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

CV Issues in 0.9.9

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

152
[WG]
Administrator, Community Department, WG Staff
41 posts
408 battles

Hey Captains! 

We’d like to thank players who informed us about the issues with CVs after the release and apologize for the inconvenience to everyone.

We would like to give some details about what has happened. In 0.9.9 we've released a global refactoring of CV programming code. While it allowed us to improve the aiming reticles and squadrons responsiveness, the major part of refactoring was purely technical. It was not supposed to  change anything gameplay or balance related, but instead improve such under the hood aspects like stability, optimization, sustainability and also pave the way for exploring the hybrids, ASW planes and new gameplay roles for aircraft carriers. Regrettably, due to the complexity of these changes, not everything went well and some issues made it to the main server, which resulted in unintended changes.

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed. We continue to keep an eye on live servers and investigate further possible bugs and issues.

There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.(edited)
[8:06 AM]
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:

  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

We are also aware of an issue with incorrect settings of deceleration upon using the engine boost of German aircraft carriers’ squadrons. The issue will be fixed in one of the nearest updates.

We apologize for this inconvenience. We assure you that providing full transparency about all the changes in the upcoming version to our players is one of our primary goals, independently of the possible perception.

Good luck and fair seas!

-Sail

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
743
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
903 posts
7,083 battles

What are the other issues that were fixed? It's really nice to know these.

Regardless, thank you for the update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,843 battles
18 minutes ago, Mademoisail said:

There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:

 

18 minutes ago, Mademoisail said:

Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.

 

19 minutes ago, Mademoisail said:

Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.

Why were the above bug fixes not publicized before the patch was dropped?

In the notes for the upcoming patch, it was stated that CV changes would be...

20 minutes ago, Mademoisail said:

...not supposed to  change anything gameplay or balance related...

Part of the issue here is that the expectation for this patch would be no changes to gameplay or balance issues...yet WG already knew that they were going to make some fixes to ordinance delivery AND to AA fire that WOULD impact gameplay.

Also, we already have data that the micro-patch from yesterday did NOT fix the plane loss problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,857 posts
17,496 battles

The planes at cruising speed are silent. The only time they make sound is when they are speed boosting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[WISCO]
Members
19 posts
4,924 battles
1 hour ago, Mademoisail said:

Hey Captains! 

We’d like to thank players who informed us about the issues with CVs after the release and apologize for the inconvenience to everyone.

We would like to give some details about what has happened. In 0.9.9 we've released a global refactoring of CV programming code. While it allowed us to improve the aiming reticles and squadrons responsiveness, the major part of refactoring was purely technical. It was not supposed to  change anything gameplay or balance related, but instead improve such under the hood aspects like stability, optimization, sustainability and also pave the way for exploring the hybrids, ASW planes and new gameplay roles for aircraft carriers. Regrettably, due to the complexity of these changes, not everything went well and some issues made it to the main server, which resulted in unintended changes.

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed. We continue to keep an eye on live servers and investigate further possible bugs and issues.

There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.(edited)
[8:06 AM]
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:

  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

We are also aware of an issue with incorrect settings of deceleration upon using the engine boost of German aircraft carriers’ squadrons. The issue will be fixed in one of the nearest updates.

We apologize for this inconvenience. We assure you that providing full transparency about all the changes in the upcoming version to our players is one of our primary goals, independently of the possible perception.

Good luck and fair seas!

-Sail

So, we move to visual "improvements" to undocumented "fixes", wonder how your monkeys go from doing some visual "improvements" to make the planes movement intereactions so annoying while working on the code or how shameless from yours to claim those were "fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error" instead of stealth nerfs.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


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

so when this fix is gonna apply? playing premiums like kaga or indomitable with the 5sec altitude gain you get deplaned in 12 mins. bottom tier is so bad right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,843 battles
5 hours ago, Mademoisail said:

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed

Bull.

Lexington replay below, played at 1732 Eastern Standard Time.

Tier 8 battle with tier 6 ships. I am pre-dropping squadrons almost the entire game just to ensure I have sufficient plane reserves throughout the match...in the BEST POSSIBLE MM for a Lexington.

You have fixed nothing yet.

Back to work.

 

20201002_171224_PASA108-Lexington_46_Estuary.wowsreplay

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,843 battles
20 hours ago, Nishimura_1 said:

im getting deplaned by a bot montana on my midway KEKW

Yup.

They still have not fixed the air loss problem.

Since its the weekend, I expect no progress until Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[SCREW]
Members
14 posts
3,937 battles

@Mademoisail Thank you for your reply, but this part is not clear:

Quote

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed.

Tests the community has run here and here show that that planes are still being shot down at an excessive rate while returning to the carrier:


Hakuryu (10 squadrons)

18 planes destroyed in squadron (26.1%)

51 planes destroyed while returning to carrier (73.9%)

Audacious (10 squadrons)

11 planes destroyed in squadron (26.8%)

30 planes destroyed while returning to carrier (73.2%)


This seems to show that the bug has not yet been fixed. Will there be an upcoming patch or hotfix that corrects the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post
130 battles

I post another undocumented change because maybe nobody realize. It's hard to explain, at first watch this GIF.

The ship is Hakuryu and attacking with DB. Difference is  captain skill. Upper side is using Sight Stabilization and lower side is NOT(Both angle is same). Only this changes DB's movement. 

I made this GIF when 0.9.9 PT. It may not be fixed in 0.9.9(Not verified, sorry). And I verified only Hakuryu and Midway. This change didn't happen in Midway. Maybe it happens in other IJN CVs. If you are CV player, you should remember this.

Sorry for bad English. Thank you.Videotogif.gif.4eb2464b62369be8b87bd198ffa1659b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
5,694 battles
On 10/2/2020 at 12:13 PM, Mademoisail said:

Hey Captains! 

We’d like to thank players who informed us about the issues with CVs after the release and apologize for the inconvenience to everyone.

We would like to give some details about what has happened. In 0.9.9 we've released a global refactoring of CV programming code. While it allowed us to improve the aiming reticles and squadrons responsiveness, the major part of refactoring was purely technical. It was not supposed to  change anything gameplay or balance related, but instead improve such under the hood aspects like stability, optimization, sustainability and also pave the way for exploring the hybrids, ASW planes and new gameplay roles for aircraft carriers. Regrettably, due to the complexity of these changes, not everything went well and some issues made it to the main server, which resulted in unintended changes.

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed. We continue to keep an eye on live servers and investigate further possible bugs and issues.

There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.(edited)
[8:06 AM]
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:

  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

We are also aware of an issue with incorrect settings of deceleration upon using the engine boost of German aircraft carriers’ squadrons. The issue will be fixed in one of the nearest updates.

We apologize for this inconvenience. We assure you that providing full transparency about all the changes in the upcoming version to our players is one of our primary goals, independently of the possible perception.

Good luck and fair seas!

-Sail

I stopped CV because it never got eh support form others in the fleet. and it is all ways an easy target,

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[WOLFB]
[WOLFB]
Members
166 posts
3,545 battles
Quote

One of the major problems with excessive loss of planes returning to aircraft carriers after the attack was already and quickly fixed. We continue to keep an eye on live servers and investigate further possible bugs and issues.

Not accurate. Just last night, I watched planes that already dropped getting shredded by AA/Flak. 

So, now, it's unintended bugs AND misinformation?

What I love about the patch cycle is ripping out the code that's buggy appears to not be an option. Instead, it'll likely be the option of a longer cycle of manual patches that most of the playerbase won't see/get/use, and 1 and counting attempts to address the issue, on the LIVE server, because players don't mind at all. They just pay (premium time, that will not be refunded) for the joy of playing on buggy code. Had the test environment been the clone of the LIVE server it should have been, these problems would have been evident in the first testing game of CV play, but no.. that didn't happen, evidently. 

 

Mistakes happen, but this "push the problems to the playerbase to deal with" approach frankly, sucks. Revert the code, fix it, then roll it out another time. 

Deal with the knock-on issues this will cause with subsequent patches and learn that maybe, testing is a bit more important than previously thought. 

 

 

Is this WG or the White House?    :cap_hmm:

 

Edited by SonicAnatidae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,464
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,323 posts
14,735 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
2,724
[WPORT]
Members
7,241 posts
12,257 battles
On 10/2/2020 at 12:13 PM, Mademoisail said:

Hey Captains! 

... <edited for brevity> ...

Good luck and fair seas!

-Sail

iStock_000000245151XSmall.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
On 10/2/2020 at 12:13 PM, Mademoisail said:

We would like to give some details about what has happened. In 0.9.9 we've released a global refactoring of CV programming code. While it allowed us to improve the aiming reticles and squadrons responsiveness, the major part of refactoring was purely technical. It was not supposed to  change anything gameplay or balance related, but instead improve such under the hood aspects like stability, optimization, sustainability and also pave the way for exploring the hybrids, ASW planes and new gameplay roles for aircraft carriers. Regrettably, due to the complexity of these changes, not everything went well and some issues made it to the main server, which resulted in unintended changes.

So what - once again you people rushed out CV rework nonsense without proper testing just like with the rework itself? You people shouldn't even be worried about Hybrids or ASW carriers right now because you haven't fixed baseline CV's and Subs are still a long way off. And what the hell do you mean "new gameplay roles for Aircraft Carriers"? If you mean that garbage where your going to have Yorktown, Essex, Hiryu, etc using floatplanes to cap points, drop smoke, and put out fires on other ships - seriously, knock it off. Put them back in the right damn tiers as what they were - attack carriers. There are exactly 2 things Yorktown should be doing - blowing up things and destroying planes. 

Also - improving reticles, aircraft responsiveness, that automatically changes tings in balance and damn gameplay. To say nothing the impacts 'purely technical' fixes can have such as say an optimization that perhaps smooth's out the frame rate when attacking allowing a player to actually properly aim where a slight stutter may have thrown them off slightly. Seriously between things like this and other balance changes do the Dev's really not get how a change in one area can effect 5 others that may be seemingly unrelated? It's incredibly rare that change A makes B happen without C, G, and Q being effected. 

On 10/2/2020 at 12:13 PM, Mademoisail said:

There was also the undocumented fix of the unintended mechanic allowing the extension of engine boost time by tapping the boost key, which was initially applied in 0.8.2. However, it didn’t work, so we fixed this in 0.9.9 with the technical refactoring of aircraft carriers’ programming code. It was aimed to fix the exploit of the situation when the aircraft engine boost could work longer in cases where the W/S keys were pressed frequently. Unfortunately, this was not highlighted in the 0.9.9 patchnotes.(edited)
[8:06 AM]
There were also several other fixes which were not added in the patchnotes as a result of a human error:

  • Now AA mounts swivel to target planes.
  • Planes now take off from catapults on German carriers in case there are catapults on them.
  • Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.
  • Fixed an issue which caused a shell explosion not to be displayed when there was a simultaneous setting of an explosion and AA switching off by pressing P key.
  • Fixed an issue which caused attack flight that just conducted the attack to receive no instantaneous damage from priority AA sector activation.
  • Fixed several other issues.

'Human Error'? Yeah, sorry, not buying tat after how many times your company has pulled nonsense like this or otherwise 'miscommunicated' things like y'know - the PR event. 

How do you miss 'a fix from 8.2 didn't work so now it should'? - especially given it deals with aircraft speed, and how long they are in AA? 

Changing the trajectories of all 3 munitions types? yeah - that's a big one we might need to know about because that likely explains why some of us aren't getting the damn hits were expecting to or seemingly worse 'RNG' than normal. 

Flights that just conducted attacks weren't receiving damage but now are - once again, things we need to know because that's likely part of the increased damn losses. 

'Several other issues' - what several other issues? Are we talking piddly crap like 'AA mounts swivel' or 'German Planes use catapults' that are purely aesthetic or are we talking changing ordnance trajectories and fixing things not taking damage that can actually impact gameplay?

On 10/2/2020 at 12:13 PM, Mademoisail said:

We apologize for this inconvenience. We assure you that providing full transparency about all the changes in the upcoming version to our players is one of our primary goals, independently of the possible perception.

Yes, because ending on 'fixed several other issues' in the previous section on undocumented changes screams for us to have faith in your companies 'transparency' that we keep getting promised, and lasts MAYBE 2 weeks. And then back to silence, back to secrets, back to shady handling of things. Also - this is well far and beyond 'inconvenience'. And I'd bet money that if a 'bug' happened that had BB, CA/L and DD turrets being destroyed or knocked out far more often happen - they'd say it was more than an inconvenience too. And the only reason they are celebrating, and to say to keep the changes - is your CONTINUED failure to PROPERLY balance CV's which comes back to 'why are you even worried about hybrids'. Even without this bug AA balance is still screwed in basically all tiers despite what Sub_Octavian might think per his post over a year ago that asks "why do plane losses matter" after saying about certain stats being good - because those plane losses determine those stats, and when your top tier and not really losing planes you can rack up stupid high damage that on paper cancels out doing next to nothing when bottom tier because your planes disintegrate. To say nothing of ordnance damage, skill gap, fighters, CV vs CV interaction or relative lack of, etc. About the only thing that the rework has accomplished is to make everything regarding CV's more toxic and garner hatred from both CV and non-CV players. 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,132
[PVE]
Members
7,341 posts
23,226 battles

Dang... it's amazing how bad some people's reading comprehension is.

Stated that "unexpected changes occured" & attacks about "why are you even adding in those changes?" What part of the word "unexpected" do you people not understand?

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[SCREW]
Members
14 posts
3,937 battles
16 hours 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.

This is great to hear, thank you very much for keeping the community informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,843 battles
12 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Dang... it's amazing how bad some people's reading comprehension is.

Stated that "unexpected changes occured" & attacks about "why are you even adding in those changes?" What part of the word "unexpected" do you people not understand?

What part of 'we do not make changes without announcing them' do you not understand?

WG announced prior to 0.9.9 that all CV changes this patch would be cosmetic only, in response to DIRECT questions about how these cosmetic questions would not affect gameplay.

Then, when the patch dropped, it turned out that there WERE other changes made outside of the technical 'cosmetic' changes...namely attempts to fix old exploits. These changes were mistakenly forgotten in the patch note list. Thus, by definition, WG made changes to the game unnanounced. You can not say 'we dont make changes without announcing them' and ALSO say 'oops, we forgot to have the full change list'. QA exists for a reason. This is it.

In addition, after the change list was updated...it became clear that WG had made ADDITIONAL changes BEYOND that list that also impacted gameplay (ordinance drop RNG), aircraft handling changes, reticle location and behavior changes...

...so even the updated 0.9.9 patch notes are incomplete.

THEN, WG made TWO emergency hot fixes for plane loss problems...NEITHER of which have ANY documentation available for what changes those made.

This is a SHOCKING lack of transparency compared to the claim, 'we announce all changes'.

Spare me your white knighting of WG. The data does not bear your interpretation of events.

WG needs to at LEAST commit to documenting a change summary once we reach a stable state...or 0.9.10, whichever comes first.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
438 posts
16,916 battles

What is the status of the wonky torpedo dispersion and added damage to planes _not_ returning to the carrier? These were the biggest problems I noticed shortly after the release (mostly in a Lowenhardt) but don't seem to be in this list. Are they lumped in with the "unintended changes"?

I understand that stuff happens and it takes time to correct things well. It just seems like a lot of things changed and it's unclear if all of them have been identified, and which of them are staying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,843 battles
1 hour ago, Telastyn said:

What is the status of the wonky torpedo dispersion and added damage to planes _not_ returning to the carrier? These were the biggest problems I noticed shortly after the release (mostly in a Lowenhardt) but don't seem to be in this list. Are they lumped in with the "unintended changes"?

I understand that stuff happens and it takes time to correct things well. It just seems like a lot of things changed and it's unclear if all of them have been identified, and which of them are staying.

More variable torpedoes are still there. Plane losses are less, but are not the same as 0.9.8...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,132
[PVE]
Members
7,341 posts
23,226 battles
9 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

What part of 'we do not make changes without announcing them' do you not understand?

WG announced prior to 0.9.9 that all CV changes this patch would be cosmetic only, in response to DIRECT questions about how these cosmetic questions would not affect gameplay.

Then, when the patch dropped, it turned out that there WERE other changes made outside of the technical 'cosmetic' changes...namely attempts to fix old exploits (an old exploit...as in singular...not plural...stop exaggerating). These changes were (This change was...again...singular) mistakenly forgotten in the patch note list. (Now you're hurting your own cause...this is the 1 item they didn't say they forgot to mention...they just changed it w/out mentioning it. Everything else you are complaining about is just you ignoring the definition of "unintentional"...but on this 1 point you actually had a legitimate grudge...but again...it is just THIS 1 POINT). Thus, by definition, WG made changes to the game unnanounced. You can not say 'we dont make changes without announcing them' and ALSO say 'oops, we forgot to have the full change list'. QA exists for a reason. This is it.

In addition, after the change list was updated...it became clear that WG had made ADDITIONAL changes BEYOND that list that also impacted gameplay. [[[(ordinance drop RNG), aircraft handling changes, reticle location and behavior changes ]]]<---& let's hope you have screenshots of these changes because they are the "unintentional" changes they would like you to send a ticket to CS about...hopefully this concept will finally sink into your head & you can actually become part of the solution to getting them fixed instead of an even further unnecessary complication of not reporting them & attacking them for them as if they were intentional)...There were 6 changes (the 1s w/the dots proceding them) that were added w/out being added to the patch notes. The intention of this thread is to inform you of them as it was (as stated in the OP) an oversight due to human error (IOW somebody forgot to add them to the patch notes). Just over a day (28 hours) after the patch dropped this thread was started to inform you of them...You keep screaming for a list & they have provided that list right here in the OP.

Any other changes that have occured fall under the category of "unintentional"...& they are asking that if you could help by reporting them as you notice them then they can work on fixing them.

...so even the updated 0.9.9 patch notes are incomplete.

THEN, WG made TWO emergency hot fixes for plane loss problems...NEITHER of which have ANY documentation available for what changes those made.(this is just absurd...the goal of a hot fixes is to fix the mistake the hot fix is for...IOW...fix the mistake & nothing else. If anything else occured (or the mistake wasn't fixed as hoped for) it was also unintentional (what part of the definition of "hot fix" don't you understand?). Obviously the hot fix didn't work as according to plan so now you of course go to the "other undocumented changes" stance as if the plan not working was the plan all along.

This is a SHOCKING lack of transparency compared to the claim, 'we announce all changes'.

Spare me your white knighting (please spare us all your black knighting) of WG. The data does not bear your interpretation of events (It does if you actually read it...instead of ranting & attacking w/out even understanding what it actually says).

WG needs to at LEAST commit to documenting a change summary once we reach a stable state...or 0.9.10, whichever comes first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×