[2022] Saying quiet part out loud.

The game mode was not supposed to be PvE - it has always been a PvP mode and the inclusion of bots is mostly as a "bumper" for off-times when the queue gets too long.
PvP players don't like playing against bots the same way that PvE players don't like playing against other players. They rarely mix well.
PvE players would be up in arms if, when lots of Coop players were playing, we said "just throw some of the extra players onto the bot's side...". It's fundamentally the wrong experience you signed up for.

As for the "greedy WG" thing, this game stands out amongst nearly every game I've ever played in terms of how much free stuff is available throughout the year. The last Dockyard included 2 ships you could get for absolute free, including the uber-awesome Repulse.

I get it that people were upset by the removal of Asymm's. I was too - I legit like playing Asymm's, but the game mode did not end up being what it was supposed to being - for better or for worse.

"Players enjoyed it" - you never got put on the higher-tier team with bots, did you? It was roughums, brother.
The reasons for pulling it always matter. The game modes should be something fun for everyone participating.

And that's the point - the purpose is to be a fun PvP game mode and that didn't pan out correctly and was frustrating the players that got saddled with a bunch of bots.
Just because it was awesome for 1 side doesn't mean the mode is functioning properly.

You've correctly identified the flaw in the design. Having Bots fill in the hole caused the mode to distort from its initial intention. The distortion was made even larger when it became a known thing that people were jumping on.

Player Behavioral patterns can be something that are extremely hard to predict. While in hindsight it can look like "Of COURSE they should have realized lower tiers get bonus rewards when shooting high tiers... and of COURSE people would spam lower tiers to farm high tier bots". The expectation was that players would simply gravitate to the higher tiers naturally, but be willing to play lower tiers to earn tokens and return to higher tiers.

The problems simply increase the longer the mode would be left up in its flawed form. IT was disabled to prevent this mode from being considered Co-Op+ (as some have taken to calling it).

There is a well worn path of "Happy Accidents" where a game company intended for X but instead tripped across Y. Sometimes Y turns out to be a really cool, really fun experience!

Our Dev team can use that information to create an event that's specifically designed around the situation/mechanic.

Why does the Dev team need to design something new when we already have something that was fun? Because the current Asymmetric Battles design includes the option for Players to Queue as Tier 9/10. While everyone that's having fun in lower tier ships will certainly enjoy the mode, the folks that "don't know yet" that it's actually Co-Op+... they get to feel wronged. Those players didn't queue to have a team of bots so they could lose tokens and time getting farmed by hordes of players.

There is merit in a "playerbase deterministic" approach. This is used in story-building and sandbox games such as EVE Online. In those cases the developers might well include a mode that ends up being used in completely the opposite way than it was intended. In such instances, the developers of the sandbox will simply assess, "Does this meet the goal of a engaged playerbase?" If the answer is yes, they leave it as is to allow the playerbase to continue innovating its own storyline.

Our game is not run in this manner. We do not run a sandbox style experience. Our major modes all fit within a patterned formula and we have very direct intentions and goal with each of the products we provide. Asymmetric Battles was designed to be a play on the Top Tier/Bottom Tier PvP experience. Rather than feeling over-matched and under-capable, the teams are deliberately over-populated on the Bottom Tier side to make a more consistent power dynamic between the two teams... if the lower tier ships can hang on long enough to make use of it.

---

Our design philosophy is to provide a consistent product with a randomization metric that allows heavy replayability. While we do have a few modes which are much less random (Clan Battles is very pre-meditated, for instance), the core experience we offer is one that all our players should be quite familiar with if they've had extended interactions with World of Warships.

I'm really not interested in litigating something which is irrelevant to what I'm stating.

We designed something to be a PvP mode and it was not achieving its intended purpose. Because of this lack of ability to realize our intention, the mode has been disabled.

---

In regards to the many folks which have given positive feedback about that parts that they DID like, that will be retained for future modes and concepts that we can use.

Firstly, you mention the previous Asymmetric Battles event. I was a player at the time and I don't recall there being bots? I remember playing Top and Bottom Tier multiple times and I honestly cannot recall bots ever having been in the mode. This could be poor memory as it was like a year and a half ago, though.

I have seen it mentioned that the prior Asymmetric Battles was also shut down for a time to do some fixes. I honestly can't recall what they were. So, in that sense, it would seem that this entire event concept is just innately a tough one to pull off. It's unfortunate to recognize that because I think it's really a very fun concept.

---

As to your main question, the reality of live server stuff is that things can go wrong. "Games As A Service" is a harsh industry as it's a grueling grind, so we do the best we can to provide a very consistent and good product. That being said, things will slip through and sometimes plans just don't work out.

As to Dockyards and Early Access update events, those are pretty time tested by this point. We've had multiple Dockyards and Many Early Access events, so those are pretty well understood. I don't think there's much to be concerned about over the use of a tried-and-true format. While something unexpected can always pop up, our process is consistent enough that doing something as drastic as disabling a mode shortly after release is notably rare.

I've noted above the Asymmetric Battles seems to be an ambitious project. What looked to be a repeatable format from our previous use of it very quickly slammed face first into a roadblock. Hotfix'ing additional rewards for using Higher Tier ships resulted in no observable change in behavior, so the decision was made to act sooner rather than later. Additional time leaving the mode on would fundamentally damage the community perception of the mode as a PvP experience.

We understand that there are players which enjoyed the mode in a PvE form, but we try to be very deliberate in our design and implementation. That design and implementation did not produce the PvP result we were looking for, so we're currently assessing what needs to happen to be able to achieve that goal. Disabling the mode allows us the most freedom to be able to iterate in the fastest way possible.