Jump to content

IVemo

Players
  • Content Сount

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2315
  • Clan

    [_FIN_]

About IVemo

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

156 profile views
  1. IVemo

    Should Radio Location be removed?

    Radio Location is fine but Priority Target is not. Or fix Priority Target to only include ships that are sighted.
  2. Hiryu, Taiho, Essex etc. are the most iconic of CVs. Taiho, possibly the best looking ship in the whole game :), will surely become available as a premium if the CV change is liked. I suppose that was half of their intention behind the tech tree change, to produce new premiums cheaply. However, what is more important I am afraid that CVs are likely to stay in the margin if this CV change goes live because the new arcadey take is a leap too big towards its own imaginary ship-planes combat while not offering an addictive enough gameplay in return. Namely, CVs in reality were not about chip damage but single massive strikes, which actually failed at least as much as the fantasy chip damage idea but just for different reasons. After all, CVs' advantage that lead to their dominance in WW2 was not their superior striking power but their striking distance (up to a few hundred kilometers) most of which should be negated here. What I would have liked to have seen was a dumbed down RTS, enabling higher plane counts and more realism tuck in. Likely it would not have brought in the masses to play CVs but that should not have been the main objective in the first place, to offer more of the same. Instead, CVs could have been used to spice things up, e.g., to introduce a new danger to the usual gameflow or to offer a different kind of a game experience where multiple CVs were put in a single game. The old CV design did something like that but I believe it altered the game in wrong places and was just unbalanceable with the lack of a proper skill-based MM. Now thinking about it, maybe CVs were just wrongly tiered, Taiho for example actually being an equivalent of a tier XI ship.
  3. IVemo

    How would you improve the skill of player base?

    Everyone is assigned a rating, describing how well they play the game. Say there are players with ratings 800, 900, 1000 and 1100 looking for a game. The matchmaker would create a match where 800 and 1100 would face the 900 and 1000, giving both sides about an equal chance to win. After the match, winners get their ratings adjusted upwards and losers downwards. However, nowadays as I said it is possible to use machine learning to estimate player skill levels and change their ratings by large amounts when no certainty about player skill has been reached. With a random matchmaker you could have the same match with 1100 and 1000 battling versus 800 and 900 which kind of explains why stompfests are a common occurrence.
  4. IVemo

    How would you improve the skill of player base?

    ELO-based matchmaking is the current game industry standard solution to this problem which, naturally, is not endorsed by WG. Any other solution as per current knowledge is just inferior, though many developers tend to want to hide the fact ELO is utilized. Often because it is believed that players want to see progress when in reality there rarely is any. I would argue that that just makes it that much harder to improve when you do not see what works and what does not. To go on a bit about ELO-mm, the practice of not using it is costing WG money due to many reasons. The main ones are because a pressure is created on the bottom of the player skillpool to exit the game and secondly because game diversity is reduced due to "every game is similar" (there are no high or low skill-only games besides the ranked mode(s)). More elaborate reasoning why there is pressure on the bottom: 1. Assume everyone chooses to play games they excel the most at. 2. If random matchmaking, some people are extra happy with win rates well over 50%. But those high values come with a cost: An equal amount of people must have well below 50% win rates and are not happy playing WoWs. Because there are games that offer at least that 50% to them, they will quit playing WoWs. Thus, a cycle is created where there is always a pressure on the least performing players to say bye bye to WoWs, over time increasing the skill threshold required to be happy playing WoWs. 3. With ELO, everyone's win rate is adjusted to 50%, so none is too happy or too unhappy. This is optimal. TL;DR: I can see why WG does not want to implement ELO-based matchmaking but any reasons, e.g., "more hectic games when high-skill players are kept separated" or the clever "it does not work with 12 player teams" etc. are simply false. To speed up the process, one could just use machine learning to estimate player skill levels.
  5. What WG is planning to do with CVs is not necessarily a range limitation because that would be highly unrealistic. Another fitting but totally realistic change, by the way, would be to alter plane spotting mechanics so that targets far away (without surface detection) cannot be seen and thus targeted so easily. In reality, planes often were not able to identify targets nor were able to see ships covered by clouds.
  6. IVemo

    Whining about CVs :)

    The game could easily put 2 bad CVs against a good one at higher tiers. On what to do with the CV class, I would personally like to hear what WG has in store for them in advance to avoid Graf Zeppelin type of disaster happening again.
  7. Thank you for replying. I would like to point out that paying players will invest less money in the game if they perceive the player base of the game as dwindling. Vice versa, if they think the game is growing it is more attractive to make purchases because they know value is more likely to be retained. They might even think that their purchases' value will increase. So, if your statistics show that the number of F2P players has been decreasing (and even without this!) you might want to reconsider your decision. The reason is that doubloons restriction is essentially a content lock which reduces the attractiveness of your game. If you remove the lock the number of F2P players should increase and that should have a positive effect on the number of paying players. Your earnings would increase (= you make more money with a credits to doubloon conversion in game). The best thing in that is that you lose nothing by having it. Some wrong thinking might explain your negative stance, e.g., "barring doubloons behind a paywall encourages payments from players that would not otherwise use money", but this is quite false. Do a thought experiment where you are a F2P player who has been given an opportunity to buy any premium ship for credits. How much could that ship cost in credits at maximum for you to make the purchase? ..Of course the number depends on how many other ships and credits you possess but it is not infinite, it should not even be that big a number for most players. The point is that a credits to doubloons conversion already exists in the game whether you wanted or not. You have kind of chosen to have some downsides without upsides.
  8. Should have asked this before: Did any 100% F2P player happen to get the incentives? Be as it may I think WG could do a bit better job with retaining also the F2P players. Simply because the paying player base must be some function of all active players. And from a F2P perspective the game does not exactly look very alluring. At some point you will hit a wall with ships you can acquire and/or run cost-efficiently. There is no way to earn doubloons or premium ships. Would it be too horrendous to, e.g., offer a credits to doubloons conversion if only at an outrageous rate? (That might even help with the too-much credits in-game problem, by the way.)
  9. I would hold breath for a second and think about that how WG happened to choose its campaign's targets because it is 100% certain they were not totally random. As WG, I would have targeted people with the following criteria: - people who have not played for a few months (but them missing co-op play makes one wonder) - people who have purchased things NOT IN ANY DISCOUNT with money - people who have referred the game to friends/brought new players to the game That criteria is pretty likely and as you can see the "lucky" people have already paid for these "free gifts" with their earlier actions. But WG should really try to find some other non-desperate means to get people into the game.
  10. IVemo

    Clan battles summary

    Quantity > quality is true only if quality costs more than it should. Finding balanced costs for all ships should not be so difficult when ships are already categorized (and balanced within) in classes and tiers.
  11. IVemo

    Clan battles summary

    It was puzzling for WG to introduce clan wars yet have creating clans cost doubloons. They could, however, do this: 1. All teams to have 10k initial "cash" to spend in ships. For example, taking a Shimakaze for 1k and a Montana for 2k would leave 7k for the rest of the fleet. 2. Above means possible clan wars ship setups utilize different number of players, making it easier for smaller clans to participate assuming they are fine with a reduced setup pool. There would be no more need for ship type restrictions. It also means a team could use ships from lower tiers because the cash system can be used to balance for the fact. E.g., a T8 Tirpitz could be added to the line-up for a 1,2k. 3. Could even create new maps (or initial map setups rather) for clan wars that give a specific advantage to one side (asymmetrical battles should be nicer than purely symmetrical). The idea I had was that each team would have to choose, e.g., 3 maps they want to play with their ship setup before entering the battle. Then, for example, the team that had the most leftover cash (after ship expenditures) gets the advantageous side but the enemy team chooses which of the opposing team's three maps is going to be played. Would it be more fun?
  12. They are repeating the mistakes done with the Graf Zeppelin. There is no benefit in keeping the details of this overhaul secret. Instead, they should be aiming for a quick public opinion on it for validation. If it turns out to be too controversial they would be looking at a mass of development effort saved not to mention hastening the change process itself. I believe they are keeping it secret only because that is how they operate, but the mental state of "we know what is best" is the opposite of what should be done in this particular case. Also, what was the point of the "dev blog"?
  13. IVemo

    Overmatch mechanic - Good, or no good?

    I wonder if any of you know what is the realistic shell behavior model and whether the current ingame system is in any way distorted. This is one aspect I would very much like to have/remain as close to reality as possible. There are so many other ways to nerf BBs or help the rest directly/indirectly.. - visibility changes, as said - more realistic fire/flood mechanics - BB turret permanent incapacitations, as what was one of BBs' main issues in reality not reflected in the game - hostile to BB maps - ..even allowing to take in-game CAs/DDs to battle would surely lessen annoyance of getting devastating striked by a BB at 15 mins
  14. Everyone who bought the GZ should go for the refund and not keep the ship. This way you cannot be let down after your pricy lottery ticket eventually does not show a win. It is clear WG will not allow a truly powerful CV, and to be honest, CV players should stick to IJN tiers 9 and 10 anyway. So, the warning: Do not be lured by this new WG ploy and decide to keep the ship. You will regret, again. And if it somehow turns out to be exceptional you can still buy it after 3 months as what they will never allow is to have the pricy ship to be that good that it is removed from the shop entirely (also because testing is done live they know exactly how good the ship is and can "balance" = nerf it appropriately, there is no chance for a truly exceptional item).
  15. Say a target is not altering its course too much I wonder how many shots miss because they land inbetween 1.8 and 2.0. Because if it is a great portion rerolling might be beneficial even though it makes a pattern like the GK's look worse.
×