HotFix: Game Balance

[The_EURL_Guy]

A look at some of the most interesting things about balance in World of Warships—how we work with statistics, why feedback is extremely important, how we test ship concepts, and much more.

Read it on the portal

[Gloatover]

Cool story 

[pfcremus]

petro too OP? sure, lets nerf british cruisers and dd's, that will fix it 

[Latouche_Treville]

[quickr]

Quote

First of all, we need to define what balance is, since the concept of balance can vary across different games.

For us, balance is a set of actions aimed at keeping the game process interesting:

In general, the game should be interesting for both the players themselves and those who play with and against them.

Each battle should bring different gameplay, even if a person plays the same ship in a hundred battles in a row.

No, that's game diversity, not balance. Balance is an effort to make the game feel... fair. To both noob and pro player, to both DD and BB player, to both old and young player. Perfect balance can't ever be achieved cos there are variables outside your reach as a game developer, such as player decisions and player skill. But one can work towards reaching the near perfect balance and should always strive for it. Your only strive is maximum profit with least amount of effort.

 

Thing you mention, thing you talk about in first paragraph is diversity and keeping it fresh. You want players to feel each battle is different? What does it have to do with balance? Achieve balance and I want my Gearing game to be same every time. Every....single....time. I Want fair battle where enemy and me have same playing field every time. That is why people lean towards clan battles without CVs and subs. That is why every other game mode is a joke.

 

Quote

 

The primary difficulty in maintaining the game balance is the fact that each player may perceive fairness and balance differently, depending on their experience and understanding of game mechanics and the situation in a specific battle. Each player has their own favorite and hated ships, ship types, and playstyles.

Since our game has a wide audience, there are numerous opinions about the game balance and how it should work. It is only natural that these opinions can differ very strongly and even contradict each other.

 

That's why it is important to listen to skilled and experienced players over newcomers and those that don't grasp even the simple game mechanics. I'm sorry, people maybe get offended by this, I don't care. But opinion of a 60% 1900PR player is worth more than an opinion of a 43% 400PR player. There are numerous examples in games and game development where select (professional) few players have enormous impact on decision making. They are listened to and respected for their opinion and input. 

 

 

 

No intention of dissecting entire article. Past me, that was still passionate about the game, might have done it, but present me just can't be arsed. After 6 years of shitting on your player base it's sad that you just now feel like you should be more "in touch" with your player base. Funny what fear of losing income does to a company, eh?

[Maris_Piper]

So Sorry Guys but I really don't believe much of what's in the article tbh. it just seems to me that the developers are on a mission of self destruction confirmed by the submarine debacle.

Yay and another Gwynburble dislike in 30 secs, love that Guy 

[Hugh_Ruka]

I don't know where to start ...

 

What got me was that WG even entertained the idea that they need to test a scenario where not all ships have a way to deal with submarines. I mean that idea in itself is patently stupid. Why don't you remove AA guns from 1/2 the ships then ? It is the same situation !!! Not that AA is effective, but it is there and gives at least an option.

 

Or the notion about alternate German DD branch. Cruisers are the natural predators to DDs. Why should there be a DD branch that deals significant damage to cruisers ? I mean for that to be the case you just need to change IFHE for DDs to give them better HE pen ...

 

And they finished with the R-P-S bullcrap ... That is no longer true since the CV rework and submarines skew this even more.There is no class that is effective against CVs. There are individual ships with decent AA, but that's it. It speaks volumes when the advice from WG how to deal with CVs was JustDodge(tm) and group up. None proved effective ....

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

What a pathetic article. Maybe they think we are stupid and that we don't see they seem polithics when writing this BS. Anyone with a little brain knows what they say is another lie  WG, start talking about the increased RNG in the game, or about your pathetic MM, your pathetic servers, etc. etc.

[deathsadow]

If what they state in this article is indeed true, than i guess it is time to do some internal controll on the balance department, cause the devs there are clearly failing to operate based on the company policy.

 

As for the R-P-S type of balancing ... yeah maybe it was true in 2016, but since 2019 with the CV rework & the cpt rework you screwed it up pretty goddamn bad on most of the ships.

 

As for listeining to to players , i can agree on that you listen ... i just wonder why it took 2 YEAR to listen to what we said about the CV rocket planes screwing DDs way too hard since DAY 1 of that rework? Guess changes without instant cash in is not a proprity for the team, and that is why it took so long.

[Poipoi_Fubuki]

The most important issue is that few players still trust you, no matter how you describe your hard development process. 

 

As for balance, it is first a kind of perceptual feeling, then the rational statistic. Players play this game for fun, for win, not for caculate whether a round of shoot balanced is. Players obtain happiness, they continue to play; obtain disappointment, feel sad and alt+F4.

 

Before you determin how to balance, I just recommend that let your developers play the random mode at the afternoon and evening continuously for a month, and request top King of the Sea players to analyse the Kots games for you. Then you might realise how to construct your curve learning & feeling feedback in this game. Please lead us, rather than teach us to play.

[Kosmonopo]

Yeah sure. Whatever you say

[Shaka_D]

I risk ridicule and persecution here, but I sincerely feel many here are being completely unreasonable toward WG. There is huge effort on their part to explain their balancing process and the article was clearly well thought out and took massive amounts of effort to create. If some words are lost in translation, this is all it is. How will they ever succeed if all you do is condemn them at every turn? It's ridiculous imho to simply brush their efforts aside because it might not be the news you want to hear, honestly. How about meeting them halfway?

 

If someone stands in front me of me shouting or already decided on their point of view, why should I bother listening or actually hearing anything they say? You might feel similarly about WG, but where does it then end? Be reasonable and a little respectful please folks. Also, subs are likely here to stay, so get with it at least and lets make them better. It feels like there's currently a highly destructive mob toxicity on the forums which overshadows all common sense.

[ColonelPete]

While the article and video are quite interesting, it does not change the fact that you mess up quite often and the players can tell you that in advance, without the fancy tools...

 

And no matter how often you claim that gimmicks make ships unique and interesting, reality says something different. Players like ships without special gimmicks and uniqueness comes from a ships history and her historical design.

 

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

31 minutes ago, deathsadow said:

If what they state in this article is indeed true, than i guess it is time to do some internal controll on the balance department

I like how they share what they are doing and thinking. Kudos for that. This is what most of the article showed me: they try with probably the 'best' of intentions, but fail. Their ideas are flawed, their solutions broken.

[Hugh_Ruka]

22 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

I risk ridicule and persecution here, but I sincerely feel many here are being completely unreasonable toward WG. There is huge effort on their part to explain their balancing process and the article was clearly well thought out and took massive amounts of effort to create. If some words are lost in translation, this is all it is. How will they ever succeed if all you do is condemn them at every turn? It's ridiculous imho to simply brush their efforts aside because it might not be the news you want to hear, honestly. How about meeting them halfway?

 

If someone stands in front me of me shouting or already decided on their point of view, why should I bother listening or actually hearing anything they say? You might feel similarly about WG, but where does it then end? Be reasonable and a little respectful please folks. Also, subs are likely here to stay, so get with it at least and lets make them better. It feels like there's currently a highly destructive mob toxicity on the forums which overshadows all common sense.

You see, the problem is, they are going to great lengths to conceal vital parts or avoid commiting to something where we can hold them accountable.

 

I mean the explanation is nice and all, but there are gaping holes and also none of that is available to us players to try and help with their situation. They basically said: we collect number and calculate other numbers from those to help us balance the game. But that is what we already know. They are not sitting idle. Unfortunately the results are more miss than hit in the last 2 years or so ...

[H_Juergen]

Whether we agree or not on specific aspects, I highly appreciate the existence of this article.

It contains key sentences which will be remembered.

 

Explaining what WG does and why, makes things clear - though not necessarily pleasant.

Of course, not all players can be instantly satisfied, nor will ever all players be satisfied.

 

We'll see where this is leading to.

In the mean time, keep writing this kind of articles. Some players will ignore them while some will refer to your statements - and that should help.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

You see, the problem is, they are going to great lengths to conceal vital parts or avoid commiting to something where we can hold them accountable.

I mean the explanation is nice and all, but there are gaping holes and also none of that is available to us players to try and help with their situation. They basically said: we collect number and calculate other numbers from those to help us balance the game. But that is what we already know. They are not sitting idle. Unfortunately the results are more miss than hit in the last 2 years or so ... 

WG, you will be judged not only by your actions, but also your intentions will be questioned. Close the gaping holes!

 

I also wonder whether polls would help in certain matters...

(you could easily address difficult matters - the same way the new map was decided)

[tom_kat]

5 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I mean the explanation is nice and all, but there are gaping holes and also none of that is available to us players to try and help with their situation. They basically said: we collect number and calculate other numbers from those to help us balance the game. But that is what we already know. They are not sitting idle. Unfortunately the results are more miss than hit in the last 2 years or so ...

This.

 

Basically they are putting all their efforts on not to look like an opaque company, sharing some of their data and future plans so we, the community, have the manipulated sensation of being listened.

The true fact is they keep on adding monetizated content, wich is legit and I'm not against it, but with some mechanics that nobody (or the highly majority of the playerbase) wanted.

Thus said, for players that keep on playing since 2016, give newcomers the chance of buy a TX is a completely mess. And this is easily understandable by anybody who plays the game. And adding a non-internally tested new mechanic like subs to the game, forcing players to test them (putting the new code onto production without passing the internal testing) is another mess, no matter what the spreadsheet says.

Because not all the data and information are inside the numbers and realtionship between them. The product must be tested by the whom has developed it. Unless you only want fast profit, wich is we all know.

[quickr]

39 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

I risk ridicule and persecution here, but I sincerely feel many here are being completely unreasonable toward WG.

Issue, at least on my side, is that it took them so long to reach this phase. Is this genuine or not, its too early too tell.

I won't forgive and forget everything bad they did over last couple of years just cos of couple of articles they posted.

 

 

[SilentEnimLegesInterArma]

The Thunderer example is a bit, lets say "wrong"

 

Players wanted it nerfed, why? cause they couldn't be bothered to counter it properly in game, and old Thunderer had enough counters *looking at you 420mm+ shells* *wall of torps*

but the article "overlooked" what happened: Thunderer got expelled from the armory (1 attempt) got range reduced (2 attemp) got another range reduce (3 attampt) and got her fire chance nerfed (ok by 1% but still, 4th attempt)

I was in the camp mid range fighter but the ability to sod off from a dd stealth hunting me and still being able to shoot at stuff was nice.

 

that alone lets me read the article with more than 1 grain of salt on how truthful it is. Also: mark your diagrams better - who did those? Goofy? what are the colors for? its a bar diagram without the context of what it is representing. fitst i thought maybe tiers? but there are 11 bars

[H_Juergen]

11 minutes ago, tom_kat said:

Basically they are putting all their efforts on not to look like an opaque company, sharing some of their data and future plans so we, the community, have the manipulated sensation of being listened.

This risk is real.

We, the community, could define dead-lines for certain topics, so we can decide whether this transparency is genuine.

For instance: publishing the chances of container loots is something they could instantly do, because it's already there - since the beginning!!

But who cares?!

[Redcap375]

It's quite funny.

 

A good example of a long but successful search for a solution to a balancing problem is the story of battleship  X Thunderer. Her playstyle—showering enemies with HE shells from a long range—annoyed many players. Based on past experience with other ships, we decided that the problem lay in her excessive popularity, and we thought that we could reduce player frustration by reducing its presence on the battlefield in this way.

 

Any pray tell, why was it popular? BECUASE YOU BROUGHT IT OUT LIKE THAT!

 

You knowingly brought a toxic ship into the game as it was like many of the ships you have nerfed when it gets "popular".  Well whatever WG, whatever.

 

For the same reason, we do not make ships that are too strong. 

 

Want me to get a piece of paper and a pen to write them all down? Clowns..

 

1 hour ago, Europizza said:

Their ideas are flawed, their solutions broken.

 

This ^^^ 

 

Simply this and this article reinforces it ^^^^

 

They show us what they want to show us.

[Misago]

This entire article gives off a feeling of "the stupid players don't know what balance is, which is the only reason they complain about it", the standard corporate approach to damage control. Are EA and WG taking the same seminars?

 

Pray tell, what part of balance is it when premium ships completely outperform their tech tree equivalent with just a token nerf to something no one cares about? What part of balance gives russian ships magic armor and pen? Why are ship lines still completely underperforming after years?

[Bubba_S]

1 hour ago, Shaka_D said:

I risk ridicule and persecution here, but I sincerely feel many here are being completely unreasonable toward WG. There is huge effort on their part to explain their balancing process and the article was clearly well thought out and took massive amounts of effort to create. If some words are lost in translation, this is all it is. How will they ever succeed if all you do is condemn them at every turn? It's ridiculous imho to simply brush their efforts aside because it might not be the news you want to hear, honestly. How about meeting them halfway?

 

If someone stands in front me of me shouting or already decided on their point of view, why should I bother listening or actually hearing anything they say? You might feel similarly about WG, but where does it then end? Be reasonable and a little respectful please folks. Also, subs are likely here to stay, so get with it at least and lets make them better. It feels like there's currently a highly destructive mob toxicity on the forums which overshadows all common sense.

I agree with Shaka here... 

 

Qudos to WG for a good article! It explains a lot of their thinking about the game. A lot of people are against new gimmicks, new ships types AKA CVs and Subs. But seriously a stagnant and concervative game will loose fun very fast.  The game has to evolve to thrive! In one or two years I am sure WG will seperate battlecruisers from battleships and ....

 

Gasp! They will introduce torpedoboats: I suggest they should be operating in some swarmlike divisions as planes and be able to do fast and stinglike stabs at surface ships and more. Allmost like CVs planes attack an mass. Just that ur group will dimish as ships are sunk... A lot of balance needed there 

 

... And I will welcome them to the game... As we most likely should get a Norwegian TB branch! 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Shaka_D said:

I risk ridicule and persecution here, but I sincerely feel many here are being completely unreasonable toward WG. There is huge effort on their part to explain their balancing process and the article was clearly well thought out and took massive amounts of effort to create. If some words are lost in translation, this is all it is. How will they ever succeed if all you do is condemn them at every turn? It's ridiculous imho to simply brush their efforts aside because it might not be the news you want to hear, honestly. How about meeting them halfway?

 

If someone stands in front me of me shouting or already decided on their point of view, why should I bother listening or actually hearing anything they say? You might feel similarly about WG, but where does it then end? Be reasonable and a little respectful please folks. Also, subs are likely here to stay, so get with it at least and lets make them better. It feels like there's currently a highly destructive mob toxicity on the forums which overshadows all common sense.

The issue I have is not their lack of communication, it's their lack of good gamedesign. I commend them on being a less opaque party - and I fully appreciate how difficult and risky that will be for them. But the article either is partially BS or is a testaminial to  some of their most stubborn delusions concerning their own capacity and understanding of gameplay. The release of hilariously broken subs in random after being 'tested' and 'evaluated' in ranked being case in point.

[mihaitha]

I wonder where CVs fit in the "rock, paper, scissors" balance philosophy.