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

Top Secret Wargaming Plans For WoWS (viewable on Dev Blog)

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

593
[NGA]
Members
1,873 posts
9,801 battles

Since I haven't seen a thread about the latest news on the Dev Blog, I figured I'd post about it. In brief, Wargaming has given a statement on a few things they hope to be working on in the near future:

1. They plan on giving a concentrated effort towards the CV rework, namely in the form of tweaking the new fighter mechanics, clarifying the effect of AA, making aircraft controls more intuitive, and of course making sure everything is balanced. Just from the personal experience I've had on the test server so far, I'd say these are all points worth taking a look at and ensuring everything goes smoothly once it transitions into the live server. I sincerely hope that they take their time and not try to rush this out before it's fully completed. Take your time Wargaming, people can forgive a delayed development (cough)T-61(cough), but we do not want another Zeppelingate. But for players who don't like the new stuff, Wargaming will allow premium ships to be exchanged for their value in doubloons and the researchable ships can be "un-researched" for credits and free xp.

2. Arms Race is still being worked on and new "buffs" will be added to the list. They'll also enable it to be used in the progression of missions (maybe campaigns too, please?- JMD).

3. Radar looks like it will be experiencing some rebalancing, though LoS requirements look to be unfavorable because it requires the Radar cruisers to expose themselves.

4. Most of the American BB line may be experiencing changes (except Montana) along with some other ugly ducklings BBs (Myogi, Izumo, and FdG).

5. Cruisers may get a universal buff in terms of their central armor plating being buffed enough that it can bounce BB rounds when sufficiently angled.

6.  IFHE will be given a closer look at so the American light cruisers and Japanese Aki-types aren't as overwhelming.

7. Flooding may also be given some tweaks.

Thoughts?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,685 posts
10,227 battles

It's the post right below yours Draco, lol. (or was when I replied)

 

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
932 posts
7,948 battles

1. Really, as cool as the new CV rework is, I am still of the party that says that removing fighter strafe and a few other numbers tweaks would have sufficed, instead of investing the resources to create a whole new system.

2. Haven't polayed arms race so I can't say much in this regard.

3. At least now there is some action ships can take to avoid radar.

4. Details, man, details, just what do the devs intend to do to the brick flotilla?

5. Most cruiser belts can bounce BB AP shells already while angled. It's only the light cruisers that have no belt worth mentioning that have problems.

6. Would be interesting to see just how they intend to make HE spamming less savory for the brain dead (i.e. garden variety) cruiser and destroyer captains.

7. Curious, tell me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
593
[NGA]
Members
1,873 posts
9,801 battles
18 minutes ago, sulghunter331 said:

1. Really, as cool as the new CV rework is, I am still of the party that says that removing fighter strafe and a few other numbers tweaks would have sufficed, instead of investing the resources to create a whole new system.

2. Haven't polayed arms race so I can't say much in this regard.

3. At least now there is some action ships can take to avoid radar.

4. Details, man, details, just what do the devs intend to do to the brick flotilla?

5. Most cruiser belts can bounce BB AP shells already while angled. It's only the light cruisers that have no belt worth mentioning that have problems.

6. Would be interesting to see just how they intend to make HE spamming less savory for the brain dead (i.e. garden variety) cruiser and destroyer captains.

7. Curious, tell me more.

4. They didn't give out any details, they just said those ships mentioned would be buffed.

5. I'm not talking about the belt, I'm talking about the plating in the ship's center section above and to the sides of the belt.

7. Basically they want to make it so that a flood isn't a death sentence if you've just used your DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,107
[LODGE]
[LODGE]
Members
2,844 posts
6,387 battles

There are two things to fix with radar

LoS, and focus fire

cruisers having to expose themselves to use it is most of the entire point of fixing it in the first place. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
625 posts
699 battles
39 minutes ago, Thornir said:

There are two things to fix with radar

LoS, and focus fire

cruisers having to expose themselves to use it is most of the entire point of fixing it in the first place. 

Destroyer stealth: "It's an abstraction based on arcade mechaincs! Stop complaining"

Radar: "IT MUST BE SIMULATOR ACCURATE!"

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,193
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
1,975 battles
1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

6.  IFHE will be given a closer look at so the American light cruisers and Japanese Aki-types aren't as overwhelming.

This makes me chuckle.  So many say that the US light cruisers are worthless anyway, because of their high arcs...

Now, the 'free IFHE' given to the Akizuki clones is probably a bit over the top, and needs to be rebalanced a bit.  Maybe figure how to make those 100mm guns not completely insane once IFHE is added to them.  That's the main thing.  Right now, doing it twice is a bit ugly. 

Now the 6-inch guns?  Nothing really wrong with them.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles
1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Since I haven't seen a thread about the latest news on the Dev Blog, I figured I'd post about it. In brief, Wargaming has given a statement on a few things they hope to be working on in the near future:

1. They plan on giving a concentrated effort towards the CV rework, namely in the form of tweaking the new fighter mechanics, clarifying the effect of AA, making aircraft controls more intuitive, and of course making sure everything is balanced. Just from the personal experience I've had on the test server so far, I'd say these are all points worth taking a look at and ensuring everything goes smoothly once it transitions into the live server. I sincerely hope that they take their time and not try to rush this out before it's fully completed. Take your time Wargaming, people can forgive a delayed development (cough)T-61(cough), but we do not want another Zeppelingate. But for players who don't like the new stuff, Wargaming will allow premium ships to be exchanged for their value in doubloons and the researchable ships can be "un-researched" for credits and free xp.

2. Arms Race is still being worked on and new "buffs" will be added to the list. They'll also enable it to be used in the progression of missions (maybe campaigns too, please?- JMD).

3. Radar looks like it will be experiencing some rebalancing, though LoS requirements look to be unfavorable because it requires the Radar cruisers to expose themselves.

4. Most of the American BB line may be experiencing changes (except Montana) along with some other ugly ducklings BBs (Myogi, Izumo, and FdG).

5. Cruisers may get a universal buff in terms of their central armor plating being buffed enough that it can bounce BB rounds when sufficiently angled.

6.  IFHE will be given a closer look at so the American light cruisers and Japanese Aki-types aren't as overwhelming.

7. Flooding may also be given some tweaks.

Thoughts?

3.  Oh, the horror.  A cruiser has to expose himself to illuminate a DD.  For the record, I am a cruiser main.

4. I'm not sure Iowa and NC need any buffs.   The biggest issue with the standards is speed and that can't be corrected.  Otherwise, they aren't so bad.

5.  Interesting.  I'm interested to see how this works out.

6.  Hope CLs don't get gutted.

7.  Could be interesting depending on implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[USCC2]
Members
4,935 posts

I like the cruiser armour buff idea, although I hope it isn't another universal 'slap it all over'. WG needs to view their own stats and focus on areas that need change (not just apply to everything).

For me, there are some cruisers I angle and they do quite well, then others I wonder why I bother lol. Every ship is different so I hope they are looked at individually.

 

Radar: difficult one as I never had a problem with its introduction. I don't even really have a problem with its current mechanic, for me it is just the number that can be in a game that is the issue. When you change from the old RPS format in order to concentrate a ship type to a specific task/role, rather than causing regular damage, it then seems a bit strange to have a situation where an overload of radar in a game prevents them from operating as they should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,431
[PVE]
Members
9,676 posts
17,264 battles
2 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

4. I'm not sure Iowa and NC need any buffs.   The biggest issue with the standards is speed and that can't be corrected.  Otherwise, they aren't so bad.

Agree. Iowa and NC are 100% fine as is. No need of any buffs (or nerfs - leave them alone WG LOL). Personally I think T3 and T4 are fine too and I would leave them be. IMO the issue with US BB's is the T5/T6/T7 area. The ships are too slow and the reload is too long (Colorado at T7 @ 30 sec is ok I guess). T5-T7 need some buffs to speed and at least T5 and T6 need a buff to reload. Other than the speed and reload mid tiers the line is fine.

Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[SVF]
Members
1,248 posts
1,740 battles
4 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

4. I'm not sure Iowa and NC need any buffs.   The biggest issue with the standards is speed and that can't be corrected.  Otherwise, they aren't so bad.

About the only buff to NorCar I could see would be to her TDS protection.  19%, after the Standards' 37%-40%, is stupidly low.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[KP]
Members
2,066 posts
20,989 battles
6 hours ago, sulghunter331 said:

1. Really, as cool as the new CV rework is, I am still of the party that says that removing fighter strafe and a few other numbers tweaks would have sufficed, instead of investing the resources to create a whole new system.

2. Haven't polayed arms race so I can't say much in this regard.

3. At least now there is some action ships can take to avoid radar.

4. Details, man, details, just what do the devs intend to do to the brick flotilla?

5. Most cruiser belts can bounce BB AP shells already while angled. It's only the light cruisers that have no belt worth mentioning that have problems.

6. Would be interesting to see just how they intend to make HE spamming less savory for the brain dead (i.e. garden variety) cruiser and destroyer captains.

7. Curious, tell me more.

Do you know what the difference between most nation's light and heavy cruisers? It's not the hull armor it's the guns and guns alone just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[IN3PT]
Members
129 posts
17,868 battles

Trading premium CV's post rework for Dubs is not acceptable. Sorry WG but if this was the cv game play all along I never would have bought those CV's the only acceptable refund is in good ole US dollars which is what I spent on them.. I have no need for more Dubs I sit on 10k and currently there is not a premium I would spend money on. So your solution of giving me increasingly worthless currency for a blatant bait and switch sale is only going to land you a FTC complaint as well as one with every other agency that is relevant Monetary Refund for CV's are the only ethical and moral answer not dubs.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[BNKR]
Members
534 posts
362 battles
4 minutes ago, tainteddoughnut said:

Trading premium CV's post rework for Dubs is not acceptable. Sorry WG but if this was the cv game play all along I never would have bought those CV's the only acceptable refund is in good ole US dollars which is what I spent on them.. I have no need for more Dubs I sit on 10k and currently there is not a premium I would spend money on. So your solution of giving me increasingly worthless currency for a blatant bait and switch sale is only going to land you a FTC complaint as well as one with every other agency that is relevant Monetary Refund for CV's are the only ethical and moral answer not dubs.

But it's not bait and switch, everyone knew/knows if you bother reading they can change anything at anytime per the agreement you agreed too.

Bait and switch implies they knew they were going to make such a massive change to CV's from the start, which is doubtfull to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles
2 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

Do you know what the difference between most nation's light and heavy cruisers? It's not the hull armor it's the guns and guns alone just saying.

152mm bellow is a Light Cruiser

153mm above is a Heavy Cruiser

The Northampton class was originally supposed to be a light armor cruiser with 8 inch guns. But anything above 6 inch guns by treaty was declared a heavy cruiser. So the USN had to reclassify then as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles
2 hours ago, Ruthless4u said:

But it's not bait and switch, everyone knew/knows if you bother reading they can change anything at anytime per the agreement you agreed too.

Bait and switch implies they knew they were going to make such a massive change to CV's from the start, which is doubtfull to say the least.

I need to find the article that featured Sub-Oct being interviewed explaining all the changes coming. It came down to switching to random surveys instead of getting feedback from places like the forum.

They were puzzled at why people were leaving the game because as far as they heard from elite community members everything was fine. It wasn’t and now things are being changed to fix them. Turns out most players did want subs after all and that carrier play wasn’t fun at all.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,253 posts
7,016 battles
8 hours ago, Highlord said:

Destroyer stealth: "It's an abstraction based on arcade mechaincs! Stop complaining"

Radar: "IT MUST BE SIMULATOR ACCURATE!"

Call me stupid, because I have no idea what this means.

Anyone care to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles
2 hours ago, Ruthless4u said:

But it's not bait and switch, everyone knew/knows if you bother reading they can change anything at anytime per the agreement you agreed too.

Bait and switch implies they knew they were going to make such a massive change to CV's from the start, which is doubtfull to say the least.

 

The problem has been they basically said that they were for two years. But they kept selling premium CVs like they weren’t going to change anything. Also they probably really did think it was a small issue but didn’t know how to fix it.

 

It is pretty clear early this year they finally figured out how to fix carriers but realized it wasn’t a small fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FYL]
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles

There's also an issue with people receiving the surveys at the end of the tests. I never received one, and there was a thread with a long list of people who hadn't either. Maybe they are doing a limited survey, but that would seem odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles
4 minutes ago, Tanuvein said:

There's also an issue with people receiving the surveys at the end of the tests. I never received one, and there was a thread with a long list of people who hadn't either. Maybe they are doing a limited survey, but that would seem odd.

Surveys are random now and handed out to the live server more. The devs realized the info they were getting was biased so now you might not get one while testing and just get a random one while playing normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,064
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
8,276 posts
10 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Since I haven't seen a thread about the latest news on the Dev Blog, I figured I'd post about it. In brief, Wargaming has given a statement on a few things they hope to be working on in the near future:

1. They plan on giving a concentrated effort towards the CV rework, namely in the form of tweaking the new fighter mechanics, clarifying the effect of AA, making aircraft controls more intuitive, and of course making sure everything is balanced. Just from the personal experience I've had on the test server so far, I'd say these are all points worth taking a look at and ensuring everything goes smoothly once it transitions into the live server. I sincerely hope that they take their time and not try to rush this out before it's fully completed. Take your time Wargaming, people can forgive a delayed development (cough)T-61(cough), but we do not want another Zeppelingate. But for players who don't like the new stuff, Wargaming will allow premium ships to be exchanged for their value in doubloons and the researchable ships can be "un-researched" for credits and free xp.

2. Arms Race is still being worked on and new "buffs" will be added to the list. They'll also enable it to be used in the progression of missions (maybe campaigns too, please?- JMD).

3. Radar looks like it will be experiencing some rebalancing, though LoS requirements look to be unfavorable because it requires the Radar cruisers to expose themselves.

4. Most of the American BB line may be experiencing changes (except Montana) along with some other ugly ducklings BBs (Myogi, Izumo, and FdG).

5. Cruisers may get a universal buff in terms of their central armor plating being buffed enough that it can bounce BB rounds when sufficiently angled.

6.  IFHE will be given a closer look at so the American light cruisers and Japanese Aki-types aren't as overwhelming.

7. Flooding may also be given some tweaks.

Thoughts?

5 and 6 come across as taking the game more into a class-based, MMO/arcade design and further from replicating something of the real attributes of the ships involved... which is 100% bad for the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FYL]
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles
12 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Surveys are random now and handed out to the live server more. The devs realized the info they were getting was biased so now you might not get one while testing and just get a random one while playing normally.

Ah, this makes sense. I did get 3 or 4 surveys in the regular game to rate how those matches were. I generally rate any match as fun unless there's an active troll which is incredibly rare in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,959
[A-D-F]
Members
1,980 posts
3 hours ago, tainteddoughnut said:

Trading premium CV's post rework for Dubs is not acceptable. Sorry WG but if this was the cv game play all along I never would have bought those CV's the only acceptable refund is in good ole US dollars which is what I spent on them.. I have no need for more Dubs I sit on 10k and currently there is not a premium I would spend money on. So your solution of giving me increasingly worthless currency for a blatant bait and switch sale is only going to land you a FTC complaint as well as one with every other agency that is relevant Monetary Refund for CV's are the only ethical and moral answer not dubs.

You gave money to a company whose reputation for ethics has not only never been questioned, it's never even been mentioned. Not only that, you gave money for goods that never actually existed. You bought imaginary stuff, the best you are going to do is get imaginary money back. Your money is gone, and it is not coming back. I know you don't want to hear it, but it is the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,799
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,732 battles

The armor on Cruisers thing was worded a bit differently. Essentially it was an idea they had, but the goal is to make a difference between CLs and CAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles
27 minutes ago, Tanuvein said:

Ah, this makes sense. I did get 3 or 4 surveys in the regular game to rate how those matches were. I generally rate any match as fun unless there's an active troll which is incredibly rare in my experience.

This was beginning to be rolled right before I quit playing WoWS early this year it looks like the devs are starting to base changes off them. As when I quit it was pretty clear no one had a clue as to how bad the balance had gotten between classes and the ones that did clearly liked the status quo.

This is why the battleship meta got out of hand and tier 10 was added to ranked. Also why the player numbers dropped off as casual players were ignored and pretty told to go away. Which they did and took their money with them.

Sub-Oct stated casual players are now the more of the focus as the elite and competitive players aren’t paying the bills and mucking up releases that appealed to casual players. So those will have less of a say and these random surveys of the player base will effect changes going forward.

This sort of reflects similar changes happening company wide. As WoT was having a major player drop off as well.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×