Jump to content
malaquey

Proposed Changes To Ship Customisation

Recommended Posts

Me and a friend were discussing this yesterday and I figured it was worth making a post, you'll never change something if you don't try and I'd love for this game to get even better.

 

One of the primary issues I had with world of tanks, and it's extended to world of warships, is that vehicles aren't customisable enough.

In WoT for example you always know the loadout and stats of a given tank. An E100 has 235 pen 750 damage 16.88 sec reload blah blah. This is because there is a "top" configuration for each vehicle.

A ship likewise always has the same configuration when fully upgraded, the only exception that comes to mind being the Mogami with the choice of 6 or 8 inch guns. World of Warships had done a MUCH better job with captain skills are equipment choices, always room for improvement but I think they get a solid well done for variation and letting players make different builds.

 

I'd like to take this further however and address the ship modules themselves. The unlocks shouldn't be flat upgrades but should allow further specialisation. One hull might have more secondaries at the cost of AA, another might give more armour but less health, or any combination of the above. Perhaps you could have a higher top speed but a larger turning circle.

You could also allow choice of different main armament. An example would be the Izumo where there were a variety of different designs with different arrangements of the main battery. Cruisers too could have choices between more smaller calibre guns or less larger calibre ones.

 

I don't want to get too far ahead of myself but I'd also like to see what people would think of a fully customisable secondary armament. Each ship (or hull) could have an allocation of secondary points. You could then spend these points to add different weapons. A 3x25mm mount could cost say 10 points while a 2x127mm could cost 30 points. For consistency you would probably need to have these applied symmetrically on each side of the ship, although the idea of a ship having more on one side is certainly interesting.

This would allow people to further specialise, especially battleships. Cruisers could take lots of dual purpose batteries for AA escort while battleships could take lots of smaller calibres for personal defence. Ships could also forgo their anti aircraft guns in favour of more anti ship weaponry. At present a Yamato mounts 12 127mm guns on each side but could for example take 24 guns on each side at the expense of its 25mm and 155mm batteries. Or it could mount 155mm guns instead of the 127mm, increasing its anti ship defence but leaving it very open to air attack.

 

Please leave feedback, what you think is good, what you think is bad. Any ideas of how customisation could be implemented in a different way would be great to hear too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

buh, buh, buh, muh realism. In reality, this will never happen. Too much work for WG to code and balance, and the armchair admirals will complain about unhistorical setups. It's not going to happen, though it would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoliDeoGloria said:

buh, buh, buh, muh realism. In reality, this will never happen. Too much work for WG to code and balance, and the armchair admirals will complain about unhistorical setups. It's not going to happen, though it would be nice.

Wargaming ships side has proven themselves to be willing to change things to improve the game. At the end of the day the game isn't realistic anyway so if they think an idea is good enough they'll do it regardless. I'd like to avoid the WoT stagnation if we can though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few quick thoughts but I feel as if the secondaries/AA customization is prone to min/maxing which forces the user to build competitively. Think WoT equipment choices with mandatory Rammer + STAB.

Next, this change will create a greater weight for very strong ships to become extremely strong. One example is the Cleveland or any CA maxing with dual-purpose AA to create a max damage and long-range bubble. This will indefinitely impair CV's in the meta and will create tension in the community.

Sure you can limit these builds to meh performing ships however there will be the systemic effect of creating player demand for these modifications for ALL ships. A developer doesn't benefit at all from this sudden shift.

Look at the weeaboo ships. People somehow are upset about that because old fellows feel microagressed by anime. SOMEHOW!? And that effect of discontent of a few aggrevates me at least and to a larger extent, the WoT community. Gold ammo and XVM ring a bell? Who exactly were the first to perpetrate those critical aspects again.

If WG does benefit LIGHTLY from it, it'll likely be in the form of credit costs. Not a lot of players will have lots of in-game money. It will be a aspect that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer in terms of equal skill footing. Equipment and gold ammo are prime examples. If all tanks univerally had no equipment or gold ammo then it'll make the community happier in the short term until they demand for preferable mode of customization.

Thank you for presenting your idea. I suggest you consolidate your ideas in a way that considers WG's burden of implementation as well as it's purpose, all things considered. Make a colloquial essay out of your ideas and send it to the public, your greatest critics & WG or something.

If there's one I thing among many that I've gain from your thread is this: Stock hull as shit as they are in secondaries/AA/maneuverablity  should have the most HP out of all hulls. They'll still be worse in choices to a educated player perhaps but it'll make perceived shit grinds better for the psyche of the masses. Just imagine it. A AMX 40 shit in everything but TOG-style HP and armor. It won't crush like a KV-1 for sure because it doesn't have the tools but it'll be slightly less punishing being HE'ed to death by a M4 105mm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Casas5591 said:

Just a few quick thoughts but I feel as if the secondaries/AA customization is prone to min/maxing which forces the user to build competitively. Think WoT equipment choices with mandatory Rammer + STAB.

Next, this change will create a greater weight for very strong ships to become extremely strong. One example is the Cleveland or any CA maxing with dual-purpose AA to create a max damage and long-range bubble. This will indefinitely impair CV's in the meta and will create tension in the community.

Sure you can limit these builds to meh performing ships however there will be the systemic effect of creating player demand for these modifications for ALL ships. A developer doesn't benefit at all from this sudden shift.

Look at the weeaboo ships. People somehow are upset about that because old fellows feel microagressed by anime. SOMEHOW!? And that effect of discontent of a few aggrevates me at least and to a larger extent, the WoT community. Gold ammo and XVM ring a bell? Who exactly were the first to perpetrate those critical aspects again.

If WG does benefit LIGHTLY from it, it'll likely be in the form of credit costs. Not a lot of players will have lots of in-game money. It will be a aspect that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer in terms of equal skill footing. Equipment and gold ammo are prime examples. If all tanks univerally had no equipment or gold ammo then it'll make the community happier in the short term until they demand for preferable mode of customization.

Thank you for presenting your idea. I suggest you consolidate your ideas in a way that considers WG's burden of implementation as well as it's purpose, all things considered. Make a colloquial essay out of your ideas and send it to the public, your greatest critics & WG or something.

If there's one I thing among many that I've gain from your thread is this: Stock hull as shit as they are in secondaries/AA/maneuverablity  should have the most HP out of all hulls. They'll still be worse in choices to a educated player perhaps but it'll make perceived shit grinds better for the psyche of the masses. Just imagine it. A AMX 40 shit in everything but TOG-style HP and armor. It won't crush like a KV-1 for sure because it doesn't have the tools but it'll be slightly less punishing being HE'ed to death by a M4 105mm.

 

Implementing all of what I said would, I agree, be too much. World of warships is going to hit the "done all the ships now" stage faster than world of tanks did which only makes some kind of customisation more important to prevent the game stagnating. If you look at games like battlefield the unlocks give you more options, without any single setup being the obvious, most powerful choice.

Complete customisation would be too far maybe but at least a hull choice for secondary/aa specialisation would be good. If the health of stock hulls was the most of any hull then that could form the third option of the most effective at longer range.

Like I said the skills and modules are already good. There's no obvious choice for selections and people can choose a build they want and then play accordingly.

I agree that a lot of ships would need carefully balancing, but it's not impossible. To use your example a cleveland could have longer range, lower dps, or shorter range, higher dps. If under attack you'd kill more with short range but you can cover allies better with long range.

To avoid the whole credit problem the hulls should be made cheaper to compensate for more unlocks. The main way WG benefits is that their game stays alive. If people enjoy it they'll spend money on it. Personally I think the ARP ships were a mistake, didn't add anything but complaints to the game. But more content is generally a good idea.

Where would you suggest I best post it, at least the part about more hulls, to best get a response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think greater appearance customization might be a way to keep the game feeling fresh and interesting for longer. Plus some kind of achievements/reward system similar to World of Warcraft might work too. "Get custom paint job x for having destroyed y number of ships with torpedoes" as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rodrigopine said:

I think greater appearance customization might be a way to keep the game feeling fresh and interesting for longer. Plus some kind of achievements/reward system similar to World of Warcraft might work too. "Get custom paint job x for having destroyed y number of ships with torpedoes" as an example.

Achievement skins does sound good. Purely cosmetic to avoid elitism but certainly world of fashion ships is something I'd be up for :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted I've only reached tier 6 so far, but there's a lot of good points

Atm there's a lot of number crunching involved with games like WoT and WoWs. But for experienced players in WoT, we pretty much have the numbers figured, such as the reload of most tanks and caliber of guns' damage and spotting/detection range and armor layouts and the business of working with RNG in dealing damage and accuracy etc. 

the RNG in WoWs is off the roof compared to the usual gripes in WoT (good luck turning WoWs into esports, WG). You can have games in BBs scoring citadels every few salvoes, and the next instance the guns do nothing more than douse the enemy ship in harmless seawater. 

But regarding customization, I'd refer to it as fine-tuning a ship to suit one's liking. But from WG devs behind WoWs, there's only so much they can bend and allow players to mess around with their ships before it can become a problem. Looking at WoT, almost every competitive tank uses pretty much the same equipment set-up (rammer, vert stab, optics/vents), and looking at the example they gave in Cyprus about the HEAT-54, where everyone would just supplement the better gun with poor penetration by firing HEAT. No one uses the 128mm gun on the E-100 if they could unload brain and load HEAT on the 150mm deep. 

So far the customization option I think they have in WoWs atm works, with the choice of equipments to mount can alter the ship a bit. Taking the Cleveland for example, there's the option of enhancing its AA capability or main gun firepower, or to choose between increasing its speed or mobility (turning radii). While I'd love to adjust the Cleveland guns to stop making rainbows, that's just the flavor/game-balance of the ship

too much customization could potentially harm the ecosystem, and they should know where to draw the line at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, too much customization would make certain characteristics of ships too overpowered.

It could be solved by putting rules on these customizations, but then the whole thing would spiral out of scale in terms of complexity and it's probably best that ships have set top configurations, so that good players familiar with the game can actually outplay people and make plans in advance rather than think too much on the move and have all the ships feel like customized versions of the same ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serene_Potato said:

Indeed, too much customization would make certain characteristics of ships too overpowered.

It could be solved by putting rules on these customizations, but then the whole thing would spiral out of scale in terms of complexity and it's probably best that ships have set top configurations, so that good players familiar with the game can actually outplay people and make plans in advance rather than think too much on the move and have all the ships feel like customized versions of the same ship.

My points about minute customisation were more my own speculation than realistic suggestions.

I do think that some variation, beyond the equipment and captain skills, should be there. Literally just different hull configurations would be fine I think. An aa spec and a secondary spec, or an offensive/defensive choice. A simple implementation would be to make the stock battleship hulls that invariably have worse aa have more health, say 10-15%. Just enough to give multiple viable options for individual ships.

Like ThomChen114 said world of tanks suffers from the lack of variation. A certain tank has a set best configuration. Already in world of warships there are certain modules/skills that EVERYONE takes and I really wish it wasn't like that. Battleships always take the skill to turn your turrets faster while destroyers take the concealment equipment and skill for instance. There should be at least TWO viable options for everything. If balance for other classes is an issue then equipment, and potentially skills, could be made class specific to prevent battleships benefiting from a speed skill meant for destroyers for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, malaquey said:

My points about minute customisation were more my own speculation than realistic suggestions.

I do think that some variation, beyond the equipment and captain skills, should be there. Literally just different hull configurations would be fine I think. An aa spec and a secondary spec, or an offensive/defensive choice. A simple implementation would be to make the stock battleship hulls that invariably have worse aa have more health, say 10-15%. Just enough to give multiple viable options for individual ships.

Like ThomChen114 said world of tanks suffers from the lack of variation. A certain tank has a set best configuration. Already in world of warships there are certain modules/skills that EVERYONE takes and I really wish it wasn't like that. Battleships always take the skill to turn your turrets faster while destroyers take the concealment equipment and skill for instance. There should be at least TWO viable options for everything. If balance for other classes is an issue then equipment, and potentially skills, could be made class specific to prevent battleships benefiting from a speed skill meant for destroyers for instance.

a lack of variation in WoT has mostly been down to the top tiers (medium tanks for example) and the corridor maps. we have at least 5 Soviet hover tanks that function similarly (enough said), and then the various 105mm armed MTs. while the 105mm armed MTs have their own distinct characteristics, more often than not those do not become apparent or even matter because of the corridor nature of maps where they end up having to be frontline tanks alongside the heavy tanks with little room to maneuver and flaunt their capabilities. this forces them to mount similar equipment (rammer, vert stab, vents/optics) in order to be able to be on the same playing field as the other medium tanks

in WoWs so far, almost each ship has its own unique flavor and role to play, and a lot of factors such as the number and placement of guns, range, shell arc, damage potential, ship & armor layout, speed & mobility, detectability, torpedo armament, etc means that every ship will be played differently from one another. the skills and equipments available and chosen doesn't so much drastically transform the way a certain ship would be played, but more like mitigates any weaknesses and enhance the strengths of the ship while still being more or less the same boat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThomChen114 said:

a lack of variation in WoT has mostly been down to the top tiers (medium tanks for example) and the corridor maps. we have at least 5 Soviet hover tanks that function similarly (enough said), and then the various 105mm armed MTs. while the 105mm armed MTs have their own distinct characteristics, more often than not those do not become apparent or even matter because of the corridor nature of maps where they end up having to be frontline tanks alongside the heavy tanks with little room to maneuver and flaunt their capabilities. this forces them to mount similar equipment (rammer, vert stab, vents/optics) in order to be able to be on the same playing field as the other medium tanks

in WoWs so far, almost each ship has its own unique flavor and role to play, and a lot of factors such as the number and placement of guns, range, shell arc, damage potential, ship & armor layout, speed & mobility, detectability, torpedo armament, etc means that every ship will be played differently from one another. the skills and equipments available and chosen doesn't so much drastically transform the way a certain ship would be played, but more like mitigates any weaknesses and enhance the strengths of the ship while still being more or less the same boat. 

 

I think world of warships is FAR better than world of tanks, both for enjoyment and design wise. It's not perfect though and I think building on the uniqueness of each ship is the way to go, more variation rather than less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@malaquey 

1.  WG will have their timetable to follow which sums up to creating complexity to the game as well as end-game content. This is broad field that embodies tech tree lines among many other things. Customization is also a part of that field but like all processes, it must be done effectively with a meaningful purpose behind implementation. LoL skins are beautifully done (effective) and they in turn construct a sense of freedom with personal choice which helps LoL in player retention and profits (purpose). WoT camo isn't effective because they're not beautiful (effective) and ship hulls in this case have no (purpose) but if they did, it would create the P2W negative atmosphere which is overall counterintuitive.

2. Historical accuracy is a major grip with people I can imagine and AA/secondaries cannot be relative competitive choices given meta. End-game players and the MMO mentality dictates: Go best or go broke. Only BB's have the freedom of choice. Customization would be a very apparent illusion for CA's/CV's/DD's. It would be a big waste of the time for research, modelling, coding and resource for such a moot impact. I suggested that stock hull should have the most HP because it'll make grinding easier especially for newcomers and provide lesser-skilled players a easy but strong buffer to use in battle. This should be for the USN BB line because we need to consider WG's free XP model for Serb's moon base. If lesser players can be more effective with basic tools like HP rather than complex tools like camo or accuracy then the that helps everyone in battle maintain a positive mood about the game.

3. I agree for the time being but I believe the sky is the limit and WG can do more given it actually a aspect that gives rather than be a option in it's most simplistic form: a option I'm which there's no compulsion felt or speciality about it.

4. Indeed. Range > DPS given the choice. AA builds I imagine are less about plane kills and more about team/self preservation with defensive fire but please correct me if I'm wrong. CV's can read hulls I can imagine so short range would be dead useless since you have to hug a BB who has to frontline in the open and a CV can just hit the third closest BB out of your circle. Choice A and Choice B aren't as cut and dry and thus A>B meaning there was never a choice to begin with = wasted effort.

5. If players cried about free ARP content WITH generous mission rewards then players will yap about "P2W hulls, 20,000 credit, why must I waste money on a thing I don't want" or better yet "Cleveland Hull #3 too weak, buff now WG". It creates neutral-negative activity that a company invest time in when they could of done something more thought out. If you remove the hulls from the game then people will cry "why remove hull, I want my 20,000 credits back". People are sensitive to this type of traffic and it'll annoy the shit out of me at least and subconsciously purport my thinking as anti-arty, anti-RNG, anti-tomato, anti-meta when really, companies need their player base to see them in a positive light with cool historical skins for ships/planes and "I'm a 70 year old vet and stock hulls are the best thing WoWs ever implemented!" or "1st person mode walk around in ships is awesome" threads. Stuff like that prevent the playerbase from going rogue and encourages newcomers to join without a interfering force.

6. WoWs forums/General Disscusion & Suggestions. Tell pubbies the plan is in the drafts and you're taking reasonable feedback/refine idea/talk to WG people and ask what they think and if they can pass along to the developers/ask feedback and opinion of WG forum intellectuals like Flamu/WhiteLittleMouse/whoever and swoon them enough to have them promote your flawless idea in their own content producing/ask indie WoWs utubers who want publicity to talk about your flawless idea and make it viral on forums. ????. Profit. Just ideas I would try to do. WoTLabs has a fair number of intellectuals so you can ask them to critique and support your flawless idea or improve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since WoWs is relatively new there hasn't been any sense of power creep occurring yet, or else that would require the devs the nerf/buff certain ships as a result in order to compensate, yet these also can't be overt stuff like an entirely new (unhistorical) hull or stuff like that. there have been ships that are understood by pro admirals as being the better ship of her class and tier (just by looking at what pros choose to sail in Team Battles), but it hasn't made other ships irrelevant as well

 

17 hours ago, Casas5591 said:

@malaquey 

2. Historical accuracy is a major grip with people I can imagine and AA/secondaries cannot be relative competitive choices given meta. End-game players and the MMO mentality dictates: Go best or go broke. Only BB's have the freedom of choice. Customization would be a very apparent illusion for CA's/CV's/DD's. It would be a big waste of the time for research, modelling, coding and resource for such a moot impact. I suggested that stock hull should have the most HP because it'll make grinding easier especially for newcomers and provide lesser-skilled players a easy but strong buffer to use in battle. This should be for the USN BB line because we need to consider WG's free XP model for Serb's moon base. If lesser players can be more effective with basic tools like HP rather than complex tools like camo or accuracy then the that helps everyone in battle maintain a positive mood about the game.

i'd like that idea to be implemented, since it can be a pain for certain ships after you just bought it and may need some training wheels when you start out getting a feel of it. it could also be a temporary HP increase for newly bought ships (10 or so battles), just so you can last a little longer and earn a bit more EXP as a result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThomChen114 said:

since WoWs is relatively new there hasn't been any sense of power creep occurring yet, or else that would require the devs the nerf/buff certain ships as a result in order to compensate, yet these also can't be overt stuff like an entirely new (unhistorical) hull or stuff like that. there have been ships that are understood by pro admirals as being the better ship of her class and tier (just by looking at what pros choose to sail in Team Battles), but it hasn't made other ships irrelevant as well

 

i'd like that idea to be implemented, since it can be a pain for certain ships after you just bought it and may need some training wheels when you start out getting a feel of it. it could also be a temporary HP increase for newly bought ships (10 or so battles), just so you can last a little longer and earn a bit more EXP as a result

1. I agree for the tiers that I'm at currently (tier 3 - 6/probably most tiers) but I've notice a level of discontent with higher tiers with dedicated mentioning of Yamato/DD torp spam/Midway. Implementation of USN/RU CA radar can be interpreted as a sign but it might as well be to add flavor to USN too.

2. My reasoning behind stock hulls is:

"New" players have bad times. Let's help them have fun with by having the "newbie choice". Tons of HP (tanky) in exchange of stock characteristics (weak AA/weak armor/slower velocity/bad rudder shift).

"New" players end up on everyone's team. "New" players are not good enough to utilize AA, velocity quirks and maneuverability. All players can use HP as a crutch for their mistakes/tank damage/stay alive longer. This option will make bad player more effective thus shorting a wide skill gap without compromising skill ceiling for other choices.

Better performing teams for the rest + happier baddie err I mean "New" player = happier playerbase

The secondary effects of easier grind time/valid customization choices/training wheels for newbies/USN BB popularity boosting are exceptionally valuable too!

I think the stock hull/(2/3 hull choice maybe) buff should be permanent for the reasons above. If this trait is limited to USN then informative media will make guides noting "USN is the best line for newbies" and it'll create a critical mass for USN as the optimal P4F/beginner line.

I'm clueless on how much of % increase stock/#2 hulls should recieve in HP with the factors of class and tier but for the sake of curiosity, I like to know what everyone thinks how much of a increase would be without being too UP or OP.

Since we're talking customization, I like World of Boats to introduce visual/sound effect modifers (confetti party after blowing up a ship in monochrome colors minus HUD, why not if it has a Commander XP/Free XP/XP/Credit/ coefficient?) and MW2 esque callsigns to serve as a sort of customization minigame that involves achievement hunting (I want a title with Two Brothers as the preset background that says "BBW" with WoTLabs phish as a emblem).

Just ideas I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...