Ahskance

Polls/Update Surveys. We also have data observation, though what I referred to was polling/survey information.

I'm not sure what the "Who is the silent majority" means. They are people that don't speak up unless directly interacted with, hence "silent". Are you asking for demographic data? The "Neutral" section is composed of all types.

Things that were effected:

Rocket Delay and Visual Cue Addition

This that weren't effected:

Surface ship AA values


Plane health values


Plane speed values


Plane boost values


Plane regen values


Air-based consumables


Bomb characteristics


Aerial Torpedo Characteristics


Skip Bomb Characteristics

Yes, there was a change, but the majority of the game-system is the same as i...

I was told that WoT stuns involve loss of accuracy, movement, and crew skills. The concept in testing is much, much more basic than that. It just locks out consumables for a duration depending on the number of bombs that hit the target.

Movement and Accuracy are unimpaired by the "stun".

In a general sense, there are as many for as there are against. There is also a fair amount of neutral.

I'm not authorized to give numbers, but the above is a good approximation.

The Rocket Change was significant in altering how CVs interact with Destroyers, but the same game system exists for pretty much everything else. Battleships, Cruisers, and other Carriers are all functionally the same as they ever were.

Spotting is repeatedly brought up as a pain point, so there is work to figure out how to lessen that issue. As for when a solution will be found, no idea on that one. Still in development.

I'm not sure it's overly related to World of Tanks. "Stun" mechanics have existed in games since the 70's or 80's. They are a common form of control to help a group work on a powerful target.

As for the Support CVs, it was announced years ago that the removed odd-tier CVs would look to be returned in a Support CV concept. We didn't want to just release a mass of Rockets/Torps/Bombs CV so a measure of differentiation is required to allow the previous diversity CVs to be playable in the game.

AA "wind-up" and Aerial Detection reduction was tested and never happened.

"Radio Distance" was tested and never happened.

"Vision Cones" was tested and never happened.

-

Things get tested because someone came up with an idea, time was put it to figure out if it was worth trying, and then folks tried it. That's the perfectly normal process of testing.

Just because something gets tested doesn't mean it's flawless. The idea of testing is to literally gauge how flawed the idea is and if it's worth pursuing.

Humans are much more adept at remembering "the bad times" then the good times. I think it's related to a survival mechanism? Either way, it's easy to remember isolated situations and feel like they have more often than they actually do. This is why I challenged you to play for a period of time and actually sit back and observe how often it really occurs.

I've been told for years that ships hide at the back of the map and can't flank in CV games. I've played thousands of CV games on stream where ships pushed and flanked, even though I was in a CV. It's really just a perception problem moreso than a problem in actuality.

Planes get shot down and a CV loses the ability to repeatedly use a single squadron over and over. The idea of a perma-stun is unlikely because those planes will become exhausted as they get shot down faster then they are replenished.

Or, as I said, there could be a no regen system, or a timer like on a SuperCV which it's a single shot squad and then it's gone for minutes. There is literally no information on how they would be implemented, so anything at this point is just made up concern about possibly scary situations.

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.

You are stating a fear you have with no information to back that up. This is the danger of conjecture.

"Stun Bombers" could be available on a 4 minute timer, or have extremely low health, or have no regen cycle, or... anything really, because a concept in testing has no definitive balancing concepts applied because it's not actually a thing yet.

Please remember that saying "Hey, we're trying to a thing out behind closed doors" is extremely different than announcing a ship that coming out with X planes or Y concept.

Worth noting that I hear about "Passive Play" repeatedly, but it doesn't happen nearly as often as people describe. Maybe on SEA, but not in NA.

I actually think the largest confusion about the "hiding at the back of the map" concept is that there are players that don't understand the concept of "Trading". As in, there are players which spend the first 5-10 minutes looking for trades where they deal more damage than they take and whittle an enemy down enough to get a kill or two or break a flank. THEN the pushing in and active play happens... because you just can't rush in and fight in a 12 v 12. No ship eats 6 ships worth of fire for very long at all if it pushes in to just get focused and sunk.

I don't agree that they are in as rough a state as before. Also, the reception to them being returned was even met with openly positive comments both here and on Twitch, which is a directly notable difference from before.

I realize you may feel that subs are hated by many or most, but it's simply not the reality of the situation. Some like them, some hates them, and many are indifferent.

The last major change to CVs (outside of the Rocket Rework) was patch 0.8.7. They have been fairly locked in since with occasional testing of spotting concepts and the addition of some weapon types like AP Rockets and Skip Bombs.

This already happens. A ship gets HE spammed, repairs at two fires, then gets lit on Fire again. This can also happen when being dropped by HE Bombs as they can light fires which result in a DCP and then shelling follows up with Fires.

Regarding Damage Potential,

I'm not really sure I can agree. Battleships are likely large enough that the stun might last a decent duration and fires/floods affect them the longest. However, those fires still have to be set by teammates as opposed to a CV just doing the damage themselves.

Cruisers and Destroyers are smaller target, meaning less Stun Bomb hits. Based on the DevBlog, that could mean a cruiser being locked out for maybe 30 seconds and a DD for maybe 10-15. As far as Fires/Floods, they have reduced damage taken compared to Battleships so that is already less of a concern. The large issue is more about a smoke being locked down? Though the Cruiser or DD could simply smoke before the Bombs get close enough to attack them. In general, Destroyers and Cruisers seem unlikely to be main targets outside of trying to put Radar on Cooldown or finish a low-health target... though a normal squad of bombers would just be able to deal direct dam...

The primary counter to damage capabilities in our game is positioning. On the more basic firm, that can be a bow-in verses broadside. As the gameplay gets higher than can revolve around islands, consumables, teammates, and setting your ship in such a way as to be able to retreat to safety should you become overly threatened.

Bombed by HE Bombs or shelled by enemy ships after being stunned for a duration, that will still fundamentally rely on your use of positioning and having a strategy to stay safe.

Every game starts with the teams seeing what ships they will be facing, so every match can be entered with knowing what capabilities the enemy team has so that they can be planned for.

This doesn't make sense. Your statement is saying "Nobody wants to take damage", which is true. However, ships take damage in our game as it's part of the fundamental nature of how our game works.

Stuff in testing like this is months or years away, assuming it even ends up being something the dev team decides to move forward with.

There is no PTS coming soon for this. It's just a rough concept.

In general, our game is about damage interactions. Players do damage to other players. Ships take damage and sink. This is a fundamental part of our game, even though no player wants to take damage and no player wants to sink.

The Stun Interaction is something where the CV player isn't doing damage, but their teammates are getting to have an easier time doing damage instead. Either way, damage is still damage.

If a normal CV bombs a target for 18k damage, or a support CV stun bombs a ship and it takes 18k damage from teammates... 18k damage happened to an enemy ship. The enemy ship isn't going to want to take 18k damage either way, but our game is set up around ships taking damage.

Because Savage Battles is primarily a fun torp-jousting meme brought to life as a quirky fun event.

There is a massive difference between a post-apocalyptic short-time game mode and a player loading into a game expect to watch in misery as their DD just rushes forward to try and ram something before they die.

There is a big difference in speaking with facts, data, and information compared to complete and total conjecture based only on a few paragraphs of describing a concept.

Being concerned that something strange or not-intuitive is perfectly reasonable. Stuns can be something more associated with arcade games which can certainly weird people out. However, nobody has any idea on what size the reticle could look like, how many planes you get per match which means having no idea how many times a player could even use them (twice? four times? only once?).

When there are no specific details, it's extremely easy to imagine the worst possible scenario. My reminding people that this is in testing is to remind people that there is so much more than a description that happens when actually playing a game. Further, playing something that is likely so rough as to not have art, animations, or anything other than so number values in a game for basic testing purp...

Yes, I understand people are very concerned about weirdness and gimmicks. However, we do not have respawn in our game so making a "ramming DD" would be extremely, extremely weird as it'd be the equivalent of legalizing yolo-based team griefing :\ So no, there are no "ramming DDs".