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

"Pull" versus "Push" based game design. Conclusion.

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Procedure omitted. Much omitted.

 

Basic Conclusion: It is more desirable to aim for the "presence" of an answer rather than an answer itself. 

(Answers to questions of what? Well it wouldn't o've mattered even if I repeated myself here. Light, space, time, fate, form, thresholds, flow, ... more.

See? Meaningless if just said in this way, anyways. I might as well be singing empty songs.

I mean, those are not questions. But what if they were?)

[In other words: to mimic the state of reaching an answer or a conclusion, e.g. the ceremonial process of either via winning, eliminating the evil, achieving goals, surviving, coming to terms with the issue or the environment, preventing the evil contraption from blowing up the world, and etc. Or more ideological ones, like achieving peace, ideological/character growth, solving problems, seeing the truth, saving and protecting someone/something, salvation and redemption, and that sort etc.]

(On a side note, that's why it's so easy to write plots involving "love". It's the placeholder for everything. But it distracts one from much more worthy things. In short: It's a cheap thing to do. Yet mostly what we get nowadays.)

 

However, to resort to "mimic" is only tactically justifiable, and merely statistically "desirable". Not yet "ideal". And definitely not something one would like to fall into a habit of doing. 

 

Ideally, one establishes a "self-reinforcing process" of natural "pull" based, high initiative development, by utilizing the "void's natural/innate tendency to pull". ("Universal gravitation" resemblance. "Stack the odds in your favour", passively. Subtly. Inherently. Cohesively. Understand natural tendencies of progression, curiosity, statistical chance, and other "pulls". Create something singular, definitive, finality, as topic which will naturally evolve into a continuously evolving franchise. E.g. actually discovering something resembling an "answer".)

 

In other words, regardless of whether the answer was achieved in the end, the formalities are what ultimately makes it an answer or not. 

Thus it is more desirable for games to instead "mimic" an answer in "feel, structure, form", or to mimic the "feeling" of reaching that answer, than to attempt to actually answer a question thyself. (It being an illusion is not regarded as a problem, because it is only ideological and hypothetical after all.)

Because only this way, it can achieve the self-contradictory state of both reaching a conclusion, yet still allowing space for continuity. And it's all about continued franchises these days. And other compromises.

In this manner, both "push" based design, e.g. placeholder qualitative aspects, while rushing game system versions to establish a "foothold"; and "pull" based design, e.g. revolving around thought, qualitative content, story, artistic ideas and the such in an attempt to finality answer hypothetical questions, can occur at the same time

 

However, my stance is that ultimately "pull" based content will win out. Unfortunately the extended conclusion slipped away, so I am unable to provide further explanation.

-But I can attempt to describe this ultimate conclusion more.

-Due the the inherent nature of the art form, and also the direction games are taking, "pull" typed logic is working. A self-recurring feedback loop is probably present, both in reality and in their ideological form, but I cannot precisely pin it atm.

-In other words, it will soon matter to be more adept at the manipulation of "pull" based logical forms, than just managing to get by with rapid "push" based tactics. "Polish" will matter more than "product completion". "Reverse engineering" from traced and triangulated logical positions (optimal "high-grounds") will be more efficient than pushing towards something with one's own natural product evolution. With one logical signature one gains a claim. With two, a bearing. With three, a heading. Emphasis for the timing on "cashing out" that claim when the position becomes in-sight and imminently reachable by all, shall be the new hot-trend for a while. The moment when "push" absolutely must shift closer to "pull". Care to not lost the opportunity when it comes by, be prepared and informed, so to not lose the "tug-of-war".

 

 

Side notes:

-Oh on a side note, too much claim on an answer, or claiming too many answers, yet skipping out on actual answers with only placeholder "push" based content release, will incur a whiplash effect from the playerbase in form of bad reputation and ill-will. This is highly detrimental to the franchise in the long run. Sometimes the size/weight of the claim is dependent on the topical context, and not controllable by you. [In other words, it is the act of a scoundrel to claim to present something with "pull", and an answer, but actually deliver something lesser. Or at least it is generally perceived as so. I myself am quite guilty. Still, the rule is absolute.]

-Usually, purposefully opaque, far-away fictional, extreme, dire, statistically rare, publicly accepted interpretive fiction forms, and etc. topics are chosen to specifically capitalize on the un-verifiable and inconclusive nature of their corresponding conclusions. It is easier to fool with illusion of an answer, when the question was also illusional, and even better, also formulated by you. This particular structure of logic is a key theory in game design, ex. the argument of whether to formulate new, highly customized and compatible "logical tools set" for the player to use only in our game franchise, or instead to make use of generally available building blocks and common knowledge. However, too stuck on this stance misses the possibilities, and the opportunities, of the real leverages: making use of second-generation high-grounds (I suddenly cannot precisely recall its correct description). In a more imagery description, "nesting" more comfortably, wedging oneself more stubbornly into natural crevices, entrenching on the claim more, on naturally occurring logical corners and strong-points. Or, using feedback from first-generation "triangulation soundings" to make even more audacious inferences. However you prefer to interpret it. I am using description because its true, prismatic, unabridged nature is beyond my ability to portray in english. As is most worthy things.

-Unfortunately employing "push" based tactics in this stance of logic tends to drive one into a more "narrow hole", and not even necessarily deeper. Just finer. It is easy for whole industries to lose the general direction this way, losing whole chunks of possibilities and opportunities. So yet another argument for having a good fundamental grasp of "pull" based development in addition to everything else.

 

Ending words:

We have heard the term "industrial era". "Information era". Someday, we will reach a "logical" era. Where possibilities are systemically explored and developed upon. Possibly assisted, or even with main initiative, in the hands of A.I. (instead of humans). But definitely not something we can wholly control or matter in anymore. Whether to "push" or "pull" will become mute questions. Merely "states". The only things left were our "choices". Or perhaps there never were really choices after all.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,921 posts
17,156 battles
15 minutes ago, collin_mats said:

Can someone who dare read all that text summaries it for me?

DUH! Sorry Dude, play WoWs - Can't read...:Smile_smile:

 

BUT

 

Basically, I suspect it says that WG is guilty of making mostly cosmetic changes (they have no plan but just reacting to whatever comes up) instead of trying to find fundamental resolutions (and actually fixing them) to the big issues / problems in the game and that is why we always end up with uncomfortable half-measures and continued problems or "resolutions" that only seem to lead to other, unforeseen problems and so the "circle of doom" continues. :cap_hmm:

 

:cap_popcorn::cap_tea: Or I could be just an idiot, who misinterpreted everything... :Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,212 posts
15,597 battles

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why god invented proofreading.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

I could focus on practical arguments such as this one, for example:

 

“The way multiple ship lines are currently implemented is not actually a good example of variety, as it is tiring for the player to have to rapidly switch between different ships and the corresponding mindsets to play them. The ‘cannot use same ship as it is still in battle’ is a further example of bad design as in this case it exacerbates the issue, by denying player continuity in their experience.

The chaotic visualization of inter-shipclass interaction (eg. rock-paper-scissors which doesn’t actually apply) only worsens the fatigue and confusion iccurring on players. Having more ship lines with muddled in-game info (‘buy ship to view details’) just serves to increase the possible ways players may die from uncontrollable or uncertain causes, while the base tricks and influence a player may leverage in any match at once (to make someone else die a surprise death) is still dependent on the single ship they chose to play for that match. This ever-growing disparity between external factors versus player-factors is literally depression incarnate, and thus fatiguing for the player. 

Furthermore, having more ship classes than a player can readily gain (grind) for oneself worsens the issue, by further diluting the meaning in the experience of enjoying a single ship at once; thus in some ways, lessening the enjoyment for any and all ships.”

 

But I regard these kinds of arguments as obvious, mundane, trivial.

Besides, it’s WG’s job to realize the blatant flaws in their core game design the company chose to follow for decades (which means they probably still chose it anyways despite knowing its shortcoming, in other words they weighed the options around and concluded it was still worth it, in other words it’s not my place to tell them what to do as they have their reasons and conclusions already.)

 

Oh btw we could also discuss possible solutions to address the issues brought up in the example argument, but I’ll spare you (and myself) from more boredom. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,370 posts
7,986 battles
1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

 The ‘cannot use same ship as it is still in battle’ is a further example of bad design as in this case it exacerbates the issue, by denying player continuity in their experience.

 

It is perfectly fine and even more - absolutly needed. Dont like the mm? go to port, roll the dice again. Still not toptier? why bother! New round. We would see - and I can guarentee you this - an increase of afk ships by a few hundred percent, if that would be possible.

 

1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

The chaotic visualization of inter-shipclass interaction (eg. rock-paper-scissors which doesn’t actually apply) only worsens the fatigue and confusion iccurring on players. Having more ship lines with muddled in-game info (‘buy ship to view details’) just serves to increase the possible ways players may die from uncontrollable or uncertain causes, while the base tricks and influence a player may leverage in any match at once (to make someone else die a surprise death) is still dependent on the single ship they chose to play for that match. This ever-growing disparity between external factors versus player-factors is literally depression incarnate, and thus fatiguing for the player. 

 

People dont know, what their own ships are capable of. (A NO doesnt know what radar does, a Lo Yang cant use Hydro and a DDs are wondering, why they are getting torped in smoke, while at the same time they torp smokes). And you think, the reason why ppl play bad, is, cuz there are informations lacking in the game? I´d agree, that all the ships infos need to be accessable from the game - even ships, that have been removed from the shop & trees - f.e. Kamikaze R, Belfast - but to blame this lack of information on ppls missplays is a wrong conclusion.

 

btw: rock-paper-scissors doesnt apply for wows, never did and its not intended to. And its good it isnt. This would mean (depending to what class you assign rocks, scissors and so on) - A DD couldnt kill a Cruiser, while the Cruiser would kill DDs without fearing anything. At the same time, a BB couldnt touch the DD, while beeing farmed by the DD. And the Cruiser couldnt hurt BBs... and so on. Then what happens, when there are no DDs in the game? Or no CV? Like it often happens? Sometimes 2 BBs, sometimes 5.

 

1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Furthermore, having more ship classes than a player can readily gain (grind) for oneself worsens the issue, by further diluting the meaning in the experience of enjoying a single ship at once; thus in some ways, lessening the enjoyment for any and all ships.”

 

Nobody forces you to play all ships. Nobody forces you to advance in the skill tree, for that matter. There are players out there with litereally thousands of games in T1 and T2. They never went further. To overstretch your PoV: We could remove all nations and all lines, just to replace them with : 10 cruisers, one for each Tier, 9 DDs, one for each tier, 8 BBs.... that would be a dull game, the playerbase would prolly shrink by... 40 to 90%.

 

1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Oh btw we could also discuss possible solutions to address the issues brought

 

Isnt a discussion, where you highlight things, that you see as problems, without offering solutions or ideas, how it could be improved... nothing more but a whine?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
5 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

@KarmaQU_EU can you add TL;DR at the end of your posts? If I wished to read some wall of text I'd just read a book.

I'm not actually good at adding TL;DR but I'll keep in mind. Otherwise, you don't have to read it all, just read if you want, the parts you want, when you want. At any rate, they'll take less time to read than a WoWs match.

10 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

It is perfectly fine and even more - absolutly needed. Dont like the mm? go to port, roll the dice again. Still not toptier? why bother! New round. 

What's there to keep me from afking to port in another ship? Especially if I knew the ship I actually wanted to play is probably finished from its locked in lost by now, and this premium I am currently playing also has like 0 repair costs? How many other games out there have such a mechanic? Do they still have problems of excessive re-queue? How did they fix it?

10 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

People dont know, what their own ships are capable of. (A NO doesnt know what radar does, a Lo Yang cant use Hydro and a DDs are wondering, why they are getting torped in smoke, while at the same time they torp smokes). And you think, the reason why ppl play bad, is, cuz there are informations lacking in the game? I´d agree, that all the ships infos need to be accessable from the game - even ships, that have been removed from the shop & trees - f.e. Kamikaze R, Belfast - but to blame this lack of information on ppls missplays is a wrong conclusion.

btw: rock-paper-scissors doesnt apply for wows, never did and its not intended to. And its good it isnt. This would mean (depending to what class you assign rocks, scissors and so on) - A DD couldnt kill a Cruiser, while the Cruiser would kill DDs without fearing anything. At the same time, a BB couldnt touch the DD, while beeing farmed by the DD. And the Cruiser couldnt hurt BBs... and so on. Then what happens, when there are no DDs in the game? Or no CV? Like it often happens? Sometimes 2 BBs, sometimes 5.

Thanks for agreeing with me on the info display. But the quoted part was actually two parts, and a bit muddled. Please allow me to clarify.

The first sentence was badly written. I meant to say "ship-class inter-dynamics as originally intended are a bad justification for the purposeful polarizing of class performances, leading to polarized situations and drastic logic which is detrimental to players' experiences."

The second part was not directly commenting on player performance. But rather how the intended "variety" element is instead indirectly causing fatal "fatigue". (There are multiple kinds of disbalance of elements here, sort of like on a scale, of "logic" types. It is difficult to explain. So I'll instead say an example of a possible solution/direction: to increase friendly-team based elements of gameplay, to counterbalance the '1-v-Enemy' phenomenon. Ex. I once recommended to hide enemy HP behind vision checks, while also reworking objectives to be more team-based. Also to allow a guaranteed "safe-space" of individual ship performance, more direct impact and feedback, and lots of design-level optimizations, etc.)

But since you already agreed to the base argument of more info needed, there is nothing useful I can say further.

10 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Nobody forces you to play all ships. Nobody forces you to advance in the skill tree, for that matter. There are players out there with litereally thousands of games in T1 and T2. They never went further. To overstretch your PoV: We could remove all nations and all lines, just to replace them with : 10 cruisers, one for each Tier, 9 DDs, one for each tier, 8 BBs.... that would be a dull game, the playerbase would prolly shrink by... 40 to 90%.

Nobody forces you to make money. Nobody forces you to be a nice person. Nobody forces you to live honorably. Nobody "forces" you to not suicide too, for that matter. But this is getting ludicrous.

No, we don't have to remove all nations and all lines. No game ever was forced to remove the difference between tank/scout/healer/dps/CC/farm/pvp/buff/etc. classes. And playing just one of those classes did not mean you had to live in yearning and shame of all the other classes you could not play, especially if you were ok with, had enough enjoyment already, and liked that class. And not pressured by metas and trivial norms etc. to play other classes which may or may not be because they are "OP". There is also a delicate balance between "substantial amounts" and "too much variety". And many other such delicate balances. There is also the argument of diminishing returns. I also made it quite clear that the fatigue a player accumulates from their grind upwards, paired with the disappointment and further futile reflective-logic, will lead to players saying "fk it" and leaving. THIS is the core argument for everything I had written for the whole argument. Many un-optimized, predatory and exploitative logic structures, self-contradicting and inefficient designs. etc. Causing fatigue. Or even worse, toxicity, and what-else. Culminating in players leaving. But I thought that overarching argument was obvious.

10 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Isnt a discussion, where you highlight things, that you see as problems, without offering solutions or ideas, how it could be improved... nothing more but a whine?

TL;DR

Since what you say may be interpreted as a friendly jest, I will choose to address it as so. Here's a though-experiment (It's easier for both of our comprehension if I use this allegory of a setting:)

 

-Imagine a modest, almost shabby apartment building. But clean, tidy, and homey. A young boy is immersed in books of naval warfare, courage, bravery, magnificent ships, and even has a few toy figurines and ship models nearby, hinting at his disposition. The cold icy winds howl outside the window, grey and dark, straight from the arctic. His grandfather served in the military, and his grandmother was equally honorable. Their medals still adorn the shelves. But they had passed away. His father, perhaps less so. Perhaps due to the atmosphere of society at the time. Neighbors seldom greeted each other, and if one would knock on the multitudes of doors in the massive apartment complex, few would even dare open and answer. Even as a child, he understands the concepts of economic hardship, death and injury, racial tensions, army and the government......but this is not the time for those. He is utterly immersed in the golden, radiating, dazzling as a minor sun, singular, definitive, decisive, final portrayals of naval history and tradition he is reading about. Some folk-hero-ships he learned about in class and seen in the museum are also present, and even better than he imagined them. Light, space, time, fate, is condensed into crystallized, radiating, prismatic views of multi-perspectives and possibilities. He is impressed by the artistic skill of the artists, in their handling of form, thresholds, flow ... and for their respect to the elements in everything, be the mundane yet lively small details, the humanistic elements, or even the things which are sacred and beyond his understanding. He is emboldened, inspired, by the heroes. And in this detached way, he may come to terms with the yet remaining tensions in real life, even that of hate, revenge, against whole peoples, through symbolic, interpretive art. And at least, in this brief moment of respite, he may let his imagination flow, and visualize the ships to rise out of the pages, and conduct solemn warfare one more, as they were created to, meant to, as they themselves would have liked to, as was their nature to. Except here, no one shall be hurt, and no on shall ever have to hurt others, again.-

 

But this game, does it look like something the developers would want their own children to play? Does it look like it is to a high standard, not just to boys, but also to men? Possibly even learned, informed, and experienced men? Also to girls and female gamers? Also to other game devs? To non-gamers, such as museum curators, teachers and instructors? To people from different social, cultural, geographic, and economic circumstances? ...

______________________________________________________________________________

Yet, we may choose to interpret these difficulties instead as possibilities. Focus on what made that boy in the imagined setting so impressed and immersed. Focus on what forms his imagined naval warfares may be in, why are those forms so enjoyable and easy for him, can we replicate that in games, can we learn from them to further optimize designs made without such references, etc. More "distinct forms of perfections" from other different settings may serve to enhance and enrich our possible references of "near-perfect ideal forms" of logical structures, and we may draw from strong points in varying stances and areas to holistically improve the work. 

 

And that is why I would much rather discuss about the main post of the thread, instead of these petty "practicality" arguments specifically on the current design. So the logic does not get hemmed in to only what is already current, and mostly flawed. So we can discover and (re-)explore possibilities which will actually serve to bring the game forwards, instead of reactively arguing over ... things. Remember a time when ramming was a thing in this game? The devs clearly still intended for the possibilities of bravery and such romantic notions. Not the camp-fest we see these days. This is still achievable again in the future, with good design. Remember, in that boy's imagination, he doesn't care ships could sink from something as trivial as the Shinano did. Or from a shell-in-the-knee turret. On top of the books, they will battle most fiercely, appropriately, and brightly for as long as he wills, and he believes they want to. The game doesn't have to be realistic. It doesn't even have to pretend it is, how many games out there purposefully joke about "little green men", use non-serious styles and settings and humour, etc.? In fact, if our game purposefully hints at an "ideal yet fictional" notion, such as the example I gave above, we may even use that instead. People might even be willing to be less critical, cynical, and be more positive, innocent, and just be interpretive and acceptive of the game. Be more open to hypothetical thoughts and scenarios, even allow a symbolic, interpretive and artistic campaign instead of fuzzing over its non-fiction-ness. Because they secretly wish the ships could just come alive too, without all the logical baggage and logistics. And be open to fictional game mechanics, even revel in their larger-than-life yet accurate and expressive ways of framing a ship. Games are fundamentally structures of logic. The possibilities of logic are limitless. Same with solutions. Doubt not there are. But do not force or rush them. Solutions don't become solutions just because we say they are.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,259 posts
11,014 battles
3 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

TL;DR

Since what you say may be interpreted as a friendly jest, I will choose to address it as so. Here's a though-experiment (It's easier for both of our comprehension if I use this allegory of a setting:)

 

-Imagine a modest, almost shabby apartment building. But clean, tidy, and homey. A young boy is immersed in books of naval warfare, courage, bravery, magnificent ships, and even has a few toy figurines and ship models nearby, hinting at his disposition. The cold icy winds howl outside the window, grey and dark, straight from the arctic. His grandfather served in the military, and his grandmother was equally honorable. Their medals still adorn the shelves. But they had passed away. His father, perhaps less so. Perhaps due to the atmosphere of society at the time. Neighbors seldom greeted each other, and if one would knock on the multitudes of doors in the massive apartment complex, few would even dare open and answer. Even as a child, he understands the concepts of economic hardship, death and injury, racial tensions, army and the government......but this is not the time for those. He is utterly immersed in the golden, radiating, dazzling as a minor sun, singular, definitive, decisive, final portrayals of naval history and tradition he is reading about. Some folk-hero-ships he learned about in class and seen in the museum are also present, and even better than he imagined them. Light, space, time, fate, is condensed into crystallized, radiating, prismatic views of multi-perspectives and possibilities. He is impressed by the artistic skill of the artists, in their handling of form, thresholds, flow ... and for their respect to the elements in everything, be the mundane yet lively small details, the humanistic elements, or even the things which are sacred and beyond his understanding. He is emboldened, inspired, by the heroes. And in this detached way, he may come to terms with the yet remaining tensions in real life, even that of hate, revenge, against whole peoples, through symbolic, interpretive art. And at least, in this brief moment of respite, he may let his imagination flow, and visualize the ships to rise out of the pages, and conduct solemn warfare one more, as they were created to, meant to, as they themselves would have liked to, as was their nature to. Except here, no one shall be hurt, and no on shall ever have to hurt others, again.-

 

But this game, does it look like something the developers would want their own children to play? Does it look like it is to a high standard, not just to boys, but also to men? Possibly even learned, informed, and experienced men? Also to girls and female gamers? Also to other game devs? To non-gamers, such as museum curators, teachers and instructors? To people from different social, cultural, geographic, and economic circumstances? ...

______________________________________________________________________________

Yet, we may choose to interpret these difficulties instead as possibilities. Focus on what made that boy in the imagined setting so impressed and immersed. Focus on what forms his imagined naval warfares may be in, why are those forms so enjoyable and easy for him, can we replicate that in games, can we learn from them to further optimize designs made without such references, etc. More "distinct forms of perfections" from other different settings may serve to enhance and enrich our possible references of "near-perfect ideal forms" of logical structures, and we may draw from strong points in varying stances and areas to holistically improve the work. 

 

And that is why I would much rather discuss about the main post of the thread, instead of these petty "practicality" arguments specifically on the current design. So the logic does not get hemmed in to only what is already current, and mostly flawed. So we can discover and (re-)explore possibilities which will actually serve to bring the game forwards, instead of reactively arguing over ... things. Remember a time when ramming was a thing in this game? The devs clearly still intended for the possibilities of bravery and such romantic notions. Not the camp-fest we see these days. This is still achievable again in the future, with good design. Remember, in that boy's imagination, he doesn't care ships could sink from something as trivial as the Shinano did. Or from a shell-in-the-knee turret. On top of the books, they will battle most fiercely, appropriately, and brightly for as long as he wills, and he believes they want to. The game doesn't have to be realistic. It doesn't even have to pretend it is, how many games out there purposefully joke about "little green men", use non-serious styles and settings and humour, etc.? In fact, if our game purposefully hints at an "ideal yet fictional" notion, such as the example I gave above, we may even use that instead. People might even be willing to be less critical, cynical, and be more positive, innocent, and just be interpretive and acceptive of the game. Be more open to hypothetical thoughts and scenarios, even allow a symbolic, interpretive and artistic campaign instead of fuzzing over its non-fiction-ness. Because they secretly wish the ships could just come alive too, without all the logical baggage and logistics. And be open to fictional game mechanics, even revel in their larger-than-life yet accurate and expressive ways of framing a ship. Games are fundamentally structures of logic. The possibilities of logic are limitless. Same with solutions. Doubt not there are. But do not force or rush them. Solutions don't become solutions just because we say they are.

 

That's your tldr?? :Smile_amazed:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,665 posts
7,080 battles

Seriously man, every single of your post are wall of text about how you would want WoWS to be and how disappointed you are it doesn't follow your ideas.

 

I think you should just get over it. WG won't do as you want to.

 

Not only you're actually very hard to read, but you always stand with very vague idea and pompously calls it "game design."

Frankly it's annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,504 posts
3,024 battles

WTF !

 

I feel like I've just read the response I'd get from a PWC consultant if I was foolish enough to ask him to write me a short report on what he thought of WoWS.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,370 posts
7,986 battles
5 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

No game ever was forced to remove the difference between tank/scout/healer/dps/CC/farm/pvp/buff/etc. classes. And playing just one of those classes did not mean you had to live in yearning and shame of all the other classes you could not play, especially if you were ok with, had enough enjoyment already, and liked that class.

 

Thats actually quite an interesting point, if you think about it. Matter of fact, I did play some (MMO-)RPGs in the past, which had the classic class-distribution. And I cant really say, that in those communitys ppl were discredited or belittled of their opinions, cuz they played only one class, or even worse, played everything but one class - which is happening in here all the time.

 

5 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Solutions don't become solutions just because we say they are.

 

Oh yea, I agree. Especially, when you read, what some suggest as solutions. But still I think, if one wants to criticize something, he should atleast provide some kind of idea, from his POV, on how to improve the situation.

 

5 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

What's there to keep me from afking to port in another ship?

 

Actually, not much. Ive watched a stream a few days ago, where a group of 5 or 6 guys were together in TS. They did count in, to get in the same game (on the same side). It didnt happen, so they went back to port. I was shocked, they even had a CV in the group. Then they tried again, failed, and suggested, to go to port again. Only to be stopped by one guy, cuz he said, he had no more ships in that range. I took screenshots of that incident, didnt manage to start up the videocapture in time tho.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
20 hours ago, ShinGetsu said:

Seriously man, every single of your post are wall of text about how you would want WoWS to be and how disappointed you are it doesn't follow your ideas.

 

I think you should just get over it. WG won't do as you want to.

 

Not only you're actually very hard to read, but you always stand with very vague idea and pompously calls it "game design."

Frankly it's annoying.

I can’t guarantee when I write those I’m in sound state of mind ... what ends up coming out is probably not what I actually desired anyways.

 

Few are stupid enough like me to still stick around. You are taking me too seriously. I’m just using the forums as shitposting corner. Most people who’d write “seriously” on the forums are not stupid like me and have abandoned ship on this game long ago. It’s a game, where else to relax and let go of ourselves? Still, sorry I annoyed you, and as I said, it’s ok to not read the stuff if I didn’t write it in a non-annoying way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
18 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Thats actually quite an interesting point, if you think about it. Matter of fact, I did play some (MMO-)RPGs in the past, which had the classic class-distribution. And I cant really say, that in those communitys ppl were discredited or belittled of their opinions, cuz they played only one class, or even worse, played everything but one class - which is happening in here all the time.

 

That is because in an RPG the asymmetric role distribution is taken for granted. E.g. nobody begrudges the healer for being the most important class and having the most impact on the outcome of a battle. It is simply seen as a reality of the game and rightly so. And it works because every role is needed for any reason imaginable, even the most mundane ones. Sure, you could clear a dungeon with only healers and tanks, but not only do higher numbers of tanks and healers give diminishing returns at a certain threshold (depending on the size and difficulty of the dungeon), it'd take significantly longer than if you had replaced an appropriate amount of healers/tanks with damage dealers instead. That technically speaking makes damage dealers completely worthless in terms of game impact, but because they affect gameplay in a positive way they have reason to exist.

 

Though the level of discussion also has to be considered. I can guarantee you someone would be belittled if he e.g. only played tank and then complains that the mage can put out so much more damage than him, calling the mage overpowered for that reason, completely ignoring that there are numerous disadvantages a mage has compared to the tank that justify this high increase in damage, and finally demanding that his tank should be capable of doing the same without any trade-offs (or alternatively the mage to be nerfed) "for the sake of balance" . 

Sounds silly, right? Yet that is what we're facing here on a regular basis.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
19 hours ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

It really isn't that hard to understand:

 

Well to be fair, the words "push" and "pull" are not exactly reclusive words, so it's not surprising there are many theories described with them.

However, what does not lie well with me in that particular video section was how the logic is not inclusive, such as to allow for multi-way dynamics. I believe there are many other forms of interactions besides the simple two-way push-pull repetition, even for stealth games. Thus this theory can only be applied selectively to particular models only, and is not an overarching theory nor a principle rule for those particular types of dynamic interaction. The way it was explained without reference nor examples to more overarching rules of immersion, agency etc. means there is little possible to make of it, with the materials presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
41 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

That is because in an RPG the asymmetric role distribution is taken for granted. E.g. nobody begrudges the healer for being the most important class and having the most impact on the outcome of a battle. It is simply seen as a reality of the game and rightly so. And it works because every role is needed for any reason imaginable, even the most mundane ones. Sure, you could clear a dungeon with only healers and tanks, but not only do higher numbers of tanks and healers give diminishing returns at a certain threshold (depending on the size and difficulty of the dungeon), it'd take significantly longer than if you had replaced an appropriate amount of healers/tanks with damage dealers instead. That technically speaking makes damage dealers completely worthless in terms of game impact, but because they affect gameplay in a positive way they have reason to exist.

 

Though the level of discussion also has to be considered. I can guarantee you someone would be belittled if he e.g. only played tank and then complains that the mage can put out so much more damage than him, calling the mage overpowered for that reason, completely ignoring that there are numerous disadvantages a mage has compared to the tank that justify this high increase in damage, and finally demanding that his tank should be capable of doing the same without any trade-offs (or alternatively the mage to be nerfed) "for the sake of balance" . 

Sounds silly, right? Yet that is what we're facing here on a regular basis.

The way classes are designed in WoWs can in no way compare to the quality of the "ideal notion" of standard adventure class archetypes distribution. In handling, balance, immersion, distinction, etc. Thus complaints and confusion are valid because of the low quality of the system, and are not comparable with a tank demanding he be able to do the same without trade-offs, especially if he was made to look like an all-rounded Hercules, and not the "all-brawn-no-brains" tank. I'd be demanding to know where my op Javelin is too, so I can hurl it from behind the safety of cannon-fodder mages, while still wearing my heavy armour (which is not heavy at all because I'm Hercules).

 

That is not to say alternative systems do not work, in fact, most of the recent hit games do not follow the overused stereotypical archetypes but instead have variations on them along with new things. WoWs can be improved too, if it finds a better way to structure its own system that fits its context.

 

As for "complaining", the players could just do the equivalent of leaving a negative review on Steam saying "classes not balanced, not fun to play, developer no address, don't care if players ragequit, negative review." That is called complaining. However, most of what we see here are just "reactions" of "omg this other day that happened, so balance much wow gg". No amount of running around within the bad system will turn it into a good system, much less only reactionary notions. That is why such notions are "silly".

But so is us here arguing over incomparable definitions. I only used that example to show an example of non-hostility/toxicity. Not as a one-to-one comparison with WoWs. I'd much rather talk about the main post.

Share this post


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

OK ignore everything else I said. TL;DR or whatever.

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

That is because in an RPG the asymmetric role distribution .....

Here's an easy way of seeing it. Instead of thinking about how ships can counter, kill, and cause distress for each other, how about we focus on how they fit together, support each other, and do things cooperatively, as they were historically meant to, too. 

Had WG simply decided to design the game using a different mindset, this simple difference in core stance may have meant the difference between an enjoyable, uplifting game, and a game filled with chaos and toxicity.

 

One of the reasons the "standard adventure archetypes combo" works so ideally, is because although the classes are distinct, they have a very high cohesiveness, the same goal, are the "good guys", and so on etc. But because we cannot readily make ships so distinct in character, at least not in the same way as the example,  we could instead make the distinctiveness in the "ship" itself, as in although they are all ships, warships, and so on, but make the "variety" in distinctiveness at a different level from the "stand out" part of distinctiveness (more inherent in the ships, for example). Yes, we just separated the logic of a single word into two parts. But that is basic.

 

Edit: And this would be perfectly workable too if the inner intentions of players coincided with this "ideal" model of ships and systems. Aka, both roleplay as heroes, and actually do good things, work together, like heroes do. Thus they can enjoy an idealized adventure. But unfortunately, teamwork and working together is not the inner intentions of players. This is because the progression system WG designs, the way classes interact with each other, and everything in the game system combined, do not promote teamwork. I am sure that exact sentence has been said hundreds of times in hundreds of threads in many different languages and from many different perspectives by many kinds of people all over the world in many different time periods during the whole of the WoWs history of existence. But, what is the inner intentions of players is very much what the system imposes on them, or prefers them to think. It means theoretically it can still be overcome by good design; we just have to let the players think properly. But it will require expansive, agile logic. That is what I prefer to talk about, not argue over ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×