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

Suboctavian about coming changes for next PTS version and the state of AA

259 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,744
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,326 posts
22,710 battles

[PSA] 0.8.0 PTS - AA and CV vs other classes balance

renderTimingPixel.png

Hey guys,

Following your discussions about current state of AA balance (or, according to many of you, complete lack of it) on PTS, I would like to give you a quick update. Sorry for not doing it earlier, but there are long state holidays in Russia at the moment, and it takes more time to react to anything properly.

  1. Long and medium range AA "bubbles" (these flak explosions you're supposed to avoid) currently deal too little damage on PTS. Thanks for your feedback, and you're absolutely right that this needs to change. New settings will be applied soon with PTS update.

  2. Some of you have expressed concerns that AA on all ships will generally be too weak in late game due to heavy HE fire, and that will be especially painful with unlimited planes CVs have. First of all, AA mount HP has already been increased approximately two times across the board. We will continue monitoring this gameplay aspect, and apply more changes, if needed.

  3. Another big concern was lack of punishment for CVs because of unlimited plane reserves. Due to p.1, the balance is currently skewed in favor of CVs - they simply don't lose enough planes, and thus, don't experience too much penalties. However, unlimited reserves come with cooldown for each plane lost, so when AA works as intended, there will be big noticeable difference for a CV that actively sacrifices the planes.

  4. With that in mind, we also see a lot of comments about AA-centered ships that currently lack efficiency on PTS. After AA is fixed in general, these ships will be checked as well. Our goal here is to keep all ships that are famous for their AA capabilities on live server strong in the same niche. Another thing to keep in mind is that with the new concept, close and medium range AA mounts are as important as long ones. AA "auras" now are separate, as opposed to overplapping/stacking that we have now, and additionally, commander skills has changed, and there is no huge DPS modifiers previously available. Long range AA has already been buffed by 15% range to compensate the change, and we will keep paying attention to it.

  5. Unfortunately, any isolated test, be it PTS or Beta, cannot fully reproduce live environment. We will do our best to get good starting balance settings for 0.8.0, but from there, it will definitely require tweaking and polishing. Please don’t treat any balance settings on PTS and further 0.8.0 release final – they are not.

We realize that bad game balance on PTS spoils the perception of CV rework in general, and the rework itself is controversial to many of you. This change is probably the biggest in scale we've ever had, and this is a huge challenge both for the team (to implement and support) and players (to explore). We’re moving further with it, because Beta results were good and proved the concept works well. But surely there is a lot of work ahead. We’re thankful for your feedback and help, and knowing that any change that huge is a stress, we ask you to give it some time and attention.

Cheers!

 

 

  • Cool 28
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,114
[PVE]
Members
16,006 posts
10,653 battles

Thanks for cross posting as I don't read reddit very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles

"We realize that bad game balance on PTS spoils the perception of CV rework in general, and the rework itself is controversial to many of you. This change is probably the biggest in scale we've ever had, and this is a huge challenge both for the team (to implement and support) and players (to explore). We’re moving further with it, because Beta results were good and proved the concept works well. But surely there is a lot of work ahead. We’re thankful for your feedback and help, and knowing that any change that huge is a stress, we ask you to give it some time and attention."

Sub admits rework is borked, pushing it on to the live server, anyway, 'cause reasons.. (bloodymindedness..)

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles
2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

"We realize that bad game balance on PTS spoils the perception of CV rework in general, and the rework itself is controversial to many of you. This change is probably the biggest in scale we've ever had, and this is a huge challenge both for the team (to implement and support) and players (to explore). We’re moving further with it, because Beta results were good and proved the concept works well. But surely there is a lot of work ahead. We’re thankful for your feedback and help, and knowing that any change that huge is a stress, we ask you to give it some time and attention."

Sub admits rework is borked, pushing it on to the live server, anyway, 'cause reasons.. (bloodymindedness..)

I don't see why you have a problem with what he said.  He says the concept works, and it does.  Adjusting AA is a matter of tweaking some numbers in formulas and PTS simply doesn't have enough people to get it fully dialed in to where it needs to be.

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,009
[HYDRO]
Members
3,602 posts
5,131 battles

I'm curious as to how ships with only medium/long range auras will turn out to be. Especially Jean Bart with the 4.5km "minimum" aura. Based on what they say, does it mean within 4.5km there will be no AA?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[FOG]
Members
641 posts
6,508 battles

I read this as consistent with the WG approach that the intent is to allow CVs to run wild as they did on the PTS during 0.8.0 in order to inspire new and current players to play more CV battles. The response then will be to say that important data have been collected and will be evaluated but that they are very pleased with the results to date and recoginize that some "adjustments" will be made but that they cannot rush into these changes prematurely. Consequently, perhaps in 0.8.2 or so we will see the CVs incrementally throttled back, but only after there has been an established increase in CV play.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
2 minutes ago, BearlyHereBear said:

Don't you people understand...THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!:Smile_hiding:

something just hit me on the head.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,996
[ARGSY]
Members
13,406 posts
8,625 battles
14 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

"We realize that bad game balance on PTS spoils the perception of CV rework in general, and the rework itself is controversial to many of you. This change is probably the biggest in scale we've ever had, and this is a huge challenge both for the team (to implement and support) and players (to explore). We’re moving further with it, because Beta results were good and proved the concept works well. But surely there is a lot of work ahead. We’re thankful for your feedback and help, and knowing that any change that huge is a stress, we ask you to give it some time and attention."

Sub admits rework is borked, pushing it on to the live server, anyway, 'cause reasons.. (bloodymindedness..)

 

1 minute ago, DJC_499 said:

I read this as consistent with the WG approach that the intent is to allow CVs to run wild as they did on the PTS during 0.8.0 in order to inspire new and current players to play more CV battles. The response then will be to say that important data have been collected and will be evaluated but that they are very pleased with the results to date and recoginize that some "adjustments" will be made but that they cannot rush into these changes prematurely. Consequently, perhaps in 0.8.2 or so we will see the CVs incrementally throttled back, but only after there has been an established increase in CV play.

These come across as uncharitable and ill-thought-out responses to an honest disclosure by the developers. We identified a problem, they recognised it, and they are moving to fix it. 

I have no doubt that the people they listened to were the ones who stated their viewpoints calmly, rationally, and without cynicism, hatred or rancor. The rest of you have most probably been permablocked and might never be listened to again.

  • Cool 25
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,241 posts
10,464 battles

Personally I find this post by Suboctavian somewhat reassuring that they are aware of the non CV players' concerns about their AA.  I appreciate the post.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
5 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

These come across as uncharitable and ill-thought-out responses to an honest disclosure by the developers. We identified a problem, they recognised it, and they are moving to fix it. 

Perfectly true. I am not here to dole out charity to developers, just honest opinions, (inc my kneejerk reactions). 

Ill thought out? I have had 3+ years to mull over and develop my thoughts on this matter.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
800
[WOLF3]
Members
1,622 posts
6,237 battles

Thanks for the cross post as I don't even know what a "Reddit" is.

 :Smile_medal:  +1 to you!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[NGAGE]
Members
3,649 posts
8,744 battles
Just now, LoveBote said:

Perfectly true. I am not here to dole out charity to developers, just honest opinions, (inc my kneejerk reactions). 

Ill thought out? I have had 3+ years to mull over and develop my thoughts on this matter.

My honest opinion is that if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should probably be less abrasive.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[SIDE]
Members
2,551 posts

I’m just glad a moderator-type stepped in and said something official. Seems feats are well founded after all. The potential for this next patch to be painful is definitely there, although hopefully less so now than before. 

I’m Gonna give it a few days. I’m already finding game gets a little stale after a 6-10 matches or 4 consecutive losses. If the cv rework brings madness and frustration to the grind then I’ll just take a couple weeks off and maybe try the new battlefield or COD titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,652
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,436 posts
17,826 battles

They should make it so that the player is in cockpit view flying with joystick control one of the 3 aircraft types as group leader and the CVs aircraft performance is based on the players performance. ie if in a fighter and is skillful in dogfighting downing many planes then his fighter group will do well and the bomber groups having been given RTS orders will do well also. The same applies if player chooses to fly a bomber. do well personally and your AI planes do well. 

The player will be required to take off from the CV and land on the CV. The player will give the CV navigation order before take off and resume ship control upon landing.

Anything short of this is GARBAGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[FOG]
Members
641 posts
6,508 battles
6 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

 

These come across as uncharitable and ill-thought-out responses to an honest disclosure by the developers. We identified a problem, they recognised it, and they are moving to fix it. 

I have no doubt that the people they listened to were the ones who stated their viewpoints calmly, rationally, and without cynicism, hatred or rancor. The rest of you have most probably been permablocked and might never be listened to again.

What I find amazing is that many readers do not understand that WG had already developed responses to anticipated forum posts. They certainly would have "gamed" out the anticipated outcomes of this PTS and worked to develop prepared and fully reviewed language in anticipation of the forthcoming forum posts. I, sincerely, read this response as one that was pre-packaged and especially included the statement that I knew would be forthcoming that they were pleased with the results and that this effort would be continuing.

To be clear, there is no malice associated with my comments and am only noting that WG has an agenda and that they are continue with the next page of their playbook that included release of this response that frankly we should/did anticipate. 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles
1 minute ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

They should make it so that the player is in cockpit view flying with joystick control one of the 3 aircraft types as group leader and the CVs aircraft performance is based on the players performance. ie if in a fighter and is skillful in dogfighting downing many planes then his fighter group will do well and the bomber groups having been given RTS orders will do well also. The same applies if player chooses to fly a bomber. do well personally and your AI planes do well. 

The player will be required to take off from the CV and land on the CV. The player will give the CV navigation order before take off and resume ship control upon landing.

Anything short of this is GARBAGE!

I assume this is just tongue in cheeck but just so you know, you would make me infinitely better at this game if what you are suggesting were actually implemented lol.  Flight sims is where I got started in online gaming.  I still haven't found a pvp game experience that is as exhilarating and satisfying as defeating someone in a dogfight that came into the fight with multiple advantages on you such as speed and altitude.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles
4 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

What I find amazing is that many readers do not understand that WG had already developed responses to anticipated forum posts. They certainly would have "gamed" out the anticipated outcomes of this PTS and worked to develop prepared and fully reviewed language in anticipation of the forthcoming forum posts. I, sincerely, read this response as one that was pre-packaged and especially included the statement that I knew would be forthcoming that they were pleased with the results and that this effort would be continuing.

To be clear, there is no malice associated with my comments and am only noting that WG has an agenda and that they are continue with the next page of their playbook that included release of this response that frankly we should/did anticipate. 

 

tinfoil_hat.jpg

  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[EGIRL]
[EGIRL]
Members
584 posts
5,533 battles

I've already posted in these forums that I strongly suspected AA values, in all three test versions, was purposely low.  And, since a mass of variables was involved, this was the logical progression in tuning them correctly.  This post seems to be a validation of that theory.  Thank you Sub for your communication.  I know you guys are burning both ends of the candle to get this done soon..and right.

We'll keep testing and commenting.  I look forward to testing DefAA on the Gearing and Groz once the changes are implemented...as this seems to be a key fine tuning break point.

Good luck!  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
16 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

My honest opinion is that if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should probably be less abrasive.

My honest opinion, it makes absolutely little difference,. People hear what they want to hear, and block out the rest. Of course, if you want soothing, back scratching, feedback from your opinion, sugar coating your ideas helps

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
600 posts
46 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

 

Sub admits rework is borked, pushing it on to the live server, anyway, 'cause reasons.. (bloodymindedness..)

You are obviously very biased in your responses due to how much you've trolled randoms in your Graf and this rework is going to seriously neuter the Graf. 

As for "pushing it on the live server goes", you obviously do not have experience with complex programs. I work in a field where we have extremely complex engineering software that costs 10's of 1000's of dollars. We deal with this sort of thing all the time. There is only so much you can do in a limited environment. When you have a major update, sometimes you have to just throw it out there in the wild and then hotfix and patch on the fly. I've beat my head on the computer many many times over software releases that were bugged to all hell. But, it's a necessary evil and what WG is doing in this matter is the right course of action in the end. Yeah, the game will be chaos for a couple of months but it will pass and be better for it. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
Just now, LoveBote said:

Hope your own tatas stay calm when Sub blames the community (yet again) when the cv rework encounters problems.

Anything new and/or this drastic of a change is going to have issues. Its been that way since we were in alpha. I'm used to it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
40 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

 

These come across as uncharitable and ill-thought-out responses to an honest disclosure by the developers. We identified a problem, they recognised it, and they are moving to fix it. 

I have no doubt that the people they listened to were the ones who stated their viewpoints calmly, rationally, and without cynicism, hatred or rancor. The rest of you have most probably been permablocked and might never be listened to again.

I understand bitterness, but yeah, I'm going to give them credit when it's due. 

They admit that AA on the PTS has a problem, and they want to fix it, so I'm going to give them feedback on how I think it should be fixed.

 

1)  AFT no longer boosts AA range.  This is a huge nerf to this skill despite the little bonus to damage it now gives AA.  The ability to push the ranges farther out is a major aspect of improving AA for a ship, forcing the enemy aircraft to spend more time in "the bubble" during any attack run and allow the ship to provide meaningful cover for teammates.   A range boost also means that the CV player can't memorize and know the AA range of every ship, making the approach to any ship more of a calculated risk.  

AFT needs to boost AA range.

 

2)  AA range bands do not appear to overlap.  This is going to hit some ships very hard, as currently the rely on the stacking of damage as enemy aircraft fly deeper into "the bubble".   It also renders some AA guns almost pointless -- see, the 0.2km thick "shell" affected by the Hindenberg's 105mm DP guns before the 55mm take over.  

If there's a need for minimum ranges, implement a 1km min range for "medium" AA mounts across the board, and a 1km or 2km min range for the "large" AA / DP mounts across the board.   This will resolve the issues without eliminating the min ranges entirely.  

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
5 minutes ago, General_Lee_Miserable said:

As for "pushing it on the live server goes", you obviously do not have experience with complex programs.

true

5 minutes ago, General_Lee_Miserable said:

I work in a field where we have extremely complex engineering software that costs 10's of 1000's of dollars. We deal with this sort of thing all the time. There is only so much you can do in a limited environment. When you have a major update, sometimes you have to just throw it out there in the wild and then hotfix and patch on the fly. I've beat my head on the computer many many times over software releases that were bugged to all hell.

Good for you, but really, rework balancing has nothing to do with complex programming. 

5 minutes ago, General_Lee_Miserable said:

But, it's a necessary evil and what WG is doing in this matter is the right course of action in the end.

Your faith is almost religious, life affirming, praise be!

4 minutes ago, J30_Reinhardt said:

Anything new and/or this drastic of a change is going to have issues. Its been that way since we were in alpha. I'm used to it.

Oh quite, but Alpha ended many years ago. true this will be the 4th (or 5th) CV rework since Alpha. I am used to it. But I don't have to like, or agree with it. What is wrong with plain, straightforward, disagreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,350
[INTEL]
Members
10,800 posts
30,435 battles
5 minutes ago, General_Lee_Miserable said:

You are obviously very biased in your responses due to how much you've trolled randoms in your Graf and this rework is going to seriously neuter the Graf. 

As for "pushing it on the live server goes", you obviously do not have experience with complex programs. I work in a field where we have extremely complex engineering software that costs 10's of 1000's of dollars. We deal with this sort of thing all the time. There is only so much you can do in a limited environment. When you have a major update, sometimes you have to just throw it out there in the wild and then hotfix and patch on the fly. I've beat my head on the computer many many times over software releases that were bugged to all hell. But, it's a necessary evil and what WG is doing in this matter is the right course of action in the end. Yeah, the game will be chaos for a couple of months but it will pass and be better for it. 

How often do you massively investment resources in features in your software that the majority of users don't want? The devs admitted a while back that the majority of players dont even want CVs in the game for reasons oft-stated in these forums?

How often do you massively invest resources in a feature that has proven a widely hated failure in very similar programs? The ReBork is turning CVs into artillery to constantly spam out cancer damage, as in WoT. The devs seem incapable of learning from how deeply hated artillery is in WOT, and are now shoving it down our throats in the form of Sky Artillery through the ReBork. 

How often do you massively invest resources in the above features while completely neglecting things that users have been asking for for three years? 

It's nice that they are upgrading the AA, but it will remain passive, which means that eventually skill disparities will develop between Sky Artillery and fodderbotes, because operators of Sky Artillery will constantly upgrade their skills via experience, whereas fodderbote players are stuck with a passive system that skill has little effect on, meaning that experience will not translate into enhanced playing skill. 

What will happen is the same crap we got for the last three years. CVs will still suck for the people actually playing the game, and WG will drag its feet in implementing meaningful change, because it needs cancer damage for its business model. It took them how many years to admit that artillery sucked for the game in WOT?

So why are we getting it here? 

 

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×