The argument for longer vs shorter games

[KarmaQU_EU]

There are 3 kinds of feedback which would greatly help:

1. Links to older threads and posts which have dealt with this topic before.

2. Arguments addressing both sides of the spectrum, for shorter vs longer match experiences

3. Insights which would wow me.

 

The problem is simple, would WoWs, or a form of WoWs that has been slightly altered to be more compatible to the desired match-structure, be better off with shorter, simpler, arcade-styled bite-sized games, or be better of with the possibility of longer, perhaps hour-long sessions, but be a more fulfilling experience than a few shorter sessions can compare to?

 

And will allowing WoWs to look into the possibilities of longer, larger matches, open up possibilities to improve the game, and address current problems as well?

 

What kinds of mechanics might appear if WoWs adapted longer match structures? Give examples please.

[13Ninjas]

I don't think anyone will want to play for hour-long sessions, the rewards for that kind of time would have to improve 3-4 fold,  frustrating for any losing team playing up to an hour, especially for players that work hard to win, but lose.

[domen3]

I don't like this idea. Take Arma 3 king of the hill for example, which I play from time to time. It's a fun gamemode, but since one round lasts anywhere from 1 to 3 hours, if you get tired of playing or simply have to stop mid battle, you get 0 end rewards. Or better yet, you play for an hour, but know that you're going to lose and get low rewards. I prefer the 20min max games that are in wows.

[RAHJAILARI]

Well, personally I could go for a 30 minute match, but there should be 15 or more ships per side in that case.

 

On the other hand, I play Wows because I love ships and so if the games become shorter 10 minute or so and more arcade-style I would just stop playing it all together pretty quickly.

 

perhaps the current 20 mins is fine then... Unless it is possible to increase team size?

[Excavatus]

I would be on the side of "Longer battles would be fun" If there are bigger maps with more ships on both teams and a some kind of respawn mechanic.

 

With these maps and player profile and game mechanics,

you cant make the matches go hour long.. unless you make the first sailing towards the battle 50 mins long...

You can significantly drop the alpha damage but that will cause a huge amount of problems.. the first comes to mind is I can sail in between the enemy lines and torp with my British Cruiser.. every enemyship.. one by one..

and make them flooding. then torp them again one by one.. to make them flood again :)

 

[RAHJAILARI]

Ahhh, good times then @Excavatus. But then again they also might decide to make it more realistic on the torp-side of things and give you just a single torpedo load or only 1 reload to balance it out... That could be a bummer.

[elblancogringo]

I feel the matches are already a bit too long.

I would not like longer ones. 20 minutes is already a lot of time. My brother who likes playing WoT was amazed by how long are the battles in WoWs and that was one of the reason he didn't want to continue playing this game and went back to WoT.

People always complain on this forum about how camping is the current meta. Do not make it worse by making the games longer, please.

[Excavatus]

12 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Ahhh, good times then @Excavatus. But then again they also might decide to make it more realistic on the torp-side of things and give you just a single torpedo load or only 1 reload to balance it out... That could be a bummer.

Then it would be a total tactical warfare with ships..

and I dont want to imagine how would it go down with the current average intelligence levels of the WoWs players.

 

but just for an idea,

they can make, an hour long.. may be 2 hours long even.. Clan battles with for example 50 ships in each side.. with tactical phases in between, like teams decide to attack or defend fronts, ports, etc. where 10 players play which anyone can take another ship from port If they got sunk! or ammunation depleted! or even want to change tactics.

[RAHJAILARI]

Hmm @Excavatus, personally I am playing this game just because I love ships so the more the merrier, as I always say.

 

But I can indeed see how it would be quite difficult to accomplish in practise. I also have a game called "Victory at Sea", it has no multiplayer mode, but you may well end up in a battle against 60 or more ships with your fleet of 20 ships and it is more than enough to completely jam any Display Driver. I doubt there would be many users who could even try. I think that's why Wows has a limit of 12 per team instead of 15 like in tanks. The game would just get too heavy, take up too much memory and any number of other such capacity issues (to be popular it has to work in even the lass advanced PC's, I suppose).

 

I would like to see more massive sea battle too, but not for hours at a time. perhaps some 15-18 ships per side and 30 or 40 mins max duration would be the upper limit for my patience.

 

Steel Ocean, which I tried recently (just because it has IJN Tone and Ise included in their ship roster AND working submarines) has re-spawn mechanic in place, but I did not like it much, also the teams are smaller with only 6 ships each and the premium-ammo BS too, so I decided to abandon it after 1 day and stick to Wows for now at the least until someonme releases Tone somewhere else, hehehe!

 

Perhaps they could introduce a "Grand Battle" game mode with larger maps and teams for those players who would like to give it a go in addition to all the others (Randoms, Coops, Ranked and such)... I for one would be a total sucker and probably switch from Randoms to that one permanently.

 

Just remembered, doesn't WoT have this kind of game mode already with massive battles? But instead of re-spawning players, they have a repair base, where you can go to recover HP during battles, even if you have no heal. That would be much better than re-spawning again and again methinks.

 

Of course, you still have to make sure not to get killed to death before that would be of any use, hehehe!

[Ruth_clifton]

18 Ships   per side   keep 20  mins

[Excavatus]

16 minutes ago, Ruth_clifton said:

18 Ships   per side   keep 20  mins

special game mode..

15 DDs per side.. 10km X 10km maps..

 

Let the 76th hunger games begin!

[RAHJAILARI]

6 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

special game mode..

15 DDs per side.. 10km X 10km maps..

 

Let the 76th hunger games begin!

15 Asashios + 1 BB per side?

[Excavatus]

7 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

15 Asashios + 1 BB per side?

actually a better idea..

10 CVs + 5 DMs per side..

[KarmaQU_EU]

Good incoming posts so far,

Some points which were brought up thus far if I may summarize:

 

1. Problem of game rewards to balance out time increase ratio

2. Problem of people who may want to join or leave mid-session, impact on both self and others

3. Some people prefer exclusively shorter game modes

4. Map size (need larger)

5. Balance damage mechanics over time (some may be op for longer total times)

6. Longer games would be a totally different game mode (think competitive)

7. Less extreme options of complete longer games (40 mins instead of 60)

8. Respawn?

 

Let me know if I got anything wrong.

Keep posting, and please try to find the "desired post material" I requested top. I will summarize more and conclude when there's enough public feedback.

[Butterdoll]

I would like longer games.

each of us plays at least 1 to 3 hours anyway. (from what I've been reading around here)

wining or losing WG just have to scale the rewards.

1 battle of 1 hour= 3 x 20 minutes battles reward wise.

WG could start small adding small portions of time.

Let's say 5 minutes to 10 minutes and go from there.

19 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

I feel the matches are already a bit too long.

I would not like longer ones. 20 minutes is already a lot of time. My brother who likes playing WoT was amazed by how long are the battles in WoWs and that was one of the reason he didn't want to continue playing this game and went back to WoT.

People always complain on this forum about how camping is the current meta. Do not make it worse by making the games longer, please.

sorry, man

But who gives a crap about WOT?

Not me.

This is WoWS.

 

4 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Good incoming posts so far,

Some points which were brought up thus far if I may summarize:

 

1. Problem of game rewards to balance out time increase ratio

2. Problem of people who may want to join or leave mid-session, impact on both self and others

3. Some people prefer exclusively shorter game modes

4. Map size (need larger)

5. Balance damage mechanics over time (some may be op for longer total times)

6. Longer games would be a totally different game mode (think competitive)

7. Less extreme options of complete longer games (40 mins instead of 60)

8. Respawn?

 

Let me know if I got anything wrong.

Keep posting, and please try to find the "desired post material" I requested top. I will summarize more and conclude when there's enough public feedback.

already answered to some of your points.

 

What about a x number of 12 vs 12 games where a sunk ship it's replaced by a new player and the battle rages on.

the sunk ship goes to port, collect the (scaled) rewards as is now. Do what he wants.

when going to battle again, can resume that battle  or other and replace other sunk ship.

Same mechanics, same dynamics.

the unicoms can see how really good they are, how far can they go, how many krakens can they achieve.

the bad players can correct their mistakes and learn with the reds and sink unicoms (No one can endure for ever)

we all take our pound of fleash.

Both teams will have 12 players at all times.

 

 

[anonym_2hneAFaIyP4T]

5 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

What about a x number of 12 vs 12 games where a sunk ship it's replaced by a new player and the battle rages on.

I like this... although off the top of my head, wouldn't this make AFK players a bigger drag than they currently are? Sure that could be overcome somehow...

The rewards would need a bit more of a tweak though because there wouldn't really be a win/lose would there? And maybe then would there actually be less teamwork (yolo in, rack up the XP, die, join again?)? You could mitigate this by trying to increase XP rewards for teamwork, and maybe a 'damage-over-time-in-game' reward (focus on alpha damage, at least for BB's ?).

 

Just my ramblings with no obvious conclusion...  still like your idea, if I haven't misunderstood it!

[RAHJAILARI]

Well @Rusty_9, just off the top of my head... WG could just implement rule that if anyone does not take any action for 20 or 30 seconds (just an example guys) they automatically get booted out of the game and replaced by another suitable player. This should be the rule in all battles tho.

 

The original guy would then just have to queue for another battle, if already able/willing to play. AFK problem solved.

 

Of course, the missed battle would then be counted as a 0-point loss for the culprit's stats tho or serial offenders banned or some such. Just to make sure we don't accidentally encourage slacking. Hehehe!

 

At the least this way the other team members won't have to suffer (unless the replacement player also sucks, but nothing is perfect eh?).

[Procrastes]

I'd say the length of the typical Random Battle is timed perfectly as it is just now. You have time enough to get into the fight in a way of your choosing and to make a few tactical manoeuvres, but no matter what, it all will be decided in 20 minutes at the most. There is never a long, drawn-out voyage to an already secured outcome. The typical Scenario Battle lasts a bit longer, but that's to be expected.

 

Does anyone else remember the first edition of  the board game Axis & Allies? It (kinda sorta) simulated the progress of the second world war, and was tweaked so that barring some really outrageous stretches of onesided dice rolls, what you knew is what you got - you either spent 6-16 hours winning as the allies, or losing as the axis. And even when things occasionally went the other way, the end was usually in sight after about 90 minutes, and the rest was just protocol.* The eminent pacing of the battles in World of Warships is one of the main strengths of the game, in my opinion.

 

*The first time I played as Japan, I tried to join the allied side at the start of the match because who in their right mind would go up against the military industrial power of the USA at that time? But the rules wouldn't let me. Tip: Don't play Axis & Allies; just read Anthony Beevor instead.

[Negativvv]

It's probably about right...

 

Any longer and I'd likely not play as much. The feeling of wasting your time is a fairly big issue in gaming and no one wants to play 30+ mins for a game that's clearly only going one way.

 

 

That wasted feeling already happens with the current game time too...

 

The nature of Ships means the games can't be much shorter as they take a bit of time to travel to locations.

[Verblonde]

On balance, I think the game time is currently about right, with *perhaps* slight erring on the side of too long.

At the weekend, I was mucking about with one of the Fallout games, and a bit of Wolfenstein; one of the nice things about playing games like this is the pause button: when real life intervenes, you can hit pause and not lose anything, or annoy anyone.

 

An average WOWS game for me at the moment is around ten minutes +/-; the average would be longer if I sucked less - my survival rate is atrocious. Ten minutes average is fine in terms of not being interrupted, or needed for something else.

As it stands, I'll rarely break off from from a game - it requires something very pressing to come up; if games were noticeably longer, I would be much more likely to wander off and/or not play in the first place (the former being unfair to my team, and the latter being undesirable from WG's perspective).

I suspect that the more obsessive players will come down on the side of longer games, whilst those of us who are more casual and/or balancing gaming with RL, will prefer things to stay the same or to have shorter games.

The earlier comparison to WOT is valid, in that one of WOT's strong points is that it is pretty instantaneous i.e. if you just fancy a 'quickie' as it were, that might be a better direction to head. That said, if you tried to speed up WOWS and essentially turn it into a soggy WOT, with torps, you would probably lose much of what makes WOWS good...

[gekkehenkie50]

Or just include a completely historic game mode, problem is that didnt work in WoT... Then again, I have the feeling WoWS community find historical accuracy (judging by the forums) a tad more important than the WoT players.

[VC381]

There are two possible templates for longer games, based on my experience with other games:

 

- MOBA model. 45 minute games but with less reward difference for win/loss and a vote to surrender mechanic after e.g. 20 minutes.

 

- Long drop-in sessions (WT players, think EC). An objective based battle, basically a mini-campaign, that goes on for several hours where you can join/leave whenever you want and have infinite respawn. Reward based on personal contribution only and not win/loss.

 

I'm in the group that would like the game to be more realistic but I'm not sure longer battles are the answer. It's nice to drop in and play a few different ships one after the other, and the focus on action makes sense as a business model since it attracts more players.

 

There are other things you could make more realistic without IMO removing that instant fun factor. I understand the need for compressed battles to a large extent. 100% realistic naval combat would be drawn out and boring as hell.

 

So tentatively I would say yes to longer battles but not just simply making current battles bigger. I would favour a large drop-in/drop-out style running campaign as it's the best of both worlds and people can do what they want and stay as long as they want.

[Wildf1re]

For me, it's the perfect duration as is. With work etc. it's posssible to get in the occasional games without having to commit to a too long period at a time while still leaving room for a battlle where tactics play a role (unless it's a roflstomp obviously).

[Deckeru_Maiku]

A long, long, LONG time ago, there was this battleground in the other WoW game. Alterac Balley. Two strongholds, lots of sidequests and many players on each side... nowadays* teams just rush past each other and slaughter the NPCs guarding the strongholes and the faster slaughterer wins... usually takes less then ten minutes... sometimes less than five.

 

But in the beginning, when WoW - the other one.. - still was fun and people played to have fun, not to gain virtual items, there were these battles that only ended because the server went down for a patch.. or maintenance..

The fights were fierce, and whenever a player had to drop out after a couple of hours, a new one entered the massacre... even during the night - the real night, not ingame night - the fighting never stopped. Geeks from all over europe slaughtered each other happily all day and night long.

 

So... would something like this work in WoWs?

A large, really, really large battlefield. With several bases to attack and conquer. As long as one side still owns at least one base, every player whose ship was sunk would be replaced by a new player (and the one who got sunk could join the queue again..).

Ships would have to go to a base to repair and replenish their consumables.

At random times small groups of NPC ships will arrive, to attack a base. Technically they'd belong to one of the teams, so only one side would have any reason to shoot at them.

 

The battle would only end, when one side has conquered all bases and the last enemy ship has been sunk or when 5 minutes have passed after conquering the last base. Or when the server has to go down for an update or maintenance...

 

I think this could be fun.

[DB2212]

On 13/03/2018 at 12:18 PM, elblancogringo said:

I feel the matches are already a bit too long.

I would not like longer ones. 20 minutes is already a lot of time. My brother who likes playing WoT was amazed by how long are the battles in WoWs and that was one of the reason he didn't want to continue playing this game and went back to WoT.

People always complain on this forum about how camping is the current meta. Do not make it worse by making the games longer, please.

I have to say I'm the opposite. I quit WoT when the games regularly ended in 6 - 7 minutes. It was all too frantic and I didn't find it fun at all.