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

Can we expect a World of Tanks miracle again?

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Third post in a day ... I think something definitely mixed in that coffee I drank earlier, to allow this kind of madness XD

But anyways, lets be honest, WoWs is not doing too well. Its steam release had about the amount of games of a visual novel, and only a second-tier one. Thus we can agree, it's not about exposure. After 2 years, anyone who'd have wanted to try out this free game would have probably done so. Anyone who wished to stay, is clear as well. Thus all other questions aside first, why so little population? One could say, no we have a dozen-thousand players on each regional server, that's not "little". But iphone mobile games get those numbers too. Hell, Indie games in steam get those numbers even from clueless people just trying them out. Is WoWs some Indie game? No, of course not. Then what level should it be? (with no offence meant to Indie games)

Lets direct out attention a moment to World of Tanks. It is undoubtedly successful, possibly the finest of its kind on the market. All other WG games which mimicked its design and structure, closely or less so, have yet to achieve anything comparable. This is confounding. It's not a problem about context; there are multitudes of games of every genre out there dealing with war, violence, teamplay, and progression trees. From first-person to strategy sims. So it's not a niche context. Is it the historical context driving people off? Hypothetically, it could be, but I cannot even imagine how it could remotely be a negative perk. I could start making jokes about tanks and barrel-length compensating for things, but the idea is, even I am confounded on why games other than WoT, by WG, are just not runoff successes.

 

And that brings us to topic. They are not. There are reasons. And heed them we must.

 

The first thought I have is that people are so enthralled by WoT, any other game even remotely similar would simply be leeching off its playerbase. If this were an absolute rule, then the players on all non WoT WG titles can be considered only of a few circumstances, new players who never invested in WoT, players who would have played WoT in any other world but simply liked the context of new titles better, and players who for whatever reason just game. 

This rule would be true if there were only so few new players who never invested in WoT, and so few players who would like the context of new titles. Players who just game are picky types, and only play the best games.

The problems implicated by such a state of matter, is that surprisingly, there are many, many players who have never touched a WoT. Yet so few who wouldn't know anything about the context WG chooses to make games out of. And if you'd take my word for it, the picky types, they'd actually try more games than non-picky types. All these factors, again, point in directions which would lead to conclusions that WG games having such little popularity is grossly unjustified. And WG, I think, believes so too, their games are just hidden gems for whatever reasons, still hidden. So they keep making them their way, because nothing can come wrong from that. At least, it's being loyal to existing players just as they are loyal to you.

 

But let's think from outside the tower. Of the amount of free time any player, even in a developed country, it is surprisingly limited. If they expect to spend time, the most precious resource second only to fate, they expect it to be well spent. They expect a not just expertly curated set of experiences, but a perfect set of experiences. Soon, even a custom tailored experience. To diverge little from their expectations and aspirations, yet at the same time, exceed and surprise their expectations. Divergence without deviance, too, for players customers are like mages, subtle and easily angered. Plane-walking mages too, for this is the era of choice. There are not just dozens of games in the same genre, but hundreds, several hundreds, every year! And but a handful of those will every make it popular enough to sell more than a few thousand units. and about 2-3 will be popular enough to be feature on ... well, say a gaming website, youtube, front store of steam. And even the glass display of the window, with only the most proud merchandise on display, do they only linger for a few, no not minute, seconds, and only if something strikes their fancy shall they inquire upon it, and woe if something strikes even the briefest tone of dislike, for it will instantly be attributed a reason and conclusion. For there are many shops, many types of merchandise, and many, many astounding gems of works, even those not in shops, even those not buyable.

 

And how does a gamemaker compete with all that? Perhaps one should just go become a shoemaker instead. But even shoemaker's face stiff competition and standards nowadays, XD 

 

Ahem. I can't stand cheerfulness. Ah, but that reminds of an important point. Games, art, interpretive media, that is an exceptionI am happy to deal with cheerfulness or anything else in those. I am happy to see others enjoy. I am happy to immerse and imagine a character, for instance, experience. For those are but logic, and logic is transcending. If a dog could think as a human, it wouldn't matter if it was a dog, and it could make choices .. a definition of intelligence. And if humans wouldn't have to choose for the sake of choosing, but only need be, like plants, and like gods, too great to be hurt by anything, yet too great to need to hurt anything else ... true to their nature, or something ...

Subtle yet all-encompassing. Deeply logical yet illogical. In the luxury industry, anything to a high enough standard deals with art. All their advertising campaigns are mini-art exhibits. Their events are high-class social events. In the end, all comes back to this. Industry, past a certain standard, gets integrated and becomes a cornerstone of civilization, a great status raise. Life is not without its hunger, but formed gracefully, be it sequences of words or pictures, it becomes academic, law, or art. Even the ferocity and wildness of but a beast, in its purest form, truest form, is something sacred, and infused with finality. For beasts simply be, pure as gods, purer than humans ever could.

 

And so it is, amongst all things, when a player chooses a game, they are not choosing instant gratification, justice, or even enjoyment ... they are choosing to, no, yearning to, engage instantaneously at that high level of logic. Something pure, singular, definitive, decisive, final. Preferably, beautiful, just, noble, graceful. 

 

Yet for practical reasons, firstly, if one could operate those levels, one is probably not a gamemaker shoemaker. Even if one could. they'd still be stuck as the shoemaker, and could only maybe operate their gypsy orchestra every now and then on weekends. Ahem, getting sidetracked again ... Secondly, due to some convoluted rules of modern culture and media and stuff, a keyword is self-referential. It has come to a point where nothing ever made could ever be original or completely unconceived, even in partial form, before. For science, it's great, but for art, where originality raises value by hundredfold, the "post-modern" route is simply to wear it with pride, make jokes and parodies, purposefully outrageous deviations to hint in some mad way, the original. It also means anyone who is (blasphemy!) naive enough to think they could still attempt guilt and sin-free, originality and the simple, direct route, they'd be framed with precisely naive, unskilled, low-level, elementary, etc.and those are just the unbiased attributes. Still, this is quite dependent on culture, and established norms ... some forms are more forgiving than others, but this rule, unfortunately, is still absolute. It works on statistical logic, not on some arbitrary cultural analysis. The diminishing returns on qualitative content exists massively. In short, to achieve 100% efficiency, for a second work, you'd have to make 10 works of the final level, yet pick 1 of the best to represent. Otherwise, if you only made 1, even at the highest level obtainable as your first work, it would only have 10% qualitative efficiency. Ridiculous, I know, but if one could make 10 works, they'd make 10 works, and probably be a genius too.

 

Which brings us to how. The 100% efficiency assumed non-negotiable. Yet, most people in their lifetimes seldom make more than 10 total works, or even attempts at that level, much less be hugely wasteful in making 10 than discarding 9 for each. Much more common is amongst the 10 actual works of a lifetime, one or two is chosen as singular, definitive, final. The rule is absolute. It is even possible there will not be another WoT miracle again. Though that is quite impossible, and only a question of when, for us, a question of "when" is a question of "if". So that route is undesirable.

To be, naturally, and trust in the genius ... that is one way. But it is not being chosen, for by being natural, it is guaranteed some things will be less desirable than others, and no one wants to be those. Plants live and die, but we don't choose to. Thus, norms, forms, and zeitgeist exist. Industry standards and practices exist, even when not scientifically necessarily, simply statistically. It's all about business. A business is, incredibly, not judged by the nature of its products. Much less quality. Originality is way out of the question. Also by the way trust doesn't exist except in finality. Also again, if it's slow, the question of "when" becoming "if".

Thus the simplest way is almost out of the options. Even excellence doesn't work? Then what could? Well, practically, there are many practical techniques able to apply, to lessen the unfavorable leverage of that 10-1 ration of diminishing returns to something more manageable, like 3-1. Established consumer norms, expectations, artistic trends and genres and forms, these all push to form a practical convergence. Whether these balance odds against the consumer, or whether it is even ethical and responsible for things beyond one generation and maximizing development etc. are deep questions but practically irrelevant, in practice. But as mentioned, the law is absolute. The odds still exist, and despite choosing the 10-1 option does not mean you will have a 30-1 benefit in a 3-1 field, a 100% in a 10-1 still makes a difference, and is recognized so, from a 100% in a 3-1. But recognition is worthless, again. So, are practical techniques the way to go? Perhaps, all possible logical outcomes are pointing in that conclusion. And a conclusion, is absolute.

 

But I am only capable (apologies) of bringing out one more option. The aforementioned "miracles". WoT is a miracle for a reason, it took a 10-1 route and did it. Miracles, are a qualitative difference. Anything worthwhile takes time, but that value, instead of pandering for favor, gains respect. But even that is not miracles. As mentioned earlier, there is a thing called trust, it is final. Usually, there is continuity after trust, and things move on. But at that singular moment, all future bets is hedged aside, no more if's, no more when's, all superpositions are converged, and everything is final. And thus, if to be natural is the way to go, then only naturally, being final, can a final level work be naturally made. And the term "miracle" will only be but a term. And unnecessary anymore, for in continuity, it is past that. (In a good way)

 

And that is the best I can do. Before I regress back to before whatever I ingested causing me to exhume things like this, because clearly, these madness can't have originated from me. And like all my rant, I totally diverged from whatever I wanted to say in the beginning, something much more sensible ... but meh. The technical analysis can wait.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MDIV]
[MDIV]
Beta Tester
220 posts
12,570 battles

Hallo fellow Captain,

thats some wall of text you got there! I appretiate all the effort you put in this. It reflects your passion for the game. But honestly? I stopped reading after the first section. Do you mind to cut down your thought, or at least highlight the most important points of yours?

 

Thanks man

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,259 posts
14,525 battles
  • This is no casual game
  • You cannot install and start it in 2 minutes
  • You cannot play it while going to work
  • Not every one is interested in old ships
  • Most younger players prefer games with fast gameplay
  • Cool 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
1,199 posts
26,851 battles

Man, this was so deep that I had to blow my ears to equalise.... :cap_haloween:   Were you channeling Yoda, maybe?

 

Just joking - well written. :cap_like: IMHO, what you are not acknowledging is the following. While you (and me and probably majority of forum members) approach this game in a fairly serious manner, looking to improve and to fulfill the need for a quasi intellectual/logical gratification, vast hordes of players do not. They just want to shoot at ships, without bothering to learn about mechanics, angling, positioning, etc..

 

So WoWs is stuck in an unpleasant place : if WG makes game more interesting to the minority (i.e. players that care about complexities of the game), they will loose kids and other casual players ( = money). But if they make it less complex (and sadly, every new update is a step in that direction), they will eventually loose a (hard)core of players who have invested money and time into this game. The more mature crowd who enjoys complexity of the game.

 

The main reason for the frustration in this game (and just check the recent posts) is that Randoms are becoming very frustrating due to the mixing of clueless and committed (experienced) players. And if RNG is stacked against you, you end up in potato team vs unicum team resulting in a 5 minute game.  

 

I seriously think that skilled (or league) type of MM can be a compromise that will satisfy casual players who dont care about learning and improving and at the same time satisfy more experienced players that do nor want to loose a battle after a battle because the rest of the team either suicide or dont even fully understand the game goals. I have seen so many games where 3 BBs chase one CA instead of capping and then we loose on points.....

 

That is one of the reasons why my clan mates and me are so enjoying Clan Wars. We do loose, but then at least we know that there is nobody else to blame and then we try not to do the same mistake in the next battle. 

 

Thx for reading and all the best!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
1,101 posts
23,878 battles
6 hours ago, Blechhaube said:

 or at least highlight the most important points of yours?

 

 

....he allready did(!), but clearly there are none, lol:cap_popcorn:

 

(...his wall of text does make me think of some "self-proclamed Arts Painter" i recently saw on tv: "created" his paintings by throwing lots of colours of paints on the ground of his "atelier"...removed his shoes...walked randomly with his bare feet through that paint..and subsequently randomly walked over the canvas, that way "creating" his so-called self-proclaimed Arts Master Pieces???), lol. (all-in-all that whole process took some 5 minutes at the most lol..and maybe some unknown substances in his drinks??)...some people????:cap_wander_2:, .....gave me a good laugh...I zapped very fastly and put on a movie instead, lol)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,861 posts
6,932 battles

Wow long text and to be perfectly honest I didn't read all of it.

 

I think the game has a certain apparently relatively stable population but to become much bigger it would need to attract a wider audience. The setting is a little niche and ColonelPete mentioned the mein point why the biggest group of potential players is underrepresented - the younger ones prefer a faster pace (like in a shooter). 

 

In in my opinion there are also some problems with the game within the target group

 

- it's just Tonks-on-Water. WG didn't really dare to make a Naval game but copied most of WoT to a blue surface. Including the overall gameplay, angling and so on. Which is a pity. 

 

- they didn't implement true team play elements but stayed with the solo warrior concept. All players get rewarded for is dealing damage. WG didn't even try to create incentives and game modes in a way to support fleet tactics. Team play elements can happen but mostly on individual initiative

 

- with their radical departure from historical accuracy they furthermore alienated the history buffs who are mostly around for their interest in ships. 

 

- monotone gameplay. Always the same: enter battle, deal damage, repeat. No objectives, no flexibility. Boring. 

 

 

So - in a nutshell the product isn't overly attractive to action oriented gamers due to the nature of the setting and ppl who love are there because they love the setting get pushed off due to WG's gimmicky fantasy path. I guess quite a few will stick around for a while but mostly due to lack of alternatives.

 

Btw. I played WOT but stopped as the game is incredibly bad and boring.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Beta Tester
1,500 posts
5,229 battles
7 hours ago, ColonelPete said:
  • This is no casual game
  • You cannot install and start it in 2 minutes
  • You cannot play it while going to work
  • Not every one is interested in old ships
  • Most younger players prefer games with fast gameplay

You should add "many players expect instant gratification". Which this game does not give. You need patience and you need to LEARN stuff, oh the horror. Also if you mess up, you get punished.

 

There is no easy-mode to stroke your ego by disguising easy difficulty as "normal" like most games do nowdays.

 

But most importantly, there are tons of great online FPS to choose from so WoWs is in a difficult spot. It is really not just point-and-shoot-and-you'll-be-fine-untill-you-learn game. I have not tried, but my guess is that you'll get further in Overwatch (for example) by just running around and shooting than in WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,616 posts
42,650 battles
54 minutes ago, Yaskaraxx said:

....he allready did(!), but clearly there are none, lol:cap_popcorn:

 

(...his wall of text does make me think of some "self-proclamed Arts Painter" i recently saw on tv: "created" his paintings by throwing lots of colours of paints on the ground of his "atelier"...removed his shoes...walked randomly with his bare feet through that paint..and subsequently randomly walked over the canvas, that way "creating" his so-called self-proclaimed Arts Master Pieces???), lol. (all-in-all that whole process took some 5 minutes at the most lol..and maybe some unknown substances in his drinks??)...some people????:cap_wander_2:, .....gave me a good laugh...I zapped very fastly and put on a movie instead, lol)

 

I can tell you about the real thing from Sweden some decades ago how a new painter (artist) had an exhibition and got fine reviews from art critics and so on, after a while the creator was found to be a monkey fron the local (Borås) Zoo. It was a great idea to get all so called "critics" a slap on the nose. :cap_haloween: 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
239 posts
23,323 battles

Too much RNG, very simple.

You can aim as good as you like when RNG want`s to [edited]you the whole day you will always get crap results. be it at 2km on a broadside enemy ship or 20km.

If RNG want`s to cita you no matter how impossible a cita on that angle is, the enemy will do so.

If RNG want`s you see you burn then every HE shell you get will start a fire, no matter the % chance. while you and your 40% fire chance have still wait for a fire after 100+ HE hits...

Too much RNG [edited]people. Frustration. Uninstall. Simple as that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Notes on some points brought up in replies so far:

Players not expecting to learn teamplay and getting punished for it while expecting instant gratification: this is because the gameplay is structured (as mentioned) in a "solo warrior" kind of way. If instead, it was designed to intuitively encourage and clearly convey it being a teamplay game, and nudging the player towards learning, it would be much better. That can be done, but there will have to be changes.

Almost every FPS shooter can't be played while going to work. Same with Witcher 3. Neither can Overwatch and every MMO there, but players socialize with clan via social apps, think about the game with passion, etc. and this downtime just makes returning to the game much more sweeter. Except with WG titles, it's more grind grind work frustration upon return. So they don't return. (Also as mentioned, there is a WoT mobile version.)

Fast gameplay does not equal short gameplay. Quality gameplay is by far more important. Continuous and cascading gratification is more important than instantaneous gratification. Also as I mentioned (or tried to), there are more significant things beyond gratification.

Well they were not interested in old ships, now they are (or ideally will be). That's supposed to be an unexpected perk. This is assumed if the pure gameplay design by itself was excellent and industry-leading, but which in current conditions it is clearly not. This has to change.

RNG is fine, but it's a delicate topic. From what it seems on current conditions though, it is perhaps not handled in the best way possible. Aka it is designed badly so as to inflict bad effects too directly to the player without mitigation. A design problem fundamentally.

And on the topic of alternatives to choose from, yes, WoWs put itself in this bad and awkward spot by not being a true FPS, yet not being strategically significant enough to become a RTS. In an ideal world it could achieve both, but as current conditions are it is neither. Coincidentally this is part of a point I tried to make but I didn't put much effort in to convey it.

And on "fake" and pretentious art, it's funny because it's precisely the reason post-modern and self-referential art exists. Because if you levy the kind of "it's pretentious" argument at it, it will just say "that's the point I'm trying to make; it's a kind of outrageous sarcasm". One general rule I have is if it can convey a kind of "magnificent sadness". The kind that can't be said in a joking or sarcastic tone. And some games can achieve that, too. Even WoWs. Someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NAVOC]
Players
721 posts

I don't think it is going to have a miracle of spontaneous fame but I don't think it is going down anytime soon either.

Both ways, not my problem...there are plenty of games being launched every day :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
276 posts
10,736 battles
14 hours ago, ColonelPete said:
  • This is no casual game
  • You cannot install and start it in 2 minutes
  • You cannot play it while going to work
  • Not every one is interested in old ships
  • Most younger players prefer games with fast gameplay

Sorry but WoWs IS a casual game, it actively targets the casual gamer, has trash balance and game mechanics that supports the casual gamer.

Everything about WoWs/WoTs/WoWp screams casual, and goes a long way to explain why the player experience is aids.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,259 posts
14,525 battles

If WoWs is supposed to be a casual game, WG is doing it wrong.

 

Casual games:

  • Quick to install
  • Are very simple and therefore easy to play (no complicated UI)
  • Have a very short gameplay
  • Bring success quickly
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
628 posts
12,255 battles
8 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

....  WoWs mobile version.

 

wtf, there really is one! Based on youtube vids I'd rather have my dinglies deep fried than play that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
358 posts
16,931 battles
15 hours ago, ColonelPete said:
  • This is no casual game
  • You cannot install and start it in 2 minutes
  • You cannot play it while going to work
  • Not every one is interested in old ships
  • Most younger players prefer games with fast gameplay

Thanks for the summation.

 

Not every game is able to attract a ginormous audience, and in fact some are simply not intended for such.  In this case (WoWs), I see an opportunity that someone at WG said "Hey, we've got this nice matchmaker and a lot of internal infrastructure available that isn't being used to full capacity, let's take this tanks model and spin off some genre titles.  We'll need only a fraction of the staff to produce and manage it since we already have a lot of stuff in place, so our operational costs will be lower - and we'll attract a different demographic than the twitch-fest of Tanks."

But that's just my opinion, which may or may not have bearing on the reality behind the scenes.

 

  Az

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,036 posts
11,131 battles

Games?  Dopamine release on successful result.

 

Most people have limited time to play games, so one can invest effectively in only a few games. For me it is WoWS and Fallout 4 (still mucking about with it LOL), but mainly WoWS.

As to why it has not reached the levels of WoT or mobile games is simple. Few countries could afford an effective Navy, the UK, USA, and Japan, with notable mentions of Germany, Italy and France. The level of interest in Naval matters is not on the same level as those who take an interest in Military matters. Look at the Russian region, and WoT, the game is full of Russian tanks, for a Russian audience, which is huge! So its a limited, select audience is available to WoWS. I also think that the game appeals to an older demographic too.

 

And as many have pointed out, the attention span of younger gamers seems to diminish year on year, as it seems does their willingness to learn about game mechanics.

Its all about instant gratification, get that dopamine fix! Which is why simplistic games like Candy crush are so popular with all ages and sexes.

 

Wargaming have said that it has not been the success they hoped for, but it is, they say profitable. So buy some premium time, gold, or ship and keep your game going!

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIDES]
[TIDES]
Players
124 posts
4,741 battles

The other off putting thing about this game, (of late anyway) is that the persistent toxic players have now progressed to all tiers of the game.

 

Not a pleasant experience to slog away all day at work, and then get a torrent of abuse because player x doesn't like your ship choice.

 

In a small community its the toxicity that will kill it.

 

One idea...why introduce an MGB/E-Boat 'skirmish' mode...would be good for some instant relief :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,798 posts
14,068 battles

Comparing WOT and WOWS, the latter has a few inter-related elements that make it especially hard for newbies. A key one is that (I think) the proportion of competent players is higher in WOWS, and that especially applies to mid tiers.

In WOT, there are plenty of unicums, but their impact is diluted rather by the huge player base (varying a bit with between servers); even above average players don't feel excessively prevalent. In WOWS, it feels like you meet more better players, and much sooner (in terms of tier progression); this makes it easier to get vapourised/disheartened sooner.

Having said that, it is mitigated by the excellent PvE modes that WOWS has (which also makes up for lower server populations off-peak); WOT doesn't really have any equivalent 'paddling pools' for new players to muck around in - you're playing against real people more or less from the off, although the better players tend to concentrate at T8 and above, unlike WOWS (where you seem to encounter them from around T6).

I think the key difference (which will ensure WOWS remains more niche than WOT) is that WOT is generally much faster paced, and a lot more instantaneous, as others have alluded to. Games tend to be shorter in WOT too, so making it more conducive to a quick casual blast than WOWS.

Personally, I like both games a lot, but which one I play at a given moment depends largely on on things like time available and mood; WOWS is more of a 'session' game, which will always reduce the number of people with the time/inclination to play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
1 hour ago, Akula971 said:

Its all about instant gratification, get that dopamine fix! Which is why simplistic games like Candy crush are so popular with all ages and sexes.

Very sensible answer, but I'd hope that's not the only answer.

On military games, I'd imagine brilliant engineering and magnificent ships, plus honorable traditions and still-relevant military matters today would generate more interest than say, Rainbow 6, a game about special forces. While special forces and military police are relevant today, in some ways Rainbow 6 captures less the spirit and essence of gunfighting, much less special forces in general, than even Call of Duty, and comparably by context, even WoWs. Yet, that game is a runaway success for what ridiculously narrow context its content is based off of. There are ships in this game we can actually walk on today, and highly passionate and detailed displays available in many museums, yet I doubt many people know a special forces operator in person. Maybe a witness of their performance in some show, but it would be very distant.

The answer is never simple. Why utter trash like Candy Crush are popular, why we can't have good things and everything else I can rant about, etc. 

But it's not rant we want to hear. What we want is significant, yet infinitely more complicated and even hard to express. Things like art, education, prosperity, etc. But that's getting sidetracked.

 

There was an interesting argument I know of. Whether it is better to show many holocaust victims marching towards a gas chamber, numbing and distressing, or to show a single victim, marching towards the gallows, downtrodden eyes skywards, losing all hope, tired and wary. No, both is not an answer. It's a question about technique, and opposing approaches; a massive and hyper-realistic, authoritative and respected statistical approach, or a relatable, singular emotional approach. And what matters isn't even to debate until one side is the correct answer, but to seek truth of the deeper laws behind it. 

What works or not is highly situational. But excellent works always reveal some of that eternal truth behind it. Perhaps some like FPS for that heady control, immersion, direct feedback control, feeling of control, possession, etc. could go on forever. Some tour games like tourists, detached, or just observe,to them that maybe more real than playing it, interfering with it, who knows. Games convey at their core, logical structures. Victory is a logical structure. Emotions are logical structures. They may or may not be caused by things like dopamine. But when we choose amongst a glass window display of games, before any dopamine is released, we evaluate each game with logic, of course some are better at being impartial than others, who may just be hooked by fancy trailer music and manipulative art, but at its core we still choose a game for its "feel". We choose it for the experience; we all know it's virtual. ..........

 

And if it's virtual, whether it's even real or not is not that important. I once had a friend who really wanted to experience a good "swordfighting gameplay". We enjoyed FPS games like Call of Duty together, but he always said "it's not the same". I'm pretty sure he is not the violent type (he's a doctor), and doesn't do martial arts, much less fight with a sword before. Perhaps he just wants that visceral, fight for your life experience? Or the immersion of performing a noble, sacred time-honored tradition? Engaging in massive historical battles from the eyes of a footsoldier? The one-on-one aptly name true-to-its-word melee combat, pushing and urging with every ounce of your strength? Who knows. Modern technology could not satisfy his whims. And no one knows actually the experience of being a melee footsoldier anymore, except maybe in South-America guerilla factions. There is little to compare off of. In a related discussion with someone else on the same topic, we happened across an interesting point, that it would take much more than even fine game mechanics to fully replicate the heady experience of martial arts, key example of the point being that for a martial arts master, every defensive had offensive potential, and every offensive vice versa ... how possibly could something intricate like that be even remotely replicated in a video game, to a completely newb operator? Ubisoft has experimented with semi-dynamic animations, to link together animations of different types smoothly, but at most that is an illusion, it is never even close to the real thing. The closes conclusion we had was that a smart and trained supportive a.i. would help to operate on mundane operations, while the player would only need to make decisions, direct his approximate intentions in control, e.g. if he wanted to move back, the a.i. would perform a complex backwards maneuver while dealing with any offensive and defensive needs,mimicking the muscle memory and strategic control separate spheres of control in our brain ... but we're getting sidetracked.

 

Games only present us with a illusion of reality. The game makes a context, its rules, its interpretation, even its conclusion. Though some games with "open endings", "procedural generation" and such try to do a little better, fundamentally, game-design craft is still quite rough, qualitative wise. But the key point is, games need not ever be based on reality. A truly well designed games makes its own context and rules, and trains the player on them. This is somehow more preferable than even a well-designed game which draws on the relevant common-knowledge from real life it wishes the player to utilize, because only by custom-designed, made-up context can the creator be fully sure these designs are fully adapted to the "feel" of the game. In a "soft logic" kind of way. Coherence, flow, suitability, these are more important than functionality. Pureness, interpretative value, these are more important than metrics like breadth, or even depth. The experience of a game is not necessarily linked to its depth. If I could prove to you, that somehow, through witchcraft and sorcery and native-american spiritual practice and voodoo and yin-yang and whatever magic, or even simpler through science so advanced it's indistinguishable from magic, I could reliably, in a scalable solution, deliver to every normal person with no danger whatsoever, the experience of possessing an eagle. So vivid, so visceral, so real, that is is indistinguishable from the real thing. Or even the real thing itself. How many millions do you think would instantly be poured in to the project? Even if no one can define it, because the experience varies for each user, yet somehow, after experiencing it, they would unanimously agree it is the real thing? Even scientists and doctors and engineers? At that point, it wouldn't even matter if it was real or not. The common consensus has willed it so.

In short, games now take on a whole new light, and all those crazy attempts at bribing streamers make sense, but in a fundamental way now. Not just in a practical, technical way anymore. While the opportunitive and unskilled gamemaker is swept along by these structural and cultural norms, while those a bit more skilled could benefit from control of these rules, those truly dedicated to their respectable crafts instead do not use these techniques for manipulative, exploitative means, but to enlighten on what is significant, and prevent them from interfering with the task of making a true experience. 

And to say something here, even fewer than the number of excellent, capable game companies, are the few game companies who would probably still hold themselves up to such a standard. And I believe WG to still be one of them.

 

So to reiterate on the key points. If it's real, if the context is popular, all those things no they don't fundamentally matter. A game can darn well create its own context and controls and rules for navigating those contexts. Attention span of anyone will be short if it's not on something they are interested in, and reverse if it is. Never underestimate the human spirit. And it is games which manage to not just tap into these incredibly potent reserves that will ultimately win out, but games which draw out the best in people, which increase potency not via manipulative leverage, but symbiotic collaboration and resonance ... but one cannot truly operate these rules without believing in them; how does one influence their audience if they cannot even influence themselves? If you only believe in practical times-dependent techniques, then all you will every truly use, and be able to use, are those "clever techniques". This is an absolute rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,857 battles

Some of these points have already been pointed out but hey...

I have some friends who started playing but quit pretty soon, or never started at all. I can list the reasons tbh.

1. Progress is slow without premium time. Not everyone wants to pay monthly fees. I have at least 2 friends who would happily play if they could just buy lifetime premium for something like €50 or so but the investment for a game that is, tbh, nothing particularly impressive chases players away. For half the price it takes for a year of premium in this game you can get any AAA title that is probably at least as good as this game if you don't want to play this in particular. €40 for a virtual item is also quite offputting. Even with premium time there is a lot of grinding credits/xp involves which offputs many players. Go check the MMO scene how well received hardcore grinders are.

2. Low tier gameplay can be frustrating. A friend of mine wanted to play BB's. Started with the USN line and quit the game at Wyoming due to the sucky accuracy and dependence on rng. Which leads me to the next point.

3. Too hard for casuals, too easy for pro's. The game is RNG dependant which pretty much kills any chance of a pro scene. On the other hand there is a pretty steep learning curve to have some fun due to sealclubbers mostly. Even CV's, which some people claim are "hard" to play are in fact fairly easy in a pro scene. I dare any of the top 1% CV players in this game to even get as far as being a, say,  top 5% (dare I say 10%?) starcraft II player. Then tell me again how "hard" CV play is. I'm no pro, which people will gladly point out, but I'm still confident this argument holds up. It's a souped down RTS style gameplay that never measures up to true pro scene RTS games. On top of that balance has serious issues that are ongoing for years now and no real fix is obviously incoming. I mean, I think we can all agree that in the current state this game has no chance of developing into an esport, but as pointed out, at the same time, it has a fairly high threshold.

4. Gameplay is slow which is a pro for me but a con for the majority of gamers. I have a friend who took one look and made up his mind ("boring").

5. Historical accuracy is off alianating players who are mainly here for the ships themselves.

6. The game should be a teamgame, but isn't. This causes all kinds of issues with balance and whatnot. Either make it a more FFA style gameplay (I'd hate that personally), or force players into teamplay. There's tons of games that force players to work together to obtain objectives, and are doing great. I feel like WG thinks enforcing teamplay, or counting on it to balance stuff, is a bad move to make. It's not :p

7. The community isn't the most friendly. Many new players who come and ask questions get references to their stats and told "git gud". That doesn't help anyone. Makes me feel like a lot of basement players compensate lack of real life accomplishment with arrogant remarks in the game they're good in. Even if it means nought cause nobody in the gaming world even remotely cares about wows in the first place.

8. I'm stuck at the moment but i might come up with more later :p

 

 

Long story short, there's tons of reasons why this game is niche, and will always be so in its current itteration.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
1,101 posts
23,878 battles
4 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

blablabla... it is clearly not. This has to change ......blablabla.... it is designed badly ..... bad and awkward .....blabla... outrageous sarcasm  ...blablabla...magnificent sadness....blablabla...... joking or sarcastic tone

Mask comes off(??) ...allready(?)....so soon? lollol Yes, fcaus, I a 100% sure anticipated beforehand yr early exposure & yr "coming out of the woodwarks' soon after I posted my comment #6 ...yr true intentions easily being revealed, all so easy, lol

 

My sincere & kindly meant advice to you: you better never ever try to play real poker or chess, since yr opponnents would see you coming from miles & miles away:cap_look:

 

(Note: I myself played many very excellent games & uptill present day WoWS has become my #1 preferred game to play. So, dont expect for me to comment here on forums over and over again since I much more prefer investing my time in actually playing this excellent and ongoing evolving game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×