Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
_Average_Joe

WG is using Naval Battles to skew the spreadsheet

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

647
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
583 posts
26,841 battles

In a effort to look good to their execs (the only reason I can think it is being done), WG developers are using Naval Battles to skew the spreadsheet numbers for CVs and subs.  Ever since the 2x stars objectives were implemented these two ship classes have had a total of four 2x stars.  The result is more players in CVs and subs in an effort to secure the stars thus making these classes appear to be more popular that they actually are.  

One would think that WG would like to make decisions based on unbiased data rather than skew the data towards what they want it to show.  On second thought....

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[P-V-E]
Members
1,811 posts

I have yet to have x2 on any of the CV on either the NA or EU server myself, and from what I have seen from streamers when they open their Naval Battles page they have different x2 ships to me (with the exception of subs), and the only groups who are guaranteed to have matching x2 ships are the clans directly matched vs one another

 

the x2 on the subs is just to encourage more playing them during the live test.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[WOLFC]
Members
3,658 posts
12,477 battles

While I agree 100% that these extra stars are an attempt to encourage more players to play these ship types, WG is aware that they are doing this, so what makes you think they wouldn’t factor this in to any “balance by popularity” calculations or other such balancing?

I fully support calling out WG on the :etc_swear: they pull, but this kind of criticism is just silly and obfuscates the genuine issues and meaningful feedback provided by the player base (if WG even chooses to hear it).

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[PAT]
Members
222 posts
12,748 battles
1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

what makes you think they wouldn’t factor this in to any “balance by popularity” calculations or other such balancing?

Because it allows WG to provide data internally pointing to the success of these projects. I'm sure you'll recall when Sub Octavian admitted that they couldn't internally declare any part of the CV rework a failure, apparently because of repercussions they might face from leadership within the company. I'm sure you'll also recall the very questionable applications of data with regards to ship balance. For example, Smolensk was declared to not be a toxic ship because data showed no increase in people playing fewer matches after encountering the ship in battle. This was despite the fact that no causal link was provided between perception of a ship and the likelihood of a player to discontinue play after facing it.

Point being, it doesn't matter how spurious the data is, as long as it is there for WG to point to as a justification for their decision-making.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[WOLFC]
Members
3,658 posts
12,477 battles
2 hours ago, SuperSSL said:

Point being, it doesn't matter how spurious the data is, as long as it is there for WG to point to as a justification for their decision-making.

Except they are creating the very conditions for any such “change” in the data. As several recent ex-CCs have pointed out, WG’s devs and execs are not incompetent, they just have different goals and metrics by which they judge success than the player base.

I’m all for criticizing WG, but the level of “chaotic stupid” needed for this claim to be true is just ridiculous.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
583 posts
26,841 battles
35 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

While I agree 100% that these extra stars are an attempt to encourage more players to play these ship types, WG is aware that they are doing this, so what makes you think they wouldn’t factor this in to any “balance by popularity” calculations or other such balancing?

I fully support calling out WG on the :etc_swear: they pull, but this kind of criticism is just silly and obfuscates the genuine issues and meaningful feedback provided by the player base (if WG even chooses to hear it).

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.  I doubt the execs at WG have a clue what Naval Battles are, but I'm sure they are looking for justification of all the development money spent on CVs and subs. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[WOLFC]
Members
3,658 posts
12,477 battles
Just now, _Average_Joe said:

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.  I doubt the execs at WG have a clue what Naval Battles are, but I'm sure they are looking for justification of all the development money spent on CVs and subs. 

:Smile_teethhappy: I’m not drinking any Kool Aid, I’m just not letting my anger with WG cloud my logic.

I doubt the execs at WG really care about any technical details of the game, yet alone Naval Battles. The “justification” the devs will give their bosses for the development money spent on CVs and subs is WG continuing to make money hand-over-fist. There’s no reason for them to play this game of smoke and mirrors inside their own company. All the execs care about is the profit margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[PAT]
Members
222 posts
12,748 battles
19 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

:Smile_teethhappy: I’m not drinking any Kool Aid, I’m just not letting my anger with WG cloud my logic.

I doubt the execs at WG really care about any technical details of the game, yet alone Naval Battles. The “justification” the devs will give their bosses for the development money spent on CVs and subs is WG continuing to make money hand-over-fist. There’s no reason for them to play this game of smoke and mirrors inside their own company. All the execs care about is the profit margins.

Except, again, we have it straight from the horse's mouth that performance of individual classes does matter. They are apparently not satisfied with just an amorphous bag of profits as you seem to imply.

52 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Except they are creating the very own conditions for any such “change” in the data. As several recent ex-CCs have pointed out, WG’s devs and execs are not incompetent, they just have different goals and metrics by which they judge success than the player base.

I’m all for criticizing WG, but the level of “chaotic stupid” needed for this claim to be true is just ridiculous.

(Potentially) buffing CVs purely for the purpose of raising their popularity also created a forced change in the data.

You need to look at this from WG's perspective. From their point of view, this is not just them putting their finger on the scale and declaring victory. Rather, they are providing an in-game incentive for people to play a class. Whether that is from direct incentive to play the class itself through balance or feature adjustments, or by giving the class an indirect boost in other ways. All they need to demonstrate in the end is that the resources that went into developing a gameplay system weren't wasted.

Obviously this is only informed speculation. But the point is it is plausible and not blind hatred or tinfoil hat conspiracy.

Edited by SuperSSL
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[WOLFC]
Members
3,658 posts
12,477 battles
On 8/28/2021 at 5:21 PM, SuperSSL said:

Potentially) buffing CVs purely for the purpose of raising their popularity also created a forced change in the data.

You need to look at this from WG's perspective. From their point of view, this is not just them putting their finger on the scale and declaring victory. Rather, they are providing an in-game incentive for people to play a class. Whether that is from direct incentive to play the class itself through balance or feature adjustments, or by giving the class an indirect boost in other ways. All they need to demonstrate in the end is that the resources that went into developing a gameplay system weren't wasted.

Why do WG’s devs need to justify this to the higher-ups? The game is making money hand over fist (through lootboxes and huge bundles at the expense of the players). The justification is in the $$$.

With all due respect, you’re basing this all on some unfounded theory that the devs need to deceive the execs… for what purpose? And that is indeed what you are claiming, because changing outside conditions (naval battle stars) and then presenting a potential upswing in Cv/sub numbers as “see, this is working” is exactly that. WG has shown over the years that the devs and execs are not incompetent when it comes to evolving this game as a vehicle to extract money from the players. As I already said, what you are proposing would involve a level of wide-scale incompetence or corporate conspiracy inside the company that is just silly, and the group of devs playing these games (and it would take a decent sized group) would be taking large professional risks for negligible gains, especially when there are less duplicitous ways to adjust battle counts in a ship or class (like buffing or nerfing them) if they need to “justify” anything to their bosses.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[P-V-E]
Members
1,811 posts

lets  take a look at this weeks Naval Battles for me with the x2

NA:

1103058566_WorldofWarships28_08_202121_11_15copy.thumb.jpg.d92cdcec5210006daee5b2662c5b715f.jpg

 

EU:

1913142075_WorldofWarships28_08_202121_12_59copy.thumb.jpg.8293b3e3018ad0937bafd24d03f2771b.jpg

 

The first obvious thing is none of the CV's have x2, this is despite CV's being my least played class with the exception of Subs.

 

next you can see the opponents are CIS and they differ relative to the NA and EU, thus the NA, EU and CIS are obviously not doing common things at a global level (bar subs) with respect to the allotted x2.

 

if I look at my least played nation specific ships, if they were trying to encourage me to play ships I don't often or haven't played, then on the NA and EU server the x2 would be IJN CV's, IJN DD's, European DD's, Asian DD's, German CV's or IJN CA/CL.

But on the NA server the x2 are on two of my most played nation and class (US CL/CA and UK DD) [I play the most US BB and UK BB, while IJN BB would be my 6th most played].

 

if we look at the EU again my ship preference is much the same, only this time my two most played nation/class have the x2 being US BB and UK BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[PAT]
Members
222 posts
12,748 battles
3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

With all due respect, you’re basing this all on some unfounded theory that the devs need to deceive the execs…

As I said, this has been stated by WG staff, most notably Sub Octavian. I am not theorizing. It was stated in an old Q&A, I believe on this forum. No, I don't have a direct link anymore.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
583 posts
26,841 battles

My point was to not start an argument here.  I would like to see new maps, bugs fixed, and the Ops that have been put on the shelf back.  These things take developer time.  Developers are human, and I'm sure they would rather be rolling out subs and premium CVs than working on what I, for one, would like to have their time (and cost) applied to. So they make an internal case that says "See execs, we told you the community would like what we've done". 

After 35 years working in a large corporation, half of which was spent in middle management, I know how these games work.   

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
[-A-8-]
Members
645 posts
24,701 battles
1 hour ago, _Average_Joe said:

In a effort to look good to their execs (the only reason I can think it is being done), WG developers are using Naval Battles to skew the spreadsheet numbers for CVs and subs.  Ever since the 2x stars objectives were implemented these two ship classes have had a total of four 2x stars.  The result is more players in CVs and subs in an effort to secure the stars thus making these classes appear to be more popular that they actually are.  

One would think that WG would like to make decisions based on unbiased data rather than skew the data towards what they want it to show.  On second thought....

They're on subs as WG need people to play them to continue testing them. This is a way of encouraging that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[WOLFC]
Members
3,658 posts
12,477 battles
13 minutes ago, b101uk said:

if I look at my least played nation specific ships, if they were trying to encourage me to play ships I don't often or haven't played, then on the NA and EU server the x2 would be IJN CV's, IJN DD's, European DD's, Asian DD's, German CV's or IJN CA/CL.

But on the NA server the x2 are on two of my most played nation and class (US CL/CA and UK DD) [I play the most US BB and UK BB, while IJN BB would be my 6th most played].

 

if we look at the EU again my ship preference is much the same, only this time my two most played nation/class have the x2 being US BB and UK BB.

Well would you look at that… It’s almost as if WG is just encouraging you to play more battles in general by offering extra rewards on the ships you play most anyways.

And now that I look at mine, outside the subs two of my three bonuses are in ship nation/type combinations I have been playing a lot of Random and Ranked battles in lately as part of my grinds, and the other is USN cruisers, which I also play quite a bit. Or it could just be entirely random.

But the narrative of WG devs engaging in underhanded internal office shadow games (when there are better ways to boost numbers for certain ship types if they need to) and getting one over on their own bosses just like they have the player base is so much more entertaining, isn’t it? :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
820 posts
20,753 battles
16 minutes ago, b101uk said:

lets  take a look at this weeks Naval Battles for me with the x2

NA:

1103058566_WorldofWarships28_08_202121_11_15copy.thumb.jpg.d92cdcec5210006daee5b2662c5b715f.jpg

 

EU:

1913142075_WorldofWarships28_08_202121_12_59copy.thumb.jpg.8293b3e3018ad0937bafd24d03f2771b.jpg

 

The first obvious thing is none of the CV's have x2, this is despite CV's being my least played class with the exception of Subs.

 

next you can see the opponents are CIS and they differ relative to the NA and EU, thus the NA, EU and CIS are obviously not doing common things at a global level (bar subs) with respect to the allotted x2.

 

if I look at my least played nation specific ships, if they were trying to encourage me to play ships I don't often or haven't played, then on the NA and EU server the x2 would be IJN CV's, IJN DD's, European DD's, Asian DD's, German CV's or IJN CA/CL.

But on the NA server the x2 are on two of my most played nation and class (US CL/CA and UK DD) [I play the most US BB and UK BB, while IJN BB would be my 6th most played].

 

if we look at the EU again my ship preference is much the same, only this time my two most played nation/class have the x2 being US BB and UK BB.

Let's go even further than that.  I just looked at MY NB screen, and it's different from yours.  My screen shows 2x for Italian cruisers and US DDs.  And, like you, no 2x for any CVs.

Not sure what to make of that, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
820 posts
20,753 battles
2 hours ago, _Average_Joe said:

In a effort to look good to their execs (the only reason I can think it is being done), WG developers are using Naval Battles to skew the spreadsheet numbers for CVs and subs.  Ever since the 2x stars objectives were implemented these two ship classes have had a total of four 2x stars.  The result is more players in CVs and subs in an effort to secure the stars thus making these classes appear to be more popular that they actually are.  

One would think that WG would like to make decisions based on unbiased data rather than skew the data towards what they want it to show.  On second thought....

OP, you may not be able to think of any other reason, but I can.  First off, yes, I imagine/suspect/assume (but don't actually KNOW) that the 2x thing is designed to encourage play of select nations/classes of ships.  But there's no particular reason to attribute any nefarious reasons to that.  In the case of subs, yes, they are pretty clearly trying to encourage us to play subs.  They have a live test of subs going on right now, and they want (and need) all the data they can get, so OF COURSE they'd like us to play subs more.  As to CVs, well...no 2x for CVs, so I fail to see how you conclude that they are somehow trying to pad play stats for CVs.

Based on what one other player posted (yes, that's a VERY small sample), it appears we may not all be seeing the same pattern of 2x multipliers, but none of us seem to be seeing 2x for any nation's CVs.  At least not this week.  My guess, and that's all it is, is that they are simply trying to balance play of various nations/classes, much as they are doing the same for clan battles.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
583 posts
26,841 battles
1 minute ago, Midshipman_Hornblower said:

OP, you may not be able to think of any other reason, but I can.  First off, yes, I imagine/suspect/assume (but don't actually KNOW) that the 2x thing is designed to encourage play of select nations/classes of ships.  But there's no particular reason to attribute any nefarious reasons to that.  In the case of subs, yes, they are pretty clearly trying to encourage us to play subs.  They have a live test of subs going on right now, and they want (and need) all the data they can get, so OF COURSE they'd like us to play subs more.  As to CVs, well...no 2x for CVs, so I fail to see how you conclude that they are somehow trying to pad play stats for CVs.

Based on what one other player posted (yes, that's a VERY small sample), it appears we may not all be seeing the same pattern of 2x multipliers, but none of us seem to be seeing 2x for any nation's CVs.  At least not this week.  My guess, and that's all it is, is that they are simply trying to balance play of various nations/classes, much as they are doing the same for clan battles.

My 2x NB contests have been for CVs every week since they started the multipliers.  Obviously the same is true for the clans we have competed against during this time, so I am surprised to learn here from you and others that having CVs used for the multipliers is not universal.  

I agree that WG is focusing on subs to help understand what changes need to be made before they add subs to randoms.  But I wonder, if we really wanted subs as a community, would it be necessary to add the incentive in Naval Battles?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
96 posts
5,055 battles

Dude, do you really think they need to skew numbers on a spreadsheet?

They've already shown us with the Misery credit earning debacle they can't seem to do math worth two squirts of donkey pee. When you have speshul sauce Ruskie math, you don't need to skew numbers. Numbers skew themselves or face Gulag.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
446
[-NOM-]
Members
598 posts
10,808 battles
1 minute ago, _Average_Joe said:

I agree that WG is focusing on subs to help understand what changes need to be made before they add subs to randoms.  But I wonder, if we really wanted subs as a community, would it be necessary to add the incentive in Naval Battles?

Which would you prefer, WG taking the time and steps to add subs in a somewhat balanced state, or WG just unleashing them in randoms and then balance later like they did for CV rework? At this point, subs are coming to randoms, and personally, I don't really have an issue with it as long as WG balances them. (And from what ive seen so far, people either think they are OP or useless, which is pretty good indicator of balance imo).

Also, the number of people I've seen who are complaining about subs but have yet to actually play them or take the time to learn how to counter them is fairly high. Adding incentives for players to play subs and learn how they work is a great way for WG to gather more data, as well as for the player to start to learn the in's and out's of sub gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[V_V_V]
Members
1,199 posts
18,790 battles
1 hour ago, Midshipman_Hornblower said:

Surprises me, too, but seems to be so.  We'd need to see a lot of other players' screenshots to figure it out for sure.

No 2X CVs here.  Please OP, enough conspiracy theories already.

shot-21.08.27_14.15.19-0312.jpg

Edited by Charon2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
431
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,374 posts
14,777 battles

I also found the last 2 weeks curious. Cv and subs with x2 bonus. Then throw in French cruisers and Japanese cruisers, of which seem to be a rarity anymore. This week, more cv and sub bonuses. The sub bonuses made sense, encourage play for a new class to get data, but cvs again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,442
[GWG]
Members
7,844 posts
15,114 battles

Kind of tough to get over 700 base XP in a sub in Co-Op since Ranked doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×