Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Teahee

The Problems in Tier 10 Carrier Balancing

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

386
[ARP]
[ARP]
Supertester
868 posts
10,795 battles

To start off, I would like to note that this post will only be addressing the balancing of the tier 10 carriers, although some of the issues are shared throughout the entire class. Carriers have always been in a strange spot in regards to balancing, and in many ways it seems that CV gameplay and balancing is lagging behind the rest of the game. I've played CVs since CBT, and truly enjoy the class, but find it extremely frustrating when there are long standing balance issues which have not been addressed.

For the sake of providing legitimacy to my arguments below:

Spoiler

I am a unicum CV player, and one of the best Midway players (out of players with at least 100 games). I have played both CV lines extensively, and have played the class since CBT, and played carriers through multiple iterations of the game. I don't claim to be the best, and there are plenty out there better than me, but I'd like to think I understand the class well enough to make an educated argument about its balancing. 

 

The Problem with Midway:

I want to touch on the Midway first, since the latest news from the WoWS Development Facebook Page is that she is going to be nerfed, having her hanger size reduced from 136 planes to 96 planes (almost a 30% hanger nerf). While I agree that the Midway needs changes, I feel this approach is a crude and simplified solution to a more complicated problem. Midway has gone through a number of changes over the years, but I will be focusing on the balancing issues with her current setup. 

Firstly, tier 8 planes on a tier 10 ship. This was a balancing option explored by WG through the Kaga (tier 6 planes on a tier 7 ship), and this option was applied to Midway in an attempt to offset her advantage in squad size and hanger capacity. While on paper this may seem like a good idea, theoretically mitigating her air power by making her planes slower and more vulnerable, it caused a number of flow-down issues. Weaker planes mean that CV captains are more likely to go for targets with less AA, and less likely to try and push risky strikes through enemy AA. Ultimately, this means that the targets of choice become bottom tier ships and destroyers. Having a carrier two tiers higher than you focus you down is not a pleasant experience, and this only leads to frustration when players feel powerless. While some destroyers are equipped to deal with plane threats, many lack the raw DPS, or defensive fire, to deter planes. Furthermore, destroyers which rely on their torpedoes can be completely negated by aircraft spotting, again creating a frustrating situation where players feel powerless. Unfortunately, while this was always a problem, it is even more serious with the Midway's current setup due to the weaker tier 8 planes. 

Furthermore, tier 8 planes also lead to frustration from the carrier captain's perspective. While against lower tier ships, or ships with poor AA, you will perform extremely strongly, this performance drops off significantly against ships with better AA protection. At tier 10, there is a multitude of vessels which field extremely strong AA, all of which can easily defeat your squads of tier 8 planes. Even ships with "mediocre" AA at tier 10 will still cause casualties against tier 8 planes. If the enemy decides to ball up, concentrating all their AA, even ships with poor AA become challenging targets. If the matchmaker throws you against a collection of ships with strong AA, it is entirely possible you will be unable to effectively strike targets, relying on your team to weaken enemy AA, or for the enemy ships to spread out. This situation can be extremely frustrating for the carrier player, and it can feel like your ability to be effective in game is decided by a throw of the dice. While player skill no doubt has a role, there are still situations where players feel powerless against enemy AA strength/concentration. While the Midway gained striking power after her planes got downtiered, this change is often a "double or nothing" situation. Either you can obliterate entire flanks of lower tier ships/ships with poor AA, or you are forced to play passively - else lose planes futilely to enemy AA. Again, this situation is frustrating and undesirable. 

Secondly, slow rearm time is a trait of USN CVs, however the main time-loss between strikes is spent by planes traveling between the CV and the target. Combat distances are farther at tier 10, and the Midway's rather poor concealment forces it to keep its distance from the front-line. You will almost always need upwards of two minutes between strikes, meaning the number of strikes per game is severely limited. This problem is magnified by the tier 8 planes, which are significantly slower than Midway's old flightdeck, or their IJN counterparts on the Hakuryu. This restriction forces carrier players to be selective in their targets, since a failed strike will cost them precious time. Unlike a battleship which fires every 30 seconds, (or other ship classes), carriers cannot afford to take chances. This problem is especially relevant to the Midway, and again results in carrier players focusing lower tiered ships, ships which are vulnerable. The most vulnerable ships tend to have weaker AA, and are isolated from the rest of their team - namely destroyers. Yet again, a situation is created where players feel powerless and frustrated. 

If WG implements the proposed fix published on the Developer Facebook page, both these two problems will be further magnified. The hanger capacity of a carrier is its healthbar - without planes, a CV is little more than a barge. Losing 40 planes is almost a 30% reduction in the ability of the Midway to sustain a fight. If the Yamato lost 30% of her HP, players would be forced to play her more passively, and take less risks. The same will occur with the Midway, with carrier captains forced to choose their targets even more restrictively than before. Activities such as spotting enemy ships, defending against enemy aircraft near enemy AA, and striking important targets if they have AA cover, all become more risky. Having plane reserves is the difference between pushing a strike against a low health tier 10 ship, or instead targeting the isolated tier 8 with limited impact on the game's outcome. It is the difference between defending an allied ship against enemy strike aircraft, and instead withholding fighters out of fear of running out later in the match. In my opinion, such a change would be incredibly harmful to carrier gameplay at tier 10, further exacerbating existing problems.

 

The Problem with Hakuryu:

The Hakuryu's recent problems mainly stem from the current iteration of the Midway. Previously she had an advantage in torpedo power (12 vs 6), but that was lost after Midway gained a second torpedo squadron, although Midway's planes are significantly weaker. Most importantly, this made Midway much stronger at cross-dropping destroyers, something that Hakuryu had been stronger at previously. While Midway's fighters have more recently been nerfed, they still trump those of the Hakuryu, meaning that the Hakuryu has weaker fighters, while also losing the edge in alpha strike. 

Another existing issue with Hakuryu was the weakness of her dive-bombers compared to the USN equivalent. This means that Hakuryu's dive-bombers are primarily used to start fires, focusing on DoT (damage over time), rather than alpha damage. However, the USN dive-bombers have the best of both worlds, with excellent fire-starting capacity, and good alpha damage. This gap in performance become more significant once the USN CVs tier 8-10 gained access to AP bombs, which have the ability to deal crippling damage against certain targets. Previously, this difference was justified by the weaker torpedo armament on Midway, however this is no longer the case. Meaning that in regards to alpha capacity and DoT capacity, Midway has stronger torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The key difference which keeps the Hakuryu from being completely outclassed is that Hakuryu retains her tier 10 planes, which are faster and with more HP than the Midway's. The other small advantage is that Hakuryu has her planes split into 8 squads, rather than Midway's 6, giving her a theoretical edge in spotting and scouting. However, in practice, the 6 Midway squadrons are more than adequate, and the laggy CV UI prevents players from micro managing Hakuryu's 8 squads separately at the same time. 

As such, while the Hakuryu is by no means a "bad" tier 10, nor would I call her "weak", she has certainly lost most of what set her apart from the Midway. While it would be nice to see some small improvements to her dive-bomber armament, changes should be aimed at restoring some advantages over the Midway. It is perfectly fine for one tier 10 CV to be weaker in certain areas than the other, but it must also be stronger in some areas in return. 

 

Potential Solutions:

The problem with CV balancing is a complicated one, and thus finding a good solution is difficult, and at times elusive. I'd like to propose a few ideas, mainly centered around the balancing of the two tier 10 carriers. 

 

Remove Midway's "Double or Nothing" Paradigm:

Currently Midway is balanced around having a massive strike payload, offset by weaker tier 8 planes. This however means that the Midway completely overpowers lower tier ships, and those who are vulnerable (such as destroyers). On the flip side, this massive payload is useless when up against ships with strong AA, or even multiple ships with mediocre AA if their auras are overlapped. This situation is frustrating, and it often feels that your ability to contribute is decided by a dice roll. Instead, I propose that Midway's loadout be altered, with a weaker payload, but stronger and faster planes. This way, carrier captains would have more strikes per game, and a wider range of potential targets. This flexibility means that carrier captains can remain effective, of course, AA ships would still inflict considerable casualties, but at least carrier players would have the ability to push strikes through against damaged AA ships, or masses of ships with weaker AA. Furthermore, a weaker payload per strike means less situations where players are obliterated in a single strike - a situation which is frustrating for players. While the Midway's average damage would remain comparable, the damage would be spread out over more strikes, and more targets. This lightens the pressure for CV players to make every strike count, affording them the ability to attack riskier targets. This same change can be applied to the Hakuryu, with a lowered alpha strike in return for faster plane speeds, meaning damage is spread over more strikes per game. 

 

Encourage Carriers to Split Strike Packages:

Currently, the best way to attack enemy ships in most scenarios is to stack squads together, and attack in a single wave, overwhelming AA defenses to land as many hits as possible. This is often done separately with torpedo bombers and dive-bombers, to force ships to repair before hitting them with a DoT effect. In the status quo, all the alpha damage of the strike is focused against a single enemy ship, often leading to their destruction in a single strike (not a fun experience). If carrier players had an incentive to split their squads up, and attack different targets simultaneously, this damage would be spread over multiple ships. Again, by spreading damage out over multiple separate strikes, CV gameplay becomes more reliable, and less frustrating for both sides. Currently, the main issues standing in the way of this shift in striking paradigm are: 

  1. The slow carrier user interface. The lag when switching between squads is often a hard cap on your ability to micromanage multiple squads at the same time. Even the delay when issuing orders to squads can be frustrating. On lower tier CVs with only a couple squads, this is not so much of an issue, but on a ship such as the Hakuryu controlling 8 separate squads simultaneously is almost impossible due to this delay. Because of this, it is much easier to simply mass squads together, effectively controlling two or three torpedo/dive bomber squads as a single entity. 
  2. AA mechanics. Due to how AA damage is calculated, and how focus fire (control+click) works currently, it is more efficient to send all squads in at once against a single target. If the strike paradigm is to change, the AA mechanics would need to be reworked. One potential option would be to change it so that all squads in an AA aura receive equal damage at all times.
  3. Plane HP. This is linked to the AA mechanics, but is especially a problem on the Midway, with its undertiered planes. I would suggest that the alpha damage of each squad be reduced, but in return their survivability and speed increased. 
  4. Plane rearm times. The current rearm times are more supportive of large, massed strikes. This is partly due to the fact that the rearm time of planes is relatively short compared to the time it takes them to travel between the CV and their target/s. If their travel time was shorter (by making planes faster), and their rearm time was longer, this balance would shift. As one potential option, a carrier would only be able to rearm one squad at a time. Carriers would then be more efficient if they staggered their strike squads, staggering their rearming, and attacking in multiple smaller strike waves rather than trying to mass their planes for a single large one. 

 

Getting Rid of the Deplane-ing Meta:

This idea is no doubt a controversial one, and I admit I have not fully explored the consequences of this suggestion. With the analogy of a CV's hanger capacity as their equivalent of a healthbar, I suggest a method through which they can "heal", or in this case, recover more plane reserves. For example, once deplaned, a CV player might gain "X" many fighter planes after a certain period of time (perhaps justified as reinforcements from off-map). If the CV is deplaned again, the period of time before the next set of "X" fighter plane reinforcements arrive increases. In this proposal, a CV which loses all their planes is not rendered completely useless, however the objective of deplane-ing an enemy CV remains meaningful. This makes CV gameplay more forgiving, and provides a bit of flexibility for CV players to partake in more risky activities such as spotting, or defending allied ships against enemy aircraft. Furthermore, it lessens the impact of the allied CV getting deplaned on the rest of the team. Currently, a deplaned CV is of very little help to the team, and the team loses access to spotting and fighter protection - often putting them at a significant disadvantage. Through this proposal, this disadvantage, while still present, is reduced. The result is to hopefully reduce the frustration among a team when their CV loses the air war, and to provide a more forgiving experience for CV players who get deplaned. 

 

The Introduction of Radio-Range to Force Carriers Closer to the Battle:

This was an idea suggested some time ago by Little White Mouse (please correct me if I am wrong). Similar to in World of Tanks, radio range in Warships would limit the distance at which carriers could render enemy ships. While you would still see them on the mini-map, their exact locations in the bird's-eye view would only appear if they were within this radio range. This would force carriers to move closer to the front-lines, instead of running to the back of the map. As a result, this reduces the travel time of planes between the CV and potential targets, increasing the number of strikes per game, and making CV damage more reliable since it is spread over more strikes, and more targets. Futhermore, it adds another element to CV gameplay. While of course CVs won't be fighting on the vanguard, they will not longer be so safe from flanking DDs, or enemy fighters which might spot them. In this way, it forces CV players to be more engaged in the gameplay, since it is now in their best interests to keep spotting potential flanking ships, and to prevent stray enemy fighters from spotting them. 

 

Concerning the Midway Rework Proposal on the Developer Facebook Page:

I totally disagree with this course of action, and feel it will only make matters worse. While in my opinion, Midway does need to be nerfed (and was over-buffed into her current state), these changes can be done in small steps through my first suggestion. Massive changes like knocking out 30% of her hanger capacity will not help the core problems in her balancing.

 

In conclusion, oh man this turned out a lot longer than I thought it would. If you made it this far, I thank you for reading through my prattling, and I hope I got my points across. The implementation of carrier gameplay is really something special about World of Warships, and something that made it stick out above the crowd for me. Balancing such a unique class is by no means an easy job, but I feel that it is an area which WG has neglected over the past few years. I sincerely hope that CV balance is something that will be given a serious look, as I truly believe that it has the potential to be an extremely positive aspect of the game. 

 

 

  • Cool 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[SF-3]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
5,358 battles

Good points. Nothing actually wrong here and things I've pointed out.  Problem is that WG is actively ignoring input on CVs unless you are from RU or a Graf Zep owner.

Lets not even get to the fact that her AP bombs, which are now a weapon which faces t6 ships due to being added at t8 do not scale with ship HP and on top of that do not even work correctly as AP bombs against battleships of t9 and above. Exacerbating the problem as you stated with Midway going after bottom tier ships such as Bisko and Tirpitz.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
5,807 battles

As someone who has experience on both CV lines, i can say that you put in a lot of thought and effort in this post.  This needs more attention and we need to show WG that their methodology in balancing CV's, especially tier X CV's is severely flawed and they need to seek more input from people with experience in CV's for their balancing process

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
27 minutes ago, Teahee said:

AA mechanics. Due to how AA damage is calculated, and how focus fire (control+click) works currently, it is more efficient to send all squads in at once against a single target. If the strike paradigm is to change, the AA mechanics would need to be reworked. One potential option would be to change it so that all squads in an AA aura receive equal damage at all times.

"Blobbing" (stacking our squadrons)  is a tactic that is almost universal in RTS games, due to the way ranged dmg (AA for this example) is calculated, while it is counter intuitive as a defensive tactic for cv players vs AA, wholly unrealistic, to render blobbing unecessary (or indeed undesirable) an AA rework/redesign, of any value would mean abandoning the "Wizard's aura"  approach entirely, and introduce some kind of basic ballistics calc instead, along with a probably greater server load. Introducing ballistics for AA would also make it possible to sort out the very silly situation we currently have, of AA shooting through solid mountains. Maybe worth a reminder about how just AA works in WOWS.

I don't play t9/10 cvs very often, so obviously I can't comment on the rest of your post, but I can appreciate the thought and personal experience that went into it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,690 battles

as someone that was working there way up to the midway and was  looking forward to getting it and having a CV that outclassed the IJN at long last, these nerfs that WG keep putting on midway is really starting to make it pointless to finish the grind to midway and CV is my favourite class to play , first the planes, then changing clear sky which is now pointless with this change, now the hanger size whats going to be next on there list changing to loadout to 1-1-1 they might as well drop midway to tier 9 and come up with a new tier 10. people that say its about balance yer i dont think so or they would off changed the IJN line knowing there loadouts for lower tier CV against the US CV where unbalanced, take tier 7 US gets 1-1-2 where IJN gets 3 options one being 2-2-2 or even 3-1-2 yep thats balance there 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,121 battles

Good points.

But sadly by the last 2 years updates we can see wg dont care for cvs, only listen the crying bb players, only put more ships with aa (now they doing a t6 dd with aa? wth?!) and only gonna nerf usn line util be totaly worse in all tiers vs ijn line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
813 posts
8,519 battles

The issue isn't just that Midway has stronger strike, it's also that it has stronger fighters despite them being undertiered. The two extra planes per squad give Midway the edge.

The solution therefore has to either tank it's strike capability or its fighters relative to Hakuryu.

Edited by CarefreeTongue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,018
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,128 posts
8,749 battles

The smart move for WG would be to completely redo the CV's. They are so messed up now that every minor fix seem to create a half dozen more issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,690 battles
20 minutes ago, CarefreeTongue said:

The issue isn't just that Midway has stronger strike, it's also that it has stronger fighters despite them being undertiered. The two extra planes per squad give Midway the edge.

The solution therefore has to either tank it's strike capability or its fighters.

the problem is how much there nerfing it, look at essex and midway with this nerf theres not a lot off difference between the two now, midway has 6 more planes, 1 more TB squad and midway fighters are 1 tier higher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The smart move for WG would be to completely redo the CV's. They are so messed up now that every minor fix seem to create a half dozen more issues.

We keep getting promises, but little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,121 battles
1 minute ago, ausanimal said:

the problem is how much there nerfing it, look at essex and midway with this nerf theres not a lot off difference between the two now, midway has 6 more planes, 1 more TB squad and midway fighters are 1 tier higher

image.png.5226046195f68b94b697b770bd5ca979.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
813 posts
8,519 battles
6 minutes ago, ausanimal said:

the problem is how much there nerfing it, look at essex and midway with this nerf theres not a lot off difference between the two now, midway has 6 more planes, 1 more TB squad and midway fighters are 1 tier higher

Uh please? That extra TB squad isn't a big difference to you? What world do you live in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,018
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,128 posts
8,749 battles
Just now, AviationBattleship_Hyuga said:

We keep getting promises, but little else.

Personally I think the first move should be to remove the player from the cockpit, no strafe and no manual drop. Instead you would have the choice of a close in drop with a high probability of getting hits at the cost of much higher susceptibility to AA or a long range and much less effective but safer drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,614
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,705 posts
11,320 battles

Not much of a CV player, so I won't be weighing in, but well written for sure +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[RKN]
Members
1,424 posts
11,737 battles

I would be happy to have two CV players against each other of approximate equal win rate percentage so one person doesn't decide the game's outcome simply by pushing Battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
18 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Personally I think the first move should be to remove the player from the cockpit, no strafe and no manual drop. Instead you would have the choice of a close in drop with a high probability of getting hits at the cost of much higher susceptibility to AA or a long range and much less effective but safer drop.

I think the first move should be to pull carriers from the game - send a really strong message that, "yes, this is broken right now, and we're pooling all our resources to attack the problem." Then, I would announce the suspension of further lines after the American CA/CL split (or, really, the loss of a one of the four promised line releases per year) to just zero in on carriers. And then I would go after it with everyone on the WoWs staff.

Enough of this ticky-tack nonsense. Commit to killing off the game's biggest problem in one fell swoop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,356
[O7]
Supertest Coordinator, Supertester
6,387 posts
7,321 battles
15 minutes ago, iStinky said:

for the love of the game,

ULTIMATE NERF delete the CV class.

at minimum get rid of strafe and manual drops, add unlimited planes and only 4 squads out at a time FFS!  be done with it CV play at tier 4-5 proves this, just let them have unlimited planes like DD's have unlimited torps.

Why the size....:(

 

Great post, Teahee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,018
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,128 posts
8,749 battles
1 minute ago, AviationBattleship_Hyuga said:

I think the first move should be to pull carriers from the game - send a really strong message that, "yes, this is broken right now, and we're pooling all our resources to attack the problem." Then, I would announce the suspension of further lines after the American CA/CL split (or, really, the loss of a one of the four promised line releases per year) to just zero in on carriers. And then I would go after it with everyone on the WoWs staff.

Enough of this ticky-tack nonsense. Commit to killing off the game's biggest problem in one fell swoop. 

I feel that they have to leave them in but quit mucking with them while rebuilding the class/type and the trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,690 battles
8 minutes ago, CarefreeTongue said:

Uh please? That extra TB squad isn't a big difference to you? What world do you live in?

the point i was trying to make which must be to hard for you to understand is that you look at IJN tier 9 CV then there tier 10 you can notice the difference in the tiers with hanger size, the tier lvl of planes, loadouts. with this nerf to midway theres not much change from the tier 9 yes getting another TB squad is great and prob long overdue on the line but look at everything else to and going from tier 9 to tier 10 you get 6 more plane, your fighters move up a tier theres not a lot off change, you work your [edited]off to get to midway from essex just to find out you get 6 more planes they didnt make it even with the hak and a 100 planes for both  they have to give the midway less and a amount closer to the essex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
5,807 battles
54 minutes ago, iStinky said:

for the love of the game,

ULTIMATE NERF delete the CV class.

at minimum get rid of strafe and manual drops, add unlimited planes and only 4 squads out at a time FFS!  be done with it CV play at tier 4-5 proves this, just let them have unlimited planes like DD's have unlimited torps.

Real productive post u got there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,468
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,034 posts
12,514 battles

What you've said is correct on many points, but I disagree with you on the effect of the Midway hangar nerf. CV captains already hunt destroyers and isolated targets, so this change will not increase the degree to which that happens -- it can't go any higher than 100%.

Also, the wowsdevblog change is not the "rework". It's just the next step in the Midway-Hak balance adjustments they started a few patches ago with the fighter drop to T9 (not really a nerf, I know). The rework being considered is something much larger, since S_O pointed out that it would require a new UI. They've also said in the past that AA was a major candidate for rework. The kind of number-tweaking in this announcement is just that: it's to narrow the most egregious gaps based on server statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[TF16B]
Members
8,039 posts
16,977 battles

No real point in my grinding up the CV lines anyway; even less so now if WG makes these changes.

Good writeup OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[ARP]
Members
994 posts
6,102 battles

The funny thing is, if you have a serious write up with discussion of the stats/ the mechanics, the forum will often just ignore it. If you drop a bait thread with real CV memes and crap, it's hot for days and usually requires a moderator to break it up.
 

Spoiler

No, it's actually not funny. Yes, i agree with nearly all the points made as i discussed with teahee plenty of times about CV balance as we own T10 CVs/ face them all the time.

 

Edited by Iris_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,325 posts
3,762 battles
6 hours ago, AviationBattleship_Hyuga said:

We keep getting promises, but little else.

I'd like to see you make a video game. 

6 hours ago, AviationBattleship_Hyuga said:

I think the first move should be to pull carriers from the game - send a really strong message that, "yes, this is broken right now, and we're pooling all our resources to attack the problem." Then, I would announce the suspension of further lines after the American CA/CL split (or, really, the loss of a one of the four promised line releases per year) to just zero in on carriers. And then I would go after it with everyone on the WoWs staff.

Enough of this ticky-tack nonsense. Commit to killing off the game's biggest problem in one fell swoop. 

Why? You are fundamentally misappreciating how resource allocation works in development. Developing new lines doesn't consume meaningful amounts of time on the part of the game's internal testers or programming department. And in general, this is the sort of "throw people at it" planning that ruins projects. WG has a team working on it, and you can't simply throw more and more people at a problem in the hopes that will make things happen faster. If WG burned their entire technical department on this issue, the reality is it would only get done somewhat faster and there wouldn't be bugfixes, minor additions, or midsize things for balance like DWT. Even then the biggest technical addition to the game in 2017 was Ops, which was already mostly finished by 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×