exceptions makes tiers 5-7 indifferent, only making tier VIIIs+ not feel like a chore. 

Thirdly, overwhelming capabilities starting at tier VIII, regardless of class. Suddenly you get ships with either insane DPM, or insane alpha, with very specific suites of consumables, armor, etc. 

Finally, it's my belief the game is meant to be almost fun to play, but also frustrating on purpose to drive a sale, be it shiny new powercreep premium/line or premium time to ease the grind.

Combine all this into a player that hit tier VIII in just a few hundred battles, without knowing how higher tiers work, with ships possessing enough alpha to create a snowball effect in just a few minutes. Then you drive the player into a premium purchase by thinking it's not his fault, but either incompetent teammates, which he himself is in no place to really judge, or the ship can't carry him. By creating blowouts you also increase the number of battles someone plays, as well as the number of signals/camos/flags they spend in general. 

So yeah, I don't think it's in WG's best interest to completely fix this.

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,828
[NG-NL]
Members
6,604 posts
10,993 battles

Requiring minimum base XP per T8-10 to get rewards from the battle would be helpful.

Problem is not everyone cares to improve. Butting in to tell them they're not playing good enough bothers them and they may leave.

Curse of the F2P market. Been there on both sides, it's frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[D-DAY]
Members
7,126 posts
58 minutes ago, WhiteTulip said:

I’ve spent the past few days trying to get the hang of the new rockets on CV’s. The net result is that I’ve sold my T8’s (had already sold the only T10 I had - CVs are not my main). T6 can still be fun. But I noticed one thing again and again while playing through the learning curve on the rockets.

This game did not need CVs fixed in the last patch. This game does not need Soviet CVs, and it does not needs submarines. It doesn’t need super battleships. It doesn’t need more gimmicks. 

 

What the developers need to spend some serious time on are the massively one-sided battles that seem to be 80% of the games these days. 

 

35-40% of the games I’ve played since 10.5 came out have been stomping by my team. They end in 8-11 minutes. There’s not enough time to wrack up much damage. 35-40% of my games have been my team getting stomped. That only leaves 20-30% of the games that are moderately close. And this is just measured this past weekend, but I suspect that the same basic layout exists for everyone else.

 

So in every 10 games, 7 or 8 of them are pretty dull. That seems to me the biggest cause of WoWS decline. The simple bottom line is that it’s just getting dull. I play for games that are close and tense; I lost one game over the weekend by one point as the clock ran out, and another as time ran out because one of my teammates couldn’t figure out how to run away when we had a lead and he had 150 HP left. But that was only two games all weekend. 

 

This is why the game is in decline. It’s just getting dull. They need to fix the fact that so many games are one side stomping the other, and stop spending their time, effort, and money on creating new gimmicks. 

WG believed the rocket/DD interaction did need addressing. Some agree, some do not - they have the all knowing spreadsheet. If you found you were unable to adapt and believed you never would, then selling the ships you can't do well in makes sense - your future team mates salute you! :Smile_honoring:

As for the rest of what is or is not needed - I would like to see many things like new maps, old Ops being sorted, new Ops being introduced, certain ships that have been on the poor performance list for years to be helped. Problem is, I don't think any of those bring in cash for WG and that is what they are all about now.

Previously I think WG cared about the game in that it was something they wanted to cultivate - a way to create a good thing that would supply revenue as it grew. Now the game is established, I feel it has become a vehicle solely for revenue, any 'doing things for the players' has been superseded by 'doing things for the money'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
674
[NSEW]
Members
2,542 posts
12,078 battles

Can we have new maps please WG?

I mean, we only have been playing on same maps for years (HDR update not appreciated/eye glare).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[WOLFG]
Members
13,269 posts
12,524 battles
2 hours ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Can we have new maps please WG?

 

 

We could use some new maps.

Edit:  Also if they could look in to changing up spawn locations that would help the same ole same ole.  I know some it wouldn't matter (ocean), and some they can't do much with (North).

Edited by DrHolmes52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,927
[SALVO]
Members
8,982 posts
6,672 battles

Game modes.

Particularly non-deathmatch arena game modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[-V1-]
Beta Testers
392 posts
9,522 battles
20 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Game modes.

Particularly non-deathmatch arena game modes.

new coop stuff would be cool but that's a horse corpse beaten so badly all that's left is a small pile of mush lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
861
[--V--]
Members
1,558 posts
14,485 battles

What do we really need WeeGee to work on?

 

  1. CVs spotting to mini-map only.
  2. CV planes gone 30 seconds after CV sunk
  3. Encourage CVs to target enemy CVs
  4. Return Secondaries to pre-Capt Skill rebork settings
  5. Radar spotting to mini-map only

Just a few ideas.  Let the hate flow I guess.

 

 

  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
923
[TNP66]
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
2,414 posts
6,238 battles

Bringing back past scenarios which could be played by tier 8’s and fixing class balance. Stop limiting free xp ships and bring back Nelson for the mid tier players. Have more opportunities to earn steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[TCWNN]
Beta Testers
115 posts
8,652 battles
7 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

What do we really need WeeGee to work on?

 

  1. CVs spotting to mini-map only.
  2. CV planes gone 30 seconds after CV sunk
  3. Encourage CVs to target enemy CVs
  4. Return Secondaries to pre-Capt Skill rebork settings
  5. Radar spotting to mini-map only

Just a few ideas.  Let the hate flow I guess.

 

 

I like all these! Also replace crappy HE/AP dmg buff skills with something a bit more useful 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
561 posts
18,205 battles

Fixing mm is complicated, do you use ship WR? Career? what if career is 10000 games at T1 and now they jumped to T10? 

It can be improved but not cured by placing an equal number of below 50% on each team.  Trying more specific cures leads to long queues.

Gimmick ships have gotten out of hand. I think its too far gone to fix that part but the rapid introduction of this crap is not helping.

Add new scenarios.

WG did HAVE a classic game that blended strategy and arcade that would have stood the test of time but in the last 2 years it has moved to an arcade emphasis. I know players that liked arcades yet played WoWs almost exclusively for 4 years but now that it WoWs has become arcade emphasis those players have uninstalled. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
773 posts
19,957 battles

Personally, I'd like for WG to kinda stop, take a breath, and shift gears for a couple months.  Let's say, for 2 months, no new ships, game modes, new lines, new gimmicks.  Instead, just for that period of time:

1.  A couple new maps.

2.  A new scenario or two.

3.  Rework/fix and bring back some of the old scenarios.

4.  Fix some of the QoL issues.  First on my list would be to give us a "view and manage all my commanders" button, so I can see, in one place, what commanders I have, and where they are.

5.  Fix - really, this time - that stupid bug that often sends you back to port without being able to see the end of battle summary screens.

6.  Fix some other oddities.  An example I've noticed recently is that when I activate MBRB, the gun sounds get weird for a bit.  The first salvo after activating MBRB is often so muted I don't actually know the guns fired, then the next is normal again.  Not a big deal, but still...fix it, already.

7.  Oh, there's also a bug that sometimes infects the rudder.  It's like, the computer THINKS that midships is at the left full position.  If you do nothing, ship turns left.  If you hold down the D key, rudder goes to midships, but no farther.  Fortunately, the E key still works right, but...this has gotten me killed, and I'd REALLY like it to be fixed.

8.  The list could go on, but...you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,616
[SALVO]
Members
3,661 posts
7,508 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

Saying it's blowouts is pretty general when there are specific triggers and reasons for it.

First of all, the player reaches high tiers very early in the learning curve. Tier advancement and mechanics knowledge don't coincide like they used to in the past.

Secondly, emphasis on higher tiers. Both in premium ships and tech tree. For the past few years WG with few exceptions makes tiers 5-7 indifferent, only making tier VIIIs+ not feel like a chore. 

Thirdly, overwhelming capabilities starting at tier VIII, regardless of class. Suddenly you get ships with either insane DPM, or insane alpha, with very specific suites of consumables, armor, etc. 

Finally, it's my belief the game is meant to be almost fun to play, but also frustrating on purpose to drive a sale, be it shiny new powercreep premium/line or premium time to ease the grind.

Combine all this into a player that hit tier VIII in just a few hundred battles, without knowing how higher tiers work, with ships possessing enough alpha to create a snowball effect in just a few minutes. Then you drive the player into a premium purchase by thinking it's not his fault, but either incompetent teammates, which he himself is in no place to really judge, or the ship can't carry him. By creating blowouts you also increase the number of battles someone plays, as well as the number of signals/camos/flags they spend in general. 

So yeah, I don't think it's in WG's best interest to completely fix this.

This is a very good pointer at what creates blowouts. Its also why divisions are so powerful.  Especially these days  You take 3 guys with 54% or better WR and put them in a group.  The number of times you then find yourself in a sea of red players is astounding. So many players  that never really learned to play.  BUT at the same time its super important to recognize what you said:

 

Quote

which he himself is in no place to really judge

Even now with all the experience I have at the game almost never judge players for their actions when they are on the other side of the map from me, even when they are on the same flank as me. With a couple notable exceptions. 

1. They abandon a flank to go sail on the other side of spawn because ( My ship works better over there ) .  Most of the time they seek islands to hide in safety.  Whats funny here is that more experienced players will prefer fewer islands and more open water.  Because they realized islands give a false sense of security and often lead to being trapped. 

2. They do the proverbial  Omaha move. Sail into overwhelming opposition preferably into a cap and die. To top it off they then proceed to  blame their team for "NO SUPPORT".  I don't know why but ranked seems to attract an overwhelming number of these guys. 

 

I agree with your analysis that WG might like the state of things.  One note though I remember last year Femenenly did give the impression that WG seemed concerned with this and was gathering data  for them. But from what I understood  there wasn't much evidence that  blow outs really did increase as much as players seem to think. 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,099
[KWF]
Members
6,567 posts
7,175 battles
11 minutes ago, eviltane said:

 I agree with your analysis that WG might like the state of things.  One note though I remember last year Femenenly did give the impression that WG seemed concerned with this and was gathering data  for them. But from what I understood  there wasn't much evidence that  blow outs really did increase as much as players seem to think. 

I would argue to some extent it depends on the metrics WG uses to gauge the negativity of blowouts. If it's based on average battle time, then there are quite a few battles that last for some time but the battle is decided in the first minutes anyway. The tier obviously plays a role since tiers VIII+ are where I see it more apparent. But at the same time tiers VIII+ are the aim of most premium releases. 

The worst thing in my opinion is that blowouts are a case where both sides lose. Most of the time one or two players really get something out of it. The rest of the winning team earns laughable XP. I don't remember winning a blowout and getting more than 1600 BXP as top scorer, whereas in a close battle that would put me in the upper middle scoreboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[_I_]
Members
121 posts
55 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

What do we really need WeeGee to work on?

 

  1. CVs spotting to mini-map only.
  2. CV planes gone 30 seconds after CV sunk
  3. Encourage CVs to target enemy CVs
  4. Return Secondaries to pre-Capt Skill rebork settings
  5. Radar spotting to mini-map only

Just a few ideas.  Let the hate flow I guess.

Hate? Nah, it's a pretty reasonable list.

To which I might add:

Make AA hit the attacking group first, not last. Just common sense.

Stop with the stupid gimmicks like air strikes.

Make radar LOS only. No more magic physics.

Remove DD torpedo reloads, except for max of 1 on high-tier IJN ships.

Remove godmode damage control on CV's.

These are all easy programming things. My full wish list would amount to a new game completely.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,178
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles

CVs. They're a problem, and the rocket nerf did nothing to address the core issues. AA needs a rework (counterplay is good, even if it adds complexity). CV spotting needs to be addressed. Then you can start tweaking things.

I wouldn't mind a patch that just focused on background things. There's more and more bugs starting to pop up, and it seems like WG doesn't have time to fully fix them. Taking a break from new content and just focusing on cleaning things up for a patch would be a really good thing IMO.

The four (soon to be five) class delineation is starting to break down and cause MM issues. We have supercruisers that are somewhat randomly assigned cruiser or BB roles but can actually range from slightly bigger cruisers to nearly full BBs. Now we're getting hybrids which can cause massive imbalances with aircraft spotting. And even traditional cruisers have a wide range, from overgrown DDs like Atlanta and Colbert to near supercruisers like Henri IV. The captain rework highlighted the issues with this, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that one set of cruiser skills can't cover the whole range of cruisers (and that's only one reason to lock captains to one skill group). But with so many ships breaking the typical classes MM is starting to struggle. Ise is treated the same as Arizona, Seattle as Alaska, Colbert as Stalingrad. Supercruisers are already overpopulated (the constant introduction of high tier premium cruisers isn't helping there), now we're adding hybrids. I think MM is really going to struggle to actually balance teams. MM either needs some new rules to deal with these ships or new ship types need to be added. Both options have potential issues, but I don't think the current MM is sufficient considering the massive variety with ship types that's being introduced.

 

Those are my big big issues. Obviously there are other things, but I'd put these on top as everything else IMO is less gamebreaking overall.

Edited by AJTP89
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,878 posts

WG can fix the game by reverting to 8.0 or earlier. Removing the 10.0 rework and all the other things that damaged the game over the years.

They have had their moments here and there but insufficient to lift the idea that we might leave the game entirely at the end of this year or a little later depending on how deep the [edited] gets.

I own 85 ships, all with commanders, maybe 8 of them are in battle constantly. Rest of them are port queens or being retrained for RP. I just finished the final upgrade of Shima to a pure torp boat, just need to build out a commander to nothing but torps as Air defense is crappy in the shima. Get those big torps reloaded in about a minute 50. Instead of three. Then we can see about sinking something.

Ive been working on the shima 4 years now, it has about 3.5 million ship xp. And a 21 commander.

Edited by xHeavy
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,868 posts
94 battles

Ocean map should return in map rotation. but with reduced size. 

That would make the playerbase actually use new tactics instead of all the island-camping passive gameplay we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[KERR]
[KERR]
Beta Testers
310 posts
8,521 battles
1 hour ago, SeaborneSumo said:

What do we really need WeeGee to work on?

 

  1. CVs spotting to mini-map only.
  2. CV planes gone 30 seconds after CV sunk
  3. Encourage CVs to target enemy CVs
  4. Return Secondaries to pre-Capt Skill rebork settings
  5. Radar spotting to mini-map only

Just a few ideas.  Let the hate flow I guess.

 

 

Why not just eliminate CVs?  With the soon to be added submarines, you can use those as the class to replace CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[WOLFG]
Members
13,269 posts
12,524 battles
3 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Ocean map should return in map rotation. but with reduced size. 

That would make the playerbase actually use new tactics instead of all the island-camping passive gameplay we have.

I was getting ocean a couple of times a week in like 10.2, but that seems to have gone away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[PVE]
Members
7,464 posts
2 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Ocean map should return in map rotation. but with reduced size. 

That would make the playerbase actually use new tactics instead of all the island-camping passive gameplay we have.

The players have been very clear, they don't like Ocean.  That's why WG moved to a T10 map only, and its rare to see there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,927
[SALVO]
Members
8,982 posts
6,672 battles
52 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I would argue to some extent it depends on the metrics WG uses to gauge the negativity of blowouts. 

IF reducing avg. match time is a goal for WG, then blowouts makes total sense as they are the shortest form of match. 

I've read many times about the supposed objective of reducing match times and increase cycling/# of matches played by session, theoretically it makes sense but imo it is still a "conspiracy theory" unless there's some solid statement about it from the devs. To my knowledge, I've never read any statement about what is the avg. time goal for matches. 

58 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

The worst thing in my opinion is that blowouts are a case where both sides lose.

 Again, IF that's WG's intention, reduced earnings work in favor of lengthening grinds so makes total sense to not consider blowouts an issue needed to be solved. If...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,099
[KWF]
Members
6,567 posts
7,175 battles
5 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

IF reducing avg. match time is a goal for WG, then blowouts makes total sense as they are the shortest form of match. 

I've read many times about the supposed objective of reducing match times and increase cycling/# of matches played by session, theoretically it makes sense but imo it is still a "conspiracy theory" unless there's some solid statement about it from the devs. To my knowledge, I've never read any statement about what is the avg. time goal for matches. 

 Again, IF that's WG's intention, reduced earnings work in favor of lengthening grinds so makes total sense to not consider blowouts an issue needed to be solved. If...

I know, there are too many ifs to make a solid case and WG is innocent until proven guilty in that regard. 

That said, it still makes some sense, especially if you consider how you also have to spend resources more often in shorter battle cycles (repair cost, signals, camouflages). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×