Jump to content


WG Staff
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Sub_Octavian

  • Rank
    Starfleet Captain
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

8,879 profile views
  1. Thanks, I will get it checked. Although it's strange - Minos AA is one of the strongest, sure, but it follows the same mechanic than everyone else's.
  2. Sub_Octavian

    ST, 12th ranked season.

    No, because that's most likely not true. But hey, If you are correct, it will be very visible after Season 12, which will give us important information and help to work on the game further.
  3. Sub_Octavian

    ST, 12th ranked season.

    It is a risk, I agree. But we've done quite a lot of balancing since 0.8.0, and seeing how CV fit in to 7v7 RB setup is very important part of feedback/experience.
  4. Yes, it is being worked on. To reduce the very early spotting and remove the situation where most of the ships are just gaining speed, but a CV already does attack runs on them. BTW, this change is based on community feedback, it's a rather popular suggestion.
  5. Hallo, ich bin ziemlich neu bei WoWs (seit heute) und habe die Ankündigung zu Space Battles gelesen. Nun meine Frage welche Voraussetzungen müssen erfüllt sein diese Raumschiffe zu bekommen und mitspielen zu können?

    Schönen Gruß



  6. Sub_Octavian

    PSA: Naval Aviation Containers

    Sorry, but you're not eligible for refund, because your purchase was not affected by the mistake in the description. The product worked as described for you, and nothing that contradicted the description happened. I cannot do anything here. I asked CS to readdress the ticket and give you the information so you understand why your case is different.
  7. Sub_Octavian

    PSA: Naval Aviation Containers

    @Bluestrategist @RAYvenMP Guys, please hold on. I will let the team know and we will sort it out. I manually checked you, and you are eligible for the refund. The CS reply is incorrect for some reason. I am very sorry for this incident, and your tickets will be properly resolved ASAP. In the meantime, check your PM please, I've sent you a sign of gratitude for your patience. @Mr_Snoww I am sorry, but looks like your purchases were not affected, they were done while not having all CV, so compensation mechanics did not apply and nothing contradicted the product description. However, just in case, I will ask CS to double check everything, but from the logs I see, you're not affected.
  8. Neither would I, but that's not the point of the discussion. Although, I agree that the issue is unfortunate, and yes, we will be using this as a learning example to improve our proof reading workflow. But to be fair, we don't have any big record of such mistakes. Ship happens I was not giving any excuses. The description was bad, it is our fault. What kind of excuse it is? We can only apologize, fix the issue, and fix the consequences As for the mechanics itself, it's not hard to explain, I hope. Containers give RNG rewards, and surely if you're very lucky, you can get more value from them, and if not, you can get their base value. But on average, they have a certain "average yield". And they have a real price. We wanted to make relatively inexpensive containers, which at the same time would have decent drop rates for premium ships. IF we added Xmas-like compensation mechanics, when you always get doubloons as soon as you have all ships from the list, given the high drop chance of carriers and the fact there are only 4 of them, we would have either to decrease the rate, or increase the price. The purpose of these containers was not to offer doubloons with huge discount. The purpose was to offer reasonably priced containers with good drop rates, with specific, limited list of ships (just 4). So they had to be balanced this way. I see nothing wrong with it IF the description is correct. If not (and this is the case here), it's our fault, and we will fix it. But there is nothing wrong with such containers, if a user KNOWS from the description, that if all ships are dropped, doubloon "farm" is impossible. No, the drop rates for containers are static. Yes, if the ship is rolled, but the player already has it, another ship from the list will be rolled. If all ships (or other unique items) from the list are already owned, then there could be various options. With santa-like containers, there would be doubloon price of a duplicate ship credited. With CV containers, there would be regular drop, and the doubloon price is only for very specific cases (as stated now in the description). I explained why there could be different mechanics of duplicates above. Our mistake is that for CV containers the mechanics description was incorrect, and thus, the players who owned all ships from the list, could think they can still farm doubloons while buying more containers. We've fixed the description, and of course we will attend to such players properly. Please stay tuned for PSA today. It's not their mistake, it's our mistake, and it's fully on us to fix it. Almost. Everyone who bought them while having all 4 CV, because it's the compensation part that was wrong in the text. Everything else worked, and works perfectly according to the description. On another level, do you have something like civilized communication, or you really think that's the way we should talk to each other? It's not automated, but as long as the case was investigated yesterday, I don't recommend contacting CS right now. Wait for the official PSA, it should be today. At the same time, CS will get clear instructions and data pull for all potentially affected users. Then they will be able to happily help. If you bought the containers while not having at least 1 of the premium CV listed, you are not affected. But any containers purchased after you got all 4 CVs and before the description was changed are affected, as they could not give you extra doubloons you expected (from the incorrect product description). So please wait for the PSA, it will be up very soon, and we will be able to help you with the refund. The guys who bought the containers while not having at least 1 CV from the list are not affected. Only the purchases made with all 4 prem CV in port and before the description was fixed are affected, and we will attend to such players no matter how many containers they bought. We take it seriously, and understand that such players could be mislead by the wrong description. All in all, we're finalizing everything, so please wait for the official PSA. I am sorry for the confusion. I'm locking the thread for now so this information is visible to everyone interested. Thank you all, and have a good day.
  9. If you bought the containers after you had all 4 prem CV and before we updated the description, hoping to get "discounted" doubloons, then yes, I understand. Don't worry and wait for tomorrow please. We will deal with this properly. We're not a scam and we value the players who decide to support us; if you were mislead directly because of our mistake, we will do you right. But at this very moment I cannot fix it, so I hope for your patience. It will be sorted out soon
  10. To be clear: we are not lazy. Its just that the data pull for today will be ready tomorrow. So we will be able to see who is affected and attend to it. And the descriptions are being updated ASAP to prevent any misinformed purchases. Good night :)
  11. Hello. The description was incomplete and caused some confusion. We are indeed updating it world wide now. We of course understand that some people could have been mislead BEFORE we updated it, and no worries, we will deal with it properly and share all information tomorrow (now its almost midnight here). Stay tuned and sorry for the confusion.
  12. Sub_Octavian

    [PSA] Giulio Cesare Testing and Premium Ships Status

    We've released literally hundreds of ships since release and dozens of Premiums. Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing. Why do you think they are? Because of balancing mistakes. Because it's not possible to release every ship perfectly balanced. We try hard, though, and have improved our workflow since then. Most of these ships are rather old.
  13. Captains, Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning: While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V). As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal. Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule. It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback. Good luck and fair seas!
  14. Sub_Octavian hotfix feedback

    Eh, no. Look, we have class co-op avg. WR. On the opposite team there are no CV. And basically class WR is compared against the same benchmark. Overall, WR is a very good stat, but you need to accumulate a lot of data and take class/ship population skill into account. Well you can troll/make weird comments, or can ask for more information. Right? For EU, the difference in CV retention is (absolute): Day 2-3: +13% Day 3-4: +15% Day 4-5: +16% Day 5-6: +13% Day 6-7:+12% Day 7-8: +9% Day 8-9: +9% <...> Day 18-19: +5% Of course with retention, we will check it many more times in the future, when larger amount of data is accumulated, but what we have now is: New CV retain 13% more new and returning players on EU from Day 1 compared to Old CV New CV retain 15% more new and returning players on EU from Day 2 compared to old CV etc - this is how you read it. And these seem like very impressive number across the board, tbh. Also ASIA shows the best results for CV rework in terms of popularity and retention, then goes NA, EU and CIS (e.g. CIS Day1-2 improved by 8% - still good, but ASIA gained 16%). As for the popularity - yeah looks like it IS stabilizing and it IS higher than pre-rework: PvP Randoms, tiers III-X (BB-crusers-DD-CV) Globally we're stabilizing at 7-8%. It's a good number, and will be working to retain it more or less. It makes the majority of battles CV-inclusive, but without any overflowing (which ppl would hardly enjoy - 2 carriers per team constantly is not good). Speaking of your experience, well, that's combination of factors: Conqueror can do a lot more absolute damage than Montana averagely. That does not makes Conqueror amazing, and Montana bad - please take battle influence (WR) and relative damage into account; Ppl are still getting gud with new CV; A lot of balancing is to be done. Speaking of my personal opinions: I am not getting paid or fined for my personal opinions. I personally admitted I couldn't enjoy old carriers, like forever. Now I personally admit I LOVE the new CV - I enjoy this gameplay, and I included this class into my playing time happily. I also personally think that overall sentiment of "oh it is such a mess" is overrated - taking how challenging and HUGE the rework was, 0.8.0 release is technically very good. Balance wise, yes, we warned there will be live balancing inevitably. It's the biggest meta change since release. We fixed several major points during 0.8.0 time and we're not going to stop halfway - everything eventually will be polished and nice. I am sorry that it's a bumpy ride (e.g. DDs had to wait until to feel much better) in some aspects, but we're determined to listen to you, and work until everything is great. And if you noticed, our recently published CV "roadmap" is almost entirely player-driven - this is what I've been telling all the time - we need this thing to come to live servers, to actually get feedback and data from the whole community to improve it. And we will do it.
  15. Sub_Octavian hotfix feedback

    Well it did attract considerably more players than before 0.8.0. I also looked up the 20-day "CV retention" for new players and returning players (guys who haven't played CV for long time). Basically for now we have data for 20 days since release, and I compared it with the data from pre080. This retention shows you what % of players kept playing CV from day 2 to day 3, from day 3 to day 4, etc, etc. The improvements are quite visible, and they show that more players "stay" on the class now. But hey, of course it's very preliminary data, and we will keep checking it as more days pass. Also, for now carriers are somewhere between cruisers and BBs in terms of avg.damage. It's not like they are not dealing anything. But yes, absolutely, a lot of them will need individual tweaking, and I'm sure for some of CV there will be various buffs within a couple of updates.