Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Mr_Gibbins

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Mr_Gibbins

    Important message for the community

    I don't expect this to make much difference, I didn't leave the CC program expecting that to make a difference either, I don't expect WG's latest statement to be indicative of any difference in their course either.... here's why. Dear players, Lately a lot of you have been upset with various incidents, our decisions, as well as a general state of things in the game and community. Before we continue, we want to apologize to all of you, players, content creators, moderators, testers, and other volunteers, to those who support us and those disappointed with us. Apologies are cheap, action is costly. This is just another cheap apology without any action, just like the cheap apologies to LWM without any action. The easiest action you could ever have undertaken was to add their Yukon camo, the fact that you didn't do that one thing then shows how little you appreciate the value of actions versus words, and yet here you are again without action, just words. Everything that happens within the game and the community is our responsibility, and we are sorry that we let the situation come to its current state. You had every opportunity via CC feedback to avoid this, you dismissed that advice, mocked it, mocked CC's, belittled the most valuable CC you will ever have, all in defence of your magic money boxes. Are you sorry for the circumstances, or the consequences? I suspect the latter. We want to take this opportunity to be more transparent about how we will take actions to improve our internal processes and our relationship with you. It will be a long read, you will see items of different scales and with different times required to see results. No doubt more news and announcements will follow, so please don't treat this as a final plan and the ultimate solution to everything. Instead, please treat it as a list of things we're currently working on and a way to show our intentions to make the game and community a better place. Also, please note that it is not comprehensive, as many other measures are revolving around internal processes. Here's what we are going to do, but it's not a plan, don't measure our performance by it, it's not final, it might be something different that happens.... Some serious commitment being shown here, good start........ Seriously, this vagary is the best you can do? Monetization World of Warships is a free-to-play title following the game-as-a-service concept with substantial monthly updates and a constant evolutionary cycle. To support this model we rely on a multitude of monetization tactics considered to be standard practice in the industry. While we believe it's unreasonable to expect to discuss our monetization strategies in all but the most general terms - this is business-critical information - we do understand that there are specific details that are a cause of concern for some of you. We will address them as best we can below. Random mechanics. As a business, we always follow laws and comply with new regulations as they appear. Therefore, our position on containers and random bundles is always consistent with governments' decisions on this matter and will keep being so. In some cases, we will even try to work ahead of industry practices. We are aware that there are slowly progressing trends to regulate the digital space more and more, to catch up with technical solutions and business models built on them. With that in mind, we appreciate your feedback and commit to the following: from now on for all new ships, if they are distributed via Containers or Random Bundles, there will be an alternative way to obtain them. Methods may vary and may include timegating (i.e. early access or time delayed offers), direct purchases, completing in-game activities, etc. How about making the game more compelling to play, more effort to balance the matchmaker and grip players attention with nail biting matches where everyone feels that playing their best matters at all levels of ability? How about working on the quality of the product instead of so much focus on loot boxes at all levels of the game experience, like the introductory "you'll get used to it" loot boxes that are "free to obtain" in the armory. The candy at the school gates approach to introducing a harmful substance or activity. Gamble for new tech tree ships, for tokens to unlock more ships and camoflages, "surprise mechanics" for submarines, summer "sales" that are just more loot boxes and preparation to to push more loot mechanics etc. At every turn players are confronted by gambling mechanics, so much thought and effort goes into it, and the game is neglected. It isn't just players that get addicted to gambling, it WG as well, you simply can't live without the great ships casino now can you? Drop rates. We plan to publish all drop rates for all Containers and Random Bundles and are already working on it. It will take some time, but our hard commitment is that it will happen over the course of next year. Why does this take a year to implement? You already know the drop rates, you set the crop rates, how is this information not available for publication right now? You publish drop rates for Xbox and PS5 because you have to, I don't see any reason this can't happen now, except of course your reluctance to show us. Return of Missouri. The initial concept of the event was perceived negatively, and we should have known better. The case was a learned lesson for us and we added an alternative way to purchase the ship. We're also addressing the situation with the ship's earnings to make sure that those who owned Missouri before 0.10.7 will on average receive not less credits than before the changes to the ship's economics. We're grateful for the battles you played, these helped us to collect sufficient data. This amount of data allows us to add a +10% bonus to the special Missouri combat mission (from 20% to 30%). Additionally, we will issue appropriate amount of credits to all the affected players as a sign of appreciation; details will be published in Devblog separately. You did know better, you had warnings from CC feedback weeks in advance. You chose to ignore those warnings, dismiss them as irrelevant in pursuit of your greed, an opportunity in your eyes to aggressively monetise a desirable ship. Having said just a few weeks previously that it would be available for doubloons you obviously had a change of heart and went for the money shot. Also, you we're warned ahead of time about concerns over the ship earnings, again you chose to ignore CC's and push ahead anyway. Again, you we're wrong, and not just wrong but rude in the process to the most valuable CC you will ever have. Summer Sale. Unfortunately, we made a translation mistake in a sensitive description. We fixed it ASAP and to protect you from such mistakes in the future, we will add additional checks and approvals to our internal processes. If anything like that happens again, we will offer refunds to all of the affected players. We did it before and we will do it again to make sure that you are compensated. We will also pay more attention to the positioning of such events: for example, many of you stated the term "Sale" suggests direct discounts on in-game items. There was one reason only that the Summer "Sale" was structured this way, to pump large amounts of doubloons into the system ready for Missouri loot boxes, in exactly the same way World of Tanks flooded doubloons into the economy prior to black market auctions. This was another way to obfuscate the cost of the Missouri when buying boxes, not only is it seperated from reality by making the purchase via doubloons, it also seperates it in time, an additional break in the connection between real money and the end cost of the ship. None of this is accidental or coincidental, it is planned out ahead of time in a rather cynical fashion. Age ratings. We've already added disclaimers about in-game purchases with random items to our PEGI ratings. We're also in touch with other rating organizations to adjust our ratings everywhere in a consistent way. While our game was never popular among minors and we adhere to legislation in all countries where we publish World of Warships, we plan to go beyond what is required of us by laws and we are working on our own in-game measures to additionally protect children who interact with our game. We will share more details on this point once we're ready to announce them. No mention of addressing how the loot box issues may be harmful to military veterans? Conveniently forgotten in all of this are the veterans who suffer from problem gambling at far higher rates than the general population, do veterans make up an insignificant or significant part of the game population? I suggest significant, and that you have no intention of addressing this as the revenue is huge, prove me wrong. Feedback One of the main topics we want to address is how your feedback influences the game. Regrettably, it was not always clear how we use certain types of feedback and where it fits into our decision-making process. We've always taken it into account, but looking back, we see that in some cases it was not balanced well enough against other equally important sources of information: large volumes of data and the team's creative vision of the game. We want to change this situation and make sure we pay more direct attention to your suggestions and opinions while also giving you more insight into how the decisions are made. Things we are considering and evaluating right now: More reaction to feedback on ships balance. We know there are several ships you want to be addressed, and we'd like to confirm: balance changes are planned for Zao, Petropavlovsk, and FDR in 0.10.10. Moving forward we will try to increase the promptness of addressing released ships in a similar way and when it is not possible (for example, changing a ship will move it out of the interval of normal performance), we will put more effort into giving you insights and explaining our reasoning. Aircraft Carriers. Despite many other things happening in the game, we haven't forgotten that there are still questions to be answered regarding CVs. We've implemented a lot of changes to this class since the rework, but we acknowledge more changes may be needed. CV spotting is a good example - we conducted several tests before and did not find a good, adequate way to address it. That does not mean we will not continue to improve it. It's not something that can be done quickly, please keep that in mind. Another common question is regarding odd-tier carriers, which were previously mentioned as "support CVs". Right now they are in an early prototyping stage (developing document concepts), and we want to honestly tell you that they are not to be expected in 2022. Can you honestly say that after all the feedback you have had publicly on many elements of the game that you take any of it into account at all? I know for sure I am not the most qualified person to comment on ship balance, but I do know how often the "spreadhseet says so" emote was used unironically in response to CC balance questions, then all the feedback ignored. I think we all ganied a useful recent insight into the old adage "the dev's don't play their own game" didn't we, and how close to the bone WG's response showed it to be. New gameplay experiences. We will keep evolving the game by introducing new game modes and mechanics, both fiction- and history-based. For example, in 0.10.8 we will have a new mode - Convoys - inspired by historical events. We will keep exploring new game modes in the future, - it's one of our priorities. Expanding permanent types of battles (primarily Random battles) with new modes is also one of the long-term goals to keep the game fresh and entertaining. However creating a mode suitable not just for a short gaming period, but for a permanent presence with high replayability is a much bigger challenge, so it takes many more tries and effort. I would suggest you have spent so much time focusing on building a casino that you have forgotten how to make a game. Maps. We've slowed down with adding new maps to the game recently because the team focused more on the game's visuals in general (updated visual effects, new water, and other improvements) as well as introducing a whole new level of underwater world. That said, in 2022 at least one new map will be released, and another one has some chances to make it in time. Spoiler: we're also going to try a new mechanic with the first of these new maps not previously used in the game. One new map in 2022, that is how many years since the last new map was added? So long I can't even remember, and all due to development of underwater environments. Did development of new premium ships slow down due to submarines modelling and testing? Did the gamblebbox monetisation of new tech tree ship lines slow down due to submarines? No, neither did. I don't think anyone would argue that monetisation is unimportant for a free to play game, but there needs to be a game to play and not just monetisation. You can't build a healthy long term business on an old shaky foundation. FOr far to long the base fundamentls of the game have been ignored as laser focus down on turning the game into a casino. Operations. CV rework rendered a lot of AI-related internal tools obsolete and made working with AI-aircraft-related stuff very difficult or impossible. Right now we're in the process of removing this obstacle. It's being worked on for many reasons, not just for the sake of Operations, but one of the benefits we will have when this project is done is that we will be able to return some of the old Operations in 2022. I don't know how the huge number of "miscommunications" on this have occured, but it is only a few weeks ago that Lord of Droid was telling the community that Ops were a thing of the past, that no work was planned, a few weeks only since Mr Conway said the same I believe. All that on top of repeated statements in non-nda channels in answer to CC questions, a clear, across the board answer that Ops not part of the future of development for the game...... and all of sudden here we are. How has this consistent, across the board, clear, re-iterated "miscummication" taken place? Other. There are plenty of other things we know you're interested in, and quite a lot of them are being worked on in different stages of development. We haven't forgotten about things such as secondary builds for cruisers, the update of some old ship models, Tier IV CV tuning, Huron (coming 2022), West Virginia'44 (coming 2023), addressing the chat system, improvements for Ranked Battles, and many other small and not so small changes to the game that will make your experience with it better. Communications We are a large, distributed team of over 500 people working across more than 4 countries. Coming from all walks of life, culturally varied and hindered severely by the pandemic from travelling to see each other in person to be able to align on certain matters, we are bound to have organizational challenges in the realm of communication. However, these internal challenges should not be visible, much less influence the player experience. Improving communications is a never-ending process which needs to be evolutionary and not revolutionary, so you will see those improvements incrementally over time in many areas, rather than as a one-time institutional overnight change. But we want to address a few specific points you pointed out in this area. We have heard the above statement how many times now? Over how many years? It doesn't matter how large an organisation is, it will be what it's leaders desire it to be, and without that desire in leadership the changes won't happen. We haven't seen any changes in this regard, and from my own experience WG has doubled down on previous mistakes rather than any improvement for the better. More words won't make any change at all. Community Contributor Program. When we created our CCTP, our goal was to help talented folks interested in our game create content and grow their channels. Right now it's clear that a lot of things in the Program do not work as they should, which leads to frustration and failed expectations even though some other parts are running well. We will update the Program, both in terms of rules and the way we work with it internally. We expect to have some sort of internal plan and first action points ready in the second half of September, and then proceed with the changes during this Autumn. The only failed expectations I ever saw were based on expectations WG created and fostered, maintained those expectations over time and then failed to meet them again and again. Also interested to see if that CC rework contains any more attempts to promote specific creators content above others. Something that I have realised by part of the CC program is that it is utterly valueless in the long term in comparison to the genuine support offered by my peers, other creators, people that genuinely care for and support each other. Nothing about the CC program ever came close to the joys of collaborating with people having a mutual interest, because it never felt like WG had a mutual interest. That was cultural, and it came from the top. Future of the game. We'd like to offer you a deeper look into the future of the game. Right now we have Devblogs (where we basically announce everything that comes to Supertest) and the Waterline series (quarterly updates). To complement these and expand the horizon of events, we want to share a general roadmap with you, of what you can expect to see in World of Warships in the far future. It will give you an idea of what we want to focus on - but please keep in mind that things can and will change. At the same time, we want to show the progress World of Warships achieves. The game evolves a lot each year and it will make it easier for you to follow what we are doing. Communications quality. There have been a lot of communication mistakes and incidents on our side recently. While mistakes always happen and we're all human, we acknowledge that we need to improve in this area. We've already launched a full internal review of all related processes. We want fewer mistakes and translation errors, more answers, and productive conversations. We want to improve the way you interact with us in any place, be it Forums, Customer support, Discord servers or official streams. A lot, and some of them where WG was found to have breached advertising codes of conduct. Mistakes where WG directly attacked a creator via a giveaway code. A culture of mistakes, mistakes on top of mistakes and miscommunications. It isn't just recent either, and another "review" will get you nowhere, we know it, you know it. The only way to change.... is to change, just get on with it. General transparency. We need to work hard on it: on the one hand, we need to pay more attention to the community sentiment, on the other hand, we have to be more transparent and explain our positions. We will create a series of publications to make our development process more transparent and to show the logic behind what we do. For example, players did not understand why the latest torpedo bug took 2 updates to fix, while a CV bug (plane losses in 0.9.9) was fixed almost instantly. They are in fact very different: the CV bug was fixed by quickly adjusting some parameters, while the torpedo bug involved game logic, and even though it was technically fixed within a week, it had to go through all regular quality assurance processes. Deploying such change through a hotfix is extremely risky for the game. This should have been communicated transparently and we will do our best to do so in the future. In-depth communications and insights. When it's necessary we will use more specifics and will provide deeper explanations of our decisions. For example, we implemented the system for CvC ship bans, which helps us to keep the meta fresh, and we want to tell you more about how and why we use it, as it's something that our hardcore players are interested in. All of it is just our current, first plan. We will keep looking for other points of interest and challenges. We want to show you our responsibility, care and desire for the game by the way we communicate and through our actions - to make the game better for everyone. A final word on passion and communication. While we are working hard to improve the way we communicate and interact with you, we want to take a moment to address your passion and the way that we communicate with each other. We know that you care about the game a great deal and ask you to remember that there are people - community managers, support staff, developers and volunteers - that read your communications and posts, wherever they may be made. While we as a company certainly need to work on the way we communicate with you, we ask that you treat the people you interact with fairly and with respect. Your voice will carry as much – or more – weight with them if you present your feedback and opinions in a reasoned and constructive way. I don't condone or encourage any direct attacks on individuals, but WG has a very recent history of direct attacks on individuals, you really need to get your house in order because it is frankly an endemic problem throughtout the organisation. You manage to stiffle all enthusiasm and excitement about the game with ignorant, rude, dismissive responses time and time again, you mock CC's who make passionate arguments with "spreadsheet says so" or shout them down when you don't want to be wrong... even though you are wrong. You play a large part in setting the tone, and learning to listen would work a lot better for you than simply spewing out more words. Yours sincerely, Mr G As a footnote, why does it matter making a big reply if I don't care? Well, I did care, I had a great time playing ships in years gone by, most of it before joining the CC program and seeing the cynical side of things from the inside. For good or for ill I am moving away from the game steadily, not an easy decision as a content creator that made their content solely on WoWs for so long, but I am doing it as someone who is happier now. The truth is WG threw down a gauntlet in the weeks before we all left, I don't think they believed we would pick it up... we did, and in the process drew the worlds gaming media, and some mainstream media attention to the issues at the heart of the problem. Has it resulted in significant change? Time will tell, but for the sake of people that still love the game I hope so, and many of us that left the CC program, and many that didn't, are still watching how this works out.
  2. Mr_Gibbins

    Sooo, I got to the Lexington, what now?

    What to do when you get a Lexington......? Buy an Enterprise like WG is trying to force you to and grind the free xp to skip it.
  3. Yeah but Scottish tug captains had probably been on the sauce all day.
  4. Mr_Gibbins

    Be honest (Stats)

    Never before a battle..... never used XVM in WoT either because I would rather enjoy the game and do my best to win in any circumstances rather than lose hope at the beginning.
  5. I was dry docked, went for a few beers with crew and woke up in the morning stuck in there..... not my fault
  6. It takes me 4 hours and 4 tugs to get it out of the harbor and into a battle now.... Not to mention a full moon and high tide.
  7. Mr_Gibbins

    The CV Captains Cabin

    Good god - just finished ranger and realised how screwed the Lexington is too. Gonna pack away the USA CV's until something gets changed.
  8. Mr_Gibbins

    The CV Captains Cabin

    Introduction of the Kaga into tier 7 is just a reckless money grab given the current state of gameplay at that tier. Granted, I am not a pro CV player but I do just about manage to hold my own in a strike Ranger versus an average Hiryu.... but Saipan and now Kaga..... what a massive mess it has become. I was going to buy a Saipan on sale last week, but seeing the Kaga coming and the inevitable mess they made I don't actually want to give them any money for it... even to be OP, and more especially since the re-balance that will have to happen might well render them average anyway. One of the worst decisions I have seen WG make with warships.
  9. Now I am for sure not a brilliant DD player, but the majority of battles I play now it seems to be no coincidence that I am located and the enemy ship goes bow on, and stays bow on. It makes no sense at all even from the description of it, ships communicated with lights and flags in combat, not radio, and is it not enough that DD have to face hydro, radar, vigilance, torp spotting mod, planes before landing some torps. There are plenty of counters in the game against DD's, we didn't need this.
  10. Mr_Gibbins

    [PTS] is looking for active players

    Welcome to WoWS PTS
  11. Mr_Gibbins

    Actually having fun with British Cruisers?

    I dunno about that tbh, having played World of Tanks for 5 Years and ships since open beta... plus a bunch of other similar games over the years there is one thing I have learned. People will grind their way to "the top", no matter how bad they are. If your argument is that they will do that, then simply not play the ship, then I agree that might happen to some extent.... but then the same could be said for any ship, like those Yamato captains we see broadsiding along in a straight line and getting torped, or rushing forward and going down under fire from 10 ships cos they are "a tank", or the endless people that rush into a cap with DD then sit in their smoke and get torped etc etc etc. On the topic of the ships themselves the first few including Emerald I didn't enjoy at all... then Leander, oh what fun. Will see how it pans out with the Fiji now but it's looking good. Edit: Just add this in, not to show off, but to show the potential. This is a stock Fiji with a 10 point Captain, tier 7 battle.
  12. Mr_Gibbins

    How to beat Halloween

    Nice tip will add it in thank you.
  13. Mr_Gibbins

    How to beat Halloween

    First three attempts were massive failures. Then a win on the fourth. In each of those a lot of people were saying that they had tried 6 or 7 times and never won, so here is how we did it. Obstacle course stage Blades Go ahead of the fleet and make sure the catapults focus you, they predict your location based on current course at the time of firing, so just sail in a circle and they all miss. Shoot them with AP to help take them down. If there are no catapults alive then torp and shoot whatever is close. Igors Stay outside trans circle (BB will be in it) dodge any stray catapults that DD are not dodge tanking. Burn everything, unless it is a catapult, in which case AP it. Jackals Stay with trans circle and AP everything. Rasputin stage Blades Ideally blades will have been ahead of the main fleet the whole time and already cleared out the last catapults before the Trans arrives. When Rasputin pops up take turns smoking Trans route so he doesn't get killed. Focus torps on Rasputin, dodge a lot. Igors Help take down any remaining catapults. Burn the crapout of Rasputin. Help kill Zikas Jackals Help with remaining catapults if any. Focus closest battleships to Trans that see it through smoke. Once Rasputin is dead everyone can take down remaining ships and keep Trans smoked until it reaches the portal. Most important part of this is that everyone tries to keep their health up throughout the battle because Rasputin hurts like hell, which is why he should be burned down fast with torps and fire. Blades dodge tanking the catapults really helps the Igors and Jackals be as healthy as possible when you get to Rasputin (especially as Karamon says Rasputin focuses Jackals, so them not tanking catapults all battle will help them be full hp at the end) , which means they live longer and more firepower is applied to Rasputin and his cronies. Worked for us, hope it works for you.