Submarines in Random Battles

[SlavicNoOb]

12 minutes ago, Europizza said:

^^ This is way funnier then the weird 'jokes' about name changes or wanting to be a forum mod. Anyway, it's a bit like this: I bring arguments to compliment my whine, you bring tears to salt your excuses.

I brought arguments. You didn't. Apart from repeating over and over "submarines are not ready", "submarines are not balanced". You just admitted you played a few submarine games today, probably for the first time, and you have been lamenting how "submarines are not ready" and "submarines are not balanced" for days now. Those are your arguments? Do you even know what an argument is?

And I don't see what is funny. Did you sign that contract with Wargaming? No? Did lamenting for years about carriers get them removed from the game? No... So why do you think your opinion about submarines will bring a different outcome?

Have you seen the battle queues for randoms? There seems to be equal interest for submarines as there is for CV.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

28 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Yes yes, your opinion is valuable because you spent money, or you sent time... right? So where is Wargaming's valuing for loyalty? That's what those like you keep asking.

I don't think anyone of you signed a contract saying that playing a lot, or spending a lot, or being alpha/beta tester, or being a unicum, gives you the right to dictate the development of the game. Get over yourself.

 

These people present the majority of Wargamings income. They don't dictate anything, but Wargaming likes their money, which is why they occasionally listen.

You may pad yourself on the back for not spending money and playing without signals or upgrades, which btw has nothing to do with economics, cause you just get that stuff by playing the game.

Simple truth is: You are not playing the game. You have written more posts about submarines in this forum than you have played battles this week. And that is not even a lot. You are not a forumite. You have been in the game for 5 years and never written anything or contributed anything. Just now that you find you like submarines you come here and start a huge argument, your first posts ever, backed by thin air and anecdotes. Maybe, if you like subs so much, play them. Or just play whatever. But don't not play the game and try to tell people here about what you think is balanced. You lack the experience and the knowledge of the game to do so.

 

These people, that you think paid their way into the game, have played the game for years, and consistently I might add. They have played thousands of battles. They have played well, most of them. They have seen all the metas come and go. They have seen how things impacted the game, things that were much less significant than the introduction of a new ship type against better judgement. And they have played the game through all those storms and bad times.

 

Now you think you can argue with them, cause you finally found a class where you have the upper hand for once. And over your vanity and the wish to succeed in this class, you ignore the impact that this class has as it is designed right now. That doesn't make your points valid, it actually sabotages your effort. Cause nobody will believe you argue for anything else but yourself.

 

We have played the submarines in their various test stages. We have given WG feedback. But WG has dismissed all those ideas, cause they spent too much money on submarines and the underwater environment to ever think about subs critically. They can't just walk away from submarines, much like a gambler can't leave the table after spending his entire fortune. They are in too deep. And that is why we have submarines, even if it may kill the game.

[SlavicNoOb]

4 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

These people present the majority of Wargamings income. They don't dictate anything, but Wargaming likes their money, which is why they occasionally listen.

You may pad yourself on the back for not spending money and playing without signals or upgrades, which btw has nothing to do with economics, cause you just get that stuff by playing the game.

Simple truth is: You are not playing the game. You have written more posts about submarines in this forum than you have played battles this week. And that is not even a lot. You are ot even a forumite. Yo uahve been in the game for 5 years and never written anything or contributed anything. Just now that you find you like submarines you come here and start a huge argument, backed by thin air and anecdotes. Maybe, if you like subs so much, play them. Or just play whatever. But don't not play the game and try to tell people here about what you think is balanced. You lack the experience and the knowledge of the game to do so.

 

These people, that you think paid their way into the game, have played the game for years, and consistently I might add. They have played thousands of battles. They have played well, most of them. They have seen all the metas come and go. They have seen how things impacted the game, things that were much less significant than the introduction of a new ship type against better judgement. And they have played the game through all those storms and bad times.

 

Now you think you can argue with them, cause you finally found a class where you have the upper hand for once. And over your vanity and the wish to succeed in this class, you ignore the impact that this class has as it is designed right now. That doesn't make your points valid, it actually sabotages your effort. Cause nobody will believe you argue for anything else but yourself.

 

We have played the submarines in their various test stages. We have given WG feedback. But WG has dismissed all those ideas, cause they spent too much money on submarines and the underwater environment to ever think about subs critically. They can't just walk away from submarines, much like a gambler can't leave the table after spending his entire fortune. They are in too deep. And that is why we have submarines, even if it may kill the game.

Sorry to bust your illusion, but most of WG's income is prob from kids paying with dad's and mom's credit card... And kids come of age when they learn about Warships and can play Warships every single day.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

2 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Sorry to bust your illusion, but most of WG's income is prob from kids paying with dad's and mom's credit card... And kids come of age when they learn and can play Warships every single day.

 

Wow, you have replied so quickly to my post, you really must have given it a thorough reading. Just as quickly you have fallen in love with subs, giving it a lot of thought. You are such a deep person.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

Wow, you have replied so quickly to my post, you really must have given it a thorough reading. Just as quickly you have fallen in love with subs, giving it a lot of thought. You are such a deep person.

I read fast. Life is short.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

42 minutes ago, dN00b said:

I brought arguments. You didn't. Apart from repeating over and over "submarines are not ready", "submarines are not balanced". You just admitted you played a few submarine games today, probably for the first time, and you have been lamenting how "submarines are not ready" and "submarines are not balanced" for days now. Those are your arguments? Do you even know what an argument is?

And I don't see what is funny. Did you sign that contract with Wargaming? No? Did lamenting for years about carriers get them removed from the game? No... So why do you think your opinion about submarines will bring a different outcome?

Have you seen the battle queues for randoms? There seems to be equal interest for submarines as there is for CV.

You got me all wrong, that is what is funny. I've told you already before but you probably can't be arsed to remember, I dont look for carriers to be removed from the game nor do I object to subs in general. I don't even assume for a second WG will change their ways, I have been there myself as a developer. And I think WG will keep their momentum of 4% going, be damned the consequences, because that is what they do. I do think WG stinks at bringing new interesting gameplay to the table since 2019 in general, exceptions here and there, but the base game still stands. You can read why I think that all over the general forums, I can't be arsed to repeat that in your hijacked personal news blerp. And I think you have nothing interesting to bring to the table despite being an avid submarine fan. Thats sad really.

30 minutes ago, dN00b said:

I read fast. Life is short.

I think your thoughts are short though? Simplistic things like 'I think the uproar is because unicums can't handle being not unicum anymore'. ^^

[SlavicNoOb]

12 minutes ago, Europizza said:

You got me all wrong, that is what is funny. I've told you before, I dont look for carriers to be removed from the game nor do I object to subs in general. I don't even think for a second WG will change their ways, I have been there myself as a developer. And I think WG will get their target of 4% going, be damned the consequences, because that is what they do. I do think WG stinks at bringing new interesting gameplay to the table since 2019 in general, exceptions here and there, but the base game still stands. You can read why all over the general forums. And I think you have nothing interesting to bring to the table despite being an avid submarine fan. Thats sad really.

I think your thoughts are though. ^^

You're still too vague. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but I cannot. You're against submarines, yet you're not against submarines. You talk about wargaming's general behavior during the past years, but this is a thread about submarines...

Are submarines OP? Are they too hard to kill? Do they do too much damage on average for their tiers? Are they impossible to spot? Can they remain underwater and undetected forever?

Those would be valid non-vague arguments. I think you're vague intentionally, because if you give specific issues (which don't exist or need minor balancing prob), then those specific issues can be addressed and fixed. But you're staying vague intentionally with comments like "submarines are not ready", "submarines are not balanced", because you don't want any fixing of issues, you want submarines to not be in random or in the game at all.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

Just now, dN00b said:

You're still too vague. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but I cannot. You're against submarines, yet you're not against submarines. You talk about wargaming's general behavior during the past years, but this is a thread about submarines...

Are submarines OP? Are they too hard to kill? Do they do too much damage on average for their tiers? Are the impossible to spot? Can they remain underwater and undetected forever?

Those would be valid non-vague arguments. I think you're vague intentionally, because if you give specific issues (which don't exist or need minor balancing prob), then those specific issues can be addressed and fixed. But you're staying vague intentionally with comments like "submarines are not ready", "submarines are not balanced", because you don't want any fixing of issues, you want submarines to not be in random or in the game at all.

Like i said, go join the general forums, I just mentioned in the post you quoted I don't object to subs in the game in general. I can't be arsed to accomodate you if you can't even do something as simple as comprehensive reading. I'm off to bed. You've been most entertaining. Thanks.

[SlavicNoOb]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

Like i said, go join the general forums, I just mentioned in the post you quoted I don't object to subs in the game in general. I can't be arsed to accomodate you if you can't even do something as simple as comprehensive reading. I'm off to bed. You've been most entertaining. Thanks.

I read your post. You're still not providing those non-vague arguments... I doubt you ever will.

Good night

[ColonelPete]

6 hours ago, dN00b said:

Wargaming has spent years developing the submarines, and they don't care what you think, or what polls show, especially early polls like the ones we have now, they care what the player base does. Are sufficient numbers of players playing the submarines or not? That gives them an indication of future premium submarines sales and people upgrading to premium account because they have extra stuff to grind.

And from what I have seen so far people are playing submarines... I often send a provocative message at the start of battle, like "I love submarines", "submarines are great", etc. I never got a response in randoms. People just don't care. There was this one guy that suicided in ranked after ranting about submarines and how he dislikes them, but other than that I haven't seen much negative comments in-game.

So calm down, it's all going in the right direction... ;)

Then you are badly informed. Throwing money after bad money is not a good idea.

And these polls are not early. We have the topic for over 2 years now.

 

And when you lose more money from your existing customers than you gain from new ones, then you messed up.

[SlavicNoOb]

38 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then you are badly informed. Throwing money after bad money is not a good idea.

And these polls are not early. We have the topic for over 2 years now.

 

And when you lose more money from your existing customers than you gain from new ones, then you messed up.

A corporation such as WG probably has Ivy league caliber economists, psychologists that advise them how to make their games more addictive, etc., and you think you can teach them how to make money or how not to lose money? Laughable...

Who has more potential to bring them money in the future, kids that start playing now and pay with dad's and mom's credit card, and in a few years many of them will have their first job and will be spending with their own credit cards, or people that they already milked for most of what they could ever potentially milk from?

How many of those people disliking the submarines are not going to settle and will actually quit? Not many... In the long run those quittings will be a mere speed bump for WG, and in the long run they will make more money from the decisions they make than they will ever lose from those quittings. Very few will actually quit permanently. Vast majority will complain but eventually settle. Some will quit, but most of them will be back in days, weeks or months.

For unicum super smart players you guys are disappointing me with your inability to make a proper analysis of the situation. Sad...

[ColonelPete]

22 minutes ago, dN00b said:

A corporation such as WG probably has Ivy league caliber economists, psychologists that advise them how to make their games more addictive, etc., and you think you can teach them how to make money or how not to lose money? Laughable...

They are already making less money.

23 minutes ago, dN00b said:

Who has more potential to bring them money in the future, kids that start playing now and pay with dad's and mom's credit card, and in a few years many of them will have their first job and will be spending with their own credit cards, or people that they already milked for most of what they could ever potentially milk from?
 

Kids are only a very small part of the playerbase. It should be obvious that the vast majority of revenue comes from BB.

A class with the target number of 4-8% just dwarfs in comparission to BB with a 38%+ share.

 

[SlavicNoOb]

12 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

They are already making less money.

Kids are only a very small part of the playerbase. It should be obvious that the vast majority of revenue comes from BB.

A class with the target number of 4-8% just dwarfs in comparission to BB with a 38%+ share.

 

If they're making less money it's because the game is aging. To make it last as long as possible it makes sense to make it more arcady.

Those that are hardcore against submarines, which are not 38% (i.e. not all BB players) and are going to actually going to perma-quit are probably smaller than 4 percent. Prob 1%-2%, if that. Most will settle.

This game is called World of Warships, not World of Battleships.

So 5 percent hardcore against submarines and ready to quit? 80 percent of those will be back in few months tops? That leaves us with 1% actual perma-quittings. A figure that can easily be replaced with fresh players and revenue lost replaced by income from premium submarines sales and related sales.

Ofc it's a guesstimate, but seems about right. As I said earlier, I try go poke in battle chat by saying thins like "I love submarines" at the start of battle, and I get no response 99% of the time. Most people don't care all that much.

And lets not forget people like me that are getting back to the game because they had it put on hiatus and were waiting for submarines to get back. Like it or not, those people do exist, and 99% of us will spend money on premium submarines. I would rather grind credits with a premium submarine and train my captains while I'm at it, than do it with another ship class premium ship.

[Smegger213]

9 hours ago, dN00b said:

Got bored with your account...ok, that makes A LOT of sense.

And I'm not scraping anything. Having multiple accounts and so few battles on your "alpha tester" one is highly suspicious. Innocent until proven guilty of course, but it is suspicious.

I'm not your pal...

It is not suspicious at all.

I have already explained that my go to game has always been WoT, not WoWS.

I would maybe play WoWS, once every other day for an hour or two, but play WoT every day for several hours.

So nothing suspicious about that, plus I have been playing more with SmegTheNoob and don't play with my first account any more.

[SlavicNoOb]

19 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

It is not suspicious at all.

I have already explained that my go to game has always been WoT, not WoWS.

I would maybe play WoWS, once every other day for an hour or two, but play WoT every day for several hours.

So nothing suspicious about that, plus I have been playing more with SmegTheNoob and don't play with my first account any more.

Oh it's very suspicious. Got bored of my account so I created a new one... lol

Who gets bored of an account? What is in a account to be bored from? You apparently love remembering two different passwords, or do you use the same one?

[SlavicNoOb]

4 CV players waiting, 7 submarine players. It actually jumped to 8 a second after I took the screenshot...

But show me that poll again... maybe it will change my mind lol

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, dN00b said:

If they're making less money it's because the game is aging. To make it last as long as possible it makes sense to make it more arcady.

I was not talking about that. I was talking about players who are still interested in the game that stopped spending money because of design decisions.

[SlavicNoOb]

38 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I was not talking about that. I was talking about players who are still interested in the game that stopped spending money because of design decisions.

But you're not considering all the people that are playing the game because of said design decisions. Some players are CV main... Now some will be submarine maIn. And you do not have access to their accounting division, so making claims that they lost revenue because of this or that is just theorycrafting.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 hour ago, dN00b said:

If they're making less money it's because the game is aging. To make it last as long as possible it makes sense to make it more arcady.

Those that are hardcore against submarines, which are not 38% (i.e. not all BB players) and are going to actually going to perma-quit are probably smaller than 4 percent. Prob 1%-2%, if that. Most will settle.

This game is called World of Warships, not World of Battleships.

So 5 percent hardcore against submarines and ready to quit? 80 percent of those will be back in few months tops? That leaves us with 1% actual perma-quittings. A figure that can easily be replaced with fresh players and revenue lost replaced by income from premium submarines sales and related sales.

Ofc it's a guesstimate, but seems about right. As I said earlier, I try go poke in battle chat by saying thins like "I love submarines" at the start of battle, and I get no response 99% of the time. Most people don't care all that much.

And lets not forget people like me that are getting back to the game because they had it put on hiatus and were waiting for submarines to get back. Like it or not, those people do exist, and 99% of us will spend money on premium submarines. I would rather grind credits with a premium submarine and train my captains while I'm at it, than do it with another ship class premium ship.

 

You're not getting the point. This is not a binary thing. Every player can play multiple classes. Those players that quit have done that for years. Many have regularly spent money to get new ships, which up to now were 0% submarines. Nobody will jump ship entirely. Even if subs are here to stay, players will still buy 90% other classes. And here we're talking regular players, not people who have ignored the existence of this game for the first six years and suddenly become a fan, when submarines are in the game. This game has digested 90% of its potential customers. Most of them have installed the game 2015-2016, found it uninteresting and left, never to return. The idea that out of this pool, people will return, cause all they have been waiting for the last 5-6 years was submarines, is naive, to put it mildly. All that is left are children coming of age and discovering this game now.

 

If we go by the numbers of dead accounts, not even 5% of the people, who showed initial interest, have stayed with the game. And maybe 1% has played the game significantly and spent some money. This is the core player base. Even if 95% of the player base are not leaving the game, they still will buy 90% non-submarine premium ships. They would not have left the game had submarines never come. So these 90% spendings are given, with or without submarines. Trying to generate 10% more revenue by introducing submarines, you lose a couple of players, maybe 5%. It's already a trade-off now.

On top of that WG loses part of the spendings on other classes, cause the remaining players are irritated. Tbh, it's not just cause of submarines. The disclaimers on nerfing new ships and other worsening conditions also harm sales.

And that's the other thing. Every other class has classics that have stood the test of time. I have all those nice ships in port, which, legally correctly, are not to be worsened by nerfs. Why should I, an existing old player, put my money on submarines, that will be released OP to create interest and nerfed after sales have died down? Players have always wanted a Missouri, a Belfast, a Kutuzov, a Kamikaze and spent big money on loot boxes. What submarine that can be nerfed just one update later will ever be such a bestseller?

 

So, WGs revenue is also spendings on premium time, lootboxes and in-game ressources, all of which has nothing to do with submarines. But the players who are leaving and players who have become cautious also affect these areas. They stop buying, even if they are not leaving.

 

The revenue actually gained is on the percentage of income generated by premium ship times the percentage of people actually willing to buy submarines times the percentage of future releases that are submarines. I don't want to bore the reader with math, but a percentage of a percentage of a percentage tends to give you a rather small percentage to end up with. if you have to subtract another number from that small percentage, the number of players leaving and decreasing your sales flat for all products, that small percentage gets even smaller, might even turn negative. For that small gain, WG has to rebalance the entire game for years and had to design the underwater world, which will be a significant part of their cost. The underwater world takes up space on players hard drives and memory, ressources that can't be used to improve the graphics experience for 95% of the players, who will not see it cause they play on the surface. But how good the graphics of a game are, using given restrictions on hardware, also affects the popularity of a game. WoWs might start looking a bit dusty on the surface, if an underwater world is taking up space.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, dN00b said:

But you're not considering all the people that are playing the game because of said design decisions. Some players are CV main... Now some will be submarine man. And you do not have access to their accounting division, so making claims that they lost revenue because of this or that is just theory crafting.

I am. I already told you that.

4-8% is the target number for Sub players. If you are optimistic, half of them are new players, the rest spend money on Subs they would have spend on other ships. If 4% of the playerbase stop spending or leave the game, WG is losing money in total.

[SlavicNoOb]

15 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

You're not getting the point. This is not a binary thing. Every player can play multiple classes. Those players that quit have done that for years. Many have regularly spent money to get new ships, which up to now were 0% submarines. Nobody will jump ship entirely. Even if subs are here to stay, players will still buy 90% other classes. And here we're talking regular players, not people who have ignored the existence of this game for the first six years and suddenly become a fan, when submarines are in the game. This game has digested 90% of its potential customers. Most of them have installed the game 2015-2016, found it uninteresting and left, never to return. The idea that out of this pool, people will return, cause all they have been waiting for the last 5-6 years was submarines, is naive, to put it mildly. All that is left are children coming of age and discovering this game now.

 

If we go by the numbers of dead accounts, not even 5% of the people, who showed initial interest, have stayed with the game. And maybe 1% has played the game significantly and spent some money. This is the core player base. Even if 95% of the player base are not leaving the game, they still will buy 90% non-submarine premium ships. They would not have left the game had submarines never come. So these 90% spendings are given, with or without submarines. Trying to generate 10% more revenue by introducing submarines, you lose a couple of players, maybe 5%. It's already a trade-off now.

On top of that WG loses part of the spendings on other classes, cause the remaining players are irritated. Tbh, it's not just cause of submarines. The disclaimers on nerfing new ships and other worsening conditions also harm sales.

And that's the other thing. Every other class has classics that have stood the test of time. I have all those nice ships in port, which, legally correctly, are not to be worsened by nerfs. Why should I, an existing old player, put my money on submarines, that will be released OP to create interest and nerfed after sales have died down? Players have always wanted a Missouri, a Belfast, a Kutuzov, a Kamikaze and spent big money on loot boxes. What submarine that can be nerfed just one update later will ever be such a bestseller?

 

So, WGs revenue is also spendings on premium time, lootboxes and in-game ressources, all of which has nothing to do with submarines. But the players who are leaving and players who have become cautious also affect these areas. They stop buying, even if they are not leaving.

 

The revenue actually gained is on the percentage of income generated by premium ship times the percentage of people actually willing to buy submarines times the percentage of future releases that are submarines. I don't want to bore the reader with math, but a percentage of a percentage of a percentage tends to give you a rather small percentage to end up with. if you have to subtract another number from that small percentage, the number of players leaving and decreasing your sales flat for all products, that small percentage gets even smaller, might even turn negative. For that small gain, WG has to rebalance the entire game for years and had to design the underwater world, which will be a significant part of their cost. The underwater world takes up space on players hard drives and memory, ressources that can't be used to improve the graphics experience for 95% of the players, who will not see it cause they play on the surface. But how good the graphics of a game are, using given restrictions on hardware, also affects the popularity of a game. WoWs might start looking a bit dusty on the surface, if an underwater world is taking up space.

I quit a certain sci-fi space mmo game in 2011, after playing it for like 5 years. After I quit it it's a given that some people have started playing it at that very moment, and that some of them are still playing it. That would make them 10 year veterans. So who was more valuable to that sci-fi mmo at that point in 2011, me or the new players that just joined?

Players quit mmo games all of the time. Some of us play intermittently, and some of us all of the time. Trying to shame me for not having many battles over the past 6 years is kinda low class. What if you quit now because of submarines and I get back because of submarines and have 10000 battles over the NEXT five years? And I spend money on submarines because I like them?

And not everyone has the same amount of time to burn on a mmo. There is work, family, friends, other games. If you only play Warships and nothing else, more power to you. But I have diverse interests. And some of you have tens of thousands of games over the past 6 years. That's a lot of time and a lot of dedication.

The reason why people play other ships more than CV and now submarines is not purely because they like those classes less. There are more choice when it comes to other ship classes. Far more battleships in the tech tree, as well as cruisers and destroyers, so people spend more time grinding those ships. That doesn't mean that they don't like the CV for instance. You guys are making wrong conclusions like this all of the time.

[SlavicNoOb]

So, no one likes submarines, right? Where's that poll again? I need to take another look at it... :D

[togMOR]

Vor 20 Minuten, dN00b sagte:

So, no one likes submarines, right? Where's that poll again? I need to take another look at it... :D

What could possibly be the reason for the higher sub numbers?

(a) everyone and his dog want subs and were just waiting for the class for ages and are dripping with anticipation to play it

or

(b) something new is added to the game so naturally quite a lot of player just testing it out for the time being

[SlavicNoOb]

13 minutes ago, togMOR said:

What could possibly be the reason for the higher sub numbers?

(a) everyone and his dog want subs and were just waiting for the class for ages and are dripping with anticipation to play it

or

(b) something new is added to the game so naturally quite a lot of player just testing it out for the time being

Yeah, but you're missing the point. If there was such an outrage, surely very few people would be playing submarines. This doesn't look like just trying them out for a couple of battles. That was already possible for a while now in ranked... It looks like people actually like to play them.

[togMOR]

Sure ... and people like to drop depth charges a lot, because they press G constantly and throw their ASW planes left, right and center even in matches without subs ...

You´re drawing conclusions the same way as WG does ...