Jump to content

Sub_Octavian

WG Staff
  • Content Сount

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sub_Octavian

  • Rank
    Starfleet Captain
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,351 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
  3. Sub_Octavian

    0.8.0.3 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 0.8.0.3 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.
  4. Sub_Octavian

    0.8.0.3 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.
  5. Sub_Octavian

    0.8.0.3 hotfix feedback

    Hey guys. It's been quite long time...very nice to see you all OP - thank you for your detailed feedback. Midway has the ability to get 6 torps into target, and we saw somewhat excessive performance of her TB. Please mind that while the meta still changes (and we're in for the flooding rework soon), we may further adjust, well, anything, including Midway. We will start analyzing 0.8.0.3 stats on Monday, and will keep an eye on things. Don't worry. While we cannot operate with stats much at the moment, I can just do same as you - share my personal impressions. I specifically played Midway yesterday, and considering myself slightly-above-average player, I was able to do well with her. Yes, obviously it can turn out that we overnefed her torps, or it can turn out something else needs buffing. These are not final changes, and don't forget that in future updates, there will be buff of returning wings survivability AND AA stacking changes - which will help all CVs across the board. As for the storm detection: yes, it's by design, but we're most likely changing it. P.S. These are my yesterday's post 0.8.0.3 results (again, it's just personal impressions, I'm not proving anything with it at the moment). In many cases I was able to do 2 or 3 runs, btw, and I think only in 2 games I actually had to heavily cycle my plane types to avoid incomplete squadrons. Sorry, by I cannot agree that they are ineffective. They are just not as easy to use now. Also, I suspect you are mixing up Attack planes (guys with rockets) and Fighter planes (consumable). Fighter planes basically are more efficient now (more of them, and better reaction), so a CV has more motivation to provide support to the team. On the other hand, they are more fragile as a trade-off, which means they are worse spotting tool now (can be shot down easily). Attack planes were nerfed in their attack stage - duration, accuracy debuff and attack run maneuverability. Combined with surface-to-ship concealment buff that means that attack planes got somewhat more skill-dependent and a good DD can dodge them much better. Now you need to stick to your attack vector and be better in prediction, while you still can adjust after committing to attack, the accuracy will be worse. DDs can still be repelled by attack planes pretty good, and please don't forget these planes have other usages. I found them to be quite efficient in late game, when you just need reliable 3-4-6k of damage to finish off a bigger target. They still provide the most predictable results, and bigger ships can't juke them. Of course any nerfs are not pleasant - I committed to CV a lot myself after the rework. But hey, we're slowly getting to stabilizing the meta, with more comprehensive data and even some individual ship balancing. And in the meantime players are still learning - for example, if we take co-op as a benchmark (because the opposite team at least is kinda same each time) - CV WR was progressing by several % each day since release. And it's still improving. While CV popularity spiked, then went down (still considerably higher than pre-rework) and stabilizing. I think next week we will try to prepare a publication with some thoughts about new CV efficiency and balance goals. I hope you will find enjoyment in CV eventually, and further changes won't disappoint you. Have good week-end
  6. Sub_Octavian

    New AA mechanics explained

    Sigh. No. Because you have maneuver, continuous DPS, Def AA (on some ships) and sector reinforcement. The value of DPS (and effectively, Def AA and reinforcement) will increase significantly, as stated in my previous post about 0.8.0 hot-fix patch.
  7. Sub_Octavian

    New AA mechanics explained

    Hello everyone! Update 0.8.0 has been released recently, and of course there are a lot of questions, specifically about the new anti-air defense mechanic. In this article we're going to discuss all details about 0.8.0 AA - how it works, how it interacts with commander skills and upgrades, and everything else. Please note that the CV rework introduced in 0.8.0 will undergo a lot of tweaking and balancing, so the information here may get outdated at some point by subsequent changes. How it used to be pre-0.8.0 In brief, planes got shot down with a certain probability (dependent on AA potential), and the planes, in fact, did not have effective individual hit points. At the same time, AA mounts did not have minimal range, so AA generally grew a lot stronger closer to the ship. It caused two issues: Probability-based and erratic plane destruction used to create too much RNG - sometimes squadrons got wiped out in a moment, sometimes AA seemed to have zero effect; Lack of minimal firing range interrupted with creating proper AA support specs, so that the ships could cover their allies properly, but would not be invulnerable at closer range; How it works now 1.Each plane has individual hit points. If a planes 'dips' into AA range, it will be damaged according to the respective AA strength, and the damage will be recorded (so it will be easier to shoot down later) indicated by the green/yellow/red HP bars. 2.Each AA group has a minimum range now, so short, medium and long range AA on one ship do not overlap, which gives much more options for balancing the AA in general and gives a lot of potential for AA variety. For example, let's look at Baltimore AA. Close range is 0,1-1,5 km, medium is 1,5-3,5, long range covers 3,5-5,8 km. 3. Now there is "hit chance" parameter for AA. It allows for a better fine tuning of AA mounts per class and tier - usually it is higher for more modern ships, which represents more modern AA fire control systems. Hit chance affects flak bursts and constant DPS. 4. AA damage is dealt in two ways now: Constant DPS in the respective AA range. The damage dealt is DPS multiplied with Hit chance, so, if you have 100 DPS and 70% hit chance, you will deal 70 damage per second. This damage is being dealt to each squadron in the AA range (and it's not being spread - each squadron receives full DPS). It also worth noting that within the squadron it is being dealt to a randomly chosen plane, one at a time (basically AA quickly shoots at all planes in a squadron, plane by plane). This is why some of your planes are getting damaged a bit earlier, and some - a bit later in constant DPS area. Flak bursts (for medium and long range AA only). A flak burst is a specific volume in a three dimensional space, and if a plane physically gets inside it, the damage (usually very large) is applied to it (that exact plane). Actual average number of flak bursts is: base flak bursts parameter, multiplied by Hit chance. Flak bursts appear on the calculated squadron path, within the specified zones (see the picture). Mostly the bursts will be concentrated in narrow A zone directly on squadron path, and if it's full of bursts already, the rest will go to the side B zones (which makes maneuvering more challenging). More about these flak bursts Please note once again that the info here, especially balance values, is subject to change. Flak bursts appear each 2 seconds. The burst "physical" size depends on AA mount caliber - larger caliber guns give bigger bursts. Zone width (X) depends on squadron speed. It will be quite wide (X1) if current squadron speed is high, and it will be narrow (X2) if the planes are going at minimal speed. That means that using throttle is very important for dodging flak bursts. Effective flak burst amount, as mentioned before is base flak burst parameter multiplied with Hit chance. Normal (Gauss) distribution is applied, and the minimal burst size is symmetrical to the maximum. That means that with 10 base burst size and 70% hit chance, it will mostly be 7 bursts, 10 is maximum number and 4 is minimum. With a single ship AA, 80% of flak bursts (but not more than 6) is being placed in zone A. The rest goes to side B zones. Flak bursts do not overlap each other. Let's check Baltimore once again (the scaling on these pictures is simplified). Long range AA has spawned 5 bursts, so 5 go to A zone and 1 goes to B zone. Medium range AA has spawned 11 bursts, so A zone gets 6 bursts (of lesser size) and 5 bursts go to B. If there are several ships firing, the rules are slightly different: up to 8 bursts can be placed in A zone combined and up to 10 bursts - in A zones. The most powerful burst are being chosen in this case. This limit gives at least slight chance for attack even against a strong AA group. If a single AA group has multiple squadrons in range, flak bursts that would have been in B zone otherwise, are distributed into A zones so that AA covers all squadrons. That said, long and medium range AA still do not overlap, so if one enemy squadron is at medium range, and the other is at long range, that means each of them will interact with its respective AA group without any mixing and overlapping. AA reinforcement and visual hints AA can be reinforced two ways in battle. 1.Defensive AA consumable: constant DPS and flak bursts damage increases, and the bursts turn red. Regular bursts are orange, and defensive AA bursts are red. Usually the increase is x2 for cruisers and x3 for destroyers. 2. AA sector reinforcement (via special menu bound to "~" and "O" keys). Constant DPS in the chosen sector is increased by 25-60% (depends on class and shown in the Port) at the expense of the other sector. AA tracers in the prioritized sector turn red. AA sectors don't have any transition states, they are either reinforced, normal or weakened. Changing the state takes time, so you should do it in advance. If a squadron is at the border between two sectors, the sector it is in is determined by the amount of planes; if 7 planes are in the right sector, and 2 are in the left, the squadron is considered to be in the right. Skills and upgrades Upgrades AA mod.1 - slot 3 (available from tier 5). Gives +2 to flak burst base value for long and medium range AA. Especially useful for the ships with low amount of bursts. AA mod.2 - slot 6 (available from tier 9). Increases both constant DPS at all ranges and flak bursts damage by 15%. A very powerful AA buff, but at the cost of other efficient upgrades in the slot. Skills (I) Direction center for fighters - +1 Fighter when you use the respective consumable; (III) Basic firing training - Increases constant DPS at all ranges by 10% (and increases rate of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 10%); (IV) Advanced firing training - Increases flak burst damage by 15% (and increases range of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 20%); (IV) Manual Fire Control for AA Armament - increases the efficiency of sector reinforcing by 20% (which means 150% from 125%, for example) and reduces the time for switching by 20%. So how do I maximize my AA defense? First of all, AA reinforcement influences only constant DPS, so if you want to play around it, you better pick a ship with a lot of constant DPS. Additionally keep in mind that the switching time is different per class - 5 seconds for destroyers, 10 seconds for cruisers, 12 seconds for battleships and 15 seconds for carriers. Using this mechanic will require extra attention from you, but in return you will increase the type of damage that is constant and impossible to dodge. With Manual Fire Control your damage multiplier gets even more serious - x1,5 for cruisers and battleships, x1,8 for destroyers and x1,92 for carriers. What's even better, you can maximize this DPS with Basic Firing Trainng - and that skill is useful for most destroyers and secondary-specced battleships. Advanced firing training is especially useful for the ships with low constant DPS and high amount of flak bursts, and it combines well with AA mod.1. As with Basic Firing Training, this skill is beneficial for secondaries and small caliber main guns. Direction center for fighters can be very influential on low level, where the fighter squadron is small. Overall, we would recommend it only as the last priority, or when you have 1 extra point to spend. What are the best maneuvers when being attacked by different squadrons? Attack planes deal the least amount of damage, but they are very fast, agile and relatively easy to aim. Their rocket dispersion is different per game nation, so you should typically not expose broadside to the USN attack planes, and try to avoid going bow or aft against IJN and RN planes. Dive bombers are usually slower and it's hard for them to adjust their aim while in the attack run. That means quick maneuvering is the key, and, as their dispersion pattern is usually long, they deal the most damage with bow or aft attack runs. Torpedo bombers have different attack run patterns per nation, but they have one common thing - they always try to catch you broadside to maximize the number of hits. USN torpedo bombers usually carry more torpedoes per attack, but they have more challenging aiming, so evasive maneuvers in advance will make their life much more difficult. IJN torpedo bombers usually carry torpedoes with relatively long range, so beware of long drops and pay attention even if they do something on the edge of your visibility. Remember about other enemies while dodging CV attacks. Sometimes it's better to take some damage from a CV instead of exposing your broadside to its BB allies. And as a destroyer, don't forget about "P" button which turns AA off. You typically have great concealment, and being spotted late can be more advantageous than firing your AA immediately. If you appear close enough, the enemy squadron can easily fly overhead and miss the first attack run. We hope this article was useful and you now have a better and clearer understanding of AA mechanics now. Thank you!
  8. Sub_Octavian

    [0.8.0] First CV rework tweaks and changes

    Removing. Adding seems too much at the moment.
  9. Sub_Octavian

    [0.8.0] First CV rework tweaks and changes

    Please no conspiracy theories. Sometimes quotation marks are just quotation marks! I will see myself out now. Let's hope they do, a hotfix is supposed to fix, not to break.
  10. Dear players, It's been less than a week since update 0.8.0 release - a major, and probably the biggest change in the game yet, CV rework. We want to share the first list of fixes, changes and tweaks that are to be implemented to improve new CV and counter-CV gameplay. But first of all we sincerely thank you for your feedback and game activity, as well as apologize for any stress and inconvenience that you could experience due to massive game change Please note that all information in this post is preliminary. 1. Critical changes and fixes that we're working on right now (to be implemented within 0.8.0 in "hotfix" update ASAP). Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN tier X CV Hakuryu; Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN Torpedo Bombers (reduce flooding chance, introduce spread debuff when maneuvering); Resolve the "F-spam" issue, when a CV can just recall its squadron at any time without considerable penalties (increase the vulnerability time for the squadron after recall so that players can shoot down some planes before it completely disengages); Do overall AA balancing: shift a part of damage from flak bursts to constant DPS. Flak bursts proved to be an interesting aspect of AA. However, on the one hand, they deal disproportional amount of damage, and on the other hand, avoiding them often results in completely insufficient damage to the planes; Do overall Attack Planes vs. Destroyers balancing. While this is an important thing to do, we would like to indicate that most players seem to underestimate the power of manual AA activation ([P] by default). Due to great DD concealment, if often makes sense to turn AA off until spotted. A DD spotted at minimal range is a lot harder to hit with the first attack run even with rockets. Although, this trick does not remove the need for further balancing; Do additional Premium CV and UK CV (unreleased) balancing; Remove the inconsistency between Des Moines and Salem in close/mid-range AA; 2. Changes and improvements that we work on now in the timeframe of next updates (0.8.1 and beyond). Improve plane reserves UI (information should me better presented); Improve AA sector UI (better usability); Do additional balancing for individual ships, armament, skills and upgrades, as the statistical data is being accumulated; Clear the minimap for non-CV ships (remove the unnecessary info about returning planes, etc); Finish the development for CV bots (Cooperative Battles); 3. Open questions and concerns to be researched in more detail and addressed if needed (no specific update planned yet, but it may change). The amount and quality of CV spotting in the new meta; MM limits (our ideal limit is 1 CV per team, very few cases of 2 CV (and always 1 at tier X, but right now the limit is 3 across the board): we would like to change the limits where/when possible. As indicated before, these are the first plans after several days of release. We will keep monitoring your feedback and update you about any further changes. Thank you, good luck, and fair seas!
  11. Sub_Octavian

    [PSA][0.8.0] Visibility (gun bloom) fix commentary

    YY nerf was fully justified. We should just deal with it - sometimes ships will be nerfed (because sometimes they are buffed, and overall, this is balancng). Aso for "sweeping it under the carpet". I don't know how else I can put it, man. Let me try it this way: I officially confirm that we will implement it as a proper part of visibility mechanics, because you, our dear players, really enjoyed the effect of the bug, you made your point very clear, and because we agree with your argument FOR it, finding it stronger than our initial argument AGAINST it. Good night
  12. Sub_Octavian

    [PSA][0.8.0] Visibility (gun bloom) fix commentary

    RELAXING???
  13. Sub_Octavian

    [PSA][0.8.0] Visibility (gun bloom) fix commentary

    To be clear. I am NOT stating that proper implementation will take 2-3 months of full time work (Jesus I hope not...). However, we are pushing one MAJOR update each month. 0.8.1 is almost in testing now, 0.8.2 is being finalized, 0.8.3 is in development...that means that we either queue it for ~0.8.3 (if our preliminaty estimation is correct) OR we rush it closer (technically you indeed may rush it into 0.8.2 or even 0.8.1). BUT! This brings two major risks: technical (adding new mechanics into regression....ouch) and org (if we squeeze it into already very tight dev schedule, we may lose something else). Is is justified to risk that much? Sorry, but our answer is no. You like the bug, I personally like the bug, a lot of staff like the bug, we all agree let's implement is as a feature. But we lived without this bug all time prior to 0.7.9. Yes, it's cool, but it's not critical enough to justify the risk of Rushing-B it into the nearest update. I hope I was able to explain this :-) P.S. Wrong quote, I was referring to your previous comment.
  14. Sub_Octavian

    [PSA][0.8.0] Visibility (gun bloom) fix commentary

    I personally hope for 0.8.3. 0.8.1 is already nearly finished, 0.8.2 will most likely contain a lot of CV updates and tweaks (0.8.1 may have them as well), so...
  15. Dear players, In update 0.8.0 we fixed a visibility system bug which has been around for several months, since 0.7.9. I would like to clarify all the details of this fix, why it needs to be done, and what changes we are going to implement to meet your feedback. How did it work before 0.7.9 / how will it work now in 0.8.0? After firing Main Guns, a ship gets 20 seconds of concealment penalty (sometimes referred as “gun bloom”). There could be two penalties – regular “after firing main guns”, which is equal to the ship’s main gun range and “after firing main guns from smoke”, which is always less. For the sake of explanation, let’s not consider any “x-ray” detection methods: Radar, HAS and Proximity. They are irrelevant to this subject. Let’s take an example with 2 ships – “Target” and “Observer”. Observer does not see Target, but it is in Target’s “after firing main guns” concealment range and beyond “after firing main guns from smoke”. Both ships are currently out in open water, without any line of sight (LoS) interruption. If Target fires it’s main guns, it will get 20 seconds of “after firing main guns” concealment debuff. Observer will detect it. Option A: If target moves behind an island afterwards, Observer stops detecting it (as LoS is interrupted), but the concealment debuff stays. Option B: if target moves behind or within smoke screen, Observer stops detecting it (as LoS is interrupted by smoke, and Observer is beyond Target’s “after firing main guns from smoke” concealment range). The concealment value now is “after firing main guns from smoke”. If a target, WITHIN these 20 seconds moves out of smoke/cover, Observer detects it again. Target concealment value is “after firing main guns” again (until 20 seconds expire). Clarification: concealment changes are well illustrated by minimap, if you turn the advanced option on. Clarification: 20 seconds timer starts ONLY if Target was detected when/as a result of firing main guns. What was different with this bug and what changed? Points 2-4 worked differently. To be precise, as soon as Target broke LoS with Observer, the timer was just canceled regardless of any further Target movement. From gameplay point of view this allowed players to disengage more aggressively sometimes. Although, if we sum up everything “before” and “after” 0.8.0, it can be worded in only two changes: If Target moves to/behind smoke screen after firing main guns, its concealment in 0.8.0 will be “after firing main guns from smoke” instead of “2 km aka X-Ray only” – for 20 seconds after firing. If Target moves breaks LoS (cover, smoke) but then LoS is restored, its concealment in 0.8.0 will be “after firing main guns” instead of base – for 20 seconds after firing. It should be noted that these cases may indeed be important sometimes, but overall, they are very minor and do not affect game balance in any way. Then, why do you “fix” something that works fine and does not break anything? To answer this, we should very clearly distinguish gameplay aspect and tech aspect. Technically, this is a bug in the visibility system code – and it must be fixed. Even if the result of this bug is fine (or even enjoyable), the way it is “implemented” is very dangerous for game stability overall. Such bugs cannot be controlled and we cannot be sure that they won’t create additional side effects with other game components in the future. Gameplay-wise, we have two points for fixing it. First, we believe that consistency in 20 seconds bloom time will make the visibility system more comprehensible – on an intuitive level. Secondly, and this is even more important, this bug may lead to a scenario when a huge ship can fire its main guns, and then immediately go undetected by breaking its LoS with a tiny island – and that plays, looks and feels weird. However, there are strong arguments FOR the “bugged” mechanics. Many of you expressed the opinion that this mechanic promotes active play and brings better risk/reward by allowing players to disengage faster in some cases. We take these arguments very seriously. What will happen now? Fixing this bug in 0.8.0 is still a thing. As explained before, the risks of leaving it are too high, and we believe it’s not worth it. However, we are not going to ignore the positive effects of this bug and your feedback on it. We are going to implement these effects as a proper feature of the game’s visibility system. It will take some time, as right now 0.8.1 is almost done and is being prepared for testing, with 0.8.2-0.8.3 in active development. But regardless of the tight schedule we are committed on delivering this change as soon as possible. We will keep you updated. In the meantime, thank you all for your input and desire to make the game better. Action stations!
×