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

Anyone else wonder what WG thought battles would look like after rework?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

392
Members
745 posts
1,178 battles

Going through the threads about the CVs made me ask myself, what did WG think a fight would look like after the rework. 

Did they just expect planes to be a glass cannon that could be destructive but died quickly kind of like a highly mobile, one dimensional DD?

Did they assume planes would be used to root out camping ships or solo flankers and the rest of the battle would just be the same?

Did they intend to completely change the meta and alter the foundation of how a match was played?

 

Is the current situation the result of a thought out and planned for shift in how the game functions or is it the result of trying to implement a cool arcade mechanic with no realization of the historic impact planes had on naval battles?

 

What do y'all think?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[--V--]
Members
710 posts
11,476 battles

I think they were going for a couple goals:

1. An FPS style of game play for the CVs, in a misguided effort to attract younger players and make console gaming more lucrative.

2. Shorter matches to appeal to younger, attention span deficient millennials.  By having all ships spotted within 45 seconds of the match starting and permaspotting DDs, they've done this.

Personally, it ruined the game for me.  Only play a few matches a week and have stopped ALL spending with WG.

 

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[RG-1]
Beta Testers
664 posts
2,439 battles
23 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

I think they were going for a couple goals:

1. An FPS style of game play for the CVs, in a misguided effort to attract younger players and make console gaming more lucrative.

2. Shorter matches to appeal to younger, attention span deficient millennials.  By having all ships spotted within 45 seconds of the match starting and permaspotting DDs, they've done this.

Personally, it ruined the game for me.  Only play a few matches a week and have stopped ALL spending with WG.

 

 

Or making it so CVs have a higher playerbase due to requiring less macro and micro.

 

Also, permaspotting DDs? Seriously? pre-rework was the true PERMASPOTTING, the rework actually nerfed the class -.-'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[H_]
Members
1,900 posts
1 hour ago, ruar said:

Going through the threads about the CVs made me ask myself, what did WG think a fight would look like after the rework. 

Did they intend to completely change the meta and alter the foundation of how a match was played?

Yes.  They are repeating the same WoTs de evolution of the game; into, a faster and simpler arcade format.  Designed for play stations and phones.    Planes are Artillery.  Light tanks vanished and DD's are now endangered.  In other games, the same concepts are going on as well as the market evolved into play stations and phone usage.  The game has to be "simple" and faster, with "gimmicks" prompting sales....

This entire evolution is all about revenue......  And, only money.  They are counting on WoTs population numbers !  WoTs "didn't go away" and WoWs won't "go away"..............the only thing that changed are the demographics of the game:  out with the old players (especially Boomers)  and in with the kids (the "Like" generation:).........whom, spend money in micro-transactions all over the place because they simply don't care and want to have fun" no matter the cost......  Think I'm wrong?  Look at student loans and the default rates in many countries...   Go visit an e-Sport club at your local University and talk to them........  I have and lecture on technologies/Innovation at many of them.....  What a mess they are.....  I am so glad my kids and grand children are taking a different route because that generation will never be able to pay off their debts....  And games !  Oh boy......  I've never have spent that kind of money my entire life.....ever.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,099 posts
1,237 battles

Changes to the game meta were not considered. 

The whole point of pushing the game to the live servers was to have us show them what the meta would be so they could tweak it to feel 'balanced' enough to drive revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[FYL]
Members
472 posts
1,980 battles

It seemed as if they wanted to decrease the sense of helplessness against CVs and also make them play more like other classes. They also wanted an equal number to other classes, so about 3 per game. I took their direction to be wanting to make games quicker and more aggressive. I don't think they wanted to change the meta, just speed it up. 

I would say all those goals were partial or complete failures, and their final goal of them being more popular is up in limbo.

Edited by Tanuvein
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
Members
745 posts
1,178 battles
2 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

Yes.  They are repeating the same WoTs de evolution of the game; into, a faster and simpler arcade format.  Designed for play stations and phones.    Planes are Artillery.  Light tanks vanished and DD's are now endangered.  In other games, the same concepts are going on as well as the market evolved into play stations and phone usage.  The game has to be "simple" and faster, with "gimmicks" prompting sales....

This entire evolution is all about revenue......  And, only money.  They are counting on WoTs population numbers !  WoTs "didn't go away" and WoWs won't "go away"..............the only thing that changed are the demographics of the game:  out with the old players (especially Boomers)  and in with the kids (the "Like" generation:).........whom, spend money in micro-transactions all over the place because they simply don't care and want to have fun" no matter the cost......  Think I'm wrong?  Look at student loans and the default rates in many countries...   Go visit an e-Sport club at your local University and talk to them........  I have and lecture on technologies/Innovation at many of them.....  What a mess they are.....  I am so glad my kids and grand children are taking a different route because that generation will never be able to pay off their debts....  And games !  Oh boy......  I've never have spent that kind of money my entire life.....ever.

Was this stated anywhere? One would think a business would advertise such a shift.

The rework goes along with the theory but the follow on patches dont. Faster matches would need more damage from all ships, not just carriers. Capture points should increase as well.

I'm honestly confused as to what they intend. They do one thing and then do something directly counter later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[H_]
Members
1,900 posts
36 minutes ago, ruar said:

Was this stated anywhere? One would think a business would advertise such a shift.

The rework goes along with the theory but the follow on patches dont. Faster matches would need more damage from all ships, not just carriers. Capture points should increase as well.

I'm honestly confused as to what they intend. They do one thing and then do something directly counter later.

Actually, subscribe to Harvard Business School's academic series........  Yes, that costs money but a lot of Universities use HBS's articles to teach from.  Some of them are the e-Market and games !  There are several good articles out there that concern League of Legends and revolved around how micro-transactions are created and then deployed in a precise and calculated format that fully supports rock solid business analytics that evolve the 1, 2 and 5 year planning....

In other words, the Arcade market recognized the demographic shift about three years ago, right after the Loot Box goings-on and the entire industry had data of micro-transactions and self learning, specifically targeted game progression sales..... 

is this stated:  Yes, go look those type of articles up !  There are peer reviewed, industry sanctioned articles everywhere these days....    Advertise such a shift:  "those whom fail to study history often are prone to repeat it!"....  Look at the history of Loot Boxes and work your way forward....  It's just become "seamless" now and transparent in a lot of games..... 

Confused?  Why?   Our host read the marketing data from the Cruiser Line Split and implemented Phase 2 of this process....  They completely goofed culturally....  Again, how fast was 8.0 changed and where are we now, 8.3-4-........  I'd bet they had no choice but to pull it back as quickly as they have....  WoTs objected to Artillery........but, didn't outright stop or quit.  A lot of those WoTs players are in WoWs......and, guess what, they said "no" and that's where we are:  half in and half out of what was suppose to be a complete market buy-in to Carriers !!!  After all, the market bought into Radar and HE Spam and embraced it fully spending a small fortune in meta cruisers !!!!  

This is a good discussion at the Graduate level of e-Business classes........  Right now, the prototypes and demo's of "self learning" and "intuitive gameplay AI" are all knowledge based decisions based on individual player in-game performance and choices and spending profiles (time, content, decisions and money)........    Some of those new games are "creepy how well they can "profile" you...." and then, adapt the game to that profile.....""  It's a new game world out there........and the saying: adapt, overcome and survive is what the actual game is doing in reaction to you !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles

My guess is that WG though that most players wouldnt mind be farmed from by planes while they fight other ships. This would make the battles faster and more chaotic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
343 posts
8 hours ago, ruar said:

I'm honestly confused as to what they intend. They do one thing and then do something directly counter later.

Aside from making money they have absolutely no more of a frakkin clue than you or i do as to what they intend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
605
[ARP3]
Members
578 posts
11,919 battles

I think they just made a list of features. There was no balance whatsoever. For years they got away with this, as changes were not so severe, so minor feedback and player discomfort was easily fixed. 

Wargaming plan:

1. Make carriers easier to play, and reduce their power.

2. Make money selling premium carriers again

What happened:

1. Carriers are easier to play but since there are so many, the once rare problem became an every-match, everyday one. Before, same problem, but you might see a few a day.

2. Made lots of money selling carriers, so rework is a business success!

3. Balance? Fix later (they only did few tst server evaluations)

 

The actual result is they poisoned the game. Old, experienced players are leaving. These players spent years in game, and a lot of money.

They are being replaced with new, less skilled players with less games, and less long term interest in the game.

 

The longer the unhappiness is allowed to go on, the shorter the life span of the game becomes. 

 

Mark my words, when they start selling Belfast, Nicolai and Missouri again, it will be the last cash out before they close the servers.

 

 

Edited by Cit_the_bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
425 posts
14,171 battles
1 hour ago, Cit_the_bed said:

Mark my words, when they start selling submarines again, it will be the last cash out before they close the servers.

FIFY.

And yes, again, because they tried to sell a temporary submarine (killer whale) in a $90 bundle last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[--V--]
Members
710 posts
11,476 battles
On 5/3/2019 at 9:10 AM, ALROCHA said:

Also, permaspotting DDs? Seriously? pre-rework was the true PERMASPOTTING, the rework actually nerfed the class -.-'

- CVs have planes in enemy spawn within 45 seconds - this is a MAJOR buff to CVs spotting capabilities.

- Increased speed of planes allow them to spot vast portions of the map in far less time than pre-CV Rework

- and yes,,, DD permaspotting still exists.  See it ALL the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,099 posts
1,237 battles
12 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

- CVs have planes in enemy spawn within 45 seconds - this is a MAJOR buff to CVs spotting capabilities.

- Increased speed of planes allow them to spot vast portions of the map in far less time than pre-CV Rework

- and yes,,, DD permaspotting still exists.  See it ALL the time.

 

No, because the CV cant spot the whole map the whole time...

...and the CV cant permaspot as well as it used to.

But you get spotted more because there are many more interactions per game session with a CV than before.

But this is a good thing. No longer can you abuse concealment without a counter...

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,457 posts
5,230 battles
On 5/3/2019 at 7:27 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Changes to the game meta were not considered. 

The whole point of pushing the game to the live servers was to have us show them what the meta would be so they could tweak it to feel 'balanced' enough to drive revenue.

AND...you got to pay for the privilege. Can’t believe people still financially support this company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
684
[TDRB]
Members
2,500 posts
7,240 battles
On 5/3/2019 at 7:18 AM, ruar said:

Going through the threads about the CVs made me ask myself, what did WG think a fight would look like after the rework. 

Did they just expect planes to be a glass cannon that could be destructive but died quickly kind of like a highly mobile, one dimensional DD?

Did they assume planes would be used to root out camping ships or solo flankers and the rest of the battle would just be the same?

Did they intend to completely change the meta and alter the foundation of how a match was played?

 

Is the current situation the result of a thought out and planned for shift in how the game functions or is it the result of trying to implement a cool arcade mechanic with no realization of the historic impact planes had on naval battles?

 

What do y'all think?

 I'm not sure what goes on inside WG developers meetings but it seems they miss badly and spend a lot of time correcting more often than they hit something close enough it only needs a few minor tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[WMD]
Members
640 posts
6,535 battles
1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

No, because the CV cant spot the whole map the whole time...

...and the CV cant permaspot as well as it used to.

But you get spotted more because there are many more interactions per game session with a CV than before.

But this is a good thing. No longer can you abuse concealment without a counter...

It's not abusing concealment when a class is balanced around it's concealment...

Try branching out into ship lines that rely on stealth to function before you call it "abusing" concealment.  Just because you prefer BBs and CVs doesn't mean all players do, and their enjoyment of the game is no less worthy than yours.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,886 posts
4,322 battles
On 5/3/2019 at 5:18 AM, ruar said:

Going through the threads about the CVs made me ask myself, what did WG think a fight would look like after the rework. 

Did they just expect planes to be a glass cannon that could be destructive but died quickly kind of like a highly mobile, one dimensional DD?

Did they assume planes would be used to root out camping ships or solo flankers and the rest of the battle would just be the same?

Did they intend to completely change the meta and alter the foundation of how a match was played?

 

Is the current situation the result of a thought out and planned for shift in how the game functions or is it the result of trying to implement a cool arcade mechanic with no realization of the historic impact planes had on naval battles?

 

What do y'all think?

It was to counter the Stealth meta that WG is constantly chipping away at but the player base will not stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[MV_BR]
Members
144 posts
11,428 battles

 

In all areas of the market, companies listen to their consumers to make products they like. In this game it seems the opposite. The developer changes the product in the way that they think is best and the consumers who adapt or leave it out. I'll have to relearn about marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[ICOP]
Members
1,067 posts
3,860 battles

The new Carrier play style from an appearance point of view is more like what it would be in reality, which seems to be more appealing to many.

As for some of the Carrier issues, they where always there and one hope's that they can finally address many of the concerns now that there is more interaction between all four classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[H_]
Members
1,900 posts
10 minutes ago, DoggSteeL said:

In all areas of the market, companies listen to their consumers to make products they like. In this game it seems the opposite. The developer changes the product in the way that they think is best and the consumers who adapt or leave it out. I'll have to relearn about marketing.

History....  What happened in WoTs is sufficient.  The differences they "really missed" were cultural............  Not business.  They failed to realize how many players "hated WoT's changes" and left !  And, came here.......  A sizable number it seems that when WG pulled the 8.0 meta rabbit out of their hat (Artillery Introduction meta), those players went ballistic; especially, in the US....  These are interesting times.....

This has little to do with Marketing......it's really a "push only" system and those, like the "Lean manufacturing" craze internationally a few years ago, create "unique significant emotional and culture rejection events !!!"  This entire episode will make great graduate level study materials in the near future !  "Of what not to do........culturally".....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,099 posts
1,237 battles
1 hour ago, VeatherVitch said:

It's not abusing concealment when a class is balanced around it's concealment...

Try branching out into ship lines that rely on stealth to function before you call it "abusing" concealment.  Just because you prefer BBs and CVs doesn't mean all players do, and their enjoyment of the game is no less worthy than yours.

I disagree.

Ships were balanced around open water stealth firing too, and that was being abused.

We have ships being balanced around the absurd IFHE skill, which is bad.

We have ships being balanced around the passive AA system, which is fundamentally flawed too.

Just because something has been balanced around a mechanic does not mean that the mechanic isnt being abused or that it is immune to future changes.

Concealment being so powerful has been a consistent target of WoWs Development staff for quite some time now.

Radar and planes are the counter to concealment. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[SIDE]
Members
2,089 posts
On 5/3/2019 at 7:18 AM, ruar said:

Going through the threads about the CVs made me ask myself, what did WG think a fight would look like after the rework. 

Did they just expect planes to be a glass cannon that could be destructive but died quickly kind of like a highly mobile, one dimensional DD?

Did they assume planes would be used to root out camping ships or solo flankers and the rest of the battle would just be the same?

Did they intend to completely change the meta and alter the foundation of how a match was played?

 

Is the current situation the result of a thought out and planned for shift in how the game functions or is it the result of trying to implement a cool arcade mechanic with no realization of the historic impact planes had on naval battles?

 

What do y'all think?

Look! Another post farming cv gripe thread! It’s gonna be just like the other ones but let’s not let that stop us from spamming some more.

What do I think?  yawn...

Edited by thebigblue
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[RG-1]
Beta Testers
664 posts
2,439 battles
3 hours ago, SeaborneSumo said:

- CVs have planes in enemy spawn within 45 seconds - this is a MAJOR buff to CVs spotting capabilities.

IJN CV could have 1 TB squad up in 20 seconds and the other in 30, with those 2 squads they could kill the first DD they spotted.

3 hours ago, SeaborneSumo said:

- Increased speed of planes allow them to spot vast portions of the map in far less time than pre-CV Rework

Pre-rework CV had similar, if not greater, speed, specially fighter planes that were used to scout.

You also have to remember that pre-rework CV could have more than 1 squad flying around and an attack run would have more payload than what we currently have.

3 hours ago, SeaborneSumo said:

- and yes,,, DD permaspotting still exists.  See it ALL the time.

And no, DD permaspotting doesn't exist, the CV either waste his time spotting the DD and reducing his own rewards or he attacks and leave the DD unspotted until he turns back.

And you'd need to aim carefully if the enemy DD was an average player that know he can turn off his AA and reduce his spotting size to 2.3~2.7km, this is not permaspotting since the DD always disappear after a few seconds, if you're being permaspotted it's because the enemy used radar on you or the CV doesn't care about his own rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[WMD]
Members
640 posts
6,535 battles
1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I disagree.

Ships were balanced around open water stealth firing too, and that was being abused.

We have ships being balanced around the absurd IFHE skill, which is bad.

We have ships being balanced around the passive AA system, which is fundamentally flawed too.

Just because something has been balanced around a mechanic does not mean that the mechanic isnt being abused or that it is immune to future changes.

Concealment being so powerful has been a consistent target of WoWs Development staff for quite some time now.

Radar and planes are the counter to concealment. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, what will you give to DDs to make them effective again now that they've lost concealment? They already had the lowest damage, and survival in their tier.

Or is your hope that the DD will become the new "old CV" and hardly be seen? That seems to be the objective of a very vocal minority of CV-nts.

 

I'm not for removing CVs from the game, but their impact on the game needs to be brought in line with other ships. DDs have a huge impact, but do little damage, and have very low survival rates. CVs have a huge impact, and have BB level damage(high tiers) combined with the best survival rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×