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

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

409
[WAG]
Members
1,492 posts
8,481 battles

I haven't loaded the game in 5 or 6 days... I've been watching the play and reading the forums...

8.0 is and was a giant fluster cluck....... WG really [edited] game play, and while I realize they needed more play to understand the issue, there were ways to avoid ruining the game for everyone as they attempt to actually manage this change.

A) Offer real incentives for PTS play that compensate for paid time on the live server. PTSers should get at least one Premium day for every "x" minutes played on the PTS.  Result = more data that they said they needed.

B) Increase queue time on the PTS to a max of 3 minutes... instead of 30 seconds. This was a joke and resulted in no progress in play testing. It was a waste of time that seemed to be intentional.  Result = more data, that they said they needed.

C) Roll out the new CV's over weeks. Remove all current CVs and put only T4 back in play - work out the issues and then after it seems stable, apply changes to T6 and add those and repeat. Changes to upper tier AA will be irrelevant, ,as there will be no upper tier CVs initially.  Result - less shock and disturbance and yet even more time to collect data w/o tossing a bomb into the game play

D) ..and finally.... listen to the user base when they tell you that things are not working. Result - less collateral damage as a result of tossing the bomb.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[WAG]
Beta Testers
697 posts
5,722 battles

A - i agree with this, though i would say it needs to be x minutes of active gameplay, not just minuets on server. perhaps once per hour of gameplay, up to a maximum of 3-5?

B - yeah, 30 second que times is a clusterfk

C - the problem here is that each of the tiers stated require significantly different tactics, that do not necessarily overlap. especially with changes in load-outs. i think what they did, while slightly annoying in the short term, is the right way to roll out the cv rework. they arent (with one exception) overpowered, and even the hak, is only OP in the sense that its torpedo drop distance is so long that it is difficult to avoid because you cant see the torps for a near 1.5km from when they drop.

D - im of the opinion they did listen to feedback. they made changes each iteration of the PTS, but did not get enough players. 

all in all im rather happy with the changes, though the hak could use a slight nerf, or at least a change to its torpedo drop to allow it to be more noticeable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[WAG]
Members
1,492 posts
8,481 battles
4 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

they made changes each iteration of the PTS, but did not get enough players. 

See points A & B.. :)  lol...  in looking at some other forums there are those that say that WG ignored feedback...

I'm still staying away for a bit until they figure out  how to make it work better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[WOLF2]
Members
1,163 posts
8,240 battles

Agree with most of the points.   I only slightly disagreed with point C.

While a gradual roll-out wouldn't be bad (we saw that with the UN cruiser split), the T4 CVs are pretty laughable.    If that was what they introduced, many would abandon CV play, as it's slow and low-damage play.   What's worse is that WeeGee might take the data, state everything is hunky-dory (certainly not over-powered), and have a skewed interpretation.

Maybe a rollout of T4 and T6 might work.    Or maybe T4, T6, and T8.    In all the matches I've played with these tiered CVs, they certainly haven't been intimidating.   Maybe a little pesky at times, but not to a point where I'm corralled in a corner, and unable to move my bote.

But I agree fully with the other points.     We have potatoes in the game.... not sure why WG would take a potato approach to development.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×