Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
amnesia98

Feedback Thread for Update 0.9.9

Feedback Thread for Update 0.9.9  

35 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. Do you enjoy 0.9.9 update overall?

    • I love it!
      1
    • I generally like it
      2
    • Neutral
      8
    • I generally don't like it
      6
    • I don't like it at all
      17
  2. 2. Did you like U.S. Battleships: Part 1?

    • I love it!
      2
    • I generally like it
      3
    • Neutral
      12
    • I generally don't like it
      6
    • I don't like it at all
      11
  3. 5. Did you like Clan Battles: "Northern Waters" Season & Mercenaries?

    • I love it!
      2
    • I generally like it
      3
    • Neutral
      20
    • I generally don't like it
      4
    • I don't like it at all
      5
  4. 6. Did you like Research Bureau

    • I love it!
      1
    • I generally like it
      4
    • Neutral
      11
    • I generally don't like it
      4
    • I don't like it at all
      14
  5. 7. Did you like Changes to Game Mechanics?

    • I love it!
      0
    • I generally like it
      4
    • Neutral
      7
    • I generally don't like it
      6
    • I don't like it at all
      17
  6. 8. Did you like Visual Improvements & other changes?

    • I love it!
      2
    • I generally like it
      5
    • Neutral
      13
    • I generally don't like it
      3
    • I don't like it at all
      11

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

143
[WG]
WG Staff
131 posts
2,095 battles

Hello commanders,

We would like to hear your thoughts on how you like this update. Tell us your opinion.

Here are the inclusions for this update so far:

  •  U.S. Battleships: Part 1
  • Clan Battles: "Northern Waters" Season & Mercenaries
  • Research Bureau
  • Changes to Game Mechanics
  • Visual Improvements & Other changes

Please check the details here: https://worldofwarships.asia/news/?category=game-updates

If you encounter any bugs, please comment here.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,335 battles

What on Earth is going on with CV's?

There was a documented change to reticles - this does not seem to be an improvement, and makes it harder to aim.

There are multiple undocumented changes however.  The way engine boost works has been completely changed, with the boosted speed dropping off instantly, and the regen being halved.  The boost dropping off instantly is a straight up 10-20% dpm nerf for those affected, which includes all IJN and US CV's.

Planes now take massively more damage when recalled, to the point that CV's are losing twice as many planes as pre-patch, and many players are reporting being deplaned despite careful play.

Anyone of these changes are huge nerfs to CV's, but all together are a pretty phenomenal set of changes that effectively remove the class.  That engine boost nerf is enough to make me never want to play a CV again, it is a huge hit to average plane speed and transit times (effectively damage output and dpm), as well as time spent in AA and thus plane reserves.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[CBLUE]
Member
4 posts
6,031 battles
3 時間前、Moggytwo の発言:

What on Earth is going on with CV's?

There was a documented change to reticles - this does not seem to be an improvement, and makes it harder to aim.

There are multiple undocumented changes however.  The way engine boost works has been completely changed, with the boosted speed dropping off instantly, and the regen being halved.  The boost dropping off instantly is a straight up 10-20% dpm nerf for those affected, which includes all IJN and US CV's.

Planes now take massively more damage when recalled, to the point that CV's are losing twice as many planes as pre-patch, and many players are reporting being deplaned despite careful play.

Anyone of these changes are huge nerfs to CV's, but all together are a pretty phenomenal set of changes that effectively remove the class.  That engine boost nerf is enough to make me never want to play a CV again, it is a huge hit to average plane speed and transit times (effectively damage output and dpm), as well as time spent in AA and thus plane reserves.

Completely agreed. I played around 5 matches or so on several CV's, and above all of the things mentioned previously, I also find it harder to even look around the map when I change the speed of my aircraft, that alone Aiming with this.

The camera changes make the CV experience horrible for me, even to a level that I will quit playing CV's until something is done about it. And since I enjoy CV's the most in this game, I may just straight up quit the game. If I had a choice, I would prefer the style before the last update. It was way easier to Aim or see what is going on.

Additionally, I seem to encounter more lags and stutters after this update.

This may sound selfish but please for the sake of me playing this game please do something about this.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Administrator, WG Staff
247 posts
13 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

What on Earth is going on with CV's?

There was a documented change to reticles - this does not seem to be an improvement, and makes it harder to aim.

There are multiple undocumented changes however.  The way engine boost works has been completely changed, with the boosted speed dropping off instantly, and the regen being halved.  The boost dropping off instantly is a straight up 10-20% dpm nerf for those affected, which includes all IJN and US CV's.

Planes now take massively more damage when recalled, to the point that CV's are losing twice as many planes as pre-patch, and many players are reporting being deplaned despite careful play.

Anyone of these changes are huge nerfs to CV's, but all together are a pretty phenomenal set of changes that effectively remove the class.  That engine boost nerf is enough to make me never want to play a CV again, it is a huge hit to average plane speed and transit times (effectively damage output and dpm), as well as time spent in AA and thus plane reserves.

We do not make undocumented changes to the game. This is unintentional, and we are investigating the cause. I will let you guys know as soon as we learn more. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[CBLUE]
Member
4 posts
6,031 battles
6 分前、mademoisail の発言:

We do not make undocumented changes to the game. This is unintentional, and we are investigating the cause. I will let you guys know as soon as we learn more. 

Thank you for your response. Additionally, I just witnessed a bomb landing outside the crosshair. I thought I have saved the video of it happening but I seem to have lost it. I will share this if I manage to find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,335 battles
49 minutes ago, mademoisail said:

We do not make undocumented changes to the game.

Thanks for the response, it is most definitely appreciated.  These changes certainly seemed unintentional, as I have yet to see you make intentional undocumented changes in the 5+ years I have been playing WoWs, and the dev team don't seem afraid to make unpopular changes that they think are good for the game and face up to any consequential negative feedback.

Clearly some bugs crept through in this patch though, and wow are there quite a few of them!  Hopefully you manage to get to the bottom of them all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[JURIG]
Member
2 posts
2,755 battles

Hey WG, please this a step backward for cv players. We are comfort playing cv before the update. After the update, it' really dissappointed. Please fix it !

The problems :

1. Aircraft Recticles

2. Engine Boost 

3. Lost a lot of plane after the attack

Edited by andaruputra106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
721
[LYNMA]
Beta Tester
1,870 posts
6,118 battles

So many Desync in every level. The Rockets suddenly fires off away from the DD.

The sound for aircraft is also bugged when i take off like it has no sounds at all....

Lastly my plane is like being hit by a UV Electrical Net from a weakly AA ships.

Engine boost doesn't feel like Tyler1 Anymore...

By the way, i am using Asus Nvidia GTX 1050Ti STRIX and i got a sudden frame drop the moment i spotted like 4 to 5 enemy ships rendering causing my game to freeze in few seconds, losing my time to prepare to attack someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[NCOTS]
Member
473 posts
11,427 battles

Seems like a patch worth skipping, I just can't bring myself to grind Kansas out.

And what has Engine boost upgrade did wrong? Its 2 consecutive nerfs already

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,782
Member
5,164 posts
9,111 battles

Game is stuttery, even with very low and very stable ping.

It stutters greatly when my ships get destroyed, which scared the heck out of me.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Administrator, WG Staff
247 posts

Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. I wanted to post an updated on the CV issues. 

We’d like to thank players who informed us about the issues with CVs after the release and apologize for the inconvenience to everyone.

We would like to give some details about what has happened. In 0.9.9 we've released a global refactoring of CV programming code. While it allowed us to improve the aiming reticles and squadrons responsiveness, the major part of refactoring was purely technical. It was not supposed to change anything gameplay or balance related, but instead improve such under the hood aspects like stability, optimization, sustainability and also pave the way for exploring the hybrids, ASW planes and new gameplay roles for aircraft carriers. Regrettably, due to the complexity of these changes, not everything went well and some issues made it to the main server, which resulted in unintended changes.

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed. We continue to keep an eye on live servers and investigate further possible bugs and issues.

There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.
 
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:
  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

We are also aware of an issue with incorrect settings of deceleration upon using the engine boost of German aircraft carriers’ squadrons. The issue will be fixed in one of the nearest updates. We apologize for this inconvenience. We assure you that providing full transparency about all the changes in the upcoming version to our players is one of our primary goals, independently of the possible perception.

Thank you for your understanding. Let me know if you have any questions. 

-Sail

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[PHNAV]
[PHNAV]
Member
243 posts

Why I don't like?

1. The files are getting bigger - 50Gb+ now.

2. The American Battleship Directives will give you around 12,000 tokens if you finish all. That is if you finish. But at the armory, these are only good for purchasing up to 

the 4th-5th step in the sequence for a bunch of camous and signals. The ships are still 3-4 steps up at a cost of thousands of tokens. HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO GET THOSE BBs! :Smile_izmena::Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,406
[-CAT-]
Member
2,786 posts
12,346 battles
24 minutes ago, greywolfsdb2013 said:

HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO GET THOSE BBs! :Smile_izmena::Smile_facepalm:

It is by design. WG wants players to open up their wallet and buy those tokens via doubloons.

Most players will go for straight to the premium shop and directly buy Florida, rather than waste money and doubloons on "sequence bundles".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,459 posts
18,007 battles

1.Game client will freeze when blacklisting someone

2.CV's attack has a significant delay, especially for German rocket planes. The actual firing position is a bit backward than the aiming position.

3.Significant FPS drop when a new enemy ship is rendered in sight.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[PHNAV]
[PHNAV]
Member
243 posts
15 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

It is by design. WG wants players to open up their wallet and buy those tokens via doubloons.

Most players will go for straight to the premium shop and directly buy Florida, rather than waste money and doubloons on "sequence bundles".

So true.

Why would they create false hope? They could have at least made the ships attainable - even if you spend a couple of bucks to get the T9 and T10 ships, not the Directives 12K +/- token and the 75K  Armory gap. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[XSA]
Member
19 posts
8,819 battles

Jesus 

Those CV rockets aiming circles do not reflect on ships now. It is more difficult to aim. 

Please change it back to old interface. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,406
[-CAT-]
Member
2,786 posts
12,346 battles
9 hours ago, greywolfsdb2013 said:

So true.

Why would they create false hope? They could have at least made the ships attainable - even if you spend a couple of bucks to get the T9 and T10 ships, not the Directives 12K +/- token and the 75K  Armory gap. 

Now that you mentioned it, WG has been using this tactic (false hope) since Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico
Early access European Destroyer Tokens
Early access Soviet Heavy Cruiser Tokens
And now, Early access US Heavy Battleship Tokens

Early access German Carriers and British Heavy Cruisers did not use this tactic. WG used random bundles instead of false hope tactic.
 

I dunno why WG is using this tactic. They are probably luring unsuspecting players to open their wallets while also fear mongering them with FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) strategy.
This, of course, indirectly makes the game more of a Pay to Advance (P2A) game rather than Free to Play (F2P) game.

They (WG) were not like this in the past.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,335 battles
On 10/2/2020 at 11:36 PM, mademoisail said:

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed.

This is definitely NOT fixed.  I am taking far more losses when playing CV's.  In Richthofen last night I was effectively completely deplaned about halfway through both battles I played in her, despite fairly conservative target choices.  This simply does not happen previously to this patch unless you make some very silly decisions, yet it seems unavoidable now.  When I watch the planes fly up after an attack, they all die.

Also, about 2-4 times per battle, I will drop my torps or rockets and they will go way long.  For the rockets, I'll click exactly on the right aiming point, the reticle will stop perfectly at the right point, and the rockets will sail well over the ship and land a good 0.5km or more long.  Torps will be launched and dropped well before the arming line reaches the target, then the torps will seem to fly in the air for a long time and land almost right next to the target with no time to arm.  This is happening on perhaps 1 out of every 4-5 drops?  As you can imagine it's incredibly frustrating, especially when you set up a perfect AP rocket attack and drop at exactly the right time.  It's possible something similar is happening with the bombs as well, but it's hard to tell - I've had some very dubious bomb misses where I am almost certain the bombs land outside the reticle.  I haven't seen any of this happen before this patch, and this one issue makes the class unplayable, even without the massively increased plane losses. 

Edit: ping seems fine in all respects, no ping changes, no signs of lag at any point of the entire play session, no similar issues in other classes, the issue is happening on all CV's played since the patch.

 

On 10/2/2020 at 1:58 AM, mademoisail said:

We do not make undocumented changes to the game.

 

On 10/2/2020 at 11:36 PM, mademoisail said:
There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.
 
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:
  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

These two quotes do not seem to correlate.  You don't make undocumented changes, but here is a long list of undocumented, intentional changes.  The boost changes and the CV ordnance drop pattern changes in particular are both very significant and should have been announced in the usual balance dev blog last patch, as well as obviously being put in the patch notes.  Loading up the game in a new patch and finding one of the classes to be wildly different and heavily nerfed in so many ways, with no indications of changes prior to finding them in game apart from what was advertised as a visual only reticle change (that seems significantly more difficult to use, especially the rocket reticle), really is not acceptable.

I've never seen anything like this patch, and I've been playing this game since closed beta.

Edited by Moggytwo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
84 posts
12,189 battles

seriously, i have a bad feeling about new USA BB line, ive got MINNESOTA , and speed is the most important factor in high tier battle, and these new comer has no speed at all

and exchange for what? bigger guns? we already have yamato and shikishima; better armour?  no, apparently no better than GK and  kremlin; then wt? DFAA? does that ever worked after the CV refrom?

so, what is the point? just give me one reasons to grinds the new BB line

finally, there is a question for WG: have you ever tried being called brainless when you creating a new ship? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,406
[-CAT-]
Member
2,786 posts
12,346 battles

US Battleship Split

Just like the Soviet heavy cruiser split, WG had another missed opportunity here again.

Fast Battleship
T6 N. Carolina 'IV-C [9 - 357 mm (3 x 3)]
or
T6 N. Carolina 'VI-A [10 - 357 mm (2 x 3 and 2 x 2)]
T7 N. Carolina 'XVI-C / Florida [12 - 357 mm (3 x 4)]
T8 N. Carolina 'XVI-D
T9 Iowa
T10 Montana

 

Fat Battleship
T6 New Mexico
T7 Colorado
T8 Kansas
T9 Minnesota
T10 Vermont (Should have been R. Island as per Tillman document)

Not bad, but a missed opportunity like Soviet Heavy cruiser split.

 

 

Also I do not like the name "Florida" for battleship XVI-C.

Unlike German battleship which was renamed from Lundendorff to Pommern, I am quite sad and a bit disappointed that Florida was not renamed as Louisiana due to "Frenchness" guns or even as N. Carolina "XIV".
The XIV is her design name. Much like how you name W. Virginia '41 and Belfast '43. There is a model number in the end of the ship's name.

North_Carolina_class_scheme_XVI.thumb.jpg.e8924a1ff7f6238cbb3130fa1eac444b.jpg

Besides the name USS Florida exist as a 1912 dreadnought (BB-30), so she (battleship XIV) does not deserve the name Florida.

USS_Florida_(BB-30).thumb.jpg.bb54dae0d80c6acb1a3f5652fa8fe6d8.jpg

 

 

Using the name N. Carolina and having a model or design number in the end of the ship's name will leave more room for preliminary designs rather than using other US state name (which some are occupied / used by real battleships such as BB-30 Florida).

N. Carolina "A (Nelson North Carolina with 356 mm)

North_Carolina_class_scheme_A.thumb.jpg.2bb7a047b5fd1acbcfd7e8a565bf1d5a.jpg

N Carolina "VII (ABXY 356 mm North Carolina with triple 127 mm secondaries)

North_Carolina_class_scheme_VII.jpg

 

Remember there is only 48 US states that can be used for battleship names (Alaska and Hawaii were not yet considered as US states at the time. They are US territory.).
There is a limited use of battleship names for a lot of preliminary battleship designs.


 

Early Access Bundle

This is the fourth time that you give your players false hope (First is Puerto Rico, second is EU destroyer, third is SN heavy cruiser). And we do not like it.

3,000 -> 4,000 -> 5,000 -> 6,000 -> 7,000 then suddenly 20,000.

It is no longer called early access if the players can not collect enough tokens and requires too much token to get early access ships and premium ships.

Might as well scrap early access / part 1 if you (WG) do not wish to give players "early access" and be stingy.


 

Naval Base Port

Naval Base port looks very nice, but the port loads very slow.

Slowest port to load compared to other ports.


 

Research Bureau (Naval Training Center)

We do not like this mechanic and feature. Update 0.9.9 have bad score / rating because of this.

We have given our feedback one year ago. No change was done.

 

This mechanic and feature was not "reworked". This mechanic and feature was only "renamed" from Naval Training Center to Research Bureau.

 

Rework is destroying the old mechanic / feature and rebuild it from the ground up. Just like CV rework. From RTS to FPS.
Research Bureau is not rework. It is rename. Core mechanic (reset) is still the same.
Ranked (0.9.11) is not rework.  It is only updating. Core mechanic (star system) is still the same.

Rework is change. Fluid.
Research Bureau team fears change. Stubborn, ignorant.

 

Research Bureau is unpopular.
Research Bureau is a scam.
Research Bureau is discriminatory.

Don't believe me, here is evidence:

Asia

NA

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/227881-research-bureau-rewards-for-leveling-up/

EU

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/142251-research-bureau-rewards-for-leveling-up/


 

Single Client Game

A great Quality of Life (QoL) change.

Players no longer need multiple instances (except Public Test).

This saves hard disk space. Efficient.

 

However, this is short of being able to copy your existing profile to other servers and play with other servers.

I understand that you want to keep player numbers in regional servers. As well as the current technological limitations, does not allow the game to be playable with one global server.

I would like to try to play in the other regions without starting from scratch.

My goal / intention is, I want to try if the game is playable in both NA and EU server from Asia location. In some locations, the game is playable while others could not.

 

But in the future, I hope that WG can make a one server fits all. Where one server can cater all 4 region. No regional division.

 

Overall, I like the change. Good Job. :Smile_smile:


 

Combat Mission Interface

Another great Quality of Life (QoL) change. Good Job. :Smile_medal:


 

Visual Improvements

Rendering quality is great. More realistic lighting and glare.

Also, Space port is now very very nice. I like. :Smile_great:


I still have not yet tried the CV aiming reticle.

This is due to the intentional / unintentional CV change. Making CV currently, somewhat, unplayable.

Hence I can not give a proper feedback on this.

That said, I do want WoWs team to give the player the freedom to choose CV aiming reticule color.

Ready to fire:
Green
Teal
White(?)

Not ready to fire:
Yellow
Orange
Black(?)


 

Undocumented (Intentional or Unintentional) Update

This also, is what really gave 0.9.9 a bad score / rating.

If the change was intentional, change should be documented.
If the change was unintentional, change should still be documented. This way, if you want to revert back to previous state, you can remember what are the changes that was made.


 

Overall

If it wasn't for the Research Bureau and the undocumented change (either intentional or unintentional), patch 0.9.9 would have gotten a better or higher score / points (possibly 3 or 4 stars) if the undocumented change (either intentional or unintentional) was quickly addressed. And if Research Bureau was not advertised and reworked 1 year ago.

I feel sorry for the team who did a good job at the game, because the team who did a bad job at the game, made patch 0.9.9 bad that the team who did good job were not notice.

 

Lastly, credit where credit is due to team who did a great job on the game.
But hold the team accountability when team did a bad job on the game.

Edited by S0und_Theif
Adding Naval Base Port

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×