Incredibly - WG changed DevBlog article after 1 day - Massachusetts and Musashi will NOt bet even moderate buff...

[Snargfargle]

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

•  a lot of players aren’t happy
•  WG released the wrong information
• fumbling their attempts to communicate
• sloppy quality control
•  terrible look for such a large company.

Oh, I see, you just want to complain. Well, that's fine. Myself, it's no skin off my nose what WG does or does not do. I just learn what changes have been made and play the game around them. It's all going to change again in a month anyway.

[b101uk]

18 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Irrelevant. You’re missing the point. WG didn’t publish preliminary changes and then alter them in a subsequent Dev blog. People would not be happy if that happened (because a lot of players aren’t happy with the ASW of the two ships in question), but that would not draw the same type of critiscism.

Instead, by their own admission WG released the wrong information (they are calling it a “typo,” when it really was likely a preliminary version of the Dev blog that wasn’t intended for release). This follows the recurring pattern of WG fumbling their attempts to communicate with the playerbase through sloppy quality control, and as I said it is a terrible look for such a large company.

 

no it just lots of dullards moaning over something that is none binding, and like ANYTHING is subject to change at any time, WG statement is just a means of appeasement, rather than telling them shorty and shapely exactly how it is in clear terms that would hurt peoples feelings, given many are acting like spoilt entitled brats, given if their brains were working correctly they would know anything preliminary can change at ANY time WG wish, including changing the original article. 

Edited January 8 by b101uk

[Nevermore135]

9 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Oh, I see, you just want to complain. Well, that's fine. Myself, it's no skin off my nose what WG does or does not do. I just learn what changes have been made and play the game around them. It's all going to change again in a month anyway.

Nope. I, like many others, am just continually flabbergasted by how any company, yet alone one as large and profitable as WG can continue to make such silly and unprofessional mistakes. It’s hard to take anything the company says at face value amidst all the typos, translation errors, “miscommunications,” etc. There was a time when the company expressed their intent to be better in this regard. Unfortunately, that effort hasn’t seemed to stick.

Even the fixing of the “typo” contains a typo. 

Edited January 8 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

People here are acting like the development blog is an official contract between Wargaming and its user-base instead of what it is -- a blog of ideas they are mulling over before cementing them into the next update.

That is not what the development blog is and you know it.

The dev blog is a notice to the players of proposed changes.

Yes, this event isnt a huge deal on its own...its the REPEATED nature of the failure that is the issue.

17 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Oh, I see, you just want to complain. Well, that's fine. Myself, it's no skin off my nose what WG does or does not do. I just learn what changes have been made and play the game around them. It's all going to change again in a month anyway.

If it's just fine to complain...and it is...then let people do so.

[Snargfargle]

Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The dev blog is a notice to the players of proposed changes.

Like you said "proposed" changes. Sure, I'd like the Massy to have a 7 km ASW range but I seem to do more than a bit of damage to subs as it is. I just reached out and touched a sub with an ASW strike in the match I played just now. Usually, I sink them with secondaries but this rascal was keeping hidden up close, hoping to pop up and shotgun me, I guess.

[MBT808]

5 hours ago, HogHammer said:

@Leo_Apollo11, thanks for the update/post.

I'm not overly critical of WG here or in private, but this is really a headscratcher. 

(1) This "notice" was published on reddit by "wows_official" and NOT on the WoWs Discord - only YOU made people aware of it on what I thought was the "official" mouthpiece (Discord) via a link (sure you're not part of the WG staff 🤣?)

(2) Why, during the "typo" correction on the devblog was there not a small box under the corrections with the same-like statement?  It would have pretty much eliminated any future discussion - we made a mistake, we let you know upfront, end of story.

This basically is first semester PR 101 - How to Communicate With Your Customers.  It is nice to see the statement "For the sake of transparency, we will make notes in devblogs if there are any major changes there, starting with this one". 

Really, what and how many times does it take to get your communications to your customer base straight?

Worse still, I just saw the correction box and it too has a typo:

December 5th: Fixed the Depth Charge Airstrike range for Musashi and Massachusetts. Added the Zaō line to the list of ships that will receive the Submarine Surveillance consumable.

Massachusetts and Musashi haven’t been changed back to the 7km before if that was the intention of the fix or if the previous reversion was the fix. I bring this up because there seems to be some sorta internal miscommunication is going on:

 

@Sailor_Moon credit for showing me the above.

Edited January 8 by MBT808

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Like you said "proposed" changes. Sure, I'd like the Massy to have a 7 km ASW range but I seem to do more than a bit of damage to subs as it is. I just reached out and touched a sub with an ASW strike in the match I played just now. Usually, I sink them with secondaries but this rascal was keeping hidden up close, hoping to pop up and shotgun me, I guess.

Still annoying to see proposed changes be hit with typos that don't get fixed in a public way...

Like I said, disappointing.

[Snargfargle]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Still annoying to see proposed changes be hit with typos that don't get fixed in a public way...

Like I said, disappointing.

I got issued size 7 Class A oxfords because a supply clerk read a handwritten "9" as a "7." I never got around to getting new shoes as I only wore them three times. I just soaked them in hot water and made them fit. 

[Nevermore135]

25 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

December 5th: Fixed the Depth Charge Airstrike range for Musashi and Massachusetts. Added the Zaō line to the list of ships that will receive the Submarine Surveillance consumable.

Massachusetts and Musashi haven’t been changed back to the 7km before if that was the intention of the fix or if the previous reversion was the fix. I bring this up because there seems to be some sorta internal miscommunication is going on:

I noticed that too, and I think this is supposed to be dated Jan 5, i.e. the day after the Dev blog was originally posted. IIRC, people were commenting on day one that the IJN CAs weren’t included in the list for getting sub surveillance despite WG saying (on stream?) earlier that they would (including only the Italian CAs and IJN CLs). They rolled all the edits into one (including the ASW range fixes to 5km) and got the date wrong.

Edited January 8 by Nevermore135

[Yedwy]

15 hours ago, mashed68 said:

What if it was one glorious person inside WG, hell bent on giving the player base something they want. And so they implimented the change, and top brass found out. Now they've been fired, are sleeping with Davey Jones, and WG is back to normal just like that.....

 

[mashed68]

The only people who get upset at WG's mistakes, are people who aren't used to WG's constant, never ending mistakes and strait out LIES to the community. Otherwise, a simple dev blog change is nothing to bat an eye at. 

[Pugilistic]

On 1/8/2024 at 1:46 PM, Jakob Knight said:

 

My own suspicion is there are two camps within WG.  One thinks that Discord is the venue of choice all WOWS players go to for their information and that any meaningful discourse will happen there.  The other believes the same of Reddit.  Both are different departments from the one that posts things on the Webpage, so we end up with things showing up in one of three places online, depending on who is writing and distributing the information that day.  WOWS upper management leave the situation as-is in order to keep players on as many social media services as possible to generate traffic in each and engender the idea that players will miss important information if they aren't actively reading all WOWS material on every site daily.

 

 

Its clear that there wasnt unanimity at WG over dumping the Forum; several of the CMs stood aloof and did not take part in carrying the water for WG in Discord over the change. 

[Jakob Knight]

"I was elected to lead, not to read."

 

 

Edited January 10 by Jakob Knight

[Humility925]

Hmm, someone calm to said WG wouldn't nerfed premium ships and only buff premium ships if necessarily since premium is a buy digital product, not free digital tech ship. Am I mistake to believe this? 

I had a good time when massachusetts come out long ago, it's fun to play brawl with secondary gun, day where CV are played on real time strategy map with plane, and able to handle it brawl petty good with secondary gun but of course CV can't handle brawl anymore or not used to be, and had to use one plane at a time as first person shooter, not real time strategy map anymore. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Humility925 said:

Am I mistake to believe this? 

Yes.

The EULA and all the official legalese states that WG can change or remove any ship at any time for any reason.

WG only tries to avoid making individual changes to premium ships, but there is no actual rule preventing WG from making changes...and WG have made changes, rarely, but it has happened.

[Aragathor]

42 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yes.

The EULA and all the official legalese states that WG can change or remove any ship at any time for any reason.

WG only tries to avoid making individual changes to premium ships, but there is no actual rule preventing WG from making changes...and WG have made changes, rarely, but it has happened.

Which has 0 legal power in the EU, as the EU consumer laws trump whatever WG writes. That's why the shop has the legal blurb about balance changes. Without it WG is not allowed to reduce the "value" of a premium ship bought with money, by nerfing it.

If WG tried to do that, then you just need to inform the responsible consumer protection agency at 0 personal cost (it's anonymous).

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

28 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Which has 0 legal power in the EU, as the EU consumer laws trump whatever WG writes. That's why the shop has the legal blurb about balance changes. Without it WG is not allowed to reduce the "value" of a premium ship bought with money, by nerfing it.

If WG tried to do that, then you just need to inform the responsible consumer protection agency at 0 personal cost (it's anonymous).

Well, then people should actually be doing that to the EU, as premiums have been individually nerfed in the past, even prior to the blurb about ships being able to be changed...

[Aragathor]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Well, then people should actually be doing that to the EU, as premiums have been individually nerfed in the past, even prior to the blurb about ships being able to be changed...

Never directly. It was always a global nerf due to changes in mechanics. WG was very careful about it.

Otherwise, they would have nerfed Enterprise and put it in the shop. Or moved Cesare to T6.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Never directly. It was always a global nerf due to changes in mechanics. WG was very careful about it.

Otherwise, they would have nerfed Enterprise and put it in the shop. Or moved Cesare to T6.

Nope.

Duke of York

Mikasa

Graf Zeppelin in 0.9.9

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

WG using Airstrike ASW range as a way to "nerf" their overperforming or overpowered ships is so backhanded and stupid so I dont really know what to make of it.

Every ship in this game needs to have a fair chance and way to deal with subs and CVs. If a ship is so overpowered they might consider actually nerfing the things that make it overpowered instead of creating just another way for sub players to harass certain ships with impunity.

Airstrike ASW is even on the best day a pure lottery RNG way of trying to hit something that cant be seen and only thing you go by is a surface marker that is nowhere near where the sub actually is.

[Aragathor]

45 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Nope.

Duke of York

Mikasa

Graf Zeppelin in 0.9.9

Could you please provide the exact nerfs that were directly applied to those ships and when? I checked the Wiki and found no nerfs that would qualify.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Aragathor said:

Could you please provide the exact nerfs that were directly applied to those ships and when? I checked the Wiki and found no nerfs that would qualify.

Graf Zeppelin in 0.9.9 had the level bomber flight parameters and reticle RNG changed. That plane was unique in attack style, and so while WG claimed it as part of a global change...the ACTUAL CHANGE was an individual nerf to the CV.

Mikasa had her secondary angles narrowed to prevent a situation where some of her guns were firing through the superstructure. An individual nerf to a premium sold as a 'bug' fix.

Duke of York had her AP arming parameters changed. WG claimed this as a buff...but it's effect was situational. Another individual change which could be assessed as a nerf.

The point is that there isn't any protection from nerfs...and WG will rightly point to the fact that they have always been clear that we don't own anything in game. So claiming they sold something that lost value is debatable.

[Nevermore135]

On 1/12/2024 at 10:58 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Duke of York had her AP arming parameters changed. WG claimed this as a buff...but it's effect was situational. Another individual change which could be assessed as a nerf.

 

I think you’re confusing DoY and Hood. The latter had her fuse timers increased to the BB-standard 0.033s, which is advantageous in some cases but detrimental in others. The change to DoY that I’m aware of is having her citadel raised. This change was supposedly made as part of a “global” change to UK BBs, with KGV receiving the same citadel adjustments and accompanying RP improvements. However, when American BBs (including Iowa) had received improved heals MO did not, which just goes to show that WG will selectively use whatever arguments it can to justify making the changes they want to.

Edited January 13 by Nevermore135

[clammboy]

47 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Graf Zeppelin in 0.9.9 had the level bomber flight parameters and reticle RNG changed. That plane was unique in attack style, and so while WG claimed it as part of a global change...the ACTUAL CHANGE was an individual nerf to the CV.

Mikasa had her secondary angles narrowed to prevent a situation where some of her guns were firing through the superstructure. An individual nerf to a premium sold as a 'bug' fix.

Duke of York had her AP arming parameters changed. WG claimed this as a buff...but it's effect was situational. Another individual change which could be assessed as a nerf.

The point is that there isn't any protection from nerfs...and WG will rightly point to the fact that they have always been clear that we don't own anything in game. So claiming they sold something that lost value is debatable.

Again this is all open to interpretation depending on which side of the fence your on or the point you trying to make . I think lots of people would disagree with your take here but you can make that claim. It just seems a little nit-picky for lack of a better word. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

32 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Again this is all open to interpretation depending on which side of the fence your on or the point you trying to make . I think lots of people would disagree with your take here but you can make that claim. It just seems a little nit-picky for lack of a better word. 

As if anyone's opinion on value loss but the customer's matters...

😄