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

Flaws in logic continued: The gamification of WoWs

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
 

 


In spiritual continuation of my two topics from yesterday:

 

 

The core problem WoWs is facing, is that it is not "fun". The grindy system is doing exactly as it is designed, but it was not designed to be spectacularly fun. It was designed to be orderly and balanced. However this has instead formulated into a rigidness that stifled gameplay design in WoWs. The lack of a highly intriguing gameplay in WoWs, compared to other titles out there dealing with easier to handle contexts and popular forms of gameplay design, has caused substantial player loss from WoWs due to inability to compete with other games in entertainment and fun factor.

 

But firstly.......

This is not WG's direct fault though, at least they cannot be blamed for not trying. While there are many faults of WG, they did at one time, try. But only try they did. And as I quote myself from the "bias premiums" thread ...

"WG even did try, too. They tried Bastion. They tried radar stations. They tried weather. They tried to not release ships in bundles, but given out freely in events. They tried Halloween game modes. They tried player (clan) bases. They tried collaborations. They tried PVE. They tried manga. They tried cartoons. They tried T-shirts. They tried. But they only tried." 

I do not forget. If I wanted to defend them like some fanboys do, I could do a better good job of it too, but I do not forget the bad things either. If I wanted to bash them, there are many things I could. 

 

So this is not that kind of post. The core problem of WoWs is that it has not been substantially gamified. Games are art, conversation, logic, and showmanship. Thus, a game can be designed better and improved if adhering to methods dedicated to those crafts. WoWs, and WG, tried to improve it based on overwhelming amounts of feedback, but they only tried. They did not have a clear philosophy by doing these outlandish things, nor initiative in action, and probably did not formulate it all into a plan or schedule. Thus they decided, too late, that this was not working out, so they fell back to things the company knew by themselves how to do ... the WoT theories. While this has helped to stabilize WoWs substantially, it also caused WoWs to greatly lose potential, and stifled its growth. Thus, even today, its endurance, holding power, just pure attractiveness and content quality, pales in comparison to some of the better examples in the market. Because the WoT theories hail from a time when games were more innocent, required less showmanship and gimmicks, when games could sell purely based on content and simple gameplay, and when even plain games had a chance in the market. They lack competitiveness in today's world.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In the "problem in lootbox system" thread, I mentioned how the lootboxes pale in comparison to other lootbox systems today. But I did not do a good job of explaining why. Still, the points were in there, including a specific idea of "adding premium tokens" into supercontainers. This resonates with the other "bias premiums" thread, where I say, bias to premiums is not necessarily a bad thing, but possibly even usable. Thus I will attempt an example where we use it, here.

 

Balanced, MM integrated PvP modes are difficult under the current system, (this is an important point, we'll come back to this later), but premiums possibly offer a point of entry to this conundrum. Premiums are not necessarily highly balanced, nor integrated into the tech trees. So I imagined game modes where premiums, similar to how the Halloween special ships were used in PvP modes, are used in game modes designed around a few specific premiums each month. This is further made possible by how loss affects premiums less due to their reduced repair costs and higher reward gain, thus they can be put into demanding places, or used just for fun instead of concern for balance. The game modes will make use of the premiums' histories, in-game quirks, and ideal playstyles. This will be much more interesting than PvE scenarios, especially if it is semi-PvP, in how NPC objectives and actors are present as well (think submarine bases, bomber formations).

 

If you catch my gist there, when I said "re-orientation of the game around premiums" in the "bias premiums" thread, I mean it. The system should not go against the player, as it currently does, forcing the player to have to grind and progress against it. Instead, progression in the system should be fun, hopeful, the system should push the player along, offering expansions and enhancement to the player experience the more they dedicated to it. Higher tier rewards, and premiums, should be fitting in their place as being the stars of the show when in-game, and offering more variety, choices, freedom of selection, than without. They should be fitting rewards for the player's effort and dedication, and that reward, as I envision it, will be more fun in the fun-filled game modes we will prepare for them, like showmanship.

 

Thus progressing up the normal tech tree, players will not just experience highly balanced, but rigid and boring, current game modes, they will also get fun-based game modes where they go against, with a slight advantage, against for instance the Halloween event combo, except more balanced, more fun, and more population-friendly (only a very select few got to operate Halloween ships). A higher tier ship or two, premium and gimmicky, but to provide entertainment. Of course, there will be relevant seasonal missions, campaigns, to ensure no one misses out on rewards, even the ones performing the "star" roles and possibly more difficult roles. Like, you know, camos for their premium, special equipment, vanity flags, etc.

 

The role of the lootbox idea fitting into all this is thus, to adhere to the re-orientation of the game around "fun", for which the current vehicle is premiums. It will allow players to "try out" premiums possibly enticing them to buy, while also making it more interesting as "oh we don't directly give you the credits, earn it yourself in this premium we lend you."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

But the true intent of all this, is still to diverge the game away from a win-lose conundrumA lot of complaints on forum atm revolved around bad losses causing distress in players. Ideally, no one wanted this, not players, not WG, not the designers. This is yet another byproduct of the unforgiving system WoWs uses. Ideally, games should provide enjoyment, fun, all kinds of stuff, regardless of win/lose ... the yearning, the excitement, the process itself, should be enjoyable. Even without playing the game, the spectacle itself, the logic in itself, should be interesting, and more .... etc. Unless WoWs evolves from the very basic form it is in, it has little hope of competing with games out there that are simply fun

 

And one step is made possible with ideas from the lootbox thread. In how by playing, players earn exp, complete missions, earn rewards ... Of course, if players played only to earn and fulfill these missions, that would seriously unbalance the gameplay. So I do not mean that. But how in playing, regardless of win/lose, players gain exp which fills up this lootbox meter, until they get drops. This is earned regardless of win/lose, but still, more if win or good games. So this is is not entirely exempt from the win/lose conundrum, but it is still one step away from it.

 

Thus if we expand on that, and delve deeper into the possibilities, it means by introducing and expanding and enhancing such features which devolve the reliance of the game from win/lose, it will reduce the pressure to players in that area. This is what I meant when I say "game-level feature instead of gimmick-level", in the lootbox flaw thread. While lootboxes may not be the most fitting game-level feature, it is the only actual example we have atm, while another is "clans", but there is not overwhelming present of clans as a feature in the game either. It just goes to show how bare-bones WoWs still is, as a game, even after so much time. Ahem, but I did not come today to say that. 

 

In these special game modes, because much of the pressure is diverted away from direct-earnings in the game but put on the side via missions and rewards, while for the other sides being the star of the show and playing premiums in itself also helps to offset, the direct win/lose affect is greatly reduced. We can then generalize from this, that to reduce win/lose influence, making the game less clearly balanced and easily interpreted, "moving the balance to the backstage", and only presenting players the fun, will help to reduce perception of win/lose, if not help to alleviate it entirely. (And as I and other people mentioned in the threads, perception is important.)

 

And if further focus is directed to the stars-of-the-show ships on a rotating schedule, focus is even more diverted away from mundane technical balance concerns, but into actual gameplay, game design, and fun. Thus, for WG to not just do another try, they will have to be willing to explore such concepts at not just a feature level, but at a game level, or design philosophy level, otherwise they will not be able to implement them impactfully and naturally, and wil not be able to follow through and continue to integrate that as a normal strength of the game.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Speaking of normal strengths of the game, and going back to the point of important point of innovative PvP modes being difficult under the current system, WG has been using the decades-old Tier 1-10 system with little change. While they have polished and refined working with that system incredibly, the system itself is sadly, increasingly bare-bones compared to more advanced-gen theories of core design nowadays. Even mobile phone games have moved a lot forward from the likes of farmville, candy-crush, angry-birds, to 3-D, progression-based, deep-gameplay or polished-action games previously reserved for the quality of consoles or street arcades. PC games have advanced incredibly as well due to substantial hardware and software advances, especially online games. Games which would have won game-of-the-year and blew minds just 3 years ago, face stiff competition even in their own genre and shows of strength. Much less a F2P model from a time when phones were just .... phones.

 

So no matter how much more WG polishes their system, or builds better business models, the inherent lacking of the core system, even boosted by the interest of the context and lack of similar context products in the market, is not very competitive. Thus WG has relied on a psychological model (not even logic-level model) instead of context or gameplay as their selling point. This is a highly risky method of operation. I am concerned. I am alarmed. 

 

In fact, because of how rigid the system is, just trying to find entry-points for better creative gameplay and design has been difficult, and we have to resort to using premiums as hypothetical "outliers" to work outside the system. It will be much more difficult to not just "try", but to seriously integrate better features into the game and gameplay, permanently, with these limitations. So no matter how much WG overhauls the CV, under the current game mode, it will still face the same old mundane questions of balance, fairness, earnings, etc. instead of truly important questions like truthfulness, honesty, experience, artistic qualities, and gamification. (So to save myself the disappointment when I do hear of the CV overhaul but ahem*)  

 

About 2 years ago, when there were still substantial amounts of players and ideas I had this "tierpoint" idea, in which and I quote (too lazy to write new) 

"One of the changes was a points-based tierpoint system, instead of tier 1-10. Thus that each ship would be assigned a "power-rating" based off of many factors, but primarily their tier and class. In other words, targets now have strategic worth and value. Would you focus on the valuable big BB, or the mob of weak DDs? Would you compose your team, with high-cost high-potential ships, or swarms of cost-effective cruisers? Imagine the tactics that will go into composing a competitive team under that game design."

As you can see, just a simple little change like this changes the game completely. Of course it is grossly oversimplified here, but if you think back to the using premium ships as outliers, we are pretty much using them in place of specific combinations of tierpoints, or as higher-tierpoint, pressure-facing ships. Because a change at the level of "tierpoint" and others cannot be reasonably implemented, even tested, we can at least attempt to test the concept of it, in how it forms and shapes gameplay and game modes, in the possibilities it brings in MM, map and objective design, and team composition. The PvP (Player versus Premium) concept was also based on unwritten enhancements to the tierpoint concepts in one variation of tierpoints versus other compositions. As you can see, the tierpoints provides a common metric of evaluation, balance, and automation (in which it can be recognized by an algorithm based MM system, so interesting, enhanced game modes can be automatically and optimally generated. Or at least, better sort the data to provide feedback to the devs.

In other words, the possibilities are, as always, endless. Imagine other game mechanics under a more sophisticated, in-depth, and expanded system. Things not implementable, not representable in current WoWs, can be. Mechanics not fitting to the current level of gameplay, can be. Air and CVs, can be made interesting again, and instead of buckling the system, add to it. WoWs will be able to compete with even the most sophisticated game designs out there. WoWs will be able to be enhanced with higher methods of art and logic. And technological advancement such as A.I. and more flexible multiplayer algorithms.

 

The CV overhaul does get me excited. WG is still trying. I can still try too, but if it is not just a "try", but more ...  I will break out the notes, and review it all after 2 years. Not just a try, but more.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

So we talked a bit about gamification a bit, but a lot of it still relies on showmanship. On presentation, on public relations handling and handling of appetites and logic. Not necessarily with the end of extorting money, that is a bad habit of thinking, but it unarguably helps. Sometimes, your context itself and players for each other will do enough. But other times, the Company does have to step in and do it professionally. I abstractly remember I once mentioned somwehere that for every big update, animated, highlighting, tutorial-like windows in the main game interface will have to explain and lead the player through all the new features and content introduced, and how to best enjoy them, more devotedly than reporting to your superior, to your elders, more honestly and earnestly than the 100-page manuals that came with the old-style computer games, all with the heart-felt thank-you message of developers for staying with and enjoying their game. Every. Single. Update. Not to mention the seasonal holidays, oh boy, ever seen a shop worth its salt not give 120% in decorations and customer policies when holidays come around? No half-hearted "tries" here. These "little things" are, as I remember putting it, are "non-negotiable" for the big companies, especially big companies working in the service industry. Including games. WoWs has a news panel but it is not enough. By far.

 

And I also remember mentioned at some point ago, how for the Arp collaboration, it would have been substantially enhanced if the sinking animation of ships instead of flipping belly-up like they normally do, instead gracefully turned into particles and dissipated into the wind, like in the original anime. This is not just for adhering reasons, it is symbolic, beautiful, and would have impressed even the collaboration-end if they knew about it, I mean, they are the artists, they know such things. Of course, it would have faced ... complications if attempted to be integrated into the game engine, especially with the option of turning off Arp content, but as I said, no "tries". Half-hearted tries impress no one, and demoralize instead of ... do whatever they intend to do. Perhaps not everyone could tell you what went wrong, but they will feel it wrong. The performers, the showman on stage, knows perhaps none of the audience can judge whether his techniques are "good", but by god you can bet they will be able to tell if the performance is worth its salt. With sorcery. So this is just a bit on showmanship.

 

These little things, stack up, compose the image of a game and company, and do matter. I also, in the very same post, mentioned treating modders, etc. but WG has improved much since the beginning on these techniques, like on mods, but only after year or two later. They still need more initiative. 

 

TL;DR I do not find the game fun enough. Everything above is whine. WG should cater to me and me only. Wha. Wha. Wha. (P.S. Don't read TL;DR's from me.)

Also this new mechanical keyboard is amazing, I can almost type at the speed of thought! My old posts I had to double back and delete extra spaces every few seconds, the work keyboard was even better than my oen. gg!

Edited by KarmaQU_EU
The spoiler is so when ppl quote me, they don't fill the whole webpage.
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Do you have a TL;DR version of this? Especially if you refer to and copy from your previous threads?

 

Regarding the "WoWS is no fun" problematic... speak for yourself. I usually have fun when playing. Else I wouldn't stick with it. The problem with WoWS's low attractiveness is that it fits in neither the fast-paced ego shooter genre (like CS:GO, BF or CoD, even WoT is closer to them) nor the fantasy/SciFi MMO genre (like WoW, Star Trek online, etc). It is specificially for players who are attracted to ships of around the first and second world war era (and don't look for a simulator). So you have a very limited number of interested people to begin with.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,916 posts
9,408 battles

Sorry I have to stop you right there:

 

Quote

The core problem WoWs is facing, is that it is not "fun". 

 

The presentation that Warships is not fun is wrong. It might be not fun to you (and that's ok) but it certainly is for me.

 

And please, please for the love of Odin put a useable tl:dr under such walls of text!

 

 

Also: Mechanical Keyboards are awesome.

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
472 posts
10,902 battles

Opened the thread. Then started to scroll, scroll and scroll....

And completely lost will to read it. 

+1 for the effort though.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,356 posts
8,034 battles

yeah... DramaQueen_EU strike again...:Smile_sceptic:

 

Dude, please consider stopping those useless threads. Most people are aware that you have problems with this game. Ok. But, surprise, these people do not share your problems. So, please, keep them for you. And also, please tame your need to share every single brain fart.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
623 posts
3,718 battles
1 minute ago, SirBlemmingtonSmythe said:

And me or I wouldn't play the stupid game :Smile_honoring:

Exactly, why play any game if you dont enjoy it

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

tl;dr Premiums are being wasted when seen as just money and exp-grinders. The premium system should be gamified. It is possible for supporting features like the lootboxes to contribute as well.

This will not just raise revenue, but help the game design advance to be more fun and interesting.

 

(And sorry for original post. I should've edited it. Still, it can be fixed by reading it, not skimming, twice. It'll take you less time than to play a single match in WoWs anyways. You are free to give me the angry expression if after reading it (properly), it is still worthless.)

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
2,876 posts
8,969 battles
7 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

tl;dr Premiums are being wasted when seen as just money and exp-grinders. The premium system should be gamified. It is possible for supporting features like the lootboxes to contribute as well.

This will not just raise revenue, but help the game design advance to be more fun and interesting.

 

(And sorry for original post. I should've edited it. Still, it can be fixed by reading it, not skimming, twice. It'll take you less time than to play a single match in WoWs anyways. You are free to give me the angry expression if after reading it (properly), it is still worthless.)

 

If it doesn't raise revenue then WG have no interest.  I can't believe this needs explaining.

 

And seriously, if you are that unhappy with the game, stop playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,916 posts
9,408 battles

Ok, just on two points:

 

- I do have fun in my premiums. They provide me with credits, free XP, captain retraining (or EXP if you use a 19pt captain) and tons of fun (and sometimes salt looking at my Belfast). And to me, that's how premiums should be. I basically could live with carbon copy premiums which only abilities are to use any captain and generate more credits. I'm more than happy if WG manages to put in something unique (like the difference between Bismarck/Tirpitz or the Atlanta). I'm less happy if unique turns out to be overpowered.

 

- regarding your win-lose comment and bad losses. That's not a problem of WoWs, but a problem of ANY MMO where you randomly have to rely on team work. And the way you worded it, make it sound as if you say we should get rid of winning/losing altogether which leads me to this question: Why play a game where you can't win something? That'd be boring to me.

 

Greetings

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR-S]
Players
558 posts
12 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

reading it, not skimming, twice

uffff, i have to pass, once took me long enough. I mean, the game is very complex content- and mechanic-wise. Gameplay suffers a bit from being a two-dimensional thing; we can not move up and down with ships, just horizontally. WG knows this and does countless things to keep us happy. Some of their experiments (like Bastion-mode) caused a sheetstorm, not many say "thank you" for their efforts.

 

Sure, I would like to have some things changed too. For example: the first ship ever to be fitted out with radar is in game without radar. Yes, i think this is sad. No, i don´t think that anyone cares. And it should stay this way because it is Tier 6.

 

So i accept some flaws to keep the overall balance and enjoyment for the rest of the playerbase. And i simply play another game when i get tired of my bordergrinding teammates - which again is not WGs fault.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,916 posts
9,408 battles
1 minute ago, drmajga said:

the first ship ever to be fitted out with radar is in game without radar.

 

Care to help me out on that one? Which is it?

 

 


Greetings

Share this post


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

Ok, just on two points:

 

- I do have fun in my premiums. They provide me with credits, free XP, captain retraining (or EXP if you use a 19pt captain) and tons of fun (and sometimes salt looking at my Belfast). And to me, that's how premiums should be. I basically could live with carbon copy premiums which only abilities are to use any captain and generate more credits. I'm more than happy if WG manages to put in something unique (like the difference between Bismarck/Tirpitz or the Atlanta). I'm less happy if unique turns out to be overpowered.

 

- regarding your win-lose comment and bad losses. That's not a problem of WoWs, but a problem of ANY MMO where you randomly have to rely on team work. And the way you worded it, make it sound as if you say we should get rid of winning/losing altogether which leads me to this question: Why play a game where you can't win something? That'd be boring to me.

 

Greetings

- Getting virtual fulfillment from "earning" rewards is what 90% of games base themselves off of. It is almost universally a pleasing thing. Some equate it with fun.

But it is done bare-bones in WoWs. It is possible to convey this same feeling with finer technique. Possibly even without the same leading form. But with many more nice stuff added in.

 

- Well, one thing players like in games is "spectacle". The spectacle of graphics. The spectacle of massive amounts of players battling each other. The spectacle of powerful machines or characters excreting incredible force. The spectacle of performance of skill. Perhaps, the desire to indulge in the same actions as those who cause these spectacles, to experience the same thing as they did, to revel in the same feelings and logic and context, etc. 

Note nowhere in that did I have to include the word "win". There are many more possible ways to create experience not hinged on winning or losing. It is more difficult to create things like comradeship completely devoid of toxicity, but that comes after mastering more obvious areas like win/lose. Even dealing directly with the process of win/lose, when win or lose is yet undecided yet and one cannot know the outcome yet, that expectation, that yearning, the hope and struggle, itself is amazing. 

As for where you can't win something, there are incredible amounts of things that can be offered from many things including but not limited to games, to win something is but one of them. To only know and enjoy winning ... that would be boring to me.

 

You know what, sometimes players just want to battle with ships, not win with them. WG may control their mold of gameplay and game design, but they do not control the context, the history of the ships, or multiplayer battle format of gaming. Nor, ideally, would they control the imaginations of their player's minds. But I'll stop here before I say some nasty things.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR-S]
Players
558 posts

@Allied_Winter

 

The cruiser Graf Spee. It received a working (not experimental) version before WWII.

Quote from the well-know site:

 

"...a new version using improved electronics at 60 cm wavelength (500 MHz) was introduced. Four units were ordered and installed on the Königsberg, Admiral Graf Spee and two large torpedo boats. The Admiral Graf Spee used this unit successfully against shipping in the Atlantic."

 

I didn´t mention Konigsberg which was the second ship because: who would want radar at T5?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,001 posts
6,733 battles

I find it fun, yet I've noticed that the average level of play in randoms is causing me to lose interest.

 

Fortunately the game offers plenty of solutions, for more interesting gameplay: ranked, CW, true competitive mode, which all raise the level of play. Coming back from ranked I enjoy the causal random games again because they are stress free - i.e. FUN.

 

Regarding the game itself or it's mechanics I have no complaints and I have trouble understanding what exactly you think is wrong. Tiers? Grinding? Premium? What? It almost seems as if you want to design a different game from the ground up, well go ahead and do it. Find someone willing to buy your idea or get a team of coders. But theorizing about a completely different game that WG should of could have made, is useless.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
17 minutes ago, walter3kurtz said:

I find it fun, yet I've noticed that the average level of play in randoms is causing me to lose interest.

 

Fortunately the game offers plenty of solutions, for more interesting gameplay: ranked, CW, true competitive mode, which all raise the level of play. Coming back from ranked I enjoy the causal random games again because they are stress free - i.e. FUN.

 

Regarding the game itself or it's mechanics I have no complaints and I have trouble understanding what exactly you think is wrong. Tiers? Grinding? Premium? What? It almost seems as if you want to design a different game from the ground up, well go ahead and do it. Find someone willing to buy your idea or get a team of coders. But theorizing about a completely different game that WG should of could have made, is useless.

It's fine, not really important anyways besides an idea of using premiums in special game modes. That was already expressed. Really no need to read the main text anymore, I didn't treat it seriously. Perhaps only if you are interested in any new points but I could've done it better.

Anything more is, really as you say, not really relevant at the current stage, or the current audience, or my current writing ability.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,916 posts
9,408 battles
23 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

 

But it is done bare-bones in WoWs. It is possible to convey this same feeling with finer technique. Possibly even without the same leading form. But with many more nice stuff added in.

 

That's debatable. Could WG polish a few things? Sure! But imho there are more pressing issues than a polished 'feeling on how I get rewards'.

 

Quote

Note nowhere in that did I have to include the word "win". There are many more possible ways to create experience not hinged on winning or losing. It is more difficult to create things like comradeship completely devoid of toxicity, but that comes after mastering more obvious areas like win/lose. Even dealing directly with the process of win/lose, when win or lose is yet undecided yet and one cannot know the outcome yet, that expectation, that yearning, the hope and struggle, itself is amazing. 

As for where you can't win something, there are incredible amounts of things that can be offered from many things including but not limited to games, to win something is but one of them. To only know and enjoy winning ... that would be boring to me.

 

You know what, sometimes players just want to battle with ships, not win with them. WG may control their mold of gameplay and game design, but they do not control the context, the history of the ships, or multiplayer battle format of gaming. Nor, ideally, would they control the imaginations of their player's minds. But I'll stop here before I say some nasty things.

You didn't include the word "win", but I do. I play games - especially games against other people - because I want to compete with them and see who's better in the end. That's why we count the goals while playing a relaxed set of football, that's why we play these little games like 'whoever makes it first to the next xyz'. 

 

And from how I read your posts you fail to acknowledge that this sentiment is represented in quite a few players of this game. Players like this game for a multitude of reasons: Some love a certain ship, some love the mechanics, some love the competition, some love to screw over their team mates. That's randoms. Every possible mindset collides. And that's unlikely going to change.

 

Also, I find it a tad funny, that you write 'not win with them' and 'multiplayer battle format' in one paragraph. Battles were meant to battle out who's better... so I'd say it's a bit pointless to take out the 'winning' aspect.

 

 

But maybe WG is better off in designing a special game mode where you shoot at stuff (bots, forts) without any rewards whatsoever. You just enter, start shooting and when you don't want to anymore you simply exit.

 

 

Greetings 

Share this post


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

That's debatable. Could WG polish a few things? Sure! But imho there are more pressing issues than a polished 'feeling on how I get rewards'.

 

You didn't include the word "win", but I do. I play games - especially games against other people - because I want to compete with them and see who's better in the end. That's why we count the goals while playing a relaxed set of football, that's why we play these little games like 'whoever makes it first to the next xyz'. 

 

And from how I read your posts you fail to acknowledge that this sentiment is represented in quite a few players of this game. Players like this game for a multitude of reasons: Some love a certain ship, some love the mechanics, some love the competition, some love to screw over their team mates. That's randoms. Every possible mindset collides. And that's unlikely going to change.

 

Also, I find it a tad funny, that you write 'not win with them' and 'multiplayer battle format' in one paragraph. Battles were meant to battle out who's better... so I'd say it's a bit pointless to take out the 'winning' aspect.

 

 

But maybe WG is better off in designing a special game mode where you shoot at stuff (bots, forts) without any rewards whatsoever. You just enter, start shooting and when you don't want to anymore you simply exit.

 

 

Greetings 

I remember once said rambled on something in the past, on forums about "true victory". Who really wins wars? What does victory really mean?

Deeper stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,916 posts
9,408 battles
2 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

I remember once said rambled on something in the past, on forums about "true victory". Who really wins wars? What does victory really mean?

Deeper stuff.

 

No 'deep stuff' necessary. The conditions for winning a game are clearly defined.

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
2,635 posts
1 hour ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

tl;dr Premiums are being wasted when seen as just money and exp-grinders. The premium system should be gamified. It is possible for supporting features like the lootboxes to contribute as well.

This will not just raise revenue, but help the game design advance to be more fun and interesting.

 

(And sorry for original post. I should've edited it. Still, it can be fixed by reading it, not skimming, twice. It'll take you less time than to play a single match in WoWs anyways. You are free to give me the angry expression if after reading it (properly), it is still worthless.)

Play a battle or read your drivel? only one winner there....off to the battle button. :Smile_amazed:

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


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

No 'deep stuff' necessary. The conditions for winning a game are clearly defined.

 

Greetings

The conditions for winning are clearly, but rigidly, defined.

The conditions for fulfilling your personal objective of "compete with them and see who's better in the end", "Some love a certain ship, some love the mechanics, some love the competition, some love to screw over their team mates",  these things are "experiences", and do not necessarily hinge on the condition of "winning" a "match" or even the "game". It does not even require multiplayer. And if you have noticed, it is situational ... what's a "win" depends highly on the context.

So, even you yourself do not truly know why you want to win. You just want some things, a combination of things, or some variations of things, roughly coinciding with the logical structure of "winning".

 

Now, prepare to meet it's father. "Victory". It's mother, "Glory". And all the extended relatives.

 

Ahem. This is a military game ... I assume most can agree on that? Ok. We note that in the military, they don't use the word "win" roughly. Most would instead deal in concepts like "preservation of friendly forces" "strategic nullification of resistance" "minimizing collateral damage", or even "controlling costs and losses", "leave no man behind". Etc. Or like how many variations there are in typical chaff-release procedures. Weapon metrics. "Power", in being, in soft power, in logistics, in intelligence, different types of spheres of engagement, on and on. 

What's a win? "Kill all on the enemy team"? Rarely as single as that. The logic is both approximate, yet not fuzzy. And definitely not as oversimplified as "win".

But sure, "prove better than others", that is in there. As is lethality (serious version), discipline, systems and chains of command, planning and rehearsing, training, with a passion for challenges unknown, then with a burning passion, turn that into either bloodlust or desire to protect, and stretch logic so thin it cuts, and bleeds, and with such clear logic, of such intensity, engage.

And such things as determination under loss, and injury. The intensity, and the pressure, all energy ... (there is no positive or negative energy, only energy), (instead of the toxic, confounding versions we get in-game), planning, formations, the beauty in those actions, the beauty in the logic, of all that, in power, even in excitement, "ecstasy", "fun", of it all .... 

 

Such arcane, foreign, concepts. And not even touching on the "deep stuff". How do you raise morale? Not happiness, not joy, not salvation, morale. On those about to die. Well, preferably not killing out players, but raising morale nevertheless. How do you persuade them what they fight is worth fighting for? That is is not just all endless, mindless violence? That even failure, losing, is not necessarily "lose"?

And then there are the truly "deep stuff". How wars have built and destroyed nations. How industry is inherently linked to war. How there are many types of warfare. 

How these beautiful machines created for war, are artistically and in other general ways too, significant, beautiful, intriguing, and how to make them come alive, to perform as if they themselves desired to, as the engineers who designed them willed them so, as the people who put faith in them wished so, as they were meant to perform their roles amongst others, and more, and more.

 

No deep stuff necessary, perhaps. But deep stuff can be used to significantly improve what is being made, if you can incorporate them in. It's as simple as it gets. You still have been thinking from the perspective of but a gamer, at which point "winning" is pretty much enough. "It is both an art to play a game, as an art to make a game". Think not even from the developers' perspective, but as art. As truth. And as honesty, in spirit of the human soul. Give players not the game they deserve, but the game they deserve.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,063 posts
9,453 battles
3 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 


In spiritual continuation of my two topics from yesterday:

 

 

The core problem WoWs is facing, is that it is not "fun". The grindy system is doing exactly as it is designed, but it was not designed to be spectacularly fun. It was designed to be orderly and balanced. However this has instead formulated into a rigidness that stifled gameplay design in WoWs. The lack of a highly intriguing gameplay in WoWs, compared to other titles out there dealing with easier to handle contexts and popular forms of gameplay design, has caused substantial player loss from WoWs due to inability to compete with other games in entertainment and fun factor.

 

But firstly.......

This is not WG's direct fault though, at least they cannot be blamed for not trying. While there are many faults of WG, they did at one time, try. But only try they did. And as I quote myself from the "bias premiums" thread ...

"WG even did try, too. They tried Bastion. They tried radar stations. They tried weather. They tried to not release ships in bundles, but given out freely in events. They tried Halloween game modes. They tried player (clan) bases. They tried collaborations. They tried PVE. They tried manga. They tried cartoons. They tried T-shirts. They tried. But they only tried." 

I do not forget. If I wanted to defend them like some fanboys do, I could do a better good job of it too, but I do not forget the bad things either. If I wanted to bash them, there are many things I could. 

 

So this is not that kind of post. The core problem of WoWs is that it has not been substantially gamified. Games are art, conversation, logic, and showmanship. Thus, a game can be designed better and improved if adhering to methods dedicated to those crafts. WoWs, and WG, tried to improve it based on overwhelming amounts of feedback, but they only tried. They did not have a clear philosophy by doing these outlandish things, nor initiative in action, and probably did not formulate it all into a plan or schedule. Thus they decided, too late, that this was not working out, so they fell back to things the company knew by themselves how to do ... the WoT theories. While this has helped to stabilize WoWs substantially, it also caused WoWs to greatly lose potential, and stifled its growth. Thus, even today, its endurance, holding power, just pure attractiveness and content quality, pales in comparison to some of the better examples in the market. Because the WoT theories hail from a time when games were more innocent, required less showmanship and gimmicks, when games could sell purely based on content and simple gameplay, and when even plain games had a chance in the market. They lack competitiveness in today's world.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In the "problem in lootbox system" thread, I mentioned how the lootboxes pale in comparison to other lootbox systems today. But I did not do a good job of explaining why. Still, the points were in there, including a specific idea of "adding premium tokens" into supercontainers. This resonates with the other "bias premiums" thread, where I say, bias to premiums is not necessarily a bad thing, but possibly even usable. Thus I will attempt an example where we use it, here.

 

Balanced, MM integrated PvP modes are difficult under the current system, (this is an important point, we'll come back to this later), but premiums possibly offer a point of entry to this conundrum. Premiums are not necessarily highly balanced, nor integrated into the tech trees. So I imagined game modes where premiums, similar to how the Halloween special ships were used in PvP modes, are used in game modes designed around a few specific premiums each month. This is further made possible by how loss affects premiums less due to their reduced repair costs and higher reward gain, thus they can be put into demanding places, or used just for fun instead of concern for balance. The game modes will make use of the premiums' histories, in-game quirks, and ideal playstyles. This will be much more interesting than PvE scenarios, especially if it is semi-PvP, in how NPC objectives and actors are present as well (think submarine bases, bomber formations).

 

If you catch my gist there, when I said "re-orientation of the game around premiums" in the "bias premiums" thread, I mean it. The system should not go against the player, as it currently does, forcing the player to have to grind and progress against it. Instead, progression in the system should be fun, hopeful, the system should push the player along, offering expansions and enhancement to the player experience the more they dedicated to it. Higher tier rewards, and premiums, should be fitting in their place as being the stars of the show when in-game, and offering more variety, choices, freedom of selection, than without. They should be fitting rewards for the player's effort and dedication, and that reward, as I envision it, will be more fun in the fun-filled game modes we will prepare for them, like showmanship.

 

Thus progressing up the normal tech tree, players will not just experience highly balanced, but rigid and boring, current game modes, they will also get fun-based game modes where they go against, with a slight advantage, against for instance the Halloween event combo, except more balanced, more fun, and more population-friendly (only a very select few got to operate Halloween ships). A higher tier ship or two, premium and gimmicky, but to provide entertainment. Of course, there will be relevant seasonal missions, campaigns, to ensure no one misses out on rewards, even the ones performing the "star" roles and possibly more difficult roles. Like, you know, camos for their premium, special equipment, vanity flags, etc.

 

The role of the lootbox idea fitting into all this is thus, to adhere to the re-orientation of the game around "fun", for which the current vehicle is premiums. It will allow players to "try out" premiums possibly enticing them to buy, while also making it more interesting as "oh we don't directly give you the credits, earn it yourself in this premium we lend you."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

But the true intent of all this, is still to diverge the game away from a win-lose conundrumA lot of complaints on forum atm revolved around bad losses causing distress in players. Ideally, no one wanted this, not players, not WG, not the designers. This is yet another byproduct of the unforgiving system WoWs uses. Ideally, games should provide enjoyment, fun, all kinds of stuff, regardless of win/lose ... the yearning, the excitement, the process itself, should be enjoyable. Even without playing the game, the spectacle itself, the logic in itself, should be interesting, and more .... etc. Unless WoWs evolves from the very basic form it is in, it has little hope of competing with games out there that are simply fun

 

And one step is made possible with ideas from the lootbox thread. In how by playing, players earn exp, complete missions, earn rewards ... Of course, if players played only to earn and fulfill these missions, that would seriously unbalance the gameplay. So I do not mean that. But how in playing, regardless of win/lose, players gain exp which fills up this lootbox meter, until they get drops. This is earned regardless of win/lose, but still, more if win or good games. So this is is not entirely exempt from the win/lose conundrum, but it is still one step away from it.

 

Thus if we expand on that, and delve deeper into the possibilities, it means by introducing and expanding and enhancing such features which devolve the reliance of the game from win/lose, it will reduce the pressure to players in that area. This is what I meant when I say "game-level feature instead of gimmick-level", in the lootbox flaw thread. While lootboxes may not be the most fitting game-level feature, it is the only actual example we have atm, while another is "clans", but there is not overwhelming present of clans as a feature in the game either. It just goes to show how bare-bones WoWs still is, as a game, even after so much time. Ahem, but I did not come today to say that. 

 

In these special game modes, because much of the pressure is diverted away from direct-earnings in the game but put on the side via missions and rewards, while for the other sides being the star of the show and playing premiums in itself also helps to offset, the direct win/lose affect is greatly reduced. We can then generalize from this, that to reduce win/lose influence, making the game less clearly balanced and easily interpreted, "moving the balance to the backstage", and only presenting players the fun, will help to reduce perception of win/lose, if not help to alleviate it entirely. (And as I and other people mentioned in the threads, perception is important.)

 

And if further focus is directed to the stars-of-the-show ships on a rotating schedule, focus is even more diverted away from mundane technical balance concerns, but into actual gameplay, game design, and fun. Thus, for WG to not just do another try, they will have to be willing to explore such concepts at not just a feature level, but at a game level, or design philosophy level, otherwise they will not be able to implement them impactfully and naturally, and wil not be able to follow through and continue to integrate that as a normal strength of the game.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Speaking of normal strengths of the game, and going back to the point of important point of innovative PvP modes being difficult under the current system, WG has been using the decades-old Tier 1-10 system with little change. While they have polished and refined working with that system incredibly, the system itself is sadly, increasingly bare-bones compared to more advanced-gen theories of core design nowadays. Even mobile phone games have moved a lot forward from the likes of farmville, candy-crush, angry-birds, to 3-D, progression-based, deep-gameplay or polished-action games previously reserved for the quality of consoles or street arcades. PC games have advanced incredibly as well due to substantial hardware and software advances, especially online games. Games which would have won game-of-the-year and blew minds just 3 years ago, face stiff competition even in their own genre and shows of strength. Much less a F2P model from a time when phones were just .... phones.

 

So no matter how much more WG polishes their system, or builds better business models, the inherent lacking of the core system, even boosted by the interest of the context and lack of similar context products in the market, is not very competitive. Thus WG has relied on a psychological model (not even logic-level model) instead of context or gameplay as their selling point. This is a highly risky method of operation. I am concerned. I am alarmed. 

 

In fact, because of how rigid the system is, just trying to find entry-points for better creative gameplay and design has been difficult, and we have to resort to using premiums as hypothetical "outliers" to work outside the system. It will be much more difficult to not just "try", but to seriously integrate better features into the game and gameplay, permanently, with these limitations. So no matter how much WG overhauls the CV, under the current game mode, it will still face the same old mundane questions of balance, fairness, earnings, etc. instead of truly important questions like truthfulness, honesty, experience, artistic qualities, and gamification. (So to save myself the disappointment when I do hear of the CV overhaul but ahem*)  

 

About 2 years ago, when there were still substantial amounts of players and ideas I had this "tierpoint" idea, in which and I quote (too lazy to write new) 

"One of the changes was a points-based tierpoint system, instead of tier 1-10. Thus that each ship would be assigned a "power-rating" based off of many factors, but primarily their tier and class. In other words, targets now have strategic worth and value. Would you focus on the valuable big BB, or the mob of weak DDs? Would you compose your team, with high-cost high-potential ships, or swarms of cost-effective cruisers? Imagine the tactics that will go into composing a competitive team under that game design."

As you can see, just a simple little change like this changes the game completely. Of course it is grossly oversimplified here, but if you think back to the using premium ships as outliers, we are pretty much using them in place of specific combinations of tierpoints, or as higher-tierpoint, pressure-facing ships. Because a change at the level of "tierpoint" and others cannot be reasonably implemented, even tested, we can at least attempt to test the concept of it, in how it forms and shapes gameplay and game modes, in the possibilities it brings in MM, map and objective design, and team composition. The PvP (Player versus Premium) concept was also based on unwritten enhancements to the tierpoint concepts in one variation of tierpoints versus other compositions. As you can see, the tierpoints provides a common metric of evaluation, balance, and automation (in which it can be recognized by an algorithm based MM system, so interesting, enhanced game modes can be automatically and optimally generated. Or at least, better sort the data to provide feedback to the devs.

In other words, the possibilities are, as always, endless. Imagine other game mechanics under a more sophisticated, in-depth, and expanded system. Things not implementable, not representable in current WoWs, can be. Mechanics not fitting to the current level of gameplay, can be. Air and CVs, can be made interesting again, and instead of buckling the system, add to it. WoWs will be able to compete with even the most sophisticated game designs out there. WoWs will be able to be enhanced with higher methods of art and logic. And technological advancement such as A.I. and more flexible multiplayer algorithms.

 

The CV overhaul does get me excited. WG is still trying. I can still try too, but if it is not just a "try", but more ...  I will break out the notes, and review it all after 2 years. Not just a try, but more.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

So we talked a bit about gamification a bit, but a lot of it still relies on showmanship. On presentation, on public relations handling and handling of appetites and logic. Not necessarily with the end of extorting money, that is a bad habit of thinking, but it unarguably helps. Sometimes, your context itself and players for each other will do enough. But other times, the Company does have to step in and do it professionally. I abstractly remember I once mentioned somwehere that for every big update, animated, highlighting, tutorial-like windows in the main game interface will have to explain and lead the player through all the new features and content introduced, and how to best enjoy them, more devotedly than reporting to your superior, to your elders, more honestly and earnestly than the 100-page manuals that came with the old-style computer games, all with the heart-felt thank-you message of developers for staying with and enjoying their game. Every. Single. Update. Not to mention the seasonal holidays, oh boy, ever seen a shop worth its salt not give 120% in decorations and customer policies when holidays come around? No half-hearted "tries" here. These "little things" are, as I remember putting it, are "non-negotiable" for the big companies, especially big companies working in the service industry. Including games. WoWs has a news panel but it is not enough. By far.

 

And I also remember mentioned at some point ago, how for the Arp collaboration, it would have been substantially enhanced if the sinking animation of ships instead of flipping belly-up like they normally do, instead gracefully turned into particles and dissipated into the wind, like in the original anime. This is not just for adhering reasons, it is symbolic, beautiful, and would have impressed even the collaboration-end if they knew about it, I mean, they are the artists, they know such things. Of course, it would have faced ... complications if attempted to be integrated into the game engine, especially with the option of turning off Arp content, but as I said, no "tries". Half-hearted tries impress no one, and demoralize instead of ... do whatever they intend to do. Perhaps not everyone could tell you what went wrong, but they will feel it wrong. The performers, the showman on stage, knows perhaps none of the audience can judge whether his techniques are "good", but by god you can bet they will be able to tell if the performance is worth its salt. With sorcery. So this is just a bit on showmanship.

 

These little things, stack up, compose the image of a game and company, and do matter. I also, in the very same post, mentioned treating modders, etc. but WG has improved much since the beginning on these techniques, like on mods, but only after year or two later. They still need more initiative. 

 

TL;DR I do not find the game fun enough. Everything above is whine. WG should cater to me and me only. Wha. Wha. Wha. (P.S. Don't read TL;DR's from me.)

Also this new mechanical keyboard is amazing, I can almost type at the speed of thought! My old posts I had to double back and delete extra spaces every few seconds, the work keyboard was even better than my oen. gg!

What I perceive as being the greatest flaw with WoWS is the rigid and unimaginative mindset of Wargaming. Wargaming has only one recipy for making games; That is a 10 tier based grindfest structered around corridor maps with gamey game mechanics that promotes passive and frustrating gameplay from the players combined with continous powercreep and horrible balance issues in order to intice players to spend money so they can achieve the goal of the game which is to reach and purchase tier 10 vehicles.

The gameplay itself is dumbed down, repetitive, stale and frustrating and there is no endgame material that at least rewards the players for actually reaching tier 10 only just more of the same repetitive bad game experience.

Basically WoT and WoWS are classic mobile platform business models taken to the PC platform and are dependent on a high player througput where players pay money to progress through the tiers untill they grow tired of the game or don't want to spend more money after realising the flaws of the games, rather than high player retention where loyal players spend money because the game is varied and good which provides great entertainment they wish to keep playing.

 

All of the issues with WOWS stems from Wargaming's mobile platform business model where short term profit goals are the only priority as that dictate the development path and supercedes any good gameplay experience and suggestions and ideas that limits that is simply disregarded.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

What I perceive as being the greatest flaw with WoWS is the rigid and unimaginative mindset of Wargaming. Wargaming has only one recipy for making games; That is a 10 tier based grindfest structered around corridor maps with gamey game mechanics that promotes passive and frustrating gameplay from the players combined with continous powercreep and horrible balance issues in order to intice players to spend money so they can achieve the goal of the game which is to reach and purchase tier 10 vehicles.

The gameplay itself is dumbed down, repetitive, stale and frustrating and there is no endgame material that at least rewards the players for actually reaching tier 10 only just more of the same repetitive bad game experience.

Basically WoT and WoWS are classic mobile platform business models taken to the PC platform and is dependent on a high player througput where players pay money to progress through the tiers untill they grow tired of the game or don't want to spend more money after realising the flaws of the games, rather than high player retention where loyal players spend money because the game is varied and good which provides great entertainment they wish to keep playing.

 

All of the issues with WOWS stems from Wargaming's mobile platform business model where short term profit goals are the only priority as that dictate the development path and supercedes any good gameplay experience and suggestions and ideas that limits that is simply disregarded.

The funny thing is, even mobile games have advanced into next-gen design concepts not based on short-term stupid grind stuff. These next-gen mobile games are incredibly different from the likes of even hits like Angry Birds, much less idioten stuff like Candy Crush.

But to WG's credit, as I have mentioned, they have tried to improve WoWs with new concepts and improvements, but most of it is too little, and too slow, and cannot address the core elephant which is those crippling systems.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×