Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
KarmaQU_EU

What can WoWs learn from other games?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Let's be honest, as much as WG hates us discussing other games, they are losing a lot of players to these "other games".

 

This is because some of these games are simply better than WoWs. There are features, design decisions, systems and assets, whole franchises which were done better, or just happen to be more alluring, than WoWs.

 

Sometimes, we will also observe practical changes in concept in the gaming industry, either through direct changes applied to games, or being talked about by people within the industry. These decisions, good or bad, also provide crucial information (especially if follow-up data is available) upon which insight can be harnessed to better WoWs.

 

This thread is simple. If you see an example of game design and decision-making happen, and somehow it sheds light upon a concept which compares with WoWs, post it here. A lot of times a single example or two are not enough to warrant a full on writeup of a theory, but even when inference is impossible, the examples themselves are still valuable, as are player attitudes and thoughts.

 

Past threads in WoWs forums (including international forums) which also do the akin of comparative analysis can be linked here as well. It would be a shame to let past work be needlessly forgotten.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 6
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,558 posts
13,671 battles
45 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

If you see an example of game design and decision-making happen, and somehow it sheds light upon a concept which compares with WoWs, post it here.

Azur Lane - shameless pandering to the fanbase through bottom of the barrel titillation. Let me just put a quote in - "Hello, Admiralty? Yes, same place, same customer…"

 

But on a more serious note.

I'm surprised how slow WG is to hop on the paid cosmetic content train, the slow approach with the current skins is an example.

Also look at FortniteBR and the battle pass, you pay up front, no RNG, rewards are clear to the customer. Better than any loot box.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,647 posts
7,138 battles

When do people learn...?

 

Game developer do "things" in their games because "you" pay for it!

Why do you think everyone & their mother does lootboxes (as an example) in their games even though everyone complains?

Because you people still buy them.

 

Why do you think developer put overpowered stuff (T-61 for example) in their games and behind walls of sweet sweet money?

Because you people still buy them.

 

Why do you think publisher release half a**ed games where the best parts are cut and later selled as "DLC"?

Because you people still buy them.

 

The list goes on and on...and on...

...and on...

 

As long as the customer is as stupid as 20 meters of track across a field and can't deal responsibly with money at all...

Like toddler with 100€ in a candy store...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
498 posts
1,173 battles

Tbh, the current business model of powerful paid premiums and best parts which are sold as dlc gives very large immediate returns for lower initial investment, compared to a well polished games like the homeworld series, or Starcraft, where there is a larger initial investment for less return, or the said return takes longer to pay off the initial investment.

 

considering the current generation of gamers, which often care less about backstory and the intricate fictional lores that can rival good stories, to getting the next shiny op thing and mindlessly killing things, the first choice is often the easy way out, sometimes the only way out, especially considering that the more well made games often have a smaller but more civilised community in my experience.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,170 posts
3 hours ago, pra3y said:

333e629fd1722d9852624367552e75f8.jpg

 

^^

 

What he said.

@KarmaQU_EU you have said on many occasions you're gone for good, but like a fart in a submarine you just won't disappear forever. You keep on bitching about poor design, but you can't resist moaning rather than just leaving. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
3,006 posts

After I read the title I thought the OP would actually present something.

 

Then I read the opening post and found...

Nothing at all. No ideas, no issues detailed, nothing that resembles the title.

 

Then I saw the first reply and remembered who the opening poster was.

 

@KarmaQU_EU In the past you at least threw accusations around yourself. Now you are begging us to do that for you after posting a few short FUD sentences? If I have ever seen a low effort troll post, this will be the one.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,470 posts
4,556 battles
4 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Let's be honest, as much as WG hates us discussing other games, they are losing a lot of players to these "other games".

 

This is because some of these games are simply better than WoWs. There are features, design decisions, systems and assets, whole franchises which were done better, or just happen to be more alluring, than WoWs.

 

Sometimes, we will also observe practical changes in concept in the gaming industry, either through direct changes applied to games, or being talked about by people within the industry. These decisions, good or bad, also provide crucial information (especially if follow-up data is available) upon which insight can be harnessed to better WoWs.

 

This thread is simple. If you see an example of game design and decision-making happen, and somehow it sheds light upon a concept which compares with WoWs, post it here. A lot of times a single example or two are not enough to warrant a full on writeup of a theory, but even when inference is impossible, the examples themselves are still valuable, as are player attitudes and thoughts.

 

Past threads in WoWs forums (including international forums) which also do the akin of comparative analysis can be linked here as well. It would be a shame to let past work be needlessly forgotten.

Beware, DramaQueen is there again!

Don't think it will last long until he will go wild again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
209 posts

I don't know; I still don't find this game P2W game. maybe if you want to be te best. but if you're happy with a 50% winrate. it's fine.

 

Also new content comes fairly quick. New ships? I would say 1 ship every 2 weeks is very decent. But if they do  3 to 4 branches a year. You already come to that with silver ships alone.

 

I find the interaction WG (mod/dev) and players 100% fine. They even show what they will do next year.

 

Also stats show that the player base is stable. But that's without the steam-players. Only in Russia the numbers going down. But just wait until Russian BB.

 

I see no reason to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TEACH]
Alpha Tester
2,450 posts
9,523 battles

I would love to know what the ratio of free players is to premium players, but I'm reasonably sure they would have a higher number of premium players (irrespective of current ratio) if they offered more value for being a premium player. A monthly sub should bring more than just the game xp / cred perks, it should be more of a package, with every renewal offering proportionate rewards (depending on length of term). Premium players should be also rewarded to continuous unbroken subscriptions on maybe quarterly intervals.

 

There is always a 'but' though, and the 'but' in the above scenario is why should WG offer more for premium when they're getting away with people renewing anyways without any of the above extra perks? Premium players are like the 'subbers' who provide a study stream of income for WG are they not?  Surely this type of incentive will encourage more to join the ranks providing a higher stream, maybe encourage many borderline rubbers the push they need to hop onto the pay train?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HNFC]
Players
36 posts
10,371 battles

IMHO: WG SHOULD learn at least one thing from WT: the immediate response to players for their action (both in terms of XP, and credit), i hope this would help ppl learn what to do and what not...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

WG has tapped into niches and found enough victims to populate their servers...

 

I play both this and WoT. Less so this these days as I've gone as far as I reasonably can without giving up my day job. 

 

Will see how the game pans out as CVs look like they hard counter DDs and Subs look like hard counters to BBs. Like so hard that the Rock Paper Scissors play will be hard to resist. I've always been a fan of the Universal unit, one that can do everything so I don't need to rely on the player base that much. Meds in WoT seem to be my thing...

 

But i digress, the main thing WG should do is decide whether this game is casual or they want it to cater for pro level gaming. It currently fails at both, the MM and WG's dubious balancing means it'll never be properly competitive but yet they try and push it with CW and their KoTS stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Perhaps WG can look at other "niche" games that do well, and learn from their niche-catering tactics. Instead of trying to do everything AAA style which is costly and not always effective.

 

Unfortunately not many people play niche games much less other niche games so feedback of this type will be wanting.

 

But there's still plenty of things to learn from other titles, and in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,275 posts
6,356 battles
On 19.9.2018 at 7:59 AM, Aragathor said:

Azur Lane - shameless pandering to the fanbase through bottom of the barrel titillation. Let me just put a quote in - "Hello, Admiralty? Yes, same place, same customer…"

I like Azur Lane a lot more than WoWS. And they seem more willing to own up to mistakes and fix them (e.g. translations), instead of telling us they need more data and maybe in two years they see that it needs actual fixing so that at some point within the next decade an actual attempt at fixing the issue is being made.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

A point that has been commonly brought up by the playerbase before is that WoWs lacks endgame. Clan wars and ranked is but different economy modes without better gameplay or experience.

 

Grinding at T10 is just the same as grinding on T1. WoW is all about the grind through and through. Other games make endgame fun and worth playing by diminishing past stressors and offering more freedom and choice to the player, and satisfaction from "getting good", rewarding them for their dedication to the game and knowledge of the game. However, WoWs simply introduces more quotas and work. This would not be a problem if the core gameplay of it was alluring enough (like Diablo series), but due to the extremely rigid and virtually identical experience of every match ever, players will leave. It is only a question of sooner or later.

 

The way WoWs could fix this is make high tier progress affect overall game experience. While high tier players could use the "fruits" of their grinding to put out a fully customized mid-low tier premium and club newcomers, this is not the best example as it frustrates the newcomers while not introducing anything qualitatively different for the high tier player. They still have to play that mid-low tier game as-is, match by match.

 

An example of integrating high tier progress with overall game experience is extensively reworking the progression system and game MM system to allow all tiers into the same game, where older players instead of preying on new players, mentor and lead them. Historically, older classes of ships can absolutely appear in the same battle as newer modern classes of ships, and still do what they can, so to speak. 

 

Usually at this point I will throw my hands in the air and say "won't ever happen, WG won't ever listen, players won't read this, devs won't ever read this, not my job to do this, etc." So that's what I will do, lacking anything to convince me to do otherwise.

 



Imagine if all ships were balanced to be able to co-exist in the same game.

Two things will need to happen for this to be balanced. Firstly, the ships will need to be categorized by "powerpoints", think tierpoints, measuring their real strength and worth, or a more precise system than tier. Secondly, game mechanics will have to be shifted into more neutral and system-based mechanics and less reliant on the raw capability and power of ships, so that power ships won't be too powerful, and even less powerful ships can be useful if they play well.

More features in gameplay itself will also be necessary. Ways to group ships, like fleet mechanics. Match structure, like a scouting phase and main battle phase, reinforcement phase, etc. More game modes and objectives.

Will you choose to use fewer but more elite and capable high-tierpoint ships, or mass more of lower tierpoint ships? Or a combination of both, in massive fleet battles?

Higher-tierpoint players can choose to use their experience and grinding to command larger flagships around which less experienced (but no less eager) players can revolve around with their lower tierpoint "support" ships, able to witness and play with the best the game offers right from the get-go.

Did I mention there are 5 phases (or thresholds) of spotting, compared to the binary visibility determining mechanics of current. Also Decoys. Anyways I'll stop before I get carried away. Or say much more things the people at WG doesn't like.

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
313 posts
3,518 battles
3 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Usually at this point I will throw my hands in the air and say "won't ever happen, WG won't ever listen, players won't read this, devs won't ever read this, not my job to do this, etc." So that's what I will do, lacking anything to convince me to do otherwise.

At last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
313 posts
3,518 battles
1 minute ago, Riselotte said:

Yet there still is a spoiler with more text... And you know that there will be more such posts in the future.

I have learnt never to open a spoiler from KarmaQU_EU as it rarely ends well, in fact I have now learnt never to open forum posts from him either. I call it progression of the species.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Also on the point of Azur Lane, while they retain the "RNG based system of acquiring new ships", for "limited" period ships, they actually have a hidden system to guarantee you will get a full collection of ships within a humanly amount of rolls. Aka. "weighted" RNG. So every "limited event!!!" time, players will hoard up resources, blow them on (satisfying) massed rolls, and experience the satisfaction of getting a shiny dozen new assets for their collection.

 

The purpose of this is, other games on the market rely on pure RNG to artificially control supply of new assets. This can be frustrating at times and is clearly a factor of player desertion, especially when bad RNG happens. Azur Lane is smart in that they ride high on the norms of the market, to create a guaranteed satisfying experience compared to lesser and negative views formulated by other products on the market. They make their penny on costumes which players buy out of goodwill, and "wedding rings" which usually also grant a free costume, because their game can. It's highly aesthetic.

 

WoWs is the reverse. While more and more products are moving away from these design philosophies to extract every last penny from players based on frustratino-by-numbers which are outdated by decades, WoWs sticks to them nastily. Each of their premium ships cost a full game otherwise.

 

What WoWs can learn from this is to play to their game's strengths. Azur Lane sells the aesthetics and style of their game, so they focus on that instead of the numbers and grind, and monetize off their strengths, or the alluring part of the product. WoWs could focus on the heroics, or the numbers. However, there is nothing heroic or honorable about seal-clubbing other players with as dirty tricks as legally allowed, nor any fun to be had in "fulfilling quotas" like this was some communism simulator. WoWs needs to have better game design for the personal heroics and ego/esteem part, or better gamification of the numbers to make it fun.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,275 posts
6,356 battles
6 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Also on the point of Azur Lane, while they retain the "RNG based system of acquiring new ships", for "limited" period ships, they actually have a hidden system to guarantee you will get a full collection of ships within a humanly amount of rolls. Aka. "weighted" RNG. So every "limited event!!!" time, players will hoard up resources, blow them on (satisfying) massed rolls, and experience the satisfaction of getting a shiny dozen new assets for their collection.

 

The purpose of this is, other games on the market rely on pure RNG to artificially control supply of new assets. This can be frustrating at times and is clearly a factor of player desertion, especially when bad RNG happens. Azur Lane is smart in that they ride high on the norms of the market, to create a guaranteed satisfying experience compared to lesser and negative views formulated by other products on the market. They make their penny on costumes which players buy out of goodwill, and "wedding rings" which usually also grant a free costume, because their game can. It's highly aesthetic.

 

WoWs is the reverse. While more and more products are moving away from these design philosophies to extract every last penny from players based on frustratino-by-numbers which are outdated by decades, WoWs sticks to them nastily. Each of their premium ships cost a full game otherwise.

I know it's not the point of the thread (implying it has a point), but a more entertaining thought struck me. It wouldn't really be good for the game, but imagine, if the actual way to acquire new ships wouldn't be grinding them, but through a gacha system, kind of like the the special ship missions from containers (but with guaranteed ships, not just a chance at getting a ship at all). When you get a dupe, you get doubloons for it and with enough doubloons from dupes you can buy what you actually want. You get three containers from grind per day, more you'd have to buy. Suddenly every player is likely to be like that one guy with no high tier experience buying a Derpitz.

 

Now go back to discussing whatever this is actually about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
289 posts
1,752 battles

As long as people fund lazy, lazy will continue to exist.

 

either way if you want wargaming to change the fundementals of this game you will either have to 1. mass complain. 2.stop playing altogether 3. stop paying for in-game items.

 

the only direct competition WoWs has is warthunder and even then both games play very differently.

 

AW tried to be the bridge between WoT and WT but My.com and mail.ru are even more incompetent than wargaming and more greedy so you know why AW was such a failure (despite being good when obsidian entertainment was going at it).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
6,009 battles
1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Usually at this point I will throw my hands in the air and say "won't ever happen, WG won't ever listen, players won't read this, devs won't ever read this, not my job to do this, etc." So that's what I will do, lacking anything to convince me to do otherwise.

 

Sadly you are still here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,558 posts
13,671 battles
2 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

What WoWs can learn from this is to play to their game's strengths. Azur Lane sells the aesthetics and style of their game, so they focus on that instead of the numbers and grind, and monetize off their strengths, or the alluring part of the product. WoWs could focus on the heroics, or the numbers.

Here's an idea, create a personal profile page where instead of numbers the player could see a uniform with medals and insignia, or just a medal rack. Have achievements grant medals that progress with the amount you've earned (by adding stars onto the medal ribbon). It would be nice to have the achievements mean something more than just a flag pack, a number, and an icon.

Hell, make the uniform fictional and have the account level and clan rank appear on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,464 posts
7,357 battles
2 hours ago, Riselotte said:

I know it's not the point of the thread (implying it has a point), but a more entertaining thought struck me. It wouldn't really be good for the game, but imagine, if the actual way to acquire new ships wouldn't be grinding them, but through a gacha system, kind of like the the special ship missions from containers (but with guaranteed ships, not just a chance at getting a ship at all). When you get a dupe, you get doubloons for it and with enough doubloons from dupes you can buy what you actually want. You get three containers from grind per day, more you'd have to buy. Suddenly every player is likely to be like that one guy with no high tier experience buying a Derpitz.

 

Now go back to discussing whatever this is actually about.

5ba37fe92c7be_pp550x550_u1.jpg.be9a9e7735d5c72ffed004fb223fd724.jpg

 

I've got an even better idea for a gacha system in WoWs. What if tier progression can only be obtained through gacha? :etc_red_button:

 

Each day you get 3 rolls that you can obtain like current containers. You pick to roll for a next tier ship after a minimal number of battles and your chances of rolling it are a base chance which can be modified by the number of battles you've done with the previous tier ships and your winrate on it. 

 

You can buy rolls :cap_haloween:

 

That way a supah unicorn with 70% WR may get a 15% chance of rolling the next ship while a sub 45% scrub gets a 0,3% chance per roll. Can you imagine the amount of dosh WG will make from the whales?:cap_look:

  • Funny 1

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.

×