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

0.9.6 PTS -- Needs more participation, more comment

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

I know many players ignore or just skim developer blogs, PTS notes, and patch notes.  A discussion of why would be its own thread. 

This time, it seems that some major changes are slipping in under the radar, covered by the German CVs and the second month of Dockyard 2.0.  More people need to take a look at this, and comment.  

There's a major change coming to what is currently the "MODULES" tab, which is being renamed "EQUIPMENT", and a major change to research progression on ships.  

First, three US DDs and Nurnburg appear to be suffering a stealth AA nerf, via the loss sidegrade "C hull" option to mount a better AA suite at the cost of some other firepower.   This might be affecting other ships as well, I haven't had a chance to compare every ship in detail, in part because of the next item slowing down the process.  

Second, there's a huge change coming to the design of elements under that tab, which is illustrated here (also links to the thread for commenting on the changes where you should comment once you try it out):  

Please take the time to actually look at these changes, and comment, this time around.  I know the argument over whether German CVs are "shiny new content" or "more imbalanced napkinwaffe crap" is grabs the attention, and the Dockyard is still an ongoing sore spot because of the original incarnation, but there's more to 0.9.6 than those things. 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[_BDA_]
Members
566 posts
8,979 battles

This is the second time I've tried to get into the test server and for some reason it keeps preventing my access.  Tried it with subs and again with the German CVs.  Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but after wasting an afternoon trying to download the program, I gave up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,369
[WORX]
Members
13,307 posts
20,159 battles
2 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

This is the second time I've tried to get into the test server and for some reason it keeps preventing my access.  Tried it with subs and again with the German CVs.  Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but after wasting an afternoon trying to download the program, I gave up.

Are you using WGC ???

If you are, all you need to do, log in to WGC with your PTS act. Then hit the play button.

Once you have log in to WGC, it should log you in to the game easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[_BDA_]
Members
566 posts
8,979 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

Are you using WGC ???

If you are, all you need to do, log in to WGC with your PTS act. Then hit the play button.

Once you have log in to WGC, it should log you in to the game easy.

Speak English... random letters lumped together gives me hay fever.

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,784
[KWF]
Members
6,397 posts
7,152 battles

Truth be told I have almost never seen a Nurnberg or Mahan with their "AA hull". Besides USN DDs are now able to use Def AA regardless of hull. As for other changes under the radar, found this link to be pretty helpful. Some things, like the turning circle changes ate actually pretty useful.

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-update-0-9-6-changes-and-additions-supertest-datamining-german-carriers-event/

That said, it's true there's not much interest in PTS. WG has tried to help with that by giving the premium ship containers, but I believe something like access to Premium Ships in order to be able to gauge their capabilities would attract quite a few people too.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,369
[WORX]
Members
13,307 posts
20,159 battles
1 minute ago, michael_zahnle said:

Is it too much to ask for people to actually type a response instead of LOLing they way through a conversation?

Its not a "conversation."

Its short hand instructions. Since you dont understand it, its ok

GL.

  • Haha 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,784
[KWF]
Members
6,397 posts
7,152 battles
2 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Is it too much to ask for people to actually type a response instead of LOLing they way through a conversation?

WGC stands  for Wargaming Center, the unified launcher for WG games unless you use Steam versions of certain games. As for PTS it just means Public Test Server.

If you are having trouble with your install take a look at the relevant section on the forums or contact support.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
13 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Is it too much to ask for people to actually type a response instead of LOLing they way through a conversation?

Ignore him, this is his standard song and dance.  

 

PTS -- Public Test Server

act -- Account

WGC -- Wargaming.net Game Center.   The new download manager (of mixed reviews) that replaced the classic Launcher. At this point, have you have to use WGC to even run the PTS version of the game.  

 

You have to install the public test instance of the game via the WGC, or go in and link your old install to the WGC -- I'm not on the guinea pig computer that has WGC installed, or I'd post a screenshot.  

You also have to sign up for a PTS account separate from your normal account, the account you use for NA (North America, this server) won't work on PTS.  BUT, you do have to use the same email address, or you won't get the PTS participation stuff (signals, sometimes other things) on your main NA account.  

https://worldofwarships.com/en/content/pt-guide/

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
671
[SVF]
Members
1,867 posts
2,438 battles
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

First, three US DDs and Nurnburg appear to be suffering a stealth AA nerf, via the loss sidegrade "C hull" option to mount a better AA suite at the cost of some other firepower.

Not like the C Hulls for the USN DDs have been viable for the past 18 months anyway (and weren't recc'd even in the pre-rework days; giving up a main gun for just a couple twin 40mm mounts is not a good trade).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
2 hours ago, landcollector said:

Not like the C Hulls for the USN DDs have been viable for the past 18 months anyway (and weren't recc'd even in the pre-rework days; giving up a main gun for just a couple twin 40mm mounts is not a good trade).

I would rather this not devolve into a debate about whether players should or did take the options

The point is to inform people that the option is being taken away, and let people choose whether that bothers them or affects them each individually.  

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
affect vs effect
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,281
[BEA5T]
Members
5,295 posts
24,117 battles
25 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I know many players ignore or just skim developer blogs, PTS notes, and patch notes.  A discussion of why would be its own thread. 

This time, it seems that some major changes are slipping in under the radar, covered by the German CVs and the second month of Dockyard 2.0.  More people need to take a look at this, and comment.  

There's a major change coming to what is currently the "MODULES" tab, which is being renamed "EQUIPMENT", and a major change to research progression on ships.  

First, three US DDs and Nurnburg appear to be suffering a stealth AA nerf, via the loss sidegrade "C hull" option to mount a better AA suite at the cost of some other firepower.   This might be affecting other ships as well, I haven't had a chance to compare every ship in detail, in part because of the next item slowing down the process.  

Second, there's a huge change coming to the design of elements under that tab, which is illustrated here (also links to the thread for commenting on the changes where you should comment once you try it out):  

Please take the time to actually look at these changes, and comment, this time around.  I know the argument over whether German CVs are "shiny new content" or "more imbalanced napkinwaffe crap" is grabs the attention, and the Dockyard is still an ongoing sore spot because of the original incarnation, but there's more to 0.9.6 than those things.

It's commendable you and others are trying to help this game....!  For many of us, the writing was on the wall at the Cruiser Line Split and we migrated into COOP or left the game since.  No matter what we'd want, our host has zero intention of making changes that would damage their Arcade based, gimmick laden, low vision sales & marketing paradigm(s)......  The game lost the entire middle of it's population in Randoms and Ranked and the MM is creating stomps because it requires a "Random Distribution of Skill" to function.........ouch !

I ask you:  "to what value would I add my input" to a discussion that isn't really a discussion at all???  It's a testing ground for money making schemes no matter the cost to the community (i.e. Update 8.0, the PR event, etc.....) 

How is it "value added" for well educated, older players, whom want "quality and insightful game play" to participate in a mode that their opinions aren't "pure kiddie arcade" acceptable.  That is where the game is going no matter what you or I would have to say............a sad fact that.  The operative question is:  "why do the same thing over and over again and expect different outcomes.....??"

Thank you for trying !! 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
5 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

It's commendable you and others are trying to help this game....!  For many of us, the writing was on the wall at the Cruiser Line Split and we migrated into COOP or left the game since.  No matter what we'd want, our host has zero intention of making changes that would damage their Arcade based, gimmick laden, low vision sales & marketing paradigm(s)......  The game lost the entire middle of it's population in Randoms and Ranked and the MM is creating stomps because it requires a "Random Distribution of Skill" to function.........ouch !

I ask you:  "to what value would I add my input" to a discussion that isn't really a discussion at all???  It's a testing ground for money making schemes no matter the cost to the community (i.e. Update 8.0, the PR event, etc.....) 

How is it "value added" for well educated, older players, whom want "quality and insightful game play" to participate in a mode that their opinions aren't "pure kiddie arcade" acceptable.  That is where the game is going no matter what you or I would have to say............a sad fact that.  The operative question is:  "why do the same thing over and over again and expect different outcomes.....??"

Thank you for trying !! 

I guess I can only post the information and let people do what they will with it. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
[META_]
[META_]
Members
1,306 posts
28 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

WGC stands  for Wargaming Center, the unified launcher for WG games unless you use Steam versions of certain games. As for PTS it just means Public Test Server.

If you are having trouble with your install take a look at the relevant section on the forums or contact support.

pts isnt available on steam right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[SNGNS]
Members
611 posts
7,045 battles
12 minutes ago, Felipe_1982 said:

pts isnt available on steam right?

no, only through the wgc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[DOG]
Members
1,301 posts
13,507 battles
37 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I would rather this not devolve into a debate about whether players should or did take the options

The point is to inform people that the option is being taken away, and let people choose whether that bothers them or effects them each individually.  

Okay.  But I do wonder why WG decided to do this.  Were these hulls to effective at shooting down planes?  Or does the Most Holy and Sacred Spreadsheet tell them most players don't use these hulls anyway?  In which case, why bother to eliminate them?  I don't remember using them when I was grinding U.S. DDs, but I do remember the C hull on Nurnberg used to shred planes before the CV rework.  Now?  Not so much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[_BDA_]
Members
566 posts
8,979 battles

Thank you, everyone that translated the shorthand into plain speech, I had way too much of vernacular shorthand in government service.  I finally got into the test server and had a look at the new graphics.  Since I'm still grinding through the dockyard event I'll have a closer look at the test server later.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[WMD]
Members
1,928 posts
10,958 battles
32 minutes ago, zubalkabir said:

Okay.  But I do wonder why WG decided to do this.  Were these hulls to effective at shooting down planes?  Or does the Most Holy and Sacred Spreadsheet tell them most players don't use these hulls anyway?  In which case, why bother to eliminate them?  I don't remember using them when I was grinding U.S. DDs, but I do remember the C hull on Nurnberg used to shred planes before the CV rework.  Now?  Not so much.

If you're a casual player working up a line you would assume each hull is a straight upgrade, since most are. Having a few weird "side-grades" peppered in can lead to confusion and player dissatisfaction when they realize they wasted credits and XP. I know this firsthand after wasting XP while working through the  USN DD line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,677
[WPORT]
Members
9,908 posts
14,401 battles
17 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Thank you, everyone that translated the shorthand into plain speech, I had way too much of vernacular shorthand in government service.  I finally got into the test server and had a look at the new graphics.  Since I'm still grinding through the dockyard event I'll have a closer look at the test server later.

:cap_like:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
37 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Thank you, everyone that translated the shorthand into plain speech, I had way too much of vernacular shorthand in government service.  I finally got into the test server and had a look at the new graphics.  Since I'm still grinding through the dockyard event I'll have a closer look at the test server later.

This round of the test server will end overnight, if it goes by normal timing.  Just FYI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,514
[WOLF7]
Members
12,614 posts
2 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I know many players ignore or just skim developer blogs, PTS notes, and patch notes.  A discussion of why would be its own thread. 

This time, it seems that some major changes are slipping in under the radar, covered by the German CVs and the second month of Dockyard 2.0.  More people need to take a look at this, and comment.  

There's a major change coming to what is currently the "MODULES" tab, which is being renamed "EQUIPMENT", and a major change to research progression on ships.  

First, three US DDs and Nurnburg appear to be suffering a stealth AA nerf, via the loss sidegrade "C hull" option to mount a better AA suite at the cost of some other firepower.   This might be affecting other ships as well, I haven't had a chance to compare every ship in detail, in part because of the next item slowing down the process.  

Second, there's a huge change coming to the design of elements under that tab, which is illustrated here (also links to the thread for commenting on the changes where you should comment once you try it out):  

Please take the time to actually look at these changes, and comment, this time around.  I know the argument over whether German CVs are "shiny new content" or "more imbalanced napkinwaffe crap" is grabs the attention, and the Dockyard is still an ongoing sore spot because of the original incarnation, but there's more to 0.9.6 than those things. 

 

They have clearly hired a new UI guy, and he's trying to justify his job. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
1 minute ago, awiggin said:

They have clearly hired a new UI guy, and he's trying to justify his job. :Smile-_tongue:

My cynical instinct does leap to that, it's what happened to Windows between 7 and 10 after they hired a bunch of designers from Apple.

But if I want to have any chance of getting them to compromise on stuff like the text labels instead of just icons, I have to proceed as if they do believe they're improving things for the players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,768
[ARGSY]
Members
24,477 posts
18,460 battles
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I would rather this not devolve into a debate about whether players should or did take the options

The point is to inform people that the option is being taken away, and let people choose whether that bothers them or effects them each individually.  

They're being removed because they're superfluous. The extra AA you get wasn't worth losing the main gun without the DFAA it gave you access to. Now that you don't need to research the C hull just to get DFAA, there's no point in having the C hull. 

On the whole, though, I think the ups outweigh the downs.

1) The Minsk research stream is becoming A hull ---> B hull ---> Kiev and A torps ---> B torps ---> Ognevoi.  It used to be that you could research Kiev directly off the Minsk's gun turrets but had to research the Minsk B hull to get to the B torps and then research Ognevoi from those - a much more laborious grind. This will make the decision on whether to go for Kiev or Ognevoi first a little easier.

In addition, Kiev's upgraded 8km torpedoes also will no longer require the B hull for access. This means a quicker emancipation from the torture of 4km Russian DD torpedoes.

2) Lexington's rocket fighter research stream is Base rockets ---> HVAR ---> Tiny Tim. You can no longer research the Tiny Tims directly in parallel from the stock rockets. Mitigating against this, the HVARs are actually pretty good.

3) Among the ships which benefit from immediate access to their B gunfire control systems is one I'm currently grinding (Amagi) and another I'm done with (Fuso). Now I never actually bothered researching Fuso's B GFCS during the grind, because IME she has enough range stock to shoot back at almost anything she can face anyway, but others might prefer to have it.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,307
[SALVO]
Members
8,273 posts
6,142 battles
2 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Snip 

 

Hi OP, it is nice to have a useful topic around here for a change, thanks for that.

Regarding the loss of AA focused C hulls, I think they were useless anyway you lose too much just for mediocre AA, not a good deal and you bet the stats are showing that. So C hull is gone and I don't think anyone will miss them.

The changes to module tab seem alright, it isn't as if we play the game for how functional the port interface is anyway.

What worries me is AP rockets. Seeing how a great idea was to have AP bombs, now we have another way to being unavoidable citadelled. That is great news for anyone of us playing CLs, my RN CLs are very very happy to know they won't be repairing  that damage.

How the damage compares with the current HE ones? As it is now you could lose 1/3 of your HP in a rocket attack, with AP asuming you'll be multicit what would be 1/2 HP? A way to give Dev Strikes back to CVs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×