[2022] DevBlog 293 - Changes to Test Ships and Submarines — Closed Testing 0.11.2

Here’s a list of changes we’re applying to Hornet, Maya, researchable Italian destroyers, and submarines.
Read more: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/293

So, an "Arming Threshold" means that an AP weapon will need to hit a patch of Armor that is some amount of millimeters thick before it actually "turns on". After that, there's a timer before it blows so it has so time to crash deeper into a ship.

Changing the Arming Threshold from 36mm to 30mm means it's more likely for the Bombs to Arm in the first place. Say the bomb strikes a 25mm deck... it might hit at a slight angle which thickens up the armor to say 32mm in "thickness". That's not enough to arm the bomb, so it might drop through the deck, then ARM on the Citadel... but crash through the bottom of the citadel before the timer goes off. In situations like that, you'll get an "Overpen" for only 10% of rated damage.

Reducing the Arming Threshold means the bombs are much more likely to Activate when striking the Deck on a Cruiser. They were already very likely to arm when striking the deck of a Battleship since their armor is already so much thicker then Cruisers. So, in that sense, it's a "buff" not a nerf. The AP Bombs are more likely to arm on more targets, which means they are more likely to explode inside the targets. You'll notice there was nothing mentioned about reduction the "penetration" of the bombs, which means they still dig just as deep into the hull/citadel as they did before.

I literally wondered about an hour ago about if putting out testing info/changes is actually helpful or not.

It's strange to hear people saying that an entire line of ships has been gutted/made worthless over a change that was never actually seen or played by anyone outside of our small testing base. :\

It's honestly not about announcing ships that are OP or not. It's just about keeping to an internal time table. Ships take around 2 years to research, build, implement, kit out, balance, and release. DevBlogs remarking on a ship entering the game are more an announcement of a milestone then any actual comment on the capability or current state of a ship. It's just an informational update to be open with folks.

My concern after today's thread regarding the San Diego and now the feedback here is that we might actually be over-informing folks when we're giving all kinds of test information which may have literally no bearing on the product in as little as a few days. Since people are hungry to draw conclusions, they can and will take any information offered and run with it as far as possible.

Arrived 6 minutes ago, I think~

Testing periods are for getting things done. If data is collected that quickly reveals a flaw, the sooner the change comes in to a different iteration the better. This is where the public perception of "They changed a thing I liked!" is harmful, because without any actual experience to understand why a change happened I'm just seeing people get GRR about nerfs that literally never affected them or anyone other than someone in the Testing groups.

The point I am making is that if we announced literally no changes, then there is no panic. The ship will go through the same balancing process of buffing or nerfing to find its spot amongst the pack.

Sometimes that process will produce a ship that's a little weaker than folks like, sometimes it'll produce a ship that over-performed in ways we didn't expect and will require a month or two of data before we can isolate where to tune it.

---

Again, the issue I'm talking about is this panic over numbers off a screen that have no correlation to actual experience. For instance, I just read about someone being angry over a Dido nerf. She was nerfed in testing from something like 6 seconds reload to 8.5 seconds reload. Why? Because a well-played Dido is extremely maneuverable AND has a smoke for added survivability. Dealing with a well-played Dido that feels unkillable while it's ripping you apart with 6 sec volleys was identified to be a PROBLEM.

Will all players make the Dido perform to that level? No. However, it will happen, so it's made into a ship that'll dance in the hands of a skilled commander. On the one hand, it sucks that such a highly regarded ship caters to a niche playstyle... but a lot of the really basic playstyles of damage farming, basic ship concepts are already implemented in the game. Making something redundant could be functional (we do have clone ships), but ideally every (non-cloned) ship should have its own flavor.

I get your attempt at a meme, but CVs aren't nearly as terrifying as folks make them out to be. That being said, I'm not going down this hole.

---

This is something I can bring up internally. That more known, historical ships might need to have basic playstyles so that anyone and everyone can play them. The biggest issue with that is that we'll likely run into redundancy issues with other ships that... basically do the same thing because we have so many ships in the game already. If folks just want to buy a ship because of a name and not because of a gameplay style, that might be something that might also make introducing historical ships counter-productive to an extent (which is a really awkward thing to say).

In general, none of our ships should be OP. Historical ships with medals and awards are ships players will A) want to be able to play regardless of skill, and B) be able to have solid, consistent performances in. That trends toward the idea of "OP Premium" if anyone and everyone can expect solid performance as a baseline. It's a genuine cause for concern.

You are correct, Austin is a ship which has a special style to it. I can be roughly 3km behind a DD to be able to hard-support when the friendly DD trips across an enemy DD. Or it can be an immovable object when helped out with smoke.

As far as "It's DPM is low! It needs the MBRB or else it's worthless", this is a very conventional look at the situation. Yeah, the ship isn't likely a damage farmer, but it absolutely has power-windows that a ship like an Atlanta -doesn't- have. If the San Diego has a 75% reduction, then it's firing every 2 seconds, not every 5. The ability to capitalize off a 10 second enemy mistake is 5 salvos, not 2.

Again, it could be that "She's historic, EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY HER" could be an extremely valid point. It's just... a really redundant point from a gameplay perspective.