Ahskance

Haven't actually had time to look.

It's past 11pm, so I'm going to head home. Remind me to check tomorrow in like... 12 hours?

See the "Please Note" section in blue from the article.

Co-Op has a 25% reduction in Service Cost. After that reduction, the adjusted number is treated as the Base Value for Co-Op.

360,000 - 90,000 (25%) = 270,000.

If you are in a Clan, your Clan Bonus would reduce that further but it would extrapolate from the 270,000 number as a base value.

Lazy? Where do you get that from?

There was no credit given for those tokens. Purely "use 'em or lose 'em".

I never forget the "Type" part after our discussion, but still worth knowing that gamers have been referring to player choice options as "classes" for easily 50 years!

There are people that will report others for doing things they don't personally approve of. It's just a facet of online gaming in team-based stuff.

The best suggestion I have is to do the best you can and enjoy the process of figuring out the next step in the puzzle as the game moves and evolves. If you'd done all you can, you can always feel satisfaction in that.

We shipped on a summary of this thread a week or two ago, but I sat down and spent about the last hour and a half slow reading it from the start.

My big takeaways:

Star earning is contentious

Several folks dislike Save-a-Star because they fear it encourages bizarre play patterns


Some folks want Star Loss or No Star for low/mediocre performers to make the movement more "effort-based"


In general, the grind is considered to have too many Stars in it for those that are Rank 1 hunting, but it has a good number of Stars for those that are looking for "enough matches to enjoy playing without ranking out"

Ranked is generally considered less toxic then it was

Most of the fervent toxic concerns were carryovers from the older long-journey style. The newer version seems to be lighter on people's minds.


Having...

That wasn't my intention. I felt you were genuinely concerned that repeatedly playing a Submarine was taken by us as a form of validation.

I was actually trying to reassure you that if you played for an amount to learn how they worked and then moved on to other things, then it's unlikely you were classed as someone with a deep and abiding appreciation of the class.

-

Some of the metrics we can use are:

Did the player immediately play another game in a Sub?


Did the player play another game in a Sub within a Day?


Within a few Days?


Within a Week?


Within Two Weeks?


With a Month?

If you played to learn the class and then moved on, that would reflect as what you personally did in regards to the data you added to the pool. The players that continually went back to play subs again and again and again are ...

I'm going to be honest in that I can't comment. It's not because of any company obligation but the fact that the CVs don't exist yet. The closed test is a concept test.

Concept Testing is when you have no art, no sound effects, no nothing other than a basic interface that allows a thing to happen so you can see what occurs.

-

You've built a rough outline of an idea using the things talked about in the DevBlog, but you would need to include Plane Health, Speed, Attack Pattern, Boost Metrics (if normal or abnormal), Regen Rates, Starting Deck Spaces, Upgrade Paths, Concealment Values (if normal or abnormal), Reticle Concepting, Delivery Concepting, Damage Numbers (Possible and Expected), and take all of that an figure out what an expected amount of damage dealt would be while factoring in the assistance value of all the consumables that you'll be bringing to the table.

It's a long road, but feel free to dive deep enough...

The pings are visible out to 8km, so it does encourage using Homing torpedoes from a distance greater than 8km. If you are getting in closer than that, you might consider the standard torpedoes instead as the damage is much higher and there's no ping to pin-point you for air drops.

Yes, there would certainly be some suspension of disbelief. Stunning/Lockout mechanics are fairly commonplace in games, though.

You should think further about what this assertion means.

If the game is healthy, we will make money.

If we make the game unhealthy, we will lose money

If we are continuing to test Submarines, then we have an expectation of a healthy game

because a healthy game is required to make money.

There is no expected amount of magic money to be made simply by adding something new. While there may be some early adopters, it is in nobody's interest to damage the functioning health of our game. We are well aware of that, which is why submarines have been testing as long as they have. Adding an entire new concept to a game is a remarkably hard thing to do, and even still it hasn't been locked in after a wealth of ef...

Yeah, that was the Hybrid weirdness.

You're referring to the reticle weirdness after the introduction of hybrids? That was very strange, but it was addressed within a week or so and seemed like most of the weirdness was reverted.

Unless you're referring to the Broadside Reticle Rework? That did come before the Machine Gun Delay change, but they both were done to serve the same end so I lump them together in that sense.

No, I said the number of people that are "For Subs" are roughly the same as those "Against Subs". There is a fair amount of "Neutral", which means folks that aren't for or against them.

If you have no interest in what I have to say, then I will stop responding to you.

The Rocket change was to impact a part of CV interactions and help DD players quickly understand how Rockets work through a visual indicator.

Rockets still work against DDs, though they are much harder to use than they were previously.

As to "Major": A major rework would alter Most or All things, and changing one part of one squadron's interaction areas isn't what I would call major.

I never said "daily". I said...

Please dial it back from 11.

We have 5 server clusters that operate every day around the world. There are more players than exist on just NA.

You can view the current number of players by hitting Escape while in port. Here's a picture that I just took from the live server.

Again, this is strange. We have around 14-15,000 people on at the same during our peak population times each day.

Maybe you're looking at the numbers on Steam? There are many players that connect directly through our Launcher.

I cannot agree that it's the same level of issue.

I played World of Tanks a little. Mostly, I died~ I was never good at pixel hunting, so I'd just get shot from unseen directions and die. To me, having less vision, speed, and accuracy (if I could even see the enemy) would just mean I'd be dead even more easily.

You are correct that Consumables are very important in WoWs. I once heard the "Cruisers are supposed to convert consumable pressure into map dominance or kills" and that I think that's really valuable. That being said, that kinda explains why a stun to prevent a Radar or Hydro at a critical time could absolutely be the clutch play that allows a DD to make their big move.

For the most part, people will just think about DCP and Fires, but disabling detection for a window could also be tactically interesting.