Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Cruxdei

WIP ships under embargo until they are almost ready to release or ready.

162 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,666
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,716 posts
6,958 battles

ETSSwveUEAArkPp?format=jpg&name=large

now you won't know if the ship is trash or OP until it's ready to release.

 

Edited by Cruxdei
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,832
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,411 posts
14,163 battles

Probably not a bad idea as some of the work in progress reports are from early in testing when the ship is broken in some way and that is what people remember instead of the close to release reports.

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,573 posts
15,629 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Probably not a bad idea as some of the work in progress reports are from early in testing when the ship is broken in some way and that is what people remember instead of the close to release reports.

Well said

 

I kinda was ancy prior to 8.0 with the CV rework as I had read it was a major overhaul. I finally quit worrying. Reason being as Brush mentioned, there is a possibility that what holds for today will change tomorrow on WIP

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,477
[TARK]
Members
6,519 posts
2,501 battles
7 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

ETSSwveUEAArkPp?format=jpg&name=large

now you won't know if the ship is trash or OP until it's ready to release.

 

More to the point, WG wont know either.

We are back to 2016 and the days of the OP premium.

Once again, WG senior leadership blaming other people for their own problems.

Seriously, the problems with balancing and launching ships in the last year are not caused by the CCs or the playerbase. The deeply flawed test feedback communication system needs to be examined...

...but first, WG has to admit that it has areas that could be improved...

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,131
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,628 posts
4,994 battles

That seems fair to me.  I have seen a few absurd whines about changes to WiP ships being unfair or unreasonable nerfs, as though the initially revealed stats were final.  Too many players don't seem to understand what WiP means.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,614
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,711 posts

This isn't really surprising after they flatly ignored all feedback on the recent HE pen / armor plating changes, meeting all criticisms with absolute silence. 

After 2019, the Year of the Debacles, they're rapidly giving up even the pretense of caring about what we think of their plans or decisions. 

This is strictly about controlling the narrative, nothing more.

 

  • Cool 18
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
523
[GRAVE]
Members
1,260 posts
18,743 battles

I see it as not having any point in CCs anymore, because if they cannot show off ships in testing until they are basically final, why bother? People get excited over some of these ships, and I'm not sure keeping them secert until the very end could lead to even more ships being released OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
605
[TOAST]
[TOAST]
Members
1,444 posts
10,195 battles

It'll just make the backlash even worse when they release something that'sa terrible balance train wreck. We've already seen twice where they've been told for weeks before hand "this is a bad idea" and they add it anyways...and then it turns out it was a bad idea. I guess they're tired of hearing "we told you this was a bad idea" they would rather hear "What insanity is this nonsense?"

Edited by Vekta408
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,614
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,711 posts
5 minutes ago, Vekta408 said:

It'll just make the backlash even worse when they release something that'sa terrible balance train wreck. We've already seen twice where they've been told for weeks before hand "this is a bad idea" and they add it anyways...and then it turns out it was a bad idea. I guess they're tired of hearing "we told you this was a bad idea" they would rather hear "What insanity is this nonsense?"

I suppose we can't have told them so if we never had the chance to tell them so...  :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,897 posts
11,584 battles

so, TL:DR, WG is going back to the ways that gave us what was one of the most OP ships in the game for the longest time Nikolai?

great, because that totally wont backfire horribly

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
983
[A-I-M]
Members
3,004 posts
22,002 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Probably not a bad idea as some of the work in progress reports are from early in testing when the ship is broken in some way and that is what people remember instead of the close to release reports.

I would say seconded but Capt_Ahab already did. 

You have to draw your own conclusions; my recollection was that opinion on Nikolai was mixed before its release. I looked at the stats and decided it would be very strong, and bought it and Warspite on the day Nik came out, and it turned out to be insanely OP. 

I think that it was only on sale for about three days, maybe less. 

Edited by Pugilistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,181 battles

So basically they want to release broken ships so that people buy them up and then claim they can't nerf them because they were sold....

Balancing needs done before they're sold and if people can't talk about them, balance couldn't begin to get achieved -- comrade spreadsheet aside....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
638 posts
72 battles
1 hour ago, Cruxdei said:

ETSSwveUEAArkPp?format=jpg&name=large

now you won't know if the ship is trash or OP until it's ready to release.

 

But that has been WGs tactic from the start?! Give OP/Broken/Fun ships to CCs and push them to push out a lot of content on Twitch and Youtube with monster games. Then nothing for a long long while, and then they get dropped for a hefty price after been nerfed with the bat to just a pale shadow of its former self. And after players complain they say you should have read a small note in the margin in a post on Facebook. Why didnt you?!?!?

 

Its false/[edited] marketing and really shady business practice.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,082
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,022 posts
11,568 battles

Otherwise known as - Indomitable was garbage and was a bad idea, there's a good chance FDR is getting the AP rockets - that are a bad idea, the fiasco of both holiday reward ships, and a number of others in the last year and basically they want to blame us again, or stop us from saying 'we told you so' because some of us actually know things like math that seems to be an issue when Wargaming tries to balance things and understand better it seems how the game works in reality not theory, and try and and make money off suckers that have to have a ship day 1. Cause y'know what, it's not like me and others told them Midway's hanger nerf before it even got to PT and were proven right, that changes in rocket aiming would only increase skill gap not fix DD's vs CV's in the rework, and how many other ideas or changes where we were proven right?

Hey Wargaming - if any of your staff see this - how'd all this double secret probation nonsense go over for the CV rework that you kept under wraps the same way? Oh, that's right - you had a botched reveal that only added to the credibility of rumours you were trying to get ahead of a leak, that we all hated and were angry that we did not get input on, and that when finally allowed to try - actually hated more, and that at it's peak before release only managed to get 32% of players on board, 38% when you threw out 16% of the responses, and shoved it out anyway as you ignored us causing anger and people to leave with how broken it was for far longer than you said, and more than a year later is still as broken if not more so than RTS carriers - and how bad is it when I have seen DD's and BB's more willing to have RTS Hak's attack them than the rework ones? When you ACTUALLY LISTEN to us you usually make decent decisions that keep us happy, and usually don't break game balance. But when you go all echo chamber - listening only to the feedback that fits what you want like on GZ, the 32% of players that wanted the rework to launch as it was or in general aside from the top secret design process that by the end of it even your CC's that championed the rework were disappointed, the IFHE changes that have done nothing to fix anything just made things worse - you make things worse and in the process hurt your bottom line. 

You wanna know why we stop discussing current content - because you don't give a damn Wargaming. Because we go on about it and all we get is silence, we get no changes and only a few of us in the end bother to continue trying to get you to fix the damn things. Because a lot of times the current content ticks us off and some of our posts are unfairly censored as 'nonconstructive' and deleted because we don't agree - not even a warning for if maybe people type mad to change an offending line. Because at this point because you won't listen to us after the fact - especially when premiums that don't really see changes after release are involved because no duh nerfing is an issue on them, we are trying to keep you from bringing issues, like the CV rework, like IFHE changes, like brokenly OP/UP ships to the live server to begin with.

There's also the fact that YOU WON'T STOP GIVING US GRIND AFTER GRIND. Some people are too busy because you won't letup on grinds - you keep with harder/grindier missions and you won't give us a couple weeks to just walk away, grind other lines, train captains, etc.

You wanna know why we aren't buying your premium ships?

  • A lot of them lately have been pretty much garbage, limited to only a few who would, or  few who can even play them well - assuming they have the right scenario. Case in point Indomitable the abominable and Ark Royal.
  • Many of us are STILL with not buying anything because of the PR fiasco - if you REALLY thought we were going to just let that go you were sorely mistaken. 
  • The vast majority of your premiums are overpriced, and not helping is this new focus on high tier premiums. You people keep trying to gouge us when you could make far more on lower prices by selling volume.
  • With how unbalanced things like CV's are still, there is less inclination to buy ships that may have issues at this point against them or be strong now but weak later - case in point Atlanta was bough as an AA monster and you've nerfed it into the ground - and I say that as an Atlanta owner and someone that has all 3 Tier 10 CV's.
  • Why invest in ships like say the newer Italian premiums when because of your current mission structures and pacing many of these ships will have limited if any use because you won't give us 2 weeks to do whatever the hell we want without any directives or mission chains.

If you want - I'm sure I can list some more smaller things, or go back more than just the last 5 months for bigger reasons why your ship sales are likely hurting and it's not the previews - if anything those are helping you, and the embargo's will if anything likely hurt you more with the day of nonsense and any ships being pulled from sale because they are released too op again. Not to mention not going far in gaining back good will with us.

  • Cool 22
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,631
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,656 posts
14,723 battles

In GM3D we trust...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,287 posts
6,522 battles
10 minutes ago, mofton said:

In GM3D we trust...

If I were WG, I wouldn't have CC's or external testers, period. Keep everything in-house, grab good people to fill out the department. Letting people argue over in-development designs is a bad, bad idea. Do I personally like doing it and like that WG lets us? Yes! Is it a good decision by WG? Hell no!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,730 posts
11,719 battles
54 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

day Nik came out, and it turned out to be insanely OP.

Iif i recall, Imp. Nikola, the weakness of the ship was squishy low health turrets. Then the turret buff came along then the ship became op. WoWs was a very different animal then. It was rare to end a battle in any ship with your main battery intact.

This change of interaction with WG, another  step in the wrong direction for the wrong purpose. Hype is just as significant as balance and client stability.

Edited by Crokodone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,477
[TARK]
Members
6,519 posts
2,501 battles
27 minutes ago, Oldschool_Gaming_YT said:

But that has been WGs tactic from the start?! Give OP/Broken/Fun ships to CCs and push them to push out a lot of content on Twitch and Youtube with monster games. Then nothing for a long long while, and then they get dropped for a hefty price after been nerfed with the bat to just a pale shadow of its former self. And after players complain they say you should have read a small note in the margin in a post on Facebook. Why didnt you?!?!?

 

Its false/[edited] marketing and really shady business practice.

The proposed system isnt going to be any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,477
[TARK]
Members
6,519 posts
2,501 battles
24 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Otherwise known as - Indomitable was garbage and was a bad idea, there's a good chance FDR is getting the AP rockets - that are a bad idea, the fiasco of both holiday reward ships, and a number of others in the last year and basically they want to blame us again, or stop us from saying 'we told you so' because some of us actually know things like math that seems to be an issue when Wargaming tries to balance things and understand better it seems how the game works in reality not theory, and try and and make money off suckers that have to have a ship day 1. Cause y'know what, it's not like me and others told them Midway's hanger nerf before it even got to PT and were proven right, that changes in rocket aiming would only increase skill gap not fix DD's vs CV's in the rework, and how many other ideas or changes where we were proven right?

Hey Wargaming - if any of your staff see this - how'd all this double secret probation nonsense go over for the CV rework that you kept under wraps the same way? Oh, that's right - you had a botched reveal that only added to the credibility of rumours you were trying to get ahead of a leak, that we all hated and were angry that we did not get input on, and that when finally allowed to try - actually hated more, and that at it's peak before release only managed to get 32% of players on board, 38% when you threw out 16% of the responses, and shoved it out anyway as you ignored us causing anger and people to leave with how broken it was for far longer than you said, and more than a year later is still as broken if not more so than RTS carriers - and how bad is it when I have seen DD's and BB's more willing to have RTS Hak's attack them than the rework ones? When you ACTUALLY LISTEN to us you usually make decent decisions that keep us happy, and usually don't break game balance. But when you go all echo chamber - listening only to the feedback that fits what you want like on GZ, the 32% of players that wanted the rework to launch as it was or in general aside from the top secret design process that by the end of it even your CC's that championed the rework were disappointed, the IFHE changes that have done nothing to fix anything just made things worse - you make things worse and in the process hurt your bottom line. 

You wanna know why we stop discussing current content - because you don't give a damn Wargaming. Because we go on about it and all we get is silence, we get no changes and only a few of us in the end bother to continue trying to get you to fix the damn things. Because a lot of times the current content ticks us off and some of our posts are unfairly censored as 'nonconstructive' and deleted because we don't agree - not even a warning for if maybe people type mad to change an offending line. Because at this point because you won't listen to us after the fact - especially when premiums that don't really see changes after release are involved because no duh nerfing is an issue on them, we are trying to keep you from bringing issues, like the CV rework, like IFHE changes, like brokenly OP/UP ships to the live server to begin with.

There's also the fact that YOU WON'T STOP GIVING US GRIND AFTER GRIND. Some people are too busy because you won't letup on grinds - you keep with harder/grindier missions and you won't give us a couple weeks to just walk away, grind other lines, train captains, etc.

You wanna know why we aren't buying your premium ships?

  • A lot of them lately have been pretty much garbage, limited to only a few who would, or  few who can even play them well - assuming they have the right scenario. Case in point Indomitable the abominable and Ark Royal.
  • Many of us are STILL with not buying anything because of the PR fiasco - if you REALLY thought we were going to just let that go you were sorely mistaken. 
  • The vast majority of your premiums are overpriced, and not helping is this new focus on high tier premiums. You people keep trying to gouge us when you could make far more on lower prices by selling volume.
  • With how unbalanced things like CV's are still, there is less inclination to buy ships that may have issues at this point against them or be strong now but weak later - case in point Atlanta was bough as an AA monster and you've nerfed it into the ground - and I say that as an Atlanta owner and someone that has all 3 Tier 10 CV's.
  • Why invest in ships like say the newer Italian premiums when because of your current mission structures and pacing many of these ships will have limited if any use because you won't give us 2 weeks to do whatever the hell we want without any directives or mission chains.

If you want - I'm sure I can list some more smaller things, or go back more than just the last 5 months for bigger reasons why your ship sales are likely hurting and it's not the previews - if anything those are helping you, and the embargo's will if anything likely hurt you more with the day of nonsense and any ships being pulled from sale because they are released too op again. Not to mention not going far in gaining back good will with us.

Indeed.

@Hapa_Fodder

Beware taking this truth to senior leadership. They will not want to hear it.

Be careful.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[ANKER]
[ANKER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
574 posts
12,862 battles

The problem is the inconsistent release schedules with the ships. You parade them around with the testing and they get talked about. Intrest grows and people get interested because they can see themselves liking or playing that ship. It is a natural human thing to do. 

Then the ships disappears for a while creating a gap between that players dream and reality. Slowly the angst grows because the perception you created is no longer valid. 

You unjustly nerf ships which damages the limited perception you presented to us through the public content that players rely on. CCs and youtube because there is no other way to understand or see something that is still just a dream.

You do see here that the mess you have made is your fault right? And the community who has been supporting you has tried to have open conversations to figure how you can justify buffs/nerfs on ships we still have not even had the chance to play yet.

All because you seem to follow the same pattern of consistent miscommunication between desired content and then the release let downs. Until you create a more consistent program that allows more player feedback and community support on helping to create the content we all desire ; company and player a like there will always be this resentment between desire and reality.

The funny thing is we all want the same things but we call it something different.

Remember: "it did not have to be this way"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[--O--]
Members
931 posts

Wargaming here is the problem.... OPEN YOUR EYES.

You do not listen to the Testers, CC's or even your Customers. The problem is YOU not them.

The interest is always high but then always seems not to to case in point 2m fxp for a dd, that is just the latest. 

sounding better and better each update and stunt you pull.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,562
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
3,505 posts
13,885 battles
6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Indeed.

@Hapa_Fodder

Beware taking this truth to senior leadership. They will not want to hear it.

Be careful.

I am unsure why you think that " They will not want to hear it." but that isn't true as I keep telling everyone, people can tag me or PM me anytime at all.

I don't mind people telling me their opinions and such, HOWEVER, lines like "You wanna know why we aren't buying your premium ships? kind of makes me wonder. Like who's "we" you mean the royal we? Because I assure you if you mean "we" as in the player base, you're not correct with that statement.

Or just wondering is the "we" along the same lines of "The game is dying," "everyone is leaving," "no one wants to play this game anymore," thought process?

This change was a VERY smart one. It was purely because we were releasing information about ships, they were getting reviewed, the public was making their minds up on those reviews before the ships were even tested. Ships were changed and edited and then released and the reviews weren't particularly valid.

Indomitable case in point. "Otherwise known as - Indomitable was garbage and was a bad idea" it was reviewed as mediocre or not good.... So I bought one to test it, turns out it is one of my favorite CV's and I do fairly well in it. (I am arguably only average to above average in CV's BTW).

Once again, I have been playing this game since the second week of Alpha testing. And the game has NEVER had a mechanic that broke the game for me. Mechanics have changed, and I changed my tactics or how I played based on those mechanics. No change has really upset me as much as it has some in the community.

You adapt and you overcome. I don't take kindly and never have, in game or in life to blanket statements.

SO YES, we are tightening up the information that is released EARLY and its a GOOD thing. IMO, we have let out too much information on future content too early for too long.

-Hapa

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,897 posts
11,584 battles
3 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

SO YES, we are tightening up the information that is released EARLY and its a GOOD thing.

i guess we'll just see about that then wont we?

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×