Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Bandi73

The devs "response" on the secondary "accuracy" changes.......

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,390
[-BCO-]
Members
2,924 posts
5,022 battles
Edited by Bandi73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,745
[WOLFC]
Members
3,155 posts
11,804 battles

So basically... “we didn’t nerf secondaries because we included a skill that buffs main battery reload to offset the nerfs to secondaries?” :cap_wander:

One of the primary advantages to secondary builds under the old system was the ability to actively pressure two targets at once, i.e. drive off that cruiser or DD while you pump main battery shells into another target. This ability to control space was part of what allowed experienced players to play forward and have success with the builds despite being “suboptimal.” That is no longer possible with the new system. It looks like under the new system, the devs don’t view secondaries as weapons themselves, rather just simply as a roundabout way to get a -10% reload buff to your main battery at mid range for 7 skill points.

I’m not sure they understand why players would run these builds in the first place.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[WMD]
Members
1,946 posts
11,096 battles
3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

So basically... “we didn’t nerf secondaries because we included a skill that buffs main battery reload to offset the nerfs to secondaries?” :cap_wander:

One of the primary advantages to secondary builds under the old system was the ability to actively pressure two targets at once, i.e. drive off that cruiser or DD while you pump main battery shells into another target. This ability to control space was part of what allowed experienced players to have success with the builds dispute being “suboptimal.” That is no longer possible with the new system. It looks like under the new system, the devs don’t view secondaries as weapons themselves, rather just simply as a roundabout way to get a -10% reload buff to your main battery at mid range for 7 skill points.

I’m not sure they understand why players would run these builds in the first place.

Interesting take, to me it seemed WG was trying to get away from automated damage. They want you aiming, and timing your shots rather than clicking manual secondaries on a ship and farming damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,745
[WOLFC]
Members
3,155 posts
11,804 battles
19 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

Interesting take, to me it seemed WG was trying to get away from automated damage. They want you aiming, and timing your shots rather than clicking manual secondaries on a ship and farming damage. 

In all honesty, in my experience secondaries have never been about “farming damage” and my main battery has always accounted for the lions share of my damage output. Secondary battleships have never been able to just YOLO in and farm damage effectively, and attempting to do so would just quickly see you sunk - positioning was always extremely important, particularly because such builds must sacrifice survivability to do so. By removing the ability of most of these ships to apply effective pressure with their secondaries outside of 7 or so km (they just aren’t accurate enough to reliably hit at these ranges anymore), they cannot play forward nearly as effectively.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[BEA5T]
Members
5,413 posts
25,197 battles
23 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

So basically... “we didn’t nerf secondaries because we included a skill that buffs main battery reload to offset the nerfs to secondaries?” :cap_wander:

One of the primary advantages to secondary builds under the old system was the ability to actively pressure two targets at once, i.e. drive off that cruiser or DD while you pump main battery shells into another target. This ability to control space was part of what allowed experienced players to play forward and have success with the builds dispute being “suboptimal.” That is no longer possible with the new system. It looks like under the new system, the devs don’t view secondaries as weapons themselves, rather just simply as a roundabout way to get a -10% reload buff to your main battery at mid range for 7 skill points.

I’m not sure they understand why players would run these builds in the first place.

Gosh guys, the reason for the nerf isn't in-game performance;...........the reason for the entire skill tree change is the economic devaluation of the game economy !   This is all about "limiting your earning per game...."  To take real assets away from you under the facade of  "meaningful choice"........  To "force you" to play more PVP games because you will earn less per game with any of these changes...... 

The "devs" view the game in terms of where to squeeze "easy profit" because they aren't ever going to add large scale new content.........they can't afford it !!!  So, all we'll see are the cosmetic changes of recycling what is already in code.....  Endless Clone ships of every variety and nation.  Gimmick changes to sell a specific ship and then have that Leetle clause that says: "we reserve the right to alter........"  More Nerf's to any skill that exceeds the player profitability forecasts they started with...........i.e.  Dead Eye.  And, this list could take 20 more pages to lay out where Mature Games Syndrome games go at this point (same themes, slightly different processes)......   Wait, it's gonna really get worse when the "Golden" era gets here......It's in WoTs and Artillery is already here = Carriers.

Oh, they understand to the penny what they have done and are laughing at us all the way to the bank.........  Now, the real question is:  how long will the player base put up with this>?  History implies that in other games, about a year of this and there seems to be a mass exodus of clans/teams at that point and the game becomes a ghost town.   That has already started as a migration to PVE........ 

I'm not investing a penny until I see a solution to the Skill Tree Change......

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[WMD]
Members
1,946 posts
11,096 battles
2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

In all honesty, in my experience secondaries have never been about “farming damage” and my main battery has always accounted for the lions share of my damage output. Secondary battleships have never been able to just YOLO in and farm damage effectively, and attempting to do so would just quickly see you sunk - positioning was always extremely important, particularly because such builds must sacrifice survivability to do so. By removing the ability of most of these ships to apply effective pressure with their secondaries outside of 7 or so km (they just aren’t accurate enough to reliably hit at these ranges anymore), they cannot play forward nearly as effectively.

In your experience, and in mine, but WG has the raw numbers on it, and they clearly saw something different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[BEA5T]
Members
5,413 posts
25,197 battles
3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

In all honesty, in my experience secondaries have never been about “farming damage” and my main battery has always accounted for the lions share of my damage output. Secondary battleships have never been able to just YOLO in and farm damage effectively, and attempting to do so would just quickly see you sunk - positioning was always extremely important, particularly because such builds must sacrifice survivability to do so. By removing the ability of most of these ships to apply effective pressure with their secondaries outside of 7 or so km (they just aren’t accurate enough to reliably hit at these ranges anymore), they cannot play forward nearly as effectively.

And that, means are earning less per game; having to adjust your play to avoid more, which earns you less; and, since your survivability has been effectively reduced, you will earn less and have to play more games to make up the loss of value in each and every match.......  Exactly what they want: for you to have choices that in any combination cost you real money to try changing; for you to be less effective per game which increases throughput, which generates cash for them; and, where gimmick sales and meta unique high cost ships can be introduced and then removed quickly........  Oh yeah........"you cannot play forward nearly as effectively" is exactly where they want us to be..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
30 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

Interesting take, to me it seemed WG was trying to get away from automated damage. They want you aiming, and timing your shots rather than clicking manual secondaries on a ship and farming damage. 

Which, to be fair, has become a valid concern over the last couple years.

Many good players said that PvE interactions in a PvP game were a bad thing. In that light, it could be argued that WG gave it a good try, trying to reduce the effects of AI in PvP interactions. Sure, the good players weren't referring to secondaries when they complained about the interaction, but by claiming inherent unfairness, they made it a blanket complaint.

It could also be argued that "fixing" this would be best served by reducing the effectiveness of secondaries, as it's easier to address than the AI AA interaction, and potentially more common.

Now, having said that, it is some pretty shifty logic, but it does speak to the fact that when discussing gameplay where WG can see, one needs to be very focused in their complaints. 

We complained about every single facet of CVs, so we can't be surprised that such a shotgun effect, assuming WG was paying attention, brings results.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When it comes to WG, be very careful what you wish for. WG is a genie with a cruel streak a mile wide.

I mean, many wished for reduced AI effectiveness in PvP interactions. Whatever else you think of the change, (I don't think much of it myself) that has been achieved.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[WMD]
Members
1,946 posts
11,096 battles
8 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Gosh guys, the reason for the nerf isn't in-game performance;...........the reason for the entire skill tree change is the economic devaluation of the game economy !   This is all about "limiting your earning per game...."  To take real assets away from you under the facade of  "meaningful choice"........  To "force you" to play more PVP games because you will earn less per game with any of these changes...... 

The "devs" view the game in terms of where to squeeze "easy profit" because they aren't ever going to add large scale new content.........they can't afford it !!!  So, all we'll see are the cosmetic changes of recycling what is already in code.....  Endless Clone ships of every variety and nation.  Gimmick changes to sell a specific ship and then have that Leetle clause that says: "we reserve the right to alter........"  More Nerf's to any skill that exceeds the player profitability forecasts they started with...........i.e.  Dead Eye.  And, this list could take 20 more pages to lay out where Mature Games Syndrome games go at this point (same themes, slightly different processes)......   Wait, it's gonna really get worse when the "Golden" era gets here......It's in WoTs and Artillery is already here = Carriers.

Oh, they understand to the penny what they have done and are laughing at us all the way to the bank.........  Now, the real question is:  how long will the player base put up with this>?  History implies that in other games, about a year of this and there seems to be a mass exodus of clans/teams at that point and the game becomes a ghost town.   That has already started as a migration to PVE........ 

I'm not investing a penny until I see a solution to the Skill Tree Change......

That's a wild theory, which is much harder to swallow than the clearly stated reasons given by WG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
11 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

In all honesty, in my experience secondaries have never been about “farming damage” and my main battery has always accounted for the lions share of my damage output. Secondary battleships have never been able to just YOLO in and farm damage effectively, and attempting to do so would just quickly see you sunk - positioning was always extremely important, particularly because such builds must sacrifice survivability to do so. By removing the ability of most of these ships to apply effective pressure with their secondaries outside of 7 or so km (they just aren’t accurate enough to reliably hit at these ranges anymore), they cannot play forward nearly as effectively.

TBH, I don't care about that stuff.

My gripe is that my point defense has been severely compromised. If you want to close in to a target that has many more guns than you, it should be an uphill battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[WMD]
Members
1,946 posts
11,096 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

Which, to be fair, has become a valid concern over the last couple years.

Many good players said that PvE interactions in a PvP game were a bad thing. In that light, it could be argued that WG gave it a good try, trying to reduce the effects of AI in PvP interactions. Sure, the good players weren't referring to secondaries when they complained about the interaction, but by claiming inherent unfairness, they made it a blanket complaint.

It could also be argued that "fixing" this would be best served by reducing the effectiveness of secondaries, as it's easier to address than the AI AA interaction, and potentially more common.

Now, having said that, it is some pretty shifty logic, but it does speak to the fact that when discussing gameplay where WG can see, one needs to be very focused in their complaints. 

We complained about every single facet of CVs, so we can't be surprised that such a shotgun effect, assuming WG was paying attention, brings results.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When it comes to WG, be very careful what you wish for. WG is a genie with a cruel streak a mile wide.

I mean, many wished for reduced AI effectiveness in PvP interactions. Whatever else you think of the change, (I don't think much of it myself) that has been achieved.

I agree 100%, though I think it's less about WG being an "evil genie" and more to do with people not understanding unintended consequences. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
700 posts
5 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

That's a wild theory, which is much harder to swallow than the clearly stated reasons given by WG. 

Really? 

Having a hard time connecting less performance equals less earnings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[SVF]
Members
1,995 posts
2,476 battles
5 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

That's a wild theory, which is much harder to swallow than the clearly stated reasons given by WG. 

Imagine believing any reasoning/justifications given by WG mouthpieces in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
4 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

I agree 100%, though I think it's less about WG being an "evil genie" and more to do with people not understanding unintended consequences. 

I just used the "evil genie" as an approximation of the effects. I'm sure the actual thought processes behind it are not intentionally malicious.

I'm a big believer in Hanlon's Razor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[BEA5T]
Members
5,413 posts
25,197 battles
Just now, VeatherVitch said:

That's a wild theory, which is much harder to swallow than the clearly stated reasons given by WG. 

History.  Look at my previous threads when I presented direct and real comparisons of what "other games have done..."  Compare the latest game I used to this game's skill tree change:  "Mechwarrior Online" and look at their skill tree change process and mechanics and what happened to that game after.........ghost town, recently sold and that new corporation is wanting to revert that change......back to where that game was!  Will they?  Who knows.  But, take a look at what I posted.

It's a theory all right and somewhat of a "guess" but, and here's the eerie part, of the games I have played and have gone over 5 years of active service, what happens seems to be the same concept of change.......History, repeats itself.  Take a look and make your own decisions..........of the crew I play other games with, they are all retired or are gone from this game because.................they've seen where this mature game process (old (>5 years), population stalled, small niche market games) goes and left because of where theory seems to lead to.....  I could be 100% wrong.........or, mostly right.  But, take a look at what I posted a while back.  Deja vu to many of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,358
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,494 posts
7,115 battles

I feel like the secondary nurf was more or less aimed at interactions between. BB and DD. 

Before the nurf, if you made a run on a secondary spec BB you paid for it. 

Now you can drive by and not fear his secondaries at all. I've seen this over and over and over and over again. 

Honestly they swung the wrong way, they should have made secondary builds more effective. This would encourage active game play.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
2 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Imagine believing any reasoning/justifications given by WG mouthpieces in this day and age.

Good point.

In this day and age, people are more into believing random strangers on the internet. "Hey, these other people believe what I believe, they must be right!"

Quite frankly, it's depressing when your choice narrows to either believing Nancy Pelosi or QAnon....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[BEA5T]
Members
5,413 posts
25,197 battles
11 minutes ago, OuijaApologist said:

Really? 

Having a hard time connecting less performance equals less earnings?

Really?  If those changes actually are less effective, that damage has "real value" attached to it.....  If they are i.e. 30% less effective, you are earning 30% revenue derived from that weapon's class...!

15 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

TBH, I don't care about that stuff.

My gripe is that my point defense has been severely compromised. If you want to close in to a target that has many more guns than you, it should be an uphill battle.

And, that is intentional.  That will speed up games to increase throughput.....  Recently, it's amazing what a DD can now get away with !  A DD shouldn't be able to sail broadside to any BB at less than 8 K and not get significantly damaged and yet, I've been able to and torp the crap out of BB's because their secondaries are "that ineffective..."  

Severely compromised = fast, less player profitable games !!!!  

Edited by Asym_KS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
722
[SVF]
Members
1,995 posts
2,476 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Good point.

In this day and age, people are more into believing random strangers on the internet. "Hey, these other people believe what I believe, they must be right!"

Quite frankly, it's depressing when your choice narrows to either believing Nancy Pelosi or QAnon....

Random players may be incorrect, but given that WG has been caught lying before and passing misleading/vague explanations to suit their own ends, I'm not inclined to trust WG.  You want to trust such people?  Unfortunate, but you do you.  *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[WOLFG]
Members
13,269 posts
12,524 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Good point.

In this day and age, people are more into believing random strangers on the internet. "Hey, these other people believe what I believe, they must be right!"

Quite frankly, it's depressing when your choice narrows to either believing Nancy Pelosi or QAnon....

Truth.

Not believing WG does not automatically mean I'm going to believe anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,390
[-BCO-]
Members
2,924 posts
5,022 battles
21 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Which, to be fair, has become a valid concern over the last couple years.

Many good players said that PvE interactions in a PvP game were a bad thing. In that light, it could be argued that WG gave it a good try, trying to reduce the effects of AI in PvP interactions. Sure, the good players weren't referring to secondaries when they complained about the interaction, but by claiming inherent unfairness, they made it a blanket complaint.

It could also be argued that "fixing" this would be best served by reducing the effectiveness of secondaries, as it's easier to address than the AI AA interaction, and potentially more common.

Now, having said that, it is some pretty shifty logic, but it does speak to the fact that when discussing gameplay where WG can see, one needs to be very focused in their complaints. 

We complained about every single facet of CVs, so we can't be surprised that such a shotgun effect, assuming WG was paying attention, brings results.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When it comes to WG, be very careful what you wish for. WG is a genie with a cruel streak a mile wide.

I mean, many wished for reduced AI effectiveness in PvP interactions. Whatever else you think of the change, (I don't think much of it myself) that has been achieved.

Honestly, the only things that I could say would be highly negative towards Weegee. While it is easy to do that, I sincerely hoped that.... they will change their minds.

Also if we at it , I did specced into the manual skills for that effect (i.e.reload boosting), but for ships that I use exclusively for PvE. Strasbourg and Nelsol for example, for Narai. But those are very specific situations and scenarios, and  I would not do that for PvP.

Edited by Bandi73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
8 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Honestly they swung the wrong way, they should have made secondary builds more effective. This would encourage active game play.

I disagree. It's just like any changes extolled as "encouraging X style of gameplay". Everybody plays how they want anyway, those who already play the way that is being encouraged benefit, those who don't, suffer.

I mean, for the average player, what's the real difference between "Hide! There's a Thunderer out there!" and "Run! Here comes a Massachusetts!"?

And who says "active" gameplay is preferable? They did that in WoT, when they increased rewards for shots less than 200m, and started releasing more tanks suited for that gameplay.

The game went from thinking about overwatch and fields of fire to getting in close and slugging it out.

As hard as it is, what needs to happen is that all major gameplay styles need to be made viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
674
[NSEW]
Members
2,542 posts
12,078 battles
12 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:
21 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Gosh guys, the reason for the nerf isn't in-game performance;...........the reason for the entire skill tree change is the economic devaluation of the game economy !   This is all about "limiting your earning per game...."  To take real assets away from you under the facade of  "meaningful choice"........  To "force you" to play more PVP games because you will earn less per game with any of these changes...... 

The "devs" view the game in terms of where to squeeze "easy profit" because they aren't ever going to add large scale new content.........they can't afford it !!!  So, all we'll see are the cosmetic changes of recycling what is already in code.....  Endless Clone ships of every variety and nation.  Gimmick changes to sell a specific ship and then have that Leetle clause that says: "we reserve the right to alter........"  More Nerf's to any skill that exceeds the player profitability forecasts they started with...........i.e.  Dead Eye.  And, this list could take 20 more pages to lay out where Mature Games Syndrome games go at this point (same themes, slightly different processes)......   Wait, it's gonna really get worse when the "Golden" era gets here......It's in WoTs and Artillery is already here = Carriers.

Oh, they understand to the penny what they have done and are laughing at us all the way to the bank.........  Now, the real question is:  how long will the player base put up with this>?  History implies that in other games, about a year of this and there seems to be a mass exodus of clans/teams at that point and the game becomes a ghost town.   That has already started as a migration to PVE........ 

I'm not investing a penny until I see a solution to the Skill Tree Change......

That's a wild theory, which is much harder to swallow than the clearly stated reasons given by WG. 

How is that a wild theory?  Is it as wild as thinking they use "data" to decide on changes?  Is it as wild as them coming up with clone ships ("Jean Bart B", Camo that are inflated in cost, etc) to minimise the cost to maximise on profits?  Taking out the resource ships from availability to later include them in the Xmas "bundle".  Or raising the cost of the Free XP ships to 2million from 1million?  Yet the fundamental significant game environment have not been updated for a long time (map), game modes, same perceived shift in 'automation' but in reality it returns to its' state or worse after a certain period.

As most of us are aware, this is a company.  As such, they have to meet a financial target per anum/quarter to survive.  If I was the CEO of this title, I would have done exactly what @Asym_KS wrote, because it makes total sense in business world (and more because at the end of the year). There is a huge bonus coming in for my pocket, and the company as a whole.  You know who usually gets the stick? The consumers.  That is the way of the corporate realm.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,010
[WOLFG]
Members
34,348 posts
10,587 battles
9 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

And, that is intentional.  That will speed up games to increase throughput.....  Recently, it's amazing what a DD can now get away with !  A DD shouldn't be able to sail broadside to any BB at less than 8 K and not get significantly damaged and yet, I've been able to and torp the crap out of BB's because their secondaries are "that ineffective..."  

Severely compromised = fast, less player profitable games !!!!  

It does seem odd and archaic to me to implement a scheme that is thwarted (actually, completely reversed) so easily, merely by playing a different ship type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×