Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

WG, what you are doing wrong, what you've done right

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles

G’day Folks…

OK this may be a bit ranty but I’ll try and keep it as fair as I can.

A post I did up for clan mates a few days ago...

WG has seriously lost the plot.

Just so I’m not completely having a go at them, let us take a look at what they’ve done right over recent memory:

  1. USN BB buffs
  2. IJN CA buffs (Mogami still needs a range buff to 16km IMO and you could argue Furu/Myoko didn’t need them but global 203 buff was good)
  3. USN CL line (mostly, Worc is still a tad ‘OP’)
  4. IJN DD gunbotes 9/10 (still ‘OP’ – looking at you Flambass w/ Haru div, good to finish the line though)
  5. Arms race game mode (good when not in ranked)
  6. Brawler mode (circle reducing during Halloween, a lot of fun)
  7. Salem
  8. MN CA reload booster
  9. JB
  10. PEF campaign (reasonably difficult but not impossibru like others have been in the past), PEF not so much though.
  11. Ranked Sprints
  12. Izumo buffs (both first and second)
  13. Ibuki buffs (still really squishy though)

 What was the common factor in most of the above? Simplez, minor changes, not sledgehammer ones (game modes/campaigns exempted).

 Even things like the Salem and JB, Salem isn’t ‘OP’, and JB is good fun (most of the time – looking at you RNG) but again not ‘OP’. Both are very similar to tech-tree ships with some minor changes that made them feel unique and fun. (Although I have heard Salem called boring *shrugs* at least it isn’t broken).

 Now by doing things incrementally, even when WG hasn’t implemented changes that CC’s/players have asked for; they’ve still managed to release balanced changes that felt right.

 

I feel like over xmas they’ve lost the plot.

Let’s look at some major issues since xmas…

From the recent ST changes; Azuma has heal buff, accuracy nerf and hydro again. Do you know why? Because she was too niche as a ‘sniper’. Do you want to know what the CC’s issues wit here were? Squishiness.

You might be looking at this and saying ‘but heal buff’. Yeah nah… Her biggest issue is she has such poor armour and an IJN citadel. Outside fires and floods, other damage is healed at a percentage, citadels being the lowest. The one thing people liked about her was her accuracy and they’ve now taken that away as well.

 So WG you buffed the not-issue with her squishiness and nerfed her only compensation… Wow…

Now I will add that this is still in testing so they could wake up, however I don’t hold high hopes.

 

CV Rework and Haku things

Now I am fairly forgiving when it comes to CV rework hotfixes, it’s a big change and will take time. The issue is they completely overnerfed Haku and IJN CVs have pretty much become ‘meh’.

The one issue Haku had was TB spam, instead of just addressing F-key abuse and replenish rate, they nerfed the TBs as well. They are now basically useless and I am yet to see a Haku do well (outside enemy CV being useless).

 The other major CV issue was in and around DDs. Rockets were completely wrecking them and spotting of DDs was making things work. Here’s an idea, eliminate CV spotting of DDs as a temp measure (isn’t going to completely break the class like everything else they’ve done) and then increase dispersion of rockets a tad (baby steps folks).

 Nope, they overnerfed rockets…

 

AA ratings

So you introduce a CV rework, change AA and struggle to understand why the game is broken. The big issue here is that somewhere in the rework/hotfixes, AA became inconsistent across tiers, in tiers and particularly in ‘AA’ ships. Without addressing this inconsistency and the whole of AA first, how do they even hope to get CVs into a good place.

At the moment CVs are annoying, inconsistent, frustrating, OP and UP at the same time. A large part of this is AA consistency and a large part of it is ad hock overnerfs/buffs.

And yet we now have another CV line about to come into the mix…

 

Stalingrad/Moskva

OK not many people may know this but back around the IFHE introduction WG effectively said (I’m paraphrasing here) that 50mm of armour would not be a thing on CAs and it would not be common on BBs. The reason being that CA HE would need IFHE to pen 50mm of armour and 150s wouldn’t be able to –at all–.

Stalingrad and Moskva both have it. And this has led the game down a dangerous path of armour/HE penetration creep.

There is now a meta based around simply countering these ships. They are useful regardless (thankyou radar, range and gun calibour) but the 50mm of armour has seen Henri IVs with IFHE (even though it has biggest CA guns in the game) and Hindenburgs being a must-have in competitive line-ups.

Here's a thought; nerf their armour down to the next bracket but give them more concealment, agility or even gun angles.

To be honest the Moskva/Stalingrad issue is less major than others but it represents a willingness to power-creep armour which completely rewrites balance and starts cutting out large swathes of the CL/A and DD populations. IFHE is a skill that obviously needs addressing, particularly when it becomes a ‘must pick’ to do damage, however you can’t address it without addressing armour values either. Moskva and Stalingrad are a sign of worse things to come.

 

Conclusion

WG have done some seriously good buffs and changes over the last year or so. The biggest issue is that at some point they stopped making considered changes to issues and clearly have no idea about proper game development. They appear to have no concept of defining the end-state aside from a one-line clause. (Here’s a hint; you need to have a way of measuring changes and measuring success aside from ‘did it work’?) They seem more like a child, randomly pulling out jenga-blocks without any concept of basic structural integrity. If it holds up, yay! Nevermind the fact that they are most likely going to need to do it again in future.

 

I really hope they can get this stuff right, even at some point, even just a little bit… Because I honestly enjoy this game and love the folks I play it with.

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles

Please comment, I would love to discuss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
305 posts
370 battles

This thread is so sad....

After a whole write of thoughtfull analysis, the chance of WG paying attention is less than  -0.001%

 

 

If some of WG really read this thread. I want a reply :

"We listen, but we need to considering every advice the player give"

 

--__________________________

I am mostly agree with this thread lel. What i don't like is the fact that WG stop giving attention  to us 😟

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[ZA]
[ZA]
Member
466 posts
10,485 battles

I have to agree most of what you said, your conclusion very much on point.

There are one part I have to disagree though is that "The other major CV issue was in and around DDs. Rockets were completely wrecking them and spotting of DDs was making things work. Here’s an idea, eliminate CV spotting of DDs as a temp measure (isn’t going to completely break the class like everything else they’ve done) and then increase dispersion of rockets a tad (baby steps folks)."

DDs are in fact as large as a small factory, totally eliminate CV spotting is unrealistic and removed any tactical influence in battle. Even before rework, DD have to operate differently in a CV match. old CV can perma spot multiple DD at the same time. Reworked CV can only spot one target and in expanse of do damage and can only influence single part of the map. I actually think in order to balance rocket against DD, they only need to reduce number of strike and rockets alpha damage. So instead of 3-4 strikes, make it to 2 then there will be more down time in between for DD to relocate.

Let's be realistic, poor DD will always caught out of position, with or without CV, and they will just blame everyone else other than their own fault. However, just like new radar mechanic, it is important to allow counter play and give them opportunity  to recover from their mistake.   

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,160 posts
11,077 battles
2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

G’day Folks…

OK this may be a bit ranty but I’ll try and keep it as fair as I can.

A post I did up for clan mates a few days ago...

WG has seriously lost the plot.

Just so I’m not completely having a go at them, let us take a look at what they’ve done right over recent memory:

  1. USN BB buffs
  2. IJN CA buffs (Mogami still needs a range buff to 16km IMO and you could argue Furu/Myoko didn’t need them but global 203 buff was good)
  3. USN CL line (mostly, Worc is still a tad ‘OP’)
  4. IJN DD gunbotes 9/10 (still ‘OP’ – looking at you Flambass w/ Haru div, good to finish the line though)
  5. Arms race game mode (good when not in ranked)
  6. Brawler mode (circle reducing during Halloween, a lot of fun)
  7. Salem
  8. MN CA reload booster
  9. JB
  10. PEF campaign (reasonably difficult but not impossibru like others have been in the past), PEF not so much though.
  11. Ranked Sprints
  12. Izumo buffs (both first and second)
  13. Ibuki buffs (still really squishy though)

 What was the common factor in most of the above? Simplez, minor changes, not sledgehammer ones (game modes/campaigns exempted).

 Even things like the Salem and JB, Salem isn’t ‘OP’, and JB is good fun (most of the time – looking at you RNG) but again not ‘OP’. Both are very similar to tech-tree ships with some minor changes that made them feel unique and fun. (Although I have heard Salem called boring *shrugs* at least it isn’t broken).

 Now by doing things incrementally, even when WG hasn’t implemented changes that CC’s/players have asked for; they’ve still managed to release balanced changes that felt right.

 

I feel like over xmas they’ve lost the plot.

Let’s look at some major issues since xmas…

From the recent ST changes; Azuma has heal buff, accuracy nerf and hydro again. Do you know why? Because she was too niche as a ‘sniper’. Do you want to know what the CC’s issues wit here were? Squishiness.

You might be looking at this and saying ‘but heal buff’. Yeah nah… Her biggest issue is she has such poor armour and an IJN citadel. Outside fires and floods, other damage is healed at a percentage, citadels being the lowest. The one thing people liked about her was her accuracy and they’ve now taken that away as well.

 So WG you buffed the not-issue with her squishiness and nerfed her only compensation… Wow…

Now I will add that this is still in testing so they could wake up, however I don’t hold high hopes.

 

CV Rework and Haku things

Now I am fairly forgiving when it comes to CV rework hotfixes, it’s a big change and will take time. The issue is they completely overnerfed Haku and IJN CVs have pretty much become ‘meh’.

The one issue Haku had was TB spam, instead of just addressing F-key abuse and replenish rate, they nerfed the TBs as well. They are now basically useless and I am yet to see a Haku do well (outside enemy CV being useless).

 The other major CV issue was in and around DDs. Rockets were completely wrecking them and spotting of DDs was making things work. Here’s an idea, eliminate CV spotting of DDs as a temp measure (isn’t going to completely break the class like everything else they’ve done) and then increase dispersion of rockets a tad (baby steps folks).

 Nope, they overnerfed rockets…

 

AA ratings

So you introduce a CV rework, change AA and struggle to understand why the game is broken. The big issue here is that somewhere in the rework/hotfixes, AA became inconsistent across tiers, in tiers and particularly in ‘AA’ ships. Without addressing this inconsistency and the whole of AA first, how do they even hope to get CVs into a good place.

At the moment CVs are annoying, inconsistent, frustrating, OP and UP at the same time. A large part of this is AA consistency and a large part of it is ad hock overnerfs/buffs.

And yet we now have another CV line about to come into the mix…

 

Stalingrad/Moskva

OK not many people may know this but back around the IFHE introduction WG effectively said (I’m paraphrasing here) that 50mm of armour would not be a thing on CAs and it would not be common on BBs. The reason being that CA HE would need IFHE to pen 50mm of armour and 150s wouldn’t be able to –at all–.

Stalingrad and Moskva both have it. And this has led the game down a dangerous path of armour/HE penetration creep.

There is now a meta based around simply countering these ships. They are useful regardless (thankyou radar, range and gun calibour) but the 50mm of armour has seen Henri IVs with IFHE (even though it has biggest CA guns in the game) and Hindenburgs being a must-have in competitive line-ups.

Here's a thought; nerf their armour down to the next bracket but give them more concealment, agility or even gun angles.

To be honest the Moskva/Stalingrad issue is less major than others but it represents a willingness to power-creep armour which completely rewrites balance and starts cutting out large swathes of the CL/A and DD populations. IFHE is a skill that obviously needs addressing, particularly when it becomes a ‘must pick’ to do damage, however you can’t address it without addressing armour values either. Moskva and Stalingrad are a sign of worse things to come.

 

Conclusion

WG have done some seriously good buffs and changes over the last year or so. The biggest issue is that at some point they stopped making considered changes to issues and clearly have no idea about proper game development. They appear to have no concept of defining the end-state aside from a one-line clause. (Here’s a hint; you need to have a way of measuring changes and measuring success aside from ‘did it work’?) They seem more like a child, randomly pulling out jenga-blocks without any concept of basic structural integrity. If it holds up, yay! Nevermind the fact that they are most likely going to need to do it again in future.

 

I really hope they can get this stuff right, even at some point, even just a little bit… Because I honestly enjoy this game and love the folks I play it with.

Good post!

WG don't tend to stick to thier word and they don't seem to listen to testers either.

My main problem with Stalin is its ridiculous AP pen it achieves. No other 305mm pens like she does and its downright ridiculous! Agree Stalin and Moskva armour is a bit much for a CA since they even bounce 460mm.

CV's are just a pain imo. They just influence the game too much no matter what WG do to them. No other ship has the ability to imba a battle like CV's and that's the whole dilemma. I really cant ever see it working out to be balanced tbh.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
53 minutes ago, Akyamarukh said:

This thread is so sad....

After a whole write of thoughtfull analysis, the chance of WG paying attention is less than  -0.001%

 

 

If some of WG really read this thread. I want a reply :

"We listen, but we need to considering every advice the player give"

 

--__________________________

I am mostly agree with this thread lel. What i don't like is the fact that WG stop giving attention  to us 😟

Yeah I've done quite a few analysis threads over the years, including proposed Commonwealth lines, feedback from WG has been pretty much zero... It'd just be nice for them to say "we've seen this and taken it on board".

 

49 minutes ago, sunlo2013 said:

I have to agree most of what you said, your conclusion very much on point.

There are one part I have to disagree though is that "The other major CV issue was in and around DDs. Rockets were completely wrecking them and spotting of DDs was making things work. Here’s an idea, eliminate CV spotting of DDs as a temp measure (isn’t going to completely break the class like everything else they’ve done) and then increase dispersion of rockets a tad (baby steps folks)."

DDs are in fact as large as a small factory, totally eliminate CV spotting is unrealistic and removed any tactical influence in battle. Even before rework, DD have to operate differently in a CV match. old CV can perma spot multiple DD at the same time. Reworked CV can only spot one target and in expanse of do damage and can only influence single part of the map. I actually think in order to balance rocket against DD, they only need to reduce number of strike and rockets alpha damage. So instead of 3-4 strikes, make it to 2 then there will be more down time in between for DD to relocate.

Let's be realistic, poor DD will always caught out of position, with or without CV, and they will just blame everyone else other than their own fault. However, just like new radar mechanic, it is important to allow counter play and give them opportunity  to recover from their mistake.   

It's a temporary measure, in a previous post to do with AA/CV rework I suggested CVs spot DDs for limited times for their allies (eg 20s maximum every minute) or a limited view cone or just spotted for themselves. At the end of the day radar+CV=nightmares for DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
1 minute ago, dieselhead said:

Good post!

WG don't tend to stick to thier word and they don't seem to listen to testers either.

My main problem with Stalin is its ridiculous AP pen it achieves. No other 305mm pens like she does and its downright ridiculous! Agree Stalin and Moskva armour is a bit much for a CA since they even bounce 460mm.

CV's are just a pain imo. They just influence the game too much no matter what WG do to them. No other ship has the ability to imba a battle like CV's and that's the whole dilemma. I really cant ever see it working out to be balanced tbh.

Thanks mate!

Yeah I understand your POV with regards to CVs, however I don't think we should entirely rule them out just yet. It is a game and I firmly believe with the right design changes they can find a happy middle ground.

The biggest issue is that they never seem to apply hard number metrics in a scale for their success.

All they need to do is set a standard, ie "At tier CV v at tier BB on own, 2 attack runs possible, 3rd unlikely" or something like that and then balance from that point. It would be easy enough to set a logical standard with the sorts of numbers they track whilst still keeping damage reasonable, not UP/OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,160 posts
11,077 battles
2 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Thanks mate!

Yeah I understand your POV with regards to CVs, however I don't think we should entirely rule them out just yet. It is a game and I firmly believe with the right design changes they can find a happy middle ground.

The biggest issue is that they never seem to apply hard number metrics in a scale for their success.

All they need to do is set a standard, ie "At tier CV v at tier BB on own, 2 attack runs possible, 3rd unlikely" or something like that and then balance from that point. It would be easy enough to set a logical standard with the sorts of numbers they track whilst still keeping damage reasonable, not UP/OP.

WG balancing team seem to have a sledge hammer when it comes to implementing changes.

I still cant work out why they changed all the "traditional" AA ships(Atlanta Kidd etc) to being non AA ships. I mean was that even necessary?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[ZA]
[ZA]
Member
466 posts
10,485 battles
10 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah I've done quite a few analysis threads over the years, including proposed Commonwealth lines, feedback from WG has been pretty much zero... It'd just be nice for them to say "we've seen this and taken it on board".

 

It's a temporary measure, in a previous post to do with AA/CV rework I suggested CVs spot DDs for limited times for their allies (eg 20s maximum every minute) or a limited view cone or just spotted for themselves. At the end of the day radar+CV=nightmares for DDs.

It is not good even as a temporary measure, because this will create another scenario that is without counter. For example, what if a sneak DD go around the map and hunt down CV? If a CV cannot spot DD and then there are zero counter at all in this scenario just tilted to other extreme. Imagine how many DD will give up cap and go hunt for CV in that case.

 

 

Edited by sunlo2013
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[LGND]
Member
493 posts
12,418 battles

WG should change penetration IFHE based on caliber..... IMHO
like fire chance, Caliber  155 and below  still increase penetration 30%....
when caliber above 155 it should only increase 10%....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
1 minute ago, dieselhead said:

WG balancing team seem to have a sledge hammer when it comes to implementing changes.

I still cant work out why they changed all the "traditional" AA ships(Atlanta Kidd etc) to being non AA ships. I mean was that even necessary?

Yeah 100% agreed...

I've said this in multiple posts before but here's the abbreviated version:

Balance AA first and flatten it a fair bit across tiers, meaning less difference per tier. Make it based on the type of mount. Then do the same to CVs, basically everything will be competitive to a degree when up/down tiered. It also solves the +/-2 MM.

Then BBs should have strongest standard AA with CL/As having situationally stronger than that with DFAA.

Then for 'AA' ships, simply buff the RoF of AA guns a bit to give them their 'flavour' or perhaps even their range as well. Doesn't have to be overboard but yes--- Atlanta should be scary to v in a CV, the whole game balance has been based around such ships and people have payed money for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
3 minutes ago, sunlo2013 said:

It is not good even as a temporary measure, because this will create another scenario that is without counter. For example, what if a sneak DD go around the map and hunt down CV? If a CV cannot spot DD and then there are zero counter at all in this scenario just tilted to other extreme. Imagine how many DD will give up cap and go hunt for CV in that case.

 

 

I should clarify, temporarily spot only for themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
2 minutes ago, Gesterbein said:

WG should change penetration IFHE based on caliber..... IMHO
like fire chance, Caliber  155 and below  still increase penetration 30%....
when caliber above 155 it should only increase 10%....

Yeah but why?

CAs don't run it outside the purpose of countering Stalin/Moskva...

I agree current IFHE is an issue but so many ships are based around that skill from DDs-CLs.

Let's get them to get CVs in some sort of workable condition first perhaps?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[TDA]
[TDA]
Alpha Tester
2,207 posts
8,327 battles

Said it before and I'll say it again...

 

This game is a multimillion dollar business. WG is worth over a billion US, no joke.

Decisions involving gameplay, especially big decisions, are not made lightly.

Because wrong decisions are costly.

So, when decisions are made, it's as a result of research, development and consultation

Done by pros in their field.

And it takes time. And time is money.

 

 

 

Then along comes a player who is having a bad time with (insert game mechanic) and instantly expects to have it changed to his/her liking.

In fact, more than one player, hundreds of them. All with different ideas.

Every idea costs money to implement. 

And for a business to remain successful it can't waste time/money following up on hundreds of half-baked opinions.

 

And some people think that just because they type something into this forum, suddenly everyone at WG HQ is going to stop what they're doing and seriously consider some ill-considered opinion.

 

This is not aimed at the OP of this thread.

  • Cool 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
7 minutes ago, AntifoulAwl said:

Said it before and I'll say it again...

 

This game is a multimillion dollar business. WG is worth over a billion US, no joke.

Decisions involving gameplay, especially big decisions, are not made lightly.

Because wrong decisions are costly.

So, when decisions are made, it's as a result of research, development and consultation

Done by pros in their field.

And it takes time. And time is money.

 

 

 

Then along comes a player who is having a bad time with (insert game mechanic) and instantly expects to have it changed to his/her liking.

In fact, more than one player, hundreds of them. All with different ideas.

Every idea costs money to implement. 

And for a business to remain successful it can't waste time/money following up on hundreds of half-baked opinions.

 

And some people think that just because they type something into this forum, suddenly everyone at WG HQ is going to stop what they're doing and seriously consider some ill-considered opinion.

 

This is not aimed at the OP of this thread.

I understand what you are saying but let's be honest...

Mods track these threads and if they have merit they will forward them to WGHQ.

Yes, it can be hard to get through but listening to ideas of a thousand people will almost always beat one person. It's simply numbers.

And I'm sorry but there are many games out there with very good balance change records, often due to big competitive scenes. They don't want to radically change something that has balance.

I totally get the CV rework - and why and it's worked to a degree, however much I kinda prefer the RTS style but you can't say they've been doing a lot right this year...

 

I didn't even mention radar changes for flips sake... 'Nerfing' radar, um, lol --- you just gave allied ships a window to pre-aim. Otherwise a minor second or two debuff for those that have already aimed.

I don't want to get into a negative spiral, I've loved a lot of the changes WG has made but they've been a bit too sledgehammer-happy lately.

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[LGND]
Member
493 posts
12,418 battles
10 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah but why?

CAs don't run it outside the purpose of countering Stalin/Moskva...

I agree current IFHE is an issue but so many ships are based around that skill from DDs-CLs.

Let's get them to get CVs in some sort of workable condition first perhaps?

to make CV workable, like or not i think they should re adjust high tier ship AA....
and some/majority people dont like it if their AA got nerf....
so this is why WG so hard make a decision tho.....
 

Edited by Gesterbein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,283
[151ST]
Member
2,358 posts
9,917 battles
3 minutes ago, Gesterbein said:

to make CV workable, like or not i think they should re adjust high tier ship AA....
and some/majority people dont like it if their AA got nerf....
so this is why WG so hard make a decision tho.....
 

Ummmmmmm.

Unless I've completely missed something with IFHE it has almost zero to do with CVs (Carriers).

I think you may be mixed up. IFHE is picked to increase HE shell penetration to compensate for the calibour v armour.

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,160 posts
11,077 battles
On 2/28/2019 at 6:32 PM, AntifoulAwl said:

Said it before and I'll say it again...

 

This game is a multimillion dollar business. WG is worth over a billion US, no joke.

Decisions involving gameplay, especially big decisions, are not made lightly.

Because wrong decisions are costly.

So, when decisions are made, it's as a result of research, development and consultation

Done by pros in their field.

And it takes time. And time is money.

 

 

 

Then along comes a player who is having a bad time with (insert game mechanic) and instantly expects to have it changed to his/her liking.

In fact, more than one player, hundreds of them. All with different ideas.

Every idea costs money to implement. 

And for a business to remain successful it can't waste time/money following up on hundreds of half-baked opinions.

 

And some people think that just because they type something into this forum, suddenly everyone at WG HQ is going to stop what they're doing and seriously consider some ill-considered opinion.

 

This is not aimed at the OP of this thread.

Quite often you are right about this and im guilty at times myself of the odd rage post etc.

But when you have 100's of pages of posts hating an update it tells you something doesn't it?

Just because someone has millions of dollars doesn't mean they don't [phrase removed] mate haha.

I could point out a few things that WG doesn't do correctly with their game design but its not really on topic.

If we the players don't voice our concerns about what Wg have done then what chance have we got to get them to make changes?

 

Prohibited word. Post edited, user warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[TDA]
[TDA]
Alpha Tester
2,207 posts
8,327 battles
Just now, dieselhead said:

Quite often you are right about this and im guilty at times myself of the odd rage post etc.

But when you have 100's of pages of posts hating an update it tells you something doesn't it?

Just because someone has millions of dollars doesn't mean they don't fuk things up mate haha.

I could point out a few things that WG doesn't do correctly with their game design but its not really on topic.

If we the players don't voice our concerns about what Wg have done then what chance have we got to get them to make changes?

If you ran a business (and one worth more than a billion bucks-WG is), would you listen to some random person of the street who told you how to do your things?

WG make changes by looking at reams of data that we, as customers, have no access to.

Don't forget, they analyse all the games and can see where tweaking is needed. If a ship is underperforming they know. They don't rely on hearsay.

Opinions don't matter, its the numbers that don't lie.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SMOKE]
Member
1,846 posts
15,709 battles

well sorry numbers do lie .... and that's from someone who work data ( as in all those numbers ) ... there is a distinctive difference between  a bunch of Data vs a piece of information ... and sadly for WG they rely too much on the Data part and fail to appreciate the information and information cannot be gleamed by just looking at the numbers .. this CV rework is a prime example .. I am sure they have work it hard and had all the number crunching and it would seems right for each and every of the new feature / setup / parameters for CV ( and for others ships ) ... but that does not take into account of the sum of all and we have what ... a ruined game play for almost everyone. Hot fix and yet more hot fix, and still the game is in a state of dysfunction somewhat and even WG themselves had to admit it and say in their Dev Blog that they have a plan to change that but they cannot be sure what and when ; that just reflect how bad that kind of number crunching ultimately produce ... 1+1 do not equate 2 and the development team are not up with the real player on this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,160 posts
11,077 battles
11 minutes ago, AntifoulAwl said:

If you ran a business (and one worth more than a billion bucks-WG is), would you listen to some random person of the street who told you how to do your things?

WG make changes by looking at reams of data that we, as customers, have no access to.

Don't forget, they analyse all the games and can see where tweaking is needed. If a ship is underperforming they know. They don't rely on hearsay.

Opinions don't matter, its the numbers that don't lie.

 

 

 

Number don't tell the whole story though do they? We both know there is more to it than that.

You don't listen to 1 random guy no, you would start to take notice if there are hundreds of "random" guys all saying similar things.

Their billion dollar company won't be worth shit if they don't keep the customers happy and right now the majority of what Iv'e seen aren't happy or else there wouldn't be so many rage posts about the same thing.

So you can rely solely on numbers if you like, its your funeral. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[TDA]
[TDA]
Alpha Tester
2,207 posts
8,327 battles
21 minutes ago, dieselhead said:

Number don't tell the whole story though do they? We both know there is more to it than that.

You don't listen to 1 random guy no, you would start to take notice if there are hundreds of "random" guys all saying similar things.

Their billion dollar company won't be worth shit if they don't keep the customers happy and right now the majority of what Iv'e seen aren't happy or else there wouldn't be so many rage posts about the same thing.

So you can rely solely on numbers if you like, its your funeral. 

Hundreds of guys are not enough.

Even thousands of guys screaming are not enough.

As long as they're screaming there still here.

And I don't know the exact figures, but a few thousand players from one of their many games are only a drop in the huge ocean of WG.

 

PS, at my funeral, don't serve avocado. I hate that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
774
[O7]
Member
2,675 posts
17,680 battles
2 hours ago, AntifoulAwl said:

....

So, when decisions are made, it's as a result of research, development and consultation numbers

....

The problem here is that WG looks at how a ship does. It's like giving an F1 car to 999 people and Lewis Hamilton, then tuning the car to make the 999 perform best in it. Basically they break the car. Then as the people get better they have to retune it because it is no longer tuned for their skill. It's an endless cycle, a tail wagging a dog.

An example of this was the CV testing and CV pts. All the problems were blaringly obvious to any slightly competent player. Yet WG tuned the ship to make it balanced in the hands of unskilled noobs. Which of course resulted in totally broken CV's once people had played a few games on a server that didn't crash and learnt how to use them.

Edited by keskparane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
149 posts
3,877 battles
6 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Now I am fairly forgiving when it comes to CV rework hotfixes, it’s a big change and will take time. The issue is they completely overnerfed Haku and IJN CVs have pretty much become ‘meh’.

The one issue Haku had was TB spam, instead of just addressing F-key abuse and replenish rate, they nerfed the TBs as well. They are now basically useless and I am yet to see a Haku do well (outside enemy CV being useless).

 The other major CV issue was in and around DDs. Rockets were completely wrecking them and spotting of DDs was making things work. Here’s an idea, eliminate CV spotting of DDs as a temp measure (isn’t going to completely break the class like everything else they’ve done) and then increase dispersion of rockets a tad (baby steps folks).

 Nope, they overnerfed rockets…

Agree with this, the only problem is F spam for Haku
They don't need to nerf the Torp planes, just nerf the F spam ffs. 
And they removed the discount for all tech tree CV, I was gonna buy the Midway but wth, no discounts. I thought it was temporary and on 0.8.1, still no news for that. 
Getting bored playing WoWs because of this issue. too many messed on WOWS right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[TLS]
Member
3,941 posts
20,022 battles

I'm just going to highlight a little on the negative issues since most of the positives I'm satisfied with.

Reworking CV was supposed to "balance the skill between cv players" - it did not and secondly, it was rushed out the door without adequate testing.

Moskva with ridiculous bow was IMHO, an okay move since it was balanced out with the squishyness and standard-ish CA guns. Volgograd, on the other hand was a super powered moscow made limited to the hands of a very select few which made the balance even more unbalanced.

Anyway, it's going to be less time grinding, more time working on getting cold hard cash to buy superop ships instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×