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

Reports of changes to CVs

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,439
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,313 posts
14,715 battles

Commanders!
With the release of Update 0.9.9 you might have noticed some changes to aircraft carriers’ squadrons and AA fire. We are currently investigating this issue. Please, stay tuned for further details from us.
Sorry for the possible inconvenience. 
Good luck and fair seas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles
1 hour ago, 9TenSix2Eight said:

keep it that way thank you.

If they can stealth nerf CVs, they will stealth nerf your premium ships.

#FoodForThought

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,517 battles

Argh, my planes, my planes, those Woosters!

Woosters: "Muahahaha, Muahahaha, those stinger missiles worked out nicely."

Minotaurs: "The Dalek upgrade AA module is awesome!"

Russian cruisers: "Meh, extra AA. Woopty do! Goalkeeper is working as intended!"

Stalingrad: "I am still scared of AP bombs." *Chugs vodka. "I want to go home to my babushka in one piece."

BBs: "Finally, we can sail again all alone like BB porn stars on the runway. Swinging our turrets, watching planes turn to bits, and we can finally sail into a cap with no need for support. Hell yeah!"

DDs: "Is it safe to come out?"

Cruisers: "Look, a Hakuryu rocket squadron heading to our DDs!"

DDs: "Ahhhhrgh! *Ducks behind a Wooster. "Not safe, not safe, oh why did I sail today!"

Wooster: "It's okay, we got this."

WG: "Whoops! Okay, who was wise guy to ramp up AA on update? *WG executive hiding in server room.

Executive: "What? I was just looking around and I saw a terminal was open by the Devs. I swear, I didn't ramp up the AA!"

WG Devs: *Facepalm. "Now you've done it. A few days of this and the players will revert back to their original state of "lets sail alone, we don't worry about CVs!"

CVs: " Hmmm, I guess we could arm the planes with exocets and harpoons."

Indomitable: "Isn't that kind of mean to fire a long range antiship missile at the botes?"

Hakuryu: "Nah, it's about time we bring the nasty stuff to the big dance."

 

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2
  • Haha 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,606
[CYPHR]
Alpha Tester, Members, Beta Testers
3,689 posts
19,626 battles

as missouri Quietly loads tomohawks

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[CMFRT]
Modder
984 posts
2,391 battles
7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If they can stealth nerf CVs, they will stealth nerf your premium ships.

#FoodForThought

Good. Things that need balance change should get balance changes, premium or not.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles
45 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

Good. Things that need balance change should get balance changes, premium or not.

Id prefer the nerfs of premiums to be public...after all, as this shows...you cant hide them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
4 hours ago, Avalon304 said:

Good. Things that need balance change should get balance changes, premium or not.

It's one thing to buff a ship - suchas when they increased Tirpitz secondary range, or the buff they made to Ceasre (that eventually made it OP), and in the case of Ceasre are argument could be made to at least partially reverse the buff. The problem is if they nerf a ship - people can actually legally go after them for baiting and switching which they really don't want, with the arguably worse thing being the negative PR it'd generate (least from a business standpoint). It's why they tried to nerf GC by raising it's tier - technically they were increasing the ships value by making it a tier 6 (like somewhat shoehorning Hood in to 7) but they paid a tier 5 price for it, nullifying the monetary value argument. It's actually the main reason I was ticked off they started selling tier 9 ships that had been free xp and all - had they kept them off the market, they would actually be fair game for any balance change because they are not bought with real money, therefore, exempt from inability to nerf due to potential legal issues.

Is it annoying - yeah, it'd be better if they could just nerf certain ones. But I understand the why they don't. 

13 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

Sorry for the possible inconvenience

Possible inconvenience?

Something causing the game to stutter or freeze mid dodge is inconvenient. Having to remember to go to the armoury for daily shipments is inconvenient. 'There's a 30% chance that on the second Tuesday of the month at 9 am if you fly over grid F6 and use rockets the dispersal of rockets will be greater than normal by 15%' is 'A possible Inconvenience'.

Aircraft carriers taking significantly higher plane losses - especially ones that as is already had Regen times that were way too high and/or reserves that were too low, or all that AND groups with a lower HP amount than same tier and nation counterparts (Saipan), leading to CV's more frequently reduced to nearly nothing and stuck having to wait for planes to regen and spend 3-6 minutes unable to actually help the team while doing so (which is at best a minor improvement over RTS having no regen and leaving them completely useless) isn't a 'possibly' case as it out right is, and is not an 'inconvenience' as that would really be more if it was a minor, annoying issue and not something that massively affects gameplay and balance right now - even if non-CV players are cheering and some of these ships needed an AA buff (though not quite this much in cases).

This is an outright problem.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[CMFRT]
Modder
984 posts
2,391 battles
18 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

It's one thing to buff a ship - suchas when they increased Tirpitz secondary range, or the buff they made to Ceasre (that eventually made it OP), and in the case of Ceasre are argument could be made to at least partially reverse the buff. The problem is if they nerf a ship - people can actually legally go after them for baiting and switching which they really don't want, with the arguably worse thing being the negative PR it'd generate (least from a business standpoint). It's why they tried to nerf GC by raising it's tier - technically they were increasing the ships value by making it a tier 6 (like somewhat shoehorning Hood in to 7) but they paid a tier 5 price for it, nullifying the monetary value argument. It's actually the main reason I was ticked off they started selling tier 9 ships that had been free xp and all - had they kept them off the market, they would actually be fair game for any balance change because they are not bought with real money, therefore, exempt from inability to nerf due to potential legal issues.

Is it annoying - yeah, it'd be better if they could just nerf certain ones. But I understand the why they don't. 

 

You know... I hate this argument... because other games nerf things bought with money all the time... and somehow they never get sued out of existence for it... so... I really wonder what's keeping WG from doing it?

  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[KILL]
Beta Testers
45 posts

so in discord it was anounced they fixed it. tried a training room. planes still eat damage for 5 seconds after strike and torpedo spreads sometimes still go full drunk. is the fix being introduced with todays hotfix or not yet? @Hapa_Fodder

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
933
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,025 posts
12,522 battles

Meanwhile, Kremlin pulls out of port with a fresh loadout of Shipwreck missiles.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,439
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,313 posts
14,715 battles

We have recently released a fix for the problem of excessive loss of planes. However, although the losses of planes have decreased compared to the first days of the update 0.9.9, they are still slightly higher than in the previous version. We are currently investigating the causes of this problem. If you encounter problems related to aircraft carriers in the update 0.9.9 please share with us any information you have (WGCheck, replays, screenshots, etc.) in CS tickets.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
848
[HINON]
Members
2,304 posts
22,545 battles

My deal is it seems as though there it's an extra delay in firing rockets.   I've adapted, but weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[REM]
Members
12 posts
14,955 battles

Hello, how are you? I bought the FDR and it is a total disappointment, slow planes, 25 secs of cooldown between each attack, it is very difficult to have a decent game. I am not a CV player but I would like opinions about it. Thanks and regards.

20201004_182154_PASA510-Roosevelt_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay

20201004_183909_PASA510-Roosevelt_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay

20201004_185859_PASA510-Roosevelt_15_NE_north.wowsreplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
819
[GRETA]
Members
1,268 posts
10,160 battles
1 hour ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

We have recently released a fix for the problem of excessive loss of planes. However, although the losses of planes have decreased compared to the first days of the update 0.9.9, they are still slightly higher than in the previous version. We are currently investigating the causes of this problem. If you encounter problems related to aircraft carriers in the update 0.9.9 please share with us any information you have (WGCheck, replays, screenshots, etc.) in CS tickets.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Planes are taking slightly more damage on approach but drastically more damage post attack during the phase where you have no control over your aircraft.   There seems to be more low level close range flak experienced during the actual attack run (which is largely unavoidable).  This quite often does not kill those planes but leaves them low health post attack.  This is compounded by the fact that the plane damaged during the attack run stays with the remaining squadrons and healthy planes return to the cv in their place.  Because of the sequential implementation of aa damage that causes your planes to die more frequently as well.

I played a couple games in Enterprise last night, i will upload them to replays and submit links to CS as requested. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles
1 hour ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

We have recently released a fix for the problem of excessive loss of planes. However, although the losses of planes have decreased compared to the first days of the update 0.9.9, they are still slightly higher than in the previous version. We are currently investigating the causes of this problem. If you encounter problems related to aircraft carriers in the update 0.9.9 please share with us any information you have (WGCheck, replays, screenshots, etc.) in CS tickets.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

So, at what point will we get an actual announcement of what changes have been made?

Right now, we are still dealing with WG making unannounced changes to CV performance gameplay...something WG claims they do not do...but have now done three times in the last few days.

At this point, the spreadsheet of data is showing, quite emphatically, that WarGaming DOES make changes to gameplay without announcing what is being changed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,439
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,313 posts
14,715 battles
4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

So, at what point will we get an actual announcement of what changes have been made?

Right now, we are still dealing with WG making unannounced changes to CV performance gameplay...something WG claims they do not do...but have now done three times in the last few days.

At this point, the spreadsheet of data is showing, quite emphatically, that WarGaming DOES make changes to gameplay without announcing what is being changed.

If you do some research you'll see we have literally told the public 100% what we did, what we intended, what occurred that wasn't intended and that we are looking into the issues. Several of those are posted in this section.

-Hapa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles
6 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

If you do some research you'll see we have literally told the public 100% what we did, what we intended, what occurred that wasn't intended and that we are looking into the issues. Several of those are posted in this section.

-Hapa

No. Not nearly to the standards WG has promised.

What, in detailed patch notes, did this morning's patch do?

What did Friday's patch do, in detailed patch notes?

I get that you made an announcement about what 0.9.9 SHOULD HAVE been...but, as we have made clear, those patch notes were initially incomplete...and then demonstrably false.

I get that things are moving fast and you need to have a solution to the problems ASAP.

Please let us know when we can expect to get a full announcement of what has changed from 0.9.8 to a stable 0.9.9.

0.9.9's changes were unannounced, gameplay balance changes to CVs. Full stop. That horse (we only do announced gameplay changes) has escaped the barn. The following two hotfixes have been accompanied by ZERO patch notes documentation that I have been able to find. This whole regrettable affair is WG making unannounced gameplay changes on a daily basis. At some point, there needs to be documentation on what has changed.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,439
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,313 posts
14,715 battles
5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

No. Not nearly to the standards WG has promised.

What, in detailed patch notes, did this morning's patch do?

What did Friday's patch do, in detailed patch notes?

I get that you made an announcement about what 0.9.9 SHOULD HAVE been...but, as we have made clear, those patch notes were initially incomplete...and then demonstrably false.

I get that things are moving fast and you need to have a solution to the problems ASAP.

Please let us know when we can expect to get a full announcement of what has changed from 0.9.8 to a stable 0.9.9.

0.9.9's changes were unannounced, gameplay balance changes to CVs. Full stop. That horse (we only do announced gameplay changes) has escaped the barn. The following two hotfixes have been accompanied by ZERO patch notes documentation that I have been able to find. This whole regrettable affair is WG making unannounced gameplay changes on a daily basis. At some point, there needs to be documentation on what has changed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles
13 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

 

:fish_palm:

Yes, I saw that. If you read my post again...you will see that I acknowledge this updated patch note section...and also that it is incorrect (it does not address how AA has changed)...which is apparently why a hot fix was implemented on Friday (details unknown), and a subsequent hot fix may have been implemented today (again details unknown).

Will we recieve hot fix notes on what changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[DJL]
Members
235 posts
6,990 battles
On 10/1/2020 at 10:49 PM, Avalon304 said:

 

You know... I hate this argument... because other games nerf things bought with money all the time... and somehow they never get sued out of existence for it... so... I really wonder what's keeping WG from doing it?

Because it will kill alot of sells why would someone buy something one day that looks so Overpowered just to have it hit with the hammer soon as it goes off sell. sells and trust would drop at a super huge rate. Money talks and if you mess with something people paid money for they will not make the same mistake again.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×