Figment

Uh huh. Many of these mistakes are in their own categories and you seem to conflate Wargaming's 1000 employees for one person who keeps not learning his lesson. :/ Each of them can make a mistake. It's actually more likely that with so many people result in a lot of human error. I agree that they should do more extensive testing, but this is a mistake that's so easy to overlook when pushing a patch out. It's not like this bit of code is central to the game and everyone stares at it endlessly and the rest of the code is just minor bystander stuff. We're indeed talking about a single number change that didn't even change in the order of its size much. It's quite easy to not catch. And again, I agree, especially when they've got tight deadlines. Thing is, none of the ships were "ruined". Slightly disadvantaged at best while still being a powerhouse of a ship. I can fully understand the emotions towards WG just stacks up right now and run high and deep, but come on. A bit of pragmatic rationality regarding a detail error isn't out of place here as it has no bearing on the more fundamental issues of WG management. I mean, if THIS was the worst we had to complain about (this or apparently getting a free camo), things would be great. There's bigger fish to fry and keep sharp, give the guy who made a minor coding error a break... It's not like he formatted your hard drive without backing up or asking, like some IT guys do at times (looking at you, people at Alternate Barendrecht).

It's a sneak-bonuscode in the background, not the full anniversary gift... It's only a little extra for those who pay attention to detail... You're literally complaining about getting something for free. You'd literally NOT BE COMPLAINING HAD YOU NOT BEEN TOLD THAT YOU COULD RECEIVE SOMETHING FOR FREE, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE MISSED IT AND SUBSEQUENTLY ONE PERSON STARTED SAYING IT'S CHEAP TO JUST HAND OUT ONE ITEM. Ignorance is bliss... Seriously, such dramaqueens these days... "Aw crap, I got a free camo. Now it's like my xmas is ruined... I'm sad now. Someone give me a warm bottle of milk for comfort please. No, I'm not making it myself, I have standards.".

Define trolling? Is that anything like angrily harassing and berating your allies? They should hand out chat bans to those people! As for playing badly in a free to play game, you want people to do something about it... Where's the cut-off point where people should be punished? By what standards? And how's that Dunning-Kruger of yours going for you?

"I didn't get enough free stuff!" Dutch pro-verb: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". (proverb)[a phrase referring to unappreciatively questioning of a gift or handout too closely] Quite.

That's why they opted to have exp tied to specific ships and created free exp conversion. It is way too expensive IMO, I got millions of excess exp that I'm never going to convert. I could probably spend two monthly wages and still not convert all exp to free exp. This is why F2P is so misleading if you use any of the monetizing features.

One of the hardest things about code is making sure people explain the code in the notes behind it.

That's the thing with human error. Every patch is made by humans.

Tried Fletcher and Cleveland which couldn't keep up with all the others waiting for a kill. I then realised there were too many players in the higher tiers actively going for this same thing and clearly waiting for me and others to do the work and then killsteal last second, so went down to T4 with a Langley in late hours. Played randoms featuring a lot of bots, only 4-5 humans a side (can't recall exactly how many). Got 4 kills, 3 of which players, but not by just going after low healths, just playing as I would normally. Hell, most the bots I brough down to 4K or less would be quickly scooped up by allies. Often even bots.

It's a tiny little extra on top of... how many crates you're getting?

I've seen it happen unintentionally many times. It's annoying that the warnings are gone. I prefer a return to the old situation for nothing is more fun than setting up a crossfire of torpedoes on a target together with that target's ally. :)

Seriously, calm down people. :/ It's a really minor, unintended and temporary issue that has been announced to be corrected and really shouldn't hamper your chances of success much if at all. It's not a hotfix if you have to check every piece of code for a whole bunch of ships for any errors related to the other shell version. It's coding that probably can be done in a couple of hours, but then requires a couple of hours of testing too, then it has to be put into a patch update and distributed, bringing down servers for everyone in the meantime. Main question is, is it really worth server downtime for the rest of us for a less than 10% damage output change on a rather large base number (meaning the new value is still large), rather than put it in the batch release? Save your energy for the real problems with WG please... This specific issue is human error that could have happened to any game company.

How about we apply CV aircraft controls to cruiser/BB fighter consumables? The controls and code exists. It's mostly a matter of balancing and preventing new issues. I would propose the following limitations and adjustments: Fighter strength is dependent on a variety of things. Tiering The historic amount of aircraft a ship could have (storage capacity) CV captain skills in fighter power could apply to these aircraft too. Note that combined, ships can make a very effective fighter screen Should be very vulnerable to AA, particularly from DD. Should battle approaching enemy aircraft. Switching control between ship and aircraft is possible as it was during RTS CVs This should also apply to CVs to reduce AI reliance When switching to ship controls, aircraft go into a loiter/patrol mode and act as currently a CV deployed fighter would. Which means you can leave it circling over a different area When launching aircraft, you by default retain control over the ship until you switch to aircraft manually. Fighter patrols will automatically circle your ship as they would today. Fighter patrols should be possible to be assigned to ships like in the RTS days. On the map you could attach fighter patrols to circle a ship, just as the old RTS CV fighter patrols could be assigned to protect ships. Reduced scouting capacity by relating operation time to distance from ship in order to avoid stealth play being destroyed much further Limited base (flight) time as today "Fuel" taken into account: once fuel (and thus time) for a return trip runs out, the fighter returns to its ship. Hence the further the fighter flies from its ship of origin, the faster the fighter consumeable runs out as it has to return to its ship of origin. Potentially reduce effectiveness of other detection systems (radar) to compensate for increased team ability to scout Consider rebalancing CVs to mitigate for increased aircraft losses if they lose too many to make it workable. Reduce scouting ability of aircraft by say 10% to compensate for increased air presence Keep an eye on: Aircraft reserve attrition speed Leverage effect of sides with fighter power and those with less/who lost it Consider what this would mean for anti-submarine and warfare and tracking the last stealth DD though. The increased scouting prowess should come with some mitigation towards DDs in particular. Of course being able to launch fighters to defend DDs from air harassment would also be possible in this new situation. It also provides a way to counter Tone and Ise attacks. For those who don't want to control their fighters, things remain as they are, for those people who do opt to control their fighters, they get a bit of spotting capacity and improved / teamwork defense against CV attacks at the cost of their consumables duration. EDIT: rewo... overhauled title on popular demand.

It was the only reliable self-defense and offensive tool for many CV-players with respect to DD. It made it a frustrating tool to use, time feels wasted with way more passes needed to deal any significant damage, where the damage output before was frustrating to DD (could do 50% or more if aimed well) Against cruisers it significantly reduced citadel chance as dodging for both DD and cruisers was made a lot easier. Disappointment by a negative experience change is a likely factor here. The reason for the negative sentiment can be that the part that got harder changed a fundamental balance that caused too much frustration. Honestly I think this is a conclusion based in prejudice for it seems to argue towards a desired outcome including projection on what people want. You forego any other reasons by default. The fact it is so obvious to you without any research or solid evidence, just an unverified hypothesis based on a single parameter suggests you want to be able to conclude something. You probably created a stereotype image of CV players given your nomenclature use and then selectively try to find agreeing arguments. A flat 2D world you look at from above as distant observer or a 3D world where you personally move through terrain features and ships and you see height changes and ship features, which world do you feel more a part of? Which mode makes you feel more in the same 3D ship world as the other ships? And thus more in the same world as those other ships? Either way, I’m not sure if immersion means the same to you as it does to me… Didn’t say it did? Agreed. Skills like situational awareness acquisition became much more important and amount of control over bombers en changed. Agreed, also because it is a dot unit. You need to plan andpriorities to optimize output. Eh was a matter of timing distance and drop point between aircraft. Was quite doable in my experience, but then that sort of timing management gameplay may or may not suit people. I mean, I could mostly time artillery shots on fast moving targets in WoT as well (even if overshooting was still likely as height angle info was limited). When players control the drones that fight each other it is PvP. If you play chess you don’t play PvE just because the units are made of wood. Meh, I think you’d get the RTS crowd back or retain. Stacking AA was the issue iirc Disagree.

Can’t collect any but the Duke of York camo one and the Italian one atm. and find it questionable to finish. Rest are time limited events and thus can’t be finished.

The rocket design change is not the only way they could have gone about things (max damage reduction towards DDs would probably have satisfied everyone) and is largely a very specific detail design for which easily twenty alternatives exist, most of which could have been acceptable. WG overdoes buffs and nerfs at times and this is probably one of them as some CVs were balanced around doing damage with them (particularly the German ones got most cruiser damage from rockets). I mean they are flying in the world, as part of it in third person, rather than from a god-view from above that distances emotionally and emphatically. It is a significant change in immersion. That is a completely separate issue from third person vs top down view. The CV A2A game was severely dumbed down due to not micromanaging multiple units. That’s because they made it impossible to direct multiple units at the same time due to direct control, including the triple drop at the same time. You can do consecutive strikes that crossfire, sure, but they can more easily be negated, even if I prefered the single drop as . It isn’t as easy. There is however a difference here, stopping all strike capability is not what happens here per se. What it does is give players a sense they can fight back more effectively, have actual deterrents and provide a sense of control. Given fighters are limited use, you would not shut down CV strikes, but you can mitigate them, depending on the fighter power. And yes, combined fighter power may stop a strike completely, but then it can do so now as well. With more “fuel” (time) a CV could also wait out the fighters or have them be used on just a few aircraft - meanwhile giving players more time to do something before being struck. The dynamics would change, but volume of aircraft sent by CV would not be fully stopped by cruiser / BB fighters. Edit: I just want to make it clear that any design is a combination of hundreds of decisions that together either work or don’t. Often it hinges on just a couple or a dozen choices not working together as a whole. The problem with a lot of people is that they can’t see past choices that have been made (can’t imagine alternatives or can’t extrapolate from there without conflating with issues of another design) and come to the conclusion something therefore can’t be done, while in reality the issue lies with the decisionmaking quality that leads to a specific construct of choices, a specific, detailed concept, with issues, rather than the basic, more abstract and interpretable concept of a class wielding air power at sea. I doubt any of this will be done, but I at least offered an alternative I think is a workable system. But just because their vision was flawed, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t be done. Time’s change and so do conclusions drawn from lessons learned.

That depends on the interpretation. It could also mean they conclude those ships aren't popular enough to warrant further attention or to develop further ships of say the Kriegsmarine "because nobody wants to play German BBs".

Q: What do you call it when u-boats get implemented in a WoWs patch update? A: Sub-version

I'd disagree, the rework had - for all its negatives - also some positive effects: nobody is complaining about map-warriors anymore. :p But in all seriousness, there are some positive sides. The top-down gameplay wasn't extremely popular as it was too detached from the rest of the game and killed emersiveness. At least the CVs are now a bit more balanced towards one another because you can't pick an imbalanced full fighter deck for instance, or get different tier CVs opposite one another. It's also not possible to time a triple angle torp drop trap anymore. Now of course the execution of neither CV design was good due to various sub-design calls and massive AA balance issues, but some improvements were made in some aspects. But the progress made on specific design choices has largely been outdone by other new design choices that worked out quite poorly, plus a lack of restraints and unnecessary buffs to survivability, even if this did diminish the lobsided leverage gained for one CV killing the other asap (or even just destroyed all its aircraft) so it could reign unthreatened for the rest of the match. That wasn't the design philopsophy, just the consequence of severely lacking foresight regarding consequences of their specific design choices, a lack of a coherent all-encompassing vision of class interaction and generally a half-hearted and therefore incompetent implementation under time constraints and reluctance to spend more resources on it. The problem here is that WG implemented a system before they could figure out if it would be appreciated by either side of the aiming reticule and called it a day rather than make some further iterations with extensive player feedback. Of course, with the negativity some players provide and their unwillingness and inability to see beyond existing design choices, getting the right constructive feedback is tricky. But let's not discuss this too much, I'd rather keep it on topic of what this design change to the cruiser/BB fighters would bring to the game.

That's not true. Since this is a test, questioning and challenging this design publically and showcasing it doesn't create a balanced or fun and engaging game could result in a design change. Adapting by situation avoidance without complaining about it would likely result in your complaint being ignored.

This wouldn't happen if we still got instruction manuals with our games!

Consumable fighters.

Low tiers, the poll.

Yeah, that kind of indepth quality polling is hard to pull off with forum polls. :) All of the above is a bit tricky though given the amount of options. What if it's three of them, etc.? The best, but most intensive way to frame such data is open questions and answers to go with your poll where people explain their choices. But yes, assigning scales on how important or covincing each argument is to people would also help to differentiate between must-be-fulfilled-base-conditions and nice-to-have's.

But fine, let's call it an overhaul.

Trying to think a bit out of the box here: what if we make air combat more of a two-sided interaction?