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

Separation of Economy from Camos: 4% dispersion bonus

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

251
[WOLF1]
Members
258 posts
12,247 battles

Ok ... one of the big problems with this proposal  is that there are SO many details involved in it. Trying to discuss one aspect of it is very difficult because of the signal to noise ratio.

I'm still getting my head around the changes to everything, but there is one change that I want to discuss ... the loss of the 4% dispersion bonus on Permacamos.

In the original thread there were two posts which I want to bring up:

@SolitudeFreak asked

Why is the dispersion bonus being removed?

@Ahskance    replied

Technical limitations made it prohibitive to alter every ship/gun in the game to account for this.  As a result, we elected to phase it out.

I wrote a massive wall of text at this point, but while I've been waiting for a response to my direct message to the staff on this topic, I've come to a three conclusions. I believe I've given the staff in question long enough to respond ... so I can now make this post. I'm going to mention, in passing, I don't believe that competent developers would be unable to retain the currently existing code which provides for that 4% dispersal bonus. I'm not accusing @Ahskanceof lying, I've got along well with him and do not believe he would lie to us. But I still don't believe it.

 

1. SOME people seem to think this won't have much impact, and that it will be fair to everyone. They are wrong.

Sorry - but once again we're seeing the short sightedness of people who don't look beyond their own interest. So I'll spell it out:

I play COOP exclusively.

I currently have 23 permanent camouflages. Each of those camos provides a 4% dispersion buff for incoming fire.

I worked to get those camos, in part, BECAUSE of that 4% dispersion buff. They play a significant part in the set up of my ship. I played missions, ground events, and invested time and effort to get those camos. I earned them. The same applies, I have no doubt, to many other people. The premium ships I have bought with coal were, in part, desirable BECAUSE of that 4% dispersion buff.

And because it is somehow too hard for the developers to retain the currently functional code which addresses that 4% dispersal bonus ... the ships with those camouflages are now going to be EASIER TO HIT by the bots in COOP.

To illustrate ... in my Salem I frequently tank over a million potential damage in a game. Losing that 4% is going to mean that some of that potential damage is going to be ACTUAL damage. It may well be the difference between survival and destruction.

COOP matches these days rarely go longer than 5 minutes, so single use camouflages are NOT a viable option ... they are just a credit sink.

So ... it IS going to have an impact and it is NOT fair to everyone no matter how often people try to pretend it is.

 

2. I'm sure that the terms and conditions make it perfectly legal for <whoever owns/runs WOWS> to do what they are doing. But that does not make it ethical.

People have spent real world money to get those camouflages. SOME people spent that money because of the 4% dispersal bonus. Others (like myself) invested time and effort to get those camouflages. SOME people did that because of the 4% dispersal bonus.

And now, having received the benefit of that money or increased player engagement,  <whoever owns/runs WOWS> is now going to remove it because it's more convenient for them to take away something that has been paid for, than to make the effort to do the right thing by the customer.

That is unethical.

 

3. <whoever owns/runs WOWS> is going to do what they want, regardless of player opinion. We've seen it time and time again.

I honestly have reached the point where I think that there is no point trying to change their mind. They have repeatedly failed to listen to the player base.

But I'll give it a shot. This represents my one attempt to get them to change their mind. I hold little hope in it working.

But I do NOT need the hassle of arguing this with people. Especially some of the people on these forums who are notorious for their inability to discuss things in good faith. And of course the shills (who appear to have crawled out of the woodwork on this subject). So if your opinion on this is different to mine, that's fair enough. But this is how I see it. If you have a counter argument and make it in good faith, I'm sure someone will discuss it with you.

I'm probably going to take a day or two away from the forums, maybe longer. I've said my bit ... and as long as this post isn't deleted then I've either reached the audience or I haven't.

 

And for those who are going to respond "It's just a game. Get over it." ... you're absolutely right. It is just a game. But recently (in the last 3 weeks, specifically) a company here in Australia changed the rules on a service they have been providing me for over 20 years. And in doing so they literally eliminated THOUSANDS of dollars of long term value that I had accrued over those two decades. And my only recourse is to either live with it, or go to the ombudsman and go through months of bureaucratic jumping through hoops and I will NEVER get my value back. So I opted to remove my custom from that company and I will never deal with them again.  For the Aussies on the forums ... I'll just say "Telstra" and I'm sure that's enough said. And yes, I I'm contacting the TIO.

What <whoever owns/runs WOWS> is doing is the SAME. It's a smaller, much less egregious instance of it ... but it is EXACTLY the same.

And it's unethical.

  • Cool 9
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
Members
2,766 posts

Agreed. I am glad I recognized WG as unethical and thus a poor repository to sink anything other than leisure time into many years ago. It certainly eases the pain of watching a great game being developed to death when you're not seeing real dollars being evaporated in the process. I appreciate your detailed (but not overly) analysis of this 'minor.' change.

Edited by theLaalaa
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,966
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,342 posts
9,621 battles

I am sorry, but I can't find sympathy for co-op players in something like this.  Co-op has something like a 98-99% win rate for the human team.  4% dispersion I unlikely to dent that in any sort of significant way.

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
4 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I am sorry, but I can't find sympathy for co-op players in something like this.  Co-op has something like a 98-99% win rate for the human team.  4% dispersion I unlikely to dent that in any sort of significant way.

LOL that is your big takeaway? 

Not sure anyone is looking for sympathy. Besides, co-op isn't about beating the bots, it is about doing better than your teammates. You are competing for points and the top spots on your own team. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to understand this but for some reason PvP players can not seem to grasp this simple concept. Probably a big reason so many of us play against the bots instead of people. The bots are smarter. 

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,966
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,342 posts
9,621 battles
2 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

LOL that is your big takeaway? 

Not sure anyone is looking for sympathy. Besides, co-op isn't about beating the bots, it is about doing better than your teammates. You are competing for points and the top spots on your own team. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to understand this but for some reason PvP players can not seem to grasp this simple concept. Probably a big reason so many of us play against the bots instead of people. The bots are smarter. 

Yes, I know.  I use co-op quite a bit.  I don't think 4% dispersion will much affect my ability to compete.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,198
[PVE]
Members
12,065 posts
21,313 battles

Seems as though I have 114 of them camos, and I play only PVP and I think that it would make a bigger difference in Operations than it will in Co-op. I truly don't find it a big deal though, it needs to be seen before detrimental determinations can be assessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,814
[PVE]
Members
17,085 posts
39,301 battles

I don't know why the 3%/4% has to be removed from camos. It is already coded in the game. Isn't the entire point of camo to lower detection range and make it harder to get hit? Why even have camo now as it will be nothing but visuals. Those who elect to take camo and pay for it should be rewarded while those who don't be worse off.

This is another part of this that just makes you go... :fish_palm:

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
10 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I don't know why the 3%/4% has to be removed from camos. It is already coded in the game. Isn't the entire point of camo to lower detection range and make it harder to get hit? Why even have camo now as it will be nothing but visuals. Those who elect to take camo and pay for it should be rewarded while those who don't be worse off.

This is another part of this that just makes you go... :fish_palm:

IMHO it is a solution that was searching for a problem. It is a real head scratcher. Why they would want to make permanent camo even less attractive to buy? Really makes no sense to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,785 posts
16,599 battles
10 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

IMHO it is a solution that was searching for a problem. It is a real head scratcher. Why they would want to make permanent camo even less attractive to buy? Really makes no sense to me. 

The demographic of this game, it makes sense once you understand the demographic.

I mean the OP's name is SunkCostFallacy. Again its obvious when you are observant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,031 posts
21,131 battles
54 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Besides, co-op isn't about beating the bots, it is about doing better than your teammates.

Then what’s the big deal? Every single one of your teammates is also slightly more likely to get hit by a stray bot shell.

Edited by Telastyn
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,966
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,342 posts
9,621 battles
Just now, Telastyn said:

Then what’s the big deal? Every single one of your teammates is also slightly more likely to get hit by a stray bot shell.

Not quite.  I, for example, do not use consumable camos or signals in co-op, so against me in one of my ships that does not have a perma-camo the OP would have a very, very, very slight comparative edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,310
Members
1,881 posts
7,191 battles

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out for sure. I am crossing my fingers hoping this does not turn out to be another WG disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
56 minutes ago, Rollingonit said:

The demographic of this game, it makes sense once you understand the demographic.

I mean the OP's name is SunkCostFallacy. Again its obvious when you are observant. 

Ehh I am not one to attribute anything to someone unless they actually said it. Course not sure what that has to do with removing the dispersion buff from camos but you continue to do you. 

 

57 minutes ago, Telastyn said:

Then what’s the big deal? Every single one of your teammates is also slightly more likely to get hit by a stray bot shell.

Never said it was a big deal, please do not put words into my mouth. This is a game, nothing about it is a "big deal". Well unless you make a living off of the game. Those people need to take this crap seriously. 

 

45 minutes ago, USMC2145 said:

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out for sure. I am crossing my fingers hoping this does not turn out to be another WG disaster. 

It does have all the hallmarks of one for sure. The change for the most part SEEMS as if it is good for players. Still waiting for the really smart people to get ahold of the data and play with the new system so we can see what all the number crunching shows. Until then I am hopeful but preparing for the worst. Seems prudent given Wargaming's track record. 

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,785 posts
16,599 battles
2 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Ehh I am not one to attribute anything to someone unless they actually said it. Course not sure what that has to do with removing the dispersion buff from camos but you continue to do you. 

 

2 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

It hardly takes a rocket scientist to understand this but for some reason PvP players can not seem to grasp this simple concept. Probably a big reason so many of us play against the bots instead of people. The bots are smarter. 

 

Well you did say the majority of the playerbase is less intelligent than bots. So.... why would a company not keep milking that type of playerbase...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
4 minutes ago, Rollingonit said:

Well you did say the majority of the playerbase is less intelligent than bots. So.... why would a company not keep milking that type of playerbase...

okie dokie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
[1984]
Members
4,989 posts
26,467 battles
3 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

IMHO it is a solution that was searching for a problem. It is a real head scratcher. Why they would want to make permanent camo even less attractive to buy? Really makes no sense to me. 

While i agree it’s useless and pointless for the players, wg is obviously doing it so fools will now have to pay thrice: xp bonus, fxp bonus, cxp bonus vs today whereby paying once you get all 3 bonuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,864
[ARR0W]
Members
6,149 posts
32,910 battles

Anything as complex as these changes to camo and economic benefits will inevitably be screwed up by WG. And they never make an 'error' in the players' favor. I will be completely unsurprised by a nerf to the economy and some loss of combat and economic modifiers that I already possess. 

I hate to sound resigned to something bad, but I recall the precedents. 

Edited by Pugilistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
495
[EDEG]
Members
510 posts
14,729 battles

Remember the Deadeye analysis indicating that a 10% reduction in max dispersion actually results in a dispersion ellipse 62% the size of the non-Deadeye ellipse? The math here won't be quite as dramatic, but 4% is going to feel like more than 4%.

For ships with poor dispersion, like Roma, the improvement is going to be very noticeable. Surviving at high tiers in cruisers is going to be harder. Think of playing a Des Moines with any level of aggression. You know you can be overmatched through the bow, so you angle to minimize that vulnerability and hope RNG is kind enough to slam those BB shells into your belt armor. That's going to be a significantly worse gamble.

One question for those who've been paying more attention than me. Will any camos/flags/whatever retain the dispersion nerf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,884
[WOLF4]
[WOLF4]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,551 posts
20,974 battles

So that big wall of text just to cry about something that is being taken away from EVERY CAMO IN THE GAME, most of which Wargaming gives away like candy. Not sure what makes you think it coming off the permacamos has to do with anything, because from what I can see you are the only one that bought them for the dispersion bonus and not the other benefits.

 

So but if the dispersion bonus was the reason for buying a permacamo that is entirely on you. 

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
56 posts
17,870 battles
10 hours ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

@SolitudeFreak asked

Why is the dispersion bonus being removed?

@Ahskance    replied

Technical limitations made it prohibitive to alter every ship/gun in the game to account for this.  As a result, we elected to phase it out.

It bears mentioning that this was addressed further in the thread but the answer is honestly quite unsatisfactory to me, though I'm not blaming him lacking specifics. Economy questions completely aside, I think changing the dispersion bonus on EVERY DD from a maximum of +9% to +5% (without an explanation of why Concealment Mod is ok, but a camo is not) will have unintended consequences, and when this goes live not only will they be dealing with balancing issues in the economy, there will be issues with the gameplay itself.

This is a huge change impacting multiple systems - while other issues are still currently being worked on. Too many changes at once is a terrible idea.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
36 minutes ago, _GreyBeard_ said:

So but if the dispersion bonus was the reason for buying a permacamo that is entirely on you. 

Well one of the reasons I suppose. Not sure anyone ever saw this particular change coming and it does make paying actual money for a permanent camo less attractive. The reasons I use camo are for the combat bonuses first, then to mitigate service costs, and then for XP/FXP/CXP. The credit boost is the absolute last reason I would use one since I am almost always credit rich. 

 

10 minutes ago, SolitudeFreak said:

It bears mentioning that this was addressed further in the thread but the answer is honestly quite unsatisfactory to me, though I'm not blaming him lacking specifics. Economy questions completely aside, I think changing the dispersion bonus on EVERY DD from a maximum of +9% to +5% (without an explanation of why Concealment Mod is ok, but a camo is not) will have unintended consequences, and when this goes live not only will they be dealing with balancing issues in the economy, there will be issues with the gameplay itself.

Yeah it does seem an odd obstacle for them. I mean I would understand if they just wanted an across the board accuracy boost but that isn't what they are saying. A technical limitation just is too weird IMHO. 

Edited by Taylor3006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,884
[WOLF4]
[WOLF4]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,551 posts
20,974 battles
14 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Yeah it does seem an odd obstacle for them. I mean I would understand if they just wanted an across the board accuracy boost but that isn't what they are saying. A technical limitation just is too weird IMHO. 

 

Maybe the technical limitation is that it has never really worked and this is their excuse to take the easy way out, seeing as like I said it is on every camo in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,665
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,852 posts
30,553 battles
24 minutes ago, _GreyBeard_ said:

Maybe the technical limitation is that it has never really worked and this is their excuse to take the easy way out, seeing as like I said it is on every camo in the game.

After what, 8 years of the game's existence, someone would have noticed by now that it didn't work.  I agree with @SolitudeFreak, if it works for the concealment mod, it should work for camos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
495
[EDEG]
Members
510 posts
14,729 battles
6 minutes ago, _GreyBeard_ said:

So that big wall of text just to cry about something that is being taken away from EVERY CAMO IN THE GAME, most of which Wargaming gives away like candy. Not sure what makes you think it coming off the permacamos has to do with anything, because from what I can see you are the only one that bought them for the dispersion bonus and not the other benefits.

 

So but if the dispersion bonus was the reason for buying a permacamo that is entirely on you. 

You can disagree with the guy if you want but the derision is thoroughly unwarranted.

He bought something. They're changing it after the fact. That's inherently an unethical practice. The only matter for debate is how significant the change is.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

I'm cool with my BBs getting a little more accurate, and both my Alaskas.

WG, to their credit, has gotten creative with finding another way to speed up battles.

TBH though, I'd have preferred defense got scaled up, but guess they concluded it would shake things up too much.

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.

×