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

Has wargaming commented on this disaster?

218 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
201 posts
3,193 battles

Replay.

11 torpedo hits?  You need to do a better job of dodging those torpedo's and stop sailing in a straight line.  I doubt he there was 5 floodings with those 11 torpedo hits.

Edited by HeadSplit120
  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 13
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[HIT]
Members
164 posts
8,236 battles

It's ur fault for not dodging and not properly engaging in the fun and engaging "sector reinforcement" thingy.

  • Funny 7
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 4
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
728
[SOFOP]
Members
1,252 posts
8,822 battles

They are actively testing AA changes on the test server.  If I remember right, the changes make your AA focus on individual planes instead of the planes as a group, resulting in more loses for the CV (though they can still get in an attack).

The only benefit i have seen is that CVs can no longer one shot people, which begs the question - death by headshot or death by thousands of knives, which is better?  I find some comfort though in the fact that, as an average (at best) player myself, the CV focusing me means that there is a potentially better player that is not being pestered.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[TF-60]
Members
375 posts
10,642 battles
2 minutes ago, HeadSplit120 said:

Replay.

11 torpedo hits?  You need to do a better job of dodging those torpedo's.  I doubt he there was 5 floodings.

I find it very hard to dodge CV dropped torps in high tier BBs.  They don’t turn well and dodging the CV usually opens my BB up to getting citadelled.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,221
[PHASE]
Members
4,757 posts
16,180 battles
3 minutes ago, HeadSplit120 said:

Replay.

11 torpedo hits?  You need to do a better job of dodging those torpedo's.  I doubt he there was 5 floodings.

Respectfully, I dodged 7, but you may not realize sometimes by dodging torpedo's you end up showing to much broadside which in turn is even more damaging than the torp itself.

  • Cool 13
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
854 posts
4,495 battles
Just now, Old_Baldy_One said:

They are actively testing AA changes on the test server.  If I remember right, the changes make your AA focus on individual planes instead of the planes as a group, resulting in more loses for the CV (though they can still get in an attack).

The only benefit i have seen is that CVs can no longer one shot people, which begs the question - death by headshot or death by thousands of knives, which is better?  I find some comfort though in the fact that, as an average (at best) player myself, the CV focusing me means that there is a potentially better player that is not being pestered.

 

At least the RTS, death by headshot, could possibly be dodged, shot down and or potentially countered. These new CVs just dont care. There's not even a risk of being deplaned anymore for them. There is no risk for them to either charge into AA, or given that WG allowed the exploit to remain, slingshot past it all and bomb you THROUGH your AA

  • Cool 11
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Angry 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
201 posts
3,193 battles
1 minute ago, General_WTSherman said:

I find it very hard to dodge CV dropped torps in high tier BBs.  They don’t turn well and dodging the CV usually opens my BB up to getting citadelled.

If you don't tunnel vision and realize that torpedo planes are coming in on the attack it isn't hard to dodge the torpedo's.  You may still get hit but its better to only get hit by three or four rather than 11.

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,791
-Members-
1,259 posts
508 battles

Hey Sweetsie, as we've mentioned we have a few things in process in terms of AA and the interaction between surface ships and CVs.

First, we did announce a change on PTS which in the next update will have AA target the last aircraft in a squadron of planes instead of the entire squadron.  While it won't make major changes to damage caused, it should address some situations where a squadron could fly over and no planes are shot down. 

We're also still in the process of reworking sector AA which you should hear more about in the near future. 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 5
  • Boring 3
  • Angry 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,087
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester
2,857 posts
4,072 battles

Midway torps suck TBH...  I'm a bit suprised that a pilot could land this many in 1 - 3 set pass?   Were you stationary?   Still again...  would you be here if a T10 Yamato had Cit'd you for 40K from 25KM away?   Again the gripe is consistently just that a CV did it to you?    How about a replay?...    

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
728
[SOFOP]
Members
1,252 posts
8,822 battles
1 minute ago, Angel_With_A_Shotgun said:

At least the RTS, death by headshot, could possibly be dodged, shot down and or potentially countered. These new CVs just dont care. There's not even a risk of being deplaned anymore for them. There is no risk for them to either charge into AA, or given that WG allowed the exploit to remain, slingshot past it all and bomb you THROUGH your AA

Can't argue that.  These are the things that happen when you try to put square pegs into round holes - things break.  Carriers changed the world essentially and made battleships obsolete, so balance isn't going to be easy.

I honestly can't think of a better way to balance things beyond what they are going to do:  make it so that planes actually die.  As it stands currently, I can do 99% damage to every plane, and the moment they land, they are repaired.  If I can kill 1-2 planes while leaving the rest full, that's 1-2 planes that they won't immediately have back.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,648 posts
6,888 battles

Midway? Trust me, Hakuryu and the notorious 22500 is worse :Smile-_tongue:

The way WG designed the squadron system, how the entire squadron shares a large health pool, you either cripple if not out right destroy the entire squadron, or you shoot down nothing at all. You need to push your own AA over the critical mass to stand a chance in actually defeating CV's approach. Take Manual AA, it's not like Sovetsky Soyuz needs Fire Prevention, and even AA mod 1 if you find shooting down planes too difficult. The increase in damage and AA zone reinforcement multiplier will almost guarantee immunity against Tier VIII carriers except Saipan, and you can probably destroy the entire squadron of the tier X carriers on the second pass, given they don't do the slingshot drop and you manage your AA sector correctly and actively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,003
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,912 posts
12,238 battles

Why is changing the core of AA mechanics to sequentially target a plane rather than randomly, and doing something about the woeful sector mechanic happening now, not when the problems were first shown last September?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,447
[YORHA]
Members
4,272 posts
7,632 battles

It's easy. Just adapt, dodge, sail in curvy lines, activate Defensive AA, select/change/select/change your AA sector, group up and speed up/slow down.

 

Then sink, go back to port and hit the "Battle" button again.

Those flags & camos aren't going to waste themselves.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 7
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
854 posts
4,495 battles
15 minutes ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

Can't argue that.  These are the things that happen when you try to put square pegs into round holes - things break.  Carriers changed the world essentially and made battleships obsolete, so balance isn't going to be easy.

I honestly can't think of a better way to balance things beyond what they are going to do:  make it so that planes actually die.  As it stands currently, I can do 99% damage to every plane, and the moment they land, they are repaired.  If I can kill 1-2 planes while leaving the rest full, that's 1-2 planes that they won't immediately have back.

tbh, while I think the change is a good thing, until they remove that slingshot exploit its not gonna have much effect. People will just continue jumping over the AA and bombing their targets anyway and then F keying away for minimal losses

Edited by Angel_With_A_Shotgun
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles

T9 ship being food for T10 CV is working as intended lol. T9 ships are marginally better than T8's for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
Beta Testers
759 posts
9,522 battles
4 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Midway torps suck TBH...  I'm a bit suprised that a pilot could land this many in 1 - 3 set pass?   Were you stationary?   Still again...  would you be here if a T10 Yamato had Cit'd you for 40K from 25KM away?   Again the gripe is consistently just that a CV did it to you?    How about a replay?...    

No not really. Its pretty simple to unserstand. You can prevent cit damage... especially from 25km.

You cant defend against a cv.

  • Cool 6
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,249
[5BS]
Members
7,637 posts
22 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

1) After getting annihilated by a Midway with a AA rating of 65 in my tier 9 RU BB, 11 torps and 5 floods In one/3attack pass, I shot down a total of zero planes. Keep in mind my fighter was on cooldown after he was glitched to land after being up for 19 seconds as I tried to help a teammate that was being attacked next to me.

I lost 40k health and was left with two floods. Enemy MIdway goes for 3000 base while we all did our best to work together for AA and played very well. After I died, I watched said Midway do more damage to our Gascogne with one rocket attack, approx. 11k, than the BB did with a full AP Salvo to the CV at 11km. Then the Cv proceeded to set the BB on fire each additional attack. 

(side note) our CV did well, the two CV's combined for 8 kills out a total of 20 ships destroyed. 40% of the ships sunk by 8% of the players without the ability to shoot back at them. Why even play the game? 

Then, You have the audacity to offer me some in game crap recruit a friend Amazon promotion. I want to publicly say that I would not recommend this game as it stands right now to anyone. We are approaching month 6 of this debacle.

 

2) Is there any public comment from wargaming on a real fix or change? Or are we still floundering in complete mopishness? The goal, as was my understanding, was to keep this type of performance out of the game. I am not sure who is taking crazy pills here, me or the entire base of players for not being even more vocal. 

I'd argue this is the most cogent and understandable comment they have given:

On 5/29/2019 at 3:24 PM, Sub_Octavian said:

Now, I am sorry for any possible confusion which may occurred. You're very welcome to continue the discussion here, for example, but please keep it civil and on-topic.

If I may, I would like to bring several points to this discussion. You may not necessarily agree, of course, but I hope you will take them into account at least.

Fighter spawn - the idea you describe was considered initially, however, later it was dumped. This mechanic shifts the fighter play from map control to a much simpler action (which honestly removes some depth). It's not an objective "no, never" - I appreciate the benefits of this solution, and maybe it will find some use in future Support Carrier Class (now, it's not an announcement, but most likely you guys know we seriously consider this).

Def AA and AA in general - we're currently heavy into redesign of AA Priority sector and some connected components (like commander AA skills). We believe that the mechanic is good itself, but it needs heavy tweaking and much better usability. "Investing" more into the consumable, at the moment, sounds like a worse solution, as Def AA works fine and available to a limited selection of ships. What most players need is not Stronger Def AA, but overall better AA experience. Our goals: renewed priority sector will be much easier to use, and also AA overall will be more consistent, while dedicated AA builds will be more efficient. When it's done, we will happily look at Def AA and see if there is need for changes.

Spotting - we appreciate the feedback, but we indeed do not consider this problem as big as some of the players do (to justify emergency changes), and let me explain why. Before CV rework, CV spotting capabilities were stronger (because of several units were available), but CV popularity was lower, and CV air superiority gameplay was more hardcore (sometimes one CV player could just shut down the opponent), so effectively it felt like there was less spotting from air in the game. It was a particular "meta" with huge reliance on concealment. It changed a lot, and this is natural. I can promise you that meta will change many more times in the future, too, in different directions, because the game is alive and kicking, and we intend to support it for years. And there are 2 factors here: 1. Meta change itself is not bad, but it comes hard for many players who got used to specific type of game behavior. 2. While the changes itself may be fine, it's still important to keep it under control. And regarding p.2 what we did in 0.8.4 is targeted at CV spotting a lot - engine boost nerf is considerable for high tiers, which naturally will reduce the amount of spotting. Together with other improvements I mentioned above, we don't believe spotting needs dramatic changes right now (as changes are cumulative and tend to effect over time), but if after all we currently work on is done, the problem still persists, we will be willing to go further.

Data vs Feedback - it's a good and rather complicated question. Many people tend to bring up one in front of another depending on what point they're trying to make. But truth is, both are equally important.

For example, when a player claims that he and everyone around uninstalls the game because of CV, such statement is not to be dismissed. Literally no one in the team wants to loose a player. But also, looking at the audience, activity, uninstall statistics and exit poll results, we could understand overall situation and sum it up to smth like "we have this and that to fix, but overall the game is in good shape and we actually don't have any dramatic uninstalls increase because of what we did last update, so we don't need to flip the table with the CV and remove them, despite of this player saying we must".

Or, for instance, when someone claims that he is "constantly targeted by endless waves of planes" we can compare it with the statistics of plane losses and appreciate overall balance.

However, in both examples, feedback is still valid. Player 1 IS frustrated with the game at the moment, and player 2 DOES feel uncomfortable while playing against CV. It is a valid experience, and one does not cancel the other. Marrying such sources of data and making decisions for the best of the game is a challenge, trust me. It is tough to hear "you know, I used to like your game, but now I don't". We take it hard and personally, because this game is the most important project in career for the most of us, and because we love it. We sometimes get mad over it. However, on the other hand, our level of responsibility is very high, and we cannot immediately act on anything we hear without putting it into the whole picture.

Relevant data - your example is very good, and this case is studied in every basic course for any kind of data analysis. We look at many things, including:

  • Uninstall dynamics: has only spiked at 0.8.0 within 15-20% compared to normal values, and has been stable on previous levels since then.
  • Uninstall exit poll: only 5,8% of responses since 0.8.0 are attributed to CV directly, and there are no considerable changes in other response rates.
  • Player daily, weekly, monthly activity - was higher during Winter holidays, then dipped a bit, and now on normal levels - it's seasonal and happens every year because of Xmas madness.
  • CV balance metrics - tons of them - much better then pre-rework. A bit excessive on higher tiers (hence the changes), overall fine.
  • CV influence and dependence - CVs are good at racking damage, but battle influence is much less. Actually right now CV have the smallest WR increase relatively to player's WR increase (so with player skill growth, CV [edited] grows worse than on other classes).
  • CV retention - new CV are much better at retaining players who started playing them.
  • Class balance and popularity - on good level, although DD took significant reduction in popularity, and looks like many DD player find CV gameplay interesting. Also, just to remind : we've been to all kinds of meta here, including DD and BB overpopulation. It fluctuates over time.

Etc, etc, etc. This is why we do consider rework in a good place, but when we say "good" it does not mean it does not have anything to change or fix.

A lot of community feedback is actionable, and we will keep working on it. It's not like we just politely "take it into account" and then forget. 

 Just to remind, we: did a lot of individual ship changes, improved air concealment, nerfed attack planes responsiveness and squadron composition, tried delayed takeoff (but it did not work as we hoped), nerfed plane speed and HE DB accuracy (now), improved continuous DPS for AA, improved fighter planes responsiveness, removed RPF from planes, improved CV MM in T10 battles.. and all of current CV changes in development are community-driven, too.

Whew, it was a long post. I hope it was not too long, and I was able to give you some additional perspective. Have a good day!

 

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,221
[PHASE]
Members
4,757 posts
16,180 battles
3 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

It's easy. Just adapt, dodge, sail in curvy lines, activate Defensive AA, select/change/select/change your AA sector, group up and speed up/slow down.

 

Then sink, go back to port and hit the "Battle" button again.

Those flags & camos aren't going to waste themselves.

Respectfully, in a training room everything you say is true, in a game, it isn't. We were losing and had to run from a DD that was hunting me, I also had to try to stop a cap as they had 2/3. I have played quite a bit and understand the dynamics like all of you. The fact an unseen enemy can do so much damage with zero recourse is the issue. So many focus on the fact....."just dodge" It doesn't work that way in game. 

If you think I played poorly, so be it. But the two CV's combined did well over 4100 basexp. the next two ships winner and loser top scores were 1300 points behind.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,224 posts
12,937 battles
15 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

Hey Sweetsie, as we've mentioned we have a few things in process in terms of AA and the interaction between surface ships and CVs.

First, we did announce a change on PTS which in the next update will have AA target the last aircraft in a squadron planes instead of the entire squadron.  While it won't make major changes to damage caused, it should address some situations where a squadron could fly over and no planes are shot down. 

We're also still in the process of reworking sector AA which you should hear more about in the near future. 

Radar while it is easy for you to say "we have things in process" or "still in the process of reworking sector AA"

as the OP said

28 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

We are approaching month 6 of this debacle.

Is this the long term issue WG wants

28 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

I would not recommend this game as it stands right now to anyone

As I see it WG had X amount of time to get this rework completed, yet they have shoved it down the player bases throats as an incomplete mess.

If the devs cannot see after 1 or 2 days of all their servers how things are being affected, (and don't give me crap about collecting data either) why are they taking such a long time to implement the changes, instead it is taking months on end trying to find a balance, which when you think about it, it doesn't seem distract WG from releasing new ships, yet they cannot seem to find the time to fix the issues we currently have at hand.

Edited by CriMiNaL__
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[90TH]
Members
210 posts
13,054 battles

WG- We are removing Open Water Stealth Firing, because nobody should be able to do damage to another ship without fear of retaliation

Also WG- come try out our new CVs

Edited by SgtMajorBuzz
  • Cool 9
  • Funny 10
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,224 posts
12,937 battles
Just now, SgtMajorBuzz said:

WG- We are removing Open Water Stealth Firing, because nobody should be able to do damage to another ship without fear or retaliation

Give me back my OWSF

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
854 posts
4,495 battles
1 minute ago, SgtMajorBuzz said:

WG- We are removing Open Water Stealth Firing, because nobody should be able to do damage to another ship without fear of retaliation

Also WG- come try out our new CVs

ikr, the changes lately make no sense

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,221
[PHASE]
Members
4,757 posts
16,180 battles
16 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

Hey Sweetsie, as we've mentioned we have a few things in process in terms of AA and the interaction between surface ships and CVs.

First, we did announce a change on PTS which in the next update will have AA target the last aircraft in a squadron of planes instead of the entire squadron.  While it won't make major changes to damage caused, it should address some situations where a squadron could fly over and no planes are shot down. 

We're also still in the process of reworking sector AA which you should hear more about in the near future. 

What is happening to me and others ( I assume) is a significant growing frustration with this situation. I am pink much more often, I am chat banned much more often. It would be easy to say... just quit playing... but it isn't that easy when you have poured so much money and time into something you really cared about. It's like a break up and it isn't easy right now. Do you realize how much time and money spent in 15,000 games and 47 19pt captains and it all changed over night?

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×