[2022] Changes to San Diego (2022.03.31) - She Still Sucks

The HE DPM above is provided with 21mm of Pen. Outside of Superstructure hits, the only things that effects is downtier'd Cruiser armor and Destroyers.

Comparing 315,000 DPM filled with shatters and fire change to 403,200 DPM with 36mm Pen is a massive difference.

While there can be ricochets, the chances of shattering are greatly reduced as 36mm pens Tier 10 Heavy Cruisers with 30mm and even the 32mm base plating of Battleships. A French or British Battleship is full pen'd everywhere as they are coated only in 32mm.

The DPM can kick up higher as well.

Pen damage deals 33% of rated damage (prior to saturation). Base firing rate could deal 134,000 damage to a ship in a minute, the MBRB can tack on an additional 30k. Even Saturated, that is an immense amount of damage in a minute.

Further, the more comfortable shell flight aids that as compared to an Atlanta.

-

San Diego is a very, very powerful ship. Especially given that she can be top-tier in a match.

She's only just entering Testing, so it's very possible we'll see large swings as data is gathered and her capabilities get nudged into place.

My personal concern was that players might purchase a ship purely for historical value and find that they underperform because of the base complexity of the ship being too high. Loss of HE does make the ship harder to play, but the reduction to 5 seconds as a base firing rate makes her extremely powerful. Even the Tier 7 Atlanta's raw DPM numbers are massive when compared to Tier 8 Cruisers that are in the game.

The MBRB is something to be aware of for big moments like a DD being detected. However, the reduction to 5 second base reload really makes the ship fully playable without even touching the MBRB. The raw DPM output is very powerful.

I'm not sure what the thoughts are in regards to Radar/Smoke, but we do already have a US Tier 8 CA with Smoke (the Anchorage) and a US Tier 8 CL with Radar (the Cleveland). It may be that there are concerns of play patterns being redundant as opposed to unique?

I'll see if I can poke around to get more info on that at some point.

That wasn't my point and I'm not attempting to sell a ship.

She can throw out a huge amount of DPM and can pen Tier 6 and 7 with 36mm pen off her SAP. That is absolutely something which has to be factored in to her balancing because of the fact she might see lower tier enemies.

I'm confused here: SAP shreds destroyers, so how does this work?
If you mean that a bow-on or tail-on DD won't take as much from SAP as from HE, then that's partially true, but I respectfully disagree that a cruiser with this many barrels and SAP ammunitiion with a reload booster will in any way suffer trying to engage DD's

@YouSatInGum @LittleWhiteMouse

I have a very direct ask, and please remember that I'm a game guy not a history guy.

1) Why do you both have such a strong belief that the San Diego MUST be similar to the "Tier 7 Atlanta" ship concept? What is the reasoning that makes this a mandatory ask?

Please help me understand why this is such a specific thing of importance because the Atlanta's Radar/Floaty Shell/DPM setup is ultimately a game-construction moreso than it's an accurate representation of the ship in a simulator sense.

In all fairness, brother - you're comparing a T10 DD with insane ballistics and advanced AP pen angles to a T8 light cruiser with lofty american ballistics.
This doesn't prove much in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't help me. Why does her being a historical ship mandate that she uses the Tier 7 Atlanta's play pattern?

I need a solid understand of the reasoning if I'm going to be able to express this concern accurately.

First off, thanks to everyone who is responding and adding in. I didn't @everyone, but I just wanted to make sure there was attention on the post to continue the discussion. The additional responses are welcome.

You mention AA and "Support"

Anti-Aircraft:
I have to call into question why the AA has bearing here. At least in terms of "Atlanta > Austin" as Austin is one of the nastiest AA ships in our game. If you wanted an AA suite to be modeled after something nasty, the Austin would be a great role model for that concept.

This is extremely relevant because I need information as to why the argument is "San Diego must resemble an Atlanta", and saying she needs good AA is not a persuasive argument that voids connection to an Austin. If you have more details or other descriptions that you can give me on this front, it would be very helpful to make the case.

HE Shells:
I have a specific question in to ask why HE was replaced in favor of SAP as opposed to removed AP. This does fundamentally make her a harder ship to play as HE is sort of "the great equalizer" in terms of positional skill. Namely that HE doesn't require positioning, it just requires accuracy to barrage a target and light fires. It could be that SAP is the direction that San Diego is expected to go, so that extreme damage output that she provides was weighted as so oppressive as to make HE untenable? I hope to have more information on that next week.

As for saying the Destroyers are unable to be punished, I can't personally follow with that. Yes, SAP shells can ricochet, but they can also HURT. Flinging 2.5 sec SAP volleys when a Destroyer does get lit is terrifying and while the DD could be running away, they might also be bow-in. A Bow-in Destroyer cannot turn in front of SAP volleys like that... so it yolos and prays? or sinks? There is a lot more to the play of SAP then just recognizing its potential to Ricochet.

Also, the in-flight drag of the shells could make the angle of SAP acceptable to pen the deck at range. 36mm pen into Decks (and the top of bows) is nasty, so this is something which must be remembered.

Radar:
Radar does provide vision, and most US Cruisers DO have radar. This can also have the side-issue of making ships redundant as making another US Cruiser with Radar means that it has to differentiate itself in other ways. Raw, horrifying amounts of DPM (as in going higher than what the Atlanta does, because she's a DPM monster compared to Tier 8 ships already) could certainly be the stand-out, but if making that raw DPM "more comfortable" to players to allow for Historical Ships to be more playable... that's a recipe for a frighteningly powerful ship.

Can you give me a specific reason why San Diego MUST be able to Radar and spot Destroyers on her own? Why is she unable to use team-spotting in the ways that most ships in our game are expected to?

Smoke:
Smoke is powerful, especially paired with HE. You've championed the idea of making a Smoke or Radar option, which is almost the ability to make two different ships in one when you compare what a smoke-playstyle is like as compared to a radar-playstyle. British Light Cruisers do have this, so it isn't without precedent, but every ship we offer is expected to have an amount of gameplay attached to it. It would be interesting to have multiple gun options, consumable options, concealment options, and more... but that creates the expectation of a ship which gives 2, 3, or more game experiences... which is a lot of content to be attached to a single ship.

Adding Smoke or offering Smoke as an Option would be powerful and interesting, but it could also be too much. At least in terms of also providing AA to the extent that is requested. AA is considered one of our balancing factors, so having Significant AA will result in loss of power from other areas of the ship's capability (because of power budget game-design principles).

---

The best way I can be an advocate for the desire to see San Diego be a Tier 8 Atlanta is to give me hard reasons Why she MUST be a Tier 8 Atlanta.

If there is historical reference to her use of Radar that stands out in a way to requires her to use Radar, this would be helpful.

If there is historical reference to her use of HE shells resulting in fires that disabled ships or turned the tide of a battle, this would be helpful.

-

I need a historical or gameplay reason as to why she MUST take that specific play pattern if you want me to be able to represent this viewpoint. Stating, "I want this play pattern to be associated with [ship]" is useful for telling me that you WANT it to be that way, but it's not enough for me to express that it MUST be that way.

I realize this is likely confusing. "Why is he not hearing us when we are saying we want a Tier 8 Atlanta?"

Let me try to present a short timeline of your feedback from a "Ahskance is hearing you and representing you internally" angle:

I have heard you, and I directly relayed this feedback. I also relayed that a very serious concern about the Tier 10 Austin is that she is a ship which requires an extreme amount of skill to be able to function in, so listing a lower tier version of her with a similar skill requirement would likely result in a very rough situation for newer players that acquired her more for history than game-function.

Specifically, I tried to translate your requests and concerns into a Tier 8 version which could mildly bridge the "tier lineage" of the Tier 7 Atlanta-style ships to the now existing Tier 10 Atlanta-style ship (the Austin).

My collation of the requests was:

4.8 sec Reload

This is the Atlanta's firing rate, which has a DPM that already beats ALL Tier 8 Cruisers in the game

MBRB with a 25% Reload Buff that lasts 30 seconds

This introduces MBRB to the "Atlanta lineage" but allows for a reasonable DPM increase to not overwhelm the already high base DPM


The boosted rate of fire would be 3.6 seconds which was within the RPM window that LWM mentioned was normal for Atlantas

Radar changed to 9km as that's standard for Tier 8 CLs


Use the US DD Defensive Fire to accent her AA capability for historical nod and effectiveness


Consider a .5% to 1% Fire Chance increase

Only if additional power was needed to seat her as a Tier 8 ship

The above would resemble a Tier 7 Atlanta with a tier-relevant increase in power budget. Also, it's a more simple concept of a ship, which would allow less experienced players to have a more reasonable expectation of playability.

It does not incorporate a Smoke/Radar choice in a single slot even though that was a repeated suggestion because that would likely be considered a very high ask in terms of offering "two ships for the price of one" in some ways.

-

Now, as I am a Community Manager for WarGaming, please understand that "I have one foot in the Community and one foot in the Company" in a sense. My job is to translate information both ways, from Here to the Company, and from the Company to Here.

So, we took in that feedback and deliberated on it. As such, we have a result of those deliberations, and I'll describe them below.

This feedback was received and we found areas that we could iterate on in order to bring Our Vision closer to Your Vision. In response:

The base reload dropped drastically from 8.5 seconds to 5 seconds to allow for a more comfortable base level of play that is less centered around cooldown windows and "burst". Burst is extremely powerful, but as it does take a skillful eye to exploit it to its fullest, the more comfortable base firing rate alleviates that concern.


A Heal was added to allow for errors and more resilience to damage at higher tiers. While the healthpool is small, this does add more play buffer. Also, the Citadel repair amount is the improved version to assist with the lower HP pool.


HE was exchanged for AP, which is NOT catering to a basic playstyle, but it does give a ship with VERY HIGH DPM a limitation on how that DPM can be applied. It's ok for ships to have strengths and weaknesses.


The use of SAP providing high DPM with advanced pen angles is Very Powerful, especially with the base reload and still having a MBRB to further augment its ability to put shells down range.


The special Defensive Fire consumable which really makes what was already strong AA even stronger. AA is multiplicative, so the addition of another 50% in the stacking is quite large.

These are all very clear changes which take your feedback into account. The end result may not be the ship that you are directly requesting, but it is absolutely a ship which was impacted directly by your thoughts and concerns.

We still believe in our vision of a Tier 8 Austin-like ship concept, and we want to test her in this capacity. Testing will allow us to see how she performs and help us to refine her further.

-

Why was I asking questions about "MUST"?

The reason I was asking if there was Historical precedence which REQUIRED her to take a different form is because we ARE avidly interested in History. This is a game, but we are quite meticulous in trying to bring the history to life where we can. As such, if San Diego was famous for her Radar, or famous for her Fire-Setting, or famous for a tide-turning Smoke... these would absolutely be things which we would factor into our decision making. While I, personally, am not very informed on the history of many ships, I work with people that are ABSOLUTELY dedicated to those things. While historical accuracy does not always win out over game balance, it is absolutely something that can impact our decision-making.

In absence of historical moments or references like that, I don't see how our vision of San Diego is unfaithful to her legacy. She was known for her AA and San Diego currently has very powerful capabilities in that area, especially with her new Defensive Fire consumable and Heal. These allow her to take AA Picket positions, have great anti-plane pressure, and have healing which allows her to receive damage from incoming air attacks or occasional shell damage when lit fending off air strikes.

This is pretty accurate. My job is to interact constantly with hundreds of people, have a working knowledge of their thoughts and concerns, and be able to provide their thoughts internally while being able to convey our thoughts back out to them. Part of my process is to engage with people and to try and find the nuances that occur in the back-and-forth discussion.

Much of this thread and the previous thread on the San Diego are similar. I begin by presenting the product that we are providing and our thoughts on it. There is a wealth of responses about the product. If there is a significant push for a different product, then I need to start interacting to learn the WHAT and WHY of those requests to be able to represent those viewpoints internally. I can't simply copy/paste the views of hundreds of posts, so it's on me to understand the common threads and concepts that run deep and be able to provide the core of the feedback. Yes, there is interpretation in doing that, but I try my best to capture the best intentions laid out. The more information I have, the more accurate I can be.

There are times when that does happen, but typically it's when there is an extreme amount of effort and thought put into something and it quite literally cannot be conveyed better than "Hey man, you have GOT to read this!".

There is no reasonable way to expect our Dev Team to stop working and read hundreds of posts on this forum, hundreds of posts on the EU forum, hundreds of post on the CIS forums, hundreds of posts on the SEA forums, and to also absorb feedback from other sources as well. This is literally why we have a Community team. Our function is to absorb this information and pass it along in an understandable, digestible format while also providing links in case specific things require further investigation.

Honestly, I DO have to ask questions and have these interactions. I need to understand the depth of what people want and why, and inquiring/challenging is an excellent way to bring up engagement which can get me that information.

As for representing WG's viewpoint, that is also literally my job. You can disagree with our choices or decisions, but it's still an important part of the process for me to elaborate of what those choices and decisions are based on before I can get further feedback. Expecting me to initially assume a communal viewpoint and rally against what we are offering isn't reflective of a role which requires existing in both the Community as well as the Company. I must be able to represent both viewpoints as a communication point.

In a very straightforward sense, this is logical, yes. However there are many ships in our game with Radar systems but no Radar consumable. There are many ships with Hydroacoustic systems which are also not reflected for gameplay variety and balance purposes. This is where Historical Accuracy and Gameplay Balance do come into conflict.

I have requested additional information as to why we are preferring the direction of a lower-tier Austin, or at least why we are not going in a Radar consumable direction. Hopefully, I'll have additional information in regard to that sometime next week. At this moment though, I don't have the design intent behind that, but I do know that we have a belief in San Diego being a formidable and fun ship as currently designed.

This is something I can ask about. If the naming convention is the largest source of friction that's an avenue that I can explore.

You might not have seen the recent DevBlog?

The current version of San Diego has a 5 sec Reload, a MBRB which provides Burst Potential, and a special +100%/+300% version of Defensive Fire that is exclusive to the US DD line.

That is actually the 3 of 5 you just mentioned. As well, there are other pluses, too.

Guys, if this thread devolves into a tit-for-tat slapfight it's liable to get locked.
Please avoid this kind of stuff because I don't think anyone wants that to happen. Make your points without "who they are vs. who you are".

Sorry, Mouse - I realized that I quoted your comment when I replied. I was actually referring to others with my post.
Apologies for the confusion

I think we've had an honest and open conversation with Mouse about this topic that she brought up.
We don't have a "narrative" that we're running on. At least for Ahskance and myself the trick is to make sure you all know how things work as best we can and help make feedback we get the highest caliber of feedback possible.
Mouse gives much more precise and elaborate feedback than most people, so it's worth it for Ahskance and I to have a dialogue with her and by extension you all as well here in these threads. That doesn't mean that we will agree with her on all things, but at least Ahskance and I are high-level players as well as part of the staff, so we can press her on things that we feel are maybe not the best ways to see things. It doesn't mean we ignore her or you, nor does it mean we are "pushing a narrative", it means that we are trying to meet in the middle by conducting this dialogue.

Thanks for you take.
Honestly - I'm honestly concerned that it will be too strong based on what I'm seeing now. We'll have to see. Not many ships have SAP rounds at T8 so the jury is still out on just how effective they're going to be - but I suspect it will shock people.

I'm sorry - but I have to stop you there.

Atlanta reload: 4.8s
San Diego reload: 5s

San Diego also has a Reload booster.

Saying it has a "knee-capped Rate of Fire" is simply incorrect.

Our Designers make our game. Their vision has created a Free-to-Play game which has a world-wide audience and will soon reach 7 years of runtime. This is rare unicorn levels of happening, so please keep that in mind.

-

When we initially put out information about the San Diego, she had an 8.5 Second Reload in very Austin-style sense. There was pushback and there were very direct changes in response to that feedback.

A heal was added to represent her long service. A special DFAA was added to represent her historical accomplishments against aircraft. The reload was almost halved in comparison to her announced concept. All of these things directly resulted from some of our players voicing concerns about the difference between our vision and theirs.

Is this an immediate representation of was what requested? No, but it IS a collaboration which brought two different concepts closer together in execution. As it turns out, the resulting mix was wildly successful in her first test showing, so a Major readjustment was required because of that. San Diego is being well cared for, even if she was reigned in after running away with the games she first participated in.