Jump to content


Elements of Game Design by Wargaming

design gaming behaviour psychology monetization

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Perrigrino #1 Posted 18 December 2019 - 11:07 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

"In this GDC Europe 2015 talk, Wargaming's Olga Kachalina shares the challenges of bringing real time action games from PC and consoles to touch screens without compromising or dumbing down the user experience,  and explains best practices for prototyping, testing and ongoing development of UX patterns for mobile games, including controls, HUD and overall user experience. "

 

 

Highlights:

 

09:00 min. in, Information Architecture. Players "need to upgrade their vehicle because they want to perform better..." (Assumptions about BALANCE?)

13:00 in discussion about Battle=Fun=Store, significance of colours Red/Green

22:22 -22:41  "Candy" (Rewards) …"we show them the fun and make them give us something in return..."

23:19 Monetization "we want to push monetization without being too pushy... did a lot of research... we use positive emotions of player...using people's emotions can help monetization, not too pushy- appropriate, targeted to player behaviour."

27:10 Tutorials "...spend a lot of time on tutorials...complex?... spend a very very long time on tutorials..."

29:10 Content (Value) for Paying and Non-Paying players "... seen this a lot of times where people push monetization and start selling stuff to help people to win, or to help people win better... people (players?) don't appreciate,.. our game is a game of skill, and when people master that skill, they value it that much, that if we introduce something that will allow other people with less skill perform better, … it's gonna ruin their (skilled players) loyalty...

30:00 what makes players happy and want to achieve more?

37:30 "main reason people play a tank game is because they're excited about a tank,... so everything else is irrelevant,... the tanks are very sexy and we want people to pay attention to the sexy stuff we have to offer...

41:30 Question from audience- "what about situation when players lose?" Answer- ".. digging into a lot of research on players positive and negative emotions and how they will behave when they experience both...but people experience a lot more pain when they lose, … their behaviour can be very controversial, you can never predict,... very often when people lose playing our game, depending on the seriousness,  they just quit the game. They don't want to buy anything. They don't want to buy another upgrade, they don't want to buy another consumable... to kick azz. Because they're so upset, they just want to forget about it. That's the most common behaviour.... Negative emotions are a lot more powerful, so have to be careful how to deal with them..."

 

 

"an educated consumer is our best customer."- Sy Syms


Edited by Perrigrino, 18 December 2019 - 11:10 PM.


CorvusCorvax #2 Posted 19 December 2019 - 12:04 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4489 battles
  • 4,754
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Brother, your "conspiracy theory" seems to have hard evidence to support it.

Weird, huh?

Perrigrino #3 Posted 19 December 2019 - 02:40 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 19 December 2019 - 12:04 AM, said:

Brother, your "conspiracy theory" seems to have hard evidence to support it.

Weird, huh?


I know... weird eh? ( ..adjusting cone on head...) And consider the following, which was basically the companies position shortly after Tanks started and Planes hit the scene in 2013:

 

https://www.gamasutr...to_the_curb.php

 

Wargaming kicks 'pay-to-win' monetization to the curb

One of the most successful free-to-play online game companies on the planet has announced a sweeping change in the way it monetizes all of its games. World of Tanks developer Wargaming.net told Gamasutra in an exclusive Q&A that it would be removing all "pay-to-win" purchase options from all of its current and upcoming titles.

The initiative has already begun in the company's flagship online game World of Tanks, and will continue with upcoming titles such as World of Warplanes and World of Warships.

Here's basically how the new strategy boils down: 
 

  • The company is calling the strategy "free-to-win," and first started testing it in 2012.
  •  
  • The core basis of "free-to-win" is to remove all payable options that could be viewed as giving a player an advantage in battle.
  •  
  • Revenue will come from sales of non-advantageous content, such as premium vehicles, personalization options and the like.
  •  
  • Free-to-win will be applied to all current and future Wargaming titles.
  •  
  • The move is in part meant to make Wargaming a bigger player in the burgeoning eSports arena.

 

Why are you cutting all pay to win options?

...

Free-to-play games have the challenge of being sometimes viewed as low quality, and we want World of Tanks to serve as proof that a quality and balanced free-to-play game is possible. However, breaking down deeply-rooted stereotypes is no easy task.

This isn't just about the game economics of World of Tanks, either. We aim to completely overhaul the free-to-play concept that exists as a whole in the gaming community by getting rid of the idea of "pay-to-win," ultimately helping lead what we consider the roll-out of "version 2.0" of free-to-play gaming.

How exactly do you define a "pay to win" item or option, and can you give a few examples of items that won't make the cut?

Well, the first example that comes to mind is the legendary "Sword of a Thousand Truths" from the television show South Park. Seriously, though, many online shooter games sell weapons with slightly bigger magazines, a slightly greater chance of critical hits or slightly more damage for real world money. Also, cash shops in fantasy MMO games often offer items that increase item drop rates, scale hit rates or grant extra player protection.

How do you expect this will affect your revenue?

The free-to-win concept is sure to enhance customer loyalty and attract new players to the game. As for the company's economic efficiency, we expect no decline in profits.

If anything, the introduction of our free-to-win features will likely cause a decrease in the purchase of premium ammunition. At the same time, however, players will use gold to buy credits, pay for premium account status, or purchase premium vehicles. In the end we project that it will all balance out.

What's wrong with pay to win, or for that matter, what's wrong with a lot of the F2P monetization schemes you see today?

The classic free-to-play model, particularly in regards to pay-to-win elements, follows one simple tenet -- the more you pay, the greater your advantage over other players. It results in huge payments from a small number of users (the so-called "whales") and increases a game's average ARPU [average revenue per user] and ARPPU [average revenue per paying user] numbers. Top-payers end up never losing, while those who pay less or don't pay grow dissatisfied with the game. Eventually, many leave entirely and the overall player base shrinks.

The World of Tanks monetization system is built the other way round. Deep gameplay and great replay value provide comfortable and fair conditions for everyone. The game has no overpowered weaponry and microtransactions don't give users any sort of advantage in combat. Premium items are priced so that players rarely end up having to spend a lot. We don't want World of Tanks players to feel like it's an experience that only a select few can afford. Quite contrary, we want the game to embody accessibility and fairness to all players, paying or not.

 

 

... that was 6 years ago, my how time flies. And now we have CONQUEST, with the ever BALANCING functionality of SPECIALIZATION, which has the amazing capability to always require more and more microtransactions in the way of PARTS to enable "overpowered weaponry", giving users "advantage in combat" - fear not though, BALANCE is always on the horizon, particulalry with the constant analysis and reworking of Vehicles and Match Maker, so that with ju$t the right amount of behavioural realignment, we can all be master$ of the skie$! -

 

"It's all in the grind" - Ewan McGregor,  Black Hawk Down

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 19 December 2019 - 02:43 AM.


Panoptic #4 Posted 19 December 2019 - 03:50 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4326 battles
  • 144
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

Is money the main objective for WG? Yes. Will they try any and all feasible mind tricks to to get as much money as possible? Yes.

 

WOWP game is fun and reasonably priced. WOT was the same in its first couple of years. When player population grew substantially market elasticity (or lack thereof) allowed them to raise prices. Some people including myself left, but those who stayed paid more. It was pure psycho economics. Overall it worked for WG.

 

That's when I decided to try WOWS. It was much smaller than WOT. The fun-price ratio felt right. Like in WOWP now. But WOWS followed the same trajectory as WOT. Once anime ships, gamble boxes and increasingly astronomical prices became the norm I didn't enjoy playing it any more. The current Puerto Rico storm is not the first PR disaster WG has gone through. They always seem to get passed it. 

 

Then I came to WOWP. This game is a gem. It is fun to play. The grind is far more reasonable than the other titles. The steadily low player pop means WG won't attempt price gouging. There was a direct correlation between title popularity and money making antics in the other titles. Yet, they seem to want to carry this game forward despite the stagnation. WOT and WOWS players probably foot the bill to keep this game afloat. 


The fun-price ratio in WOWP is totally reasonable in my opinion. I will continue playing the game as long as that statement remains true. Currently I am looking forward to the Christmas event. :child::medal:

 



wylleEcoyote #5 Posted 19 December 2019 - 05:22 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6203 battles
  • 1,037
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
All things being equal ... for all the troubles that WG has given me in the last 9 years; at least WeeGee isnt  "consistently"  behaving as badly when it comes to monetization as something like EA.
(and if it was ... i would have dropped this game years ago) 
Gold ammo was the worst problem but they finally managed to address it like we told them to years ago.
And premium vehicles that should have been nerfed Before the release not a few months after was a big issue in tanks.  that they have managed to pull away from that behavior.


WarShips has hit that same wall Tanks did years ago when they ran out of more reasonable tech trees to create.
How to go about addressing it without a full rebalance  and statistical reset (like what happened to Warplanes with the release of version 2)
on Tanks or Ships is still an ongoing concern ... not to mention the power creep has gotten so bad that tech tree tanks released with the begining of the game 9 years ago
are now getting premium versions of them that are one tier lower with barely any changes made to them beyond shaving off some extra hitpoints and not mounting the elite super gun designed to keep the tank competitive in when bottom tiered in +5 matchmaking.  
 

Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is much like my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
Usually I start on the right track and then a make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ... 
And yet it doesn't stop me from speculation.

Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters:   XP-31, Model 81A-1P-39N-1, P-40, XP-55, P-51A, XF15C, DH.100 F1, Spitfire V DB 605,
Fw 56/159, He 51/112, Ar 68/80, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F, Me 209 v4/A, Me P.1092, I-17
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, F11C-2, F4F, P-26 /-35 /-43, XP-44, P-47B,
Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/A-5/D, I- 5 / 15 / 16(e)(l)

Heavy Fighters: P-38 F/J, P-82BXP-58, Beaufighter,  Ao 192, Bf 110 C-6, Me 410, Do 335 A-1, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,

Attack Aircraft: Hs 123, Ha 137, Hs 129 A, Ju 87 G, Me 265, Me 1099 B-2
Bombers: Do 17 Z, He 111 H2, Pe-2, Do 217 M
 


BB3_Oregon_Steel #6 Posted 19 December 2019 - 07:24 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1639 battles
  • 660
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-26-2015

Ok, I've played a few online games with slightly different monetization schemes.  

 

Tanks seems to be the land of the golden/silver bullet. You're access to premium ammunition has a huge impact on the game.  If you want to be competitive, you need access to that ammunition and that is typically going to cost you real dollars.  

 

Planes has a similar, though less severe, issue.  Premium ammunition can significantly improve the performance of your plane and planes with that ammunition are in a significantly better position than planes without it and it doesn't seem to be all that easy to earn in game.  Specialization also creates distinct advantages but at least it can be reasonably earned $ free by earning parts and paying silver. 

 

Ships, fortunately, doesn't have the golden/silver bullet thingee.  No matter how much you are spending in real $, your ships are going to be firing the exact same rounds as a ship fresh out of the box.  There are a number of things like Modifications and Cammo's and Commander Skills which can be used to improve accuracy of your guns while making you a more difficult to hit target which is useful and there are signal flags and Skills that can make your ship more survivable, buff your rate of fire etc ... .  

 

The difference here is that pretty much all of these things can reasonably be earned in game and paid for in silver, not gold.  That doesn't mean you won't occasionally tap your bank account for something now and then, but the point is that it's very difficult for a "whale" to purchase wins since there are very few things you can access with $/gold, that can't be accessed in game or with silver, and those few things don't provide enough of an advantage to make them "must haves" if you intend to be successful.

 

Of course there are other games out there when the "pay to win" or even "pay to advance" or "pay to continue playing" methods are more in your face and upfront. 

 

WG is in the business to make money and, obviously, the whole 2013 thing didn't work out the way they expected, so it's not unreasonable for them to do the things necessary to make that money.  In order to be profitable, they have to not just have a lot of players, they need to entice those players to pay them real money one way or another. 

 

In looking over WG's 2013 plan, it's pretty apparent to me that the concept they tried to apply was flawed.  I, for example, have zero interest in paying money for a fancy paint job on my planes.  If I am going to pay for something, it's going to because it puts a new toy for me to discover in my hanger or it provides some sort of desired benefit.  I think the whole thing about custom paint jobs is now pretty much a Planes only thing.  I don't know, anyone in Tanks able to buy a cammo that just looks cool rather than cammo that actually does something?  

 

While I think the whole "pay to win" thingee is a bad move, which the article clearly explains, providing some items with bonuses which help the player, but do not make them greatly advantaged, is a decent approach, especially if those advantages can be reasonably earned in game.  That way people who don't want to grind them out can buy them and use them, but not so much as to create an unbeatable advantage. 


Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel, 20 December 2019 - 01:17 AM.

"Don't mess with me because I can squish you like a bug, that is If I should decide to notice your existence in the first place".  

 

Yes, it's haughty and its arrogant but you're a battleship with 16 inch guns and Britannia Rules the Waves.  Maybe a bit of arrogance in this case is appropriate.  


mullyman #7 Posted 19 December 2019 - 07:57 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 36 battles
  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

41:30 Question from audience- "what about situation when players lose?" Answer- ".. digging into a lot of research on players positive and negative emotions and how they will behave when they experience both...but people experience a lot more pain when they lose, … their behaviour can be very controversial, you can never predict,... very often when people lose playing our game, depending on the seriousness,  they just quit the game. They don't want to buy anything. They don't want to buy another upgrade, they don't want to buy another consumable... to kick azz. Because they're so upset, they just want to forget about it. That's the most common behaviour.... Negative emotions are a lot more powerful, so have to be careful how to deal with them..."

 

They created a game where you can have safe spaces.....and ruined what used to be a fun game.   Typical of the trophy generation.


mullyman.png

trikke #8 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:26 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 3904 battles
  • 3,801
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
lots to digest here.      but not a lot of new ideas that will attract and keep new players
Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

Perrigrino #9 Posted 06 January 2020 - 10:42 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

Excellent points. Thank you all.

 

And just to be clear, I support monetization for entertainment purposes, and have over the years contributed hundreds of dollar$ to WG and others (dancers), 

 

One of the problems, as I and a few others have commented, is with the not so recent Patch that gave us SPECIALIZATION, which I think was a way to improve the monetization of the game, may have in fact led to the evolution of a serious im-BALANCE in game design.

 

With the advent of Specialization, a player can "buff" their vehicle till it reaches an altogether different (incredibly domineering) level of performance. Combine that with a player who has been playing for some years, so that the pilot skills are maxed out, and the vehicle then becomes a "super" vehicle.

 

This presents a few problems- Two of the more serious are: 1.New Players will be discouraged. 2. Balanced Battles are difficult to set up. 

 

Having different vehicle types- I get it. Like a Chess game. Different pieces with different moves and abilities. Some more powerful than others. But a Chess game is balanced because both sides have the identical pieces with varying powers and abilities.

 

Now imagine a Chess game where you have UBER SPECIALIZED Pawns, or Rooks, or whatever in a disproportionate amount on one side compared to the other. Give the veteran player the Specialized pieces, and the beginner the regular pieces. Who will win? Is this FAIR? IS THIS BALANCE? For the moment put aside arguments of developing player skills, challlenge etc., and just focus on BALANCE.

 

Should WG make money?-  Absolutely. No argument from me. The question for me is whether this recent development - SPECIALIZATION, is an appropriate way to continue in terms of Monetization? What will this game look like 2 years from now? I see new players trying it on here and there but do they stay with the game or give up in frustration when facing 5 Specialized planes on one side compared to 1 on theirs? Or when there is a disproportionate number of up-tiered heavies or multi-roles on one side and not the other? Some have been playing for solong that their pilots have all 15 skill points- a massive testatment to their loyalty. In the upper tiers, some of those players dominate, and so they should, given the EXTRA-ORDINARY POWERS OF THEIR VEHICLES AND PILOTS.

 

Ships, in CO-OP, for the most part, MATCHES Tier for Tier and Class to Class, evenly across the roster. It, again for the most part, if one excludes the buffeting added by signals, cammo, commander skills,. etc., makes a fairly Balanced Match.

 

But some of the mash-ups that have been witnessed recently in WorldofWarPlanes with the ongoing changes to Match Maker (constantly unannounced changes), it is a bit of a stretch to even remotely suggest that the Battles are BALANCED. They simply are NOT. If one of the stated aims of the company is to provide BALANCED MATCHES, then they need to rethink the direction of SPECIALIZATION because by its very nature leads to UN-BALANCE. There are other way to introduce monetization schemes, and generate profit to keep the game viable and build a player base to expand the number of modes. Don't know about Tanks, but Ships has at least 5 different modes of play, sometimes more, and "does/did" have a loyal customer base.

 

Of someof the other MMO games out there like PUBG, and especially FORTNITE (my son has finaly stopped playing but my teenage daughter is now taking up the e-sport)- their monetization scheme is effective without compromizing BALANCE in Matches.

 

And Wargaminmg continues to use concepts such as BALANCE in a way that is mystifying.

 

From Wargamings website: https://wargaming.com/en/about/

 

"A Leading Free to Play Company- Our titles rest upon the concept of fair and balanced free-to-play, meaning every player can enjoy their title to the fullest."

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 16 January 2020 - 09:09 AM.


Perrigrino #10 Posted 16 January 2020 - 09:11 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

Cherry Picking from the 4ums:

View PostPanoptic, on 31 December 2019 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

I don't want to. Up until now I have stubbornly finished every match. But the game stops being enjoyable when I run into the same 10-20 65%+ w/r players flighted up in specialized planes while I am stuck with a far weaker team mate. It is always worse during 5x events too

 

Unit23 #12 Posted 31 December 2019 - 11:24 PM

Airman Basic

 

Just my thoughts as a averagely skilled  player. I agree with you about removing flights, not about dropping out of battles. Just have it that flights sit in the queue till there is another flight, no all bot games for you. I have found myself getting super salty lately when I'm on a fail team and decided to that a week or two off from wowps.

 

It's aggravating and turns a lot of new players off, The MM needs to take specialist and ultimate equipment into account. Having said that, I know there are fail flights and not all specialist are good players, but flights, specialization, and ultimate equipment are very strong magnifiers and should be taken into account for matching, and we are not even talking about the OP meta planes. Seeing 3, 4 or even 5 specialist on red team while my beloved blue team has none is very disheartening. does that mean an automatic loss? No, just an 90% chance of a loss.  

 

 



Perrigrino #11 Posted 31 January 2020 - 01:45 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

 

Funny, witty, and just absolutely engaging, Robert Sapolsky in this lecture provides some solid science into why "we" keep hitting the Battle Button. From this I see the "grind by design" element in many online computer games.

 

MAYBE wargaming will repackage the game with even more components to grind, or regrind, cause I need my dopamine fix.

 

If you have time, check out the entire lecture and some of his others- fascinating.


Edited by Perrigrino, 31 January 2020 - 01:48 AM.


CorvusCorvax #12 Posted 31 January 2020 - 03:28 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4489 battles
  • 4,754
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPerrigrino, on 31 January 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

 

Funny, witty, and just absolutely engaging, Robert Sapolsky in this lecture provides some solid science into why "we" keep hitting the Battle Button. From this I see the "grind by design" element in many online computer games.

 

MAYBE wargaming will repackage the game with even more components to grind, or regrind, cause I need my dopamine fix.

 

If you have time, check out the entire lecture and some of his others- fascinating.

With no endgame content, what else have we to do?  Grind up to T10.  Cool, now grind out all specialists.  Cool, now grind out maximizing the equipment of specialists.  Great job, now finish it up by getting ALL the pilot skills!

 

That would take a lot of time.  During which, new planes come out, which also have grinds of their own.  EXCELLENT, oh, and make sure the economy is JUST good enough so that the good players can just about break even, while middle players show a slight deficit over time, and have to buy gold to keep flying...



Perrigrino #13 Posted 01 February 2020 - 02:01 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 31 January 2020 - 03:28 PM, said:

With no endgame content, what else have we to do?  Grind up to T10.  Cool, now grind out all specialists.  Cool, now grind out maximizing the equipment of specialists.  Great job, now finish it up by getting ALL the pilot skills!

 

That would take a lot of time.  During which, new planes come out, which also have grinds of their own.  EXCELLENT, oh, and make sure the economy is JUST good enough so that the good players can just about break even, while middle players show a slight deficit over time, and have to buy gold to keep flying...


aha eh ah eh? YES! Thank you Corvus



Perrigrino #14 Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:20 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

and now for some more "pure off topic" gameplay information:

 

From WoWS newest Patch 0.9.1

 

Numerous vehicles are "nerfed" "buffed" or otherwise altered. And details are provided here:

 

forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/211189-update-091

 

Game Balance Changes

In Update 0.9.1, we've changed the characteristics of several ships, having analyzed their combat performance and taken player feedback into account. Such changes were required in order to carefully adjust the balance of selected warships. We'll continue to introduce changes in the updates that will follow, if deemed necessary.

 

What makes this interesting for WoWP clients/customers? Aside from details of the changes and the fact there was an update and there was flow of information, there was mention of changes to "sigma" for a couple of ships. What does this mean? Well, in WG Ships Wiki (https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming)

there is this:

 

Gunnery and Aiming 

Aiming in World of Warships is an essential part of gameplay. As one will notice during their first matches there are numerous things that need to be considered, as shells require time to travel from the gun barrel to their point of impact and that often the shell will not land where one aimed. 

Leading a target 

As most targets will be moving when being fired at and due to the time required for the shell to travel, the player has to aim at a point in which ideally both the target and the shell will arrive at the same time to score a hit. This required knowledge on two pieces of information: How long does the shell travel and how fast is the target going? 

 

Accuracy 

 

However perfectly a naval gun on a stationary ship may be laying, successive rounds will not impact on a single point but will fall in a pattern scattered both in deflection and in range. This phenomenon is called dispersion and, irrespective of human and constant error, it is caused by multiple inherent factors: minor variations in the weight of the projectile, differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant, variations in the temperature of the bore from round to round, physical limitations of precision in setting values of deflection and quadrant elevation on the respective scales, minor variations in wind, air density or air pressure, and so on. 

 

 

Edited by Perrigrino, 14 February 2020 - 04:58 AM.


Perrigrino #15 Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:30 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

cont'd

Shell dispersion 

Observing the position of the surface bursts around our point of aim, we find that they fall into a roughly elliptical area in relation to the line of fire. An ellipse constructed around the dispersion area is called the dispersion ellipse. Every time a player orders his main caliber guns to fire, the game engine constructs a 2-D ellipse around the point of aim, and does so independently for each salvo fired. A double-click will fire all guns in one salvo with one dispersion ellipse, sequential fire will construct dispersion ellipse for each turret salvo separately. This ellipse has a certain length and width values, which are dependent on the characteristics of the gun. The dispersion value displayed in port is the horizontal length of the dispersion ellipse at the maximum fire range, i.e. a value that describes the lateral distribution of the shells relative to the player's ship. 

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:ShipDispersion.jpg

 

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 14 February 2020 - 04:33 AM.


Perrigrino #16 Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:34 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

Shell impacts within the dispersion ellipse are not uniformly distributed over the surface, but lie more thickly towards the center of aim. The intensity with which the shells fall in different points of the area of dispersion, can be described by a Gaussian (normal) distribution. The in-port value describes dispersion in terms of one probable error, i.e. it gives a value where 50% of the fired shells will land around the point of aim. This has been confirmed by experiments conducted by the players. Port dispersion value (red bar in the graph below) is the standard deviation (green bar) of shell hits across the horizontal axis of the dispersion ellipse: 

 

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Fuso_max_range_Dispersion.jpeg

 

If the shooting distance is below the maximum range, the horizontal dispersion value decreases accordingly. Horizontal dispersion values at distances other than maximum firing range, as well as the vertical dispersion values have not been made public by WarGaming. However, based on the user collected data we know lines of tech tree ships are tied to specific formulas to determine horizontal dispersion. The graph below shows the dispersion curves for each ship in the game, followed by it's table and the formulas used.

 

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 14 February 2020 - 04:38 AM.


Perrigrino #17 Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:42 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6555 battles
  • 385
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

last little bit...

 

( images are really helpful and links provided as no authority to copy)

 

Sigma 

Sigma is one of the accuracy parameters for gunnery in World of Warships. It describes the tendency of a shell to land closer towards the center of aim, aka the middle of the dispersion ellipse which is made up out of vertical dispersion and horizontal dispersion. The higher the Sigma is, the more likely the shells are to land closer towards the center. 

The graphic below showcases a high sigma (blue) and an average sigma (red) and their respective distribution of shells on the horizontal axis. The dotted line is the normal distribution generated from these results. Note that those values have been gathered by players in training rooms and are thus not 100% accurate, however they do demonstrate roughly how sigma

works.

 

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Sigma.png

 

Sigma parameters are mostly uniform for destroyers and cruisers, but vary drastically for the battleships. The following tables are as of 0.8.6. Clones and duplicates will not be listed twice, for them refer to the original ship (e.g. for ARP Myoko refer to Myoko). The cruiser table will only give the default sigma values and then list the exceptions. If a ship is not an exception, it will have the default sigma value (e.g. Mogami is not an exception, and will thus have a 2.0 sigma as a Tier VIII cruiser).

 

...and then there are numerous tables showing the various values for vehicles in all Tiers and slightly different values for Premium ships. Which is amazing, compared to the paucity of information provided by the plane studio. Wouldn't it be helpful to have something similar here in plane? -Yes of course, instead of the usual pabulum. There is little doubt that Planes Studio uses a very similar architecture and it would be nice to see something along these lines for WoWP Wiki.  More than "nice". It's like requiring assembly instructions, or an operational manual, even safety data sheet. Spending money on something and not knowing how it works, then finding out months and years later should not be the norm.

 

see: https://wiki.wargami...n/Gunnery_(WoWP) for comparison. And this part: "Look carefully at the target for bullet strikes and debris. If you don't see any, you need to re-aim. Also, the tracers from your guns will show you the path of your bullets." is woefully useless to a person like me that suffers from degrading eye sight. Can't even see the shots or tracers in close proximity to vehicles, only the sound of bullets hitting, when sound working properly. 

 

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 14 February 2020 - 05:09 AM.






Also tagged with design, gaming, behaviour, psychology, monetization

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users