Jump to content


Action packed gameplay doesn't work with Ingame-Economy


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

9IBrownie #1 Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23188 battles
  • 52
  • [507] 507
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

This Topic is also available in german: http://forum.worldof...ingame-economy/

 

This Topic is the second chapter of my first post about this called „Why new gamemodes always fail“: http://forum.worldof...es-always-fail/

german Version of that: http://forum.worldof...tets-scheitern/

 

First, let me summarize my point from last time:

 

Wargaming has introduced many new features and gamemodes in the past months, which aim to promote a new, more aggressive and action-packed playstyle. At the same time, I reckoned, that the players don’t really find this gameplay appealing which results in the failure of these gamemodes.

 

I tried to find the reason for this and concluded that the ingame economy punishes aggressive plays. If a risky play does not pay off you don’t only lose HP, your Tank or even the entire battle, you also lose credits after the battle, especially in higher tiers. That’s why, in my opinion, many players don’t like to take risks even if it is important to improve your odds to win the battle (e.g. by saving your allies or taking positions that counter the enemy positions etc.).

 

In other words: Teamplay often requires aggression, willingness to take risks and willingness to sacrifice (like in skirmishes and clanwars). Exactly these traits are, thanks to the economy, very costly. Therefore, the players are incentivised to show less teamplay. My suggested solution was releasing the new gamemodes (especially ranked battles) from the progression system to make sure you cannot lose credits no matter how bad you perform.

 

Corrections about my last topic:

 

WoT does clearly have a lot of problems that are more popular and more imminent to be addressed. That’s why some people might think my point is not so important. However, from here we can pretty much go anywhere quite easily, at the same time I don’t want to get carried away just yet though.

 

The title of my last post was poorly chosen. It illustrates the origin of my thought process, but it does not really fit for my main argument there. We can easily spot a variety of different reasons for the failure of the new gamemodes (e.g. balancing [this could fill books] and mission rigging). Nevertheless, I feel that the importance of my point (and the impact of the economy on the players’ minds) is totally underrated. That’s why I decided to shift the main theme to “what the economy has to do with teamplay” or something like this.

 

I earned criticism for the sarcastic tones in my last text. They were just meant for entertainment purposes and are not a rant about certain things. On the other hand, these satiric sentences always contain a little bit of the truth, don’t they? :D

 

I don’t want to touch random battles at all. The passive gameplay they offer is one of the reason why many people like to play them and I think this is totally fine. Seeing the “Michael Bay”-like WoT trailers though makes me curious about what we could do with new action based gameplay in WoT. I think it is worth to try finding alternatives to random battles which offer a different experience.

 

I did not mention the "currency" experience in my previous post, because no matter what you do, you will never lose it. Earning no experience does not feel nearly as punishing as losing credits, so it does probably not have much of an impact on the players.

 

Counter arguments from the last topic:

 

1. Without the progression system players wouldn’t play a gamemode, because the progression is the only long-time motivation.

 

There are two types of players, those who want to grind to their favourite tanks and those who already pretty much have grinded everything they like. For the latter, the only motivation to play is the competitive aspect of the game. Other competitive games like Overwatch and CS:GO don’t need a progression system to motivate their players either, they instead have a rank system that motivates to refine your skills and become better.

 

2. Many players don’t want fast paced gameplay.

 

Those can stick with randoms. I am quite sure though, that as soon as they try out a “faster” WoT, many of them will like it. Often the playerbase doesn’t even know what they want anyway^^

 

3. Without the economy players would suicide into the enemy all the time like on the test servers.

 

That might happen, but this is kind of the point, isn’t it? This way the players will learn how to succeed in rushes and aggressive plays faster. They will learn how to initiate aggressive plays, how to become better at timing their offensives with their team and it could eventually lead to better communication which is required for all of this.

 

4. Teamplay does get rewarded with higher winrates.

 

This is wrong. Not teamplay gets rewarded, the ability to carry a game gets rewarded. These are two vastly different things. Admittedly, when only a few players are left against an overwhelming force, teamplay is often essential to carry a game, but teamplay in the first minutes of the match is not really the way to go if you want to carry. [the reasons for this could fill a whole other topic]

 

5. The reason for camping are extremely bad players.

 

[Needed to cut down alot here :D] True, but this effect is amplified by the credit system. Let’s see the career of an average player:

He is too aggressive -> He dies early -> He gets bad results -> He switches to a more passive playstyle -> He survives longer -> He has slightly better results…

The next step for him would be to learn when and where he must be aggressive for once. This step requires a lot of game knowledge (Map-Awareness, Positioning, Situational-Awareness, enemy tank stats and so on), which is very difficult to learn. Consequently, many players are stuck there and stick to their passive playstyle. All in all, the basic game mechanics do scare the players from playing aggressively. But this would be no problem if the only punishment is a lost tank or a lost battle. People could start their next tank and keep on going.

 

But, because you lose credits in addition to that, players become less willing to experiment with aggression, which leads to an even slower learning progress if it doesn’t eradicate the learning progress all together. For all of those who are stuck in the passive playstyle a new action based gamemode without the progression system could be interesting for two reasons:

  • They don’t get punished too badly for mistakes, so they are more inclined to try things out which makes learning faster and easier.
  • They can try out a WoT that does not require that much gamesense, but other (mechanical) skills like aim, reactions, movement and multitasking instead.


Browarszky #2 Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:43 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14906 battles
  • 2,765
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

I hope I'm not sidetracking here.. but WoWS had the problem with high tier camping. What corrected the situation (somewhat) was that the repair costs were made the same, regardless of if you got through the battle without as much as scratching your paint or if you got hit by a devastating strike and ended on the bottom of the ocean.

 

EDIT The economy is different, of course. There are no ammo costs in WoWS, for instance.


Edited by Browarszky, 05 August 2017 - 05:44 PM.


Alabamatick #3 Posted 05 August 2017 - 10:31 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 2,908
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

I hate the "aggressive" dynamic game-play style and it's nothing to do with the economy, tank combat is supposed to be tactical using  hidden ambushes and flanking, punishing commanders that expose their vehicles, not a mash-up with twitch skillz

 

if i wanted that style i'd play COD

 

That's why i never played the extra modes, apart from historical battles (which was more tactical) and i'd still be playing now if it had stayed in the game



Steeleye_Spam #4 Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:48 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26485 battles
  • 189
  • Member since:
    08-31-2014
^^^ it's true - if peeps wanted 2 min battles we' d all play t2. It's fun for a few games, but it gets old very fast.

siramra #5 Posted 06 August 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25076 battles
  • 1,186
  • [DUXTR] DUXTR
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 05 August 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

I hope I'm not sidetracking here.. but WoWS had the problem with high tier camping. What corrected the situation (somewhat) was that the repair costs were made the same, regardless of if you got through the battle without as much as scratching your paint or if you got hit by a devastating strike and ended on the bottom of the ocean.

 

EDIT The economy is different, of course. There are no ammo costs in WoWS, for instance.

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File   ammocost.PNG   45.45K


Browarszky #6 Posted 06 August 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14906 battles
  • 2,765
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View Postsiramra, on 06 August 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

 

 

Wut? Never noticed that bit, ok I stand corrected :hiding: Cheers!

siramra #7 Posted 06 August 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25076 battles
  • 1,186
  • [DUXTR] DUXTR
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 06 August 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

 

Wut? Never noticed that bit, ok I stand corrected :hiding: Cheers!

 

But it`s still cheep compared to wot.

Hyster #8 Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27434 battles
  • 578
  • [T-S_K] T-S_K
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012

simple, remove gold so games last longer, make armour useful so tactics are needed and not just press the 2 key.

will make all the stat padders cry loads so it will never happen tho



Alabamatick #9 Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 2,908
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
^^, that would require better maps and that's even less likely:sceptic:

siramra #10 Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25076 battles
  • 1,186
  • [DUXTR] DUXTR
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostHyster, on 06 August 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

simple, remove gold so games last longer, make armour useful so tactics are needed and not just press the 2 key.

will make all the stat padders cry loads so it will never happen tho

 

I`m not a padder, but I like to do well.....and I agree with you.

But as long as prem for silver is a safe and steady income for WG it will never happen.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users