How to cope with major reworks

[Moggytwo]

I see a lot of angst about changes to the game, the latest of course being the skill rework, but prior to that, the IFHE rework, CV rework, OWSF rework etc, and also major and minor balance and mechanics changes along the way.  There will be more significant changes to the game in the future, the next notable upcoming major change being the release of a new class, submarines.

I'm telling you right now, well in advance, that the balance will be poor in the patches following the release of subs, particularly the release patch itself.  They may even need to hotfix some balance changes.  This is inevitable and this is routine, just like the skill rework release, and just like prior reworks.

WG seems to have a consistent balance process for major changes:

Spoiler

 

1. Come up with concept and do initial implementation of numbers.
2. Do basic internal testing of numbers and make broad stroke balance changes.
3. Release to PTS and do further broad stroke balance iterations, normally one or two iterations here.
4. Assess if it is within their pretty generous balance parameters for release, those parameters being "nothing seems to be particularly broken, and the balance is roughly okay."
5. Release patch to live.  Assess large scale live data for balance issues, which become massively more obvious at this point.
6. Release balance iterations over the next 2-3 patches, getting a bit closer each time.  If there is any particularly egregious issue immediately after release, they may consider a hotfix.
7. Major change complete and pretty well balanced within their acceptable balance window a few months after release.

They likely do it in this particular way because it gives them the shortest possible time frame from concept to live and acceptably balanced.  They can go through the whole process in close to six months this way, where if they tried to achieve the acceptable balance window before major change release, the process would take much longer overall, the change release would be delayed by significant periods, and they still would likely not get it spot on at release anyway. 

Remember WG is a data driven company.  Every balance change they do is based on analysis of numbers, and the numbers they get off live are far higher quality than the numbers they get off internal and PTS testing.

 

The skill rework release has some distinct balance issues, but WG are likely very happy with it, given the balance hasn't been enough of an issue to require hotfixes, or even comments from WG.  They are no doubt right now analysing the extensive data they've gathered from this patch so far, looking at player feedback, and deciding on the direction they want to go for the 0.10.1 skill rework balance changes.  We'll see an announcement on these changes pretty soon, and that should give us a good idea of their balance direction over the next few months.

So, what does this mean to us players?  Well firstly, getting worked up about things at this point is only affecting one person, and that is you.  Being calm and analytical about it is going to make you more relaxed on the subject.  Secondly, there are plenty of improvements to be made, so well reasoned feedback delivered in a rational and not hysterical manner is the best way to have any chance of your opinion being considered by WG.  Argue your point, then move on, and accept that whatever happens will happen.  Often it won't move the way you want it to, sometimes it will.  Accept the positives and be philosophical about the negatives.

Thirdly, this is in my opinion actually one of the best times in the game.  Sure, some of my, and no doubt your, favourite ships are not as strong as they were, or don't play in the same manner as you used to enjoy.  That sucks, but often you can find different ways of playing them that are as, or sometimes even more enjoyable.  Sometimes your favourite ships just are a shadow of what they used to be of course (I am still not over what happened to Blyska in the Open Water Stealth Fire rework, or Haida in the IFHE rework), but every time they do something like this, there will be ships that used to be a bit meh, that suddenly become amazing fun with new play styles available, or even straight buffs!  More importantly, I personally find working out how to play ships differently, or which ships suddenly mesh with my play style perfectly that didn't before, brilliant fun.  The game is refreshed, and this is clearly one of the reasons why WG consistently do reworks - because stagnation is death to a game like World of Warships.

I'll conclude with a reminder for all of us - optimists live longer than pessimists, so find the positives, and don't let the negatives get to you! 

[Chain_shot]

Works better.

[warheart1992]

The CV rework was touted as a "max 6-8 months period of relative imbalance", yet 2 years later the situation is still relatively unbalanced, at points favouring AA, others CVs. 

I don't mind change, but I mind bad track records at balancing when the player is the one most affected by it.

[monpetitloup]

Uninstall.

[kill_all_planes]

5 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I see a lot of angst about changes to the game, the latest of course being the skill rework, but prior to that, the IFHE rework, CV rework, OWSF rework etc, and also major and minor balance and mechanics changes along the way.  There will be more significant changes to the game in the future, the next notable upcoming major change being the release of a new class, submarines.

I'm telling you right now, well in advance, that the balance will be poor in the patches following the release of subs, particularly the release patch itself.  They may even need to hotfix some balance changes.  This is inevitable and this is routine, just like the skill rework release, and just like prior reworks.

WG seems to have a consistent balance process for major changes:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. Come up with concept and do initial implementation of numbers.
2. Do basic internal testing of numbers and make broad stroke balance changes.
3. Release to PTS and do further broad stroke balance iterations, normally one or two iterations here.
4. Assess if it is within their pretty generous balance parameters for release, those parameters being "nothing seems to be particularly broken, and the balance is roughly okay."
5. Release patch to live.  Assess large scale live data for balance issues, which become massively more obvious at this point.
6. Release balance iterations over the next 2-3 patches, getting a bit closer each time.  If there is any particularly egregious issue immediately after release, they may consider a hotfix.
7. Major change complete and pretty well balanced within their acceptable balance window a few months after release.

They likely do it in this particular way because it gives them the shortest possible time frame from concept to live and acceptably balanced.  They can go through the whole process in close to six months this way, where if they tried to achieve the acceptable balance window before major change release, the process would take much longer overall, the change release would be delayed by significant periods, and they still would likely not get it spot on at release anyway. 

Remember WG is a data driven company.  Every balance change they do is based on analysis of numbers, and the numbers they get off live are far higher quality than the numbers they get off internal and PTS testing.

 

The skill rework release has some distinct balance issues, but WG are likely very happy with it, given the balance hasn't been enough of an issue to require hotfixes, or even comments from WG.  They are no doubt right now analysing the extensive data they've gathered from this patch so far, looking at player feedback, and deciding on the direction they want to go for the 0.10.1 skill rework balance changes.  We'll see an announcement on these changes pretty soon, and that should give us a good idea of their balance direction over the next few months.

So, what does this mean to us players?  Well firstly, getting worked up about things at this point is only affecting one person, and that is you.  Being calm and analytical about it is going to make you more relaxed on the subject.  Secondly, there are plenty of improvements to be made, so well reasoned feedback delivered in a rational and not hysterical manner is the best way to have any chance of your opinion being considered by WG.  Argue your point, then move on, and accept that whatever happens will happen.  Often it won't move the way you want it to, sometimes it will.  Accept the positives and be philosophical about the negatives.

Thirdly, this is in my opinion actually one of the best times in the game.  Sure, some of my, and no doubt your, favourite ships are not as strong as they were, or don't play in the same manner as you used to enjoy.  That sucks, but often you can find different ways of playing them that are as, or sometimes even more enjoyable.  Sometimes your favourite ships just are a shadow of what they used to be of course (I am still not over what happened to Blyska in the Open Water Stealth Fire rework, or Haida in the IFHE rework), but every time they do something like this, there will be ships that used to be a bit meh, that suddenly become amazing fun with new play styles available, or even straight buffs!  More importantly, I personally find working out how to play ships differently, or which ships suddenly mesh with my play style perfectly that didn't before, brilliant fun.  The game is refreshed, and this is clearly one of the reasons why WG consistently do reworks - because stagnation is death to a game like World of Warships.

I'll conclude with a reminder for all of us - optimists live longer than pessimists, so find the positives, and don't let the negatives get to you! 

So you're a guidance counsellor now?

Analyze data? Listen to feed back? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

OMG you are so naïve.

Testers keep telling WG what's wrong with ships before they get release and WG keeps ignoring them.

You want to know why players get steamed up? They spend LOTS of money on this game because they love it and then WG goes and throws it out the window with (in the case of this recent rework) largely uncalled for changes.

Wonder why so many WOWS players have serious doubts about WG ability to balance things? Have a look at their track record. Look at CV's, still broken after 2 years! Yeah the dmg stats might say different but the game play between surface and cv is disgustingly in favor of the CV and if you say anything different you are either blind or a liar.

 

 

[kyesac]

I am not an optimist or a pessimist.  I am a realist.

As for this rework (or any other)?  It is what it is.  It is not personally directed at only me.  It affects every player.  Even playing field.  Adapt and Adjust.  If the game gets ruined (for me), I find something else that will grab my attention.  I am not there yet.

And I don't consider the $$$ I spent on this game, which is a good bit, a waste of money.  I have been playing WoWs since 2015, more the last 3 years than the first 3.  This is my go to game right now, and I enjoy it.  The dollars spent helped me get ships and stuff I wanted so I could enjoy the game more.  I am ok with that.

[0ldRichard]

6 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I see a lot of angst about changes to the game, the latest of course being the skill rework, but prior to that, the IFHE rework, CV rework, OWSF rework etc, and also major and minor balance and mechanics changes along the way.  There will be more significant changes to the game in the future, the next notable upcoming major change being the release of a new class, submarines.

I'm telling you right now, well in advance, that the balance will be poor in the patches following the release of subs, particularly the release patch itself.  They may even need to hotfix some balance changes.  This is inevitable and this is routine, just like the skill rework release, and just like prior reworks.

WG seems to have a consistent balance process for major changes:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. Come up with concept and do initial implementation of numbers.
2. Do basic internal testing of numbers and make broad stroke balance changes.
3. Release to PTS and do further broad stroke balance iterations, normally one or two iterations here.
4. Assess if it is within their pretty generous balance parameters for release, those parameters being "nothing seems to be particularly broken, and the balance is roughly okay."
5. Release patch to live.  Assess large scale live data for balance issues, which become massively more obvious at this point.
6. Release balance iterations over the next 2-3 patches, getting a bit closer each time.  If there is any particularly egregious issue immediately after release, they may consider a hotfix.
7. Major change complete and pretty well balanced within their acceptable balance window a few months after release.

They likely do it in this particular way because it gives them the shortest possible time frame from concept to live and acceptably balanced.  They can go through the whole process in close to six months this way, where if they tried to achieve the acceptable balance window before major change release, the process would take much longer overall, the change release would be delayed by significant periods, and they still would likely not get it spot on at release anyway. 

Remember WG is a data driven company.  Every balance change they do is based on analysis of numbers, and the numbers they get off live are far higher quality than the numbers they get off internal and PTS testing.

 

The skill rework release has some distinct balance issues, but WG are likely very happy with it, given the balance hasn't been enough of an issue to require hotfixes, or even comments from WG.  They are no doubt right now analysing the extensive data they've gathered from this patch so far, looking at player feedback, and deciding on the direction they want to go for the 0.10.1 skill rework balance changes.  We'll see an announcement on these changes pretty soon, and that should give us a good idea of their balance direction over the next few months.

So, what does this mean to us players?  Well firstly, getting worked up about things at this point is only affecting one person, and that is you.  Being calm and analytical about it is going to make you more relaxed on the subject.  Secondly, there are plenty of improvements to be made, so well reasoned feedback delivered in a rational and not hysterical manner is the best way to have any chance of your opinion being considered by WG.  Argue your point, then move on, and accept that whatever happens will happen.  Often it won't move the way you want it to, sometimes it will.  Accept the positives and be philosophical about the negatives.

Thirdly, this is in my opinion actually one of the best times in the game.  Sure, some of my, and no doubt your, favourite ships are not as strong as they were, or don't play in the same manner as you used to enjoy.  That sucks, but often you can find different ways of playing them that are as, or sometimes even more enjoyable.  Sometimes your favourite ships just are a shadow of what they used to be of course (I am still not over what happened to Blyska in the Open Water Stealth Fire rework, or Haida in the IFHE rework), but every time they do something like this, there will be ships that used to be a bit meh, that suddenly become amazing fun with new play styles available, or even straight buffs!  More importantly, I personally find working out how to play ships differently, or which ships suddenly mesh with my play style perfectly that didn't before, brilliant fun.  The game is refreshed, and this is clearly one of the reasons why WG consistently do reworks - because stagnation is death to a game like World of Warships.

I'll conclude with a reminder for all of us - optimists live longer than pessimists, so find the positives, and don't let the negatives get to you! 

You're waaay over-thinking it.

This is just a silly computer game offered by the same sort of rent-seeking greedheads that run every other big business. Esoteric details don't matter.

It's always a just simple personal choice to play or not. Always.

Polemics are just linguistic gymnastics.

[barbaroja_Ar]

OP, assuming this is not a troll account, and that you have played a lot more than 20 battles, this feels naive. I up voted you because I agree that being positive is good.

I've been playing since closed beta. WG never ever hit it the first time.

Im surely wrong, but feels like the game has shifted it's target audience. Back then, I don't know if you lived it, there were draws in battles. 20 minute battles and they finished in a draw. I'm quite sure there would be a lot of players happy with a draw today.

What I'm sure is I got tired of being a guinea pig in a game that's focuses on getting the attention of an audience of which I'm not part of.

May be or not the CV rework imbalances get diluted with the captain skills. I really hope so, but that we will now luckily 6/7 patches from now.

I just really don't care anymore.

I know my days in the game are counted. The famous last straw?

[Rothgar_57]

Wargaming = PGI

[Moggytwo]

3 hours ago, kill_all_planes said:

So you're a guidance counsellor now?

Analyze data? Listen to feed back? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

OMG you are so naïve.

Testers keep telling WG what's wrong with ships before they get release and WG keeps ignoring them.

You want to know why players get steamed up? They spend LOTS of money on this game because they love it and then WG goes and throws it out the window with (in the case of this recent rework) largely uncalled for changes.

Wonder why so many WOWS players have serious doubts about WG ability to balance things? Have a look at their track record. Look at CV's, still broken after 2 years! Yeah the dmg stats might say different but the game play between surface and cv is disgustingly in favor of the CV and if you say anything different you are either blind or a liar.

I think it's pretty clear that WG are quite happy to push roughly balanced ideas live to see what happens, safe in the knowledge that if it doesn't work out they can rebalance it.  They are also quite happy to disregard testers feedback on what devs think might be interesting changes, to give themselves the opportunity to see live data on the change.

There are plenty of new or adjusted skills in the rework that may well not work out, but would be interesting if they do.  They have proven themselves to be a data driven company, and they've made it abundantly clear in the past that they consider live data far more important than PTS or closed testing data.  This obviously leads to them putting roughly balanced ideas live and balancing it from the much better data they receive.  I think in this way they likely consider they end up with a better, more interesting and engaging product than if they went for a safer and more balanced release. 

I just don't think short term balance bothers them too much, and they seem more than happy to wear a balance and popularity hit to get what they think is a better product at the other end.  In particular at the release of a major rework, they know that this will be a time of imbalance, so they use that imbalance to test the limits of what could work in the game.

WG quite clearly have balance parameters (a balance window you could say) that they find acceptable.  Those parameters are also clearly much more generous on major rework release, and much less generous (but still with a reasonably sized window) for finally acceptable balancing following a number of live iterations.  It also seems like the tech tree ship balance window is smaller than the premium window, but I could be wrong on that. 

I think balance sits alongside their desire to give opportunities for enjoyment in the game, by giving ships particular strengths that players can take advantage of, and thus create moments of excitement for the player.  I suspect that the ideal of a perfectly balanced game is not on their agenda at all (hence the balance windows), and that they know the thing that keeps people coming back is the ability of the players to maximise the imbalance of their particular ship to their benefit.
This is why WG almost never balance based on individual ship interactions.  They don't care that it sucks for a cruiser to be deleted by a BB in a salvo (for example), because they know this is what keeps the BB players coming back.  They don't care that a CV is capable of thoroughly outplaying a poorly played DD and making their life miserable, because they are creating enjoyment for the CV player.  They don't care if a ship gets deleted by a DD torp salvo because they know this keeps the torp boat players coming back.  Every class and every individual ship that people actually enjoy in this game has these moments of enjoyable domination that can be created when the player uses the ship to its advantages (or for the lesser skilled, when RNG smiles upon them).  This is why they use the spreadsheet for balance, because they know the game is actually a layer cake of imbalanced interactions.  The spreadsheet tells them the overall power of the ship, with all of these imbalances accounted for, and thus does give a good indication of the relative power of each ship, while completely ignoring how those interactions make people feel.

Now, you may not like any of this, and that is a perfectly valid opinion.  It definitely creates frustration among some players, and I can understand why.  WG are not going to completely change their process however, so we as players can either accept it and not let it get to us, or we can get worked up and upset about it, while achieving nothing except raising our own blood pressure.

You call me naive, yet you clearly have no concept of the underlying processes that I outlined above.  You, like many others, just see something imbalanced and say, "how could they do this, why are WG so stupid, we can all clearly see how imbalanced this is!", without seeing the process behind the change, the mindset of the developers, and the desired end point that the devs have for a particular major change.  I suggest you consider the wider picture, and make an attempt to broaden your mind, before you make a laughable attempt to belittle others.

[mofton]

My main problems with this approach are this.

1. The Concept

WG's starting concepts seem to be getting further and further away from what I think is sensible, and it frequently poisons the entire development. For the latest example of the captain rework I would say that Deadeye is simply a bad concept - and no amount of test will change that. Similarly skills like Outnumbered are simply bad ideas and don't practically work. For the carrier rework there were a dozen terrible ideas which are still being played with 2 years later - finally looking again at 2-torpedo drops on the T4 carriers for instance is just emblematic. Releasing carriers while planning to, but having not changed the flooding mechanics was lazy and simply burned a portion of good will. For the IFHE/plating rework, deciding that T7 cruisers needed to be particularly smashed (like Haida) was just a bad concept, and testing doesn't change that. The slow, fat, poorly armored Kansas and Minnesota were always going to be a problem to implement, and have a pretty narrow niche of players enjoying them.

 

2. Feedback

I think you overstate the impact of feedback, it's ignored 99.9% of the time whether it's delivered in a 200 page indexed, cross linked and referenced report or quite simply as 'this sucks'.

The purpose of 'feedback' is to create a safety valve to let people vent a back on an individual level. Only a huge chorus of negative feedback has any positive change, and even then only eventually.

A big delay between feedback and implementation also poisons things. It would cost WG relatively little to add a little activation icon for the situational skills (obviously ones like swift in silence where you know spotted/not already don't need it) and that 'feedback' was given all the way back in September when the concept was first announced. Not done for live release in January, promised at some vague point in the future.

 

3. Balance by X

WG don't have a target zone of 'balance', or if they do it's incredibly wide. There have been lots of statements from WG over they years indicating that balance by popularity is also significant. Broken doesn't matter unless it's too popular, but if too popular then... impose artificial scarcity and/or throw it in lootboxes to maximize revenue. If WG cared about balance that much they'd nerf premiums, or at least not put GC in Christmas loot boxes to encourage heavy spending to get it.

I'd also prefer if WG cared less about 0.1% higher WR's over 10,000 games corrected for X, and more about making WOWS a bit more fun, which I don't think their spreadsheets can tell them.

 

4. The non-balance issues

The latest captain rework has smashed up the economy for captains. There are simply things I just don't want to do/play any more. Unfortunately WG are using this to drain F2P players resources, while simultaneously encouraging purchase of the special captains, and premium ships which are undoubted winners of the rework. I have basically given up on the RB system - captains not working at all while retraining, and the overall increased cost of retraining a fully skilled commander aren't worth it. I'm almost considering just FXP'ing to the C. Columbo because it's better to do that than retrain a captain 5 times at a mere 300k a pop.

I also just can't be bothered to waste hours of my time playing with captain builds when I want to play.

Although you seem sanguine about WG smacking fun or powerful builds because there are others made stronger I've not really found that. The skills for destroyers are basically unchanged but worse/more expensive. A couple of my cruisers have a new, fun playstyle but others are less diverse (Sec-Sieg) or just no longer fit the game. Battleships have swiftly broken into a CE-Deadeye camping camp, and a single brawler-variant, little more enjoyment or change from previously. I'd say about two ships have become different/more interesting - Henri long range, no-conceal build, and Venezia double-rudder DPM. My Minotaur has nothing, my Alaska has no options, my Zao is redundant, a bunch like my Petro are just the same, but cost more. This simply isn't anything to celebrate. Things can be made worse.

 

The captain rework has made this game less enjoyable for me, and this comes on the end of a 'run' of pretty miserable patches. The 4-patch-for-3-ship US BB split with two miserable tubs, the Christmas grinds for Strasbourg and Hizen in lieu of anything new or interesting (maps, game modes, scenarios, actual enjoyable ships/lines). This seems like a bad time for WOWS with the economic aspects being the most outright grasping. I'm not particularly excited for the next patch of 'early access lootbox Italian battleships, but only up to tier ~8' either.

 

Remember, WG is a company driven company which goes without saying that it's all about money.

[KilljoyCutter]

3 hours ago, kyesac said:

I am not an optimist or a pessimist.  I am a realist.

As for this rework (or any other)?  It is what it is.  It is not personally directed at only me.  It affects every player.  Even playing field.  Adapt and Adjust.  If the game gets ruined (for me), I find something else that will grab my attention.  I am not there yet.

This has nothing to do with "an even playing field". 

Kicking everyone on the nuts doesn't make it right. 

 

[kyesac]

4 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

This has nothing to do with "an even playing field". 

Kicking everyone on the nuts doesn't make it right. 

 

Still more even then a kick in the balls to me and not for anyone else.  If you feel that this change in the game is equivalent to a kick in the balls, there are alternatives.  I am not ready to quite make that comparison just yet.

[kill_all_planes]

14 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I think it's pretty clear that WG are quite happy to push roughly balanced ideas live to see what happens, safe in the knowledge that if it doesn't work out they can rebalance it.  They are also quite happy to disregard testers feedback on what devs think might be interesting changes, to give themselves the opportunity to see live data on the change.

There are plenty of new or adjusted skills in the rework that may well not work out, but would be interesting if they do.  They have proven themselves to be a data driven company, and they've made it abundantly clear in the past that they consider live data far more important than PTS or closed testing data.  This obviously leads to them putting roughly balanced ideas live and balancing it from the much better data they receive.  I think in this way they likely consider they end up with a better, more interesting and engaging product than if they went for a safer and more balanced release.

The trouble with balancing purely off stats is it completely hides gameplay aspects. CV's are a prime example of this.

14 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I think balance sits alongside their desire to give opportunities for enjoyment in the game, by giving ships particular strengths that players can take advantage of, and thus create moments of excitement for the player.  I suspect that the ideal of a perfectly balanced game is not on their agenda at all (hence the balance windows), and that they know the thing that keeps people coming back is the ability of the players to maximise the imbalance of their particular ship to their benefit.
This is why WG almost never balance based on individual ship interactions.  They don't care that it sucks for a cruiser to be deleted by a BB in a salvo (for example), because they know this is what keeps the BB players coming back.  They don't care that a CV is capable of thoroughly outplaying a poorly played DD and making their life miserable, because they are creating enjoyment for the CV player.  They don't care if a ship gets deleted by a DD torp salvo because they know this keeps the torp boat players coming back.  Every class and every individual ship that people actually enjoy in this game has these moments of enjoyable domination that can be created when the player uses the ship to its advantages (or for the lesser skilled, when RNG smiles upon them).  This is why they use the spreadsheet for balance, because they know the game is actually a layer cake of imbalanced interactions.  The spreadsheet tells them the overall power of the ship, with all of these imbalances accounted for, and thus does give a good indication of the relative power of each ship, while completely ignoring how those interactions make people feel.

Now, you may not like any of this, and that is a perfectly valid opinion.  It definitely creates frustration among some players, and I can understand why.  WG are not going to completely change their process however, so we as players can either accept it and not let it get to us, or we can get worked up and upset about it, while achieving nothing except raising our own blood pressure.

You call me naive, yet you clearly have no concept of the underlying processes that I outlined above.  You, like many others, just see something imbalanced and say, "how could they do this, why are WG so stupid, we can all clearly see how imbalanced this is!", without seeing the process behind the change, the mindset of the developers, and the desired end point that the devs have for a particular major change.  I suggest you consider the wider picture, and make an attempt to broaden your mind, before you make a laughable attempt to belittle others.

Perhaps they need to change their system since WG go and make ridiculous changes a trained monkey could see aren't going to work out well.

As for being naïve, you must be or you are just ignoring WG's constant blatant mistakes regarding balance and introducing new ships. You yourself don't know for a fact that's how WG balance's this game either. Your guess is no better than mine so don't start saying I have no idea when you're just guessing as well. For all we know they could be pulling random ideas out of a hat, and honestly, that's what it seems like with the dumb stuff we get dished up.

Yeah Ill change my attitude when I see WG start to make smarter decisions regarding reworks and game balance, not before. I have years of in game evidence showing a clear history of WG introducing dumb stuff that they have been told was dumb or broken or OP and they just ignore it.

I suggest you consider any other view on this game that isn't your own for a change, judging by what I've seen you offer up I kind of doubt that's going to happen.

[Tokamak_Raven]

How to cope:

Case 1: CVs OP pls nerf. Solution: Start playing CVs

Case 2: Deadeye BB too powerful pls nerf. Solution: Start playing deadeye BBs

Case 3: I used to have so-and-so skill that I don't have anymore. Solution: Neither does anyone else, and since this is a PvP game, it's fair, so stop complaining or quit playing.

Did I miss anything else?

[hateboat]

my strategy :

attack the rework with a positive attitude to overcome, adapt by playing something else (until or unless WOWS becomes fun again)

be generous with my wallet in items for Spring season outdoors, I just bought a boat (this much healthier kind , and far cheaper, pound for pound)

 

[WarStore]

There is changing things for the sake of changing. There is changing things for the better. There is changing things for the worse. And then, there is the skill rework, which is changing things for the worse, for the sake of cashing in on the players while advertising change for the sake of changing.

 

When they first announced the skill rebork, I was actually optimistic. Then, more information was released and I realized the whole thing was gonna be a mess so that WG could make some quick bucks.

WG could not even bring itself to do good things to take advantage of the only good aspect of this rebork, like allowing to train the captain for one tech tree ship of each kind. Even that was made with premium ships in mind.

 

This idea of finding new ways to play the ship is just dumb. I bought the Tirpitz and Odin for the brawling aspect, not the sniping in the back aspect, which I dispise. If I want to snipe from the back, I will pick the Thunderer, not find a new way to play a ship that wasn't designed for that.

So, no. I am not optimistic anymore. I fully expect them to make things worse, or at best leave this mess as it is. We are approaching another update and NOT A SINGLE WORD SO FAR. Update 10.1 will be a dead patch. There isn't even any point in its PTS as nothing has changed.