KJ82 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 34 minutes ago, SolitudeFreak said: Hell, they didn't even need to mess with damage numbers. The removal of team spotting alone would address one of the biggest pain points about interacting with carriers. There is another big pain point ( i think ), and it wasnt adressed, namely, the loss of AA ( and secondary/etc ) mounts during battle. Carrier still can print planes just fine at the end, while you have half AA after some HE salvos. I heard Lesta is gonna adress this, but WG not, as it seems. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolGaming_Youtube Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 2 hours ago, Zysyss said: Agree Word is they are trying to push this through as fast as possible. When it comes to Wedgie this scares me the most. Just push any BS thru to live without any testing or quality control. Just rip and tear out some of the spaghetti coding and hope you dont introduce 100 new bugs into the game (like the Funny button bug we all realized just now). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDuckman Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 On 7/28/2024 at 9:28 PM, oldblackdog said: Heck...that knocks me out. Not enough room on my modest laptop. It's a pity, because I would have liked to take part. I wonder how many other players are in the same situation as me. Do you have the PT loaded? Delete it. You can always put it back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDuckman Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 On 7/29/2024 at 7:11 AM, Wolfswetpaws said: Yeah. I'm in a similar situation. I'd need to remove the normal PTS installation, in order to install the new/test installation. Why they couldn't simply use the normal PTS with a specific update? I don't know. Because that preempts the PT, and the PT is, in the instant, more important than TST. And the number of updates to TST is crazy. Small ones at least hourly; large ones maybe daily? You can't run a PT with that going on. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDuckman Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 On 7/29/2024 at 7:44 AM, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said: Yeah, looks like this "Nerf" or "Balancing" of CVs just was a huge Buff to a new Superclass. Who would have thought ....? Surprised...? Im no expert at CV sniping, that was before my time playing the class, but I guess the possibility to zoom over the map in 250 knots and not being forced to even maneuver to dodge flak or Def AA but just Bee-line to the enemy CV and then drop him with almost full immunity ........ will work quite well for a CV snipe. So my fear is all the good CV players will Nuke all the mediocre crap ones at the start of the battle and then one team is marked for death/loss after 2 min. It will be like one team got a CV from start and one didnt and also had 1 less ship from start. Sounds good? Sounds fun? "Balanced"?! Yup correct. Surface ships will have a window of maybe 2 seconds of limited damage during the attack and totally immune before and after. It will be literary impossible to get de-planed. But WG will still probably recommend us all to put all out surface skill points inte useless AA skills. Im also guessing that all CV secondary turrets will be 360 and superfireing so all turrets on target even to the Hull is running away only showing azz towards pushing surface ships. Why should CV turrets be limited by such things like physics or reality like the rest of the classes..... Holy WG Spreadsheets will tell them this ..... Maybe I will become a CV Main instead..... Complain whinge gripe. 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. Btw, they look in various places for reactions, but AIUI not here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldblackdog Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 5 minutes ago, iDuckman said: Do you have the PT loaded? Delete it. You can always put it back. No playtest server loaded (or any other WG product). I check my laptop regularly to see if there is anything I should delete, but there are some things that are more important (like pictures of my dog) than anything from WG-Land. A question for those of you with more tech-smarts than me (which means virtually everyone here). Would it be possible to load all of the WoWS related material on a large flash drive? Would the game run okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDuckman Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 4 minutes ago, oldblackdog said: No playtest server loaded (or any other WG product). I check my laptop regularly to see if there is anything I should delete, but there are some things that are more important (like pictures of my dog) than anything from WG-Land. A question for those of you with more tech-smarts than me (which means virtually everyone here). Would it be possible to load all of the WoWS related material on a large flash drive? Would the game run okay? Honestly, I don't know. But you might consider an external drive of another sort, HD or NVM. The throat is likely the USB connection. USB 3.0 is fast. 1.0 not so much. But WoWs it pretty forgiving. If you want to try it, you might be a winner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolitudeFreak Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 22 minutes ago, iDuckman said: If it doesn't work and especially if players hate it, it won't stay. There is a concern that this might not be true. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldblackdog Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 3 minutes ago, iDuckman said: Honestly, I don't know. But you might consider an external drive of another sort, HD or NVM. The throat is likely the USB connection. USB 3.0 is fast. 1.0 not so much. But WoWs it pretty forgiving. If you want to try it, you might be a winner. Thanks. I'll have to look into this further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBT808 Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 44 minutes ago, SolitudeFreak said: There is a concern that this might not be true. 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 9 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Then again, it can also get even worse. ....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 9 hours ago, SolitudeFreak said: Hell, they didn't even need to mess with damage numbers. The removal of team spotting alone would address one of the biggest pain points about interacting with carriers. But they've dug their heels in that team spotting via aircraft isn't a problem, because that's a mechanic they want CVs to have. So now they're going to do a stupid dance around the issue while they try and solve an issue they can't solve. Personally, I don't think spotting by aircraft, per se, is a problem. By now, you people probably know what my angle is when it comes to this game and the aerial recon itself as a concept is spot on. The issue, IMO, has to do with the spotting mechanics and how they allow you to 'see' what you should be seeing if the game were implementing the concept of the fog of war properly. This is why I am a proponent of the minimap spotting concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 I took a nice vacation break from the game...came back to read the thread on the changes... Yeah. Not sure I want to live through another rework. I have other games to play that are less of a train wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolGaming_Youtube Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) 6 hours ago, iDuckman said: Complain whinge gripe. 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. Btw, they look in various places for reactions, but AIUI not here. I get the feeling you must be new to this game and this game developer? Edited August 4 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 5 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. I'm in the "they needed more testing" category. That said, I felt submarines were close to being "just right" and "ready". A few adjustments here & there, perhaps a tweak or two, and they'd be good. And then WG/WOWs decided submarines were "good enough" and implemented them, despite the feedback regarding the most recent changes made just prior to their release from testing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragathor Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, iDuckman said: If it doesn't work and especially if players hate it, it won't stay. On Discord Killerbin is talking about "rethinking" and "adjustments" when asked about pushing this to live, against the player base. It's very naive to me to think WG will abandon this venture at any point. Edited August 4 by Aragathor 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majmac Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 I have to wonder why the CV secondaries have greater range than, say, the two German BBs in the test. , it seems that (on my impression playing all the cruisers, DDs and BBs) that the AA has been nerfed compared to earlier in the week. It takes an inordinate amount of time to build up the AA bar, let alone shooting down less planes, when compared to earlier in the week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolGaming_Youtube Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 13 minutes ago, majmac said: I have to wonder why the CV secondaries have greater range than, say, the two German BBs in the test. Not only that, BB players has been asking for ability to control secondaries since dawn of the game, since BBs usually are in the mist of battle, sometimes even at close range with smaller targets like subs/DDs ...... but WG gave it to CVs instead! Go figure ..... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 8 hours ago, iDuckman said: If it doesn't work and especially if players hate it, it won't stay Ummm..... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 1 hour ago, majmac said: I have to wonder why the CV secondaries have greater range than, say, the two German BBs in the test. , it seems that (on my impression playing all the cruisers, DDs and BBs) that the AA has been nerfed compared to earlier in the week. It takes an inordinate amount of time to build up the AA bar, let alone shooting down less planes, when compared to earlier in the week. The reason for the long range on the secondaries are two. First is that they are no longer secondaries. They are main battery guns in the same way they are on Destroyers, so the ranges become those of main guns. Secondly, we are talking T10, where the ranges get quite long indeed. If they had less ranges, they would likely never be used effectively before the CV died. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 55 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said: Ummm..... Yes, that sentiment seems very at odds with the history of the development of the game. The reality for me is that I'm tired of the constant changes. CVs haven't been well balanced for as long as I've played. Nothing in these changes seems to indicate that status will change. There is no motivation for me to waste time testing the new since my efforts to do so for past changes were met with outright hostility and petty punishments. If the changes ending up being implemented turn out to be bad...I will be gone. Plenty of other, better games out there to spend time on. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 49 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: The reason for the long range on the secondaries are two. First is that they are no longer secondaries. They are main battery guns in the same way they are on Destroyers, so the ranges become those of main guns. Secondly, we are talking T10, where the ranges get quite long indeed. If they had less ranges, they would likely never be used effectively before the CV died. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDuckman Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 8 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Yes, that sentiment seems very at odds with the history of the development of the game. It well may. But when have we seen WeeGee let players into development this early in the cycle. It's something new so I'm willing to be hopeful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 49 minutes ago, iDuckman said: It well may. But when have we seen WeeGee let players into development this early in the cycle. It's something new so I'm willing to be hopeful. Maybe...the scale of the changes though, that's a huge mountain to climb for a group that lost a LOT of coding talent and a leadership group that has had trouble allowing enough resources for proper, robust game development. Has senior leadership changed their attitude towards outside input? If not, then it's all just window dressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolitudeFreak Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 1 hour ago, iDuckman said: But when have we seen WeeGee let players into development this early in the cycle. Submarines. They certainly have one of the implementations of all time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now