Ev1n_NA

There is nothing regarding this we need to communicate about with the World of Warships community.

You are entitled to an opinion on this, but please understand that HR decisions are not for public disclosure as a matter of general principle. We simply will not disclose such information to the public, just like we will protect other private information related to our staff, the company and the relationships between the two.

You specifically seem to downvote anything i post, but i believe you can see that on some items I am making an early effort to facilitate communication and understanding - especially on certain suggestions and ideas for design, or addressing what the community considers problems. As I've mentioned before, on some topics or specific items we will be able to go deeper and on other's we won't. This is separate from the fact that I myself have a general specialization (audience research, UX and process design - generally spea...

Yes, Gneisenau013 has left Wargaming. Other than that we are not going to discuss the internal affairs of the company nor any staffing decisions. We wish the best to Gneisenau013 and are grateful to him for his work in Wargaming.

You're right. I corrected that. Forgive me for being a slavic barbarian - I will learn.

Thanks for the reminder.

This is a REALLY interesting point and a fairly good analysis. I would love to eventually have a shipopedia inside the game client directly. However, the problem here isn't that it's not there, but what you yourself mention at the end of your post. Some of the types of player we are talking about - who "should learn the game" - actually do not really care about those aspects and aren't sufficiently curious about them. It's not part of their gameplay motivation to "learn about mechanics", because they are already "having enough fun". Yes, putting this information inside the game makes it more convenient and therefore removes some of the entry barrier (makes required effort/motivation lower), so we would catch some players with that, but it won't solve the overall problem. At the same time it is very resource intensive, so we've been prioritizing other solutions over that for now. The type of player that you mention "likes to look up this type ...

Even if you don't like a class in the game, making someone else's battle a crap experience is never the right thing to do. Regardless if it's a new class, or an old class, a recently changed class or anything else in the game. They might think the same about your main class.

Since friendly fire is removed, a salvo or two at the start of battle doesn't mean much if you then go about your business and focus on making the life of the red team difficult.

However, the line is thin and if you go into name calling or persistently take actions that prevent another player on your team from playing their battle, like blocking them or shooting them persistently, then that's just griefing. Don't be that guy

Please report griefers to our CS with a replay of the battle.

Best,

Not sure i get your point here. We've been filling in blanks in tech trees since day 1, using either designs for ships that were planned but never built, or even drafting designs from scratch based on the prevalent paradigms present in any nation during the period in question (based on available sources).

It's obvious that the longer we run, the more of such designs we will have in the game, because the available historical ships will be in classes that are already present.

Hi guys. If this is still happening, could you please upload your wgcheck logs for us, so we could investigate? Alternatively, if you don't want to upload them here, please send a ticket to support and we'll investigate ASAP.

Those are interesting suggestions for commander upgrades. Thanks for sharing those!

We'll see if we can discuss this with the design team for the future, in a couple of weeks. The usual biggest concern will be the effect of new combinations of bonuses on the balance of every ship in the game, so it might potentially need different limitations than what you listed.

As for the resource sinks - they still work and are still needed for everyone. For you guys they might seem like they don't do enough, but that's fine. We're also going to introduce new ones from time to time, at different levels so that each player has something to throw their resources at.

Best,

Can you provide a screenshot of the issue if it happens again? That would help.

The only problem i have with this statement is the assumption that a vast majority have an issue with it, which is simply not true. The initial sub test we ran had a mostly negative split from surveying players who played in it, but over the next test iterations this changed to roughly even split to mostly positive, with specific items mentioned to be addressed.

However, i do agree with you that there are some specific issues being mentioned that make subs detract from the experience in co-op. We will address those to make sure that most players can enjoy the mode.

Thank you. Even though trolling its at least polite and i can appreciate that.

Oh, so like the current unique commanders who have enhanced versions of certain skills, but instead of having those predefined you want to have points and choose which skills are enhanced?

This absolutely monumental track, as well as the rest of this soundtrack.

Thanks for this suggestion! :)

It's obviously something we've thought about before and tried to do a few times - sometimes more, sometimes less successfully.

There are multiple problems we run into with celebrity VOs. For most of the list you posted, who are big Hollywood names the problem is cost. We reached out to Sir Sean Connery (may he rest in peace) years ago and the quote we received was a staggering (though not surprising) 7-figure number, which is simply out of budget for just a voiceover. The numbers vary with the relative "fame" of the actor here, but in general are still much too high in many cases, while the lesser known the actor, the fewer players across the world will know them or associate them with those classic naval movies.

We also were in contact with Bavaria Film for licensing for Das Boot, but that license was already sold to another gaming company. We reached out to them as well, but didn't get to any meaningfu...

If people will constantly be taking what i say out of context then i will just stop talking. I am happy to talk about technical possibilities for the future, but it needs to be understood that the fact that something technically can happen does not mean it should, will or that it would be good if it did.

That is why i went on stream and why i am here - because i believe that i can give you guys a deeper understanding of what the game looks like behind the curtain, with the bits and pieces I can share on certain elements (on some more, on some less).

As for the retraining back to previous ships - i can suggest that to development for discussion.

Every system has its impact. Regardless of whether boxes or random bundles made X or Y in a given month, a doubloon sink also contributes to balancing the economy of the game.

I tend to agree that modules would probably have a lower impact j...

As much as i get the sentiment, we can't "just do that", because it's part of the monetization and economy cycle of the game. We need to crunch a lot of data to evaluate a change like that, but as pointed out above we are not fully against such changes - it just takes time to figure it out and create an environment where that change won't impact the game systems negatively, so that it can impact the players positively.

As I've said in other threads yesterday - please don't expect me to be here every day. I simply can't sustain that, because i have a bag of other tasks. However, we will get our NA Community team re-staffed and I will set up regular community time to remain connected.

I absolutely understand that a part of the player base doesn't trust us and want to see immediate change, preferable in all categories of pain points.

However, that's not realistic, because we have inertia and operational or business limitations which inform the deadlines we've communicated. We could have not communicated and waited until we are closer to those deadlines, so that it feels like we're taking more immediate action on what seem to be the more important points.

We chose instead to communicate sooner and then show progressive changes in some of the categories and work up to the bigger ones.

Evolution and not revolution.

As I've said, we will give you updates on the progress of those commitments over time.

As you guys concluded, a lot of the points here are personal opinions from either side. It's difficult to respond to that without looking at the data.

However, I do agree with the point that having a battle artificially extended just because there is one sub left somewhere is not good, because it doesn't really contribute anything to player experience in this mode. We'll do our best to address that aspect.

Yes, there is a group of players asking for Ops, but it's a small group, while using "market" makes it sound like it's the majority. Which is not to say it's not a relevant request, but it does impact how much priority and resources we assign to it. Also, we are not leaking more or less coop players than we did in previous years - just the normal amount of churn.

Yes, that would be the problem with the current Ops setup, which is also why there is a rotation. When the new mission hits more people are interested to play it and the queue is faster, then the effect fades over the next few days. If we distributed that queue over multiple Ops picks it could kill ops, because the longer queue times would turn the more casual players off.

That could be an interesting idea actually, but we need to check if we have enough variety in ships at those tiers to make an interesting design. Ships at those tiers generally have a slower pa...

Sure, you may see it like this, but then if it's this black and white for you it sounds like we're irredeemable. If so, what's even the point of me trying to talk to the community and addressing some of the communications issues?

Saying that the game's economy or the development process are "hardly rocket science" is not exactly a solid argument either when you don't have visibility on internal processes and technical solutions. As we've said, we would tweak that mission until it gives the same return on average as the bonus did before and so we are doing. Players managed to gather a small data set that hinted at inconsistencies in the extremes of the earnings curve and this is fine. Saying that this course of events is a clear sign of malice or incompetence is just conjecture.

Idea is cool, but we don't have the technical ability to alter maps that way. We've discussed this before internally.

We would have to make a separate map for each tier selection and design balance for a separate list of enemy ships on each one of them. We'll bring back the old ops with a new difficulty level and see how popular they are and then see how we can add to the replayability.

Thank you for the suggestion though and hope you'll try the ops with the new settings when they come back.

Best,