Talk:World of Warships

Citations

Can somebody please dig up the citations for the Gameplay section. Interviews seem to be the locations, but it looks like they were written in a hurry (the English in them wasn't very good).

World of warship slovakia language

Ahoj Ja osbne som WOWS nehrala ale hravam WOT. Myslim zeWOWS je podobna hra.Ale sami posudte.Ako moze posudzovat ten co nehral.Ja napisem svoj nazor. Takze zoberme si ponaucenie z WOT.Chcela by som si to nainstalova downlowdowat ale este nie . Napiste svoje nazory do tejto sekcie. dakujem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.198.38 (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay

Now that the nda has been lifted on world of warships can somone who is a beta tester possibly update the page with tech trees and warship types? If not since I am a beta tester I can do it as well. Nick Hartman (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is maintaining verifiability: NDA is lifted, however content still needs to be factual and properly backed up with citations, and its rather difficult to maintain a good standard of reliability if first and third-party sources are not available. You can by all means attempt to start on a more detailed gameplay section, however keep in mind that the article is likely to face scrutiny by many editors if it doesn't meet WP:V standards. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably the easiest thing to do would be to watch some of the videos posted by "Jingles" and a few other testers and then work out an average review based on that. Kitsunedawn (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am a closed alpha tester and I currently have CBT access, my concern wasn't being unable to obtain information about the gameplay; my concern is that we are unable to properly cite information about the gameplay, based on Wikipedia's referencing requirements. We definitely will not be able to use The Mighty Jingles videos to cite anything, since they don't meet WP:RS. In addition, we cannot simply work out an average review based on what Youtube personalities say, as that would constitute original research which is strictly prohibited. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to give it a go to talk about the gameplay. Here's a sample of what I'm thinking: "Gameplay in World of Warships deviates from the existing gameplay in World of Tanks, and World of Warplanes, by removing a number of tactics commonly found in Wargaming's other titles; and instead introduces players to a whole new way of looking at things. For comparison, in World of Tanks, vehicles are generally unable to destroy and in some cases even damage opposing vehicles which are more than two tiers above that of the player's vehicle. Furthermore, the existing standard of light vehicles being scouts, medium vehicles being fast attack, and heavy vehicles and artillery serving to deal with other heavy vehicles, plays no real part in World of Warships. Instead, players of all tiers are equally able to damage ships of any other tier, though the effectiveness of such fire diminishes greatly as the tier spread is extended further and further. Meaning that a tier 3 destroyer is equally as likely to be able to sink a tier 9 battleship; as that same destroyer is likely to be able to fare well against vehicles of its own tier. Second, the previous standards established on vehicle type are removed, and instead replaced with a system of checks and balances. Destroyers are, by game design, meant to take on and destroy larger ships with their torpedoes, cruisers are to hunt and kill destroyers as well as providing anti air support for battleships, battleships are intended to hunt and kill cruisers and other battleships; while lastly, carriers are meant to kill battleships and other carriers, as well as providing air support and defense against other ships. "

Obviously, the above would need work, but it would lay out some of the basics of what Wargaming seems to have intended, without giving too many details and overly confusing the reader. Kitsunedawn (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Has there been any further discussion on adding the tech trees? It would be a huge task, but I could take it on if it was deemed useful. It would also require edits whenever ships get moved around/introduced. Thoughts? - NsTaGaTr (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps discuss one tech tree as an example as to how tech trees are done in the game, and merely mention that other tech trees exist (i.e. british have destroyers, cruisers and battleships, etc). CommissarPat (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay could be expanded to include discussion of PvP (including random battles, clan wars, and ranked), PvE (Coop, Operations). Events may also be worth mentioning separately. CommissarPat (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Open Beta vs. Released?

Given that the game lists itself as "Open Beta" I can understand the inclusion of this in the article. However, they also have the micro transaction store open, and players are able to purchase in game currency and ships. There's also no pending wipes like happened in the closed beta. Given this, would it not be reasonable to note that the game is in "release" but note that the company considers this a beta? It's worth noting that World of Tanks, though it's been out several years now, still is considered in "Open beta" as well. Kitsunedawn (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas is not a Clemson-class destroyer

I'd like to note that Nicholas is a paper design. It's a 1919 destroyer leader project based off the Clemson-class. It's similar in design to the Clemson but it is not a real ship and has no operational history.24.166.71.36 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Versions

World of Warships is now available in several different versions and a sections may be worth including as seen on the World of Tanks Wikipedia page, since they're very similar in philisophy. CommissarPat (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World of Warships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wargaming.com/en/news/2011/08/16/wargamingnet-declares-naval-warfare
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wargaming.com/en/news/2012/08/02/wargaming-renames-world-battleships-world-warships

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edited with facts, not opinions, so why delete?

Currently WoWs is fending off complaints that the premium ship Texas that is being offered with a US flag camo is illegal under US Code. Specifically, Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the national flag of the United States of America. Although not actively enforced, their use of the flag in this manor is illegal as it is not covered under the pass that is given by the US supreme court for freedom of speech. As they have a North American branch with offices in the US, they are subject to US law.

http://www.standunited.org/petition/foriegn-company-operating-in-the-us-and-showing-disrespect-to-its-flag-for-profit

The link maybe should have been sited as a source. I could add the email graphics that show them MARKETING the image of the likeness of the flag. I could cite the laws of all 5 states they have offices in. All make using the flag for marketing illegal. The fact that I am an offended American Veteran is me preaching and soapboxing. The fact that I left opinion out and only cited FACTS, should let my edit stand with maybe these minor changes:

Currently WoWs is fending off complaints that the premium ship Texas that is being offered with a US flag camo is illegal under US Code. Specifically, Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the national flag of the United States of America. Although not actively enforced, their use of the flag in this manor is being purported to be illegal as it is not covered under the pass that is given by the US Supreme Court for Freedom of Speech. As they have a North American branch with offices in 5 US States, they are subject to both US Federal and State laws.

Removing my entire edit is in and of itself being opinionated. As long as what is being added is factual, and concerns the subject of the page, it should stand. There are awards and good ratings listed, why not negative reception? To rule out negative facts is making the article biased.

O2bpsycho (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless this receives coverage from reliable third-party sources, this is just petty community squabbles that don't belong on the article. Eik Corell (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Add review score from Pivotal Gamers at the "Reception" section of the article

Pivotal Gamers awarded it a score of 8.0 out of 10 based on its overall performance across the WEB, categorizing it as a great game to play.

Pivotal Gamers (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pivotal Gamers, and thank you for your suggestion. I am going to decline this edit request because there are already several reviews of World of Warships in this article, and the review on your website is much less detailed than the ones that already serve as citations. I agree with you that World of Warships is a great game to play, but since the other reviews give a deeper justification than just calling the game "great", adding your review wouldn't bring an additional perspective to this article. Altamel (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Altamel, our short game review is located at http://www.pivotalgamers.com/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-review/ so we are not just calling the game "great". Thus If you believe that this review justifies a link back to Pivotal Gamers please use the review page URL rather than the main page URL as a reference.Pivotal Gamers (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There are bigger problems than the lack of notability of that website, namely that the layout and design seems to be a rough copy of gamespot.com, which opens up the can of worms that is copyright issues. Eik Corell (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Criticism

I’ve heard a lot of members in the WoWs community complaining about the constant balance changes, especially about new ships. I feel like we should add those people’s perspectives into the article, maybe even add the “Flamu incident” YouTubers would be a really good source for this topic Edskiash (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tech Tree

Unfortunately I am inexperienced in creating tables with links in Wikipedia. Is there someone who can create them if I send him the tables and the corresponding intra-Wikipedia links? Adding them may be good for an overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMS Krieg (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)