Quality-of-Life Changes

Most of these are Not QoL changes (that's something like: make it so that I don't have to click X before I click Y), and since most are about balancing, they are controversial by defintion.

And maybe I shouldn't talk out of place here, but "not too much effort"? Balancing takes months/years of playtesting, some of the 1.5 units are STILL not quite right according to the developers themselves, who regularly do small rebalancing changes! The suggestion about the stealth of commando's was appreciated by freezy a few months ago, but still no sign of implementation... how long do you think it takes to work through a list like this??

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Most of these are Not QoL changes (that's something like: make it so that I don't have to click X before I click Y), and since most are about balancing, they are controversial by defintion.

And maybe I shouldn't talk out of place here, but "not too much effort"? Balancing takes months/years of playtesting, some of the 1.5 units are STILL not quite right according to the developers themselves, who regularly do small rebalancing changes! The suggestion about the stealth of commando's was appreciated by freezy a few months ago, but still no sign of implementation... how long do you think it takes to work through a list like this??

Also yea I do agree, "not too much effort" is a bit condescending. My apologies. For the balancing changes, it makes sense that devs don't hastily implement such changes, but some of the suggestions have been there for a while, so just wanted an official update. Most of the community (on the forum, at least), generally do want a rebalancing of cruisers, DD/subs, commandos and convoys. Even for ABs, even tho it hasn't been that bad of a unit, it is clearly secondary to tacs, even tho they should have equal status. RA and SPRA do definitely need an update, they're no longer a 'special' part of the game, making having elite units for them for consistency's stake nice. Even a slight buff to speeds of SP units would be nice (tho I didn't mention it in the list)

Basically, I just wanna see what the devs are willing to implement, where their focus is, especially since operations and flame tanks have been released.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Most of these are Not QoL changes (that's something like: make it so that I don't have to click X before I click Y), and since most are about balancing, they are controversial by defintion.

Sadly, the focus of developers (or rather: the people paying the salaries to the developers) is on monetization... that entire "operations" thing with all the boosters is just a devilishly clever scheme to diffuse P2W into a seemingly common activity. It makes no sense to me how "balancing" could remain a relevant subject when you can carry these amounts of "free earnings" from one game to the next, but it is the wet dream of the monetizers, of course... soon people won't be able to "see" who is golding and who is just spending free boosters. And that's exactly what they're aiming for, of course... when coiners are hated when they are seen (as they are), just make them become more invisible. From a game play perspective, it is ludicrous to take resources from one game to the next, but from the business perspective at Bytro HQ it is genius. In the final analysis, they don't give a f*ck about balancing, or even about creating an interesting or fair game, they only want to create an environment where people are encouraged to spend.

So if you want to hail @freezy like a god on this forum, maybe he is, but remember that he works for the devil. The devil isn't interested in giving us fun, he's only interested in corrupting our souls.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

So if you want to hail @freezy like a god on this forum, maybe he is, but remember that he works for the devil. The devil isn't interested in giving us fun, he's only interested in corrupting our souls.

It is a shame tho, I do see what you mean by the monetisation stuff. Shame that it it the way it is, but it's the cost of a free game, as paradoxical as it sounds...

Finally! And yes! Monetization stuff is very sad and all, but what can be done? I guess we’d better enjoy the last few years or months of this games playability, then.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

So, a couple of forum members (Car, Claud, Sam) and I have gathered a list of highly demanded changes to CoW (and some regarding the forum) by the community as a whole, that would not require too much effort to be put in and aren't gamebreaking and that do not threaten the balance. These changes are also meant to be as non-controversial as possible, but if anyone has problems with the suggestions, do respond below. I would also like the devs (and by devs, I mean @freezy, since only he listens to us) to give their comments and such below.

*Controversial, doubt it would be made a thing, but a suggestion nonetheless

1. First and foremost, the inconsistent unit reinforcement bug must be fixed.
2. Uselessness of Flying Bombs (no one makes them except newbies or AI, one of the only units that isn't balanced properly)
3. Comintern needing slight boosts to hold its own against other doctrines (Its fine against Pan-Asian, but Allies and Axis will shred it if both players are equal skill level)
4. Sub/DD balance, subs are a bit too strong ATM
5. Cruisers need a slight buff for dmg against air
6. Naming of units (are BBs containing a whole squadron or just one, what bout CVs, etc.)
7. Better naming system
8. More customizability (perhaps the ability to rename your country from a selection of names, renaming armies)
9. ABs not having same (or at the very least similar) levels of research compared to tacs (5 to 7, yikes)
10. Actually, looking at it, all planes except AB have 7 levels (counting elite units)
11. *Maybe the ability to make higher level buildings, up to level 7? The cost to make such a building should be ludicrously high, but it feels necessary since units like ACs and LTs are more efficient to research since their peak effectiveness is reached and can be made with minimum production time. Other units like mot inf, mech inf, MTs and HTs suffer from this problem (when was the last time you saw someone producing any unit in the latter group?)
12. Extra models for T2 units without them (planes, inf, and ships, in that order)
13. Reintroduction of equal resources (RMs would be consistent with other resources)
14. Coupled with the top suggestion, a rebalancing of RA and SPRA (3 and 2 levels respectively..., with no elite units.) Same for rockets and RFs
15. Commando rebalancing
16. Convoy levels affecting the embarkment/disembarkment speed, and tiles that swap affecting that speed as well.
17. More gamerules when creating games (larger coalitions, no/limited coalition cooldown, more choice with custom maps w/ higher gold fees, speed games, research caps...)

The further suggestions are for the forum, not the game itself

1. Add back polls
2. Add back ability to talk in the manual section of the forum
3. Add "other" gender option

I'm sure there are other things that would be appreciated being added to the games and forums, but this is all I (and hte others) could think of. This thread was supposed to be made like 2 weeks ago but procrastination so...here it is now! (Better late than never )

I agree with @Zaktty. They are meant to be useless and only a stepping stone to missiles, not a stand alone unit. Plus there are plenty other unbalanced units, this is not the only one of its type…

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Most of these are Not QoL changes (that's something like: make it so that I don't have to click X before I click Y), and since most are about balancing, they are controversial by defintion.

And maybe I shouldn't talk out of place here, but "not too much effort"? Balancing takes months/years of playtesting, some of the 1.5 units are STILL not quite right according to the developers themselves, who regularly do small rebalancing changes! The suggestion about the stealth of commando's was appreciated by freezy a few months ago, but still no sign of implementation... how long do you think it takes to work through a list like this??

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

This list isn't meant to implemented, just discussed. I want to see how important the devs feel some of these issues are. Are they satisfied with the balancing changes? Will they implement more balancing changes in the near future? What's the timeline they have mapped out to fix these issues?

Also yea I do agree, "not too much effort" is a bit condescending. My apologies. For the balancing changes, it makes sense that devs don't hastily implement such changes, but some of the suggestions have been there for a while, so just wanted an official update. Most of the community (on the forum, at least), generally do want a rebalancing of cruisers, DD/subs, commandos and convoys. Even for ABs, even tho it hasn't been that bad of a unit, it is clearly secondary to tacs, even tho they should have equal status. RA and SPRA do definitely need an update, they're no longer a 'special' part of the game, making having elite units for them for consistency's stake nice. Even a slight buff to speeds of SP units would be nice (tho I didn't mention it in the list)

Basically, I just wanna see what the devs are willing to implement, where their focus is, especially since operations and flame tanks have been released.

I agree that many of these changes can't be considered QoL and I would also say that some of them are controversial, or at least I did not see a widespread consensus on them (for example the balancing change requests). But if the list was only posted for discussion, then yes, please feel free to discuss the points on the list. But perhaps discussing all of them in the same thread will get quite confusing. So I will also refrain from commenting on specific ones now.

I think it would be preferable if some of the changes get grouped logically and then separate discussion threads get created for them.

In terms of effort, balancing changes are actually the fastest changes we can make. Because they do not require any programmers or artists, they are literally just some value changes. Of course they require some thinking and testing, but usually such changes are preferable over making code changes.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Sadly, the focus of developers (or rather: the people paying the salaries to the developers) is on monetization... that entire "operations" thing with all the boosters is just a devilishly clever scheme to diffuse P2W into a seemingly common activity. It makes no sense to me how "balancing" could remain a relevant subject when you can carry these amounts of "free earnings" from one game to the next, but it is the wet dream of the monetizers, of course... soon people won't be able to "see" who is golding and who is just spending free boosters. And that's exactly what they're aiming for, of course... when coiners are hated when they are seen (as they are), just make them become more invisible. From a game play perspective, it is ludicrous to take resources from one game to the next, but from the business perspective at Bytro HQ it is genius. In the final analysis, they don't give a f*ck about balancing, or even about creating an interesting or fair game, they only want to create an environment where people are encouraged to spend.

So if you want to hail @freezy like a god on this forum, maybe he is, but remember that he works for the devil. The devil isn't interested in giving us fun, he's only interested in corrupting our souls.

As a free2play game there will always be a little bit of devil inside. That's (sadly) just the nature of this business model, and it also cannot be changed for the existing products. But we can try to keep the devilish parts in check so that the game is still enjoyable by many. One could even argue that all executives of companies are devils because they all look to maximize the profit, while the employees are there to find a balanced approach, I don't think you'd find alot of companies where this is not the case. Well, Capitalism...

I also wouldn't be so harsh in this description. Designers at Bytro actually care for the balancing. Even the devil wants you to have fun, because usually people who have fun with a product are more willing to pay for it. What is fun and interesting is of course subjective. For example there are actually alot of people who have fun with getting and spending all the free operation rewards, even though they like the strategic aspect of the game as well. I guess they see it as an extension of the strategic aspect onto the meta level? Not everyone in the player base is a hardcore purist.

I wanted to write a longer response but I think we had this whole business model discussion many times in the past already and there is not much new things to say about it and also not much that can be done about it. It is what it is, the sides and arguments are known and everyone who sticks around knows what this game is and what it isn't.

(good that my own game won't be free2play so I don't have to deal with this dilemma )

I think the the biggest takeaway here is that CAPITALISM is the ideology of all time.