[UPD 11/2] Update 0.8.0.2 Hotfix

[HellsingCross]

3 minutes ago, GABEROFF said:

Let me hug you, mate! This hot fix (crap) nerfed CVs to the ground. Quite painful to all CV players. Within a day my Haku turned into a pile of rusty steel....

Thats true...

Still no hotfix to fix the "hotfix" :/

[romyo]

7 minutes ago, HellsingCross said:

Thats true...

Still no hotfix to fix the "hotfix" :/

I think we gonna need more than a hotfix to fix the hotfix, we gona need a hotfix to hotfix the hotfix that hotfixed the rework.

[victorem]

removing cvs from game would surely work.

just saying...

[HellsingCross]

12 minutes ago, romyo said:

I think we gonna need more than a hotfix to fix the hotfix, we gona need a hotfix to hotfix the hotfix that hotfixed the rework.

 

Wish someone tested it before live tho, 

[victorem]

4 hours ago, KHS01 said:

Will be possible to use joystick for cv in the future? I think it will be a nice addition and friendly controls for aircrafts.

buy one, and assign the keys to your fancy.  GL   lol

[rising_uk]

Er!? In the 'hotfix' notes it says you've nerfed the chance of flooding for the IV IJN torpedoes by 30%. Have you actually played the IV torpedo planes or are you all just super-unicums as it's hard enough to hit a BB consistently let alone cause a flood( why the hell can't I have an aiming sight like the DD's have?), I can count the number of floods I've had on one hand. I also notice that now you are saying I can't move from my path or else the sight will spread so basically I just have to fly straight into flak which by the way slaughters me at TIV and then if I hit 'F' to abort I get completely wiped? If this is your way of driving away newbie CV players like me then congrats you're beginning to succeed.

p.s.

You want to hotfix something, stop my dive bombers going up before they go down, not only did they never do this but it adds an unnecessary complication to my aiming. I'm sure some graphic weeble thought it was a 'cool' feature but its not, a cool feature would be to fly over a ship and DIVE bomb it.

 

Alle 6/2/2019 alle 23:46, ZWC ha scritto:

I just dislike the fact that torpedo can be dropped through mountains....
So if you are behind a rock... torpedo will pop-up underneath it.... and hit / hurt or kill you

 

Will it? Wow! Thanks for that tip. 

[Yare_Yare]

the cvs are not fun to play anymore since the hotfix.
you have the same problems as before the rework where you have ships just creating a giant no fly zone in a 8km radius, a friend even shot down 81 planes in a freakin zao while straggling off alone. you are forced to torp from 8km range with 40 knot torps without a lead indicator and even it there was one, the ships will just turn away and avoid them. even worse, even if you do everything correct as a carrier and dont lose planes you will be deplaned after a couple of waves because the service time is way too high now. you keep flying with squadrons that are missing 1/3 of their planes the entire game even when you are dangerously close to the enemy ships with the cv. with the large aiming time on japanese torpedo bombers you cant drop the torpedos  all in the same line anymore , you have to do fly a 360 curve and do another run from 8km again. while this might be alright with rocket planes or bombers, for torpedos this gives enemy ships more then enough time to turn between each salvo so thats its impossible to hit anything. if you try to drop closer then 8km you will atleast lose 2 planes wich is enough to run out of planes. even if you switch to other plane types, the same thing will happen and you will ge deplaned not by planes shot down but simply by droping their load. you have like 15+ planes in the air on their way back to the cv at some times because they are so slow.

it would have been much better to just decrease the dmg and flood chance of japanese torpedo bombers by 50% or more while keeping the fast paste gameplay of it. the gameplay right now feels way to slow and clunky.  and nerf the aa to the point where only the ships that are supposed to have good aa have good aa as it was before. it feels as if every ship has defensive fire permanently active and even if you avoid flak you die after 10 seconds just to passive dmg.

[novents]

In the spirit of staying constructive, here's a small list of glaringly obvious issues with 8.0 and the Hotfix. From the perspective of a DD player, i.e. facing against CVs most of the time. 

 

1) General spotting. 

I feel as though the new 8.0 patch traded tactical map control and lock down of cap circles with multiple squadrons (pre-patch) for pure spotting and harassment (post-patch). At the moment, as multiple examples have surfaced (whether it's taking 50% off of DD's HP in the first 30 seconds, or flying Shima torp soup on capital ships), this is too overpowered. It's also created a very toxic environment, where players type in chat "CV - please focus on non-stop harassing enemy DDs, because that's exactly what their CV will do to us". WG DEV TEAM - are you aware of this? And the Hotfix has made this issue worse. Possible solutions: 

 

- Reduce Air detectability of all ships. Especially DDs. Make the CVs WORK HARDER to find targets, especially if they're not sailing in straight lines towards cap. There was an old board game called Battleships or Sea Battle (Морской Бой - if anyone from WG DEV TEAM is reading this @The_EURL_Guy), where you would have ships equal to 1,2,3 and 4 squares (1 square being the small DD) and you would sometimes get lucky and find that little ship straight away or spend the entire game looking for it. Make the CVs CHOOSE - either they spend valuable time looking for enemy DDs and miss out on dealing damage in the game opener, OR they focus on making attacking runs on large ships (already spotted by friendly DDs) and give up spotting duties. And BTW - if Radio Location skill works for planes - this should be removed asap. 

 

- Increase visibility of planes. You have to be able to see them coming a mile away, and (as a DD) you can play a cat and mouse game by changing your course to avoid detection. Same could apply to larger ships (with nerfed air detectability), but to a lesser extent of course. Old (pre-patch) gameplay allowed DDs to avoid attention of incoming planes by changing course and keeping AA guns silent - it didn't work every time, but it was possible. 

 

 

2) Rocket planes.

As I understand it, rocket planes were designed as a hard counter to DDs. But at the moment they're too OP. Possible solutions:

 

- Reduce alpha damage OR accuracy (sigma, or time taken to focus the drop), allowing DDs to benefit a bit from WASD hax. Rockets would be (much?) harder to land on DDs, but if they land - ouch. Conversely, rockets would still be able to hit on larger ships but will deal very small damage. Again, make the CVs CHOOSE. 

 

- Reduce HP pool of rocket planes. I imagine planes carrying rockets would be (to a larger extent) small and light aircrafts or repurposed old fighters that trade agility and speed for HP. Make them agile, but (much?) easier to shoot down. 

 

- Being smaller and lighter shouldn't make rocket planes completely useless against capital ships, though. They should be effective, but situational. Their higher speed and agility vs. heavier torpedo planes and dive bombers can make rocket planes better suited / more efficient at finishing heavily wounded BBs and Cruisers, after they've burned multiple times and had most of their AA mounts knocked out. Continuous DPS of the remaining AA doesn't deal as much damage, and agile rocket planes are better at dodging the remaining flak. 

 

 

3) Torpedo planes. 

Unlike light aircrafts carrying rockets, these have to be heavier planes to carry the lethal loadout. Heavier = bigger HP pool than rocket planes BUT slow and less manoeuvrable. As a result: 

 

- Torp drops will be harder to land on DDs taking evasive action, but DDs struggle to shoot them down with AA (unlike rocket planes). Let torp drops still be effective against DDs, but very situational. For example, a beached DD or reversing DD with broken engine should be an "easier target" for torpedo planes than a DD doing 38kts in open water. Punish mistakes made by individual players, not the ship class. And reward skilful CV play.

 

- Larger ships have (or should have) better AA defence and AA range than DDs (both flak AND continuous damage due to larger deck space to house a bigger number of small calibre AA guns). And are thus better equipped to deal with torp planes, but cannot dodge as well obviously. 

 

 

4) 1-v-1 engagements. 

Just like CVs now have a hard counter to DDs (rocket planes), DDs should be the natural hard counter to CVs. Currently, I see too many late game scenarios where there's a DD plus cruiser and a BB left against an enemy CV and a few other ships. Friendly cruiser and BB are out of range and occupied by other enemy ships, and the DD has ABSOLUTELY no tools to take on the enemy CV. Torps are ineffective if the CV is running away OR get spotted by planes anyway, guns do very little to no damage (at least at T10 with armoured decks of Haku and Midway), smoke is useless as you lose vision and give up location. In a 1-v-1, the CV wins every time if there are no friendly ships within range. Also, the closer you are to the CV, the less time it takes him to get a squadron over your head. Possible solution: 

 

- Reduced air detectability of ships (as above). The CV has to WORK HARD to find the DD. 

 

- Possibly, increased detectability of CVs? Haku concealment is as low as 11.5km I believe. What this means is that as soon as he's spotted, he only has a small radius to search and find the DD, completely negating their effectiveness and hounding them down with non stop waves of rocket planes. 

 

 

5) Fighter squadrons. 

Current consumable seems very dumb and not particularly effective (although I stand to be corrected on this as I don't play CVs myself). The little no-fly zone is easily avoided, and only benefits friendly ships if they sit in that zone (they rarely do, you have to keep moving). And where does that fighter come from? Another CV? A naval base? Also, the amount of fighters the CV can spawn on top of himself when cornered or under attack just seems broken. Give the CVs a fighter squadron they can fly and control. I don't know if this would mess with balance too much, or encourage CV sniping early game to lock the other CV into a defensive position, but maybe worth exploring? 

 

====================

 

@The_EURL_Guy It's only a small list of suggestions. You want to be introducing the fixes one by one. Start with balancing T10, which had the most of issues and complaints, then move down to the lower tiers as and if necessary. What you DON'T WANT TO BE DOING is exactly what you did with the Hotfix - a shovel to the face nerf without actually analysing the community feedback (constructive feedback, not "noise") or looking at particular problem areas as I tried to highlight above and many before me have done. 

 

I've played a good dozen or more games today since the Hotfix. Towards early evening, I saw games with 0 CVs queueing at T10 and 26(!!) CVs queueing at T4. WARGAMING DEV TEAM - in less than a day you drove higher tier CV players away, and created a plane party in lower tiers which are not equipped to deal with planes! The Hotfix is a bigger problem than patch 8.0 altogether. 

 

PLEASE FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ON BALANCING THE CV / AA GAMEPLAY BEFORE  you even think about moving on to other things like radar or up/down- tiering premium ships. You are playing with TOO MANY VARIABLES at a time, which doesn't allow you to analyse the existing problem in isolation. 

[pidde59]

Thx for hotfix it got Better playing World of warships ( Not World of Aircraft Carriers  )((you might create a new game for those aviators im for sure not one of them  at least not w the update... It was fun to play cv before update, Now its aviation game and you already have World of Airplanes for those interested in such ))Even after hotfix   still got serious flaws 1:) torpedos going trough islands and mountains popping up from nowhere... 2:)  The range of the Aviation torps are still Ridiculously long (very unrealistic ) 3:) The flack of most ships need to be strengthen,  Before i could easy shoot down 15+ ac in my AA fitted Atlanta + AA capt now maybe 6-10 Ac  in the same ...                                                                                                               Removing cvs from game would surely work.....or at least create a tick box for those that don't play w Cv s ... or your next Idea maybe cruse missiles  !!!!! type Harpoon   (old Super naval game btw )                    

[MMKing93]

2 hours ago, AlexFari said:

One thing I don't understand, please make it clear for me.

so imagine a Tier 9 battle, with tier 8 CV and some Tier 7 ships in it and you are in an Atlanta...

here is the question. do I have to ask a Benson to provide AA support for me which is 6 times better than my AA just for 1 tier difference ?!!!

Because these numbers says the exact same thing !!!

First of, those two pictures are from two different patches. The Atlanta picture is from the current 0.8.1 patch, while the Benson picture is from the previous 0.8.0 patch.

 

Atlanta has 5 flak bursts base, and Benson has only 3. Atlanta does 243 damage base continuous, Benson does 84 (A/B hull). The only thing the Benson has is superior flak bursts, but it's damage is only threatening to tier 6 air groups and it doesn't have the volume of flak necessary to hit multiple times. You can count yourself lucky if even a single flak hits home.

 

 

[rising_uk]

Actually, what we are watching is Soviet style rocket engineering practice. When they used to build big rocket engines they'd pick the theoretically perfect but inherently dangerous design, build it, watch it blow-up from the launch pad, pick up all the pieces, find the bit that caused the blow-up, fix it, build, watch it blow-up, find.... rinse and repeat until it hopefully works, very, very time consuming on resources but then then didn't give a crap about such things as who could you complain to? 

 

Unfortunately in our case they are using our hard-earned cash to pay for their resources and testing. It's why my premium account will not reopen even tho' I'm seriously missing it whilst trying to grind the TIV CV's as even before this 'hotfix' they were a total nightmare with respect to XP and silver earnt and now are even worse!! Still, could have been worse as if I had given in and brought some prem time I'd now be paying for an even worse situation than before. 

 

Hey! Hey!! Hey!!! I think I've got a solution!

 

Now given WG are never going to role this patch back, that they want to get the console players in and want to recoup some of their WoWPs costs(I actually liked where that was going but it seems not enough players and too many bots now) let's think about what the counter was to CV's in the old RTS. It was CV's!! So go the whole hog WG, make the plane play like WoWPs and give us altitude and the ability to actually fly the planes but give us FIGHTER'S. I for one would love to chase and shoot down those pesky rocketeers and bombers and torpedo planes. 

Yes, yes, I can see all sorts of problems with the way such a meta might develop, planes circling their aa blobs, etc but at least they won't be bothering the ships and could it be worse than this? Steal a march on War Thunder at least. 

[anunnak]

30 minutes ago, novents said:

I agree with most of your points, and like I say in my (now slightly edited) post, I have a long list of issues with 8.0 and an even bigger one with the Hotfix. 

 

1) General spotting. 

I feel as though the new 8.0 patch traded tactical map control and lock down of cap circles with multiple squadrons (pre-patch) for pure spotting and harassment (post-patch). At the moment, as multiple examples have surfaced (whether it's taking 50% off of DD's HP in the first 30 seconds, or flying Shima torp soup on capital ships), this is too overpowered. Possible solutions: 

 

- Reduce Air detectability of all ships. Especially DDs. Make the CVs WORK HARDER to find targets, especially if they're not sailing in straight lines towards cap. There was an old board game called Battleships or Sea Battle (Морской Бой - if anyone from WG DEV TEAM is reading this), where you would have ships equal to 1,2,3 and 4 squares (1 square being the small DD) and you would sometimes get lucky and find that little ship straight away or spend the entire game looking for it. Make the CVs CHOOSE - either they spend valuable time looking for enemy DDs and miss out on dealing damage in the game opener, OR they focus on making attacking runs on large ships (already spotted by friendly DDs) and give up spotting duties. And BTW - if Radio Location skill works for planes - this should be removed asap. 

 

- Increase visibility of planes. You have to be able to see them coming a mile away, and (as a DD) you can play a cat and mouse game by changing your course to avoid detection. Same could apply to larger ships (with nerfed air detectability), but to a lesser extent of course. Old (pre-patch) gameplay allowed DDs to avoid attention of incoming planes by changing course and keeping AA guns silent - it didn't work every time, but it was possible. 

 

 

2) Rocket planes.

As I understand it, rocket planes were designed as a hard counter to DDs. But at the moment they're too OP. Possible solutions:

 

- Reduce alpha damage OR accuracy (sigma, or time taken to focus the drop), allowing DDs to benefit a bit from WASD hax. Rockets would be (much?) harder to land on DDs, but if they land - ouch. Conversely, rockets would still be able to hit on larger ships but will deal very small damage. Again, make the CVs CHOOSE. 

 

- Reduce HP pool of rocket planes. I imagine planes carrying rockets would be (to a larger extent) small and light aircrafts or repurposed old fighters that trade agility and speed for HP. Make them agile, but (much?) easier to shoot down. 

 

 

3) Torpedo planes. 

Unlike light aircrafts carrying rockets, these have to be heavier planes to carry the lethal loadout. Heavier = bigger HP pool than rocket planes BUT slow and less manoeuvrable. As a result: 

 

- Torp drops will be very hard to land on DDs, but DDs struggle to shoot them down with AA (unlike rocket planes). 

 

- Larger ships have (or should have) better AA defence and AA range than DDs (both flak AND continuous damage due to larger deck space to house a bigger number of small calibre AA guns). And are thus better equipped to deal with torp planes, but cannot dodge as well obviously. 

 

 

4) 1-v-1 engagements. 

Just like CVs now have a hard counter to DDs (rocket planes), DDs should be the natural hard counter to CVs. Currently, I see too many late game scenarios where there's a DD plus cruiser and a BB left against an enemy CV and a few other ships. Friendly cruiser and BB are out of range and occupied by other enemy ships, and the DD has ABSOLUTELY no tools to take on the enemy CV. Torps are ineffective if the CV is running away, guns do very little to no damage (at least at T10 with armoured decks of Haku and Midway), smoke is useless as you lose vision and give up location. In a 1-v-1, the CV wins every time if there are no friendly ships within range. Also, the closer you are to the CV, the less time it takes him to get a squadron over your head. Possible solution: 

 

- Reduced air detectability of ships (as above). The CV has to WORK HARD to find the DD. 

 

- Possibly, increased detectability of CVs? Haku concealment is as low as 11.5km I believe. What this means is that as soon as he's spotted, he only has a small radius to search and find the DD, completely negating their effectiveness and hounding them down with non stop waves of rocket planes. 

 

 

5) Fighter squadrons. 

Current consumable seems very dumb and not particularly effective (although I stand to be corrected on this as I don't play CVs myself). The little no-fly zone is easily avoided, and only benefits friendly ships if they sit in that zone (they rarely do, you have to keep moving). And where does that fighter come from? Another CV? A naval base? Also, the amount of fighters the CV can spawn on top of himself when cornered or under attack just seems broken. Give the CVs a fighter squadron they can fly and control. I don't know if this would mess with balance too much, or encourage CV sniping early game to lock the other CV into a defensive position, but maybe worth exploring? 

 

====================

 

It's only a small list of suggestions. You want to be introducing the fixes one by one. Start with balancing T10, which had the most of issues and complaints, then move down to the lower tiers as and if necessary. What you DON'T WANT TO BE DOING is exactly what you did with the Hotfix - a shovel to the face nerf without actually analysing the community feedback (constructive feedback, not "noise") or looking at particular problem areas as I tried to highlight above. 

 

I've played a good dozen or more games today since the Hotfix. Towards early evening, I saw games with 0 CVs queueing at T10 and 26(!!) CVs queueing at T4. WARGAMING DEV TEAM - in less than a day you drove higher tier CV play into the ground, and created a plane party in lower tiers which are not equipped to deal with planes! 

 

PLEASE FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ON BALANCING THE CV / AA GAMEPLAY BEFORE  you even think about moving on to other things like radar or up/down- tiering premium ships. You are playing with TOO MANY VARIABLES at a time, which doesn't allow you to analyse the existing problem in isolation. 

 

1) The problem is they are trying to be historical accurate (speed, visibility, etc), make the game fun and balance the classes. If u go more in one direction u loose sight of the other. Ships feel harassed too much by CV's now. We had DD's as scarecrows now we have CV's. The biggest impact if you ask me is the speed of the planes. They are just too fast for the current maps. Nerfing speeds would fix the spotting and ability to attack ships and DD's so fast.

2) + 3) Making planes good or week vs  certain targets would help much the gameplay, that seems a very nice ideea. 

4) I for one dont think there's any ship that can take a CV one on one right now. I wonder why dev's dont check the stats of fights 1 on 1 vs CV of every class. Would be a nice refference point to start a balance imo.

5) I agree 100%. The fighter consumable seems pointless on every ship. Doesn't do much, lasts for a very short time, it's easily shot down.

[RegiaMarinaX]

WG have lost head the 99% ships now have a super power AA and the air grp can do nothing WG plz remove much dmg from AA no give it more!

 

[novents]

Alle 8/2/2019 alle 03:33, anunnak ha scritto:

 

1) The problem is they are trying to be historical accurate (speed, visibility, etc), make the game fun and balance the classes. If u go more in one direction u loose sight of the other. Ships feel harassed too much by CV's now. We had DD's as scarecrows now we have CV's. The biggest impact if you ask me is the speed of the planes. They are just too fast for the current maps. Nerfing speeds would fix the spotting and ability to attack ships and DD's so fast.

2) + 3) Making planes good or week vs  certain targets would help much the gameplay, that seems a very nice ideea. 

4) I for one dont think there's any ship that can take a CV one on one right now. I wonder why dev's dont check the stats of fights 1 on 1 vs CV of every class. Would be a nice refference point to start a balance imo.

5) I agree 100%. The fighter consumable seems pointless on every ship. Doesn't do much, lasts for a very short time, it's easily shot down.

If they're trying to be historically accurate (as much as possible, given it's still a game and not real life, lol) - the legendary hunt for the Bismarck started with one lucky pilot risking his life to fly low into the clouds and accidentally (!) spotting a silhouette of a large ship (not even the actual ship) in the Norwegian fjords... 

 

Leave the spotter ribbons for DDs, please

 

Alle 8/2/2019 alle 03:57, RegiaMarinaX ha scritto:

WG have lost head the 99% ships now have a super power AA and the air grp can do nothing WG plz remove much dmg from AA no give it more!

 

It's just arms race at this point. AA needs to be REWORKED and REBALANCED in conjunction with HP and speed/agility of different CV squadrons. Not buffed across the board - this was either (a) lazy, or (b) a panic move few days (weeks?) too soon.  

[worldmufel]

After dominating the Sky, i knew for sure a nerf was needed... But first we had the Minotour in the last patch killing every plane, now a bloody Tier I Erie could wipe out your carrier and the squads you send.. And who had the Idea with the new Hakuryu/IJN TB mechanic? I mean i've shaky hands but it never actually done a thing to my gameplay, now just the smallest movement with my mouse and my drop is ruined.... Have you ever thought about that? No? WHY???? Even worse you made the British cruisers and destroyers so heavy on killing and gaining speed, you cant just hope for a straight drop to hit, combined with the RN aa you are better on killing your own carrier than these guys.. And i mean having a Module to enhance a certain Squad is also a good thing, even better if it wont help anything cause all planes are made out of Butter now.

 

Thanks Wargaming.... this Hotfix is like:

 

[GABEROFF]

9 hours ago, victorem said:

removing cvs from game would surely work.

just saying...

Yeah, that will be the next step. Current T10 CVs are a [edited]joke, an insult to even experienced CV players. 

 

[Betoniasty]

9 minutes ago, GABEROFF said:

Yeah, that will be the next step. Current T10 CVs are a [edited]joke, an insult to even experienced CV players. 

 

Not to mention tier 6 cv's constantly getting tier 8 mm... just saying.

[GABEROFF]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:23 AM, Snyfox said:

It's completely ruined, I lost all my bombers, the 20, without dropping a bomb, I didn't even get close to the target. That's ridiculous, I used free XP to get the Haku and midway and I can't get the free XP back ! I seriously want a big change or a complete refund on this

 

My free XP was wasted too. 

[Voreian]

Alle 7/2/2019 alle 18:49, anunnak ha scritto:

 

Calling me a troll and a bully with caps lock isn't shouting? making the closing remarks with caps locks isn't shouting? You don't have a job because of statistics? guess what? Neither do i for the moment and i don't like it but it's called free market. Don't tell me your 40+ and still dream for a socialist utopia though. I for one really dont wanna go back to communism in my country, i had enough of it in my childhood in the 80's. As for the other comments regarding statistics you are making more straw man fallacy arguments. Regarding opinions you are making again straw man fallacies as i never said "they dont count", i said they are not all valid. I will copy paste the deffinition of "valid" to make it clearer:   "(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent."

 

WG want's to expand on other platforms. More likely then not, i'we already posted such remarks in other threads. It doesn't matter if he is a bad player? If someone is bad at something and his opionion on the subject is relevant why does it bother you i'm bad at statistics (presumably)? If competence is not an issue then let the worst doctor operate you or the worst lawyer represent you in a court of law. If WG devs didn't care about the opinions of CC.... everyone sees it here, i and countless others have complained about it and that's their mistake. Almost everyone here including me are of the opinion that this patch is BOGUS! 

 

 

 

 

Well my friend you are still make invalid and arbitrary assumptions and call valid arguments straw man fallacies. That is your opinion and purely subjective as it is purely subjective what you may regard as reasonable or cogent. Purely subjective. There is no universal truth here as there is no heaven of objectivity. How good is a top notch lawyer or doctor for someone who has been imprisoned for life or has died on an operating table at his hands?? Statistically a doctor is good as he has 99% success rate?? What does that say for the 1% who died in his hand?? Victing of statistics, glitch of the analysis or just a poor stupid??

 

*edited*

 

Straw man fallacy arguments?? Not even in your dreams but i will get over it. 

 

What is your argument here exactly cause i am confused. If CCs' opinions are disregarded, if everyone complains (more or less) for certain aspects of our beloved game then what is you argument here?? That someone who has bad statistics is not entitled to express even a flawed opinion?? For goods and services (even virtual ones) for which he pays??

 

Why is the purpose of buying premium time or premium ships or whatever the hell else?? To test the WGs updates and fixes or to have some fun? Does the WG experimentation affect us?? Yes. Does it affect the game experience, possibly irreparably for some players?? Yes. 

 

Do you want to know who were the ones ALWAYS complaining in WOT?? The ones from top clans who were NOT paying the game cause they could secure enough gold through clan battles to play TOTALLY FREE. What has happened?? About 30-40% drop in player population over the last 18 months due to the numerous broken updates and OP tanks introduced. 

 

Imagine the following, you want to buy a Porsche with 500+ horse power for which you will pay 200k Euro. You pay the amount and Porsche  provides you with a 50hp version of the vehicle at the same price. And if you complain for that, some other Porsche driver will justify this by saying that you are a useless driver and so you will get only a 50 horse power version at the same price. 

 

Are you even aware about consumer laws or what free market is all about?? Is the phrase "What you pay is what you get" valid in WoWs?? A Graff Zeppelin owner would seriously doubt that cause he paid for an long awaited (OP in the beginning) ship and he has become a lab rat. Where are his (real) money or the fun he was expecting from them??   

 

Similarly and if someone is unemployed why should he be allowed to even vote in the elections since he is not a productive member of society? Other people paying taxes etc. may argue that your he is not entitled to because they have to pay for him too. How much of a fallacy is this?? 

 

All my questions are purely rhetorical, i do not want you to counter argue because i will not bother to reply. 

 

Now thanks for this opportunity, i will use this fruitful exchange for everyone who thinks that by being good in a virtual environment  provides a meaning to his life. 

[Goldshooter]

What happens when you release a non tested, non balanced new game mechanic ? The community that was supporting you leave and the game dies. You did a very good job on this one. I read a post from someone saying that you should have tested this on a separate server for at least 6+ months with enough data, I agree. Doing that on a live server with a lot of players that are new into the game, that have to learn the basic mechanics and processed this new "update" is too much. The new ones are lost and the former ones quit.
You keep doing things like a new studio. You are in this business for years, and you still have no clue how people react to the game they like to play. Maybe this kind of practice works in Russia, I honestly do not know, and I don't think so. It is a total lack of respect for the community that feeds you.
I am like a lot of players who are in the love/hate feelings about the game, but this time you lost me for good. I will NEVER come back in randoms in this state. And do not count on me to promote your game on the forums.
This politic is unacceptable from any respectable development team. 
It is said for years, YOU SHOULD PLAY YOUR GAME BEFORE TRYING TO CHANGE IT. If you do not know how the game is played, you can not balance it properly.

You torpedoed your own foot, well played.

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

They raped CVs so that squadrons get sucked out of sky at first attack, then CV is crippled already in first third of the game with no complete squadrons left, so CVs can even contribute less once the squadrons are thinned out. Applause WG. It's fun especially in tier 6 vs tier 8 and tier 8 vs tier 10.

Please stop giving them money until they sort this catastrophic mess out. It's the only thing we can do to make them act properly it seems. They already shat on our feedback.

[Voreian]

Alle 7/2/2019 alle 19:15, SkullpturaCro ha scritto:

This is pure gold. First you say that everyone's entitled to an opinion and then you immediately proceed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. And your whole second sentence is basically just you bashing his opinion and telling him what he should say and how he should say it by stating your own opinion, not facts so you two are really doing the same thing. 

How is it so difficult not to get it?? It is as simple as this: 

 

Someone said that he liked or disliked the update.

Some other makes a post saying that the previous guy has bad statistics and he should STFU or that his opinion is biased or is invalid (whatever you may call it), without saying something about the problem discussed. *edited*

I react and say that recalling someone's statistics to say that he is not entitled to an opinion is bullying. 

 

What is it that you dont get? How can you miss the whole point??*edited*

 

And please can you clarify what are the facts in this case i should be discussing about?? The nerfing of the CVs or the buffing of the AA?? 

 

Really?? How about WG carrying out constant rework and re-balancing that affects my game experience without proper justification apart from recalling some vague and arbitrary "statistics".

 

Now next time please do bother to read a 2nd time, just in case.

 

 

[Voreian]

15 hours ago, anunnak said:

 

LOL, yeah! I didn't even get it until now. He did seem a bit incoherent but the Caps lock was the thing that got my attention more. Anyway, i don't see how i'm doing the same thing (if this is what u ment). I just saw some stats and presented an opinion based on them. Statistics as far as i know count as facts more so here since they are gathered by an impartial computer system. Or am i wrong?

No you are not wrong.

 

But the computer system gathers whatever its user has instructed it to gather. What matters is why you gather something and how you plan to interpret it, or more likely how it suits you (meaning the analyst) to interpret it.

 

A computer is impartial, a statistician is not. 

 

You want to end up claiming that the computer is impartial and feel content or to understand the motivation of the statistician and what it hidden behind the numbers??

[Serolithia]

Let me understand this thing I've been reading for 10 pages.

 

CV players can no longer air strike with almost certain impunity AA specced AA ships alone or a fleet of multiple AA and non AA ships.

 

Well there's this one thing that comes to mind: If you decide to strike at a fleet of ships or an AA specialised ship, get ready to count your loses.

 

No I ask, what's the real problem everyone is having with the balancing between AA and CV planes?

 

By the way, I'll take reasons such as "I can't air strike a Minotaur or other whatever AA ship anymore." as a kid's senseless whining. Because let's be honest, it actually is.

 

On a side note, I'm really enjoying the new gameplay added with the new CVs. Quite enough that it makes me want to play them hard but I'm still focusing on getting my dear Yamato.

[Borislav_Boyanov]

Hello
I was no longer playing with aircraft carriers, they were mutilated and cut, sorry for the premium bill and for my hundred hours of work and sleepless nights I gave to them and they were taken away!
My planes are destroyed and they do not come back!
I want an indemnity, at least for the premium bill I got stuck here because I paid for something I did not like and I do not like!
I'm going back to the tanks, here it is very bad