Official word from WG regarding ASW range discrepancies (injustice) for some ships is that all is OK

[Pugilistic]

Is Massachusetts a "pre disclaimer" Premium that WG wont buff/nerf except by global changes? 

[Nevermore135]

8 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Is Massachusetts a "pre disclaimer" Premium that WG wont buff/nerf except by global changes? 

Yes, along with all the other premium BBs with short ASW range, in addition to being on the naughty list. Ohio is the other ship with gimped ASW, and the outlier because she is a special ship that there is precedent to nerf if needed (I theorized earlier in this thread that her short range was applied as a proactive measure to avoid the stigma of “nerfing” (at least directly) such a popular ship.)

All the premiums, with the hopefully obvious exception of GC, have also been made available in a limited manner via either Black Friday or auctions, so while it’s flawed reasoning, some reasoning does seem to exist for these ships to be targeted.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

14 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Is Massachusetts a "pre disclaimer" Premium that WG wont buff/nerf except by global changes? 

Just FYI, that statement is only a statement of desired plan.

WG reserves the right to change any ship at any time for any reason.

Currently they don't want to be touching 'pre-disclaimer' ships for sales reasons...but that intent can change at any time.

The actual TOS and EULA have always allowed WG to change any ship at any time for any reason.

WG did make changes to pre-disclaimer ships (Mikasa, Duke of York)...but only very, VERY rarely.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[GMMF]

29 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I don’t think anyone in this thread is defending WG’s decision to balance these ships via their ASW range. I most certainly am not

Good to see we are on the same page, if this is the case, do not lean into the naughty list reasoning, because there's no concrete evidence on it. The only way to prove that point is WG nerfing Lenin & Georgia when both of them are available via other means. Which we will see in the future.

It is a piss poor attempt at doing things and there's no need attempting to theorize WG's poor balancing.

After all, WG can't even respond to this, so why anyone else should?

But if you can feel free to do it, maybe its a good opportunity to get a new career at WG's balancing dept.

Edited November 28, 2023 by GMMF

[Nevermore135]

15 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Just FYI, that statement is only a statement of desired plan.

WG reserves the right to change any ship at any time for any reason.

Currently they don't want to be touching 'pre-disclaimer' ships for sales reasons...but that intent can change at any time.

The actual TOS and EULA have always allowed WG to change any ship at any time for any reason.

WG did make changes to pre-disclaimer ships (Mikasa, Duke of York)...but only very, VERY rarely.

This is, of course, a given. These “protected” ships are only such because WG says they are. The moment the calculated benefit of nerfing them outweighs the downside of angering the shrinking population of veterans with said ships WG will make the changes they desire to make.

For the moment, at least, WG has adhered to the letter of their post-GC controversy commitment.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

For the moment, at least, WG has adhered to the letter of their post-GC commitment

Mostly, yes.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

This is, of course, a given. These “protected” ships are only such because WG says they are. The moment the calculated benefit of nerfing them outweighs the downside of angering the shrinking population of veterans with said ships WG will make the changes they desire to make.

For the moment, at least, WG has adhered to the letter of their post-GC controversy commitment.

Hmm... yes, but I wonder what the spreadsheet will say. If they nerf the old premiums, who would buy them? I assume it makes no difference to WG which ships people are buying, as long as they are buying.

[Nevermore135]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Mostly, yes.

Since the formal establishment and commitment to the “will not nerf” policy after the GC rebalance attempt, when have they implemented such a change? WG has implemented some global changes (which have always been exceptions) as well as changes to premium ships that were not previously directly sold for cash/doubloons (such as Flint and Black), but I’m not aware of targeted nerfs to any “protected” premiums after that announcement.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Nevermore135]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Hmm... yes, but I wonder what the spreadsheet will say.

What do you think does the calculations? 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Since the formal establishment and commitment to the “will not nerf” policy after the GC rebalance attempt, when have they implemented such a change?

When was the GC controversy again? 2018?

[aleksi111]

 

 

[Nevermore135]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

When was the GC controversy again? 2018?

Sometime in 2019 (I think everything concluded around late summer). I used to have Sub_Octavian’s forum post bookmarked (with a convenient date) but, well…

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Sometime in 2019 (I think everything concluded around late summer). I used to have Sub_Octavian’s forum post bookmarked (with a convenient date) but, well…

Any changes since then have been very minor (changes to secondary gun angles for Mikasa) or were known to not be documented in the patch notes (0.9.9 changes to plane agility and attack reticle behavior for Graf Zeppelin and potentially Enterprise).

WG proactively scrubbed their communications about the controversy in 0.9.9 and refused to finalize those patch notes after the changes were observed and commented upon by CCs.

I'd say WG is holding quite well to the intent of the policy.

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

5 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

You should edit that into your OP...

If people wanted to go to discord there'd be no reason for this forum.

[Jakob Knight]

I don't understand the point of this thread.  This information was put out quite a while ago ( back when ASDCs were added into the game to give units that should not have any ASW something to fight Subs with ), and has been known to players for a long time.  It is the same balancing that has been present in the game since it launched ( which is why one ship has different ranges in its weapons, different speeds, different armor, different AAA (or none at all), different consumables (or consumables that have different characteristics), different handling, or any other differences than others ).  When you select a Bismark, why should you be surprised it does not play exactly the same as a Tirpitz or a North Carolina, or a Prinz Eugen?

 

Knowing the advantages and difficiencies of a given class of ship is a core part of the game, and the range of -all- your equipment is part of why a ship is what it is in the game 

 

 

[Nevermore135]

7 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

I don't understand the point of this thread.  This information was put out quite a while ago ( back when ASDCs were added into the game to give units that should not have any ASW something to fight Subs with ), and has been known to players for a long time.

Unfortunately, this type of information and related discussions are no longer handily archived (and searchable) on the old official forums.

7 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

It is the same balancing that has been present in the game since it launched ( which is why one ship has different ranges in its weapons, different speeds, different armor, different AAA (or none at all), different consumables (or consumables that have different characteristics), different handling, or any other differences than others )

This specific topic tends to be a recurring pain point for players because of WG’s efforts to standardize ASW ranges by tier (making these very obvious outsiders) and well as the effect such short range ASW has on the player experience.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[ArIskandir]

Meanwhile, in the distant world of DDs...

[Jakob Knight]

16 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

 

This specific topic tends to be a recurring pain point for players because of WG’s efforts to standardize ASW ranges by tier (making these very obvious outsiders) and well as the effect such short range ASW has on the player experience.

 

Oh, the pain point I experienced leveling up US DDs because of the short range of my torpedoes...if only I had the same torpedoes that were given to the IJN DDs.....

 

Well, I guess we all have our stories of difficult ships we wished had all the nice equipment on them.

 

 

[MnemonScarlet]

1 hour ago, Pugilistic said:

Is Massachusetts a "pre disclaimer" Premium that WG wont buff/nerf except by global changes? 

Yeah - IIRC everything before Flandre's March 2021 release is. Marco Polo was January of 2021, and she's not on the list. Those ships do occasionally get buffs, but it's a lot more hesitantly since WG feels they can't just nerf them back down again if they overperform.

The short-ASW is a really bad way to 'balance' ships, since as stated by Yurra and others, those ships have an extremely hard time even fighting back against subs. It's especially ridiculous for Thunderer, which can be actually nerfed in meaningful ways as it's a resource ship, but instead gets stuck with that goofy nearly non-functional short-ASW.

And meanwhile Georgia is allowed to have normal ASW, and she's a pre-disclaimer BB who is definitely overtuned hard. WG not only has a bad idea, but they can't even stick with it.

[Nevermore135]

14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Meanwhile, in the distant world of DDs...

Is Okhotnik lurking somewhere in the background?

[Nevermore135]

57 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Oh, the pain point I experienced leveling up US DDs because of the short range of my torpedoes...if only I had the same torpedoes that were given to the IJN DDs.....

Yes, because WG made a grand balancing pass where they standardized DD torpedo ranges across the board, and every ship has a convenient way to make themselves temporarily immune to all forms of damage except one. /s

I’ll be the first one to say that I think BB ASW ranges in general are a bit too long (IMO cruisers should have longer ranges, being in many ways being a “support” class), but 5km ASW at high tiers is cripplingly short.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[ArIskandir]

17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Is Okhotnik lurking somewhere in the background?

Since its Russian, got censored...

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

7 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Since I, or any other normal person can't really be bothered to wade through the muddy waters that Discord is, I'll take your synopsis and be happy with that.

This! Im not going anywhere close to their BS Discord at this state.

 

6 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Was this the same genius who on stream told everyone that "Shotgunning wasent a thing with Subs" and then seconds later took a bunch of shotgunning torps to the face in a DD and died, and then started to blame faults with the DD....

They trying to balance some BBs with crappy ASWs is as smart as they tried to nerf OG Khaba back in the day by nerfing its torps from 10 km to 6 km and ALL Khaba players  respons was "This ships has torps....?!" (OG Khaba for those who dont know was like Kleber and Smolensk firespam rolled into one ship ..... no one used the torps.

Or like when they "nerfed" overperforming Kremlin by nerfing its AA ......

Genius at play I tell you. 

 

[Nevermore135]

28 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

And meanwhile Georgia is allowed to have normal ASW, and she's a pre-disclaimer BB who is definitely overtuned hard. WG not only has a bad idea, but they can't even stick with it.

I’ve always felt that Georgia is one of those ships that is overtuned and extremely dangerous in skilled hands, but her speed (+engine boost), hull poorly suited for brawling, and SeCoNdArIeS means that a large fraction of players simply get themselves killed very early and complain in chat about how they got no support.

I would be very interested to see a comprehensive collection of her performance metrics correlated with player experience/skill.

[Jakob Knight]

38 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Yes, because WG made a grand balancing pass where they standardized DD torpedo ranges across the board, and every ship has a convenient way to make themselves temporarily immune to all forms of damage expect one. /s

I’ll be the first one to say that I think BB ASW ranges in general are a bit too long (IMO cruisers should have longer ranges, being in many ways being a “support” class), but 5km ASW at high tiers is cripplingly short.

 

Actually, they did make a sweeping balancing pass on torpedoes as a response to the 'torpedo soup' many players complained about, where most torpedoes ended up with longer detection ranges and modified effective ranges, though it was so long ago many players today would likely not be aware of it.  And, just like the ASDCs, there remain different characteristics between different classes even with supposedly the same hulls ( the Kamikaze and Minekaze are one such example, where the Minekaze was actually superior to the Kamikaze before the changes ).

 

Not sure where the temporary immunity to all damage is coming from, though.