Is the patch today the CV changes?

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I cant even imagine the day when WGs "experts" try and rip out all old spaghetti coding to try and cram in some new spaghetti coding into this game to start implementing the balancing changes. How many bugs do they on average create on each update, and most of them dont even include game mechanic changes!

Guessing it will be a good time to take a 4-6 month hiatus from tha game when that happens and just follow the "progress" in the forum threads. 

They couldn't even implement some new consumables into their latest game mode without them pouring over into Randoms. Wonder what will happen when they start re-code every spotting mechanic in the game, AA mechanic etc etc.

Interesting times ahead.

*If* I were in charge, I'd first hire programmers to create a clean and "from scratch" version of this game that adheres to the current game rules.
I'd have it tested for performance and conformity to the rules and as-described-in-the-Wiki game mechanics, and for bugs.
When it is working properly, I'd completely replace the current game with the new base-code.

My thinking is that the new & clean version could be properly documented and would have much less "spaghetti" to worry about.
Then, if changes to the rules and game mechanics are desired, this new version would be easier to work on (in theory).

But, I'm not in charge.  🙂 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

On 6/24/2024 at 2:56 PM, ArIskandir said:

I do wonder what's the rationale behind not being able to do something as elementary as switching back to your hull without needing to recall the planes. 

The removal of advantage for people who are naturally skilled at micromanaging. IMHO that was the whole point of the rework. 

[ArIskandir]

9 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

The removal of advantage for people who are naturally skilled at micromanaging. IMHO that was the whole point of the rework. 

nah... it's too an elemental thing to be something like that. Could it be an engine limitation? putting it simple, maybe it isn't possible for some technical reason

[Ensign Cthulhu]

8 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

nah... it's too an elemental thing to be something like that. Could it be an engine limitation? putting it simple, maybe it isn't possible for some technical reason

It wasn't an engine limitation in the RTS era. You controlled your hull and sometimes multiple flights of aircraft, including leaving weapons-dry flights orbiting as spotters.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

On 6/24/2024 at 2:24 PM, Frostbow said:

where you adamantly maintained that any balance changes Wargaming implements in the game is the result of their comprehensive homework and analysis of data, and not because of what the player base has cried out for.

So for once they have aligned and the playerbase is (maybe?) getting what it supposedly wanted - whether because WG listened or because WG decided to do this on its own is irrelevant. 

My point is that if they get it, they will soon find out the downside.

[ArIskandir]

1 minute ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

It wasn't an engine limitation in the RTS era. You controlled your hull and sometimes multiple flights of aircraft, including leaving weapons-dry flights orbiting as spotters.

But you did not controlled the planes on third person perspective, just over the mini map. Somwhere I read the new planes mechanic was an adaptation from the 'bullet view'... so planes are kinda shells you can control?  anyway... it's just speculation

[Frostbow]

1 minute ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

whether because WG listened or because WG decided to do this on its own is irrelevant. 

It is relevant because you keep on defending WG on one hand while you disparage the playerbase on the other hand. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

14 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

It is relevant because you keep on defending WG on one hand while you disparage the playerbase on the other hand. 

That's EC for you.

Everything bad is the players fault...everything good is from WG staff. It's pretty silly, IMO.

[MnemonScarlet]

16 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

But you did not controlled the planes on third person perspective, just over the mini map. Somwhere I read the new planes mechanic was an adaptation from the 'bullet view'... so planes are kinda shells you can control?  anyway... it's just speculation

It was probably the 3rd person switch, since you can also use the hull movement keys to control planes, it probably would have interacted badly or something. But also removing an element of control that more advanced players could use which creates skill gap was a bit of it.

5 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I cant even imagine the day when WGs "experts" try and rip out all old spaghetti coding to try and cram in some new spaghetti coding into this game to start implementing the balancing changes. How many bugs do they on average create on each update, and most of them dont even include game mechanic changes!

Guessing it will be a good time to take a 4-6 month hiatus from tha game when that happens and just follow the "progress" in the forum threads. 

They couldn't even implement some new consumables into their latest game mode without them pouring over into Randoms. Wonder what will happen when they start re-code every spotting mechanic in the game, AA mechanic etc etc.

Interesting times ahead.

It seems like it'd be even worse to do these spotting changes than 'just' minimap only spotting for team, too. Because IIRC radar will make someone in a cyclone only visible for you, but not anyone else (been awhile since I cyclone radared someone).

[clammboy]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

But, I'm not in charge. 

I don't think you want to be in charge either my good friend Wolf it's a thankless job. Make money for the company and make everyone happy with the game play. I know we have many know it all's here in the forums who think they could do better but the company and founder deserve some credit for coming up with these games. And keeping the game thriving for 8 years now.

They have there own niche your never going to make the whole fan base happy. Bottom line is company comes first fan base second you have to deal with that. I think they do a fairly good job of keeping everyone happy and regardless of the doomsayer's I don't see the the game going anywhere anytime soon.    

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, clammboy said:

I don't think you want to be in charge either my good friend Wolf it's a thankless job. Make money for the company and make everyone happy with the game play. I know we have many know it all's here in the forums who think they could do better but the company and founder deserve some credit for coming up with these games. And keeping the game thriving for 8 years now.

They have there own niche your never going to make the whole fan base happy. Bottom line is company comes first fan base second you have to deal with that. I think they do a fairly good job of keeping everyone happy and regardless of the doomsayer's I don't see the the game going anywhere anytime soon.    

Indeed.

None of us share the same vision.

It's far better to either make our own game or learn to accept the vision of this one.

...or hope for another group to make a game that is closer to our vision than this one.

[_KlRlTO_]

On 6/24/2024 at 3:41 PM, ArIskandir said:

I don't consider the changes leave CVs unworkable, it's just the changes themselves were not only overcomplicated but borderline irrational even for a 'game mechanic' perspective and totaly immersion breaking. This is actually the common problem of 'overengineering' a solution, it may work in theory but its 'applicability' can't stand reality.

No, Mr. Knight was right. The changes were definitely unworkable. There was a numerical logic gap in the system that was going to make CVs completely worthless as long as the surface ships were semi competent. What's worse is a group of players who realized it and had been part of the old "Remove CV" crawd began doubling down on bugging WG to actually implement it that way, just because doing do would effectively remove CVs unless a further rework could be done to reverse it.

The reality of the proposed CV changes, is the core values of it are non-workable nonsense that can't be implemented without being game breaking. CV and Sub are the future of the game, not because of how great they are, but because of how underdeveloped they are as a game resource. They already screwed up subs to the point another rework will be needed. They can't risk doing the same to CVs right now. The game would not survive it.

[Ferdinand_Max]

55 minutes ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

They can't risk doing the same to CVs right now. The game would not survive it.

Removing CVs and subs would be the best thing for the game, so yeah, it would survive it.

[tm63au]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

Removing CVs and subs would be the best thing for the game, so yeah, it would survive it.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

Removing CVs and subs would be the best thing for the game, so yeah, it would survive it.

I politely disagree.

The game is more interesting, challenging and entertaining with CV's and Submarines in it, I feel.

While the game isn't perfect, and implementation of various in-game processes may vex some players here & there, the ships existed in real-life and I feel they deserve representation in-game.

[Asym]

39 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I politely disagree.

The game is more interesting, challenging and entertaining with CV's and Submarines in it, I feel.

While the game isn't perfect, and implementation of various in-game processes may vex some players here & there, the ships existed in real-life and I feel they deserve representation in-game.

I thought we just had this discussion in another thread....?  🤣

Let's see? 

Dissimilar weapons systems exceed forward and backward, LOS constrained ships - check

Dissimilar weapons counter systems (AAA) aren't "first person aimed" counters - check

Dissimilar weapons systems cause game stress and are meta to boost sales - check

Dissimilar weapons systems operate "outside of the majority of the games weapons - check

Dissimilar weapons weapons have meta gimmicks that make them exceptional - check.

Dissimilar weapons operate "outside of the games" two dimensions and are not contained to distances - check

Dissimilar weapons have no place in the highest combat mode of this PVP game - check.

It "isn't perfect" is a a mild understatement.....

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, Asym said:

It "isn't perfect" is a a mild understatement.....

I can be optimistic, at times.  😉 

There are plenty of "gimmicks" in-game, distributed among various ships.
"Zombie-heal" Repair Party consumables that function during a battle.
Repair Party consumables that instantly restore function to incapacitated ship equipment.
Radar that functions through islands
Hydro-Acoustic-Search which also functions through islands.
Italian smoke generators that can conceal a ship she while sails at 40+ knots (unless the ship fires its guns, eh?).
Collisions with islands and friendly ships or sunken ship hulks do not cause damage.
Collisions with non-sunken opposing team ships cause damage (according to a complex formula).
Ships "appear" or "disappear" according to whether they are within a detection radius or not.
Guns of the same make & model, using identical ammunition and aiming systems, perform better when placed on a ship of a higher tier.

And etc. & etc.

It's not that I'm completely oblivious.  I'm merely having fun anyway.

Edited Wednesday at 02:26 PM by Wolfswetpaws

[Asym]

On 6/24/2024 at 11:46 AM, AdmiralThunder said:

Amen. Not only that but CV's really take it in the shorts not being able to even spot for themselves. I really hope WG realizes how dumb that is. I know a lot of people really hate that class but even they can't possibly think it is fair that a CV can't spot red ships with its planes even just for itself. WG is so clueless at times it defies logic.

I suspect they were looking at a KOTS compromise.   And, I just can't see how that will work in any form....

It'd be like subs with only periscopes to aim.  Who would buy that???

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That's EC for you.

Everything bad is the players fault...everything good is from WG staff. It's pretty silly, IMO.

Im pretty sure Wedgie staff has infiltrated this forum a long time ago considering the massive failure of their Discord thingy. Its not hard to detect who they might be in here.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

55 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Im pretty sure Wedgie staff has infiltrated this forum a long time ago considering the massive failure of their Discord thingy. Its not hard to detect who they might be in here.

Their Discord has failed?

I haven't been on there in a while now. What is the evidence of failure?

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Im pretty sure Wedgie staff has infiltrated this forum a long time ago considering the massive failure of their Discord thingy. Its not hard to detect who they might be in here.

Dude, everyone here is 'known' from the old Forum... There's no 'infiltrators', EC is just himself as he has always been for years; I'm also the same contrarían as always... Pissing people off (including WG staff) since 2016 😬 

Edited Wednesday at 06:27 PM by ArIskandir

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Their Discord has failed?

I haven't been on there in a while now. What is the evidence of failure?

I haven't been there in a long time as well, just heard reports of them banning and silencing players that has any uncomfortable opinions of the game from many different places. I guess there was a pretty clear reason behind them closing the old forums and changing it to Discord.

For me any type of censorship of opinions on a gaming forum is a massive failure.

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I guess there was a pretty clear reason behind them closing the old forums and changing it to Discord.

Yeah, Discord is much cheaper and far less resource intensive. Keeping the Forum was too much work for too little benefit (the key being the benefit part, what did they get out of the Forum?)

[Nevermore135]

43 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yeah, Discord is much cheaper and far less resource intensive. Keeping the Forum was too much work for too little benefit (the key being the benefit part, what did they get out of the Forum?)

Discord is insulated from web searches. Nuking the forums allowed WG to bury a lot of skeletons. It’s no coincidence that the move to Discord has coincided with several large marketing pushes towards new demographics. Someone at WG looked at the critical feedback on the forum and decided, in grand WG tradition, that a community rework was in order.

Edited Wednesday at 07:16 PM by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I haven't been there in a long time as well, just heard reports of them banning and silencing players that has any uncomfortable opinions of the game from many different places. I guess there was a pretty clear reason behind them closing the old forums and changing it to Discord.

For me any type of censorship of opinions on a gaming forum is a massive failure.

They started that foolishness from day 1 of the forum closure.