Was WoWS a better game back then or is it a better game now?

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "expectations" not being met crowd wants instant shooting-down of an entire squadron of planes within 2 seconds or less and zero damage done to their ship.
That, in my opinion, is unrealistic and an unhealthy expectation that is going to be a disappointing standard most of the time.

Nobody is having those ridiculous expectations though, Wolf. I'm not, at any rate. 

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Player knowledge of in-game mechanics may inspire them to "hit the 'O' key" to activate their priority-sector AA reinforcement and/or maneuver their ship.
Thus avoiding some or all of the damage that might have been scored by the planes that "got through".
And, historically, ships would maneuver to avoid aerial attacks when they could.  Which is why aerial attacks were best done when coordinated and simultaneously approached a target from multiple directions.  🙂 

I have no issue with WASD hax being a method of CV attack damage mitigation. That's fine. But that is again, a SEPARATE topic. WSAD hax =/= AA effectiveness. They're not the same subject. They are only similar in their ability to mitigate CV damage, but they are two different beasts regardless. You cannot buff WASD hax via Captain skills or Ship Upgrades, really. So again, very different methods here.

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

the point is that AA in game is exceeding "reality".

Ok, but again, that point has nothing to do with ingame mechanics. In short, it's irrelevant to how AA functions and whether it is worse or better post-rework. THAT is the ultimate question Wolf:

Are AA and AA builds more or less effective overall post-rework?

I argue that they are overall less effective post-rework. Texas and Atlanta stand as shining examples of this. They were GUTTED due to the AA mechanics changes. Loss of AA range hurt Texas a LOT too. AA builds simply are NOT worth the points invested save for an extremely select few cruisers or DDs. So no, AA is NOT in the best state at this time. It still requires attention.

[Sailor_Moon]

5 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I got tired of being dumped on by people who'd been strafing for two solid years. CV rework was the best thing that ever happened, and anyone who says otherwise is fixated on the fact that you could deplane a CV, forgetting all the other, indirect ways in which they could screw you over.

So in short, CVs have ALWAYS been a controversial, problematic ship type? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dareios]

1 minute ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

The amount of free premium ship content, including low, medium and high tier, that is available in the game today, compared to when I started six years ago, means that a player who wants a broad swath of premium ships of all types in most navies at most tiers need never open their wallet.

I am the owner of current;y 78 T10 ships alone, and I have spent exactly zero dollarydoos obtaining them. One could point out that I have arguably spent an unhealthy amount of free time grinding various ways to get all my free ships, but hey, I was probably going to spend that time playing games anyway.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Gillhunter said:

In plain English you haven't seen a CV de-planed since the rework.

I haven't either and actually had a COOP match as the only human in the Halland spec'd for AA.......  And, was on the cap with one DD (me) and the CV headed towards that CAP.....  I didn't fire a main gun round and simply, the CV would not come near me, even when he could see me !!!  And, here we think you can deplane a CV........no.

Although, I was number 6 overall a few years ago with 121 planes shot down......

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most of time I manage the planes well enough to only have one plane type sidelined for a period of time as the spares are brought from storage or flown-in.
But I've had some matches where the squadrons were depleted since the re-work.

Me too.  Although, if I had a say in the AA debate, I'd make AA and ASW a dedicated ship function.  So that, AA spec'd ships had that specific function.  Same with ASW.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 minute ago, Sailor_Moon said:

So in short, CVs have ALWAYS been a controversial, problematic ship type? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Less problematic now than then, as far as I am concerned. The rework broke the chokehold of the naturally gifted micromanager/multitasker CV unicums. 

Anyone who thought they could use the shift to rework carriers to bully WG into taking them entirely out of the game was deluding themselves. It seemed to me that most of the vocal ones were DD unicums who would have been totally unfettered in a game without CVs.

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

The amount of free premium ship content, including low, medium and high tier, that is available in the game today, compared to when I started six years ago, means that a player who wants a broad swath of premium ships of all types in most navies at most tiers need never open their wallet. 

The commander rework means that they can retrain their tech-tree commanders in a single premium ship of a particular nation whose ideal skill set might have nothing to do with the ship the commander came from (e.g. if all I have is a premium DD, I won't be compromising my performance in her because the commander has optimized BB, cruiser, SS or CV skills). My first 19 pointer in every nation had to take a compromise build for cruiser, destroyer and BB; my 21 pointers can optimize.

The econ rework means that I can go all-in on commander retraining or advancement on a premium ship that I like without having to waste ship XP boosts. 

I've probably ground more ships faster since the econ rework than before it, and more 21 point commanders since the captain rework than 19 pointers before it (and some of my 19 pointers from before are still at 19 points, whereas some of the 21 pointers I have now came up from 12 or 13).

 

I got tired of being dumped on by people who'd been strafing for two solid years. CV rework was the best thing that ever happened, and anyone who says otherwise is fixated on the fact that you could deplane a CV, forgetting all the other, indirect ways in which they could screw you over.

Well... I think it's safe to say we are at the opposite ends of the 'spectrum' as far as this goes, though I don't quite understand how the inexhaustible supply of premium ships helps if the player does not intend to loosen their purse strings.

Nonetheless, do the pro's outweigh the con's? Do the gains fully compensate for the losses? Do you acknowledge that something's been lost to begin with?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Nonetheless, do the pro's outweigh the con's? Do the gains fully compensate for the losses?

In my opinion, yes. 

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Do you acknowledge that something's been lost to begin with?

What do you think you lost?

To me, anything that's been lost matters less than the better things (IMHO) that replaced it. Every now and then I wish we'd had a little longer with RTS CV so that I could have got good with it, but something like the rework was always going to happen and better to get it over and done with before they had too many more CV lines to rebalance. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

In my opinion, yes. 

What do you think you lost?

To me, anything that's been lost matters less than the better things (IMHO) that replaced it. Every now and then I wish we'd had a little longer with RTS CV so that I could have got good with it, but something like the rework was always going to happen and better to get it over and done with before they had too many more CV lines to rebalance. 

The thing is, I don't share your opinion 'the better things'. Let me pause for a moment to think what I have lost.

I've lost the ability to play AA specced cruisers. I could still do it, but they have less of a purpose now, and their effectiveness is so reduced that they'd rather need help at their role and are otherwise next to useless except as practice targets for enemy BB's.

I've also lost the ability to tailor my combat performance by using captain skills to improve my gameplay performance. This is a serious drawback for me and has led to reduced intrest in the game overall.

I've lost the ability to have meaningful battles in the random gamemode (this is where the subs come in) and I feel I lack the necessary countermeasures and potential to adapt (missing captain skills) to the changed meta in randoms.

Then again, I have gained something too. I have gained wisdom in not falling prey to WG's predatory monetizing practices, a huge plus, and I have also gained the ability to go into battle naked. There's one good thing WG did do, and that is reintroduce many of the missing operations. This is especially important because it's allowed me to 'retreat' into this only remaining meaningful game mode and stay in the game.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

43 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

AA is NOT in the best state at this time. It still requires attention.

My gut tells me that the solution is simply to properly model the performance of the AA guns as they were capable of operating during their historic service era (WW-I through WW-II).
Then whenever a ship is equipped with <insert name here> guns & projectiles the known performance will be properly modeled by the game programming.
And let the chips, or flak bursts, fall where they may.

I'd do the same with all the guns & torpedoes, personally.  But it's not something I'm in charge of.

The recent changes in squadron mechanics should also mollify many of the "AA is worthless" sentiments.
If a plane is shot down during an attack upon a target, the plane isn't replaced by one zooming-down from the remaining portion of the squadron which might be loitering above the target.
Each plane shot down reduces the potential strength of an aerial attack run (in progress) on a target.
 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Wolfswetpaws]

46 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Are AA and AA builds more or less effective overall post-rework?

I argue that they are overall less effective post-rework.

Aside from the Russian CV's, the majority of the post-rework CV's had their attack capabilities gutted, too.
No more using two or more squadrons simultaneously on one target.
No more using all the planes in a squadron to perform an attack run on a target.
Depending upon the tier of CV, the attack may consist of one plane attempting to deliver one torpedo. 
Granted, higher tiers of play involve more planes per attack.  But, I think you get the point.

So ship's AA was no longer having to shoot at a larger number of planes at once after the CV re-work, right?
And thus the AA was something that WG/WOWs changed to mirror the "threat" posed by planes.
One could also argue that WG/WOWs wanted to attract more CV players, and tailored the re-work to make CV play less unforgiving.

Which, circles us back to the Russian CV's and me wondering what the Developers were thinking by partially bringing back the threat represented by RTS CV's, eh?

[Sailor_Moon]

18 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My gut tells me that the solution is simply to properly model the performance of the AA guns as they were capable of operating during their historic service era (WW-I through WW-II).
Then whenever a ship is equipped with <insert name here> guns & projectiles the known performance will be properly modeled by the game programming.
And let the chips, or flak bursts, fall where they may.

...So in short, AA based on # of mounts/mount power? Was that not how it was Pre-Rework though? that's why a ship like California would be so exciting back then, because she has over 100 AA mounts. Yet in the current system, a DD with FAR less actual AA power than her is dominating her AA capabilities (a DD like Halland, for instance). to the point where you'd build Halland for AA, but not California.

Am I getting the gist of what you're saying?

[Sailor_Moon]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Aside from the Russian CV's, the majority of the post-rework CV's had their attack capabilities gutted, too.
No more using two or more squadrons simultaneously on one target.
No more using all the planes in a squadron to perform an attack run on a target.
Depending upon the tier of CV, the attack may consist of one plane attempting to deliver one torpedo. 
Granted, higher tiers of play involve more planes per attack.  But, I think you get the point.

So ship's AA was no longer having to shoot at a larger number of planes at once after the CV re-work, right?
And thus the AA was something that WG/WOWs changed to mirror the "threat" posed by planes.
One could also argue that WG/WOWs wanted to attract more CV players, and tailored the re-work to make CV play less unforgiving.

Which, circles us back to the Russian CV's and me wondering what the Developers were thinking by partially bringing back the threat represented by RTS CV's, eh?

Well good luck trying to figure out what Wargaming is thinking. I've been trying to do that for OVER 3 years, to no avail 😛

That said...Russian CV plane mechanics (1 squadron, all attack at once) COULD potentially be the answer. IF all CVs were like this, and let's say AA is UNTOUCHED, no changes...That might work, assuming the planes have to attack within AA range (which makes sense and is fair). I think that's the issue with Russian CVs. It's not really just the "all attack at once" that's the issue. It's attacking outside of AA range, that's the issue.

If all CVs used the "all Attack at once" squadron mechanics, and HAD to get with AA range to attack, AA build WOULD be effective, because then you can directly mitigate damage by shooting down planes. Of course, you won't shoot them all down, and that's fine. But it would make AA feel like it's actually doing something against CV strikes.

Furthermore, it would actually make AA builds on ships with high AA ratings viable, even for battleships....

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

...So in short, AA based on # of mounts/mount power? Was that not how it was Pre-Rework though? that's why a ship like California would be so exciting back then, because she has over 100 AA mounts. Yet in the current system, a DD with FAR less actual AA power than her is dominating her AA capabilities (a DD like Halland, for instance). to the point where you'd build Halland for AA, but not California.

Am I getting the gist of what you're saying?

I think you're getting the gist of it.

Take "AA Gun <make & model here>" and use ballistics calculations and real-world data to model its performance.
Then whenever that gun is used, the performance will be constant for that gun.

Then the AA performance of a ship will be modeled according to the specific AA guns and the quantity of them being used and which ones can actually fire upon a target (due to firing arcs of the gun).

The current game tweaks this by making the same gun perform more powerfully when mounted on a higher-tier ship.
I'd eliminate that 'tweak'.
 

[Sailor_Moon]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I think you're getting the gist of it.

Take "AA Gun <make & model here>" and use ballistics calculations and real-world data to model its performance.
Then whenever that gun is used, the performance will be constant for that gun.

Then the AA performance of a ship will be modeled according to the specific AA guns and the quantity of them being used and which ones can actually fire upon a target (due to firing arcs of the gun).

The current game tweaks this by making the same gun perform more powerfully when mounted on a higher-tier ship.
I'd eliminate that 'tweak'.
 

I mean...personally, it certainly seems to make sense to do it this way. But Wargaming's weird like that about these things that make sense. And we're not even talking historicity here, we're just talking about logic. And the balance would probably be a lot better overall in terms of AA power. The larger ships would be easier to hit, BUT they have a lot more AA than DDs or cruisers. USN BBs would get their AA power back, probably. That would be nice!

[Folded_1000_Times]

Id gladly pay the CV tax pre 2018 by getting absolutely dumpstered by them once every 10 games. 

[AdmiralThunder]

I have been playing since 2016. FWIW here is my answer as far as old vs new and where I think WG went wrong in a sort of chronological order...

• The Golden Age of WOWS. For me anyway, the best time period of this games was probably 2017-2018. I just enjoyed the game more then, WG seemed to listen to us a bit more (hence all the positive changes for Co-op players like me brought about through WOWS NA forum posts and interactions with WG as an example), and it seemed to be on a good track for years to come.  Every single aspect wasn't monetized, ships weren't released at insane rates like now, game play was fairly balanced overall, and veteran players weren't shafted at every turn. I really liked the game then and I spent a lot of $$$ in that period. If we could roll WOWS back to what it was like/the direction it was going in 2017-2018 I would vote with a resounding YES over keeping the dumpster fire the game has become!
• Update 0.8.0/CV Rework. This was where WG made the wrong choice at the metaphorical fork in the road, and they have continued down the wrong path without turning back ever since. The wrong people were given creative control/listened to (public enemy number one is Sub_Octavian  - he is the single worst thing from a person having input perspective to ever happen to WOWS IMHO), the mindset of just about everything seemed to change around this time frame (especially towards the players & even more so veteran players), and WG shifted from a business making money to predatory practices and outright greed. The CV Rework itself was a true disaster. The neutering of AA was IMO the worst part of it. I actually prefer the current CVs to play vs the old RTS type and I don't miss the old 1 alpha strike and you are nuked RTS days at all. I actually prefer the CV's we have now to play and play against JUST strictly speaking of them. The changes to AA (overall, Capt Skills, and modules) which so weakened it and made CV's so strong, coupled with CV's having plane printing shops on board, was a colossal screw up though and, IMHO, is why CV's are so hated now. Not so much the actual changes to CV's themselves but rather what WG did to AA. If we had effective AA as we did in the RTS days, so we could have some counter and defense vs a determined CV attack, I don't think CV's would be hated so much. WG's refusal to admit this, and their continued claims CV's are fair and balanced (despite change after change made showing they are not), makes you shake your head. I fear the new Support CV's with the totally ridiculous air dropped mines will just make things even worse as it relates to CV's. That is another very, very, VERY, bad decision as far as CV's go. Players already hate the class, and don't have a lot of counter vs them, so let's add yet another mechanic to them that makes the players hate them even more and that they can't do anything about (effective). Just unbelievable.
• OG Puerto Rico Dockyard. This was a complete and total fiasco. We got the old bait and switch (ie; PTS vs actual), the most insane grind we had ever seen, the cost was one of the first where you really went WOW what are they smoking, and they came out and were blatantly hostile towards the players with comments made. The whole thing was horrendous. The creator of that mess should have been fired on the spot.
• Moskva Camo Gate. Lots of things happened the players didn't like, and WG continued to get worse and worse as far as monetization, game changes, and treatment of the players, after the PR Dockyard. The next thing that jumps out in my mind that really caused an uproar was the Moskva Camo Gate situation during the Russian Cruiser Line split. That one REALLY sat wrong with me. That was when my wallet started to close. WG's attitude that they could basically take a perma camo we paid for with real money, turn it into a freebie, and not compensate us really rubbed people the wrong way. Telling us "we had got our use out of it" as justification for no compensation just made it all worse. They did make it right down the road a long time after but man that was a bad situation and was handled horribly by them (shocker).
• Captain Skill Rework. Not long after Moskva Camo Gate yet another freaking cluster was dropped on us in the Captain Skill Rework. While the rework did bring a lot of changes many players like (tbf there are some good changes in it) it also had a lot of bad associated with it; a LOT! The main negative (for me anyway) was increasing an elite Capt from 19 pts to 21 pts; and making the grind from 19-21 70% of what it takes to get from 0-19. That was a massive moving of the goal post. I had 54 19pt Captains at that time. I worked hard (well you know what I mean it isn't "work") to get them there. Here we are 2.5+ years later and I have just 28 21 pt Captains. Just 51% of my 19 pt Captains have been raised to 21 pts in over 2.5 years of play! Just ridiculous. The moving of the goal post, and the HUGE grind to get from 19-21 pts, just made me no longer care (the Economic Rework also played into this with reduced CP earnings - see below). This could have been a pretty much total positive change for WG, because as said it had some good points/changes, but with so many negatives part of it the rework is a big negative overall (IMHO anyway). Other negative things about it that stand out for me are: 
  • You end up with the same basic skill point benefits from 21 pts as you got from 19 pts. Adding 2 more pts didn't benefit us skill wise it just increased the grind to elite by 70%.
  • Many skills that were really good were eliminated altogether or only allowed on some ship classes. Many of the new skills suck and are useless.
  • WG claimed this was for "diversity of build" as the old system had everyone building Captains the same. That is still the case now and nothing changed. There was some leeway/diversity of build in the old system and there is some in this new one but for the most part builds are still the same basic ones everyone uses.
• Compensation Nerf(s). A HUGE change that has all but closed my wallet. WG started nerfing compensation bit by bit and here and there and it has got to the point it is a joke. Suddenly a duplicate ship brought credits instead of doubloons if earned via a mission and if it came out of a crate you bought, they started giving some "other" reward or reduced Doubloons. Another in a long line of nerfs for veteran players and an overall reduction in quality/value of rewards in general. They are perfectly willing to give a player a ship who doesn't have it at a pixel value of X$$$ but don't want to give a veteran compensation in equal Doubloon pixel value. It baffles me how clueless they are and how badly they treat veteran players. They have taken away any incentive there is for a veteran to spend on the game. It is one of the reasons why my wallet is mostly closed these days. 
• Economic Rework. Another bad change overall (IMHO) despite it having some good with it. I am not a fan of this change even though quite a few players are. They could have made small changes to things like letting players run the camo they want (for visuals) without redoing everything. But instead, WG redid every aspect of it and screwed a whole bunch of it up (a lot on purpose make no mistake).  WG made camos 100% useless yet continues to push them on us as rewards and sell them as if nothing changed. They should have at least left the +3%/-4% on them. That at least would give them a purpose. I am not a fan of the new boost system vs the old flags and camo with bonuses either and for the simple reason you need to use red boosts to beat out the old system. Red boost are as common as honest politicians. I much preferred the old system to the new. Flags and camos were super easy to get free and the benefits from using them were enormous. With the boosts you need to use blue at a minimum to come close to the old system and they are not easy to get. We get gray and green boosts fairly easy but their benefits are very limited. So WG really nerfed it by making it necessary to use the blue and red boosts to earn like we used to and then made those really hard to get. I am not a fan of the conversation process they came up with that drastically limited our blue and red boost #'s in favor of tons of gray and green either. They also snuck in a big nerf to FXP and CXP earnings. They changed how those are calculated. XP earned no longer determines FXP/CXP earned as it used to. No more stacking XP bonuses with FXP or CXP bonuses to really get big numbers. FXP and CXP is now based off BXP and only the FXP or CXP boost bonus applies.  So short of a red boost really it is nerfed rewards. The whole rework was touted as benefitting the players when in reality it was a blanket nerf to benefit WG and reduce our earnings. Maybe if they were just honest and admitted it was reworked because they felt we were earning too much I wouldn't be so angry at what they did. As usual though, they lied about why it was done and what was done. Not a fan but YMMV.
• Submarines. Oh boy, don't get me started. 🤬🤬🤬This is the single worst thing done to the game IMHO (to date - this is WG after all). While I am not opposed to Subs being added in general, I am vehemently opposed to HOW they did so. Subs are by far the most broken, unbalanced, unfair, and most unfun to play against class in the game and it is not close. Give me a 2 CV game, in a ship where I have no AA at all, over a game with even just 1 Sub any day. I despise them with a passion. Never mind all the ridiculous and asinine things about them like speeds, not being hydro or radar spotted at ALL times like every other ship class (I mean God forbid hydro, which was designed to detect submerged Subs, actually can do so in game but it can detect a ship behind and island), the sheer lunacy of the number of DC hits or shell hits it takes to sink one, how the IRL counter to them (DD's) are the least able to do so in game, how the ping markers that are supposed to tell us where a submerged Sub is are not even remotely close to where they actually are, and on and on let's talk homing torps and the whole mechanic associated with them. This game covers a set time period and while I know it is not a historical simulator it does cover a defined era for the most part (roughly start of 1900's - end of WW2/start of Korean War). While liberties are taken in the name of balance and game play (like unlimited torpedoes and shells) we still get era appropriate things on the other classes (no nukes on a WW1 era BB like Nassau for instance). In the era this game represents homing torps were in their infancy (mid to late WW2) and extremely ineffective yet what we have in game amounts to modern era guided munitions. It's laughable how they have added modern homing torps (performance) to a WW2/Korea and earlier era game. Not only that, WG's way of mitigating it is to tie it to the already overtaxed DCP making it an even bigger issue vs giving ships a separate counter to them like noise makers (available in WW2 when homing torps 1st appeared as a counter). It is compounded further by how fast Subs can ping and reload torps. So even if you use DCP to break ping lock the Sub can just ping you again when DCP goes into cool down and the 1st torps can reacquire and turn up to 90 degrees to get you or another set is already reloaded and on the way. If you somehow avoid the Sub you end up on fire and flooding from other ships because DCP is unavailable. It's a no win situation/vicious cycle for the poor chump the Sub is targeting. The ability of Subs to shotgun folks in this game is flat out disgusting as well. Subs as added need to be removed and completely reworked into something that is fair and fun to both play AND play against. WG will never do that though as it would mean admitting they were wrong and they won't do that.  
• Not listening to the players. I understand WG can't let the players balance the game. Players are too biased towards their own preferences. If a DD main was balancing the game DD's would be massively OP. Same goes for BB mains and so forth. So WG needs to be the one to balance and do so in an unbiased manner (which they fail at btw - abundantly clear those making balance decisions favor certain classes). However, when players are very clear they don't want something, dislike something a LOT, bring up problems, express the desire for things to be added that improve the game experience for them, etc... WG needs to listen and respond. It may be their game but if the players dislike it so much they stop playing and/or spending WG has no game to profit from. They can't seem to grasp the very simple concept that happy players will play and spend more than unhappy ones. They will never make everyone happy but they sure as hell can do better than they have to this point at making the overall player base happy. Simple things like fixing the damn game bugs, new maps, giving us a ship reserve in port to clean up the carousel clutter, etc... are QOL things they could do to improve player happiness but oh no can't have that. Happy players? Perish the thought. Better to shove out new ships at blazing speeds than actually fix the core game which the players actually want and have repeatedly asked for. 
• Mode Additions. This is a big one. WG needs to stop adding special modes like Arms Race and Escort to standard mode rotations in Randoms and Co-op. It flat out sucks. Those modes are fine as special event modes, and many people enjoy them there, but they do not belong in the rotation for standard Random and Co-op. The special modes drastically alter how Randoms/Co-op is played and often certain ship types aren't suited for them. Just because people like Escort as a special event now and then it doesn't mean they want it rammed into Randoms and Co-op. WG making changes for change sake basically at this point. I barely play Randoms now with Subs in it and Escort being added will just make me want to play it less. And I hate Arms Race in Randoms and Co-op.
• Never Ending Lies. This is another huge issue for WG. I swear these people have no moral compass, integrity, or even the smallest sense of doing what is right. Not those in the decision-making positions anyway. I am sure there are some good folks in the company, but they are overshadowed by the bad ones. The 2023 Anniversary event debacle is the most recent example of this. "We are nerfing SC content, because players are getting too much stuff (total BS but whatever), so as not to have to alter the Anniversary system". WG then goes out and not only changes the Anniversary event system but nerfs rewards even more. Just so tired of their constant and no stop lies. Just be honest with the players. We may not like what you say/do but being honest is far better than lying all the time and then having to do damage control to try and fix it when caught.
• Don't Play Their Own Game. This speaks for itself and is a huge part of the problems with this game IMHO. I truly believe those making these decisions don't actually play the game. They just sit at a desk somewhere and come up with ideas based on spreadsheets. If they actually did play the game and had to experience the frustration of playing vs Subs with how BS and broken they are, vs CV's with AA so ineffective, trying to deal with game bugs and other bad mechanics (non stop overpens for one comes right to mind), etc... maybe things would be better. But as it is they don't have a clue and it is painfully clear to those of us who do play WOWS that those making the decisions don't play it..

WG themselves truly are their own worst enemy. They need a change at the top desperately and they need to get off this track they are on and back to where they were heading before the Cv Rework and the big shift in things.

Sorry for the rant. Apparently, I had a lot built up to say. 🤣

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I joined the game to play RTS carriers...specifically to play USN RTS carriers optimized for fleet air defense.

I really...REALLY enjoyed the cat and mouse with the opposing CV player for air superiority and then once that was achieved, being the ultimate team player spotter / strike vessel.

I enjoyed watching content from Farazelleth and Femenennly to help me learn...and there were a couple of other CCs who were very helpful.

The RTS system had major flaws. I watched all of my CV CCs make brilliant assessments of the problems and propose elegant solutions. They were ignored in favor of incompetent hatchet job changes...then the rework was announced with MAJOR issues.

WG staff and fanboys said to give feedback and it would be fine. We gave feedback...and the rework launched with no changes whatsoever...and dismissive and disrespectful staff and CMs telling the CCs and testers to pound sand.

Within a WEEK, the flying Shimakaze exploit had forced MAJOR changes on the game...ALL of which was predicted in the feedback WG was given from the PTS testing.

In the notes detailing the fix, WG blamed the testers for not informing them of the balance issues.

It took SIX MONTHS for WG staff to admit that they had actually not even bothered to read the feedback from the PTS before launching the rework...but they never apologized for basically throwing the CCs and the testers under the bus for the fiasco.

Fara and Fem both left the CC program and basically the game.

I saw first hand how toxic, incompetent, and petty WG staff were.

The game has been downhill ever since.

[Sailor_Moon]

26 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I have been playing since 2016. FWIW here is my answer as far as old vs new and where I think WG went wrong in a sort of chronological order...

• The Golden Age of WOWS. For me anyway, the best time period of this games was probably 2017-2018. I just enjoyed the game more then, WG seemed to listen to us a bit more (hence all the positive changes for Co-op players like me brought about through WOWS NA forum posts and interactions with WG as an example), and it seemed to be on a good track for years to come.  Every single aspect wasn't monetized, ships weren't released at insane rates like now, game play was fairly balanced overall, and veteran players weren't shafted at every turn. I really liked the game then and I spent a lot of $$$ in that period. If we could roll WOWS back to what it was like/the direction it was going in 2017-2018 I would vote with a resounding YES over keeping the dumpster fire the game has become!
• Update 0.8.0/CV Rework. This was where WG made the wrong choice at the metaphorical fork in the road, and they have continued down the wrong path without turning back ever since. The wrong people were given creative control/listened to (public enemy number one is Sub_Octavian  - he is the single worst thing from a person having input perspective to ever happen to WOWS IMHO), the mindset of just about everything seemed to change around this time frame (especially towards the players & even more so veteran players), and WG shifted from a business making money to predatory practices and outright greed. The CV Rework itself was a true disaster. The neutering of AA was IMO the worst part of it. I actually prefer the current CVs to play vs the old RTS type and I don't miss the old 1 alpha strike and you are nuked RTS days at all. I actually prefer the CV's we have now to play and play against JUST strictly speaking of them. The changes to AA (overall, Capt Skills, and modules) which so weakened it and made CV's so strong, coupled with CV's having plane printing shops on board, was a colossal screw up though and, IMHO, is why CV's are so hated now. Not so much the actual changes to CV's themselves but rather what WG did to AA. If we had effective AA as we did in the RTS days, so we could have some counter and defense vs a determined CV attack, I don't think CV's would be hated so much. WG's refusal to admit this, and their continued claims CV's are fair and balanced (despite change after change made showing they are not), makes you shake your head. I fear the new Support CV's with the totally ridiculous air dropped mines will just make things even worse as it relates to CV's. That is another very, very, VERY, bad decision as far as CV's go. Players already hate the class, and don't have a lot of counter vs them, so let's add yet another mechanic to them that makes the players hate them even more and that they can't do anything about (effective). Just unbelievable.
• OG Puerto Rico Dockyard. This was a complete and total fiasco. We got the old bait and switch (ie; PTS vs actual), the most insane grind we had ever seen, the cost was one of the first where you really went WOW what are they smoking, and they came out and were blatantly hostile towards the players with comments made. The whole thing was horrendous. The creator of that mess should have been fired on the spot.
• Moskva Camo Gate. Lots of things happened the players didn't like, and WG continued to get worse and worse as far as monetization, game changes, and treatment of the players, after the PR Dockyard. The next thing that jumps out in my mind that really caused an uproar was the Moskva Camo Gate situation during the Russian Cruiser Line split. That one REALLY sat wrong with me. That was when my wallet started to close. WG's attitude that they could basically take a perma camo we paid for with real money, turn it into a freebie, and not compensate us really rubbed people the wrong way. Telling us "we had got our use out of it" as justification for no compensation just made it all worse. They did make it right down the road a long time after but man that was a bad situation and was handled horribly by them (shocker).
• Captain Skill Rework. Not long after Moskva Camo Gate yet another freaking cluster was dropped on us in the Captain Skill Rework. While the rework did bring a lot of changes many players like (tbf there are some good changes in it) it also had a lot of bad associated with it; a LOT! The main negative (for me anyway) was increasing an elite Capt from 19 pts to 21 pts; and making the grind from 19-21 70% of what it takes to get from 0-19. That was a massive moving of the goal post. I had 54 19pt Captains at that time. I worked hard (well you know what I mean it isn't "work") to get them there. Here we are 2.5+ years later and I have just 28 21 pt Captains. Just 51% of my 19 pt Captains have been raised to 21 pts in over 2.5 years of play! Just ridiculous. The moving of the goal post, and the HUGE grind to get from 19-21 pts, just made me no longer care (the Economic Rework also played into this with reduced CP earnings - see below). This could have been a pretty much total positive change for WG, because as said it had some good points/changes, but with so many negatives part of it the rework is a big negative overall (IMHO anyway). Other negative things about it that stand out for me are: 
  • You end up with the same basic skill point benefits from 21 pts as you got from 19 pts. Adding 2 more pts didn't benefit us skill wise it just increased the grind to elite by 70%.
  • Many skills that were really good were eliminated altogether or only allowed on some ship classes. Many of the new skills suck and are useless.
  • WG claimed this was for "diversity of build" as the old system had everyone building Captains the same. That is still the case now and nothing changed. There was some leeway/diversity of build in the old system and there is some in this new one but for the most part builds are still the same basic ones everyone uses.
• Compensation Nerf(s). A HUGE change that has all but closed my wallet. WG started nerfing compensation bit by bit and here and there and it has got to the point it is a joke. Suddenly a duplicate ship brought credits instead of doubloons if earned via a mission and if it came out of a crate you bought, they started giving some "other" reward or reduced Doubloons. Another in a long line of nerfs for veteran players and an overall reduction in quality/value of rewards in general. They are perfectly willing to give a player a ship who doesn't have it at a pixel value of X$$$ but don't want to give a veteran compensation in equal Doubloon pixel value. It baffles me how clueless they are and how badly they treat veteran players. They have taken away any incentive there is for a veteran to spend on the game. It is one of the reasons why my wallet is mostly closed these days. 
• Economic Rework. Another bad change overall (IMHO) despite it having some good with it. I am not a fan of this change even though quite a few players are. They could have made small changes to things like letting players run the camo they want (for visuals) without redoing everything. But instead, WG redid every aspect of it and screwed a whole bunch of it up (a lot on purpose make no mistake).  WG made camos 100% useless yet continues to push them on us as rewards and sell them as if nothing changed. They should have at least left the +3%/-4% on them. That at least would give them a purpose. I am not a fan of the new boost system vs the old flags and camo with bonuses either and for the simple reason you need to use red boosts to beat out the old system. Red boost are as common as honest politicians. I much preferred the old system to the new. Flags and camos were super easy to get free and the benefits from using them were enormous. With the boosts you need to use blue at a minimum to come close to the old system and they are not easy to get. We get gray and green boosts fairly easy but their benefits are very limited. So WG really nerfed it by making it necessary to use the blue and red boosts to earn like we used to and then made those really hard to get. I am not a fan of the conversation process they came up with that drastically limited our blue and red boost #'s in favor of tons of gray and green either. They also snuck in a big nerf to FXP and CXP earnings. They changed how those are calculated. XP earned no longer determines FXP/CXP earned as it used to. No more stacking XP bonuses with FXP or CXP bonuses to really get big numbers. FXP and CXP is now based off BXP and only the FXP or CXP boost bonus applies.  So short of a red boost really it is nerfed rewards. The whole rework was touted as benefitting the players when in reality it was a blanket nerf to benefit WG and reduce our earnings. Maybe if they were just honest and admitted it was reworked because they felt we were earning too much I wouldn't be so angry at what they did. As usual though, they lied about why it was done and what was done. Not a fan but YMMV.
• Submarines. Oh boy, don't get me started. 🤬🤬🤬This is the single worst thing done to the game IMHO (to date - this is WG after all). While I am not opposed to Subs being added in general, I am vehemently opposed to HOW they did so. Subs are by far the most broken, unbalanced, unfair, and most unfun to play against class in the game and it is not close. Give me a 2 CV game, in a ship where I have no AA at all, over a game with even just 1 Sub any day. I despise them with a passion. Never mind all the ridiculous and asinine things about them like speeds, not being hydro or radar spotted at ALL times like every other ship class (I mean God forbid hydro, which was designed to detect submerged Subs, actually can do so in game but it can detect a ship behind and island), the sheer lunacy of the number of DC hits or shell hits it takes to sink one, how the IRL counter to them (DD's) are the least able to do so in game, how the ping markers that are supposed to tell us where a submerged Sub is are not even remotely close to where they actually are, and on and on let's talk homing torps and the whole mechanic associated with them. This game covers a set time period and while I know it is not a historical simulator it does cover a defined era for the most part (roughly start of 1900's - end of WW2/start of Korean War). While liberties are taken in the name of balance and game play (like unlimited torpedoes and shells) we still get era appropriate things on the other classes (no nukes on a WW1 era BB like Nassau for instance). In the era this game represents homing torps were in their infancy (mid to late WW2) and extremely ineffective yet what we have in game amounts to modern era guided munitions. It's laughable how they have added modern homing torps (performance) to a WW2/Korea and earlier era game. Not only that, WG's way of mitigating it is to tie it to the already overtaxed DCP making it an even bigger issue vs giving ships a separate counter to them like noise makers (available in WW2 when homing torps 1st appeared as a counter). It is compounded further by how fast Subs can ping and reload torps. So even if you use DCP to break ping lock the Sub can just ping you again when DCP goes into cool down and the 1st torps can reacquire and turn up to 90 degrees to get you or another set is already reloaded and on the way. If you somehow avoid the Sub you end up on fire and flooding from other ships because DCP is unavailable. It's a no win situation/vicious cycle for the poor chump the Sub is targeting. The ability of Subs to shotgun folks in this game is flat out disgusting as well. Subs as added need to be removed and completely reworked into something that is fair and fun to both play AND play against. WG will never do that though as it would mean admitting they were wrong and they won't do that.  
• Not listening to the players. I understand WG can't let the players balance the game. Players are too biased towards their own preferences. If a DD main was balancing the game DD's would be massively OP. Same goes for BB mains and so forth. So WG needs to be the one to balance and do so in an unbiased manner (which they fail at btw - abundantly clear those making balance decisions favor certain classes). However, when players are very clear they don't want something, dislike something a LOT, bring up problems, express the desire for things to be added that improve the game experience for them, etc... WG needs to listen and respond. It may be their game but if the players dislike it so much they stop playing and/or spending WG has no game to profit from. They can't seem to grasp the very simple concept that happy players will play and spend more than unhappy ones. They will never make everyone happy but they sure as hell can do better than they have to this point at making the overall player base happy. Simple things like fixing the damn game bugs, new maps, giving us a ship reserve in port to clean up the carousel clutter, etc... are QOL things they could do to improve player happiness but oh no can't have that. Happy players? Perish the thought. Better to shove out new ships at blazing speeds than actually fix the core game which the players actually want and have repeatedly asked for. 
• Mode Additions. This is a big one. WG needs to stop adding special modes like Arms Race and Escort to standard mode rotations in Randoms and Co-op. It flat out sucks. Those modes are fine as special event modes, and many people enjoy them there, but they do not belong in the rotation for standard Random and Co-op. The special modes drastically alter how Randoms/Co-op is played and often certain ship types aren't suited for them. Just because people like Escort as a special event now and then it doesn't mean they want it rammed into Randoms and Co-op. WG making changes for change sake basically at this point. I barely play Randoms now with Subs in it and Escort being added will just make me want to play it less. And I hate Arms Race in Randoms and Co-op.
• Never Ending Lies. This is another huge issue for WG. I swear these people have no moral compass, integrity, or even the smallest sense of doing what is right. Not those in the decision-making positions anyway. I am sure there are some good folks in the company, but they are overshadowed by the bad ones. The 2023 Anniversary event debacle is the most recent example of this. "We are nerfing SC content, because players are getting too much stuff (total BS but whatever), so as not to have to alter the Anniversary system". WG then goes out and not only changes the Anniversary event system but nerfs rewards even more. Just so tired of their constant and no stop lies. Just be honest with the players. We may not like what you say/do but being honest is far better than lying all the time and then having to do damage control to try and fix it when caught.
• Don't Play Their Own Game. This speaks for itself and is a huge part of the problems with this game IMHO. I truly believe those making these decisions don't actually play the game. They just sit at a desk somewhere and come up with ideas based on spreadsheets. If they actually did play the game and had to experience the frustration of playing vs Subs with how BS and broken they are, vs CV's with AA so ineffective, trying to deal with game bugs and other bad mechanics (non stop overpens for one comes right to mind), etc... maybe things would be better. But as it is they don't have a clue and it is painfully clear to those of us who do play WOWS that those making the decisions don't play it..

WG themselves truly are their own worst enemy. They need a change at the top desperately and they need to get off this track they are on and back to where they were heading before the Cv Rework and the big shift in things.

Sorry for the rant. Apparently, I had a lot built up to say. 🤣

ALL of this. Just, wow. You really nailed down everything practically!!!

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Also, for those of you barking up the 'how can we make AA better' tree...

You can't.

AA guns can NEVER offer fleet air defense on their own. Even during the RTS days, it didn't actually defend the fleet. It only enforced a cost for strikes.

The ONLY way to provide actual air defense is for the fleet to have fighters that it controls that can pursue the enemy strike planes WHEREVER they go.

WG getting rid of controllable fighters meant that fleet air defense would no longer be possible.

WG staff and many players just refuse to understand this point...but it is vital to understand WHY the AA rework efforts since 0.8.0 have always failed.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Just played a game wherein my Cruiser shot-down 10 planes within the first two minutes.
The CV was a 'Bot Weser in a Co-op game.  
AA is not "worthless".
Though I will grant that it is not meeting everyone's expectations in every situation.  🙂 
    

 

10 planes shot down hasn't even TOUCHED the on deck reserve for Weser...which is 12 planes of EACH of her three squadron types.

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While some may "make the leap" and others do not, the point is that AA in game is exceeding "reality".
So the "realism" crowd can't have it both ways.

The "expectations" not being met crowd wants instant shooting-down of an entire squadron of planes within 2 seconds or less and zero damage done to their ship.
That, in my opinion, is unrealistic and an unhealthy expectation that is going to be a disappointing standard most of the time.

Player knowledge of in-game mechanics may inspire them to "hit the 'O' key" to activate their priority-sector AA reinforcement and/or maneuver their ship.
Thus avoiding some or all of the damage that might have been scored by the planes that "got through".
And, historically, ships would maneuver to avoid aerial attacks when they could.  Which is why aerial attacks were best done when coordinated and simultaneously approached a target from multiple directions.  🙂 

The expectation is that the fleet has some way to actually prevent air attack...i.e. the definition of fleet air defense.

AA guns can only make air strikes have a coat in airframes lost...they cannot prevent air attack.

People in game LOST the ability to have fleet air defense as part of the 0.8.0 rework.

Their angst over this loss is entirely reasonable and understandable.

[Guest]

It's different than it was in 2017 when I started playing.

But all easily adaptable to.

I feel mostly for the competitive players, as concealment maneuvers/flanking maneuvers are just more difficult due to overabundance of spotting.  

Im not sure why it took you guys so long to see the monetization plans of this game. It was visible in 2017/2018. It's why whenever "would you recommend this game to your friends" popped up back then; Id always say no due to monetizaton and niche topic of 20th century naval warfare.

I do think it was better back in 2017/2018, but it's mostly more or less the same.

[Wolfswetpaws]

36 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The expectation is that the fleet has some way to actually prevent air attack...i.e. the definition of fleet air defense.

AA guns can only make air strikes have a coat in airframes lost...they cannot prevent air attack.

People in game LOST the ability to have fleet air defense as part of the 0.8.0 rework.

Their angst over this loss is entirely reasonable and understandable.

My AA guns shot-down 10 planes and my ship was not hit.  I didn't even maneuver.
An "outlier" result on the bell-curve of statistics?  Maybe. 
Bot CV compared to player CV?  Sure, go with that.
I don't know if an ally shot down the two other planes you said should be in the squadron.  Seems possible, though.

I can understand that people have the angst.  I disagree with the angst being reasonable. 

[AdmiralThunder]

2 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

ALL of this. Just, wow. You really nailed down everything practically!!!

[Jakob Knight]

7 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well.. when's the last time anyone's seen a fully AA specced Kutuzov covering their CV's against the enemy CV attacks?

 

To be honest here, in the RTS days, AAA specced cruisers that tried to escort their CVs were widely cursed out by their teams for keeping a cruiser out of the main line of battle to ride interference for their carrier.  Mind you, those CVs who insisted their escort wasn't needed were almost always the ones asking for help later on when the enemy CV sniped them, and then the AAA specced cruisers got dumped on for not stopping the enemy squadrons.  Many people, even back before the Rework, would not spec for AAA work because they felt it was a waste of points (both because of the reasonable chance of not having a CV in the game and the desire to sink ships rather then protect the team).  And, of course, CV players learned to bait the AAA that was in play back in those days with fighters because the AA system engaged the first squadron to enter the engagement range and ignored any others until it was destroyed or left the range of the guns, so it wasn't all roses with that system either.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

To be honest here, in the RTS days, AAA specced cruisers that tried to escort their CVs were widely cursed out by their teams for keeping a cruiser out of the main line of battle to ride interference for their carrier.  Mind you, those CVs who insisted their escort wasn't needed were almost always the ones asking for help later on when the enemy CV sniped them, and then the AAA specced cruisers got dumped on for not stopping the enemy squadrons.  Many people, even back before the Rework, would not spec for AAA work because they felt it was a waste of points (both because of the reasonable chance of not having a CV in the game and the desire to sink ships rather then protect the team).  And, of course, CV players learned to bait the AAA that was in play back in those days with fighters because the AA system engaged the first squadron to enter the engagement range and ignored any others until it was destroyed or left the range of the guns, so it wasn't all roses with that system either.

 

 

 

 

I know, but I always considered that if I spawned near the CV, the best use of my cruiser in the opening phases of the battle was to stick around the CV and wait for the inevitable enemy CV strike. Unless I myself got attacked by the CV, I could always change roles and redeploy later in the battle.