Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
LunaticRed

WG’s fallacy

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
341 posts
2,790 battles

Hi,

 

Rarely do we get developers thoughts on why they changed certain aspects of the game. What drives a successful or failure of a game is feedback, both by the players and the developers. Of course, it is up to the developers to interpret and improve the game based on feedback by the players. Not to mention the mass secrecy of the game numbers, only through datamining can certain values be known to the public. Numbers such as detection distance for planes are still missing.

 

WG gave us a nice explanation of why they want to change the skills here: http://forum.worldofwarships.asia/index.php?/topic/21448-why-did-we-redesign-commander-skills/

 

Now WG has made a few fallacies and I will decipher each one.

 

What we didn’t like?

1.           5 levels of commander’s skills made for too long of an upgrade at the end, and it was hard to justify the usefulness of 5 points.

2.           Different numbers of skills on different levels, and “way too deep upgrades” also reduced variability - for each ship / type, in many cases, there was only one optimal combination. This negated the purpose of the skills – together with upgrades, they allow players to fine-tune the ship for individual styles of play.

3.           In the current version of the game, there was an imbalance of certain skills in either cost or effectiveness.

4.           There were only a few skills suited for aircraft carriers.

5.           Current skill classification focused on the obvious – on the characteristics affected, not the style of the game.

6.           There was a "practical" limit (18 points) and a "theoretical" one (19); after these, a commander’s development was completely unclear.

 

  1. Yes, 15 points was a long way to an upgrade but the usefulness of 5 points was extreme. Skills such as Concealment expert, Air superiority and Manual Secondaries are possible to dictate the tide of the whole match.
  2. True to an extent, more later.
  3. An imbalance of certain skills in cost/effectiveness is true, which causes this “optimal combination”. This is also true for your 6.0.0 skills where T1 and T2 are probably more useless than the current skill sets.
  4. True., but also true for the changed skills.
  5. Still focuses on characteristics in your changed skills.
  6. True.

 

How did we deal with these issues?

1.           Now the maximum cost of a skill is 4 points. The maximum number of points is 19; the speed of upgrading at the end was increased, and in the beginning – slightly reduced. This sets a smoother and more interesting tempo for upgrading a commander at all stages.

2.           The number of skills increased, the matrix grew “in width”. As a result, we get a lot of interesting new combinations, and a far greater variability.

3.           Many skills were changed for the better balance. For example, Preventive Maintenance – previously a very expensive skill with an unjustified-for-five-points effect was slightly weakened and moved to level 1 – now, the bonus looks more appealing, considering the new cost. Basics of Survivability and Basic Firing Training, on the other hand,  were too powerful for the previous cost of 1 point (and therefore, uncontested) – they were moved to level 3 (and Basic Firing Training got an increased effect on AA defenses).

4.           2 specialized skills were added for aircraft carriers.

5.           Classification was revised in terms of playing style. New skill groups — EnduranceAttackSupport, and Versatility — provide a better understanding of the purpose of the skills.

6.           After receiving the 19th skill point (which in the new versin has an adequate cost, and not the previous 9,999,999 XP), a Commander starts earning special, Elite Experience. It can be spent profitably: upgrading other commanders, quick retraining, or redistributing skills.

 

  1. Ok, now the grind is even harder for people under 14 points. Before, the struggle was to get to the 15th point where the valuable skills were. The only smooth tempo you have set are for the more experienced players.
  2. The only reason variability increased is due to the maximum tier of skills being 4. This allows you to take “5 point” skills with another “5 point” skill, opening up “variation”. There are still strict sets of skills that you take on all classes.
  3. If balance meant that BBs got buffed while Cruisers, and mainly Destroyers and Carriers get nerfed then yes, you have balanced the skills. The only skill which was extremely cost efficient was BFT for DDs and only because you removed SA, was the reason why DDs got BFT.
  4. The usefulness of these “specialized skills” again proves that WG does not play carriers themselves.
  5. There was already a classification albeit brief. The new classification seems only to be put in place due to more skills being made available. How is manual Secondaries Endurance and how is evasive manoeuvre not endurance?
  6. This is a great change.

 

What changes to gameplay should be expected?

1.           There will be fewer universal skill sets in the game and far more specialized ones focused on a particular approach to a ship. For example, a battleship will be easier and more effectively upgraded for survivability of anti-torpedo armament, but to fit everything fully into one skill set will be difficult.

2.           There will be specific skills, around which interesting tactics can be built. For example, Radio Position Finding will let destroyers and cruisers effectively specialize in fighting for points and hunting destroyers. Inertia Fuze for HE Shells motivates players to change firing HE shells from “throwing fire around” into aiming at weak points and doing direct damage. Adrenaline Rush will encourage the most aggressive play, and will provide an opportunity to emerge victorious from a complex combat situation - and so on.

3.           With the release of this version, all players can reset their skills for free. Furthermore, new elite experience will allow continuing redistribution in the future, so that experimentation will not have to be paid for with doubloons.

 

  1. As opposed to previously where the only versatility for ships were AA build or a strict Bos/BFT > Last Stand/Expert Gunner/ > SI/Vig > AFT/SE/DE > CE/Manual Sec? It seems there are far more universal skill sets when you have so many good options all cramped at T3 and T4. You also said previously that you opened up “variation” yet you wish for more specialized skills for each ship.
  2. Your examples given are really, really weak. Sure, you expect a more versatile gameplay from these skills but there really isn’t. The skills presented at T1 and T2 are failures of skills where people will exclusively get Preventative maintenance/Two for one and Last Stand/Expert Gunner. Fiery Takeoff isn’t going to make CV players sail directly with their fleets in the front line. Not to mention the fallacy of “tactics”. The whole point of “tactics” is to position well so that you can surprise ambush your opponents. This factor is eliminated by having Radio Position Finding. These skills also won’t affect server-wide gameplay. SEA will still be the most passive server and just because (You) sail in and die by yourself because you have Adrenaline rush doesn’t mean your team will.
  3. As to be expected.
  4.  

These fallacies that I addressed are all based on the 1st iteration to the 2nd but also changes from current to 6.0.0 because well, only 5 skills changed.

 

Changes can be located here from the first to the second iteration here: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/5n579a/public_test_server_060_part_ii_skill_changes/

 

So what did we learn from the 1st change to the second change?

Survivability Expert is now at Tier 3 and provides 350 HP per tier, not 400.

Fire preventation now prevents -10% fire preventation and is now a Tier 4 skill.

Inertia Fuse for HE shells now reduces fire chance by 3% (was 6%) and penetration bonus is now 30% (was 25%). 

Evasive Manuever is buffed. Survivibility bonus is now 75% (was 15%) however concealment bonus is now 20% (was 40%)

Adrenaline Rush is twice as effective as it provides 0.2% bonus

 

These are your changes. From what I can recall, people called/theory crafted fire prevention to be strong, Inertia Fuse for HE shells to be useless for most ships and the Russians cried about BBs getting a nerfed as there is no more min/maxing for BoS and BFT. There was a massive outcry for Radio Position Finding. (Keep in mind, only massive outcries change things – for example EU Christmas convoy, SA for everyone and the skill point defaulting to BoS). Yet there were no changes to Radio Position Finding?

As you can see with great reasoning, the feedback that WG provided when changing the skills doesn’t reflect their true purpose. I’m sure there was a lot of player feedback during the PT test yet barely any was taken in as seen by there being no changes to Radio Wallhack.


What I want to talk about next is the direction of the game (I have previously talked about it too). WG wishes to cater to the newcomers and less skilled, which is a fine thing to do. The problem is, you are removing the “skill” based elements of the game and replacing it with no-brainer action. How? HEAP’s big buff which now only reduces fire chance by 3% shows the skill’s intent. WG’s explanation for this skill is Inertia Fuze for HE Shells motivates players to change firing HE shells from “throwing fire around” into aiming at weak points and doing direct damage. Maybe for the first iteration but the second iteration of IFHE makes it so you can now mindlessly flog HE while doing damage and still set fires. This eliminates the use of a more skill based ammo type like AP. Why shoot AP when there are higher chances of bouncing, over-pens, non-pens against a broadside target if you can shoot HE which will only shatter? Why shoot AP if your target can negate it by angling? Why shoot AP when there are only limited situations for shooting AP when HE can be fires at 360 degrees, any angle and has the bonus of setting fires which could deal more significant damage than one or two citadels? The point is, why reduce the skill floor without raising the skill ceiling? Stop lowing the skill floor so that a person of less skill can do comparatively well as a person of higher skill if they simply spend more money into the game increasing their captain level to 19.

 

The next part is regards to CVs. I highly advise that you actually play CVs and have a large understanding of carriers to understand the following point.

 

The same point of reducing the skill floor without raising the skill ceiling applies to CVs. It now only costs 4 points to achieve Air Superiority (AS). This skill, I can anecdotally and objectively say, can determine which CV is the dominant one in the match. This skill also makes a person lazy. I can definitely say that I will use less skilled approaches if my opponent does not have AS such as simply locking fighters and overpowering theirs instead of strafing to grant a more favourable outcome.

 

The problem is that if you have achieved the 15th point to obtain this game breaking skill, what now? Before, your options were to get BoS, Rear Gunner and BFT. Skills which, only seldomly benefited the carrier. Now with the introduction of AS being 4 points only, what do experienced carrier players which have grinded long and hard for their 15th point take? AA is very situational and while skills such as torpedo acceleration and reload are always active. I believe any competent carrier player can tell you skills such as rear gunner, fiery takeoff, dogfighting expert and evasive manoeuver are useless. So now you are giving newcomers AS while experienced players have no other skill to counter it with. Either remove this skill completely or add more “specialized” and useful skills for carriers.

 

These new additional skills, evasive manoeuver and fiery takeoff, further add evidence that WG does not even play the class, or have any competent carrier players themselves. How can people balance a class if they do not play the class? I certainly do not believe that if you only play BBs to be in charge of balancing DDs or Cruisers. Not to mention this change: Evasive Manuever is buffed. Survivibility bonus is now 75% (was 15%) however concealment bonus is now 20% (was 40%). You increase retreating plane’s survivability by 75%? Your change from the 1st iteration to the 2nd iteration has HP increased by 400%. Maybe if you increased it to 30%, it would be plausible but 75% is like stealing in broad daylight. Not only this but you just make players laxer at the game by making it easier and be punished less for mistakes (further spoonfeeding bad players).

 

CV part ends here ~

 

Here’s a light-hearted image I drew which I foresee WoWs to be like in the near future
jZT1mH5.png

 

I’ve already given up hope for WG to fix CVs (many others have too). What I would wish and implore WG to do is to give more feedback and involvement from the developers as well as feedback being actually listened by developers (as they clearly only listen to massive backlashes from the community [ironic as they did not listen to the Radio changes]).

 

TLDR: Horrible skill changes, feedback isn't listened to, skill floor is lowered and skill ceiling isn't raised (game becoming baby mode).

 

I know I have an infamous standing and so I will say this; everything I have posted are my own personal opinions bought directly from the changes and patch notes and do not reflect any STs (or come from a ST standpoint) or players at all.

 

Edit - Forgot to mention why IFHE more so ruins this game, penetration values can be seen here. As you can see from the chart, 155mm and below has receive more penetration, allowing their HE to work against BBs. Note that only cruisers and destroyers have caliber guns of equal to and less than 155mm, this will promote more DDs and Cruisers shooting at BBs. The intended role of Cruisers is to kill DDs and DDs to hunt each other, contest the cap and then torp/hunt BBs. This will only encourage DDs to sit at the back and wail on the BB, causing the complain of BB players of invis-firing. MiyamizuMitsuhaaa reminded me of this, props to him and his post here.

 
Edited by LunaticRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

 

I'd also like to point out that I would pick the HE Fuse skill on a BB, together with Expert Loader, if the other choices weren't better or I wouldn't  need the points elsewhere. 


There's currently no real point to switching to HE when engaging a DD in a BB since AP can deal massive damage to the point of 1-2 shotting DDs when aimed correctly.

This skill could theoretically give that option to the player, and sure picking up Expert Loader is easy, but 4 points for the HE Fuse skill?

When there's straight out huge buffs to grab at tier IV that aren't restricted to one or two possible situations that are easily handled with a different approach?


I think I'll stick to AP until there's a proper skill rework.

 

Edited by Retia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,460 battles

It seems many players misunderstand how IFHE will benefit them in practical terms. For example, Battleship main guns don't need it. Even the worst Battleship HE shell will penetrate over 50mm of armour. Its only useful for small guns being fired at high tier opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
419 posts
4,207 battles

I believe one of the reason why there isn't any skill to improve AP and instead we have IFHS is because RN CL AP are already good, any skill for AP will make them unbearable.

 

RPF is suppose to help deal with Akizuki but as the current situation, Akizuki still dont give a damn she can pound most DD into submission bar Khabarovsk, her stealth is already Benson level, which mean to actively hunt her is almost impossible unless it's a group effort even with RPF while she can choose how to engage the one searching for her with RPF of her own as well. Other IJN DD become casualties of the hunt, since they relied on positioning, this will kill of any chance for them to make an unexpected break through to attack the back line since the enemy team can see them coming from miles away. If this is their way to deal with Akizuki and invifire in general, they need to find another solution.


Tier 1-2 skills are still a mess, they should reshuffle some tier 1-2 to later tier with some change, as of right now there really isn't many choice for tier 1-2 skill. If the dev want a diversity in playstyle, remove RPF is a must, and another reshuffle is need because the tier 1-2 are literal garbage in most cases.

Edited by Arcane_Dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,534 posts
7,978 battles

let us hope that somewhere in the RU forums, there's a group of players that thinks this way and forces WG to change (still doubtful).

 

Or we can try starting to write in Cyrillic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
419 posts
4,207 battles

This is with the dev. While they made some good change like nerfing Yamato heal or give NC better sigma to compensate for having no accuracy mod there have been some questionable change like the DE DD nerf without alerting the content creator of said change sooner. Also the whole christmas convoy fiasco in EU. WG know how to sastified its playerbase, I think the whole rant may make WG halt the new skill remake until they found a better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
124 posts

/snip

RPF is suppose to help deal with Akizuki but as the current situation, Akizuki still dont give a damn she can pound most DD into submission bar Khabarovsk, her stealth is already Benson level, which mean to actively hunt her is almost impossible unless it's a group effort even with RPF while she can choose how to engage the one searching for her with RPF of her own as well. Other IJN DD become casualties of the hunt, since they relied on positioning, this will kill of any chance for them to make an unexpected break through to attack the back line since the enemy team can see them coming from miles away. If this is their way to deal with Akizuki and invifire in general, they need to find another solution.

/snip

Didn't WG admitted invisi-firing with IJN DD is their over-sight when re-designed them?

 

I think I could take advantage of any enemy ships that have RPF when I'm in a DD, especially IJN. Flanking and instilling fear that I'm there.

The problem with the average players is that not many understand the importance of flanking. I facepalm every time I see my teammates hurdle up in a tight ball, and hope against hope the enemy focus on the next guy that shows slightly more broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
419 posts
4,207 battles

I think we could change RPF into something like Target Acquisition Radar a.k.a Counter-battery radar or Counter-battery expert that will increase the detection range of ship lock on and fire at you or give you and only you vision of the target to counter fire. That way, it can deal with invi-fire while the invi torp boat remain relatively unharmed as long as they don't fire their gun.

Edited by Arcane_Dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

I think we could change RPF into something like Target Acquisition Radar a.k.a Counter-battery radar or Counter-battery expert that will increase the detection range of ship lock on and fire at you or give you and only you vision of the target to counter fire. That way, it can deal with invi-fire while the invi torp boat remain relatively unharmed as long as they don't fire their gun.

 

imo this will only hurt dd More than other classes. dd invisifiring is only annoying and post low treat, on the other hand zao invisifiring is a huge treat. but even if they are spotted, they are still 17km away and has no problem dodging return fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
419 posts
4,207 battles

 

imo this will only hurt dd More than other classes. dd invisifiring is only annoying and post low treat, on the other hand zao invisifiring is a huge treat. but even if they are spotted, they are still 17km away and has no problem dodging return fire.

The whole point of RPF was to limit invifire, mostly from DD, this skill would only hurt those who abuse invifire, even the RN CL and Zao since their position is now compromise one way or another. Not much of a problem for island hugger or torp boat since it only effect gun and detection, in case of island hugger unless you have another catapult then he is still fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

It seems many players misunderstand how IFHE will benefit them in practical terms. For example, Battleship main guns don't need it. Even the worst Battleship HE shell will penetrate over 50mm of armour. Its only useful for small guns being fired at high tier opponents.

 

Certainly battleship main guns don't need it. But the secondaries do. I would add the skill to my high tier BBs (Yamato has 127mm HE, Fred 105mm and 150mm, Grober 128mm and 150mm). Depending on the caliber affected, they can now more reliably damage high tier DDs, or the bow/sterns/decks of cruisers.

 

It doesn't change the point of the OP though. I agree with just about everything being said. Said skills as of the current PT iteration generally lower the skill floor while not raising the skill ceiling, including my above example, and they do not seem to meet many of the developers own stated reasons for tree rework. In fact in this case it is curious to see a buff to secondaries considering how idiot-proof they are in their current iteration, something which the devs have pointed out before and have supposedly been careful to keep in check.

Edited by DLRevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,177 posts
4,099 battles

Since there are so many shit players already. Further lowering the skill floor might make them a bit better. 

 

No. If I wanted to play a low risk, low reward, low learning curve game, I would play Hello Kitty Online.

 

If everyone is given baby crutches, where is the motivating drive to become a better player? The goal of becoming a better player down the road should be a motivator and reward in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

 

No. If I wanted to play a low risk, low reward, low learning curve game, I would play Hello Kitty Online.

 

If everyone is given baby crutches, where is the motivating drive to become a better player? The goal of becoming a better player down the road should be a motivator and reward in itself.

 

Sure they can play the ship but they probably end up with 30% winrate and an absurdly low amount of damage. I am sick of idiots at high tier. If we can make them slightly better, I am happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

It seems many players misunderstand how IFHE will benefit them in practical terms. For example, Battleship main guns don't need it. Even the worst Battleship HE shell will penetrate over 50mm of armour. Its only useful for small guns being fired at high tier opponents.

 

Still haven't tried it myself, in-depth that is, so I'd still like to see what I can make of it, but as mentioned before, why pick it on a BB when there's better choices?

Might try it on some old low tier dreadnought though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

+1 Nice explaination... But I think it is too complicated to post in General discussions because Devs hardly look up here...I'd suggest you to post it in Suggestions section...

 

And thing is WG kinda likes being in it's own way other than listening to hardcore player base itself... (Not talking about RU players) WG only listens when it has been a big sensation like we know what was.... 

 

Sometimes it really takes suggestions but suggestions like Nerf ships other than USN CV loadouts...Which was really necessary.... (kinda need to go out so I'm posting without thinking much will add to it later)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

Seems like this forum members didn't understand what this topic was about... Or maybe it is too complicated for them... IMO this must be hot topic.. anyway..


Back to the topic...
 

IMO WG at this point thinks is trying to make this game better but is kinda messing up somethings... and Going down this way is some day gonna make this game unplayable(for some lines and classes)  And we all know what happen to the tom clancy's ghost recon phantoms.. They added soo many OP things where normal player(free2play player) couldn't compete with and has recently announced it's shutdown...You might feel this is off topic but... Considering increase in the xp needed for the captain skills in the mid it will take longer for a new player... players who got level 15 captains can get to level 19 more easily...

And existing thing like OP Premium ships which WG really don't consider nerfing.. because players might ask refunds... but they've already stated that in their Terms and conditions (EULA) That any product can be subjected to change to balance the game... But instead they will permanently make it a reward ship... they might think this is safer option but it is not in a long term... 

I can say only one thing WG likes to do things in it's own way but doesn't think about the future imbalances that might cause to the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×