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

PTS 0.10.0

243 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,464
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,323 posts
14,736 battles

PTS notes HERE

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/public-test-0100/

Please leave feedback below!

If you have any bugs to report, you can submit them here after the patch goes live.

PLEASE LEAVE FEEDBACK BELOW

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[SPU]
[SPU]
Members
1 post
6,901 battles

I just wanted to thank you Hapa for providing an area to listen to the gamers. I like the New Commander skill layout, been waiting for this. However, the retraining fee seems a bit steep in dubs while removing in-game earned battle money to pay for it? I do have a few questions if you will allow? Do we now earn Dubs for battling? And why is all the good loot most times only in Random? I don't like Random because of all the TOXIC players and their EGOs, I am not tier 9 yet, so at tier 8 I am cannon fodder and a early game target of Red X tier ships, I do get a few punches in yet... The Bug of bot ramming each other, being unaware of repeatedly running into the same island; Over & Over again, basically removing them for the game or being sunk. Also in Co-Op the Sigma of Red bot is super accurate while their counterpart ship is NOT the same, why has it still not been fixed from several patches ago? And they can fire quicker than their counterpart, hmm? I am in a 23 second main gun reload ship facing my counterpart whom is shooting quicker back at me AND more accurately? I dodge, slow / accelerate; yet BOOM and me I miss totally until they are at half kill distance? Mechanics are not the same, this a coding issue. Thank you listening mate. Good Hunting.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[TF-62]
Members
224 posts

Lets talk about some of the more troubling aspects of the commander skills rework. And I'm just going to scratch the surface a bit.

What this looks like to me is a massive nerf of of a large number of premium ships. For example the Super Cruisers were balanced around the existing commander skills and removing things like fire prevention from them is in fact a nerf to those ships. Commander skills didn't bypass their fire vulnerability they were implied in their builds and balancing. The end result here is a significant nerf to the Super Cruisers.

Lets talk about Atlanta/Flint Smolensk, Colbert. There is no need to wait and "check their efficiency" as its perfectly obvious what affect this will have one those ships. Your nerfing them plain and simple. I think we also need to talk about Atlanta/Flint. Now Atlanta already has been given a reload buff over Flint and has 2 more guns per side. Atlanta also has better AA than Flint even though she has the 1.1s and Flint has Bofors. And now your increasing her range (as you should) but leaving Flint untouched?? Both are premium ships but Flint was acquired as a steel ship for the vast majority of people. Flint was supposed to be an Atlanta which traded the wing 5" turrets and Radar for smoke and Long Range Torpedo's. The CV rework was the first major nerf of these ships as their once devastating AA firepower got nerfed to oblivion and now your applying a major nerf to Flint because her gun range is being shortened compared to Atlanta. I would also note that you should expect  Flint to have better stats in game than Atlanta given how hard she has historically been to obtain. Which means the skill base of her owners (many of whom I suspect also own Atlanta) is going to be significantly greater. Smolensk and Colbert similarly (Colbert especially) were ships acquired with scarce hard to earn resources and deserve better than to be subject to major nerfs.

There may not be a lot of cruisers that can use a secondary build but that doesn't change the fact that it should be there as an element of player choice. ESPECIALLY if your goal is to create more than one viable build per ship.

Lets also talk about secondary ranges for Battleships. Based on the Dev Blog Alabama is getting her secondaries buffed from 5km base range to 6.6km a very significant increase. Maime by contrast despite losing a major part of what made her a good ship (her secondary accuracy with a full build) isn't getting any buffs to her base numbers. When you consider the accuracy of normal secondaries at long range the loss of the ability to buff that accuracy is a HUGE nerf to ships like Maime, Ohio, etc. And these premium ships are getting nerfed at the same time your buffing other ships by given them an automatiuc range boost.

As I've said I'm just scratching the surface on this. But let me condense down my major concern to bullet points. 1.) As the skill tree has been presented I see little sign that you've created the option for multiple strongly viable commander builds for the same ship. Any more than it already existed. Which if true makes your central given for the rework a fail. 2.) The rework is in fact serving to significantly nerf a very large number of premium ships across multiple classes. This is wrong.

Finally there are much better ways to both get more money and improve the game. You might start by  listening to what players are telling you they want. 

 
  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[PPNA1]
[PPNA1]
Beta Testers
1,970 posts
23,261 battles

1Hour delay

 

Late Fees Do Apply!

Edited by Dah_Bears268

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
5,694 battles

if there are bugs then you know we most have very good ears but when you blow your ship's port signal to level port you can be sure you will not hear anything for months after everything is overwhelmingly sustained sound he family or any members talk to you. and my best wishes to MR CONWAY AND MR CRYSANTOS, I am very happy to get my new ships but bugs are broken the challenge to finish those awards, as to get Florida and the rest of the ships,

 

αν υπάρχουν σφάλματα τότε ξέρετε ότι έχουμε πολύ καλά αυτιά, αλλά όταν φυσάτε το σήμα της θύρας του πλοίου σας στο επίπεδο της θύρας, μπορείτε να είστε σίγουροι ότι δεν θα ακούσετε τίποτα για μήνες αφού όλα έχουν συντριπτικά ήχο από την οικογένεια ή τα μέλη σας. και τις καλύτερες ευχές μου στους MR CONWAY και MR CRYSANTOS, είμαι πολύ χαρούμενος που έχω τα νέα μου πλοία, αλλά τα σφάλματα έσπασαν την πρόκληση να ολοκληρώσουν αυτά τα βραβεία, για να πάρουν τη Φλόριντα και τα υπόλοιπα πλοία,

 

если есть ошибки, то вы знаете, что у нас у большинства очень хорошие уши, но когда вы даете сигнал порта вашего корабля на уровень порта, вы можете быть уверены, что ничего не услышите в течение месяцев после того, как все будет в подавляющем большинстве устойчивым звуком, когда семья или кто-либо из членов разговаривает с вами. и мои наилучшие пожелания MR CONWAY и MR CRYSANTOS, я очень рад получить свои новые корабли, но ошибки помешали завершить эти награды, как получить Флориду и остальные корабли,

 

 

如果有錯誤,那麼您就會知道我們大多數人都有很好的耳朵,但是當您將船的端口信號吹到水平端口上時,可以確保在他的家人或任何成員都在以壓倒一切的持續聲音說話之後的幾個月內,您不會聽到任何聲音。 我最衷心的祝福康威先生和CRYSANTOS先生,我很高興能得到我的新船,但是蟲子打破了獲得這些獎項的挑戰,例如獲得佛羅里達州和其他船隻,而且沒有洗衣服,你不付錢,:Smile_great:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[PPNA1]
[PPNA1]
Beta Testers
1,970 posts
23,261 battles
1 hour ago, Thirsty13_CCW said:

Lets talk about some of the more troubling aspects of the commander skills rework. And I'm just going to scratch the surface a bit.

What this looks like to me is a massive nerf of of a large number of premium ships. For example the Super Cruisers were balanced around the existing commander skills and removing things like fire prevention from them is in fact a nerf to those ships. Commander skills didn't bypass their fire vulnerability they were implied in their builds and balancing. The end result here is a significant nerf to the Super Cruisers.

Lets talk about Atlanta/Flint Smolensk, Colbert. There is no need to wait and "check their efficiency" as its perfectly obvious what affect this will have one those ships. Your nerfing them plain and simple. I think we also need to talk about Atlanta/Flint. Now Atlanta already has been given a reload buff over Flint and has 2 more guns per side. Atlanta also has better AA than Flint even though she has the 1.1s and Flint has Bofors. And now your increasing her range (as you should) but leaving Flint untouched?? Both are premium ships but Flint was acquired as a steel ship for the vast majority of people. Flint was supposed to be an Atlanta which traded the wing 5" turrets and Radar for smoke and Long Range Torpedo's. The CV rework was the first major nerf of these ships as their once devastating AA firepower got nerfed to oblivion and now your applying a major nerf to Flint because her gun range is being shortened compared to Atlanta. I would also note that you should expect  Flint to have better stats in game than Atlanta given how hard she has historically been to obtain. Which means the skill base of her owners (many of whom I suspect also own Atlanta) is going to be significantly greater. Smolensk and Colbert similarly (Colbert especially) were ships acquired with scarce hard to earn resources and deserve better than to be subject to major nerfs.

There may not be a lot of cruisers that can use a secondary build but that doesn't change the fact that it should be there as an element of player choice. ESPECIALLY if your goal is to create more than one viable build per ship.

Lets also talk about secondary ranges for Battleships. Based on the Dev Blog Alabama is getting her secondaries buffed from 5km base range to 6.6km a very significant increase. Maime by contrast despite losing a major part of what made her a good ship (her secondary accuracy with a full build) isn't getting any buffs to her base numbers. When you consider the accuracy of normal secondaries at long range the loss of the ability to buff that accuracy is a HUGE nerf to ships like Maime, Ohio, etc. And these premium ships are getting nerfed at the same time your buffing other ships by given them an automatiuc range boost.

As I've said I'm just scratching the surface on this. But let me condense down my major concern to bullet points. 1.) As the skill tree has been presented I see little sign that you've created the option for multiple strongly viable commander builds for the same ship. Any more than it already existed. Which if true makes your central given for the rework a fail. 2.) The rework is in fact serving to significantly nerf a very large number of premium ships across multiple classes. This is wrong.

Finally there are much better ways to both get more money and improve the game. You might start by  listening to what players are telling you they want. 

 

Scratch some more and even deeper and some will bleed a lot more than others. I would like my resources back for Cobert for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[USNOC]
Members
7 posts
2,470 battles

Good to go now!  Thanks Dah_Bulls269!  lol

NOTE:  This DID require two UI game restarts.  2nd time through (assume login auth update, good call DB268).  server selection option modal, makes a world of difference!  thanks again HAPA!

Here's follow-up & close my thread.

WoWS-5-inside steam-launcher-12172020a (sm).png

WoWS-6-inside steam-launcher-12172020a (sm).png

WoWS-7-inside steam-launcher-12172020a (sm).png

WoWS-8-inside steam-launcher-12172020a (sm).png

WoWS-9-inside steam-launcher-12172020a (sm).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[WOLF1]
Members
1 post
5,049 battles

Having the ability to set skills for all 4 ship types on a commander is good. Having to move that commander to each type of ship in order to set the skills is incredibly monumentaly stupid. There HAS to be a way to set the skills for each tree without having to move every single commander through multiple ships in order to do it. If there is already a way to do that then it is so not intuative I have not been able to figure it out and I have been playing video games for 45 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[TF-62]
Members
224 posts

After Multiple games with an all in secondary German BB build its apparent to me that both the number of hits and the damage output from your secondary guns are off significantly. This is true even when both sides are engaged at close range.

There will certainly if this goes forward be a lot more diversity in Captain builds, But I see little indication that its really going to change much in terms of game play even between people with very different builds.

My initial impressions that a lot of ships are going to have their balance affected remains steady and that to me is a major fail.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[IROCZ]
Beta Testers
65 posts
10,929 battles

I noticed the smolensk has been nerfed with maximum battery firing range no longer able to configure above 16km. used to be configurable to 19.2km

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,427
[A-I-M]
Members
3,750 posts
23,914 battles

Its a major failing that we cannot test supercruisers and cruisers with destroyer-caliber guns. These have already been nerfed to the degree that my Colbert, bought at a fairly steep price, is welded to the dock, and this skill rework appears to nerf these ships further. 

Im also recoiling in shock that there is a skill that does a direct percentage reduction to surface ship torpedo protection from CV torpedoes, and that the Disruption (or whatever its called) only decreases dispersion by surface ship weapons and not CV ordnance, among the other buffs to CV damage output and resistance to attack. 
 

Is this rework intended to just be a straight up buff to CVs and a nerf to cruisers in general and high ROF cruisers in particular? 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[PPNA1]
[PPNA1]
Beta Testers
1,970 posts
23,261 battles

iTS A REAL KICK IN THE HEAD! Sorry guys, 2020 had Co-Vid, 2021 has Captian Skill Rework that will need fixing for a long, long, long, long time to come! I don't know about everyone else but i'd like some Cash, Doubloons, Steel, Coal or Research Points that were spent on ships that got nerfs. CV players are going to look back on 2021 as "The Happy Time" like the German's U-Boat Commanders back early in WW2. We go something for everybody, DuraFlame super cruisers, secondary's that can't hit anything, CV plane with Invulnerable fighters and torpedo planes that can stripe your torpedo reduction wholesale.

Edited by Dah_Bears268
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[WSNT]
Members
8 posts

Your Updating and Upgrading your Game out of Players. I have never seen so many updates to a game, every other day it's downloading something. Leave the graphics alone, I have to keep lowing the graphics in settings just to try and prevent choppy or lagging game performance. Not everybody playing your game has a Super Game computers, in fact most don't and those that do are probably playing even more popular Online Games.

Most just have standard PC with basic Graphic Cards. This is what's causing many average players to quit the game all together. They don't have PC's or internet that can handle your games pc resource requirement's. I'm about to have to switch to Low Resolution just to keep the game moving with a Gaming Hard Drive and Decent but average Graphics Card, if forced to go to low resolution,  not sure I will continue playing either. Hard to promote a Game that most be can't load or keep getting kicked out of the Server...............

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[WOOKY]
Alpha Tester
1,150 posts
9,134 battles
2 minutes ago, WoWS_Navy_CMDR said:

Your Updating and Upgrading your Game out of Players. I have never seen so many updates to a game, every other day it's downloading something. Leave the graphics alone, I have to keep lowing the graphics in settings just to try and prevent choppy or lagging game performance. Not everybody playing your game has a Super Game computers, in fact most don't and those that do are probably playing even more popular Online Games.

Most just have standard PC with basic Graphic Cards. This is what's causing many average players to quit the game all together. They don't have PC's or internet that can handle your games pc resource requirement's. I'm about to have to switch to Low Resolution just to keep the game moving with a Gaming Hard Drive and Decent but average Graphics Card, if forced to go to low resolution,  not sure I will continue playing either. Hard to promote a Game that most be can't load or keep getting kicked out of the Server...............

Umm, you dont need a "Super Computer:" to play this game. Its 2020, computers that can handle this game and aren't that expensive do exist. Don't blame WG cause you have a potato? Its not their fault. You are not forced to play this game. You chose to play. 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,892
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,377 posts
16,995 battles
1 hour ago, Pugilistic said:

Its a major failing that we cannot test supercruisers and cruisers with destroyer-caliber guns. These have already been nerfed to the degree that my Colbert, bought at a fairly steep price, is welded to the dock, and this skill rework appears to nerf these ships further. 

Im also recoiling in shock that there is a skill that does a direct percentage reduction to surface ship torpedo protection from CV torpedoes, and that the Disruption (or whatever its called) only decreases dispersion by surface ship weapons and not CV ordnance, among the other buffs to CV damage output and resistance to attack. 
 

Is this rework intended to just be a straight up buff to CVs and a nerf to cruisers in general and high ROF cruisers in particular? 

:Smile_great:Yup This!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[PHD]
Members
1,196 posts
6,083 battles

This update is a complete failure...and the public test is a complete waste of goddamn time. It is not worth the premium time I wasting because in order to earn at least the WG Container, we have to play.....5 CLAN BATTLES. That is beyond stupid, even for WG standards. But I disgress.

 

This is my current GK build

GKBuild.thumb.png.ece6d90068c29939e07f1467f77a8f52.png

Priority Target

Preventive Maintenance: -45% risk of incapacitation

Expert Loard: -50% shell swap time

Adrenaline Rush: up to 20% RoF

Superintend: +1 to all consumable

Survivability Expert: -15% repair, flooding and fire time

AFT: + 20% secondaries range and 15% AA explosion damage

MCFS: -60% dispersion on secondaries

 

Now, on PT

GKPT_build.thumb.png.4a023a011c9b35d3ca7898923be433e1.png

 

Preventive Maintenance: -45% risk of incapacitation

Priority Target

Expert Marksman: +25% turret traverse speed = +1,125º/sec

Secondary Ballistician: +20% secondary range

Adrenaline Rush: up to 20% RoF

Fire Prevention: -10% chance of fire

 

Despite what WG claimed in the dev blog, my 19 points captain did in fact lose efficiency. I went from 8 to 7 skills. I could swap Superintendent and one of the 1 pt skill for Fire Prevention, leaving me with a similar build compared to PT, but still a bit weaker. In the event I get the 2 extra points before I die, the build won't get that much stronger. There aren't many useful 2 points skills or I could get 2 of those 1 pt skills, which also wouldn't make that much difference, certainly much variety.
Survivability skills are way to expensive now. The secondary skills, which are pretty much mandatory for the ships that use them, are also expensive for a time of gameplay that is constantly at risk and depend on survivability way more than the back line camping snipers. But even if I choose to go that way, it would still be weaker than what I currently have. WG split Superintendent into two "new" skills, costing 6 pts combined, doubling its cost. 
And I won't even talk about the awful nerf to dispersion. As usual, screwing up brawlers and benefitting snipers.

 

I won't write down again my previous long post, breaking down that entire blog post, because @Hapa_Fodder was kind enough to delete it for no reason, but here is short version of this "rework": Instead of adding new and interesting skills to actually let us create more builds, WG took a lazy approach by splitting several skills into "new" skills whose only purpose is to serve as fillers in the tree, making several of the useful ones way more expensive, making others less effective and adding some with dumb activation effects that won't work most of the time. WG is providing the illusion of choice as a way to vastly increase the grinding, a way to milk more money out of the players. 

I sincerely hope WG scratch this entire update, just like they did with the awful RUBICON in WoT. If they indeed go forward with this incredibly lazy and bad excuse of a "rework", I am done with this game.

Edited by WarStore
  • Cool 11
  • Thanks 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[200IQ]
Members
12 posts

The smolensk is nerf to uselessness because its weak (low range, armor and hit point of all CA) and hope WG should refund our hard earn coal. The illegal cv nerf speed boost still on it. It slow if you accelerate and not effect if you reduce speed CVs lose allot plane because  you can not dodge AAs. You need $ to transfer your captain to upper ship level or captain skill is useless unlike in the live its 200 k credit @ 50% captain skill. The captain skill in live server is almost the same in the reworks its less in defenses more on attack why we need captain skill reworks. The captain elite point is more expensive because you need t21 captain to earn it. T19  (live) and T21(PT) captain had few difference except earning elite captain point. The whole thing suck may be i need a new game, instead of playing this for the past 3 yrs. and 13k battle its better to worst. Good luck to WG.  For t19 (old) you need 300k+ elite captain, t20 500k+elite captain and T21 700k elite its too much costly making the game boring who do not expend $ any more i have 5  t19 captain. I am having critical error when i modified captain skill and do coop/random i am getting penalty for this critical error now i can only play coop because i am band on random. Can not reconnect to the match  unlike the live server it crush again and again after the match i can play the PTS again.       

 

Edited by BenjoSamika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[-BSK-]
Members
484 posts
20,892 battles

Played around with the commanders skills

 

Don't know what all the fuss is, I kinda like the new options

played one captain on 3 boats

assigned to the Des Moines, spec'd BB in the secondary spec'd Mass...........Worked flawlessly

Reassigned to the Benham torpedo spec........again, worked flawlessly

reassigned back to the des Moines, all skills were good to go

instead of 1 captain for a tech tree ship and same class premium (BB-BB) now I have 1 for 3 ships of different classes....did not try him on a CV, but I think perhaps 1 for 4...........Cool :cap_cool:

 

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,758
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,246 posts
4,766 battles

PT log-in was painful.

  1. st try - failed with a "wrong addr/password".  I check WGC and they are the same I've always used.
  2. nd try - hung in a loop on the load screen showing <twirl> "Logging In" and the intro video over and over.  When I hit a key to skip the video, the process completed.

Okay, how do I assign skills for a type other than the one that the captain is on? 

  • For a cruiser captain on a cruiser, the auto-assign kinda worked, though making a few questionable decisions (more about this elsewhere) and I see how to redistribute and assign.
  • Using All Skills, I can see the BB, CV, and DD matrices (empty) but how do I assign skills?  Do I have to move the CO to that ship type?
  • <aarrggh!> all the skill names have changed!  Usually better, but mah wiki work!!
  • Demolition Expert should not be "Recommended" for a 152mm cruiser!
Edited by iDuckman

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.

×