over 1 year ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Hello PvE Folks!

Our Godzilla vs Kong event recently went live and introduced a mission chain for earnable rewards. The second part of the chain was set to earning 5 Achievements.


As Achievements are not available in Co-Op, this is a direct incompatibility. Community reached out to see if the combat mission could be altered.

In terms of our Combat Missions, once they go live and start to be completed it is not possible to alter the base conditions (as players have already started them). We do have some ability to alter aspects of the Combat Mission such that they save all current progress while continuing to function moving forward such as reducing the amount of grind required or adding additional modes (and conditions in some cases).

In response, the requirements for the second stage have been changed.

The number required to complete the stage was reduced to 3.


Operations were added for a PvE option to complete this task.


-

Please accept my apologies for this not being able to be made directly Co-Op Compatible. We'll be working on an internal review process expressly toward reviewing Co-Op Compatibility of future mission chains.

over 1 year ago - Ahskance - Direct link

In general, any company that has hundreds of employees is bound to have errors or issues that slip through the cracks. This is just a fundamental part of being human, though it doesn't mean we don't try our best to avoid issues happening in the first place.

"What happen to the apologies that were offered in the past, before you joined WG?"

They still matter and you can see that in how Co-Op Compliant almost everything we do is. In the past, that was not the case as I'm sure some long-time folks will be happy to tell you.

Also worth remembering that each and every new employee gets to learn the job fresh (albeit with the assistance of others and lots of stuff to read!). Something that was experienced 2 years ago was learning experience for Parson A, but Person B might have been hired later and didn't get to live through what that experience taught Person A and everyone else. Institution knowledge transfer is effective, but living through actual issues have a way of searing into someone's mind in a way that sticks deeper that reading a recap.

-

Customer Support doesn't have access to Combat Mission requirements and would not be the place to request changes. Further, changing missions that are on Live always has the terrifying potential of breaking something and ruining the party for -everyone-. As such, citing technical reasons is both correct for CS and very possibly the game on whole.

Our "Or" condition missions are NOT the same as our "Do X for Y" missions. In general, "Or" missions must be specifically coded well in advance (request is something like 3 months prior). Because of that, you mainly see "Or" missions in our major patch events or some larger side-events.

over 1 year ago - Ahskance - Direct link

That process is one that I've undertaken personally as I stated in a recent thread. I've now set reminders to review the final combat mission plan a few weeks before it goes live as a just in case. I reviewed the remainder of 0.11.7 as well as all of 0.11.8 earlier this week and both are fully Co-Op Compatible. I am not the only person to do this as I saw mentions from others which are in the Dev pipeline which called out areas of note in reference to Co-Op mains and assuring compatibility.

The narrative that PvE players are being ignored is not true. Operations (which are literally labeled as "PvE" internally) are being updated with 0.11.8 to have 3 old Operations returned as well as added functionality along with Daily/Weekly Mission support. Co-Op has been tweaked repeatedly since 0.10.6 to make the guns incrementally more threatening while also adjusting the AI to have better pathing and functionality. There was a survey sent out to Co-Op players several months back polling issues and concerns to measure the current state of the mode.

As for the "just an error" stuff, I have to again emphasize that there are hundreds of people working on our game. They are located across multiple continents. There is always a possibility of issue when you have a disseminated structure where every person pitches in. Errors can and do happen but they don't happen often because we take great pains to catch all the ones we can.

over 1 year ago - Ahskance - Direct link

My solution was instituted after the creation of this thread. The point was made to me that it's far easier to catch these issues before they go live as the missions can be altered before players start working on them. This is correct, and I'm stepping up to do what I can to make that easier solution happen.

The natural follow-up response is: "Well, why wasn't this screened already?" It was, but as new employees enter the company and use different combat mission metrics when they're creating content the newer entries can slip through as each individual is typically responsible for their own work. Further, having a non-Co-Op mission chain is ok in a similar way that having an Event-only mission chain is ok. Sometimes missions are made to support specific areas or aspects of the game. My specific goal with doing combat mission reviews is to try to catch combat missions which are more general/generic in nature and make sure that they reach the largest audience because that is best in line with the intended goal. My job is not to override the intent of the creator, but I am trying to add an extra check.

It is wrong to make this sweeping generalization. You are treating side-missions and optional content as though it is the Primary Event/Content of an Update.

Our internal work-style is to empower employees to do and make cool stuff for our players. Side missions for a few camos in relation to a holiday or a patch in relation to an event are supplemental content that someone thought would be fun/cool. If the person creating something fun thought of using it as a challenge mission that involved Achievements that is ok, because it's someone trying to do something cool. However, because Co-Op wouldn't be able to take part, it's something that can be caught and alternative challenges can be suggested to give a similar level of engagement while being open to all.

Again, it's not correct to assume this is some form of management decision or intentional oversight. We are people that go to work and try to come up with cool stuff for folks to have fun with. Reading bad intent because the base idea didn't include all possibilities is giving too much weight to something that slipped through.

I'm not personally privy to long-term consideration and intended play for Co-Op, but I learned a lot when interacting with some phone app games like Azur Lane. They have a very short and repeatable combat loop that can be very easy to enjoy and slide into. The loops can be challenging at times when pushing new content but will quickly become easily achievable and often move to an auto-play function that allows the 3-5 minute Start -> Combat -> Reward loop.

Current Co-Op has poor bot accuracy, but it does work enough to result in player losses. Torpedoes, ASW Strikes, Dutch Airstrikes, AI Carriers, and Submarine Pings are very accurate and represent real threats that should be considered. The majority of the play experience isn't high threat, but there are times where the is real danger that requires active play in order to keep playing until the end of the match. When considered in that light, there is a similar Start -> Setup -> Combat -> Reward loop that strikes right around the 5 minute mark.

While a Hard-Mode of Co-Op may very well be enjoyed, we have Defense of Naval Station Newport which is effectively a longer duration horde mode with accurate bots. The new Operations will allow Tier 6-8 ships to be used which greatly increases experience variety. Operations already provide a more intense PvE experience so that must be weighed on if Co-Op needs to be a more intense experience than it already is when other options are available.

I appreciate the compliment, but there is no way in Hell that two vocal people singlehandedly move a company of hundreds of people working toward a common goal. This is a team effort that is the result of efforts which started before I was hired. The baton has been passed from hand to hand as we keeping moving to a better tomorrow, so the best we can do is try our best to keep it moving in the right direction. Trying to act as though the rest of the company is somehow ill-intentioned towards PvE is wrong.

over 1 year ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I'm going to directly challenge you on this because the creation of a completely third branch of gameplay is an extremely big ask. Randoms/Ranked/PvP is a primary branch and Co-Op/Operations/PvE Events is another. While you correctly point out that Co-Op's gameplay loop is different than the Operation play loop (bot type/quantity, team reliance, and duration for instance) they ARE PvE experiences. They are places with known rules and concepts because enemy AI will be understood and exploited as a form of gameplay interaction by the players that play them. The entire reason not to have human-level intelligent bots in Co-Op is because he have human-level intelligent enemies in Randoms already.

I really, really encourage you to try Operations to experience what they provide. They are an equivalent of a Dungeon or Themed Encounter which is a natural extension of the "Random Encounter"-style event that Co-Op is. Ignoring them as a gameplay option is a tough ask to us as a company because we are always having to factor in how our players are interacting with our Queues. Adding more options leads to a further dilution of playerbase for each option available.

I understand years of frustration being something that is difficult to ignore. My largest frustration is that new players which are coming in learn narratives that simply don't exist anymore. While the past may have seen Co-Op as a training ground instead of a playground, those views have evolved to recognizing the mode as a repeatable and credible play experience. Seeing repeated calls that "Co-Op players are devalued or ignored" only reinforces an Us vs Them that doesn't need to exist.

If only perfection is acceptable as a bare benchmark, then at least provide me an amount of time that perfect must be achieved before you are willing to accept that real and genuine effort has been made. If you want to say "12 months of no issues" is a metric to aim for, then I will track that and mention it once it's been achieved. If the metric is "No issues ever" then that's just not something I can say is possible due to humanity not being flawless.






Recent World of Warships Posts

about 5 hours ago -
about 6 hours ago -
2 days ago -