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

Disgraceful Unbalanced Initial Roll Out of Revised Carriers

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23
[AK]
Beta Testers
11 posts
6,358 battles

To:  Wargaming

 

I am certain this issue has been raised already.  I am not going to search it out.  I wish to belabor this point, because it is important and at the root of much of the current carrier related dissatisfaction.  Probably this issue has occurred before on previous ships, as Wargaming ship testing and evaluation process is likely similar to past rollouts.

 

Question:

How did such an incredibly overpowered T10 Japanese carrier utilizing newly revised carrier play rules enter into mainstream game play?

 

I have a tier 4 carrier which I have played since carrier revision, never played beyond tier 4 in past either.  I have been listening to clan mates and watching some videos from those more knowledgeable than I shall ever become.

That being said, Wargaming is producing a product that apparently has a terrible testing mechanism which can permit a severely overpowered ship concept into mainstream game, which then requires a hotfix nerf to attempt to calm the roiling waters of the WoWS gaming community.  The rapidly rolled out hotfix nerf will undoutedly cause new issues.  WHY IS THE SHIP TESTING MECHANISM SUCH A FAILURE???  Is it lack of a salaried testing staff?  Is it insufficient quality control when testing out the potential product?  Clan mates have mentioned there are a lot of bots on other side of PTR testing (I have never participated in PTR testing).  Can you adequately test game prior to mainstream introduction by using bots????????  Whatever the reason, it is obvious that severely flawed carrier play was introduced by Wargaming.  Wargaming can not deny this with any credibility.  It has caused the WoWS player base much needless consternation - which can affect Wargaming's bottom line.

 

So I ask again ............ What will Wargaming do to prevent the introduction of such obviously flawed product into mainstream game IN THE FUTURE ?????

 

Thank you for any attention you may have paid to this concern.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,456 posts
9,384 battles
5 minutes ago, Klebs said:

What will Wargaming do to prevent the introduction of such obviously flawed product into mainstream game IN THE FUTURE ?????

Wouldn't hold your breath... given their track record, probably nothing.

 

Spoiler

At least for the Hak I'm not sure if it's for want of trying though... considering how few people play PTS, it can be very hard to get an accurate impression of how a ship will play there. Now for some of the other premium ships that have slipped through in the past...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
980 posts
1,107 battles
2 minutes ago, pikohan said:

At least for the Hak I'm not sure if it's for want of trying though... considering how few people play PTS, it can be very hard to get an accurate impression of how a ship will play there. Now for some of the other premium ships that have slipped through in the past...

This would make sense if they designed the PTS to maximize players in the test matches.

They did not. The matchmaker was required to start test matches within 30 seconds of a tester entering the queue.

The PTS was obviously designed to be player v bots...and that data was supposed to be used to make changes before the ships were released to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,246
[SALVO]
Members
18,281 posts
18,863 battles
2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This would make sense if they designed the PTS to maximize players in the test matches.

They did not. The matchmaker was required to start test matches within 30 seconds of a tester entering the queue.

The PTS was obviously designed to be player v bots...and that data was supposed to be used to make changes before the ships were released to live.

I refuse to play PTS for my own reasons.  However, I think that you're reading this wrong.  I think that they know that the population on the PTS is rather low so they don't want to have a 5 minute max wait time because they know that they'd almost always be hitting it, no matter what tier.  So instead, to keep up some player interest for playing on the PTS, they shorten the wait time.  I don't think that this has anything to do with wanting to test player vs bots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
980 posts
1,107 battles
4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I refuse to play PTS for my own reasons.  However, I think that you're reading this wrong.  I think that they know that the population on the PTS is rather low so they don't want to have a 5 minute max wait time because they know that they'd almost always be hitting it, no matter what tier.  So instead, to keep up some player interest for playing on the PTS, they shorten the wait time.  I don't think that this has anything to do with wanting to test player vs bots.

Thereby resulting in PTS data that is essentially PVE. This was a known issue, with predictable consequences...yet instead of owning up to the decisions made and the real world consequences...

WG complains that they didnt have enough testers...despite the fact that even if they had enough testers, the design of the MM would have made the test essentially PVE.

I'm less concerned with the fact that the testing was PVE, than with the 'blaming of the playerbase' responce... which indicates that either WG is ignorant of the above inevitable consequences of their PTS design choice...or they are throwing their customers under the bus to cover their own [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
557
[PVE]
Members
814 posts
9,805 battles

Doesn't the gaming industry have companies that will test a game and report back problems?

I don't know if that is a thing or not but WGing could have saved a lot of money with more testing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,779
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,418 posts
10,140 battles
16 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Doesn't the gaming industry have companies that will test a game and report back problems?

I don't know if that is a thing or not but WGing could have saved a lot of money with more testing. 

 

They are called testers but there were not enough of us to be able to provide the information for proper balancing in the tests, too many bots in every match but we were able to test the basic CV systems reasonably well. Unfortunately things like the Hak being so insanely over powered with its ability to drop torpedoes outside of AA got missed because the only way to torp a bot was to close to point blank. The hot patch today was the first of the balance passes and there will be several more along with further tweaks down the road.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[G0ATS]
[G0ATS]
Members
1,150 posts
6,896 battles

I honestly think the Broken Haku was a free xp sink and let into the game intentionally. How many people do you think used free xp to unlock it when they heard about the F key spam exploit? Come on... I thought about it, but I didn't luckily. I unlocked the Ryujo though. It's either malice or incompetance... and it's not always incompetance when we're talking about a company that needs revenue to survive.

Edited by HorrorRoach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,109
[YORHA]
Members
3,790 posts
6,568 battles
42 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Doesn't the gaming industry have companies that will test a game and report back problems?

I don't know if that is a thing or not but WGing could have saved a lot of money with more testing. 

 

This game is a little  too complex to have a bunch of people who have never played it before come in cold and deliver reliable results and feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[WOLF2]
Members
1,160 posts
8,217 battles
55 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Doesn't the gaming industry have companies that will test a game and report back problems?

I don't know if that is a thing or not but WGing could have saved a lot of money with more testing. 

 

Well.... there's testing, and then there are the unicums.

Unicums.... why we can't have nice things tm

I say that in jest, but in regards to internal testing, you'd need a group of unicum players to see what exploits could be found.    I know that I wouldn't analyze the velocity of an unladen swallow fighter plane, and purposely gear my planes to speed past them and any flak clouds, or put detection ranges into play for stealth torping, or the F key exploit.    But we do have players that do that, and figure that out pretty quickly.    Average players and devs tend not to think that way.

Could there be more incentive to play the test server?   Some ask for more rewards.  That might help bring a few.   But what about having a bug/exploit hunt?   While you get goodies for regular test play, also have conditions where you get a nice reward for finding exploits.    Google and Facebook used to do this.   I remember reading about a 12 year old that scored $15 grand for finding a bug (think it was Facebook).    In lieu of money, throw some dubs.    Hell, throw in a digital bote for the exploit that would have the greatest impact to balance.    Something... anything is better than the POTATO YOLO that we saw the devs perform this week - both the rollout and the swift 180 degree change to neuter them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
980 posts
1,107 battles
56 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They are called testers but there were not enough of us to be able to provide the information for proper balancing in the tests, too many bots in every match but we were able to test the basic CV systems reasonably well. Unfortunately things like the Hak being so insanely over powered with its ability to drop torpedoes outside of AA got missed because the only way to torp a bot was to close to point blank. The hot patch today was the first of the balance passes and there will be several more along with further tweaks down the road.

Stealth torping was discussed as a possibility in farazelleths videos during the PTS.

It is incorrect to say that we didnt know a viable strategy for Hak was to drop ordinance outside of AA range.

Also, the Hak strategy has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE F RECALL MECHANIC. The whole point is to be able to use all planes ordinance because no one is shooting at you. F-recall use was to preserve strength after dropping ordinance WHILE UNDER AA FIRE.

Seriously, I have to point this out in every CV forum thread. The inability of serious players to internalize basic knowledge of game mechanics is disturbing.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,779
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,418 posts
10,140 battles
25 minutes ago, DiddleDum said:

Well.... there's testing, and then there are the unicums.

Unicums.... why we can't have nice things tm

I say that in jest, but in regards to internal testing, you'd need a group of unicum players to see what exploits could be found.    I know that I wouldn't analyze the velocity of an unladen swallow fighter plane, and purposely gear my planes to speed past them and any flak clouds, or put detection ranges into play for stealth torping, or the F key exploit.    But we do have players that do that, and figure that out pretty quickly.    Average players and devs tend not to think that way.

Could there be more incentive to play the test server?   Some ask for more rewards.  That might help bring a few.   But what about having a bug/exploit hunt?   While you get goodies for regular test play, also have conditions where you get a nice reward for finding exploits.    Google and Facebook used to do this.   I remember reading about a 12 year old that scored $15 grand for finding a bug (think it was Facebook).    In lieu of money, throw some dubs.    Hell, throw in a digital bote for the exploit that would have the greatest impact to balance.    Something... anything is better than the POTATO YOLO that we saw the devs perform this week - both the rollout and the swift 180 degree change to neuter them.

 

 

Unicums may not be the best at finding exploits because they are so good, they just don't need them. The best way to find exploits is to let the entire player base play the game. Sadly not enough players will inform the developers when they find one and to many will work the exploit to death until it is figured out by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,246
[SALVO]
Members
18,281 posts
18,863 battles
1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Thereby resulting in PTS data that is essentially PVE. This was a known issue, with predictable consequences...yet instead of owning up to the decisions made and the real world consequences...

WG complains that they didnt have enough testers...despite the fact that even if they had enough testers, the design of the MM would have made the test essentially PVE.

I'm less concerned with the fact that the testing was PVE, than with the 'blaming of the playerbase' responce... which indicates that either WG is ignorant of the above inevitable consequences of their PTS design choice...or they are throwing their customers under the bus to cover their own [edited].

I disagree with your read of the situation.  If they'd have left the MM timer at 5 minutes, do you really think that they'd have had more players playing PTS?  I don't.  I don't think that players would have wanted to sit in an endless string of 5 minute queues.  I think that the lack of testers and the desire to keep those they did have interested enough to remain forced them to use shorter queue times, not the other way around.

Regardless, unlike some, I have no problem whatsoever with WG pushing this rework onto the live server so that they can get more data for balancing.  I just think that players need to have a much more understanding assessment of the situation.  If you're not willing to play the PTS (like me), then they're left with either doing an endless PTS process where data trickles in at a dreadfully slow pace and the player base wonders what's taking WG so long to get the job done, or pushing it to the live server effectively as a beta test.  I don't mind it being live in this way.  But too many players are too damned whiney and should take their own advice from time to time, such as just chill out.  Don't like what you see?  Don't write profanity laced rage posts.   Write reasoned and civil posts.  And show some damned patience!!!

 

Note:  Daniel, much of what I just wrote in the second paragraph wasn't really directed at you so much as the community at large.  So please take it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,779
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,418 posts
10,140 battles
20 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Stealth torping was discussed as a possibility in farazelleths videos during the PTS.

It is incorrect to say that we didnt know a viable strategy for Hak was to drop ordinance outside of AA range.

Also, the Hak strategy has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE F RECALL MECHANIC. The whole point is to be able to use all planes ordinance because no one is shooting at you. F-recall use was to preserve strength after dropping ordinance WHILE UNDER AA FIRE.

Seriously, I have to point this out in every CV forum thread. The inability of serious players to internalize basic knowledge of game mechanics is disturbing.

Was it proved to work during the PT? That tactic is useless against bots because of their spidey sense and their ability to react to torp launches from unseen ships let alone planes that are spotted far outside of the range their ordnance can be used from. While it was known that it could launch while outside of AA until it was seen working it was simply an unproven theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
980 posts
1,107 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I disagree with your read of the situation.  If they'd have left the MM timer at 5 minutes, do you really think that they'd have had more players playing PTS?  I don't.  I don't think that players would have wanted to sit in an endless string of 5 minute queues.  I think that the lack of testers and the desire to keep those they did have interested enough to remain forced them to use shorter queue times, not the other way around.

Regardless, unlike some, I have no problem whatsoever with WG pushing this rework onto the live server so that they can get more data for balancing.  I just think that players need to have a much more understanding assessment of the situation.  If you're not willing to play the PTS (like me), then they're left with either doing an endless PTS process where data trickles in at a dreadfully slow pace and the player base wonders what's taking WG so long to get the job done, or pushing it to the live server effectively as a beta test.  I don't mind it being live in this way.  But too many players are too damned whiney and should take their own advice from time to time, such as just chill out.  Don't like what you see?  Don't write profanity laced rage posts.   Write reasoned and civil posts.  And show some damned patience!!!

 

Note:  Daniel, much of what I just wrote in the second paragraph wasn't really directed at you so much as the community at large.  So please take it that way.

Most game companies the size of WG employ testers so that they dont have to use the live game as a test bed...

WG chooses not to do so. That choice has consequences.

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Was it proved to work during the PT? That tactic is useless against bots because of their spidey sense and their ability to react to torp launches from unseen ships let alone planes that are spotted far outside of the range their ordnance can be used from. While it was known that it could launch while outside of AA until it was seen working it was simply an unproven theory.

IMO, once you remove mobile fighter squadron...ANY ordinance delivery mechanic that allows you to completely circumvent enemy defenses (stealth torping) is an open invitation to player exploitation.

The game context and mechanic were exposed which allowed the exploit. That's enough to merit actually testing the mechanic for exploits BY WG. But WG decided to let ALL testing be done by unpaid contractors in an environment that virtually guaranteed a PVE only environment.

 

If you want to see someone doing actual balancing WORK, check out what LittleWhiteMouse does when investigating new mechanics. I dont see any evidence that WG even attempts to go as deep as she does...and she is one person doing it in her spare time.

 

So, stop blaming the community. Start asking serious questions about WGs appalling level of commitment to properly developing the game.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,779
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,418 posts
10,140 battles
4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Most game companies the size of WG employ testers so that they dont have to use the live game as a test bed...

WG chooses not to do so. That choice has consequences.

IMO, once you remove mobile fighter squadron...ANY ordinance delivery mechanic that allows you to completely circumvent enemy defenses (stealth torping) is an open invitation to player exploitation.

The game context and mechanic were exposed which allowed the exploit. That's enough to merit actually testing the mechanic for exploits BY WG. But WG decided to let ALL testing be done by unpaid contractors in an environment that virtually guaranteed a PVE only environment.

 

If you want to see someone doing actual balancing WORK, check out what LittleWhiteMouse does when investigating new mechanics. I dont see any evidence that WG even attempts to go as deep as she does...and she is one person doing it in her spare time.

 

So, stop blaming the community. Start asking serious questions about WGs appalling level of commitment to properly developing the game.

Is it true stealth torping with the planes not being spotted or is it simply a spotted plane dropping their torps from outside of AA range? I don't play enough in the top tiers to have really seen this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[SPUD1]
Members
39 posts
4,851 battles

The player base has spoken.... CV's are the Krasny Krym class now. They're  in game and you can play them if you Want . But they look better in port....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
980 posts
1,107 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Is it true stealth torping with the planes not being spotted or is it simply a spotted plane dropping their torps from outside of AA range? I don't play enough in the top tiers to have really seen this.

The first set of torps (in 0.8.0) could be dropped from distances beyond the planes concealment range. You could eat torpedoes dropped from planes you never saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,779
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,418 posts
10,140 battles
1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The first set of torps (in 0.8.0) could be dropped from distances beyond the planes concealment range. You could eat torpedoes dropped from planes you never saw.

Thank you, that explains a lot and should not be allowed for balance purposes. I have only run into a few Hak's mainly because I don't play the high tiers solo very often and did not see that being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[-BUI-]
Members
560 posts
2,537 battles
5 hours ago, HorrorRoach said:

I honestly think the Broken Haku was a free xp sink and let into the game intentionally. How many people do you think used free xp to unlock it when they heard about the F key spam exploit? Come on... I thought about it, but I didn't luckily. I unlocked the Ryujo though. It's either malice or incompetance... and it's not always incompetance when we're talking about a company that needs revenue to survive.

I only got to the Shokaku myself.    However this "F-spam exploit" is not what made that ship broken, it was how its torpedoes functioned.   If you watch the video posted about it, he doesn't use F much at all, he fires off all 3 salvos and has a normal return.    The removal of the F-key from saving planes has been one of the biggest reasons the hotfix killed CVs again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,330 posts
2,134 battles

this is really messed up and that makes me tired and unhappy with the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[NAUTI]
Members
324 posts
873 battles
8 hours ago, Klebs said:

How did such an incredibly overpowered T10 Japanese carrier utilizing newly revised carrier play rules enter into mainstream game play?

You see, the business model is to release the OP ship, then nerf it, then make a premium version of the original unnerfed ship for steel and release steel missions for purchase in the shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[AK]
Beta Testers
11 posts
6,358 battles

Well, as predicted, Wargaming released following announcement a day or so after the first carrier hotfix:

Quote

Dear players,

We've encountered two issues with anti-air defense mechanics after the 0.8.0.1 hotfix:

- Large damage spikes from AA explosions in tier VIII and above (this is a bug, the damage should increase proportionally with tier);
- Continuous DPS on several ships/tiers needs further adjusting (mostly toning down slightly).

We're already working on resolving both issues, but to avoid any new mistakes, we will be spending a couple of days double-checking everything and preparing a small update. We plan to release this hotfix early next week.

We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

World of Warships Team.

 

Again, this raises the issue of how such a severely unbalanced, flawed carrier rollout could have passed Wargaming testing and quality control.  Some of the answers were reflected in the responses above. 

But the most important question to be raised from this fiasco is:

What will Wargaming do to prevent the introduction of such obviously flawed product into mainstream game IN THE FUTURE ?????

 

Wargaming, please pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,492
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
4,864 posts
11,804 battles
On 2/7/2019 at 12:06 PM, Klebs said:

So I ask again ............ What will Wargaming do to prevent the introduction of such obviously flawed product into mainstream game IN THE FUTURE ?????

It's happened numerous times before.  The CV rework is only the latest in a long line.  Rest assured that it will definitely happen again.

A Russian battleship tech tree is approaching.  Being that nearly all of them never existed, WG has license to be "creative" about their capabilities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×