Jump to content

Sub_Octavian

WG Staff
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sub_Octavian

  • Rank
    Starfleet Captain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,205 profile views
  1. Oh well, I thought I'm supposed to have fun in the game, so I specc'ed my GK and Republique to full sec, KNOWING it's less efficient in average than typical survival build, but also KNOWING sometimes it's just cool not to play safe and gloriously rush B instead, making a hell of fireworks show for the enemy team. Turns out, I'm just an unhealthy human being...uh...thanks for letting me know
  2. Dear commanders! As you already know, we are evaluating a fix for the ship rendering issue as part of 0.7.4 public test. The deal is, that the ships may appear in the 3D world with a 2-3 second delay after they appear on the minimap, or even after ships’ accompanying effects (funnel smoke, as an example) are rendered. This is dependent on the server and game client interaction. The server informs the client that a ship is spotted and then the client interprets that data and shows that ship on the minimap as well as a 3D model with its effects. As a result several factors influence the rendering process – game optimization and environment in which it is ran –players’ PC configuration, their connection quality and stability. We had to collect as much data and feedback as possible during the public test, so we could be sure about our solution. As expected, the 3D models did in fact appear simultaneously with the effects and minimap icons, however, in some cases, the information could lack in timeliness and actuality by the moment it was displayed. And from the gameplay perspective this is undesirable side effect. That’s why for the second session of our public test we improved upon the solution that you’ve seen. The rendering of models and effects now happens at the same time, but the minimap display is working the same way it did in the 0.7.3 version. This fix only takes care of a part of the issue, yet it does not create any unwanted side effects. If it shows stability during the public test and causes no further issues, that is exactly the way we’re going to implement it into the update. We are already working on the optimization of ships’, effects rendering and minimap display as a complex, to absolutely minimize any delays between these instances. We plan the next round of fixes in a few updates, and just like before, we will be very appreciative of your feedback. Thank you for your understanding!
  3. Well, here I am: keep all ships from Cleveland to Baltimore and you will maximize your bonuses! We do have some render improvements planned. Our BW is far from vanilla BW, and A LOT (less than with WoT, but still) of changes have been done to it to suite the game. I directly mentioned that it's one of the top priorities. We will tell and show more when we're ready. Well, not exactly. Our current plan (and it's just a plan, so please don't take it as promise) is to switch Jolly Roger-like rewarding systems to the more flexible system with currency, where players will have choice. DISCLAIMER: At WGFest we were NOT showing the 2018 WoWs roadmap. We just mentioned several key points, but the roadmap is considerably bigger. However, with short dev cycle, we don't really want to disclose it for the whole year in advance. So we will probably switch to quarterly plans instead of giving promises for the year. That will allow us to be more precise and show more. Thank you for your interest, guys, and merry Xmas!
  4. Eh...no? Despite of being tied to the same game mechanics, these two topics are different. I hope that it's not that hard to understand. This change should: 1. Reduce overall damage to cruisers and DDs a bit (that does not mean this is the ultimate solution to improve their survival rate; that's a minor QoL change); 2. Reduce the dependence on premium DCP for cruisers and DDs. 3. Improve the beginner's experience on these classes ultimately. RN BB HE does contribute to the overall fire damage taken, however, as perfectly seen from Conqueror stats breakdown, and some followed-up player research, their primary targets are other BBs. And, as BBs do have great alpha, armor, HP, access to heal and high comfort level - we do not plan to make them burn less at all. RN BBs actually may be changed more in the future, but I highly doubt it will be their HE. What we want to do is to make DDs and cruisers more comfortable, and that's one of the steps we plan. Other nice stuff is in testing - e.g. the BB AP things/ballistics fixed we discussed here are being actively prepared for super-tests. We know these classes can use some love, and they will receive it. By the way, be sure to watch the dev blog today for other nice changes. Let's just say, RN CLs and other ships many of you have vouched for are to receive small incremental QoL improvements Cheers!
  5. SEA Group unavailble, closed?

    Don't look at me, though
  6. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    No thoughts, just a quick data inquiry: current EU Conq owners avg. account WR is 55%, and the avg. T10 BB player is ~53%. The difference is not that dramatic, but it is present. Anyways, let's sum up the discussion for now: 1. We hear the concerns about Conqueror (and the RN BBs in general). 2. We believe that current avg stats are skewed, because of rather new release, however, we realize you want this issue to be looked at, so we will try to make it ASAP. 3. We're doing a special research that will back up (or not) these concerns with the facts right now. 3. Based on these facts, we will make a decision. If nerf is needed, we will most likely address one of the following: heal power, concealment, 419 mm efficiency. I sincerely thank you all for your arguments, and will see you soon. Have a good weekend!
  7. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    The intention (by the way, where was it really promised first thing?) slightly differs from data-backed decision - which was made after 30 weeks - and it's a T7 ship. So, you made inadequate comparison in the original post and now twisting the facts - and, using your wording, "you know it". Also, your business practice is not applicable.The audience is more important than monetization in our model - and although we have quite a lot of premium services, we're not trying to squeeze them for more profit - they are fine. World of Warships, for now, is the only big game of our studio. We're not sacrificing the long term development in favor of short-term profit. And even if our actions sometimes indicate that - they are wrong actions for other reasons. Also, "the typical WG pattern", for some odd reason, is not a pattern. If you by any chance count all the ships released and try to remember which proved to be OP and which proved to be UP. Maybe...we're just humans, and that's why we don't hit the sweet spot every release? And finally, "you're told" cannot be the only argument. I explained that in detail before, but you seem to be too stubborn to at least read this and try to compare different PoVs. Not your fault, though - almost anyone why stands up and tries to make more cautious, weighed and not hysterical statement, instantly gets mocked. Numbers are nothing, other opinions are stupid, devs don't know what they do, any new release or change is an "insult to THE WHOLE playerbase" -> learn by heart, post, repeat. Well, not going to work. Not, it does not, and blindly insisting on "NERF IT NOW!!!1" won't change anything - and I explained why above. Also, interesting thing is relative damage right now. Looking at median stats since 0.6.11, Conq absolute median damage is 28-30% ahead of other T10 BBs, while relative median damage is 15-16% ahead. She has a lot of food in BB-heavy meta. Anyways, we will see the detailed owners' stats which will be less skewed and make a decision. Not today, not tomorrow, but pretty soon.
  8. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    Excuse me, but you are blatantly twisting the facts. Shira was released in in 0.5.15, and was nerfed in 0.6.8 (not even reminding you about the buffs to the other ships in this line) - 10 (~30 weeks) updates later - and it's "immediately". RN BBs were released in 0.6.10., and not nerfing them in 0.6.12 - 2 updates later (~6 weeks)- is...."half a year". What, really? On the other hand, I love Interstellar movie, too. British battleships were released in 0.6.10. It takes MONTHS for regular players to research a T10 ship. Of course there are big FreeXP spenders, but they are relatively few, and many of them are far better than average. And there are super hardcore guys who can get a top ship in several weeks, because grinding + skill + smart usage of economic boosts. You're looking at average current stats. So, simply speaking, you're comparing established audience of Yamato, Montana, and G.K. with rather "elite" audience of Conqueror. Let me show you avg. EU Minotaur stats for example: 0.5.13 (Minotaur released): 52,3% WR, 74386 DMG 0.5.15: 51% WR, 71535 DMG 0.6.2: 50,7% WR, 68172 DMG NOW (0.6.11): 50,1% WR, 67989 DMG Of course I cannot guarantee that Conqueror stats will stabilize in the same way (she's more forgiving than Minotaur), but overall, all T10 stats change over time, when more people arrive to the ship. Now, we realize you don't want us to wait that long to attend to the issue. So, what we're doing now is custom players selection (who own Conq and other T10 BBs), their segmentation, and comparison of their T10 BBs vs. Conq stats. This is the only way we can get more objective data, combine it with your feedback, and draw conclusions. It's not brain-dead, but personally I agree that it is more forgiving comparing to, say, Montana or Yamato. You seem to fix on the idea we don't count qualitative feedback - that's not true. Many buffs were made for QoL, for "fun" play, even though ship stats were fine. And the most ironic example is Montana and Iowa citadel. The community drive for this change was extremely strong, especially on NA and WoWs Reddit. Now, let me tell you this: we ignored quantitative feedback and followed the general community idea. I still think the change was OK, bit now it is magically dismissed. Anyways, other buffs, less or not at all controversial were also made thanks to qualitative feedback. Point is, both sources of data must be taken into account.
  9. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    This are average stats. They are skewed, because of the playerbase. They are not fully representative, but, along with your feedbacks, they indicate the possibility of a problem. We're researching this possibility. We're not ignoring the fact that many players think that ship is broken. So, give us some time please - actually, that's all I ask. You don't need to convince me we need to pay attention:) Hello. I appreciate this feedback. We're making some steps - first was the dev blog, now, I believe there's much room to grow in terms of CC interaction and input. I hope we will do it as well. Hey, you are welcome. I am not completely denying it is OP, what I'm trying to say, basically: "yes, we have SOME evidence that it may be OP, however, let us get more evidence, especially less emotionally-influenced, combine it all, and then, we will make a decision". Even if we accept the fact she HAS to be nerfed, the "How much?" question won't be solved without more information. Thanks everyone, and see you soon!
  10. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    The profiles and even the positions within the team are quite easy to find. I even shared them somewhere along with profile links - don't remember, was it the forum, or Reddit. And again, what would change if I waved my super-ultra-elite-unicum stats in your face and shouted Conq is fine? Would you be convinced? I doubt it, honestly. Or, on the other hand, if I did it with 45% WR? I mean, developers clearly must play the game to understand the experience it offers, and WoWs developers do that, however, I believe using dev personal accounts' stats to prove anything is hilarious. No, the ship is not CLEARLY overpowered, and even in this thread there are people who do not agree, however, it's much easier to insult them than have a discussion. Also, I don't understand why we're discussing my relation with Reddit community here - yes, I will take it personal, because I spend hours to help people there, and outside of monthly Q&A, that's my personal time. No need to go formal "company-customers" all the time either. I always try to make advances to the players outside of regular rules, and treat them as actual, real people. And I will expect some decency in return. If you don't like this, well, cannot help you at all. I guess, there were even more mistakes in a couple of hundred videos we produced over the years. Mistakes should be fixed, but they are inevitable. You are welcome I get your point, and agree with it. Should we get to work with the line, we'll surely use it. As for the testing, please mind that most of stuff that's being posted in dev blog is actually the internal stage. I'd say, we leak it just because the hardcore players are interested in such stuff, and will seek some leaks from ST anyways, so it is mostly for their convenience. Being accused of anything based on these tests is quite strange. Any discussion about what's right and what's wrong makes sense starting from Public Test. All earlier stuff may contain strange experiments, weird tweaks, broken mechanics and space monkeys - you have been warned.
  11. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    As I said, the stats will be examined closely. UK BBs were advertised as HE ships. Montana was not (and at high tiers, BBs tend to use AP more). So, the comparison is interesting, but not quire on point. Orion still may be OP, though. Also, nothing was "proposed". What we test does not necessarily go live, and it's not smart to get accusations out of test stuff. No, not yet. I mean, it's fine and reasonable to discuss Conqueror balance, but I fail to see why some of you must go personal with "devs don't play the game", especially considering it's objectively false.
  12. Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    But we do. There were many changes this year driven by CC, and we're thankful for that, because these were good changes. However, respecting and taking a point into account does not mean blindly following it. If we did not care, we were not looking at the stats in detail now. So, why make such accusations out of nowhere? But we do. That's quite...obvious. And I dare to say some of us are pretty good (which is not a requirement, but still, nice). So, again, why make such accusations?
  13. happy bday of black horror weekend

  14. Important Update: 2nd Anniversary Rewards

    Please let me copy-paste what I posted on Reddit on the same topic: Well, that's really an issue we did not expect, connected with personal offers system (which is used for gifts distribution here). This system is a rather new tool for us, and its dev team is split across different offices, so we're not perfect with it yet. There are absolutely no special intention in 1-day delay and 1 extra battle (and this, I think, does not make sense to you either). The issue is not region-specific, it is global (as personal offer system). If it matters for you, dear EU players, than no, EU community team has nothing to do with this. It's pure development mistake (which is absolutely zero difference - this is still our - WoWs team - fault). I, on behalf of the team, apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. We hope that you will still enjoy everything we prepared. Cheers.
  15. Important Update: 2nd Anniversary Rewards

    Hello. This is a good question - we will update containers description everywhere ASAP (yes, they will be avaliable globally). For now, I can tell that they will contain only combat signal flags, not the special ones. Cheers.
×