Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
HenryCrun

Major changes - or a new game?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

The following thoughts are respectfully submitted to Wargaming.net for consideration.

Maybe in their wisdom they can see their way to working some of them into WoWs in its current format, or perhaps they may be considered for any future expansion to the WoWs.

They are germs of ideas only, thrown out there for comment and enhancement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

CHANGE THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
Use real-world historical locations from WW1 and WW2 - compressed in size and distances, of course, to suit the map sizes we now have.
There are innumerable locations which could give a wide range of maps, including (but not limited to):-

Europe
    Norwegian fjords.
    Coastal locations from Gibraltar all the way up to Denmark.
    English Channel - both coasts.
    Iceland, Greenland, Russia (the Arctic convoys).
    The Mediterranean Sea - coastal locations across the top of Africa, from Morocco to Egypt; Malta; Crete.
    The Aegean Sea.

 

Asia
    Philippines
    Singapore
    Malaya
    Dutch East Indies
    Borneo
    Sea of Japan
    China Sea
    
Pacific
    New Guinea
    Solomons
    Wake
    Midway
    Guam
    Saipan
    Okinawa
    Hawaii
    Aleutians
    Marshall Islands
    
Indian Ocean
    Cocus-Keeling Islands
    Christmas Island
    Ascension Island

 

South America
    Falklands
    Chile
    Uruguay
    Brazil
    Venezuela

 

North America
    Newfoundland
    Canadian Pacific coast        
    

MODIFY THE SHIPS
Base the armour, the performance and the armament of each ship on the specifications of the real-world ship on which the WoWs unit is modelled.
Give all 6-inch guns the same rating. Give all 10-inch guns the same rating. Give all 12-inch guns the same rating.....and so on.
In other words, it doesn't matter which guns are carried by which ship, each gun has a standard rating for that calibre.

 

For torpedoes, base their performance on the real-life item that was in service with the navy to which the ship belonged.
For example, if the Japanese torpedo had a predominantly longer range and more explosive power than the British torpedo then that difference should be represented in the game.

 

Do not add any modifications or capabilities that did not exist in the ship that is being used as the reference.
For example, if an historical cruiser never carried a catapault-launched aircraft, even though the equipment was installed, then do not add that aircraft to that ship's capabilities.

 

Retain the emergency crew capability but remove all at-sea repairs that give "life" back to the ship.

 

Remove unlimited torpedo loads; place a limit of x number of reloads. Doing so will make destroyer operators think twice about the tactics they use.

 

Give smoke-making (black, from funnels) capabilities to ALL ships for use to mask escape when (a) hit points reach a minimum level of x, (b) propulsion system has been greatly reduced, (b) main batteries have two or more turrets destroyed (d) steering has been destroyed and ship is steaming in circles.

 

CHANGE THE TIERS
Once the ship dynamics are changed, do away with the current tiers and group the ships by type and era.
In other words, make the classifications on the basis of what was in which navy and when.

 

A tree would therefore have not only the classes of ships but also the years in which they served, from commissioning into their respective navies to their sinking or eventual de-commisioning.

As an example, take the Russian "Imperator Nikolai I", which entered service in 1916 and was scrapped in 1927.
It would be listed as not only a Battleship class, but also as a WW1 class and be operable in the game for battles for WW1 ships but not for any battles covering WW2.

 

Another example is the battleship USS Wyoming, commissioned in 1912.
It saw service during WW1 (escorting convoys) so would be usable in the WW1 battles.
But it also saw service in WW2, not being decommisioned until 1947, so it would also slot into the WW2 battles.

 

CAPTURING ZONES & BATTLE TYPES IN GENERAL
Do away with rings of buoys in the ocean and replace with a more realistic representation of capturing territory.
For example, territory could be an island on which is located an airfield and the method of capturing it is to have the player(s) reach it, and defend that location until (a) all enemy ships are sunk or (b) the game-time elapses or © the enemy breaks through the defence and captures it.

 

Introduce  "convoy" battles, with AI freighters and escorts.
One team has to defend the convoy, the other attacks it.
Victory goes to the team that (a) sinks all the freighters or (b) sinks all the warships or © has the most number of accumulated points when the clock winds down.

 

Introduce battles based with some reasonable level of accuracy on historical battles.
Jutland, for example, would be ideal for WW1 ships, as would the sinking of the Emden, the Battle of Zanzibar......and more.

For the WW2 ships, chasing down the Graf Spee; chasing the Bismarck; the "Channel Dash" of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau; the Guadalcanal battles; the Savo Island battle; the Russian convoys.....the possibilities are numerous.

 

This game has too much going for it to be simply squandered on fiction.
There is a solid core for a game......perhaps a new game altogether.....which can include a level of historical realism.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edited by HenryCrun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
724 posts
2,204 battles

Well to be honest with you....

 

"This is an Arcade game,not a warship simulator. If you don't like the way it is right now, don't play."

 

... is the answer you're most likely going to get from your ideas.

I'm not saying they're bad tho, its going to work perfectly if this is a simulator. But unfortunately, World of Warships is not.

 

I hope I don't sound offensive to you, but still, sorry if I did.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,310 posts

point 1. geographic location

 

rather than changing the map, i prefer if we got more maps.

yes, i would love to see more maps to make the gameplay more diverse than ever.

ur idea is good. tough maybe dev already thinking about this.

making a map is not an easy task. if we got some new maps every quarter(of year) is good enough.

 

 

point 2. modifying ship

 

"Retain the emergency crew capability but remove all at-sea repairs that give "life" back to the ship."

 then BB will be roasted to dead easily. they hard to manouver. they are an easy target. if u remove the healing capabilities from the BB? what would make those big daddy special? what idea can u offer to replace their healing capabilities so that removing that heal wont degrade their survivability?

Remove unlimited torpedo loads; place a limit of x number of reloads. Doing so will make destroyer operators think twice about the tactics they use.

 dont u know. shimakaze can unleasy 100 torp in 1 game?

and how much torp hit does an average shimakaze get in each game? about 5-10

getting 1 or 2 hit from 15 torp from each salvo is already good

why the hell hitting with torp is not as easy as u tough?

once torp spotted, they are easy to dodge. heck even a big montana/yamato can evade shimakaze torp with the nerfed rudder shift time. for cruisers/dd? dont ask. they can even evade the torp that spotted in last second.

 

u want to limit x ammount of torp in DD like in their historically do? for example (kagero 8 mounted 8 reload? shimakaze 15 mounted 0 reload?)

well if they gives the type 93 the stealth that they have historically, + guided system. i think DD player wont be angry, but. this will make more unbalance to the game.

also if they gives mark 14 a dud capabilities(70% failure) like they has historically. player will cry "IJN BIAS" tough historically IJN torp was the best WW2 torp. even acknowledged by their enemies. 

 

point 3. changing tier

 

WG, placing ship tier is not bassed their year of services,

but, by their fighting capailities.

for example, tone-class. tone-class is new-er than mogami class. she boast a good array of floatplanes that can be used for dive bombing operation.

but without such aviation cruiser mechanic, her plane is just like any other float planes, only circling fighter planes.

that leaves her with only 4x2 203mm gun at her disposal. placing her in tier higher than mogami just because she is new-er is dumb

also if u are good with naval history, u should know that the tier 1 ship is actually much newer than the tier 2-3 ship :3 can that tier 1 ship fight those tier 2-3 ships? yes they can. but most of time that tier 1 ship will get sunk first.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

"This is an Arcade game,not a warship simulator. If you don't like the way it is right now, don't play."

 

... is the answer you're most likely going to get from your ideas.

 

Yes, I realise that will be the unthinking reaction, which has become the standard response when anyone makes the slightest suggestion towards introducing a reality component.

 

But it would still be an arcade game, only with with a reduction of its 100% fictional dynamics and the addition of a dash of realism, which just might have the effect of attracting some of we armchair naval buffs who look for something more than simple arcade.

 

If they (WG) can do it with Arpeggio anime then maybe they can look at doing a realistic spin-off.  Food for thought, anyway, which was the intent of my post.

 

Edited by HenryCrun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

I guess the problems with "More realistic" maps scaled for WoWS use is that they're all basically going to be Ocean, except you'd have land on the horizon instead of open sea. Given the general community reaction to Ocean, this might not be a popular idea.

 

Hitpoints/Life is a bit of a misnomer - the value represents a ship's Combat Capability, i.e. whether or not a ship is capable of being combat effective, rather than being afloat. Regaining the combat capability value is basically representing a ship's repair crews managing to get damaged systems back online. Honestly, I'd like for WG to make different death animations for the ship instead of the generic sinking - ships killed by fire or shellfire alone could be hulked and remain afloat, those hit by AP shells to the citadels could slowly capsize, detonated ships go up in a massive explosions, etc. Give the hulks a second HP bar so they can be sunk after they're killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

Though to be fair, some locations I believe are already in but most are inspired. For example the Hawaii port does not fully indicate that the ship is mooring at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base and there was that muddle about by some Portuguese that a certain map in warships that had the indentations of Portugal's coastline and the isles were 'incorrect' or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

I guess the problems with "More realistic" maps scaled for WoWS use is that they're all basically going to be Ocean, except you'd have land on the horizon instead of open sea. Given the general community reaction to Ocean, this might not be a popular idea.

 

Hitpoints/Life is a bit of a misnomer - the value represents a ship's Combat Capability, i.e. whether or not a ship is capable of being combat effective, rather than being afloat. Regaining the combat capability value is basically representing a ship's repair crews managing to get damaged systems back online. Honestly, I'd like for WG to make different death animations for the ship instead of the generic sinking - ships killed by fire or shellfire alone could be hulked and remain afloat, those hit by AP shells to the citadels could slowly capsize, detonated ships go up in a massive explosions, etc. Give the hulks a second HP bar so they can be sunk after they're killed.

 

Syanda, my thoughts regarding the maps was that we have scaled down - and distances compressed to suit - real-world islands/coastlines/fjords, etc. rather than fictional blobs of islands.

So instead of an imaginary village sitting on the shore near a beach, it would be a (scaled down & compressed) real coastal village on a real island. The Pacific campaigns lend themselves to this feature.

 

I agree that open ocean is boring when it is a matter of each side charging towards the other, but maybe if my idea of some sort of convoy battle could be introduced - sailing through an area with some islands, maybe - then perhaps that would help.

 

I like your idea about the way ships die.......that appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

.... the Hawaii port does not fully indicate that the ship is mooring at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base .....

 

That's not "in game".....I'm suggesting that snips of real-world geography be scaled and compressed to suit the game.

Just doing that would inject an air of realism; sailing what look like historical warships in real-world locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

 

Syanda, my thoughts regarding the maps was that we have scaled down - and distances compressed to suit - real-world islands/coastlines/fjords, etc. rather than fictional blobs of islands.

So instead of an imaginary village sitting on the shore near a beach, it would be a (scaled down & compressed) real coastal village on a real island. The Pacific campaigns lend themselves to this feature.

 

I agree that open ocean is boring when it is a matter of each side charging towards the other, but maybe if my idea of some sort of convoy battle could be introduced - sailing through an area with some islands, maybe - then perhaps that would help.

 

Conceptually, I really, really like that. But in terms of game balance, it might be problematic - terrain and map layout could end up favouring one team over the other. Perhaps, yeah, a historical battle mode or alternate game mode beyond matchmade PvP could make it fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

Unfortunately a lot of proposed changes will be very damaging to game balance. Balance is an important aspect that WG at least strives to achieve (whether they hit the mark or not is another story).

 

A realistic WW2 naval ship simulation would largely reduce DD's, CA's and BB's to carrier support with the occasional shore bombardment duties. Is this a game lots of people would play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

The following thoughts are respectfully submitted to Wargaming.net for consideration.

Maybe in their wisdom they can see their way to working some of them into WoWs in its current format, or perhaps they may be considered for any future expansion to the WoWs.

They are germs of ideas only, thrown out there for comment and enhancement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

CHANGE THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
Use real-world historical locations from WW1 and WW2 - compressed in size and distances, of course, to suit the map sizes we now have.
There are innumerable locations which could give a wide range of maps, including (but not limited to):-

Europe
    Norwegian fjords.
    Coastal locations from Gibraltar all the way up to Denmark.
    English Channel - both coasts.
    Iceland, Greenland, Russia (the Arctic convoys).
    The Mediterranean Sea - coastal locations across the top of Africa, from Morocco to Egypt; Malta; Crete.
    The Aegean Sea.

 

Asia
    Philippines
    Singapore
    Malaya
    Dutch East Indies
    Borneo
    Sea of Japan
    China Sea
    
Pacific
    New Guinea
    Solomons
    Wake
    Midway
    Guam
    Saipan
    Okinawa
    Hawaii
    Aleutians
    Marshall Islands
    
Indian Ocean
    Cocus-Keeling Islands
    Christmas Island
    Ascension Island

 

South America
    Falklands
    Chile
    Uruguay
    Brazil
    Venezuela

 

North America
    Newfoundland
    Canadian Pacific coast        
    

MODIFY THE SHIPS
Base the armour, the performance and the armament of each ship on the specifications of the real-world ship on which the WoWs unit is modelled.
Give all 6-inch guns the same rating. Give all 10-inch guns the same rating. Give all 12-inch guns the same rating.....and so on.
In other words, it doesn't matter which guns are carried by which ship, each gun has a standard rating for that calibre.

 

For torpedoes, base their performance on the real-life item that was in service with the navy to which the ship belonged.
For example, if the Japanese torpedo had a predominantly longer range and more explosive power than the British torpedo then that difference should be represented in the game.

 

Do not add any modifications or capabilities that did not exist in the ship that is being used as the reference.
For example, if an historical cruiser never carried a catapault-launched aircraft, even though the equipment was installed, then do not add that aircraft to that ship's capabilities.

 

Retain the emergency crew capability but remove all at-sea repairs that give "life" back to the ship.

 

Remove unlimited torpedo loads; place a limit of x number of reloads. Doing so will make destroyer operators think twice about the tactics they use.

 

Give smoke-making (black, from funnels) capabilities to ALL ships for use to mask escape when (a) hit points reach a minimum level of x, (b) propulsion system has been greatly reduced, (b) main batteries have two or more turrets destroyed (d) steering has been destroyed and ship is steaming in circles.

 

CHANGE THE TIERS
Once the ship dynamics are changed, do away with the current tiers and group the ships by type and era.
In other words, make the classifications on the basis of what was in which navy and when.

 

A tree would therefore have not only the classes of ships but also the years in which they served, from commissioning into their respective navies to their sinking or eventual de-commisioning.

As an example, take the Russian "Imperator Nikolai I", which entered service in 1916 and was scrapped in 1927.
It would be listed as not only a Battleship class, but also as a WW1 class and be operable in the game for battles for WW1 ships but not for any battles covering WW2.

 

Another example is the battleship USS Wyoming, commissioned in 1912.
It saw service during WW1 (escorting convoys) so would be usable in the WW1 battles.
But it also saw service in WW2, not being decommisioned until 1947, so it would also slot into the WW2 battles.

 

CAPTURING ZONES & BATTLE TYPES IN GENERAL
Do away with rings of buoys in the ocean and replace with a more realistic representation of capturing territory.
For example, territory could be an island on which is located an airfield and the method of capturing it is to have the player(s) reach it, and defend that location until (a) all enemy ships are sunk or (b) the game-time elapses or © the enemy breaks through the defence and captures it.

 

Introduce  "convoy" battles, with AI freighters and escorts.
One team has to defend the convoy, the other attacks it.
Victory goes to the team that (a) sinks all the freighters or (b) sinks all the warships or © has the most number of accumulated points when the clock winds down.

 

Introduce battles based with some reasonable level of accuracy on historical battles.
Jutland, for example, would be ideal for WW1 ships, as would the sinking of the Emden, the Battle of Zanzibar......and more.

For the WW2 ships, chasing down the Graf Spee; chasing the Bismarck; the "Channel Dash" of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau; the Guadalcanal battles; the Savo Island battle; the Russian convoys.....the possibilities are numerous.

 

This game has too much going for it to be simply squandered on fiction.
There is a solid core for a game......perhaps a new game altogether.....which can include a level of historical realism.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Ideal real life simulation of World War 2 (albeit mostly RTS) = Pacific Storm on PC. You should try it if you're up to the tactician/ Commander in Chief level of commanding where it includes:

 Management of people (Seamen, Army, Pilot, Engineer, Morale, Health condition, Commander in Chief, etc)

Management of Research (includes Plane Engine Horsepower, Radar, and other electronics developed during 2nd world war)and Construction of buildings (includes oil tanks, storage and industrial facilities, defence structures, AA placements, Coastal guns, radars, Seaports, Airports, Barracks, Training Grounds, Radio Stations) in individual occupied territory

Management of supply routes, patrol area, and fleet capability.

Management of Resources ($, oil, aluminium)

Strict Planning in terms of research, timing, fleet arrival in a designated position, etc

 

The only problem with this game is limited ship class and planes, so its not exactly 100% historically correct but the strategy/principle remains the same

 PS: -played a few times when i was 13 but it was just too stressful at that time, so i gave up, hopefully this would be the 'ideal' simulation of World War 2  for yourself

        - To the moderators, i hope this is not considered promoting other game because i just want  the op to know that there is an ideal simulation of what he wants.

Edited by HeroOfWind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

I like realism also but think about it, What you propose would make the game unplayable. If DD's had only 1 salvo there game ends after they fire. Most DD gun's except usn guns do very little damage. Taking away AA guns will leave BB's defenseless against Planes, and if you are talking historical AA guns on a BB everything from a North Carolina up should put up a AA barrage the blackens the sky. You ever play a carrier more planes in the air would be a control nightmare, No damage control would mean a ship gets hit with one fire or flooding and the game is over for them, they just sink as soon as they are out of HP. If the rudder gets it in the first 2 mins then the ship will run in a circle until the end of the game. And last if the tier system was gone you would have ships from different eras playing with different technology's trying to play against each other, what a massacre for 1918 ship going against a 1940 ship. I am against the buffing and nerfing of anything, make the weapons represent the real or as real as you can get machanics and learn to play them. 

      You basic idea is great they should have more historical mission based games were you can play like a sim. I agree with that. But in a wild west shoot them up like this right now no, it has to be arcade for the game play to work. My opinion

Have a look at the link and its pretty much what you stated in here and analyze on why it was declined

:http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/66340-new-game-mode/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

.....and analyze on why it was declined

 

 

Not "declined", per se: there are no recognisable posts from WG themselves.

The opinions expressed are exactly that - opinions of players.

Exactly what my OP was......opinion, and nothing else.

 

Until a spokesman/woman from WG officially and formally rejects any suggestion then they cannot be seen as being either declined or rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

 Ideal real life simulation of World War 2 (albeit mostly RTS) = Pacific Storm on PC.

 

Been there, done that.

I am not interested in micro-management and WoWs already has an RTS component - carriers.

 

You fail to grasp the fact that I am NOT suggesting a simulation and nor am I suggesting any change to the way that the game itself is presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

 

Been there, done that.

I am not interested in micro-management and WoWs already has an RTS component - carriers.

 

You fail to grasp the fact that I am NOT suggesting a simulation and nor am I suggesting any change to the way that the game itself is presented.

 

And you fail to realize the fact that most suggestions regarding to implementing realism in an arcade style game (World Of Warships) is going to be ignored (Seen your posts, but exactly the reasons why it was overlooked, implementing realism into an already full fledged arcade game). Like they say, don't like the game? Don't play it, simple as that. Why? Because devs are already having enough trouble from buffs and nerfs for the sake of 'balancing' and remaking a new game is hard enough as it is (or game mode)

 

Gave up on Pacific Storm? Guess you do have some gap between realism and virtual reality,or the stress being a Commander in Chief is just too much. (all the more reason why everyone should admire both Admiral Chester Nimitz and Yamamoto in their outstanding performance throughout the second world war pacific theater instead of being bias on either side)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
621 posts
2,289 battles

 

You fail to grasp the fact that I am NOT suggesting a simulation and nor am I suggesting any change to the way that the game itself is presented.

 

>Major changes or a new game

>Not suggesting any change to the way the game itself is presented

 

 

oxymoron

 

 

[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] 
Spell Syllables
nounplural oxymora 
 
 [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh(Show IPA),oxymorons. Rhetoric.
1.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
219 posts
3,367 battles

....... don't like the game? Don't play it, simple as that.

I  have NEVER said that i don't like the game - quite the opposite, in fact: there is at least one post of mine in which I have expressed my keen like of the game. Do some basic research before mouthing off.

 

As for giving up on Pacific Storm and your in-depth psychological assessment of my reason(s) for doing so, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, Dr. Freud.

Making assumptions on the basis of scanty information is for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

I  have NEVER said that i don't like the game - quite the opposite, in fact: there is at least one post of mine in which I have expressed my keen like of the game. Do some basic research before mouthing off.

 

As for giving up on Pacific Storm and your in-depth psychological assessment of my reason(s) for doing so, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, Dr. Freud.

Making assumptions on the basis of scanty information is for kids.

 

One question: Why do you insist on implementing realism in an arcade game in the first place, despite knowing full well that its going to be overlooked? If you are enjoying the game in the first place then why so stubbornly posting it in the suggestions instead of just playing the game? i guess you're one of those types that cant handle life without argumentative points? Look, if you really, really want to put your views to test, just post it on NA/EU server forum and check your validity of the suggestion. The reason why most of your answers are getting from gamers and not devs because the mods (over there anyway) are the sufficient credible person to review it BEFORE forwarding to the devs. You think the devs have the time to scour every server forums for suggestions? Think yourself as a game developer before you start firing suggestions that are the least importance. Judging from how you respond to people who holds certain 'disagreement' to your views, i can see you're a realist in person. If thats the case, maybe gaming isnt your thing, and therefore you should be doing something worthwhile for the community, fighting for Australia's Future or something like that. (im an overseas Aussie, no offense there)

 

The whole point of making an arcade style game is to get people to play, not to demoralize and lose the gamers itself. Your view is precisely the reason why Pacific Storm couldn't get sufficient people to play due to its 'realist' play-style, and therefore weeding out the casual gamers, and so only the hardcore, realist people who want to simulate world war 2 are left behind to play the game. In short, your suggestion is basically demolishing WarGaming's effort on World of Warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,563 posts

 

One question: Why do you insist on implementing realism in an arcade game in the first place, despite knowing full well that its going to be overlooked? If you are enjoying the game in the first place then why so stubbornly posting it in the suggestions instead of just playing the game? i guess you're one of those types that cant handle life without argumentative points? Look, if you really, really want to put your views to test, just post it on NA/EU server forum and check your validity of the suggestion. The reason why most of your answers are getting from gamers and not devs because the mods (over there anyway) are the sufficient credible person to review it BEFORE forwarding to the devs. You think the devs have the time to scour every server forums for suggestions? Think yourself as a game developer before you start firing suggestions that are the least importance. Judging from how you respond to people who holds certain 'disagreement' to your views, i can see you're a realist in person. If thats the case, maybe gaming isnt your thing, and therefore you should be doing something worthwhile for the community, fighting for Australia's Future or something like that. (im an overseas Aussie, no offense there)

 

The whole point of making an arcade style game is to get people to play, not to demoralize and lose the gamers itself. Your view is precisely the reason why Pacific Storm couldn't get sufficient people to play due to its 'realist' play-style, and therefore weeding out the casual gamers, and so only the hardcore, realist people who want to simulate world war 2 are left behind to play the game. In short, your suggestion is basically demolishing WarGaming's effort on World of Warships.

 

Before you two decide to jump down each others throats (again) lets clear some things up.

 

1. The Mods on the EU/NA forum have no more credibility then the Mods here, we all have the same access to information, WG staff, support etc, difference is here, most of our Mods are also SuperTesters, so we do know whats happening and how the games works. EU/NA have more streamers though, which is why it looks as though they have more cred then us!!

 

2. The Devs do in fact read the forums, along with other WG staff, and ideas are passed up the chain for evaluation and possible testing. What gets selected for testing and whats rejected is known only to WG staff. Some of the ideas HenryCrun has asked for may/may not have already been tested and reject and/or changed. Just because the Devs don't post, doesn't mean they are not reading what you suggest!

 

Probably a good idea in the future not to assume that nothing is being done with the information posted, going to get egg on your face if it suddenly pops up in game!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,888 posts
9,936 battles

2. The Devs do in fact read the forums, along with other WG staff, and ideas are passed up the chain for evaluation and possible testing. What gets selected for testing and whats rejected is known only to WG staff. Some of the ideas HenryCrun has asked for may/may not have already been tested and reject and/or changed. Just because the Devs don't post, doesn't mean they are not reading what you suggest!

 

Probably a good idea in the future not to assume that nothing is being done with the information posted, going to get egg on your face if it suddenly pops up in game!!

 

Thats why i keep posting and giving out the opinion about game despite everyone going against me  :D:D:D

 

At least i feel like i did address my opinion to the world :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

 

Before you two decide to jump down each others throats (again) lets clear some things up.

 

1. The Mods on the EU/NA forum have no more credibility then the Mods here, we all have the same access to information, WG staff, support etc, difference is here, most of our Mods are also SuperTesters, so we do know whats happening and how the games works. EU/NA have more streamers though, which is why it looks as though they have more cred then us!!

 

2. The Devs do in fact read the forums, along with other WG staff, and ideas are passed up the chain for evaluation and possible testing. What gets selected for testing and whats rejected is known only to WG staff. Some of the ideas HenryCrun has asked for may/may not have already been tested and reject and/or changed. Just because the Devs don't post, doesn't mean they are not reading what you suggest!

 

Probably a good idea in the future not to assume that nothing is being done with the information posted, going to get egg on your face if it suddenly pops up in game!!

 

 Precisely the reason why we are getting all these 'constructive arguments' is because the devs themselves are not replying, and therefore the op refuses to give up on pursuing the matter until the devs reply personally with proper reasons from the WG staff community and would have halted this continued 'discussion'. Btw, thanks for the moderation assist leng, i will back down from the 'discussion' for now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,563 posts

I think the bit I forgot to put in there, and the one thing that might explain why we hear nothing back, is the fact the Devs are under NDA as well. So even if they liked an idea and decided to use it, the fact they are using it excludes them from saying they are using it.....

 

The only forum where the Devs hang out on a regular basis is the RU forums, but with all the leaks that have happened over the last few months, even that forum is drying up with information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

I think the bit I forgot to put in there, and the one thing that might explain why we hear nothing back, is the fact the Devs are under NDA as well. So even if they liked an idea and decided to use it, the fact they are using it excludes them from saying they are using it.....

 

The only forum where the Devs hang out on a regular basis is the RU forums, but with all the leaks that have happened over the last few months, even that forum is drying up with information.

 

i dunno, it feels like the mods know something is cooking without revealing and grabs popcorn in the forums :trollface:. just saying :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,563 posts

 

i dunno, it feels like the mods know something is cooking without revealing and grabs popcorn in the forums :trollface:. just saying :P

 

think of it as more a slow simmer, as the other course of the meal are prepared!!

Share this post


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

×