Jump to content
Femennenly

PSA: 0.8.0 PTS - AA and CV vs other classes balance

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,068
[WGA]
Administrator
1,693 posts
14,135 battles

Regarding comments and concerns about AA and CVs from the 8.0 PTS session.

From @Sub_Octavian

"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 game-play 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 cool down 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 overlapping/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."

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[FYL]
Alpha Tester
158 posts
14,453 battles

I came to a realization this morning, and it is this: cv used to be almost a "government" of warships, an overstanding power that could keep all the crazy stuff in check. Sure, we don't always like it and some are way better at their job than others. It does suck when one can simply delete the other; focus did not seem to be on equalizing these powers against each other, as the common complaint is that they are too powerful overall. The real problem is new players are often not made aware of the huge responsibility they are taking on, "it's the boat with planes on it" seems to be what a large majority of players think of cv. So now it is becoming just that. As in many revolutions the people must be very careful what kind of new system they put in place, else anarchy or tyranny will become the norm. Luckily wg can simply update the game and none of us will die. Good luck on the pts everybody but be careful what you wish for. Remember that working together is needed to defeat many foes and cv should be no different. Whatever happens to cvs I hope they will be an enriching part of the naval experience and not just an annoyance shoved into the background. I strongly encourage everybody to try the class, old and new, before passing judgement on either system. I fear greatly that the ones complaining most about the system are the ones who have no idea the dedication required to become proficient at even a novice level.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
6,318 posts

Just like a single DD can sneak across into the enemy background and spot the entire enemy team, the gameplay will change... Think of your battles with and without Destroyers - and this is how much the new system will change the battles. Players adapt to the battlespace - adapt or die quickly.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[DOG]
Members
430 posts
9,121 battles
2 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Unfortunately, any isolated test, be it PTS or Beta, cannot fully reproduce live environment.

Yes, the mechanical implementations can be tested and the live environment is needed for a realistic "test" to be able to properly balance it.

2 hours ago, Femennenly said:

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.

Once the patch goes live, the time that elapses while WG is acquiring the necessary data to figure out the balancing changes (and then the time taken to implement those changes) is also the same period that premium time (for those of us who purchase premium time) is expiring day by day.  If WG needs LIVE  servers for TESTING, please consider PAUSING the clock on our premium time, as we purchased premium time for PLAYING not TESTING.

 

Edited by dashtardly
Added missed parentheses
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[90TH]
Members
994 posts
9,380 battles
16 minutes ago, dashtardly said:

Yes, the mechanical implementations can be tested and the live environment is needed for a realistic "test" to be able to properly balance it.

Once the patch goes live, the time that elapses while WG is acquiring the necessary data to figure out the balancing changes (and then the time taken to implement those changes) is also the same period that premium time (for those of us who purchase premium time) is expiring day by day.  If WG needs LIVE  servers for TESTING, please consider PAUSING the clock on our premium time, as we purchased premium time for PLAYING not TESTING.

 

I already regret taking advantage of the 50% off one year of premium time. Should have waited to see what the new game will be.

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[DESS]
Members
19 posts
6,634 battles
24 minutes ago, dashtardly said:

 

Once the patch goes live, the time that elapses while WG is acquiring the necessary data to figure out the balancing changes (and then the time taken to implement those changes) is also the same period that premium time (for those of us who purchase premium time) is expiring day by day.  If WG needs LIVE  servers for TESTING, please consider PAUSING the clock on our premium time, as we purchased premium time for PLAYING not TESTING.

 

When you consider how massive the changes are going to be on the live server this is actually not a bad idea. At the very least they could give us some extra premium time.

Edited by Stealin
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[DOG]
Members
430 posts
9,121 battles
6 minutes ago, n00bot said:

I already regret taking advantage of the 50% off one year of premium time. Should have waited to see what the new game will be.

I too took advantage of the 50% discount (did not think about the CV rework impacts). Oh well. At least then the premium is cheaper (if either I'm not playing or if the play is not enjoyable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[DOG]
Members
430 posts
9,121 battles
1 minute ago, Stealin said:

What do you consider how mass of the changes are going to be on the live server this is actually not a bad idea. At the very least they could give us some extra premium time.

Well, up to WG to decide their "largess", which is why I only asked the question about pausing the clock for those who did buy premium time (and that time is impacted when the CV rework goes live).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[90TH]
Members
994 posts
9,380 battles
10 minutes ago, dashtardly said:

I too took advantage of the 50% discount (did not think about the CV rework impacts). Oh well. At least then the premium is cheaper (if either I'm not playing or if the play is not enjoyable).

Muttering to myself, as I delete the game, “look at all the money I saved!” :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,869
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,863 posts
2 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Regarding comments and concerns about AA and CVs from the 8.0 PTS session.

From @Sub_Octavian

"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 game-play 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 cool down 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 overlapping/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."

Please see this thread for my feedback on AA in the PTS / rework.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,882 posts
10,260 battles
4 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Regarding comments and concerns about AA and CVs from the 8.0 PTS session.

I humbly request the mikhail kutuzov treatment for AA centric ships. The loss of AA range, loss of overlapping auras and unlimited planes is utterly and totally an exploitable change that changes the significance and functionality of AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[NZS]
Beta Testers
59 posts

WG just needs to admit, no one wants this re-work. and its going to cost them in mass players leaving, with some not ever going to come back

WG seems to think, more they talk about it, more people will change there minds

no. its still awful, there's a reason these tests dont get done on live servers(yes i know, wg didnt get enough data from pts ect). this is going to be the biggest messs ever in the history of WoWs

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,553
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,415 posts
10,191 battles
7 hours ago, Femennenly said:

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.

Here is my biggest issue, beyond part of that being bot heavy for the sake of speed.

Submarines, had a proof of concept test.

Battle Royal, had a proof of concept test

Fixed/limited torpedoes, had a proof of concept test

Moving storms/limited area effects - had a proof of concept test.

Every single one of these things, has had an event, doubling as a proof of concept in the various events - space battles, bathtub battles, Halloween, name it. Something like this should have had the same treatment. This entire thing has been handled, poorly, and that alone is damaging faith, let alone the rework itself. 

Look, I'm one of the more amenable anti rework players - I think it has it's merits, that it could have a place along side RTS, or at worst, with significant changes, at least be tolerable to deal with even if my preference at the moment, in it's current state, is to kill it with fire. But 8.0 needs to be waved off, or at least the CV rework portion. This has been handled EXACTLY like Warplanes 1.5 patch, they did the exact same things, and that game has limped on on barely functioning life support. And if you reach a point that we need bots in PvP to have queue times that are manageable - that's the end of the game cause we don't play it to shoot at bots. Look, you wanna rework CV's - fine, but actually include us players, what we want, and take your time. Don't rush it out because you've promised CV's fixed for 2 years and failed. Don't rush it out to test for console because while words say one thing, actions say otherwise. Do not rush to appease a meager 32%, some of who simply want CV gameplay to die, at the risk of ticking off 68%, some of who may out right leave. Right now this is Russian roulette with 4 in the barrel. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,869
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,863 posts
49 minutes ago, KiwiSmurf said:

WG just needs to admit, no one wants this re-work. and its going to cost them in mass players leaving, with some not ever going to come back

WG seems to think, more they talk about it, more people will change there minds

no. its still awful, there's a reason these tests dont get done on live servers(yes i know, wg didnt get enough data from pts ect). this is going to be the biggest messs ever in the history of WoWs

I don't want the rework.   What I'd really like back is the ability to focus on fighting off enemy aircraft.  That's what I've wanted for over a year, and that's not going away even with carriers becoming just another damage dealer.

I'm playing zero carrier battles now, and the new interface won't change that one bit.  The new interface is janky, and counter-intuitive, and a little nauseating (not figuratively, literally, it makes me just a touch queasy). 

However, I'm also willing to fight that battle separate from my effort to save AA as a functional game mechanic, and that's where I'm focused now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,093 posts
6,251 battles
9 hours ago, Femennenly said:

 

  1. 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 cool down for each plane lost, so when AA works as intended, there will be big noticeable difference for a CV that actively sacrifices the planes.

Lack of punishment? Are you kidding me? Dont loose enough planes? What friggen game are you guys paying attention to? At one point in the game on the top I didnt have 1 full flight of planes ready lol.

If the AA gets worse, it will be pointless playing a bottom tier CV. This is nowhere near ready for release....not at all.

Im actually starting to enjoy this mode.....but it needs a LOT of tweaking to reduce forum rants.

shot-19.01.02_18.15.25-0551.jpg

shot-19.01.02_17.55.22-0173.jpg

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-BSS-]
Members
180 posts
11,347 battles

I'm not the best cv player by any means but I've been averaging about 50k damage with cvs in the pts. As it is now in live I can get 100k or so depending on the mode and mm. Some ships in the pts have crappy aa but when they group together they murder planes before they can really get close enough to do anything. I think more work needs to be done on this as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,094
[SYN]
Members
3,511 posts
18,389 battles

How about when you do this live test you also do a live test of an option to have No CV games?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[CVA16]
Members
3,739 posts
12,085 battles
51 minutes ago, Camo68 said:

How about when you do this live test you also do a live test of an option to have No CV games?

Many want it but it will NEVER happen.:Smile_sad: The only players clicking to include CVs in Randoms would be CV players and those with god-tier AA ships (and probably an AA specced captain).  It would be a very long wait in queue for CVs. It would be more fair. CVs would have to deal mostly with other CVs and ships that can defend themselves.

 Under the current CV system, can anyone except those two categories  say having a CV in a Random game improved their game experience? Yeah, its nice when you get the unicum CV player that crushes the other team for an easy win but it means you don't get the pride of really helping the team to the win. And just as often, you were the one on the team with the potato CV and nothing you could do would secure the win.

Remains to be seen with the rework but I anticipate, in the short term at least, lots of CVs in every game. Not a good time to play any ship with bad AA (assuming WG does increase the AA effectiveness as they say, otherwise it won't be a good time to play any non-CV). Just like it was a bad time to play mid-high tier DDs right after the US cruiser line split.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,195
[RKLES]
Members
9,925 posts
11,715 battles

Any else find it amusing that only @Femennenly and very few others are the only ones promotingthe new CVs?

Meanwhile the playerbase (aside from some die hard CV players ) are talking about leaving the game, taking a break indefinitely, or only playing battles that are garrenteed to not have the new CVs in them.

Honestly as much as CV players hate the idea, Wargaming may honestly need to  simply pull CVs from the game. Obviously with as little  of the CVs we have seen last couple years, there is not all that many devoted CV players. So what fills rest of the battles? Non CV Players...  So if Wargaming wants to continue growing and profiting from WOWs I highly recommend pleasing the non CV players and then worry about CV players or perhaps forget them. After all don’t forget World of Warplanes was a failure, that should be yet another sign of what the players want.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,882 posts
10,260 battles
18 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Any else find it amusing that only @Femennenly and very few others are the only ones promotingthe new CVs?

Meanwhile the playerbase (aside from some die hard CV players ) are talking about leaving the game, taking a break indefinitely, or only playing battles that are garrenteed to not have the new CVs in them.

Honestly as much as CV players hate the idea, Wargaming may honestly need to  simply pull CVs from the game. Obviously with as little  of the CVs we have seen last couple years, there is not all that many devoted CV players. So what fills react of the battles? Non CV Players...  So if Wargaming wants to continue growing and profiting from WOWs I highly recommend pleasing the non CV players and then worry about CV players or perhaps forget them. After all don’t forget World of Warplanes was a failure, that should be yet another sign of what the players want.

Because you cant have ww2 naval combat without naval aviation. The rts system been with us for years, worked for us for years; adjustments and development not demolition is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[-TCS-]
[-TCS-]
Members
36 posts
10,075 battles
12 hours ago, Femennenly said:

and 6...

We realize that hull control is important to survivability and accurate placement of the CV. That why in 0.8.0 the "z" button will toggle between active air group and CV hull control. We would also like to recognize BC124 for solving this problem and will give him a raise!

wow fantastic right....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,195
[RKLES]
Members
9,925 posts
11,715 battles
8 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Because you cant have ww2 naval combat without naval aviation. The rts system been with us for years, worked for us for years; adjustments and development not demolition is needed.

Ok low tier and many of mid tier ships are WWI era when aircraft was not reliable to be used over land much less out at sea much. So that rules out the planes for those battles.

So now let’s take a look at WWII and your claim that “ WWII Naval Combat could not be fought with aviation” shall we... ( This is just proving the point that strike aircraft did not need to be in every battle, nor were they in every naval battle)

Battle of the River Plate.

Battle of Denmark Straight

Much of the Battle of the Atlantic involving U-boats and commerce raiders vs allied shipping and escorts for much of the war did not make use of aircraft except some Spotter aircraft and cat fighters for use in recon spotting, so those don’t count towards your CV needing to be involved.

Channel Dash made by the Germans did have Luftwaffe support from ground based bases, but aside from a recon plane the RAF sent no aircraft to stop them. So it’s a bit of a great area in this debate, but of course no CVs were used.

Battle of North Cape

Some various battles where conditions were not suitable to CVs being used or simply were not present for also occured.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[RSF]
Members
110 posts
10,042 battles

Well i for one kind of hate and like the rework at the same time. But i watched this on 1/2/2019

and it states right in the video that the New Jersey spent most of its time in WW2 protecting Carrier groups than it did in sea battles against other ships so its AA must be incredible if that is what a BB spent its time doing during the war.  Plus it had three planes of its own!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[CVA16]
Members
3,739 posts
12,085 battles
26 minutes ago, gprix84 said:

and it states right in the video that the New Jersey spent most of its time in WW2 protecting Carrier groups than it did in sea battles against other ships so its AA must be incredible if that is what a BB spent its time doing during the war. 

IRL the rise of air power pretty much killed off fleet action surface combat. No fleet successfully conducted a surface action while under air attack. Would you (or anyone else) want to play an Iowa as pure AA escort? The focus of WOWS is surface combat. If you give CVs their full power, might as well shut the game down.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×