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

Suggestion: Premium-centric gamemodes

Would you support such a game mode?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Premium-centric gamemodes as described? (MC)

    • Yes
    • No
    • Gave feedback (post in comments)
    • Don't care / not necessary for the game
  2. 2. This poll too long?

    • Finally, for once, no.
    • Yes. Fly off.
    • It is flawed poll. Gave improvements in comments. (thank you btw, I'll try to modify the poll if feedback came early enough)

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Edit: this is pretty much the TL;DR

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

About some time ago I briefly entertained the idea of premiums being more focused by WG, but in a way that benefits both their cashflow, and the playerbase.

 

It was how special premium-centric gamemodes can be made possible thanks to the following attributes of premiums:

 

1. Reduced economy loss / always a win in economic terms, regardless of game performance/outcome,

2. Special quirks, can perform unique and specialized tasks well,

3. Usually has prestige factor, both from acquisition methods in-game, and their historical legacy,

4. Is "outside" the balance-scale of the usual tech tree, thus can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 

Thus special game modes created for premiums may uniquely leverage these attributes in interesting and fun ways otherwise difficult to achieve with tech-tree ships, to provide entertainment for the general playerbase. For instance,

1. This means premiums can be placed into the spotlight and also more pressuring, demanding, and less rewarding roles as needs of the scenario dictates.

2. This means premiums can be expected to perform a very specialized, demanding, but somehow achievable, roles as their ship-specs allow.

3. This can serve as justification and immersion factor for the special scenarios and attention to be given to the premiums, as the event dictates. (for instance if WG syncs the scenario events to historical dates on the real calendar)

4. The experimental endeavor of using ships in non-balanced MM game-modes on regularity, is a significant and symbolic attempt in itself, as it can serve as a stepping stone to provide precious experience, practice, statistics and data, and systemic development of more variety, fun, depth, and enhanced MM for WoWs as a whole. Leading to, for instance, optimizations, improvements on balance in the tech tree, on variety between lines, better progression, and general experience of players.

 

But before we go into the details, the way these game-modes work is not some "special feature" serving only premium-ship owners. 

 

Rather, imagine the Corgi Fleet, but normal premium ship owners substituting out the WG sanctioned Corgi-players, and the premium ships involved will be rotated on a regular and seasonal event basis. The rewards will be less "outstanding", not as "loaded" as a hefty amount of doubloons by killing Corgis, but similar to the event rewards we get nowadays ... a few flags, containers, event camos, but still regular stuff. Maybe doubloons, but rare, so it will still be balanced. Or lotteries, server-wide progression based on the Kamikaze R, lots of ways to make it fun.

Or, imagine the PvE scenarios, but as a PvP scenario where one side has to "roleplay" with premiums.

 

Naturally, all kinds of premiums, from premium shop, doubloon-buyable, or prestige premiums, will have to be given equal representation, as well as between ship classes, tier level, and all that kind of consideration.

 

In brief, the game modes provide regular features for premium owners to use their premiums in, and for the general populace to have fun going against the scenarios, with enough interesting ideas and reasonable rewards to make it enticing.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The game modes' "specialty" compared to regular mode can be achieved at certain thresholds of detail ... be it just a straightforward reward for simply encountering the premium ship during the event, like Corgis and Halloween, to a bit more complex, such as unique game-wide modifiers, even altered game rules, or altered objectives / maps. Or to the full-out special event, a dedicated scenario created just for the occasion, imagine sci-fi space battles, or even a dedicated and scripted scenario map. The main ideas is that the "gamemode" will make use of the special attributes of premiums as listed in the 4 points above, to create a uniquely perspective encounter in which it will be interesting & fun to see the premiums in action. 

 

Naturally, this has to be balanced for both owners and non-owners of premiums. So imagine the "unbalanced" PvE scenarios, with unequal sides and teams, with differing objectives, but one side has the "host responsibility" of only or mostly using premiums the event was created for, while the other side uses normal and maybe other premium ships to battle against them. But because of the 4 attribute factors listed above, the hosted-premiums side will have to make use of the unique strengths of their premiums to succeed in their goal, possibly experiencing an effort symbolically significant of the actual historical legacies of the premiums, and possibly playing a more pressured, but also spotlight-chance-to-shine role, due to the "no lose" factor of premium ships. To balance it out, they may even get temporary special buffs for their premiums in that mode, or special event rewards afterwards, for acting our their role properly. While the rest of the population gets to enjoy a stress-free, fun-centric, experience and immersion centric mode where they are not being put into the pressured roles, enjoying more favourable and relaxing setups for that encounter (such as having more ships to "swarm" the premiums, though the premiums get a respawn or staged reinforcement phase).

 

Special mention of @TheCinC to organize "historical scenarios", and the possibility of more coordination between in-game features with real-world historical legacies in general as mentioned in attribute 3. This desire has been expressed by players since the very beginning of WoWs, and now, years later, we may finally have the means to satisfy those who call for "all or nothing" (with hopes to the 'all' side) celebration of history, but which was not possible years ago due to the level of infrastructure of WoWs at the time, and were only represented in meek "event missions" not even earning unique camouflages, but just plain rewards such as premium consumables. How far WoWs has come indeed. So the "premium-centric gamemode" idea can allow for the possibility of historical re-enactments as well, with easier organization, easier participation, and better production quality.

 

As for the possibility of "unique modifiers and altered game rules", think rules like "all torpedoes gain 20 knots speed and 20% range, but all torpedoes become DWT", or "all fires have halved duration, but doubled total damage, and have no stack limit", or "friendly caps generate ocean currents which speed up friendly ships but slow down enemy ships". Or just even more unique and interesting "game modifiers" ideas which unfortunately have slipped from my mind for now, but which a professional game dev team would be able to come up with regularly, and which will result in unique and interesting game conundrums necessitating strategy and intellect to overcome, for instance, the "DWT" modifier will probably be very unfriendly to BBs, and extremely more so if doubled with the "ocean currents" modifier. Yes, can stack and combine up combinations of unique and interesting modifiers, maybe 2-3 at once, to provide for a very interesting and unique perspective on the game, and possibly a change from the boredom of the same game modes which have been so every day for 3 whole years. It will also provide opportunity for WG to gather "unique statistics" and generate conclusions which will not be possible, or less relevant and prevalent if attempted from normal modes, to help them gain insight on balancing and game design. (disclaimer: this "modifier" idea is not original, I stole it from SC2 mutations).

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

While it is a "good thing" WG is being generous, giving out rewards in the form of containers, camo, and special mission rewards more than ever, I personally do not think it is the best idea to offer the "unmoderated" generosity in the way WG is doing, for both the good of the playerbase, and WG. For instance, one of the reasoning behind the idea of including "rent-a-premium" tokens in container drops, besides giving players chance to "test drive" a premium, was to send the message that "we want you to get more rewards, but instead of giving it to you directly, which is no fun, we will instead loan you a premium to earn rewards yourself." Should you consider my explanation of attribute 4 as well, then it also means a more holistic attempt to optimize and improve the whole "progression" experience, aka. the grind as designed in this game, to be a more compact and integrated game experience that will function as a strong and beautiful core design for the game, and not necessitate "external moderators" such as these "regular supply-drops" patched-on to function. So just better system design in general. (ideas to improve, or direction of improvement of lootbox system, was also briefly entertained before, but is not main focus for today besides the common idea of "rent-a-premium" tokens as a semi-rare drop).

 

This ties in my views of WG needing more showmanship and gamification in WoWs. Giving out generosity to players, while workable as a industry strategy, and possibly even as a gesture, is not just "give players more rewards, more stuff, pile it on", no. There are much more unforgiving, stingy, strict and authoritative games and franchises out there, some even less interesting than WoWs, that have larger playerbases, more devote fans, and possibly even greater critical acclaim. The reasons for this is multiplex and intricate, such as from artistic, from logic and logistics perspectives, but the core reasoning is that still it is a compact, integrated, high-completion work of a game very relevant and compatible to its chosen context be it real or fictional, and very interesting and fun. Does "piling on rewards" directly address any of those concepts in the last sentence? Not really, and it is not even the best course of action to appease players, it is simply too simple and unsophisticated. Features need to become systems in the game, culminating in a whole image, idea, concept, of a game and experience. Some parts of WoWs are too subtle on this, while other areas are too rough ... and far from being "fun" enough, amongst many other things. Thus the endeavors including this one as suggested, is still to aim for the ultimate end of finding possibilities and directions for WoWs to continuously evolve and improve, and the player experience of it as well.

 

Last (2) paragraph(s) (sry xD): personal rambling not very related to main topic: remember Strangers123's "replay analysis service"? the "free service?", ye, won't happen if it's free. I told him so. But, imagine if it was gamified, systemized, hosted with showmanship ... such as a "plays of the week" style showcase reel resembling WoT ones prevalent on youtube, but more strategic and functional. Imagine if it was done for carriers, showing good decisions, bad decisions, and interaction with those decisions? Interactive questions, as in chess-setup problems: this is happening, this is happening, these are the factors in place, what will be your choice? click on the screen. Ok, so this was performed, but then this and this happened because of this and this. Interactive tutorial, even. This is what I mean by gamification, and if done well, it rises to showmanship, with more to rise. These are not just for show, they are highly practical and functional as well ... imagine a interactive CV tutorial for players, in which they get to make the strategic decision of sending planes to protect allies or not, but all they have to do is click a choice button, and they will then be able to have plenty of time to watch the enactment, and little distraction from struggling to perform the maneuver themselves, thus letting the results, and the moral of the story, sink in, instead of idk during the chaos of a normal game.

 

And these are not even irrelevant, much less unpractical. For instance, imagine if WoWs had to one day design a campaign (that also served as a subtle, intuitive, deep tutorial). Or more highly sophisticated scripted and actually directed scenarios. The experience and insights from creating, hosting and managing endeavors such as these, will go a long way to make the final effort easier, and the final product, possibly amazing.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

TL;DR I am bad at writing tl;drs right after I finish a post. Give me some time to come back to it, or just read the thing if you are impatient.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,626 posts
20,483 battles

Your proposal is too complicated to be worth anything.

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

Sure as hell not going to read the post (maybe someone can give me a TL;DR version?), answer to the title is - no.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,795 posts
7,088 battles

Sorry OP but dividing the playerbase into a more important/less important classes(people will see it like that) that would be verry unwise to do, as a premium you get more xp and silver, done..  nothing more, no perks etc. just no. :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,470 posts
4,557 battles

What a wonderful way to implement paytowin!

 

Stupid poll! :Smile_facepalm:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts

No, emphatically, I even read most of his typically long dribblings too, that's 5 minutes of my life I'd like back please.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

Most of the argument regarding “dividing players” by putting premiums in the spotlight, even though both premiums and non premiums get to participate in the new modes, could be addressed by including a non-premium ship in the “host-ships” rotation, per rotation.

 

And besides, as I mentioned, there are premium ships that you can earn for free. Those are included in the rotation as well.

 

Or you can even earn a “rent a premium” token, which will drop at higher rates during the event for the ships on rotation, or even be a set reward during the event with limited amounts, so everyone gets to participate on both sides of the event.

 

In my opinion this setup is better than the Corgi fleet, where only very few WG ppl got to be corgis, very few ppl encountered them, and very few ppl got rewards. And it was not even that interesting.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,821 posts
18,448 battles

Started reading but the text just kept coming and coming ... it may be wise to put a TLDR version at the end of your post :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,059 posts
7,793 battles

I don't want WG spending development time making modes for paygated ships that I don't own. Therefore no.

 

Also: too long, didn't read.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,417 posts
20,839 battles
Vor 19 Stunden, KarmaQU_EU sagte:

Or, imagine the PvE scenarios, but as a PvP scenario where one side has to "roleplay" with premiums.

 

This.

I've suggested the first half of this before (without the premiums).

Ceterum censeo I think they have so many marketing-based and marketing-related problems right now their focus should not be on generating more of those.

 

Their focus should be stopping their marketing people from breaking the game even more, in the name of highly questionable objectives <cough> Asashio <cough><cough><cough>.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SERBS]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,433 posts
8,371 battles

Such a waste of time for such BS topic... :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


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

TL;DR just read the damn thing.

 

summary, shorter version, though original was already quite compact by my standards:

 

The title is misleading. The core idea is a regular, seasonal and event-based PvP mode in which interesting modifiers, game rules, or scenarios are created that will be available for participation for any and all players, and there will be rewards. It is similar in concept to the recent “Corgi Fleet”. But with possibility to be more creative and interesting. 

And instead of requiring WG ppl to man the “host ships”, the “host ships” for the events will be a rotation of ships, both premium and non-premium, manned by public players. Naturally, the “non-host ships” will be any and all ships and players able to participate in the game mode.

 

The objective of this idea is two-fold:

1. Is to provide more fun and interesting gamemodes for players regularly, and easily, which will not be possible if WG ppl had to man the host ships for every event. 

2. Is to promote the sales of premium ships, while giving the playerbase more chances to encounter them, test them out, and even rent them. 

 

Overall this will generate more rewards for the playerbase in whole, but with more participation.

To put it into perspective: do you think WG did not compensate the corgis for their effort? 

 

On the feedback: while I had originally deemed the idea “fair”, due to a myriad of reasons, I will take some time to rethink it due to non-premium owners still feeling left out. It will help if more specific feedback on exactly which part of the idea is unreasonable, is offered.

 

And if you will provide feedback, please read the material. The original material.

Share this post


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

And no, I did not put the title in a specifically misleading way to test who actually reads or not, not this time. It was accidental.

 

I think we are beyond the need for testing already. 

 

Will try to improve next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,023 posts
10,859 battles
On 19/03/2018 at 5:48 AM, Strappster said:

Didn't read, voted for every option because poll is broken. :Smile_great:

My inner dinger was triggered..

didnt read, voted for all options!

cause I can!!!

 

note: Come on mate, even yout TL/DR is too much to read...

Stop overthinking, they will not hire you at the WG!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,842 posts
16,989 battles

I still feel this is all very vague. A lof of words and nothing we can actually discuss.

 

 

Share this post


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

INB4 "Why should the 45% tomatoe in his Tirpitz get a special treatment/a gamemode revolving around him while I am left out playing only a secondary role" :Smile_hiding:

 

On 18.3.2018 at 4:16 PM, KarmaQU_EU said:

Thus special game modes created for premiums may uniquely leverage these attributes in interesting and fun ways otherwise difficult to achieve with tech-tree ships, to provide entertainment for the general playerbase. For instance,

1. This means premiums can be placed into the spotlight and also more pressuring, demanding, and less rewarding roles as needs of the scenario dictates.

2. This means premiums can be expected to perform a very specialized, demanding, but somehow achievable, roles as their ship-specs allow.

3. This can serve as justification and immersion factor for the special scenarios and attention to be given to the premiums, as the event dictates. (for instance if WG syncs the scenario events to historical dates on the real calendar)

4. The experimental endeavor of using ships in non-balanced MM game-modes on regularity, is a significant and symbolic attempt in itself, as it can serve as a stepping stone to provide precious experience, practice, statistics and data, and systemic development of more variety, fun, depth, and enhanced MM for WoWs as a whole. Leading to, for instance, optimizations, improvements on balance in the tech tree, on variety between lines, better progression, and general experience of players.

This may sounds nice in theory but as soon as you add random players into the equation it all falls.

You CAN'T pressure players into more demanding roles because usually they will put their interests above whatever WG wants to make them do. Especially if you lower the rewards for their new supposed roles.

You CAN'T expect a player to perform specialized out-of-the-ordinary roles if you leave him any other choice to play as he always had.

It WON'T be more fun if victory or defeat of the whole team hinges on a single player and his (in)ability to know what to do when the battle hasn't even started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SAB-]
Players
94 posts
3,501 battles

Even after reading that whole, ill-edited wall of text, i can’t discern clearly why such a game mode would be advantageous to have, nor how it would play.

 

It also would make for a more subdivided player base and make matchmaker longer.

 

So, no. This is highly unneeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,094 posts
22,124 battles

Yeah, just what he said. I would never play it methinks. Well, UNLESS it would have bigger teams, like say 15 ships per team. Then I could be occasionally persuaded.:Smile_Default:

Share this post


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

INB4 "Why should the 45% tomatoe in his Tirpitz get a special treatment/a gamemode revolving around him while I am left out playing only a secondary role" :Smile_hiding:

You, in a normal ship, get to play on his side as well, as the reinforcement wave. The premium ships are just the first wave. Or you can play against them, in the normal ship swarm wave. There is no secondary role.

1 hour ago, Tungstonid said:

This may sounds nice in theory but as soon as you add random players into the equation it all falls.

Motivate them with rewards for playing their role.

1 hour ago, Tungstonid said:

You CAN'T pressure players into more demanding roles because usually they will put their interests above whatever WG wants to make them do. Especially if you lower the rewards for their new supposed roles.

Not pressure, entice. It will be both fun and there can be mission rewards. Both short term and long term missions.

1 hour ago, Tungstonid said:

You CAN'T expect a player to perform specialized out-of-the-ordinary roles if you leave him any other choice to play as he always had.

Then think of this as a long process of systemically weeding out which players are nicer and will perform specialized roles when asked. Via long term progression. Not everyone with a premium ship or in-rotation ship is equal. The rest of the players will be "motivated" to play nice, because if they do, they might just be picked for even nicer roles in the future.

1 hour ago, Tungstonid said:

It WON'T be more fun if victory or defeat of the whole team hinges on a single player and his (in)ability to know what to do when the battle hasn't even started.

Who said a single player? And who says the requirements for joining the "host" team side can't be to have played on the "non-host" side first? And remember, if the "process of selection" is used, players who do read the rules, do listen to WG's briefing, and do listen to the host-team leaders (prob WG ppl), will get picked for nicer and "more demanding" roles.

 

2 hours ago, Excavatus said:

note: Come on mate, even yout TL/DR is too much to read...

Stop overthinking, they will not hire you at the WG!

Sorry I am really bad at writing TL;DRs, working on it, but first working on making the main text better. So won't need TL;DRs.

No, they don't need to hire me at WG. Because regardless of the validity of my idea as presented, if WG rolls something out, it will be polished, balanced, fair, and ppl can't just say "no I don't like it roll it back". That's the difference between me and WG. 

People can say "OP's ideas aren't fair, will divide the playerbase, not valid, etc." But when WG selects their own "community contributors", host-ship drivers, and rolls out whatever they want, selectively and exclusively, it damn well will be valid.

And that's why I am the type who will never get hired for the "fuzzy community stuff", anywhere, ever. But idc.

 

TL;DR Think of these as "GM driven" gamemodes with publicly hired players to act on the GM's team and on the GM's orders/WG's briefing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

I still feel this is all very vague. A lof of words and nothing we can actually discuss.

Lots of stuff to discuss in the original text. Don't read the TL;DR, it was very bad.

 

1 hour ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Yeah, just what he said. I would never play it methinks. Well, UNLESS it would have bigger teams, like say 15 ships per team. Then I could be occasionally persuaded.:Smile_Default:

Bigger teams, or uneven teams, is supposed to be a big selling point of this mode if it happens. It's also supposed to act as a stepping stone so WG can gain experience and insight on making more creative modes for WoWs, and making the core system and MM and just generally balanced, more flexible, and interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,023 posts
10,859 battles
5 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

You, in a normal ship, get to play on his side as well, as the reinforcement wave. The premium ships are just the first wave. Or you can play against them, in the normal ship swarm wave. There is no secondary role.

Motivate them with rewards for playing their role.

Not pressure, entice. It will be both fun and there can be mission rewards. Both short term and long term missions.

Then think of this as a long process of systemically weeding out which players are nicer and will perform specialized roles when asked. Via long term progression. Not everyone with a premium ship or in-rotation ship is equal. The rest of the players will be "motivated" to play nice, because if they do, they might just be picked for even nicer roles in the future.

Who said a single player? And who says the requirements for joining the "host" team side can't be to have played on the "non-host" side first? And remember, if the "process of selection" is used, players who do read the rules, do listen to WG's briefing, and do listen to the host-team leaders (prob WG ppl), will get picked for nicer and "more demanding" roles.

 

Sorry I am really bad at writing TL;DRs, working on it, but first working on making the main text better. So won't need TL;DRs.

No, they don't need to hire me at WG. Because regardless of the validity of my idea as presented, if WG rolls something out, it will be polished, balanced, fair, and ppl can't just say "no I don't like it roll it back". That's the difference between me and WG. 

People can say "OP's ideas aren't fair, will divide the playerbase, not valid, etc." But when WG selects their own "community contributors", host-ship drivers, and rolls out whatever they want, selectively and exclusively, it damn well will be valid.

And that's why I am the type who will never get hired for the "fuzzy community stuff", anywhere, ever. But idc.

 

TL;DR Think of these as "GM driven" gamemodes with publicly hired players to act on the GM's team and on the GM's orders/WG's briefing.

 

Thanks for replying like a human being over my jokes.

Then I need to act like one too.

 

If you ask me, personally, I do not read too detailed and long posts. It doesn't matter how good they've been written.

first, I don't have that much time to concentrate on one thing at work, and second I get bored.

 

and most of the people doesn't need that much detail in the first place.

I understand you want to be organised and clear on everything. But...

My personal advice, (you can say piss off totally!)

 

write your detailed posts in word. Then read it, correct it, read it again then write a very very short version with the basis of the idea of it. then put it as an OP.

If people get interested in your idea, you know there will be discussions about it for days then you can start sharing details in your replies. Which will not bore/tire people,

and will keep your post alive more.. and will prevent derailing, trolling posts.

 

Just my idea.

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×