The potencial future of WOWS

[chazwozza]

No more money from me game just mickey mouse now

[LiveWire___]

5 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

And yes, being a musician helps a lot appreciating good music, cause, as in WoWs, I cherish what you may not even notice.

 

I did read through everything else you typed, which is mostly fair enough. Your opinion vs mine. No problems there.

 

I'm not really an argumentative person, and, when I am, I'll argue until I'm blue in the face about something I think is really important, which this isn't.

 

So I'll leave it there.

 

The musician bit, however, I'll mention. I actually am a musician. I play Bass. And I sing. Pretty well, IMHO. I've been in a gigging band headlining at a number of venues. 

 

Which is why I brought music into it. So actually, I can appreciate that, and comment upon it, with a degree of authority.

 

Just thought I'd mention it. 

 

[LiveWire___]

5 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I mean first of all if you dare to write a statement like this to some other forum user:

Oh, and this. Yes, I'll dare writing things like that. Hence the reason I did.

 

Let's draw a line under this one. Yes?

[Maris_Piper]

The Future of WoW's, an interesting concept indeed, I suppose it will limp on till the new victim players stop getting suckered in or maybe the gaming laws finally put paid to their marketing methods either way I unlinked my pay account on the release of submarines and it's stayed that way. if I start to backslide I just watch a few video's to see what BS Wargaming is trying to foist off on the player base and back down to earth I come. 

[Drug_Kartman]

I just hope it meets the same fate as WoWP... but I'd be sad for the graphics guys in WG. The only true heroes.

[LiveWire___]

36 minutes ago, Drug_Kartman said:

I just hope it meets the same fate as WoWP... but I'd be sad for the graphics guys in WG. The only true heroes.

 

Amen to that. The WG art dept is superb. 

[Seraphice]

On 12/30/2022 at 11:31 PM, nerderklaus said:

A BB firing while outranging the enemy ship. This gets even more broken when it's one of these players who allways gets tight spreads, because of "reasons". This problem exists as long as I can remember WOWS and could easily be fixed, but nothing happens. Reduce the range advantage that BBs have over other classes and remove that mechanic that gives some of these players constantly tight spreads, even with notoriously inaccurate ships. Easy fix, but too difficult for certain people... Example: Cruisers in a tier have ranges 16km...19km and BBs of the same tier have ranges 19km...22km

This is an interesting point considering the first battleship at tier X (Yamato) has the longest firing range at the tier still.

And your allegations of some players having more favourable RNG.

 

In any case, firing at such long ranges also reduces the impact you have on the map and increases the time players have to dodge your shots and maneuver out of the way.

On 12/30/2022 at 11:31 PM, nerderklaus said:

I already mentioned superships. They simply improve too much compared to tier 10 which already improved too much compared to the previous tier. You could easily start the balancing with removing the combat instructions from super cruisers and super BBs without compensation. 

The difference is not always as big as you make it out to be. Looking at the changes from Buffalo to DM to Annapolis, it is not so far off. Same for Izumo to Yamato to Satsuma.

For some it is larger (e.g. Saint Louis to Henri IV to Conde) but none of the superships really have anything that you "cannot counter"
As an example, the cruisers still mostly have 30mm plating as their predecessors, and in the case of clausewitz, she pays for her improved armor characteristics by the fact that her firepower is not increased as much.

 

On 12/30/2022 at 11:31 PM, nerderklaus said:

Stealth sniping was removed, because it was considered too strong, but submarines have something similar that is exponentially worse. Submarines spaming their pings is pretty similar. Additionally their pings and homing torps usually outrage ASW planes meaning it combines the gameplay issues of stealth sniping and BBs sniping outside their target's range. The submarine still has the insane concealment and ability to submerge in case of detection. The obvious fix would be to give all ships ASW airstrikes that outrage pings and hit as hard as they did when submarines were added to random battles. 

The same can be said for DDs with lower detection than torp radius, which is pretty much every DD, except for a few low tier and no-torp exceptions.

 

On 12/30/2022 at 11:31 PM, nerderklaus said:

The obvious fix would be to make submarines significantly squishier than IJN torp DDs

Subs are quite vulnerable if you hit them with artillery or depth charges.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Cammo1962]

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

This is an interesting point considering the first battleship at tier X (Yamato) has the longest firing range at the tier still.

And your allegations of some players having more favourable RNG.

 

In any case, firing at such long ranges also reduces the impact you have on the map and increases the time players have to dodge your shots and maneuver out of the way.

The difference is not always as big as you make it out to be. Looking at the changes from Buffalo to DM to Annapolis, it is not so far off. Same for Izumo to Yamato to Satsuma.

For some it is larger (e.g. Saint Louis to Henri IV to Conde) but none of the superships really have anything that you "cannot counter"
As an example, the cruisers still mostly have 30mm plating as their predecessors, and in the case of clausewitz, she pays for her improved armor characteristics by the fact that her firepower is not increased as much.

 

The same can be said for DDs with lower detection than torp radius, which is pretty much every DD, except for a few low tier and no-torp exceptions.

 

Subs are quite vulnerable if you hit them with artillery or depth charges.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

Thats not quite true @Seraphice i have tried spending hole salvoes on them and dept charges and they manages to slip away and funny enough every time we see a dev blog subs are getting a treat every time while other ships are getting a nerf.

 

Kind regards

Cammo1962

[JasonMcFly]

I predict  Wargreedy is just gonna take the lazy way out, and just add Tier, ship length and turrets. 4-5 year be 7-turreted Sherman DD-cruiser

[Seraphice]

1 hour ago, Cammo1962 said:

Thats not quite true @Seraphice i have tried spending hole salvoes on them and dept charges and they manages to slip away and funny enough every time we see a dev blog subs are getting a treat every time while other ships are getting a nerf.

 

Kind regards

Cammo1962

Now that we've added separate ribbons for direct hit and splash hits, it should be easier to distinguish whether you actually hit the submarine or only dealt partial damage.
If you get direct hits it is extremely painful for the submarine.

 

As for the changes to test subs in devblogs, and other ships getting nerfed, they are test ships and the changes are made based on testing results and feedback, that is different from us changing the existing sub branches.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[HMS_Kilinowski]

5 hours ago, Seraphice said:

This is an interesting point considering the first battleship at tier X (Yamato) has the longest firing range at the tier still.

And your allegations of some players having more favourable RNG.

 

In any case, firing at such long ranges also reduces the impact you have on the map and increases the time players have to dodge your shots and maneuver out of the way.

The difference is not always as big as you make it out to be. Looking at the changes from Buffalo to DM to Annapolis, it is not so far off. Same for Izumo to Yamato to Satsuma.

 

That was exactly what I challenged them to prove earlier. I even told them how to do it, but our tinfoil community is afraid of trying to prove anything, cause maybe the outcome is different from what they claim and that would kill their narrative.

So I did their homework and look what I found:

 

Since you specifically name the IJN BBs of T9 to T11,

I put 11 Satsuma bots against 11 Yamato bots for 4 battles in training room. Then I did the same with Yamatos and Izumos. I switched starting positions for half the battles so any unbalancing effect of the map would cancel out. My DD was out of gun range and unspotted at all times and behind the friendly BBs as soon as possible, to not interfere with BBs maneuvering. These are the results:

Satsuma vs. Yamato:

Spoiler

 

tl;dr In four battles the Satsumas lost 11 ships, while 34 Yamatos were lost. That is a kill ratio of ~3:1 for the Satsuma.

 

My hypothesis is that, if the relation of power is comparable between Yamato and Izumo, the kill ratio should be somewhat similar.

 

Now Yamato vs. Izumo:

Spoiler

 

tl;dr This time 24 Yamatos were lost, while destroying 37 Izumos. That's a kill ratio slightly better than 3:2.

 

I do admit this is just a short dirty experiment with bots. Maybe human players would act differently. But at least the bots are all subject to the same AI level, they are all "equally skilled". I do even suspect that bots are not programmed to use the "combat instructions". Maybe you can verify this. If these results are without use of the combat instructions, the Satsuma as used by human players is even more powerful in relation to the Yamato than the tests reveal. I could do more of these experimental battles or maybe some of the people who feel so enclined to make those up to now empty claims rise to the challenge and post some results for other superships.

 

My preliminary findings however suggest that at least the Satsuma is way more powerful than one tier step difference would suggest. If the Satsuma is actually designed to be a T11-ship, the testing suggests it is massively overpowered. And if Wargaming balanced superships against each other, that suggests that T11, as a whole, is overpowered.

At least for CVs I always assumed that WG balanced them to be T12, since T12 is probably the hidden plan in the drawer and the odd-tier-CV in that respect makes no sense.

 

Quote

The same can be said for DDs with lower detection than torp radius, which is pretty much every DD, except for a few low tier and no-torp exceptions.

 

Subs are quite vulnerable if you hit them with artillery or depth charges.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

 

I don't think WG will ever get past these claims made by the community that submarines are unbalanced, as long as the community cannot see the data. So yet again, I beg you to explain to WG the importance of fixing the API. Only when transparent third-party stats pages have data on subs available for everyone to check, we will have the means to go beyond anecdotes.

The simple truth is, nobody can tell whether subs are OP at this point, because their results could be anywhere from shamefully bad to insanely high. Somebody at WG knows, but we don't. And even if that somebody proclaimed some internal results, the community would not believe it, if the results don't fit their perception.

We need solid public data. We need the working API.

[Seraphice]

26 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

That was exactly what I challenged them to prove earlier. I even told them how to do it, but our tinfoil community is afraid of trying to prove anything, cause maybe the outcome is different from what they claim and that would kill their narrative.

So I did their homework and look what I found:

 

Since you specifically name the IJN BBs of T9 to T11,

I put 11 Satsuma bots against 11 Yamato bots for 4 battles in training room. Then I did the same with Yamatos and Izumos. I switched starting positions for half the battles so any unbalancing effect of the map would cancel out. My DD was out of gun range and unspotted at all times and behind the friendly BBs as soon as possible, to not interfere with BBs maneuvering. These are the results:

Satsuma vs. Yamato:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

tl;dr In four battles the Satsumas lost 11 ships, while 34 Yamatos were lost. That is a kill ratio of ~3:1 for the Satsuma.

 

My hypothesis is that, if the relation of power is comparable between Yamato and Izumo, the kill ratio should be somewhat similar.

 

Now Yamato vs. Izumo:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

tl;dr This time 24 Yamatos were lost, while destroying 37 Izumos. That's a kill ratio slightly better than 3:2.

 

I do admit this is just a short dirty experiment with bots. Maybe human players would act differently. But at least the bots are all subject to the same AI level, they are all "equally skilled". I do even suspect that bots are not programmed to use the "combat instructions". Maybe you can verify this. If these results are without use of the combat instructions, the Satsuma as used by human players is even more powerful in relation to the Yamato than the tests reveal. I could do more of these experimental battles or maybe some of the people who feel so enclined to make those up to now empty claims rise to the challenge and post some results for other superships.

 

My preliminary findings however suggest that at least the Satsuma is way more powerful than one tier step difference would suggest. If the Satsuma is actually designed to be a T11-ship, the testing suggests it is massively overpowered. And if Wargaming balanced superships against each other, that suggests that T11, as a whole, is overpowered.

At least for CVs I always assumed that WG balanced them to be T12, since T12 is probably the hidden plan in the drawer and the odd-tier-CV in that respect makes no sense.

 

 

I don't think WG will ever get past these claims made by the community that submarines are unbalanced, as long as the community cannot see the data. So yet again, I beg you to explain to WG the importance of fixing the API. Only when transparent third-party stats pages have data on subs available for everyone to check, we will have the means to go beyond anecdotes.

The simple truth is, nobody can tell whether subs are OP at this point, because their results could be anywhere from shamefully bad to insanely high. Somebody at WG knows, but we don't. And even if that somebody proclaimed some internal results, the community would not believe it, if the results don't fit their perception.

We need solid public data. We need the working API.

An interesting piece to read, and yeah, while the tests may not be exactly accurate, and it's a rather small sample size, its better than nothing.

Still - ships function as more than just a big brawl against similar ships, but as a part of a larger dynamic in a chaotic game. I see your point though.

As for work on the API, I'm afraid it isn't happening anytime in the forseeable future. Sorry.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

6 hours ago, Seraphice said:

but none of the superships really have anything that you "cannot counter"

Apart from getting surprised by a desmo isn't nearly as painful as eating a FUn burst, because on top of better stats, there just had to be this gimmick. Catch someone broadside and he can't even angle in time, even if he is at speed.

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 16 Stunden, LiveWire___ sagte:

Oh, and this. Yes, I'll dare writing things like that. Hence the reason I did.

And yet you chastised me for doing the same. Also claimed to defend people's right to voice their opinion by saying that others should not voice theirs in return.

 

There's a word for that: Hypocrisy.

 

But if you want to draw a line under this now, I'm fine with that. Seems that everyone has been able to state their point by this message.

[Cammo1962]

2 hours ago, Seraphice said:

Now that we've added separate ribbons for direct hit and splash hits, it should be easier to distinguish whether you actually hit the submarine or only dealt partial damage.
If you get direct hits it is extremely painful for the submarine.

 

As for the changes to test subs in devblogs, and other ships getting nerfed, they are test ships and the changes are made based on testing results and feedback, that is different from us changing the existing sub branches.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

It is still hard to sink them even with a BB where the ASW goes from 5 to 11 km and the sub can send his torps from 11 km and ping you from that ranges to. And the natural sub hunter the DD have been rendered usless to do it it in unless the sub reall f... it up @Seraphice and at the same time we have asked WG to remove the ping removal from DCP but no no wont happen and you know the reason why we want it removed from the DCP.

 

I do know they are being tested but we also know that most of these changes to the test subs stays we have seen it over and over again and to be very very clear about subs i would like to have them in the game but the state they are in i avoid them like the plague.

 

Kind regard

Cammo1962

[J0tt]

Vor 17 Minuten, Cammo1962 sagte:

It is still hard to sink them even with a BB where the ASW goes from 5 to 11 km and the sub can send his torps from 11 km and ping you from that ranges to. And the natural sub hunter the DD have been rendered usless to do it [...]

Yeah, it's super fun and engaging having subs hide between their own BBs and cruisers while they spam pings and torps. Without long range ASW you have no chance to engage them at all since you have to kill all the surface ships first ... All ASW should should have at least 12 km range. Having 5 km on a BB is an insult.

[IanH755]

I've just returned from 2 years away and when I stopped in Dec 2020 vs when I came back in Dec 2022 the average daily player numbers are virtually unchanged, so the game is absolutely not growing and all thats left is "churn", with older, more experienced players continually leaving and being replaced by new inexperienced players in an almost 1 for 1 manner, meaning that overall the quality of the game suffers, WG are forced to monetize even more heavily especially on the new players to try to grow the game and then more people will leave due to WG's behaviours.

 

When you look back further the average daily player numbers, on the EU server at least, are actually pretty static since Mid 2016 so 6.5 years of stagnation and no real growth on the EU server (still about 24k), a 50% drop on the RU server over the same time (28k down to 14k), a 50% increase on the Asia server (12k to 18k, caused by COVID/lockdown) and fairly stagnant on the NA server too (about 12k).

 

Whilst thats not as bad as the awful numbers on WOP for example it's still not even close to a "healthy" game in any way, shape or form.

 

2015 to 2023 Stats from  - https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

21 minutes ago, IanH755 said:

I've just returned from 2 years away and when I stopped in Dec 2020 vs when I came back in Dec 2022 the average daily player numbers are virtually unchanged, so the game is absolutely not growing and all thats left is "churn", with older, more experienced players continually leaving and being replaced by new inexperienced players in an almost 1 for 1 manner, meaning that overall the quality of the game suffers, WG are forced to monetize even more heavily especially on the new players to try to grow the game and then more people will leave due to WG's behaviours.

 

When you look back further the average daily player numbers, on the EU server at least, are actually pretty static since Mid 2016 so 6.5 years of stagnation and no real growth on the EU server (still about 24k), a 50% drop on the RU server over the same time (28k down to 14k), a 50% increase on the Asia server (12k to 18k, caused by COVID/lockdown) and fairly stagnant on the NA server too (about 12k).

 

Whilst thats not as bad as the awful numbers on WOP for example it's still not even close to a "healthy" game in any way, shape or form.

 

2015 to 2023 Stats from  - https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/

 

Its actually very healthy as what would normally be considered as a "healthy game" is a natural decline that is truly visible. WOWS doesn't have that natural decline and therefore is doing much better than just a healthy game

[invicta2012]

3 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

Its actually very healthy as what would normally be considered as a "healthy game" is a natural decline that is truly visible. WOWS doesn't have that natural decline and therefore is doing much better than just a healthy game

It doesn't have any real competition, though. War Thunder's naval combat has always been a bit odd and doesn't seem to be the developers top priority. There aren't any other established Age of Armour naval combat games around (not that I know of, any way). So if this is your thing, WoWs is the only decent choice. So player *satisfaction* (however you can measure it)  rather than numbers is probably a better indication of how healthy the game is.

 

From my point of view, I don't think a graph of satisfaction levels would like look as nice as the player numbers. There are a lot of things that don't seem to be as good, or as fun, as they used to be. 

[nerderklaus]

On 1/3/2023 at 3:38 PM, LukkaiCH said:

Who are "they", if I may ask?

The groups who came up with all of this for financial gain.

On 1/3/2023 at 4:42 PM, LiveWire___ said:

Wrong.

 

He plays the game, and is allowed to express his opinion about it. Note that I say "opinion" rather than "expertise", because at no point did he profess to be an expert. 

 

A similar analogy would be to say "You aren't a musician, and so can't criticise music" 

 

What? You think your 23,639 battles entitles you to pontificate to others about what they may or may not do or say?

 

I've noticed a number of your clan mates like to do that. 

 

Hilarious  

A professional troll can twist things either way to make someone look bad, f.e. either he is "not an expert" or he is talked down for dedicating himself to something bad an becoming an expert. They will find their way. Just look how he mad accusations like "no arguments", but didn't post a single legit argument even though he is the one writing most in this thread.

 

What does battle count mean? I have seen people with 28k battles who still don't know the game modes, obviously clan players who play tier 10 most of the time...

On 1/2/2023 at 1:49 AM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

Yeah, you are so right. I get paid by Wargaming to troll users into putting their money where their mouth is and leaving the game. That conclusion of Wargaming paying people to ruin their revenue makes so much sense and testifies to your genius IQ. Chapeau.

After making multiple posts that look like you fail to realize the obvious you are the last person who should talk about IQ.

11 hours ago, Seraphice said:

This is an interesting point considering the first battleship at tier X (Yamato) has the longest firing range at the tier still.

And your allegations of some players having more favourable RNG.

 

In any case, firing at such long ranges also reduces the impact you have on the map and increases the time players have to dodge your shots and maneuver out of the way.

The difference is not always as big as you make it out to be. Looking at the changes from Buffalo to DM to Annapolis, it is not so far off. Same for Izumo to Yamato to Satsuma.

For some it is larger (e.g. Saint Louis to Henri IV to Conde) but none of the superships really have anything that you "cannot counter"
As an example, the cruisers still mostly have 30mm plating as their predecessors, and in the case of clausewitz, she pays for her improved armor characteristics by the fact that her firepower is not increased as much.

 

The same can be said for DDs with lower detection than torp radius, which is pretty much every DD, except for a few low tier and no-torp exceptions.

 

Subs are quite vulnerable if you hit them with artillery or depth charges.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

Obviously there are some things going on with RNG for whatever reason, f.e.

Player A: ship like Musashi

Player B: ship like Legendary Upgrade Yamato

Both ships exchanging salvos without a kiting situation, but for some reason the Musashi constantly gets spreads with less than 50% of the diameter of the LU Yami. This mechanic is an major issue in multiple ways. It destroys the purpose of accuracy upgrades and it's anti-fairplay. Why aren't lots of people mentioning this? High tier battles make it obvious that most people in this game are too slow in the head to observe something like this.

 

This example with a sniping BB missed the point. In high tier battles where you have the worst players there will be such players in both teams, but it still might be deceisive when one team has five such players and the other team has one such player. This is kinda similar autoloss scenarios like 0 CV, 4 DDs per team and all 4 DDs of one team dieing quickly before any damage worth mentioning is dealed to a DD of the other team. Anyway, with good RNG such a player can easily slap a lucky 15k salvo in a ship while being completely save or even get overmatch/plunging citadels while being completely save. That foolproof part of this is broken. The ranges spread of ships needs to be narrowed. Usually all of this is part of completely unplayable autolosses in +2 matches. Anyway, if you really want fairplay in the game there really needs to be some cleanup, f.e. teams did something like "half of the team went straight to one corner of the map and the other half went straight to the other corner of the map". Such situations are by far the biggest issues with fairplay, not players with justified complaints about their team, but I digress...

 

DM gets a major performance leap over the Buffalo, but Annapolis gets an even bigger leap with the additional turret, the "modern armor" and that combat instruction that it shouldn't have. In different lines there can be more or less performance boost with a tier ascension, but there certainly are trends or tendencies, if you look over all lines, f.e. Riga -> Petro and Rupprecht -> Schliefen are extreme performance boosts and something like Mogador -> Kleber does't make as much of a difference as the previous examples.

 

Talking about the Clausewitz comparison: The other supercruisers have improved armor as well meaning it would be good for the balance between the super cruisers to remove the combat instructions without compensation. It certainly is a big deal when they can burst a look of damage into a ship that accidently exposed it's nose for a few seconds...

 

The submarine balancing looks similar to Iowas and Monties getting buffs to citadel and repair when almost all Iowas and Monties on EU are sailing in a straight line while constantly giving flat broadside.

 

A DD with good properties for stealth torping isn't remotely as foolproof as a submarine, because the DD doesn't have such a broken concealment, ability to submerge with all it's overpowered benefits like getting rid of proxy spot and radar. A perfectly aligned ASW airstrike does like 1/8-1/6 of the HP of a same-tier submarine. The ASW airstrikes require buffs to their performance when submarines were new in randoms. The chances of a DD hitting depth charges on submarine player with at least traces of a brain are so low that it should be a guaranteed 100% dev strike in order to be balanced. The problem with the spreadsheet simply is that lots of submarine players have unimaginable degrees of incompetence. Their quest for skill is even more pathetic than Chris Chan's quest for a girlfriend. I am just the messenger, but that is the sad truth with a lot of these players who only play the most broken ships.

[nerderklaus]

13 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

It doesn't have any real competition, though. War Thunder's naval combat has always been a bit odd and doesn't seem to be the developers top priority. There aren't any other established Age of Armour naval combat games around (not that I know of, any way). So if this is your thing, WoWs is the only decent choice. So player *satisfaction* (however you can measure it)  rather than numbers is probably a better indication of how healthy the game is.

 

From my point of view, I don't think a graph of satisfaction levels would like look as nice as the player numbers. There are a lot of things that don't seem to be as good, or as fun, as they used to be. 

Just tell it how it is. There are many game that wouldn't even be relevant, if they weren't unique.

 

I'll give another example. Shooters used to be the most popular game, but for like 10 years they only cloned COD4, a bad anti-skill shooter. People obviously got fed up with this, buying a new game and it's the sme BS against and again... Obviously this made a lot of people look somewhere else. In this situation "being different" is more important for a game than "being good". I am certain that this is the biggest factor in the success of many games including League of Legends and World of Tanks.

[IanH755]

4 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

Its actually very healthy as what would normally be considered as a "healthy game" is a natural decline that is truly visible. WOWS doesn't have that natural decline and therefore is doing much better than just a healthy game

 

It's stagnant, thats unhealthy no matter how you wish to describe it.

 

The player numbers aren't increasing, showing that game is NOT growing in popularity and brining in lots of new players. Once they stop joining (because the game has low popularity) it'll never recover as the player numbers will then drop off a cliff. Now whether this happens tomorrow or 10 years from now is up for debate but this lack of an increasing number of new players, leading to a overall stagnation of player numbers, is very unhealthy for the longevity of any game because at some point those new player numbers will drop.

 

This game "needs" new players, and lots of them, to be a healthy ecosystem and right now we're barely holding equilibrium and I see that lack of new player interest as a problem, rather than thinking it's "healthy".

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 3 Stunden, nerderklaus sagte:

The groups who came up with all of this for financial gain.

Those being? And what fearmongering exactly did you demonstrate against and where? If you're making the comparison (and implying people disagreeing with you in here being the same), you should at least not be so utterly vague about it. Else it's just worthless hot air. Substance, not just words. That's all we're asking for, not just in this particular case. If you're raising an accusation, bring substance to support it. Or admit that you feel it to be that way, but don't actually know for sure. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and voice it. But when you present said opinion as fact that people need to accept, it needs substance. It needs proof that is presented.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

15 hours ago, nerderklaus said:

After making multiple posts that look like you fail to realize the obvious you are the last person who should talk about IQ.

 

Please don't quote me just for some cheap attempt to insult me. I get pinged whenever a person quotes me. It's my time. Don't waste it for some empty comment.

 

I didn't even make any claims. What would I need to prove? You are the one who made a topic. You made a lot of claims and persistently refused to back them up. And now I was even courteous enough to deliver some evidence for one of your points, doing your homework, and you are so stubborn and so blind that you can't even recognize that.

If this is your level of discussion, I can't be bothered.

 

Do your thing, but whatever you say, you will still be here a year from now and all the other people who join in on this requiem. You all will still complain about this game while still being too weak to leave, possibly still dumping your money in. And then, when after another 5-7 years this game finally dies of natural causes, you will self-righteously brag that you had foreseen that and that this is proof that WG did everything wrong.

 

You will still be here, exactly because this game is relevant.

Cause if it wasn't, you guys wouldn't even bother to write all your complaints. If a game is subpar, you don't bother writing to the developer. You just move on to one of the many alternatives. You don't have an alternative and you know it. And that is so embarrassing to you, because you know whatever you threaten to do, you won't do it, because you need this game more than it needs you. Like a person threatening to leave their cheating partner, and then sticking with him time and time again, until he doesn't care anymore and cheats on you without even apologizing.

 

Prove me wrong and uninstall. Where would you go? Play Candy Crush, cause that got so much to do with warships? You are desperate to save your favorite pass-time. You got no leverage, no ace up your sleeve and you know it and that is why you jump into everybody's face who dares to question your empty claims.

[SV_Kompresor]

8 hours ago, IanH755 said:

 

It's stagnant, thats unhealthy no matter how you wish to describe it.

 

The player numbers aren't increasing, showing that game is NOT growing in popularity and brining in lots of new players. Once they stop joining (because the game has low popularity) it'll never recover as the player numbers will then drop off a cliff. Now whether this happens tomorrow or 10 years from now is up for debate but this lack of an increasing number of new players, leading to a overall stagnation of player numbers, is very unhealthy for the longevity of any game because at some point those new player numbers will drop.

 

This game "needs" new players, and lots of them, to be a healthy ecosystem and right now we're barely holding equilibrium and I see that lack of new player interest as a problem, rather than thinking it's "healthy".

By this logic practically no online game in the world is healthy and the very very few that are, are only healthy for like a year or two. But if that were the case the definition of a healthy game would change, so they would no longer be unhealthy.