Jump to content

Gnomus

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16774
  • Clan

    [ASEET]

About Gnomus

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
    [ASEET]

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Gnomus

    0.9.4 - Submarine battle

    Perhaps it is because "Pro's" want to have mechanism that doesn't rely on utter stupidity of the enemy to work? Lets just compare this to Tic Tac Toe (or Noughts and Crosses if that name is more familiar to you) on 3x3 field. - It is fun when both players have little idea what they are doing. (Same as yours "I can play just fine chasing subs in my BB and ramming them even") - When starter knows what he is doing he can only win or get draw. He can never lose, no matter what other player is doing. - When second player knows what he is doing he can never lose, only force a draw (if starter knows what he is doing). - Once both players know what they are doing Tic Tac Toe becomes totally useless and tiresome game. Actually it is not even a game at that point. Just a list of preordered moves for a draw. Same is true with subs and BB's. When played (equally) well BB can never win. In good situation he might be able to survive long enough, but he can only avoid loss. This is not a game. It is not fun. As long as you are down there where nobody knows what they are doing (or you only rarely meet players knowing what they do) there is some fun. After certain level it ceases to be fun and end result is decided in advance. "Pro's" don't want this because they see how bad the mechanism is.
  2. I wrote feedback on other topic (https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/135370-094-submarine-battle/?do=findComment&comment=3532831), but here again as this is more active thread.
  3. Gnomus

    0.9.4 - Submarine battle

    @YabbaCoe Hello. Here’s my lenghty feedback on submarines. First: Please no! No! No! No! Never on random battles. Subs are having plenty of toxic influence and several on/off factories. They make battles more campy, or fast slaughter fest. Their effect on battles on general is highly negative. Submarines themselves are slowish and not so effective _on_average_. Problem is that they rarely work on average. They either die fast or can be really influential. It is one or the other, and very rarely something in middle. This makes them hard to balance and unfun to fight with or against. If subs are buffed to more dynamic and fun to effective (on average) level they would be horrible for the game. On the other hand if other ships are made better against subs (as CA’s and BB’s should be made) then subs will be even less effective and less fun. Negative effects stack faster than positives either way you go. Sub, when it have managed to get to good position can be very devastating against BB’s and CL/CA’s. BB’s can take massive damage from citadel torps and cruisers can hardly spare hitpoints to take even normal torpedoes, not to mention occasional citadel hit. Poor ships don’t even have heal like BB’s. Subs are making DD life harder. DD’s lose their spotting advantage and sub with friends will spell doom to any DD very fast. They can keep DD’s spotted, even in smoke. On the other hand, if subs has no friends or it’s supposed “friends” keep sniping other target at 20km while there is DD hunting sub 5km away it is very fast death for the sub. Against BB’s and CA’s if sub predicted their path wrongly it can mean that sub is sailing alone and ineffective so long that battle has been already resolved elsewhere. This means that subs effectiveness and enjoyment is flip of a coin. It can spoils fun from enemy or from itself. Mostly this happens with very little choice from sub players. Things happen or not. This is bad thing for the game. 6m rule has to go. One way or the other, it has to go. Make damage areas overlapping, so sub need to be 0-5m to get “surfaced/persicope” benefits, but make it vulnerable against enemy gunfire down to 10m. Or make depth change much slower. Bobbing between 5.9 and 6.1 meters to get full benefit of “surface” while becoming totally immune to damage in fraction of seconds is very bad mechanism. Also subs above 5.9m threshold should be vulnerable to depth charges (or water bombs or whatever WG uses as official name). Same 6m bobbing can be made to avoid gunfire (when little further away) and then avoid depth charges when enemy gets close. This is stupid. Also all subs should get damaged from depth charges. Current way where friendly subs are immune is stupid. On the other had friendly subs are rare things that can keep track of enemy subs, so making them vulnerable would mean that they are less eager to avoid hunting enemy subs (and would give nice/bad griefing system against own subs). This is a mess. There should be no immunity (as there is no immunity against friendly fire or torpedoes), but same time team work and active sub hunting should be encouraged. Sidenote: Bots massacring friendly DD’s above enemy sub they can’t harm should stop. Really nice mechanism there. Sidenote 2: With amount of bot's whole testing was a mess. Thanks for being able to check sub mechanism, but otherwise I don't know what good it did. There should be more “deths”. True surface mode with best speed, visibility and recharging but also worst camo. Periscope depth with better camo, still being able to communicate information to allied team, ability to shoot “surface torpedoes” and recharge batteries. Then true diving where sub can’t recharge batteries, can’t spot for team and needs to ping targets (or rather not be able to shoot torps at all). Possibly two/three different diving depths (normal/deep/emergency). Have you considered not to use free depths, but fixed depth levels? Now 5.9m is magic depth with all the benefits and no drawbacks (because you can drop to 6m so fast and easy). There should be some mechanism that forces subs to surface. Now they can go full speed underwater, and lose some charge while doing it. Then they can recharge while sailing slowly or if not in immediate danger go back to 5.9 and keep charging. There is rarely problem with charge and subs can stay forever in safety of 6+ meters (or abuse 5.9m to full surface benefits). Homing torpedoes are bad. They make sub fighting little more interesting, but… - Now it is not enough to check torpedo paths to know if you need to avoid them or not. Torps you checked as “harmless” can suddenly turn towards you and end up in your citadel. This is especially annoying when coming from side or back while you are engaged in close combat. You would need constantly check if homing have become active or not while trying to keep guns pointed at enemy soft spot. - Difference in damage is too great. It is some manageable damage or massive damage. Torps can be avoided somewhat, if you can concentrate on them. If you are in contact with enemy surface ships then avoiding might not be option because it means turning side to enemy guns. “Avoiding just in case” is total no go. Of course there is “defence”: Stay away from close or even mid range fight and you are less likely to get torps and you are much better positioned to avoid them safely. (Do we really need this? More reason to avoid close contact with enemy?) - Ship that get’s pinged should get clear and visible indication (or rather whole ping system should go). Not just “some sub close by pinged”, but “I’m under active ping”. When there’s several ships in close area it is hard to know who is getting pinged or not (and back to “avoid just in case while angling against enemy BB”). - Pinging and homing torpedoes are important for sub vs sub fights (and if kept should have better ping aim mechanism). But this is totally unrealistic 70/80’s nuclear submarine warfare, not WW2 sub action. - Whole pinging and homing system should go. Subs should (be removed or never included in randoms) be balanced with straight running torpedoes and fighting happening in surface (with possibly deck gun) and at periscope depth. Deeper depths should only be used to hide, avoid damage or disengage. Every ships should have ability to fight against subs. EVERY SHIP! Not necessary as effective as DD’s, but some ability. BB’s and some CA’s are already slowish and cumbersome, so getting them in position would be hard, but they need to be able to punish sub that makes stupid things. Balance can’t be based on “someone on the team can kill subs” thinking. DD’s and CL’s are most vulnerable ships and often get sunk early. We have also seen how well playing as a team works in randoms against carriers, enemy destroyers, ships like Smolensk etc. It doesn’t work. Fighting subs can’t be based on team co-operation, as there is very little co-operation in randoms. ”Sail away” is not counter against subs. It’s just avoiding death for some time, not a solution. When BB’s and CA’s are just targets for subs it will encourage them to stay even further away from combat. Something we do not need. There should be no excuses given to avoiding combat. With slow BB’s you can’t even sail away from subs. Once sub can raise to 5.9m undetected it can go full speed and keep pinging it’s target as much as it wants. Have fun trying to outrun Cachalot torp range with slow BB. Often seen comparison “but BB’s can’t catch DD’s either, subs are same” doesn’t hold either. Depending on map and positioning BB can force encounter with DD, and then sunk it. Or at least it can force DD out of caps or go to smoke to proxyspot DD. If DD wants to stay safe it needs to keep 6-8 km distance, and that gives BB good change of avoiding torps or minimize damage. Sub on the other hand can just stay submerged 1-3km from BB and torp away with little change of avoiding on BB side. It can even abuse 6m threshold to get torps away while BB is loading or has guns pointing away. Sub can always drop below 6m before BB can react. This is quite a different situation. Every ships needs to be able to counter others. (Even carriers can be hunted, and if they stay far their attack speed is reduced, but I admit hunting carriers should be easier). Subspotting needs to be rethought totally. Situation where sub can proxyspot others, but not get proxyspotted itself has to go. Either make subs vulnerable to proxyspot, or prevent sub from sharing information with it’s allies while submerged. Last, and least, sub marker on map should be changed. If there is plenty of ships in close proximity (and player has ships names on map) then it is easy to miss that one line differentiating DD’s and Subs. Minor thing, but why not make it clearer. TLDR: Subs them selves aren’t really effective, but can spoils other players day badly. Same time they can become easy kills. Difference of not effective and very effective can be really small, and it is mostly out of hands of sub player or his opponent. This is a bad game mechanism that supports extremes. DD’s and CL’s are already most overworked and most vulnerable classes. Adding subs will increase both. BB’s and CA’s only defense against subs is staying away. We do not need any extra excuse to avoid contact and sail away from combat. Subs will make battles more passive where people avoid dangerous positions. This is not a good thing. Alternatively it can lead to fast yolorush, where side that managed to get sub/DD supremacy can finish of rest of enemy team with ease. Negative effects of subs heavily outnumbers the few positives. They should NOT be brought to random battles (special battle mode or operations/scenarios are ok). I don’t see how negatives could be made less without spoiling something else in exchange as effectiveness go so fast from nil to a lot.
  4. Gnomus

    0.9.5 - Unique Upgrades

    You mean like these patch notes https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-095-dockyard/ ? There is list of changes, but my question is why there is not a link to this more in-depth article from dev-blog? Patch note is from 9th of June while article is from 6th of June, so article has been online. Why not give a hint and direction that there is some more and better information available? It would be very helpful if there was one place where to look for official information (even if it just had links to Reddit Q&A, Twitch Streams, Dev Blog, etc.), and not hunt it down on different platforms.
  5. Gnomus

    0.9.5 - Unique Upgrades

    Thanks for the link. Very much appreciate the information. We need more of this kind of information. Just few questions: 1. Why this article was not linked to game homepage news? (Or rather why there is lot of information given in blog, facebook, reddit, streams etc. but not on official home page or on official forum? Even just a link to all "official" information from developers would help a great deal instead of hunting proper information from several different sites.) 2. Should you check combination of effect and popularity? Kurfurst 56,88% + 2,0 WR (so just over your threshold) Montana 66,85% and +1,1 WR -> Problem. Henri 62.01% and +0,7 WR -> Marked as problem, even if not acted upon (like Henry needed any nerfing after you made is accelerate like a slug). Same time: Gearing 63,59% and +1,2 WR -> Not a problem. Conqueror 64,29% and + 0,3 WR -> Not a problem. Just compare these to poor Henry who was marked for nerfing...... Would have been nice to see Yamato, Moskva, Zao, Minotaur, Z-52 and Grozovoi numbers for comparison. Also I would appreciate, if after some weeks/months we could get a follow up post telling how those values changed. Somehow I don't expect Shima UU to become much more popular or effective...
  6. Gnomus

    Soviet Cruisers: Early Access

    "how far that depends on your luck with RNG." is the problem. It doesn't matter how much work you do, it all comes down to RNG. Not skill. Not work. Not dedication. Not even on size of wallet (if we only consider doubloon boxes, not Bagration and Ochakov that mint tokens fast). It is all down to RNG. Someone can do everything possible, and get Mikoyan on last week. At least some reward for a lot of work. Someone else plays most of the event (like 75-90%), but has real life commitments and ends up getting nothing because RNG blessed him with 5 token boxes. So much fun.... Some players gets one box, gets 300 tokens. Buys Mikoyan on first week and then plays 7 Co-Op battles a week to farm 105 tokens. Repeat 4 or 5 times (which ever weekly challenge is available). And throw in what ever mr. Lucky Duck gets out of other boxes he manage get and there is 800-900 tokes with minimal work. Sounds fair? Add the possibility to compensate with real money / doubloons if you end up little short. Lets say 100 tokens. One player pays 10 000 doubloons for that. Other pays 500 doubloons, picks 700 token and gets the next camo/ship with the same price as little lucky present from WG. Whose bright idea it was that only 5/100 boxes has meaningful content? You are right: "how far that depends on your luck with RNG." Nothing else matters, only luck with RNG. You shouldn't even need common sense (much less should be plenty enough) to see that this kind of event is causing frustration and will feel totally unjust and unfair. You can pass whatever to your developers marketing persons. Even with European destroyers people were giving you feedback that RNG system was bad and 10, 20, 30, 40, 140 distribution was felt bad and too RNG dependent (even when 10, 20, 30, 40 distribution was somewhat even, not weighted to minimum). How did you mange to take every single aspect that was complained earlier and then increase it? Not just a little, but an order of magnitude worse. Why it seems no matter the feedback your developers marketing persons always pick the one most complained and use it again, just in even worse form. Then WG "gets surprised" when people complain? Can't say I envy your job. WG is eating away it's trust and respect very fast for some fast cash and it's your job to polish the turd. Have a nice week for you (but not to person making these fiasco decisions).
  7. Gnomus

    Soviet Cruisers: Early Access

    No. This is madness. Even with European destroyers whole system was mad gamble, and there distribution was not this horrible. With European destroyers difference between "worst" and "super" was 1:14. Difference between "best" and "super" was 40:140 or 1:3,5. With Russian cruisers difference between "worst" and "super" was 1:60. I repeat 1 to 60! Difference between "best" and "super" was 1:12. In other words someone can grind every damn container and be left with 300 tokens, or someone else get lucky and first container is 300. This has nothing to do with performance or how much work you put in. This is all about luck. WG could have just randomly decide X number of players who get early access for free and others get nothing. Not to mention what they did to those random bundles for doubloons (not that I would touch these even with ten foot pole, but they show how merciless and aggressive WG marketing has become). With European destroyers distribution was 60x 20, 40x 40, 60x 60 and 12x 250 for average of around 67. Difference between "worst" and "best" was 1:12,5, which in itself was hilarious, but at least there was some kind of expected value. For example of player needed 200 tokens, expected value would be 4x1000 doubloon, or it could have cost 10x1000 doubloons if he was very unlucky. Now look at this abomination that WG have offered us. Distribution 50x 5, 25x 10, 10x 15, 10x 25, 4x 150, 1x 700. Expected value of 22. Difference between "worst" and "best" is 1:140. I repeat 1 to 140! What happens if someone needs 200 tokens? Expected value is 9x500, so not so bad compared (but really needs one of the five 150/700 bundles to drop). In worst case..... He needs 40x500. That is 20 000 doubloons to fulfill little slack on luck on some early access ship. This is horrible gambling system with real money. Half the containers are 5 tokens each, so you can spend 25 000 doubloons, and not even get Mikoyan... Have fun with luck. This is not fine. This is insane. With Hamburg dockyard looking goodish (with preliminary data, real thing we see only when it comes on main server) I thought that after long "no money for badly done events and treating players badly and stupid gambling mechanism" I thought that I might be persuaded to give WG 3500 doubloons worth of my money. That just become so much more distant thought because after European destroyers I had hoped WG would come to it's senses. Instead they overdid themselves and managed to take what was wrong in that event and multiply it in order of magnitude. As I said, this is insane!
  8. Problem is it is not "just a money sink for people who have it and have no problem spending it on these things." It is abusing system where people who could not and should not spend money on these things are spending too much. There is a reason why Belgium have made such mechanism illegal and why several other countries are looking to make legislation to ban RNG lootboxes for money. And this here is a good reason why we should agree to disagree. If you don't think it is a problem, then good for you. Enjoy it. I still think such behavior as a dirty trick, and I will raise my voice against such shenanigans.
  9. Trick is not selling ship or early access, but selling gambling tickets. If I wanted to gamble I would go to casino or participate to lottery. If you don't see anything wrong in gambling, then fine by me. Clearly we have very different opinion on what is good marketing and what is bad. Earlier WG was doing (in my opinion) good marketing, but have gone to (in my opinion) bad marketing in last few years. Considering what stance several countries have taken towards loot box gambling in games I would be reluctant to consider WG behavior as good, even if you do not see the problem.
  10. First: "All rewards wg wanted you to get were free to play" is clearly not correct. If you look how event was done, WG wanted players to spend money/doubloons. We get free what WG wanted us to get free, but event was done in a way to entice spending. Second: "events were build around the content you could get for free" is also not correct. Unless you think someone was expected to get Östergotland (or even Öland) with free tokens. This was underlined by mission for T10 camoes, where it was needed to do a camo mission with all ships T5 to T9. This mission was clearly aimed to people who spend money, as otherwise getting those ships was practically impossible (even doing T5-7 and getting Småland way was unlikely if player didn't pay). I'm not denying anyone from spending money. Where I have said so? If there was "Pay X €/doubloons and get early access to ship A" it would be ok (but knowing WG X would be pretty high). If there was "Did you miss some tokens? You can buy z tokens by paying Y €/doubloons" it would still be ok. Of course neither of above were true. It was done in a way where players don't know how much they need to pay to get the missing tokens. For example if someone would have been 200 tokens short of Skåne. Getting needed tokens could have cost 1000 doubloons (with 250 doubloon box) or 20 000 doubloons (with 20 doubloon boxes). First box is known (and lucky person if that was 250) otherwise cost will be anything between 2000 and 20 000 and there is no way of knowing before starting spending. Sorry for those who had lets say 10 000 doubloons, went for tokens, but didn't get needed amount. They practically payed 10 000 doubloons for nothing (yeah some flags etc. but if aim was getting Skåne they got nothing). How can you call such mechanism anything else than dirty selling trick? It is same as going to a kid with full bag of nice and tasty candies and ask if he wants them. You tell how good they are, you let him see them, smell them. Then when he is happy you take away bag and say he can only have one. If he want's more he need to pay, but you don't tell him if it cost 1€ or 50€. First he need to decide if he buys them or not. Of course that one candy is "free", but way of delivering is very harmful and made to frustrate people and force them to spend money. If they wanted to make us happy (and spend money in good way) they would straight away give the candy, and then say there are more for x amount on y € if we liked it.
  11. Pretty much the whole opening post listed those. You might want to check it out. Biggest and clearest is spending systems where it is not known how much is required before committing large amount of cash/doubloons (Puerto Rico, British cruisers early test, European destroyer early test, European commander). And if you don't get lucky or pay horrendous amounts you might get (practically) nothing for the cash. The way of doing things is what I'm complaining about. Grind is not the problem. Paying is not the problem. Getting "free stuff" is not the problem. Problem is making everything a money trap in a bad way and RNG dependent. It is not about new player vs veterans. It is about way of doing things and how to treat customers (or milking cows). If you want to bring new player vs veteran angle on this, then you rather got it all wrong way. Those systems WG is using are harming new players much more than veterans. Veterans can bypass most of their problems. For a new player getting 10 and 14 points European captain would be a great boost, but he doesn't know if he needs to pay 500 or 30 500 doubloons to get them. If he spent 10 000 and didn't get, then too bad for him. If veteran player needs 14 (or even 19) point captain he can burn commander exp and get one. (After getting few 19 point captains player can just generate commander exp and never suffer 3 point captains ever again.) Same for early access ships. For a new player getting a jump start to T5-8 is a great thing. It saves time and credits. Veteran players can burn free exp and go direct to T8 (or even T10) if they want. They don't have to wonder how many 1000 doubloon boxes they would need to buy to get that missing 200 tokens. Cash that WG needs should be gathered with direct clear purchases. Premium time. 50€ for T8 ship, 200€ for T10 ships (as those seem to be valus WG have given them). Lot of money for anime chic, Ovechkin or Dasha, or for ugly modern camoes. Not with hidden and too fast "free resets", RNG boxes, sunken cost or "buy it now or get less later" mechanism.
  12. So if someone thinks that having things on time gate is bad they clearly want it "easier"? Like not having time limited Clan Battles, time limited Ranked Battles and time limited mission/directives that can't be done in CB or RB same time makes things harder? Not really. It just makes things more time consuming, but every single one of them is still as hard as it was before. Having them all active same time and timer running means that either people need to spend more time or drop some of events (even if event in itself would be nice and good). So in all my complains about RNG and toxic marketing your "take home message" was "wan't everything easier". Fine logic. Agree on Puerto Rico being problem. Not because WG tried to make veteran players pay, but because every step of whole event was "money, money, money, and then some more money" Lets see how Puerto Rico event was constructed: Compare it to what it could have been: See how WG could have made Puerto Rico much nicer event, one where even veterans could have made to pay, and whole thing could have been made much more player friendly and less "give us you money NOW!!!!!" light blinkin everywhere. They could act in much nicer way without hindering their financial gains. Everything doesn't have to be made as (not so) hidden money traps. Because you don't have to grind anymore, you get directives done easily, you see rewards as worthless there is no problem? When people are almost scammed to pay, it is not problem for you because "someone has to pay"? If you don't that kind of behavior as problem, then good for you. Even if I can mostly avoid WG milking I can still see how toxic it is. I could cladly be on of those "someone must pay" people if I was treated as customer, not as someone who needs to be milked. In my opinion using almost every dirty selling trick to pray on players is bad behavior. In my opinion.... End of story.
  13. Yes WG can do as they wish. It is their game after all. I'm asking them not to be jerks. They have all the right to be jerks, I'm not denying that. I'm saying that I do not like them behaving in such a manner. With British cruisers someone got Albemarle on first box. Some other people opened 30-40 boxes and didn't get even Hawkings. Sure it is "free stuff", but WG could have made is so that 10 box Hawking, 20 to Devonshire, 30 to Surrey and 40 to Albemarle. Not random, everything open to see what you get with what kind of commitment. With European destroyers Visby was certain (that was nice thing at least), but then getting Västerås or Skåne was not down to commitment and work, but just pure luck. Why not equal reward for equal work? It would be fair. Then everyone would know how big commitment is needed for certain reward and can try to do it or not touch it. Only reason for RNG is that it makes it easier to sell minor lottery tickets to people, hook them up to spent little and then little more because sunken cost. I'm not giving money for this kind of things, but I can still see how toxic and aggressive such system is. It is not straight forward "buy this captain, only 10 000 doubloons" or "get early access, just 8000 doubloons", but these "nice" for lowly 500 doubloon you get change to have a captain (be prepared to pay 15 000+). Whole system is made manipulative. I can raise my opinion about such bad behavior, even if it's "free". (Note: It is not free.) Where did you get this "easier" you are talking so much about? Less RNG. Known reward for known work/commitment. Less toxic marketing. It could even be harder. Like do something, get Västerås. Do a lot and you get Västerås. Work your [edited]off 24/7 and get Skåne. If necessary add option for buy Oland straight with 10 000 doubloons (WG level of overpricing for early acces) and 15 000 doubloons for Östergotland to fill WG coffers. Now it was: Get something between Västerös and Östergotland, not base on commitment and work done, but on your luck. And of course you can buy these "cheap" bonus tickets to nudge your luck a little (and even then amount of a nudge is again RNG). Can't you see where the problem is? It is not "everything for free".
  14. That another layer is the problem. That layer is full RNG, so even if primary layer reward is same "x lottety tickets", the actual reward is not the same. This is just similar whitewash as with the boxes where box is visible before buying, so it is not gambling, for that single box. You know what you get. Except when you do not know how many boxes you will be needing and what you get from them, so any time you need more than the first one it becomes gambling. Like European destroyers. How much work would I have needed to get Visby? Could have been 2, could have been 20. How many directives I would have needed to get Västerås? Could have been dailies and first directives or could have been "no matter if I do everything possible (apart from opening wallet)". Similar to British cruisers part 1. How many boxes would I need to have Hawkings? Do I need to play for both daily boxes (quite a grind) or would one per day be enough (quite easy)? Of course answer is: "No matter how much you gather boxes you might never get single early access ship." Or you could have gotten Albemarle on first box and could stop grinding there. As I said, no way of knowing in advance what is needed. You can't go back retroactively and do daily missions from few weeks back when noticing work you did was not enough. You can estimate time needed to get x amount of boxes. When content of those boxes is unknown and random you can't know how many boxes you will need. So there is no way of knowing what is needed to get certain reward (actual reward, not x amount of lottery tickets).
  15. This is long post, but I think it’s worth the read. If you want to just check it fast, look only at bolded text First few words of me. What I’m not happy with is how WG have changed to aggressive and hostile marketing as their primary goal. Every event and action seems to be aimed at milking players instead of upkeeping a good game and considering the players their customers. This is combination of several factors: First, but perhaps least, massively overpriced things. RNG. RNG and then some more RNG. Recently almost everything has been RNG based. First of all, this is bad in general. Having different reward for the same work is just plainly bad. Unpredictability of what is needed to be done. When rewards are tied to RNG there is no way of planning how much time and effort you need to contribute for a given reward/event. Whole system have changed to gambling. Unclear and unnecessary complicated mechanism that are made to confuse and obfuscate customers to spend money. WG has been also forcing early spending on players. Being able to compensate with money afterwards to fulfill missions is one of least toxic things here. It allows players to pay some (often too much) to not waste their effort when they for some reason they can’t finish the directive/mission. Practically impossible to do missions belong also to this category of misleading. Time gating everything is bad. It changes lot of otherwise good and nice events to grind fest that no longer are fun. Double points for overlapping events that can’t be done same time. Media talk and explanations that degrade players and which show either WG is out of touch with many players or they don’t care. Or care only enough to come up with sorry excuses. We could also add commander reset mess milk up here. Combination of these is very toxic aggressive marketing scheme. Not good kind of marketing where customer feels appreciated and is happy to give away money, but bad kind of marketing where customer no longer feels like customer, but milking cow that is milked to it’s death. System is made to take advantage on peoples gambling habit, force to early uncertain expenditure to milk with sunken cost and confuse the real price tag. System where every ”free gift” comes with a hook. I might not have been ”whale” level customer, but I have given my fair share of money to WG. At least I was a happy porpoise. I was clad to give when I felt I was treated as a customer and WG was doing their best to make a good game. For few years they were doing well. Recently I have not felt like an appreciated customer. I have felt that marketing has taken the front seat. It feels like direction of the game, decisions, events and even balance choices are dictated by marketing department, not by game designers. I’m pretty sure somewhere there is a excel sheet saying current system is bringing in more money than older system, but I’m not sure it has column for player happiness. I will continue to play, because I like this game, but my expenditure have gone down fast. WG, you have good game here, try to keep it that way. Do not drive your customers away with aggressive hostile toxic marketing (and badly balanced ”improvements”, I’m looking at you subs). Give me a reason to give you money, and I will happily do it, but first you need to refind early company that loved their game and loved their customers, not the marketing excel sheet. If you treat your customers as a milking cows we are going to fight hoof and horn to protect our udders. Keep us happy and let us feel appreciated and we will give you money freely. ps. I would appreciate if some someone from WG could forward this feedback to higher ups. Better yet also comment here on your point of view of above things. @MrConway @Crysantos
×