Jump to content


Public Test 0.6.0 - Changes for Test 2


  • Please log in to reply
320 replies to this topic

Nethraniel #121 Posted 12 January 2017 - 08:38 AM

    Midshipman

  • Beta Tester

  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostKaraMon, on 12 January 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

In previous test nearly everyone had this skill

 

I played like 12-15 battles in PTS 0.6.0 v1... never encountered much more than 2-3 ships with RPF in the enemy team.

Edited by Nethraniel, 12 January 2017 - 08:38 AM.

Ships in Port - 82

Erie, Sampson, Chester, Albany, Wickes, St. Louis, South Carolina, Clemson, Phoenix, Wyoming, Arkansas Beta, Nicholas, Omaha, New York, Farragut, Cleveland, Mahan, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Hashidate, Umikaze, Chikuma, Wakatake, Tenryu, Kawachi, Isokaze, Kuma, Yubari, Myogi, Minekaze, Mutsuki, Kamikaze R, Furutaka, Kongo, Fubuki, Hatsuharu, Aoba, Fuso, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Myoko, Kagero, Mogami, Yugumo, Shimakaze, Orlan, Storozhevoi, Novik, Diana, Derzki, Bogatyr, Izyaslav, Svietlana, Gremyashchy, Gnevny, Kirov, Ognevoi, Budyonny, Leningrad, Hermelin, V-25, Dresden, Emden, G-101, Kolberg, Nassau, V-170, Karlsruhe, Kaiser, Königsberg, Nürnberg, Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Black Swan, Weymouth, Caledon, Danae, Emerald, Leander, Blyskawica, Anshan, Dunkerque


ThePurpleSmurf #122 Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Players

  • 646
  • Member since:
    05-16-2016

View PostNethraniel, on 12 January 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

 

I played like 12-15 battles in PTS 0.6.0 v1... never encountered much more than 2-3 ships with RPF in the enemy team.

 

The problem with PTS is, that all kind of potatoes play there. They do not care about the changes, they are awful bad at the game, they do not even read the description of the skills for their commander. The only reason why so many potatoes are on the PTS is, that they want to play TX ships they will never have on live and/or leech the free XP camos and the 24h free premium time.

 

I have no numbers, but i would guess that less than 1% of the whole playerbase from all regions even bother to download the PTS client. Things will change on live and much higher percentage of players will pick skills like RPF and the data from PTS, that WG use to analyse how skills are used, are pretty much null and void.

PTS should be there to test changes for bugs and unusual side-effects, but not to determine the quality of a skill that has the potential to break the game. For this there are many competent high skilled player that would gladly help to test commander skill changes, but they are ignored like the rest of us. Yeah, WG said they will look into it and yadda, but all the statements i have read so far sound to me, as if the decision to let RPF go live are already set in stone and the complaints by so many players do not count.


 PM me if you need a 'play with friends' invite on NA 

Banzan #123 Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:16 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Tester

  • 35
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Awareness is a major part of these games (or the lack of it). Giving players a skill to help them will not change much, if they are not able to take actions on it. It's the same for forbidden mods (i.e. for WoT). Just having them doesn't turn people into good players. If they are not able to make use of the given information nothing will change, or even worse, too much information will just irritate them.

 

The better players who were difficult to surprise before won't take this skill, the worse players will be surprised as before, no matter if they took the skill or not.


Edited by Banzan, 12 January 2017 - 09:35 AM.


Nethraniel #124 Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:20 AM

    Midshipman

  • Beta Tester

  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBanzan, on 12 January 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

Awareness is a major part of these games (or the lack of it). Giving players a skill to help them will not change much, if they are not able to take actions on it. It's the same for forbidden mods (i.e. for WoT). Just having them doesn't turn people into good players. If they are not able to make use of the given information nothing will change, or even worse, too much information will just irritate them.

 

The better players who were difficult to surprise before won't take this skill, the worse players will be surprised as before, no matter if the took the skill or not.

 

Which also translates to: keep RPF out off the game.

Edited by Nethraniel, 12 January 2017 - 09:20 AM.

Ships in Port - 82

Erie, Sampson, Chester, Albany, Wickes, St. Louis, South Carolina, Clemson, Phoenix, Wyoming, Arkansas Beta, Nicholas, Omaha, New York, Farragut, Cleveland, Mahan, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Hashidate, Umikaze, Chikuma, Wakatake, Tenryu, Kawachi, Isokaze, Kuma, Yubari, Myogi, Minekaze, Mutsuki, Kamikaze R, Furutaka, Kongo, Fubuki, Hatsuharu, Aoba, Fuso, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Myoko, Kagero, Mogami, Yugumo, Shimakaze, Orlan, Storozhevoi, Novik, Diana, Derzki, Bogatyr, Izyaslav, Svietlana, Gremyashchy, Gnevny, Kirov, Ognevoi, Budyonny, Leningrad, Hermelin, V-25, Dresden, Emden, G-101, Kolberg, Nassau, V-170, Karlsruhe, Kaiser, Königsberg, Nürnberg, Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Black Swan, Weymouth, Caledon, Danae, Emerald, Leander, Blyskawica, Anshan, Dunkerque


fatmonk #125 Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:21 AM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 101
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

The idea behind the skill is to improve the role of DD hunters that is crucial to all cruisers and some destroyers. While the skill will certainly be a powerful one, it has quite a high cost and will come at the expense of another skill. We expect this to be an efficient option for these ships, but definitely not a must.

 

Edit: If that's the intention, then I have far better options for you:


Change it with a skill thats good for cruiser/DD hunters then.

A hydro or radar buffing skill, either prolonged use, better range or faster cooldown. Solved! That wasn't so hard really.
Long range passive and active sonar, was even in use under WW2. That would also mean a buff for the german DDs..

 

The cost isn't that high with the new skill tree, and the noobs will take it over other useful skills, with the result they go hunt, die fast and the team loses again because of some knab don't know any basics about winning a game.


It crosses my mind that to be successful at DD hunting, has something to do with awareness, and most of the times teamwork - even!.
There are multiple ways to equip your ship to fulfill a role. That is where you IRL skills can be used in the game. Not some ingame "skill".

There are lots of builds that you can use in DD hunting and any hunting for that matter, there are also lot of factors to take into consideration already like:
concealment when firing and when not, radarsmoke, hydro, planes etc. etc. etc.
(And you even nerf hydro on the Bismarck, but implement this.... ? - Isn't that contradictory?)
 

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

We put a lot of thought into this change and we don't expect it to be overpowered in ranked as Ranked Battles tend to have more close quarter combat, where spotting is more frequent anyway.


I also put a lot of thought into this, and it still bugs me how you came up with that idea. -
To say that spotting is more frequent anyway doesn't reason anything still.
But yes that last one player who is a DD on the winning team will for sure be hunted down, and killed so the lesser team wins!
How can this be given alot of thought?
 

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

As for competitive play, the skill will definitely open up more options for "Recon" ships and some sneaky strategies, both using the skill and maybe abusing the fact that the enemy team is relying on the skill. In general we think that more options here are better for the game.

 

No! This doesn't sound right. Nor well thought out at all. Its just annoying to take this space skill into consideration.


For me it is going in a complete wrong direction, Id rather see more players progressing and improving,
than implementing skills that makes them dumber, and the game boring.
 


[WHYME] - WHY NOT?

SeeteufeI #126 Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:44 AM

    Able Seaman

  • Players

  • 91
  • Member since:
    07-05-2015

I really like the changes in fighter lifetime. They use to stay alive even after the ship died, this can be pretty annoying. Everyone will be able to get a second fighter for only one point so the sky would be full of planes. If they really decided to keep fire prevention the way it was in first test, it is now even more overpowered. Only one fire in the mid section is too much (or too less) in my opinion. Just limit the amount of fires in total to three or even two, without changing the potential areas of fire. BFT is also too expensive, if you ask me.


Mein Warships.Today Rating:

Zen71_sniper #127 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:18 AM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 156
  • Member since:
    11-03-2016

I am not a great player (hoping to get there), but have played this game for a while. I would like to add my concern about RDF. I have played it in public test both as a BB and a  DD. 

 

It destroys the element of surprise, which is the key for a DD play. Mere fact that if I know where to point guns on BB can save up to 25 sec.

 

WG, please take it out OR as someone proposed earlier, allow for some kind of radio silence that a player can choose, which will reduce amount of info on minimap. If enabled, it will prevent you from being detected. If you choose to enable it and update minimap, it should have a cooldown and during that time, you will be visible to RDF ships.

 

This game should allow for variety of gaming styles, not just BB shooting from far...

 

 

 


Edited by Zen71_sniper, 12 January 2017 - 10:18 AM.

 


shulzidar #128 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Tester

  • 434
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Quote

Give me a skill that reduces (disrecarding all the other implications) my bloom duration so that I can get back to stealth more quickly when zooming to the front to kill that DD.

 

WG seems to like simple game decissions... The bloom of your hunter is a minor factor on the outcome of a "RPF bot run". What dictates the fate are primarily factors OUTSIDE both combatant hands:

 

1) Speed difference... The most important factor.

 

2) Surface detection radius.

 

3) Effective Firepower of Torpboat backup.

 

There are player minor factors like:

 

4) Individual gunnery skills

 

5) Torpboat bearing control at initial contact. Basically if, when initially encountering the Gunboat, the relative bearing is close to 0º or, if the Torpboat captain is careful in keeping the potential enemy as close as 180º as possible.

 

That's the simplicity and predictibility WG wants to add... 1) and 2) are predictable due to the relations between stealth and speed... Gunboats WILL ALWAYS be visible 1st but, at the same time, Torpboat cannot escape a RPF assisted Gunboat. So the critical factor on the whole encounter is how much HP the Gunboat losses during the time it takes for it to reach detectability range of the Torpboat... I repeat, a Simple recipe even a bot can repeat at 100% efficiency.

 

The bloom of a Gunboat is only relevant AFTER the Torpboat has been sank and, not even that, due to the fact Smoke will be relegated as cover so your friendlies can perform invisifire, a Gunboat commander could reserve it instead to cover himself after the Torpboat has been sank, in those rare cases were there is Backup Firepower still present but, due to their inneficiency, wasn't enough to take down the Gunboat before it sank the Torpboat.


Edited by shulzidar, 12 January 2017 - 10:36 AM.


MrConway #129 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

    Community Coordinator

  • WG Staff

  • 746
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostFallenOrchid, on 11 January 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

 

== you are still rolling dices who will be the poor guy who is going to post and will get most of the fire? :)

 

I volunteered in this case, in hindsight... :hiding:

 

I can see that there are many valid concerns being brought in this thread, with a majority coming from players who I know are better at the game than me and probably have a better understanding of how changes will impact the meta.

 

We will be providing this feedback to the developers to help them make a final decision for 0.6.0, but I would like you to remember that we are still testing the build and that anything can still change before it hits the live server.


twitterqxkfa.pngfacebook65yzk.pngyoutube1nk0c.png

 

 


mtm78 #130 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:48 AM

    Admiral

  • Alpha Tester

  • 14,335
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I must say, using USN DD's on PTS is a blast. Poor IJN DD's don't stand a chance, and because I don't need AFT I can take CE and RPF so good luck killing me before I spot you and good luck trying to get any kind of ambush off on my team as I will be hunting you down relentlessly :hiding:

 

 


"First they nerfed the carriers and I didn't speak out because I didn't play carriers.                                    Then they nerfed the torpedoes and I didn't speak out because I didn't play IJN DDs.

Then they nerfed cruiser HE and I didn't speak out because I didn't spam HE.                                             Then they nerved concealment on every class except BB's, and I didn't speak out because I didn't have common sense

Then the BBabies came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."        

 


shulzidar #131 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:53 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Tester

  • 434
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Quote

I must say, using USN DD's on PTS is a blast. Poor IJN DD's don't stand a chance, and because I don't need AFT I can take CE and RPF so good luck killing me before I spot you and good luck trying to get any kind of ambush off on my team as I will be hunting you down relentlessly

 

Fletchers are going to become the dominant DD after 0.6.0... They can "clean up" enemy RPF DD users and then can still perform Torpedo launches and Cap Points after enemy RPFs are suppressed.

 

...On the receiving end, Yugumos and Kageros will be effectively removed from the game. Shimas will be relegated, again, to the "absolute boredom" role of the long range torpedo wall spammer.

 

What we will see on the Meta is packs of Gunboats travelling together "cleaning up" cap points in sequence... So instead of the common "a+b issued by a BB player"... We wil see "Starting at A issued by the Gunboat Commander with RPF skill on". Gunboat coordinated Divisions, ofc, will mean insta-afk for enemy DDs...

 

...As I said, WG seems to like predictable recipes to win.


Edited by shulzidar, 12 January 2017 - 10:59 AM.


Nethraniel #132 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:53 AM

    Midshipman

  • Beta Tester

  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmtm78, on 12 January 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

I must say, using USN DD's on PTS is a blast. Poor IJN DD's don't stand a chance, and because I don't need AFT I can take CE and RPF so good luck killing me before I spot you and good luck trying to get any kind of ambush off on my team as I will be hunting you down relentlessly :hiding:

 

That is exactly my concern. IJN DD need to spend most of the game evading instead of contributing in a meaningful way, if RPF is around. Here I realized, that USN DD do not need to be that afraid if they hunt actively, while they are still able to launch some spreads of torps in between, because they can dictate the flow of the DD encounters.

Ships in Port - 82

Erie, Sampson, Chester, Albany, Wickes, St. Louis, South Carolina, Clemson, Phoenix, Wyoming, Arkansas Beta, Nicholas, Omaha, New York, Farragut, Cleveland, Mahan, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Hashidate, Umikaze, Chikuma, Wakatake, Tenryu, Kawachi, Isokaze, Kuma, Yubari, Myogi, Minekaze, Mutsuki, Kamikaze R, Furutaka, Kongo, Fubuki, Hatsuharu, Aoba, Fuso, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Myoko, Kagero, Mogami, Yugumo, Shimakaze, Orlan, Storozhevoi, Novik, Diana, Derzki, Bogatyr, Izyaslav, Svietlana, Gremyashchy, Gnevny, Kirov, Ognevoi, Budyonny, Leningrad, Hermelin, V-25, Dresden, Emden, G-101, Kolberg, Nassau, V-170, Karlsruhe, Kaiser, Königsberg, Nürnberg, Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Black Swan, Weymouth, Caledon, Danae, Emerald, Leander, Blyskawica, Anshan, Dunkerque


fatmonk #133 Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:59 AM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 101
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

As for competitive play, the skill will definitely open up more options for "Recon" ships and some sneaky strategies, both using the skill and maybe abusing the fact that the enemy team is relying on the skill. In general we think that more options here are better for the game.

 

Dear MrConway,

I can think of many games where one or two players is left on the winning team, and will win on points if not killed, against a team with more players.
How can this skill be good in those situations?

I see a lot of reasons, but most importantly REAL examples on why to not implement this skill.

So I´d like to ask,
Could you(devs) give us real game examples on why it is a good skill, and so good that it outweighs all the bad things about this skill?
[WHYME] - WHY NOT?

darkwingfighter #134 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 150
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I haven't tested it on PTS,  but shouldn't for Des Moines RPF be instapic after CE?

I mean what do you lose if you pick it? AFT? 



HaZarD_X #135 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Able Seaman

  • Players

  • 54
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015

The answers to the feedback survey...

1.  Make the game better or worst..::  -10 (far away worst)

2. You suggest the game to your friends..::  NEVER AGAIN   (if this sh@t skill remain)

.........



JiksTBS #136 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Players

  • 233
  • Member since:
    10-11-2015

View PostMrConway, on 12 January 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

 

I volunteered in this case, in hindsight... :hiding:

 

I can see that there are many valid concerns being brought in this thread, with a majority coming from players who I know are better at the game than me and probably have a better understanding of how changes will impact the meta.

 

We will be providing this feedback to the developers to help them make a final decision for 0.6.0, but I would like you to remember that we are still testing the build and that anything can still change before it hits the live server.

 

MrConway, I admire your willingness to "take one for the team." In your position I would have made sure I was as far away from this train-wreak as possible!

 

However, as yet no valid case for RPF has been made. So far the limited response made to defend it is that gunboat DDs & cruisers need help hunting torpedo DDs. Let me assure you if I'm in, say, my Bliska or even Ognevoi I do not need any help to deal with an IJN DD, one on one I will murder the poor thing. I hardly play cruisers so can't speak from experience there but many others who can have stated here that's not the issue. The problem is if you pursue it you are likely to get deleted by it's support. This will not change as a result of RPF. So what we appear to have here is a sledgehammer to deal with a nonexistent problem.

 

Sadly, neither you nor your colleagues have refuted any of the many, many problems I and others have stated RPF will bring to the game so I have to suspect WG can't do so and consider the effects on game-play acceptable. Obviously, the stealthier the ship, the worse it will be effected by RPF but the game-play impacts go far beyond IJN DDs IMO.

 

I once again extend an invitation to WG to explain how and why the points I & others raised earlier are wrong...

 



AndyHill #137 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Weekend Tester

  • 250
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
What would really help a lot especially at this time during testing would be the devs telling us exactly the reason RPF exists and explaining how they assume it will fulfill the intended purpose. Both of these are very important and currently the "discussion" is in a fruitless loop, because people can't separate feedback between evaluating the original intent and whether or not the RPF skill actually works towards that goal or not and what the undesirable (as we don't know what is considered desirable!) side effects might be. 

Edited by AndyHill, 12 January 2017 - 11:18 AM.


Takru #138 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:17 AM

    Commander

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Tester

  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    04-15-2015

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

We put a lot of thought into this change and we don't expect it to be overpowered in ranked as Ranked Battles tend to have more close quarter combat, where spotting is more frequent anyway.

 

This doesn't sound like the ranked meta I whitnessed so far. Quite the opposite actually.

Also, this skill gets more powerful the longer the guy having it survives, naturally, so especially in the hands of good players this will be decisive.

 

View PostMrConway, on 11 January 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

As for competitive play, the skill will definitely open up more options for "Recon" ships and some sneaky strategies, both using the skill and maybe abusing the fact that the enemy team is relying on the skill. In general we think that more options here are better for the game.

 

Having talking with quite a few of the competitive orientated people, I have yet to hear from one of them that RPF will "open up" anything for them or that this skill is not a totally horrible idea. Unsurprisingly, they assume that it will result in the opposite, that gameplay will slow down, smoke meta will be more prevalent and flanking attacks will be a lot less common. The issue here is, that the skill tells you where the next enemy is and you usually have two or even three groups. Hence you spread out your RPF among the team and communicate, so you can notice such flanking maneuvers very very early. Those teams will never rely 100% on this skill, but instead will use other information as well, for example CV planes.

 

Contrary to ranked battles, RPF is extremely useful in competitive in the opening stages, when you want to get those caps and want to see where the enemy is going. Once one team loses a ship or two, the whole thing gets exponentially worse for the lagging team while the leading team will be able to use RPF a lot less, since they're leading anyway.


Tora Tora Tora!


Takru #139 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:26 AM

    Commander

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Tester

  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    04-15-2015

Evasive action

 

This skill has been changed but it still isn't useful for CVs in my opinion. While it lessens the issue of running out of planes to a degree, it still means a lot less damange for the CV in question, because the planes will take that much longer to return to the carrier. Even if someone usually runs out of planes in a battle, I would not recommend taking this skill because he should be able to adress this by changing his target priority and because the lack of speed, which means they'll be a lot more suspceptible to AA, floatplanes and fighter interdiction. Also, some DBs can current outrun fighters of the same tier, those would lose this advantage.

 

 

Expert Rear Gunner

2 points for the same effect? It's not even worth one skillpoint...

 

 

Firey landing

Not worth it for anybody, especially not when you have to pay 3 points for it while your planes take twice as long to get ready again. If you're in that kind of situation, this perk will not save you. Too expensive, too little effect, drawback outweighs usefulness when it really is needed.

 


Tora Tora Tora!


ZombieCheeze #140 Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:32 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,924
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
For those complaining about the Akizuki HE pen nerf from 19mm to 17mm. To pen with HE you require pentration power greater than the thickness of the amour, the 180mm Russian guns with 30mm of HE pen cannot pen the Zaos 30mm armour plates. So the 19mm of pen does not allow Akizuki to damage armour >18mm, and there are no amour plates with a thickness between 16mm and 19mm.
~Tora Tora Tora!~




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users