Ahskance

That being said, they might not extend past the Update. Sometimes we have to remove Rental ships before a new update to avoid problems, so please understand the the end of the Update is likely a "cut-off" date in that sense.

Should be 20d from the time they are credited to you from completing the mission.

It hasn't made it out of the concept phase. It's literally in a dev-blog that is named "Conceptual Test".

I am not lying.

-

Why am I responding so much instead of hiding until this blows over? Because leaving a house on fire means other houses can catch of fire.

I have spent months working on this forum to try and help folks get to a place where they speak to each other with a foundation of respect. We have come a LONG way in that last three months. So yes, when I see a massive bonfire party that looks like it's going to cause screaming and insults that will destroy the community-building work I've been pushing for over the last three months... I'm going to head over and try to ask people to stop throwing gasoline on the fire and take a moment to breathe.

This is assuming the DD:

Didn't use Smoke before being spotted.


Was in a position where being spotted was instant death.


Couldn't fall back to a teammate that could push the planes off them.

This game is about decision making. If the DD didn't use smoke, and was in a position where they would be shot if spotted, and was hit by bombers they saw coming, and didn't have a way to cut off line of sight to enemy guns or get to air cover to stop being plane-spotted... then yes, that would be a very tough time. Still, it would be a result of that DD driver's decision-making.

My job is not to defend a concept that doesn't exist in our game. I have received no orders to defend anything.

What I AM doing is making people aware of what "concept testing" means. I'm also trying to convey the ideas in game-terms of why you might see us even trying something like a "stun" in the first place (ie: it's a common game concept for the past 30+ years). But again, testing a concept doesn't mean anything about it actually entering our game.

I will be honest in that it's strange to read that a player shouldn't expect to be punished by an enemy. You would expect an enemy to damage you, deny you vision, or keep you suppressed. These happen currently through direct weapon damage, smoke screens blocking line of sight, or ships taking positions that force enemies to fall back and lose their preferred firing angles. The stun bomb concept is just a different variant of what already happens in that is helps a ship take damage, suppresses them, and can deny vision in the sense of locking down radar/hydro for a time.

That being said, the feedback here is primarily about "Don't put things in game which stop a player from being able to do something." IE: If you load into a game with a ship that can do X and Y, then the playerbase sentiment as that they should still be able to do X and Y at all costs.

Your suggest of "buffs instead" is more saying:

"Just make a buff system that mak...

A Mage's "Counterspell" is a lockout mechanic. Player A starts to a do a thing, Player B stops them and adds a cooldown timer.

I often talk in terms of mechanics and systems when I speak about games. It's just years-old habit.

Submarines haven't be added to the game in a state where people are highly negative to them. Vocally, sure, but not across the total playerbase. Also, they are still in testing.

SuperShips will enter the tech tree in a state where people aren't highly negative to them. Vocally, in some ways, but not across the total playerbase.

Note: You've already expressed you don't have an interest in believing me, so please don't restart that line of dialogue.

-

I addressed CVs above where you quoted from in the post you quoted, as well as previously to this post.

The Research Bureau Unique Upgrade move was certainly contested and still is disliked. This is something we are aware of.

It's worth remembering that we had a pretty massive upset happen about 6 some months ago. We've made a lot of effort internally to address our connection with the Community, as well as making more efforts toward maintaining the better relationship we're pushing for. Yes, there likely have been a variety of painful issues in the past, but we are actively trying to use those experiences to help us do better going forward.

This was something we directly pointed out during the CC Summit of 2019. We put the new CVs onto Public Test and ended up spending all the time we had bug-fixing instead of balancing. When we had the bug fixed for the most part, the hype had passed and we didn't have enough player data to effectively test with.

The change in how we're testing since is reflected in our handling of Subs. There have been MANY, MANY tests behind closed doors, on the hidden test servers, the public test servers, and more recently the...

Thank you for taking the time to give a long a heartfelt reply.

I agree with everything here. I think most people are attracted to these things, too.

I'm.... very... intellectually distant when I consider a lot of things, from friends to puzzles. It's just how my head works.

I love the theme, though I'm not personally versed in history to the extent that others are. That being said, I'm so used to standing back and looking at games from a systems angle that I can imagine what it would look like if Carriers were replaced with ice cream cones and planes were shooting stars that fired rainbows~ I'm more involved in learning how things interact than getting bogged down in the specifics of X or Y piece of hardware because that's the type of game enthusiast I am.

A lot of what I try to do isn't to just be a member of the community. I am that already because I've played this game exte...

It's not uncommon in gaming to have "spells and counterspells". Yes, this is a game with ships, but the gaming terminology is just to say you can have "consumables and counter-consumables".

The largest effect would be if a ship used Radar, but then was Chaff'd and the Radar cut off. Otherwise, hiding a friendly in Chaff only delays the team-spotting effect by an amount. One use is much more effective than the other.

The section regarding Radar was here:

The NTC never happened. The Research Bureau is a completely different concept than having a repeatable path to buff a ship above base capabilities. RB is a grind-block for ships or alternative ways to play ships, not a thing which alter in-game balance concerns.

Like it or not, the move away from RTS CV needed to happen. There were fundamental problems with the systems used that required the old system to go away and a new implementation to happen.

There are many people that miss the RTS version or dislike the new version, but we still met the objectives we laid out and believe the current version of CVs is healthier in terms of game interactions as well more accessible to players.

If you can it would be helpful. Specific examples can help me to see where issues slipped through cracks and to double-check if those cracks are still there.

Themed, specials camos can often cost 6,000 Doubloons in the higher tiers. 10 Point Commanders are available for 1,500 Doubloons.

The two together come to 7,500, so it's not that abnormal~

Yes, there are a variety of suggestions which primarily relate to "buffing teammates" as opposed to "debuffing enemies". In a way, they are both doing the same thing, but people are correct in pointing out that it feels bad to be debuffed.

Ultimately, the CV will still need to be able to interact with the enemy team to an extent, though our DevBlog mentioned that there would be other Squadrons on the CV according to the concept. The likeliest idea of that is simply the that Support CV would have normal squadrons, but less of them because of the inclusion of a support squadron or concept. However, designing stuff like this would easily be months to years in terms of finding it's place in the game, so I don't imagine there's a particular rush to their development.

Yes, I acknowledged that. I've been reading this for the past 24 hours.

We're still going to test it internally, but testing something doesn't mean anything in regards to it actually coming to the game.

We'll also be testing Smoke Screen stuff from planes and a Chaff concept as well, so whether or not Stun Bombs matter the test will still give us information on other items.

There is no announced change. The DevBlog was just saying "We are testing a thing". Players have responded with extreme concern just over it being tested and nothing more.

Captains!

Would you like to obtain some more Community Tokens?

Then go ahead and use this code!

HAVEFUNIN0112

What's described in the devblog has nothing to do with movement or ship controls. It's just a mechanic which locks out consumable use for a time.

You quoted me telling someone else:

"How often does that happen to you in actuality? Try watching your replays and document how often you see something like that occurring. If you find more than three in the course of a day, feel free to make a thread and post the replays so the issue can be discussed."

Saying that it happens almost every match will simply result in me making the same request to you.

If you play 4-5 games today, and 3 or more of them result in what you're describing, please post the replays on the forum in a new thread and tag me.