For those of you curious about the CV test....

[ArIskandir]

19 hours ago, MBT808 said:

I mean, look at the sub implementation. Players were against(or at absolute best they needed more testing) their implementation even in WGs own survey, but they twisted the results to suit their narrative and implement subs despite their mechanic and balance issues. The same thing could absolutely happen here.

Well, we need to consider Sub development ran for like 2 years before whoever call the shots lost patience and shoved it out anyway. The problem with Subs started when it was decided to include them, once You take that decision there's no easy way out of it. 

Including Subs in this Game in a way that pleases all the involved parties is (as proved) a near imposible task.

[MBT808]

3 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Well, we need to consider Sub development ran for like 2 years before whoever call the shots lost patience and shoved it out anyway. The problem with Subs started when it was decided to include them, once You take that decision there's no easy way out of it. 

True.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Including Subs in this Game in a way that pleases all the involved parties is (as proved) a near imposible task.

Well, you can't please everyone(or by trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one as the saying goes), but arguably WG didn't even try. Instead of just admitting it didn't work or continuing to develop it, instead of trying to please all involved parties, they decided to please no one instead(essentially). The vocal community believed subs needed more time and their own survey even reflected that. The sub release decision was a poor one, lacking any business sense in my opinion. The damage they did was entirely self inflicted there.

Ultimately subs could've been better, or if not then it probably would've made more sense to listen to the consumer as opposed to continuing to jam that square peg into the triangular hole(way I see it, subs go beyond the round hole). I've seen developers of other games test things and decide to scrap when it was clear it didn't work, there is no reason then that WG couldn't have as well.

[Bai7200]

On 8/4/2024 at 5:32 AM, iDuckman said:

Don't you understand what is going on?  They're trying stuff out.  If it doesn't work and especially if players hate it, it won't stay.  Just play, tell them what you think, and save your whinging for when the mix sets up.

Well i dothink we have been here before.

CV rework, issues highligthed In testing, WG did nothing and implemented it. Then claimed for months/years that all was/is good.

Subs… The general feedback after testing, and after initial implementation was… please go back and try again, fully implemented with the meassage that all is good.

 

Similar for both are that WG since have accepted that not all is good and tried to fix it, but everytime they do it its with something highly complicated that make things worse or creates new issues.

This time they could have gone a long way with just making minimap spotting only, but no they just could not resist them self.

[ArIskandir]

7 hours ago, MBT808 said:

but arguably WG didn't even try. Instead of just admitting it didn't work or continuing to develop it, instead of trying to please all involved parties, they decided to please no one instead(essentially). The vocal community believed subs needed more time and their own survey even reflected that. The sub release decision was a poor one, lacking any business sense in my opinion. The damage they did was entirely self inflicted there.

They did try. I watched them try new approachs and react to feedback. The problem was (and still is) they didn't found a technical solution to integrate what is expected of Sub play to what they desire for the Game, they are stuck with ping/home mechanic as the core Gameplay loop, which in their opinion is the lesser evil.  

At the time of reléase, development was starting to go back in circles, there was not much point in keep delaying the choice, either scrap the entire thing or reléase whatever You had, and I don't think scrapping Subs was Even an option. 

That's a Big difference with the current CV test. These changes are 'optional', they can scrap the whole thing and nothing is Lost, CVs already exist in a semifunctional state. 

Edited August 5 by ArIskandir

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

29 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I don't think scrapping Subs was Even an option. 

That right there is the flaw in the business leadership. Scrapping has to ALWAYS be an option.

31 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

These changes are 'optional', they can scrap the whole thing and nothing is Lost, CVs already exist in a semifunctional state.

Are they optional?

The game already existed in a functional state without subs...yet they went ahead anyway.

[ArIskandir]

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That right there is the flaw in the business leadership. Scrapping has to ALWAYS be an option.

Modern economy is bases on growth. If You are not growing, You are dying (that's what they Say anyway). Was it really an option for this Game to ignore Submarines? 

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Are they optional?

The game already existed in a functional state without subs...yet they went ahead anyway.

Yes. There was a real expectative for Subs to be a path to further growth (money). 

These CV changes feel more like QoL improvements than a direct push for money, I don't see the straight translation here between changes and sales... So why I Say they are optional

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, ArIskandir said:

Modern economy is bases on growth. If You are not growing, You are dying (that's what they Say anyway). Was it really an option for this Game to ignore Submarines? 

That's a common management delusion.

Plus, even with that flawed model as guiding strategy, deliberately choosing a strategy that is knowingly failing, HOPING it will succeed is really bad decision making.

Good businesses do not get trapped in sunk cost fallacies. Good businesses are capable of scrapping bad ideas and moving on.

2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yes. There was a real expectative for Subs to be a path to further growth (money).

That expectation was based on nothing but pure speculation on the part of WG leadership...and the data coming out of the development was indicative that the speculation was WRONG. Yet leadership persisted anyway.

4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

These CV changes feel more like QoL improvements than a direct push for money, I don't see the straight translation here between changes and sales... So why I Say they are optional

Everything has a translation between changes and sales.

The very idea that there are optional and non-optional changes is the problem.

[Jakob Knight]

On 8/4/2024 at 9:50 AM, Wolfswetpaws said:

As a concept, I can understand that.
What follows, for me, are a couple of questions.

1.  The elevation & traverse and aiming mechanisms of the guns.
Obviously, WG/WOWs is going to be in-charge of the specifications and performance parameters, and they'll tweak the performance as they desire.
But, how did the guns actually perform in real-life?

2.  If they're now considered "main guns", then that implies they won't fire while not being controlled by the player.
Thus removing one of the multi-tasking possibilities of a CV player.
Example, using the auto-pilot to set a course for the hull, while flying the planes to a target and having the hull's secondary battery guns firing upon another (different) target.
So, I wonder if there's a way to have both functions (manual and automatic CV guns) available?
 

 

1.  "You must unlearn what you have learned".  There are no elevation and transverse aiming mechanisms for the gun.  They are fully capable of pivoting 180 degrees vertically to fire shells at their own citadels or at submerged targets, if WG desired or a bug to that effect occured.  This is not real life and real life has no bearing on the characteristics of these ships in the game setting.  A given system will do what the devs decide it will because that is what is needed for it to fulfill its role in their game.  "What truth?" "That there is no spoon."

 

2.  There is no such implication, as NPC bots have been firing main guns for quite some years now.  As long as the ship is under the player's direct control, the guns no longer fire on their own (as I understand it), but as soon as the player leaves on a plane and until they get back, an NPC bot may take control of the guns as it does currently.  That, of course, is according to the statements of the new changes, and if it is working will depend on if there is a bug in the code or not.

 

Note that if a CV has two different sizes of Secondary guns, the largest become main batteries while the Player is in direct control, while the smaller size batteries will remain automatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5 by Jakob Knight

[MBT808]

5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That's a common management delusion.

Plus, even with that flawed model as guiding strategy, deliberately choosing a strategy that is knowingly failing, HOPING it will succeed is really bad decision making.

Good businesses do not get trapped in sunk cost fallacies. Good businesses are capable of scrapping bad ideas and moving on.

It’s also important to point out that by time subs were being developed, WG had made so much money between WoWs and WoT that they could easily scrap. They have enough money to burn that it wouldn’t matter.

theres also the point of sales with premium ships. There’s what, two premium subs? I doubt that their selling that well, cause its well known that premium CVs have poor sales and their popularity is higher than subs(while stilling being very low). So they can’t be making their money back there. Which further validates that scrapping subs was probably the way to go in the long run.

[ArIskandir]

17 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

theres also the point of sales with premium ships. There’s what, two premium subs? I doubt that their selling that well,

That's an implicit recognition that Subs are not 'working'. Further Sub releases seem stalled. 

19 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Which further validates that scrapping subs was probably the way to go in the long run.

Yeah, but now the genie is out of the bottle, a recall looks unlikely. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yeah, but now the genie is out of the bottle, a recall looks unlikely. 

They did a full recall with the RTS CV rework with a similar number of premium CVs at the time...

Gave refunds and everything.

I'm always amused at how WG tries to pretend that there is no possible way to do something they don't like...in the face of obvious ways to actually do it.

It's just absurdly easy to point out the incompetence...

If WG leadership would put half the effort they use to defend their ego into admitting mistakes and fixing them, the game would be in a much better state and would be making far more money.

But no, ego is more important than profit, it seems.

Absurd.

Edited August 5 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[ArIskandir]

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

They did a full recall with the RTS CV rework with a similar number of premium CVs at the time...

Gave refunds and everything.

Interesting. I wasn't around at the time. So there is a precedent for recall

[Ensign Cthulhu]

35 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Further Sub releases seem stalled. 

Probably the surface ships we know about take priority. But you never know what's coming in 2025.

[Wolfswetpaws]

32 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Further Sub releases seem stalled. 

Despite the recent Arpeggio of Blue Steel collaboration, which is/was a "golden opportunity" to have provided anime enthusiasts with the ARP I-401 Submarine.
Yet, for whatever reason, the only new content was a a new Commander Hyūga and a new camo for the ARP Yamato.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Some people have expressed concerns that some posts might be going off topic. So let's try to ditch the subs for now, please.

[ArIskandir]

7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Some people have expressed concerns that some posts might be going off topic. So let's try to ditch the subs for now, please.

Lol sorry, totally Lost track about what this thread was about

[thornzero]

Well you already know I opted out of the test having zero experience in CV and very limited experience in Tier 1o.

Having watched some streamers play CV from time to time, I was sort of interested to try it this week-end.

Mine eyes were opened a little bit. CV is a bit challenging at first but once you get the hang of it aiming and flying it does seem to work okay. I improved with torpedoes faster than rockets while bombs were kind of hit or miss. I think rockets are tough for anyone new.

In about 15 battles I was able to max out at 57k damage, 2 frags, 7 torps, and 10 spottings. Spotting damage was a bit low in the 2o k range which would indicate that we had some losses based on a lack of teamwork.

Part of the reason I think I did 'okay' was having some knowledge of ships and maps. Or the obvious like avoid croozers and some BBs with strong AA. DFAA shreds planes fairly quickly. I managed to keep the hull in motion and had one secondary kill of an attacking DD. One torpedo devstrike on a BB.

But some of the things I learned was pretty interesting. Like after dropping fighters near a cap too close to a croozer or a DD with AA turned on shreds the fighters almost immediately. Now typically croozers don't always get too close to a cap, but within a reasonable distance. The thing is when I'm fighting DD it never occurred to me to turn on AA if I noticed a fighter. Also some DDs you spot from the air you are too close to line up an attack by the time you spot them. So a couple times the team asked me to spot a DD, I was able to spot but not attack because of how close I was to it. This was sort of interesting.

Flying over everything is kind of a nice view of the battle landscape. So I had to consider that I was having a bit of fun? I had one lousy karma point from a good brawl match and I said to myself, that point is probably gone with this CV experiment but I did keep it for awhile before it disappeared on a particular loss. I worked my way up the leaderboard from the bottom to the middle at least.

Engine boost is cool. Finishing off a couple boats towards the end of a battle is cool. Did I enjoy it more than DD or BB? No, but I'll probably play them a little here and there to keep it interesting. I can see why some guys like to CV. 

So hopefully any real changes that are forthcoming are a little better than we expect. 

 

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, thornzero said:

Like after dropping fighters near a cap too close to a croozer or a DD with AA turned on shreds the fighters almost immediately.

A good rule of thumb is to drop spotting fighters about 7-7.5km away from the ship you want spotted.

This is close enough to permaspot big ships, while far enough away to prevent AA from messing things up since most AA ranges are 6km or less and you want to account for your fighters moving in their patrol radius.

Most light cruisers air spotting range is equal to their AA range...so don't waste spotting fighters on those.

Teams that don't shoot at what you spot are indeed problematic...and infuriating, but it is what it is. You can't carry everyone.