Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
kiwi1960

Funny thing happened on the way to the game today...

3 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

531
[WULUF]
Members
1,006 posts

Actually, I mentioned this last night, but now, I'm going to add meat to this theory of mine.... firstly, lets not call it a "CV rework" as it was a "Game Rework"... it affected many other ships mainly to do with the AA.

So, that is the BULK of the game right, CV game play had a total revamp to make it suitable for console play and now, anyone can play them... only they can't, they reckon they cannot hit anything... driving CV's was dumbed down for these people because they said they couldn't figure out the last version of CV's.... 

In a nutshell.... it was a MAJOR rework for CV's. 

Same for ships... AA was nerfed or whatever... doesn't matter, the rework affected them as well... 

How many TEST servers were there? 4? 6? and even then people were saying its not ready.... it was only when the CC's said it too that WoWs delayed the CV drop for 1 week.... 

ONE WEEK, on such a MAJOR game rework... a week to get it perfect... or, a week to make it APPEAR they wanted to get it right before dropping the game....

SO... the game is dropped, a week late and most reckon its a dud. Total silence from WoWs except to ask people to give it time....

Such a major rework to the game, from start to finish, appeared to be heading at warp factor 9 ... why the rush? WHAT was the problem? So now, the game is broken some say... the calls to have CV's removed full stop is louder than ever.

BUT...

People have wanted the USS Alaska for months... ONE SHIP.... not a rework to the game, ONE SHIP.... but its delayed and delayed because they say they want to get it right first time....

If you accept that excuse for one ship... then ask yourselves WHY did they rush the "Major Game Rework" onto us? Which is more important? One ship that even if OP wont really kill the game, or its under OP so...big deal, most ships are under powered... either way, tweaking one ship or nerfing one ship is not a big deal... 

So why the delay?

Why the big rush to get CV's out there when it was no where as ready as the Alsaka is... the testers are doing minors tweaks to make it perfect.... hmmmm... couldn't that be done in game like they're doing with CV's or so they claim?

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but why was the Major Game Rework rushed the way it was? A delay of one week is NOTHING when what is involved, all those carriers, planes, ships, AA etc etc... but they delay one ship for a lot longer than a week because.... I don't know... 

If this IS a conspiracy theory, then I'd have to suggest that they rushed it out so the Console people can start work on the game.... its not like they're rushing anything else.. like Subs.... Russian BB's.... The Alaska.... Commonwealth ships.... the ONLY thing that was EVER rushed was the CV rework.... 

(cue theme to the Twilight Zone....)

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,528
[HINON]
Members
10,767 posts

There doesn't need to be some conspiracy theory to explain the differences. The CV rework was going to happen regardless of the console development full stop. The CV rework will be changed and tweaked in the coming months as WG is now garnering enough feedback and actual game data to see what needs tweaking. The USS Alaska cannot be nerfed at a whim being a premium and has to be well balanced when she is released because WG is very reluctant to do any individual nerfs to a premium ship (aside from global changes). So CV rework can be changed easily on the fly while the USS Alaska not so much once released into the wild. WG also likely has a timeline of all releases and projects planned for the next year minimum and this also drive revenue. If things stall too much, it can affect the flow of money and adversely affect the production schedule. For example, one company I worked for hired another company to create a new system for handling our records for the work we did with clients daily. Unfortunately, when it was fully released the bugs from the shoddy contractor work led to 0 production for a full week and severely reduced production for several week thereafter. This jeopardized our contracts with many of our clients, reduced our revenue greatly as it was dependent on using that software, and increased expenses as we worked overtime almost every week for the next year to catch up due to this one slow down. I am happy to see my stock in Alcoa is doing well though. 

 

I6pLYr9.gif

Edited by RipNuN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[TDG]
Members
1,649 posts
8,055 battles

Good post.  I agree that "Game Rework" is a more accurate description that "CV Rework".  All of the changes that were released together carries significant risk (as we have seen).  Bundling features is a strategic decision that can be argued many ways.  I'm a developer (though not a game developer).  I have my preferences and opinions on how to approach things.  I might have done something different, but I cannot say as I do not have the information WG has that informed the decision they made.  One option would have been to deploy parts of this independent from the others.  This might have reduces the size of the shocks to the game, but it would likely have extended the period of disruption.  The other (the one we apparently have) is to make one huge breaking change.  This will have maximum disruption, but might settle down sooner.  (I am hopeful that this will be the case.)

You ask this was released as it was.  I have no knowledge, but I have my thoughts.  (They are likely worth what you paid for them.)  They break down into a few areas:

They reached a point of diminishing returns with the Development and Test process.  They have been working on this for a while and have been doing Alpha and Beta testing.  These streams need to incorporate any ongoing changes made in the mainline code.  They had an idea.  The presented this to the Community Contributors in Russia during the summit last year.  This was fleshed out, plans were made, code was written.  This looked good enough to get more users, so they invited players into the Beta.  Information was gathered, adjustments were made.  Rinse and repeat a few times.  Eventually, you get to the point where you need to get more information.  Also, there is a difference between Test and Production no matter how much effort we put into reducing those differences.  A call is made that the cost to continue the testing and maintain the separate environment is approaching the diminishing value of testing in the limited environment.

This is a breaking change.  Everything in the game is dependent in some way on the involved code.  The changes to the CVs are just the obvious part of this.  The changes to AA affect almost every other ship in the game.  The skill changes and the Module changes need to accounted for.  The problem with a breaking change is the you start to have features targeted at later releases that depend on the changes here.  The one change has to go first.  You cannot decouple them.  This is a result of the strategic decision I mentioned above.  All development is blocked until this change goes through.  If this change is delayed, even bug fixes can be blocked until this change is released.  New CV lines are just another obvious item, but again any ship with AA will be impacted.  Even if only to avoid have to make something work now, and then rework it later.  (Another strategic choice...)  This has the effect of increasing the cost of any delay.  Eventually, that cost exceeds the benefit of the delay.

Final adjustment has to happen on the Live server.  Public Test only gets you so far. As stated before, there will always be differences between Test and Production.  The volume and variety of users will impact your system in many ways.  Some of these are known.  Some are suspected.  However, there will always be the unexpected.  You cannot fix what you do not know is broken.  Users will frequently try things that never occurred to the Developers or the Testers.  Public Test did find some things. There were issues.  They made their adjustments.  They had an extra Test session.  Is it perfect?  No, but it has been improved by the process.  The population of the Live server is larger and much more diverse.  Many of them do not read the News or participate in the Forums (or other venues).  No matter how much you release about the changes and announce the schedule, there will be a large part of the User  population that will not get the message.  Their input to the process will not happen until this is Live in Production.

 There is a larger plan.  You could be right that the console release is related to this.  I don't know how much of the code is shared between the environments.  However, there are other things much closer to home that need to be considered.  There is the new content that is planned.  New lines and new Premiums.  Their release may be tied to significant dates that will enhance, or assist, the marketing of that new content.  April Fools is an event where experimental content and mechanics are exposed to the larger community.  Delaying this release will impact the dates of that release either by delay, or reducing available development time.  This release, and the next two, need to run at least 4 weeks each for the Directives in the current Arc (or additional changes will need to be made).  All delays cascade into the releases that follow.  Either the schedule slips, or some release gets less time (and maybe reduced content).  Enough delay and you need to move Christmas and New Years release content up by a full release.  This will reduce the content by a full cycle.  Something will have to be removed as resources are not infinite.

Decisions have been made.  Those decisions have consequences.  Delay Again has a cost.  Release Now has a cost.  What do I gain by delay?  How likely is that Outcome?  At the end of the day, one does not know for sure what will happen.  Management gets paid to make the call.  

Is if perfect? No.

Did they make the right call?  I don't know. 

Do they care about the users and their product?  I think they do.  Everything I have seen and read indicates strong passion for this franchise from the developers and support team.

Will things get better?  I expect that this will be the case.

Will there be problems? Surely.  Now and later.  Again, I think all involved are trying to do the best in this situation as they see it.

 

One last thing:  It is actually easier to make (and keep making) structural changes in the game than to tweak a specific Premium.  Premiums get buffs and nerfs, but it is extremely rare to have a change targeted at a specific Premium ship.  Their ability to maneuver is highly constrained with respect to Premium ships.  That is why they are careful with them.  Are they consistent in this space?  No, but this is still be most valid argument on timing the release of Premium ships.

For the record, I want to get my hands on Alaska as soon as I can.  I have resources that I am hoarding saving for that release.  Everything suggests that is should be soon.  Or is that SoonTM?

[ @RipNuN2 is much more succinct than I.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×