Sub_Octavian

"Most players hate this CV rework" or "I and people around me hate CV rework"? Are you sure you can speak for everyone? I am not, from my experience. Please before saying things like "most" and "everyone", consider this:

People always tend to communicate on the game (or any product) when they are not happy with something. Usually communication means something is wrong, a lot less people take their time to say "hey, good job here", they usually just play/use the product and have fun. I am NOT trying to devalue what we discuss here, but trying to speak for everyone when only a few % of active audience socialize at all is not too objective.


By the way it is a big challenge - to reach the bulk of audience. Even mass polls do not have too good penetration. Again, I'm not saying that content here or on Reddit is irrelevant - it is important, but it does not necessarily represent any majority.


People are naturally resistant to cha...

Also, to everyone here - please let's stop throwing personal insults and accusations towards each other based on the way some of us prefer to click LMB in a video game. Thank you very much!

Because it allows rapid firing ships to improve DPM while spraying shells, that's why!

I appreciate your elaboration on the subject, thank you. I already explained why it was done (and repeated above). Let's wait and see the feedback from our sources/regions, to see if it's just a couple of confused player or a bigger problem, and then let's see what needs to be done (if it does).

Correct; I wanted to give long reply before the discussion moved on.

I am glad that there is no hidden intention in this, because too many times I see people blindly copying "devs don't play the game" mantra they heard somewhere. Which is obvious, because many people prefer just to devalue the opponent in discussion, instead of addressing the points.

But if you're not trolling, I will gladly reply. Yes, all people making any meaningful decisions play the game: https://clans.worldofwarships.ru/clans/gateway/wows/members

If you want to go deeper, big part of game design team is here:

https://worldofwarships.ru/ru/community/accounts/6231945-WelIDone/!/pvp/overview/

1. Every game nation has paper ships to fill in some tiers, and this if fine. RU BB has more of them, and still it has ships that were in service, and ships that were being built.

2. OP is an objective definition. An OP ship is a ship that can give a player of equal skill better results, comparing to other ships in the group. While the statistics for RU BB battle performance will be accumulated and settling for some time, as it happens with all new ship lines, for now there is no indication that they are OP.

3. Also RU BB shine when played aggressively, and they are rather bad at passive play. Just saying.

4. While definitely affecting DD play, I'm not sure that "CV plague" affects other classes experience so much, judging from what I see and my own games, too. Switching class/ship/tier is always a good option.

I am sorry for your bad experience and defeat chain, but it happens to everyone in every game. If you still f...

1. It is not a nerf (did you read the description of the change, if I may ask?).

2. We do not "focus" on this, it's a small change, one of the dozens, and positioned as such in patch notes.

3. A lot of people play DD and play them well, even though DD population did drop after 0.8.0, but "noone" is a huge exaggeration.

What ships do you have issues on with the change? 0.15 sec is extremely minor and in all fairness, I am not sure it even theoretically can have negative impact. Like, it's literally a quarter second change.

And it is beneficial for the cases when you have extreme RoF (e.g. rapid firing ships with AR), when it's easier to hold LMB and your guns reload faster then the full chain is fired.

Hello,

Please let me explain a couple of things to avoid any future miscommunication.

The thread was locked precisely for two reasons:

1. Repeated reference to other game.

2. A bit of offensive language.

I hope you understand that (1) this Forum is dedicated to World of Warships, and although we're absolutely fine with mentioning other games here and there (we're all gamers after all), it is not intended to discuss and promote other games in-depth. Each online game has a community, and if anyone want to discuss a particular title, they're welcome to join the respective community. Makes sense, hopefully. As for being offensive, it's simply not tolerated. We always strive to communicate properly and in-depth, give a lot of information and insight. We believe that meaningful communication should be civil even if the parties do not agree on something. Saying things like "Balance does not translate from Russi...

Because it there will be RU BB event arc, and it makes sense to supplement a new anticipated branch with new related content. What's the problem? All game nations without the Legendary commanders will get there eventually

Come on, you're better than this. The majority of OP ships in the game are not even Russian And Kuznetsov talent (while being WIP btw, which means it's still to be tested) is compensated by being less epic. Also Kuznetsov has 1 less improved skill.

Captains,

Following your feedback on encountering 2 CVs per team on battle tier X (more information can be found here), we’ve worked on a possible solution.

As a result, we decided to introduce a 3 minute soft cap for 1 CV per team on battle tier X, complemented by a hard cap for 2 CV.

This means:

It will no longer be possible to encounter 3 CVs at battle tier X under any circumstances;


There will be much fewer games with 2 CVs per team on battle tier X (at the moment these battles constitute ~8% of all tier X battles worldwide);


In some cases, when a ship is queued for 3+ minutes, 2 CVs per team will be possible, but we predict it to be a very rare case - unless the number of tier X CVs in the queue spikes.

To clarify once again, this applies only to battle tier X (Tier VIII-X ships). On lower battle tiers this change is not critical, and not technically possi...

Dear players,

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships.


Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms.


According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fa...

Eh, no? The test start was announced when it was approved. And we're not "going to nerf them". We're going to test various changes to GC, while analyzing the stats and community sentiments, to see if we need to do anything and how. I mean, you can paint us evil geniuses sitting in the basement and plotting how to sell stuff and then nerf it (for lulz, obviously), but that's not how it works.

So? The game was perfectly fine before boxes, and if they are banned in the industry, the game will be perfectly fine without them. Fortunately neither WoWS economy, nor WoWS progression system are built around loot boxes mechanics. It's a component, which will be dropped, if needed, and replaced with one of the alternative solutions, if needed. Both as a dev and a player, I think this issue is blown out of proportion, thanks to several games that centered everything in their game design around this mechanics, pushing it to absurd levels. Thanks, dear industry colleague...

Well you are reading something else then.
I did not blame players. As I said, we're responsible for any changes to the game.

But if you think constant "oh my god, they nerfed it, now my wallet is closed" pressure during live testing any premium ship makes it easier to balance, you're wrong. That is not the most important point, but it's a point - a lot of players actively push for OP premium ships even when they don't participate in live testing, and a lot of players perceive OP ships as "comfortable" forgetting that their comfort sometimes means casually slapping all other ships in a group with less effort. That's just a fact, and no one it to blame here.

I am sorry, but I don't see anything I should apologize for. First of all, no action has been taken, and no decision has been made.

Second, distribution method does not matter. Some people purchased the ship originally, some got it for free, some got it from 1 crate, and some from dozens of crates. I don't consider rare ships in the crates "unethical", and don't understand why I should, tbh. That's the way to allow collectors to get them without overflowing the game with them. Some players want to have full set of ships, and of course, for crates, any ship like this is a unique item, so it's a win-win. Not even mentioning all other contents. The timing does not look good, I agree (recent sales + CV rework), but then you should also understand that we announced testing start - it can take months to make any conclusions, and there will be no perfect time to test it; there always be an excuse to postpone this question.

With all due respect, you should invest some time in CV before talking about unlimited planes, because, as I play literally the same game you do, my planes don't feel unlimited, and my pilots never enjoy flying over cruisers like Seattle. And if it's AA-specced or in a group with other ships, my pilots usually don't live to tell the story...

If you follow my activity you probably know I'm all for admitting the screw-ups and working on resolving their consequences.

But apologies for 4-5 premiums turning out to be OP from literally dozens and dozens of well balanced-ships? My apologies, but I don't know any PvP live game where the unit balance is perfect at any period of time. I also don't know any game design case in the industry of MMO where you don't have to make adjustments from time to time. Finally, it's very hard to feel sorry for...testing.
I think it's super important to admit your mistakes, but I also believe automatically admitting anything not popular or controversial a mistake and apologizing for it is...a mistake, and will only devalue any kind of open community interactions.

Sorry, but I don't understand all this semi-threatening "I will put my $100 elsewhere"? I fully realize that paying players like you pay the bills. I value that, and thankful for that. Why is this an argument for game health discussion though? Why do you think it contributes to the weight of your statements? Should I, according to this logic, disregard the opinions of non-paying users? Or pay the attention depending on the check size? Sorry, I don't think it's fair.
As for your points:

As I said, any alternative ways after the general sales are gone are not really changing anything. The majority of ship sales are generated in the beginning, not 2 years later, and there is no point in hoping "we don't sell it anymore, it's fine". No, it's not fine. It's either accepting the fact there will noticeable % of OP prems in queue (a viable option, by the way) or not accepting it;


EULA already allows the changes to the game. As I said before, I'm ...

Huh?
WG doesn't want to hurt their sales, and I'm not "playing dumb" about it. Also, a wonderful revelation for you: no company wants to hurt their sales.

Most likely the approach that will emerge from GC testing will be universal and will set a precedent for foreseeable future. It won't be fair to touch GC, and not touch the ships you listed. It won't be fair not to touch GC and touch the ships you listed. That's why we're taking our time with the test and that's why I said several times we will take this decision very seriously, and all concerns and feedback will be taken into account.

Thanks for the solid and reasonable argument. I don't expect OP prems to really wash out of MM queue significantly compared to current state, though. The massive start sales and good player retention mean that they will remain played for years, and their episodic appearance in crates or any other special events doesn't affect it - this inflow is too small anyways. As for crates sales, I don't know, but it's a valid question we research atm. The second question would be: if such ships are super desirable drivers, are they des...

Hey guys,
Just a few clarifications:
1. I personally don't have anything against GC, that's..a weird thought. I personally love the principle in game balance when a player can choose and play any ship from a particular group, and show more or less same efficiency, under condition that the ship is used properly. GC and several other premium ships show considerably better performance relatively to player's skill. This is not good for game balance health and it makes other ships in their respective group look and perform worse. And when that's just 1-2 such ships in the group it does not make any sense to try to buff the whole group instead of tuning down the "overperformers".

2. That said, game balance health is not the only factor, and my personal views are not a serious argument when making such a serious decision. For example, if the majority of players are really fine with 5-6 OP premium ships (surely this ship group will grow over years, but looks ...